Jun 112013
 
Stephanie Burgos

Stephanie Burgos

Big Pharma shows its influence in the Senate Finance Committee

[Reposted with permission from Oxfam America (Link)]  Teenagers are notorious for giving one-word responses when their parents inquire how school is going. Last week’s Senate Finance Committee’s hearing on Michael Froman’s nomination as US Trade Representative reminded me of this dynamic.

Because so much of the interrogation airtime was devoted to grandstanding, rather than actual questioning, Mr. Froman seemed to have little option other than to say “yes” and express his willingness to work with a Senator on an issue. Teenagers will say just enough to end their parents’ lecturing and get them off of their backs, eye rolls an added bonus. Well-intentioned parents, after all, were teenagers once too and want to impart their knowledge. Continue reading »

FacebookTwitterRedditStumbleUponWordPressTumblrBlogger PostEmailPrintFriendlyShare
Jun 102013
 
Michael Froman

Michael Froman

Last Thursday, the Senate Finance Committee held its confirmation hearing for the Obama Administration’s nominee for U.S. Trade Representative, Michael Froman.   The hearing webpage has a webcast and prepared statements by Froman, as well as Chairman Baucus and Ranking Minority Leader Hatch.  The opening statements were brief, so most of the hearing was Q&A.  Themes that repeatedly came up were intellectual property protection in India and online, and Trade Promotion Authority (TPA).  Senators Wyden and Baucus also discussed the transparency of trade negotiations.  Baucus closed the hearing with a discussion of the role of the limitations and benefits of conducting trade policy within the multilateral trading system. Continue reading »

FacebookTwitterRedditStumbleUponWordPressTumblrBlogger PostEmailPrintFriendlyShare
May 212013
 

sean - 150x150For many non-U.S. parties and public interest advocates, the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPP) intellectual property chapter is seen primarily as a threat. It is the latest step in a long running agenda to shift between policy making forums to achieve new global “maximalist” intellectual property policies that are not achievable in multilateral forums. This narrative is correct. And the real politics of the negotiation suggests that the most positive outcome for the IP chapter may be its (or the larger agreement’s) failure. But the agreement’s negotiations does offer opportunities to discuss what a positive IP chapter might look like. Here is one more idea in that larger dialogue – ban the use of Special 301 between its parties. Continue reading »

FacebookTwitterRedditStumbleUponWordPressTumblrBlogger PostEmailPrintFriendlyShare
May 132013
 

sean - 150x150In this year’s Special 301 report, the United States Trade Representative listed Ukraine as a “Priority Foreign Country” (aka PFC), triggering a 30 day countdown to initiate an investigation under Section 301 of the Trade Act to determine trade sanctions. 19 USC 2412(2)(A). This is only the second time that the U.S. has threatened a WTO-member country with sanctions as a PFC. And thus it is an appropriate time to ask what restrictions the World Trade Organization places on the operation of the Special 301 program. As described more fully below, any sanction of Ukraine, including removal of General System of Preferences (GSP) benefits, would likely violate WTO rules. Indeed, the listing of Ukraine as a PFC, and the more general operation of “watch lists” threatening sanctions for intellectual property matters, could be challenged under the WTO even prior to any sanction actually going into effect. Continue reading »

FacebookTwitterRedditStumbleUponWordPressTumblrBlogger PostEmailPrintFriendlyShare
May 022013
 

maybardukSpecial 301 is an annual report by the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) which places countries on a “watch list” if USTR would like to see greater changes in their intellectual property rules or enforcement practice. This year’s report came out May 1st. We pay attention because USTR relies heavily on comments from big business, and USTR’s opaque standards and criticism of other countries could stymie the development of public interest policies in areas including health. For example, countries have sovereign rights to issue “compulsory licenses” on pharmaceutical patents. Compulsory licensing authorizes price-lowering generic competition with patented drugs in exchange for royalty payments to the patent holder. It’s a key strategy for improving access to affordable medicines, especially in developing countries. But the US has often criticized compulsory licensing, and sometimes sought to stop it (see eg: http://www.citizen.org/leaked-cables-show-US-tried-failed-to-organize-against-ecuador-compulsory-licensing).   Continue reading »

