New Zealand has lost its almost decade-old fight for exclusive rights to trademark 'mānuka honey'. For years now, the nation has been trying to stop Australian beekeepers from using the name and the lucrative profits associated with it. However, on Monday, New Zealand's Intellectual Property Office ruled that the nation's mānuka beekeepers didn't meet the necessary requirements for exclusive rights.

<h2>What did the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand say?</h2>

As per the court, the New Zealand beekeepers didn't meet the minimum requirements for a trademark. It also said that the term 'mānuka' itself was descriptive.&nbsp;

"This case represents a trans-Tasman tussle of extraordinary proportions over trade mark rights for mānuka honey," said the ruling.

"It is one of the most complex and long-running proceedings to have come before the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand," remarked the court, as per NZ Herald.

<h2>What is mānuka?</h2>

'Mānuka' is a word from the Maori language — the language of the Indigenous people of Aotearoa, or New Zealand, known as Maori.

The word refers to a distinct white-flowered tree that grows in New Zealand and in Australia.

However, in Australia, it isn't called mānuka, it is known as "tea tree".

The mānuka tree has sweet-smelling leaves that are often used to make tea. Its white, pink, or red flowers are used by beekeepers to produce a special kind of honey.

<h2>What makes mānuka honey so special?</h2>

The mānuka honey is very special and sells for lucrative amounts. It is known for its antibacterial and supposed health properties.&nbsp;

As per Healthline, this particular&nbsp;honey offers "sweet benefits", like wound healing, cough relief, protection against ulcers, improved digestion, and better oral health.

<h2>How much does it sell for?</h2>

A lot. The supposed health benefits of mānuka honey mean that it has a significant markup price in international markets.

At its highest concentrations, the mānuka honey in overseas luxury stores can fetch up to NZ $2,000 to $5,000 or US $1,255 to $3,137 for a 250g jar.

<h2>Why do New Zealand beekeepers don't want to share the trademark?</h2>

They claim that the name 'mānuka' is an indigenous treasure uniquely associated with New Zealand's honey production.

On top of that, the lucrative nature of the product is connected to the name.&nbsp;

In New Zealand itself, there exists fierce competition over access to mānuka forests. This competition has spurred a wave of criminal activities like poisoning of bees, thefts, vandalism and beatings, reports the Guardian.

<h2>When did the battle for trademark start?</h2>

The battle for trademark started way back in 2015.

<h2>How did New Zealand beekeepers react to the court&nbsp;ruling?</h2>

In the words of Pita Tipene, Chair of the Manuka Charitable Trust, the court's ruling was "disappointing in so many ways" and "today’s finding reflects the technicalities and limitations of conventional IP law to protect Indigenous rights."

Tipene said that the trust would, for the time being, pause to regroup, but that it will continue its battle.

He said that "if anything," the decision "has made us more determined to protect what is ours on behalf of all New Zealanders and consumers who value authenticity."

<h2>Is it an Indigenous rights issue?</h2>

As per Mānuka Charitable Trust chair Pita Tipen, their "role as kaitiaki (guardians) to protect the mana (dignity) and value of our taonga (treasured) species, including mānuka on behalf of all New Zealanders, is not contestable."

He said that it is well established, both in New Zealand and overseas, that the recognition of Indigenous rights in the intellectual property regime is lacking.

"It is time the New Zealand Government took urgent action and committed sufficient funding to address these issues as raised in the Wai 262 claim and recognised in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples," he added.

<h2>How did the Australian beekeepers react?</h2>

Australian Mānuka Honey Association chairman Ben McKee said they were&nbsp;delighted by the decision.

As per him, the ruling "confirms what we have been saying since New Zealand producers began this legal process nearly eight&nbsp;years ago - our product has a long history of being recognised as Mānuka honey, it is produced like the New Zealand product is, and it also offers the sought-after antimicrobial properties that consumers around the world value so highly."

He also said that the association hoped that "the fact that even authorities in New Zealand cannot find a way to support the trademark claims of New Zealand producers" should "bring this legal dispute to an end once and for all".

<h2>What do the industry partners say?</h2>

As per the NZ Herald, industry partners have remained "steadfast in their resolve the Mānuka Honey name belongs and should refer only to products produced in Aotearoa&nbsp;New Zealand".

