Zooming Out On Compulsory Licensing Of Covid-19 Vaccines

The unnerving bio- catastrophe, the COVID-19 pandemic has brought an array of challenges for mankind. The COVID-19 scare at the global level is posing threat to human life and the governments are deeply divided over an effort to endorse a temporary patent waiver on COVID-19 vaccines and grant of compulsory licenses.

What is Compulsory Licensing?

covid-19 vaccineCompulsory Licensing refers to the use of a patented product without the authorization or permission of the patent holder. The TRIPS agreement empowers the government to grant such rights to the parties or use the patent itself. Section 84 – 92 of the Indian Patent Act, 1970 lays down the pre-requisite conditions which are to be fulfilled before granting a compulsory license. Article 31 of the TRIPS Agreement allows the government to order domestic manufacturers to make a patented product without seeking permission from the patent holder. It further permits the countries to engage in compulsory licensing if there is a case of a national emergency/ extreme emergency or in case of ‘public non-commercial use.’ Further, Article 31 bis permit the developed countries to export a generic drug to less developed countries that cannot manufacture the drugs themselves.

The apparent GOOD of Compulsory licensing

Fearing the hindrance of IP Rights in the timely provisioning of medical products, India and South Africa put forth a proposal seeking waiver of patent obligations before the WTO.

Advocates of Compulsory Licensing have suggested that it is a good measure to solve the problems relating to the manufacturing of the COVID-19 vaccines and related equipment. They argue that granting a compulsory license will be a win-win situation for both the stakeholders and the public. It will help the stakeholders by not depriving them of any rights that they have substantially invested in and further it will safeguard public health with ensured production and supply of vaccines. Another argument raised in the support of a grant of compulsory licenses is the supremacy of the right to health over patent protection.

Why Compulsory Licensing may be a BAD idea?

It is argued that Covid-19 vaccines are new and the efficacy & Internal Technological capabilities of these vaccines demonstrates the potential futility of a compulsory license. Further, it is argued that this solution is ineffective as TRIPS allows for ‘Adequate Remuneration’ to be paid to the patent holder under Article 31(h), however, fails to define “adequate” and the method of calculating royalty. There also exists a risk of retaliation by the pharmaceutical companies which can severely harm the Indigenous Industry. Like in Thailand, after compulsory licensing of Abbott’s HIV drug, Abbott withdrew and stopped selling several drugs in Thailand.

The Delhi High Court in the case of Rakesh Malhotra v. Govt. of NCT India observed that the best course is to encourage the manufacturers to ramp up their production on a war footing. They should be encouraged to grant voluntary licenses to other entities.

Issuing compulsory licenses would only be feasible if the government has a generic producer ready to manufacture sufficient quantities of generics and is technologically equipped. Another setback can be in the protection of trade secrets. Article 39 of the TRIPS Agreement requires the members to protect trade secrets against unfair commercial use. Further, granting patent waivers can discourage pharmaceutical companies from vaccine innovation as they need to invest a lot in the R & D. Such waivers provide a shortcut to competitors looking to acquire expensive technology.

India’s Stand

The Commerce Standing Committee of Parliament in a report titled ‘Review of IP Regime in India’ said that compulsory licensing could be considered in case of national emergencies. In a Suo-moto case, a three-judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court also asked the government to explore the possibility of granting Compulsory Licenses. The bench said that the compulsory licenses can be granted with a sunset clause which shows that such license will be over once the pandemic is over.

However, after India’s request at WTO, experts were quick to point out their contradictory stance. The NITI Ayog in a press statement on 27th May 2021 indicated that India is not planning to issue any compulsory licenses for COVID-19 vaccines and also stated that the active cooperation of the companies that initially produced the vaccine is a must. India must maintain a balance between championing its position on access to medicine and innovation which is the spirit of India’s National IPR Policy.

So, it is critical to cater to the vaccine needs but not by sacrificing the innovation ecosystem.

Author: Deeksha Chugh – a Student at Maharaja Agrasen Institute of Management Studies (GGSIPU), in case of any queries please contact/write back to IIPRD at vidushi@khuranaandkhurana.com.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

eighteen − sixteen =

Archives

  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010