FacebookTwitterRedditStumbleUponWordPressTumblrBlogger PostEmailPrintFriendlyShare
May 012013
 

sean - 150x150The first Obama campaign for the presidency reached out to access to medicines campaigners to join the broad coalition he was building to gain the presidency. In response to their concerns, he declared that his presidency would “break the stranglehold that a few big drug and insurance companies have on these life-saving drugs,” and pledged support for “the rights of sovereign nations to access quality-assured, low-cost generic medication to meet their pressing public health needs under the WTO’s Declaration on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).”  The Obama administration has now produced five Special 301 reports cataloging its policies on intellectual property and access to medicines. In the first three reports, as detailed below, the administration received low marks on its commitments from public health campaigners. Continue reading »

FacebookTwitterRedditStumbleUponWordPressTumblrBlogger PostEmailPrintFriendlyShare
May 012013
 

india-flagThis is a quick note about one of the items in this year’s Special 301 Report, released by USTR this morning. The report attacks the recent Indian Novartis ruling in unusually direct language.  The ruling upheld the denial of a patent on Glivec for failing to meet patentability requirements under Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act, (a longer explanation is here).  The Special 301 report has this to say on the matter:  Continue reading »

FacebookTwitterRedditStumbleUponWordPressTumblrBlogger PostEmailPrintFriendlyShare
May 012013
 

sean - 150x150One of the diverse sources from which the international intellectual property regime emanates is an annual unilateral adjudication of foreign government trade policies by the United States under the so-called “Special 301” program and report. For over two decades the report has functioned as one of the primary sticks for the U.S.’s “carrot and stick” approach to international intellectual property policy. The report weighs countries’ compliance with intellectual property standards and enforcement efforts—both those embedded in existing treaties and those the U.S. would like to see adopted. It threatens and rewards countries via inclusion on or delisting from its annual ‘Watch List’ (“WL”) and ‘Priority Watch List’ (“PWL”), and has the power to implement unilateral trade sanctions when U.S. demands are not met. The construction of the report requires the administration to take decisions on which countries it views as having “adequate” intellectual property protection. The report is thus a key expression of the trade policy of the U.S. in intellectual property matters. Continue reading »

FacebookTwitterRedditStumbleUponWordPressTumblrBlogger PostEmailPrintFriendlyShare
Feb 212013
 

ustr happy aniversaryYesterday the Interagency Special 301 Committee chaired by the US Trade Representative held its annual public hearing. An earlier blog described the government testimony – this one describes the comments from industry groups and civil society.

Joan McGivern testified for American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP), a membership organization with over 450,000 members, mostly individuals whose livelihoods depend on making money from music. She told the panel their assistance is needed by the membership to “collect their paychecks.” Continue reading »

FacebookTwitterRedditStumbleUponWordPressTumblrBlogger PostEmailPrintFriendlyShare
Feb 202013
 

USTR SealThis morning the Interagency Special 301 Committee chaired by the US Trade Representative held a public hearing as part of its annual review of foreign countries that “deny adequate and effective protection of intellectual property rights” or that “deny fair and equitable market access” to American companies that rely on intellectual property protection.  The Committee consists of officials from USTR, the Library of Congress, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and the Departments of State, Commerce, DHHS, Treasury, labor and Agriculture.

The Committee will produce the 2013 Special 301 Report based on input from this hearing, written comments received earlier this month, and other less transparent consultations with governments and industry.  At today’s hearing, the Committee heard testimony from five governments and eight civil society and industry representatives. Continue reading »

FacebookTwitterRedditStumbleUponWordPressTumblrBlogger PostEmailPrintFriendlyShare
Feb 202013
 

sean at podiumAmerican University Washington College of Law Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property (PIJIP) Associate Director Sean Flynn testified at today’s Special 301 hearing at the United States Trade Representative’s office. This blog summarizes some of the comments made to the 301 Committee and some additional reflections on the day. Continue reading »

FacebookTwitterRedditStumbleUponWordPressTumblrBlogger PostEmailPrintFriendlyShare
Feb 182013
 

lilly[Posted by Henning Grosse Ruse-Khan on the International Economic Law and Policy Blog (CC BY-NC 2.5)]  Last week, Luke Peterson reported that the U.S. based pharma corporation Eli Lilly has put Canada on notice of its intent to submit a claim to arbitration under NAFTA Chapter 11 following the invalidation of some of its patents by Canadian courts (http://www.iareporter.com/articles/20121203_2). The Notice of 7 November 2012 is now available on Andrew Newcombe’s website (http://italaw.com/cases/1625). It reveals an interesting new interface between international IP and investment law. Continue reading »

FacebookTwitterRedditStumbleUponWordPressTumblrBlogger PostEmailPrintFriendlyShare