Events
& Issues
New Delhi,
4 June 2012
India on Watch List
US ACTION UNCALLED FOR
Dr. PK Vasudeva
The US continues to revel in its
‘big brother’ syndrome, despite the fact that equations are changing regularly.
Nations can be upset with such an attitude. And India, for one has reason to be
miffed over being on its ‘watch list’. It is not shying away from badgering its
protest and hopes that the Americans will pay heed. It’s been over a month and
little headway has been made in the case.
The United States Trade
Representative (USTR) had in April-end released its Special 301 Report,
an annual review of the global state of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR)
protection and enforcement. While reviewing 77 trading partners for
this year’s Report, the USTR placed 40 countries on the priority Watch
List or Section 306 monitoring list. India is among these 40.
An upset Commerce and
Industry Minister Anand Sharma has flayed the Americans decision to
place India again in the group of nations with insufficient intellectual
property protection, and asserted that the country is WTO-compliant. The
Ministry has insisted the USTR for a comprehensive re-look at the
intellectual property regime in India “with an open mind,” and that India
is willing and ready to discuss all its concerns.
Describing the US step as
“unfortunate and unjustified”, New Delhi has informed the USTR clearly that: “India
has been found to be compliant with all WTO regulations including Trade
Related Aspects of intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement, in the
recent review of India’s trade policy carried out in the WTO.”
India continued to be included in
the US priority watch list of countries together with 14 others like
China, Pakistan, Canada and Russia. This means that these nations will
be the subjects of particularly intense bilateral engagement during the
coming year. The report has regrettably noted that India has made limited
progress on IPR protection and enforcement in 2011, and its
legal framework and enforcement system remain weak.
However, the Commerce Ministry is
perturbed and insists: “India has maintained a stable IPR, which is fully
Trips compliant and we have a strong enforcement mechanism in
place. India’s IPR regime has witnessed many steps in the
recent times to improve efficiency and transparency in
the Intellectual Property Office and measures have been taken
to accede to the Madrid Protocol.” But, the Americans have to agree, which
seems difficult so far.
Additionally, the US, in its report,
has raised concerns about the issuing of compulsory license (CL) by India.
It has said that it would closely monitor developments concerning
compulsory licensing of patents in India following the broad
interpretation of Indian law in a recent decision by the Controller
General of Patents. India, however, maintained that it had not bent any
rules and its steps were strictly as per the flexibilities
contained in Trips to address public health concerns of its people.
Only last month, India witnessed a
similar debate boil-over, with the Patent Office issuing a compulsory licence
(CL) in favour of generic drug-maker Natco. The CL allowed Natco to make a
generic copy of Bayer's advanced kidney cancer drug Nexavar, on the payment of
a royalty to the innovator (Bayer).
The Patent Controller's judgment was
a path-breaker, signalling the Indian Government's commitment to step-in if
required, to bring critical and expensive medicine within the reach of more
people.
Close on the heels of the Indian
Patent Office issuing a CL to Natco, the Kenyan High Court, ruling on the
country's anti-counterfeit law, has said that citizens right to health is
supreme. Health above all else is the unambiguous message from the High Court
of Kenya, in its recent judgment relating to the country's Anti-Counterfeit
Law, 2008.
Recognising the danger of the
definition of counterfeit coming in the way of generic medicines being supplied
into Kenya — the Court has asked the Kenyan Government to review provisions in
the Act and ensure that a citizen's right to health, life and dignity is not
jeopardised.
The ruling is significant since,
across different markets in the world, health and the protection of
intellectual property are pitted in a head-on collision. And when called to sit
on judgment in such a confrontation, the Courts are increasingly casting their
lot in favour of public health.
The Kenyan ruling also clearly
outlines that generic drugs are not counterfeits, a distinction that Indian
generic-drug-makers, for instance, have had to fight for several times in
overseas markets.
Generic drugs are legally
manufactured, chemically similar versions of innovative medicines that have
outlived their patent-exclusivity period. They are also much less expensive
than the innovative medicine, since they do not have to recover research or
development costs, and have to only undertake bio-equivalence tests to prove
they are qualitatively similar.
Indian generic drug-makers have in
the past had constant run-ins with the European authorities, when their
consignments (merely transiting through a European country) were seized on
allegations of patent-infringement. New Delhi even took the Dutch authorities
to the WTO's Dispute Settlement Body. In 2008, 16 of 17 export seizures by
Dutch authorities on the basis of an anti-counterfeit EU regulation were from
India. The standoff weakened eventually, with European authorities assuring
India that their products would be allowed to transit.
The Kenyan ruling says, the
Anti-Counterfeit Act, if implemented as it is, poses a danger to accessing
essential medicine — and this was “far greater and more critical than the
protection of the intellectual property rights that the Act seeks to protect.
The right to life, dignity and health of the petitioners must take precedence
over the intellectual property rights of patent holders.”
Also making a strong pitch for
public health in the Kenyan counterfeit case, was a submission as “friend of
the court” by Lawyer's Collective's Anand Grover, who filed an amicus curiae in his capacity as the
United Nations Special Rapporteur for Health.
“The Act as it stands contains an
ambiguous definition of counterfeiting that if misinterpreted would impact
adversely on the right to life enshrined in the Kenyan Constitution;
specifically through the definition potentially conflating issues of
intellectual property rights and quality control.”
Put simply, it said, there was clear
danger that generic medicines would be seen as counterfeits. Delighted with the
final ruling, Grover expected the ruling would have ramifications in the other
African countries as well, as Courts follow precedents.
This case clearly shows that the
USTR action of placing India under Special 301 priority Watch List for
violation of IPR is uncalled for. India is fully compliant to TRIPS of the WTO
and has mostly avoided using CL even when the need arose except in the case of
Natco, which is fully justified under the Trips agreement. How long will it
take for the US to take a re-look is the big question? ---INFA
(Copyright,
India News and Feature Alliance)
|