The emergence of market and data exclusivity standards for new pharmaceuticals and biologics in such mega trade agreements as the TPPA, CETA and perhaps the TTIPA, will destabilize the inherent flexibilities relied upon for the maintenance of public health. The TPPA is particularly notable for provisions on data exclusivity for biologics, with the CETA subtly incorporating the same, effectively delaying the early entry of follow-on biosimilars despite the difficulties involved in recreation. Although exclusivity is required in recognition of the tremendous efforts involved in originating data as well as the value of the data, a trade-off is necessitated, especially for the poorer countries such as the Sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries. Consequently, the SSA countries’ efforts to safeguard future public health imperatives may have to be guided by the following. Firstly, market and data exclusivity provisions in future agreement should be consistent with and not distortive of public health flexibilities. Secondly, there should be monitoring, data collection, and impact assessment of market and data exclusivity provisions on access to medicines before a conclusion of future agreements. Thirdly, an investor-state dispute settlement (ISDS) provision should not be emasculative of public health imperatives. Fourthly, focus should be centred on capacity building that fosters skill reservoirs necessary for the development of pharmaceutical manufacturing capacities.
Browse by title
Collins C Ajibo and Ndubisi A Nwafor
The EU regulations on geographical indications for wines establish a scheme that provides GI-like protection for an assortment of non-geographical words, phrases and initials known as ‘traditional terms’. These terms may only be used with wines with a GI according to specified conditions and they constitute an absolute ground for refusal of a trade mark application. The European Union has shown flexibility in allowing identical terms to be used with different wines from different EU member states and from third countries that conclude a bilateral wine agreement, but it has ceased to consider applications for recognition of the same terms from other countries. The EU scheme is inconsistent with WTO obligations, not in TRIPS but rather in the TBT Agreement and GATT 1994, because it is discriminatory and administered in an unreasonable manner, and it may also create an unnecessary obstacle to trade. The United Kingdom may decide to abandon this scheme after Brexit.
This article considers the issue of whether parallel traders and licensee overruns amounts to criminal infringement of trade marks in the United Kingdom. It examines the cases which have reached the Court of Appeal, the House of Lords and now the Supreme Court and suggests that its recent very short decision in R v C  UKSC 58 was wrongly decided.
Gabjo Kim, Yung Kim, Gyungtae Song, Dongju Sun and Sangsung Park
This study proposes a method for establishing an R&D strategy that can be used by R&D decision-makers in companies and countries in the display industry in order to develop an effective technology. In order to develop a technology tree for the display industry, the entire technology is classified into three main category levels (LCD, FD, and OLED), 19 subcategory levels, and 69 sub-subcategory levels, based on the opinions of the experts in the display industry and on the reports from related technologies. Next, the technology area is examined by conducting a patent indicator analysis on each of the 69 sub-subcategory levels and the technological life cycle is identified by applying the Bass diffusion model. Based on the results, we propose R&D strategies for decision-makers in the display industry, such as R&D investment, technology M&A, and monitoring strategy proposals.
Edited by Johanna Gibson
Geographical indications (GIs) are one of the most controversial categories of intellectual property rights. Due to the under-constructed theoretical basis and overlapping dimensions of law, economics, culture and social policy, doctrinal issues associated with GI protection are highly contentious, including the level of GI protection. Countries from the Old World and the New World are divided on this issue. One side claims a higher level of protection for all GIs, known as absolute protection, around the understanding that GIs are different from trade marks, while the other side supports GI protection to the extent of consumer confusion by analogy to trade mark protection.