However, Australian Mānuka Honey Association chairman Ben McKee claims that the above is true for only a particular group of New Zealand producers, under the umbrella of the Mānuka Honey Appellation Society (MHAS). He said that other industry members and even some New Zealand beekeepers were open to collaborating with the Australian industry.

(With inputs from agencies)

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" loading="”lazy”" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us <a href="https://www.wionews.com/content-contribution-registration-form">here</a>.

New Zealand has lost its almost decade-old fight for exclusive rights to trademark 'mānuka honey'. For years now, the nation has been trying to stop Australian beekeepers from using the name and the lucrative profits associated with it.

New Zealand has lost its almost decade-old fight for exclusive rights to trademark 'mānuka honey'. For years now, the nation has been trying to stop Australian beekeepers from using the name and the lucrative profits associated with it. However, on Monday, New Zealand's Intellectual Property Office ruled that the nation's mānuka beekeepers didn't meet the necessary requirements for exclusive rights. What did the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand say? As per the court, the New Zealand beekeepers didn't meet the minimum requirements for a trademark. It also said that the term 'mānuka' itself was descriptive. "This case represents a trans-Tasman tussle of extraordinary proportions over trade mark rights for mānuka honey," said the ruling. "It is one of the most complex and long-running proceedings to have come before the Intellectual Property Office of New Zealand," remarked the court, as per NZ Herald. What is mānuka? 'Mānuka' is a word from the Maori language — the language of the Indigenous people of Aotearoa, or New Zealand, known as Maori. The word refers to a distinct white-flowered tree that grows in New Zealand and in Australia. However, in Australia, it isn't called mānuka, it is known as "tea tree". The mānuka tree has sweet-smelling leaves that are often used to make tea. Its white, pink, or red flowers are used by beekeepers to produce a special kind of honey. What makes mānuka honey so special? The mānuka honey is very special and sells for lucrative amounts. It is known for its antibacterial and supposed health properties. As per Healthline, this particular honey offers "sweet benefits", like wound healing, cough relief, protection against ulcers, improved digestion, and better oral health. How much does it sell for? A lot. The supposed health benefits of mānuka honey mean that it has a significant markup price in international markets. At its highest concentrations, the mānuka honey in overseas luxury stores can fetch up to NZ $2,000 to $5,000 or US $1,255 to $3,137 for a 250g jar. Why do New Zealand beekeepers don't want to share the trademark? They claim that the name 'mānuka' is an indigenous treasure uniquely associated with New Zealand's honey production. On top of that, the lucrative nature of the product is connected to the name. In New Zealand itself, there exists fierce competition over access to mānuka forests. This competition has spurred a wave of criminal activities like poisoning of bees, thefts, vandalism and beatings, reports the Guardian. When did the battle for trademark start? The battle for trademark started way back in 2015. How did New Zealand beekeepers react to the court ruling? In the words of Pita Tipene, Chair of the Manuka Charitable Trust, the court's ruling was "disappointing in so many ways" and "today’s finding reflects the technicalities and limitations of conventional IP law to protect Indigenous rights." Tipene said that the trust would, for the time being, pause to regroup, but that it will continue its battle. He said that "if anything," the decision "has made us more determined to protect what is ours on behalf of all New Zealanders and consumers who value authenticity." Is it an Indigenous rights issue? As per Mānuka Charitable Trust chair Pita Tipen, their "role as kaitiaki (guardians) to protect the mana (dignity) and value of our taonga (treasured) species, including mānuka on behalf of all New Zealanders, is not contestable." He said that it is well established, both in New Zealand and overseas, that the recognition of Indigenous rights in the intellectual property regime is lacking. "It is time the New Zealand Government took urgent action and committed sufficient funding to address these issues as raised in the Wai 262 claim and recognised in the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples," he added. How did the Australian beekeepers react? Australian Mānuka Honey Association chairman Ben McKee said they were delighted by the decision. As per him, the ruling "confirms what we have been saying since New Zealand producers began this legal process nearly eight years ago - our product has a long history of being recognised as Mānuka honey, it is produced like the New Zealand product is, and it also offers the sought-after antimicrobial properties that consumers around the world value so highly." He also said that the association hoped that "the fact that even authorities in New Zealand cannot find a way to support the trademark claims of New Zealand producers" should "bring this legal dispute to an end once and for all". What do the industry partners say? As per the NZ Herald, industry partners have remained "steadfast in their resolve the Mānuka Honey name belongs and should refer only to products produced in Aotearoa New Zealand". However, Australian Mānuka Honey Association chairman Ben McKee claims that the above is true for only a particular group of New Zealand producers, under the umbrella of the Mānuka Honey Appellation Society (MHAS). He said that other industry members and even some New Zealand beekeepers were open to collaborating with the Australian industry. (With inputs from agencies) WATCH WION LIVE HERE You can now write for wionews.com and be a part of the community. Share your stories and opinions with us here.

WION Explains: New Zealand loses almost decade-old fight for 'mānuka honey' trademark. Here's what it means

The United States on Friday placed India and eight other countries on the Priority Watch List for IP protection and enforcement.

The other countries that have been put on the list are Argentina, Chile, China, Indonesia, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine and Venezuela.

In its "Special 301 Report" on the adequacy and effectiveness of US trading partners' protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights, US Trade Representative Katherine Tai said these countries will be the subject of intense bilateral engagement during the coming year.

"Over the past year, India has remained inconsistent in its progress on intellectual property (IP) protection and enforcement. While India's enforcement of IP in the online sphere has gradually improved, a lack of concrete benefits for innovators and creators persists, which continues to undermine their efforts. India remains one of the world's most challenging major economies with respect to protection and enforcement of IP," she said.

The office of the USTR reviewed more than 100 trading partners for this year's "Special 301 Report", and eight on Priority Watch List and 23 on the Watch List.

The 23 trading partners on the Watch List are Algeria, Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Guatemala, Kuwait, Lebanon, Mexico, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Romania, Thailand, Trinidad &amp; Tobago, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam.

"Intellectual property rights incentivize our creators, manufacturers, and innovators to invent new products and technologies,"&nbsp;said Katherine Tai.

"The laws, policies and practices that protect those rights must appropriately balance the interests of creators with those seeking to use their creations. Failing to adequately and effectively protect those rights in foreign markets hurts the US economy, the dynamism of American innovators and the livelihoods of our workers,"&nbsp;she said.

Observing that the 2021 Special 301 review period has taken place during the COVID-19 pandemic, the largest global health crisis in more than a century, the USTR office said its top priority is saving lives and ending the pandemic in the United States and around the world.

As affirmed in the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, the United States, while recognising the role of intellectual property protection in the development of new medicines, respects a trading partner's right to protect public health and, in particular, to promote access to medicines for all, it said.

The United States has been closely monitoring China's progress in implementing its commitments under the United States-China Economic and Trade Agreement.

In 2020, China published several draft IP-related legal and regulatory measures and finalised over a dozen measures.

China amended the patent Law, copyright and criminal laws in the past year. However, these steps toward reform require effective implementation and fall short of the full range of fundamental changes needed to improve the IP landscape in China, the USTR office said.

In India, the USTR said patent issues continue to be of particular concern as long-standing issues remain for innovative industries.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-reportedly-considering-intellectual-property-waiver-for-coronavirus-vaccines-380959">US reportedly considering intellectual property waiver for coronavirus vaccines</a>

The potential threat of patent revocations, lack of presumption of patent validity and the narrow patentability criteria under the India Patents Act burden companies across different sectors.

"Moreover, patent applicants continue to confront costly and time-consuming pre and post-grant oppositions, long waiting periods to receive patent approval and excessive reporting requirements. Stakeholders continue to express concerns over vagueness in the interpretation of the India Patents Act,"&nbsp;she added.

She said the US intends to continue to engage with India on IP matters, including through the United States-India Trade Policy Forum's Intellectual Property Working Group.&nbsp;

The United States on Friday placed India and eight other countries on the Priority Watch List for IP protection and enforcement. The other countries that have been put on the list are Argentina, Chile, China, Indonesia, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine and Venezuela.

The United States on Friday placed India and eight other countries on the Priority Watch List for IP protection and enforcement. The other countries that have been put on the list are Argentina, Chile, China, Indonesia, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine and Venezuela. In its "Special 301 Report" on the adequacy and effectiveness of US trading partners' protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights, US Trade Representative Katherine Tai said these countries will be the subject of intense bilateral engagement during the coming year. "Over the past year, India has remained inconsistent in its progress on intellectual property (IP) protection and enforcement. While India's enforcement of IP in the online sphere has gradually improved, a lack of concrete benefits for innovators and creators persists, which continues to undermine their efforts. India remains one of the world's most challenging major economies with respect to protection and enforcement of IP," she said. The office of the USTR reviewed more than 100 trading partners for this year's "Special 301 Report", and eight on Priority Watch List and 23 on the Watch List. The 23 trading partners on the Watch List are Algeria, Barbados, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Guatemala, Kuwait, Lebanon, Mexico, Pakistan, Paraguay, Peru, Romania, Thailand, Trinidad & Tobago, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, and Vietnam. "Intellectual property rights incentivize our creators, manufacturers, and innovators to invent new products and technologies," said Katherine Tai. "The laws, policies and practices that protect those rights must appropriately balance the interests of creators with those seeking to use their creations. Failing to adequately and effectively protect those rights in foreign markets hurts the US economy, the dynamism of American innovators and the livelihoods of our workers," she said. Observing that the 2021 Special 301 review period has taken place during the COVID-19 pandemic, the largest global health crisis in more than a century, the USTR office said its top priority is saving lives and ending the pandemic in the United States and around the world. As affirmed in the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health, the United States, while recognising the role of intellectual property protection in the development of new medicines, respects a trading partner's right to protect public health and, in particular, to promote access to medicines for all, it said. The United States has been closely monitoring China's progress in implementing its commitments under the United States-China Economic and Trade Agreement. In 2020, China published several draft IP-related legal and regulatory measures and finalised over a dozen measures. China amended the patent Law, copyright and criminal laws in the past year. However, these steps toward reform require effective implementation and fall short of the full range of fundamental changes needed to improve the IP landscape in China, the USTR office said. In India, the USTR said patent issues continue to be of particular concern as long-standing issues remain for innovative industries. Also read | US reportedly considering intellectual property waiver for coronavirus vaccines The potential threat of patent revocations, lack of presumption of patent validity and the narrow patentability criteria under the India Patents Act burden companies across different sectors. "Moreover, patent applicants continue to confront costly and time-consuming pre and post-grant oppositions, long waiting periods to receive patent approval and excessive reporting requirements. Stakeholders continue to express concerns over vagueness in the interpretation of the India Patents Act," she added. She said the US intends to continue to engage with India on IP matters, including through the United States-India Trade Policy Forum's Intellectual Property Working Group.

IP protection: US puts India on Priority Watch List

Commerce and Industry Minister of India Piyush Goyal said on Thursday that 57 countries across the globe have supported proposal spearheaded by India and South Africa for COVID vaccine Intellectual Property Rights waiver. The proposal was submitted by India and SA last year, at World Trade Organisation (WTO).

57 countries have already joined India's leadership in demanding Intellectual Property Waiver for COVID-19 vaccine. Leaders everywhere are rising up to the challenge and joining PM Narendra Modi ji's call for affordable health for the entire world," he tweeted.

"World cannot continue to engage in endless discussions while millions of lives &amp; livelihoods are lost. Intellectual Property waiver on COVID-19 medicine provides an opportunity to rejuvenate the world. Hope the world leaders join India in that effort," he added.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
57 countries have already joined India's leadership in demanding Intellectual Property Waiver for COVID-19 vaccine. Leaders everywhere are rising up to the challenge and joining PM <a href="https://twitter.com/narendramodi?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@NarendraModi</a> ji’s call for affordable health for the entire world. <a href="https://t.co/iAajcP9r6B">pic.twitter.com/iAajcP9r6B</a>
— Piyush Goyal (@PiyushGoyal) <a href="https://twitter.com/PiyushGoyal/status/1364832672011362308?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 25, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

The joint demand put forth by India and South Africa has found stiff opposition from western countries but has also found support from prominent power corridors.

114 European Union Parliamentarians or MEPs have already issued declaration and have called on the bloc to support the proposal of IPR waiver for coronavirus vaccine.

The declaration said, "EU’s open opposition to the TRIPS waiver risks exacerbating a dangerous North-South divide when it comes to affordable access to COVID-19 diagnostics, personal protective equipment, treatments, and vaccines."

Pointing out to the need for an IPR waiver, it said, "WTO decision on a potential waiver offers a crucial and much-needed act of effective solidarity as it is an important step towards increasing local production in partner countries and, ultimately, suppressing this pandemic on a global scale."

European Council is due to meet on Thursday (February 25).

Commerce and Industry Minister of India Piyush Goyal said on Thursday that 57 countries across the globe have supported proposal spearheaded by India and South Africa for COVID vaccine Intellectual Property Rights waiver.

Commerce and Industry Minister of India Piyush Goyal said on Thursday that 57 countries across the globe have supported proposal spearheaded by India and South Africa for COVID vaccine Intellectual Property Rights waiver. The proposal was submitted by India and SA last year, at World Trade Organisation (WTO). 57 countries have already joined India's leadership in demanding Intellectual Property Waiver for COVID-19 vaccine. Leaders everywhere are rising up to the challenge and joining PM Narendra Modi ji's call for affordable health for the entire world," he tweeted. "World cannot continue to engage in endless discussions while millions of lives & livelihoods are lost. Intellectual Property waiver on COVID-19 medicine provides an opportunity to rejuvenate the world. Hope the world leaders join India in that effort," he added. 57 countries have already joined India's leadership in demanding Intellectual Property Waiver for COVID-19 vaccine. Leaders everywhere are rising up to the challenge and joining PM @NarendraModi ji’s call for affordable health for the entire world. pic.twitter.com/iAajcP9r6B — Piyush Goyal (@PiyushGoyal) February 25, 2021 × The joint demand put forth by India and South Africa has found stiff opposition from western countries but has also found support from prominent power corridors. 114 European Union Parliamentarians or MEPs have already issued declaration and have called on the bloc to support the proposal of IPR waiver for coronavirus vaccine. The declaration said, "EU’s open opposition to the TRIPS waiver risks exacerbating a dangerous North-South divide when it comes to affordable access to COVID-19 diagnostics, personal protective equipment, treatments, and vaccines." Pointing out to the need for an IPR waiver, it said, "WTO decision on a potential waiver offers a crucial and much-needed act of effective solidarity as it is an important step towards increasing local production in partner countries and, ultimately, suppressing this pandemic on a global scale." European Council is due to meet on Thursday (February 25).

57 countries join India on COVID vaccine IPR waiver: Indian minister

The cross-country intellectual property rights (IPRs) wars are back and this time it’s being fought in the East.&nbsp;

From last week’s RCEP conversations in Singapore, it seems like Japan and South Korea are pushing other Asian countries like India and China to accede to stricter IPR norms.&nbsp;

Public health activists are concerned about this resulting in raising prices of medicines, given that patent term extensions and stricter data exclusivity requirements could expand the monopoly power of patent holders.&nbsp;

In fact, the current World Bank chief economist, Pinelopi Goldberg and co-authors in a 2006 paper on fluoroquinolones market in India, had estimated potential adverse welfare consequences with stronger IPR and TRIPs. But taking a call on these new IPR discussions could be more nuanced and may require fresh thought.&nbsp;

First, it is worth pondering why one needs a regional trade agreement over and above TRIPs (which India currently conforms with) to strengthen IPR protection. It could be because policies like compulsory licensing, restrictions against greening patents and price controls have been effectively used by India to counter stronger patents post-Trips since 2005.&nbsp;

Could it also be that other countries are getting inspired by India thereby creating a globally-revealed weak IPR world when one considers economies like South Africa, Brazil and Thailand? Amy Kapczynski has written about such a patent 2.0 world earlier being engineered in India.&nbsp;

That said, might it be also true that weak IPR is being used by countries like India as an excuse for its dithering public health institutions and infrastructure?&nbsp;

Prices of medicines may rise with stronger IPR in India (though recent research by Mark Duggan and co-authors find only a modest 3-6 per cent increase in average prices of drugs in India post-TRIPs), but then so long as one has provisions for healthcare financing, this rise should not, in theory, be an issue.&nbsp;

Neither should it be an issue if diseases are detected earlier using better primary healthcare infrastructure, which can also enable keeping a share of pharmaceuticals to overall healthcare expenditure, at a realistic minimum.&nbsp;

While the US spends something like 12-15 per cent on this metric, anecdotal estimates suggest that India’s pharmaceutical spending is an order of magnitude higher, that too it’s out of pocket spending on drugs and healthcare, and this is a real welfare concern as research by Manoj Mohanan has shown.&nbsp;

Policy makers alone, however, cannot resolve the problem of IPR and prices of medicines. Innovator firms need to be responsible too, adopting differential pricing schemes and assuring transparently that their lobbying with their respective country regulators for the regional strengthening of IPR, comes from a genuine long-run access to quality healthcare argument that overrides rent-seeking interests.&nbsp;

As prior research by this author has shown in the context of oral-antidiabetics market in India and Merck’s drug Januvia, sometimes, differential pricing by firms could generate better welfare consequences relative to a world of price controls or compulsory licensing, an outcome that is hard to ignore for modern innovator pharmaceutical firms, be that a Takeda or Otsuka in the East or a Merck or Bristol Myers from the West.

It is also worth noting here that there is evolution happening in the bio-pharmaceutical world, with an increased emphasis on biologics, biosimilars, personalised medicines and genomics.&nbsp;

These new technologies may require incentives for further innovation and to the extent short run, weak IPR creates adverse inducements, societies even in the developing world might be losing out on the next big medical manna from discovery hot spots of the world.&nbsp;

In addition, for countries like India and China trying to encourage life science start-ups based on science, this is especially critical, since not only will strong IPR attract global venture capital funding, but an absence of it may also result in a flight of entrepreneurs to strong IPR locations like Singapore.&nbsp;

At the end, while theoretical arguments for stronger IPR is well rooted in its potential to create long-run incentives for innovation thereby enhancing human welfare, it is also true that empirical findings on this question have been mixed.&nbsp;

In Japan, for example, Lee Branstetter and Mariko Sakakibara fail to find that the 1988 Japanese IPR reforms (increasing scope of patents) resulted in an increase in either R&amp;D spending or innovative output in a sample of Japanese firms.&nbsp;

No one is doubting the welfare effects of medical innovation, however. As the 2018 Nobel Laureate in economics William Nordhaus presciently pointed out in his provocatively titled “The Health of Nations” paper, advances in human welfare generated by better medical science over the past half-century have been equal in value to consumption increases from all other sources put together.&nbsp;

Other scholars like Daren Acemoglu and Samuel Johnson extend this line of thought with their 2007 work on antibiotics innovation for economic growth, while Jenny Lanjouw, Iain Cockburn and Mark Schankerman demonstrated in their 2016 paper the cross-country disincentives to entry for innovative products with weaker IPR.&nbsp;

Frank Lichtenberg, meanwhile, has shown the positive effects of new drug launches on American longevity and medical expenditure between 1990 and 2003. So the arguments and evidence seem to be there for provisioning towards long-run incentives for innovation with stronger IPR.

Maybe then the time has come for societies to co-create with firms a Patents 1.5 world? Policy makers can incentivise innovation through a split patent system conditional on the burden of disease leveraging on mechanisms like patent review vouchers or advanced market commitments to incentivize life-science innovation with one size may not fit all approach.&nbsp;

Firms meanwhile also need to show the willingness to price pharmaceutical products responsibly to enhance access to quality and innovative medicines. That may be a way forward to the emerging eastern IPR wars leading to peace coming out of the November 2018 Singapore RCEP discussions.&nbsp;

(This article was originally published on DNA. Read the <a href="https://www.dnaindia.com/analysis/column-the-west-is-not-the-best-2687037">original article)</a>

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

The cross-country intellectual property rights (IPRs) wars are back and this time it’s being fought in the East. From last week’s RCEP conversations in Singapore, it seems like Japan and South Korea are pushing other Asian countries like India and China to accede to stricter IPR norms.

The cross-country intellectual property rights (IPRs) wars are back and this time it’s being fought in the East. From last week’s RCEP conversations in Singapore, it seems like Japan and South Korea are pushing other Asian countries like India and China to accede to stricter IPR norms. Public health activists are concerned about this resulting in raising prices of medicines, given that patent term extensions and stricter data exclusivity requirements could expand the monopoly power of patent holders. In fact, the current World Bank chief economist, Pinelopi Goldberg and co-authors in a 2006 paper on fluoroquinolones market in India, had estimated potential adverse welfare consequences with stronger IPR and TRIPs. But taking a call on these new IPR discussions could be more nuanced and may require fresh thought. First, it is worth pondering why one needs a regional trade agreement over and above TRIPs (which India currently conforms with) to strengthen IPR protection. It could be because policies like compulsory licensing, restrictions against greening patents and price controls have been effectively used by India to counter stronger patents post-Trips since 2005. Could it also be that other countries are getting inspired by India thereby creating a globally-revealed weak IPR world when one considers economies like South Africa, Brazil and Thailand? Amy Kapczynski has written about such a patent 2.0 world earlier being engineered in India. That said, might it be also true that weak IPR is being used by countries like India as an excuse for its dithering public health institutions and infrastructure? Prices of medicines may rise with stronger IPR in India (though recent research by Mark Duggan and co-authors find only a modest 3-6 per cent increase in average prices of drugs in India post-TRIPs), but then so long as one has provisions for healthcare financing, this rise should not, in theory, be an issue. Neither should it be an issue if diseases are detected earlier using better primary healthcare infrastructure, which can also enable keeping a share of pharmaceuticals to overall healthcare expenditure, at a realistic minimum. While the US spends something like 12-15 per cent on this metric, anecdotal estimates suggest that India’s pharmaceutical spending is an order of magnitude higher, that too it’s out of pocket spending on drugs and healthcare, and this is a real welfare concern as research by Manoj Mohanan has shown. Policy makers alone, however, cannot resolve the problem of IPR and prices of medicines. Innovator firms need to be responsible too, adopting differential pricing schemes and assuring transparently that their lobbying with their respective country regulators for the regional strengthening of IPR, comes from a genuine long-run access to quality healthcare argument that overrides rent-seeking interests. As prior research by this author has shown in the context of oral-antidiabetics market in India and Merck’s drug Januvia, sometimes, differential pricing by firms could generate better welfare consequences relative to a world of price controls or compulsory licensing, an outcome that is hard to ignore for modern innovator pharmaceutical firms, be that a Takeda or Otsuka in the East or a Merck or Bristol Myers from the West. It is also worth noting here that there is evolution happening in the bio-pharmaceutical world, with an increased emphasis on biologics, biosimilars, personalised medicines and genomics. These new technologies may require incentives for further innovation and to the extent short run, weak IPR creates adverse inducements, societies even in the developing world might be losing out on the next big medical manna from discovery hot spots of the world. In addition, for countries like India and China trying to encourage life science start-ups based on science, this is especially critical, since not only will strong IPR attract global venture capital funding, but an absence of it may also result in a flight of entrepreneurs to strong IPR locations like Singapore. At the end, while theoretical arguments for stronger IPR is well rooted in its potential to create long-run incentives for innovation thereby enhancing human welfare, it is also true that empirical findings on this question have been mixed. In Japan, for example, Lee Branstetter and Mariko Sakakibara fail to find that the 1988 Japanese IPR reforms (increasing scope of patents) resulted in an increase in either R&D spending or innovative output in a sample of Japanese firms. No one is doubting the welfare effects of medical innovation, however. As the 2018 Nobel Laureate in economics William Nordhaus presciently pointed out in his provocatively titled “The Health of Nations” paper, advances in human welfare generated by better medical science over the past half-century have been equal in value to consumption increases from all other sources put together. Other scholars like Daren Acemoglu and Samuel Johnson extend this line of thought with their 2007 work on antibiotics innovation for economic growth, while Jenny Lanjouw, Iain Cockburn and Mark Schankerman demonstrated in their 2016 paper the cross-country disincentives to entry for innovative products with weaker IPR. Frank Lichtenberg, meanwhile, has shown the positive effects of new drug launches on American longevity and medical expenditure between 1990 and 2003. So the arguments and evidence seem to be there for provisioning towards long-run incentives for innovation with stronger IPR. Maybe then the time has come for societies to co-create with firms a Patents 1.5 world? Policy makers can incentivise innovation through a split patent system conditional on the burden of disease leveraging on mechanisms like patent review vouchers or advanced market commitments to incentivize life-science innovation with one size may not fit all approach. Firms meanwhile also need to show the willingness to price pharmaceutical products responsibly to enhance access to quality and innovative medicines. That may be a way forward to the emerging eastern IPR wars leading to peace coming out of the November 2018 Singapore RCEP discussions. (This article was originally published on DNA. Read the original article) (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Cross-country IPR wars are back

An American business advocacy group has asked US Trade Representative to continue to place India on its priority watch list, alleging that there is strong evidence that New Delhi has not made sufficient efforts to protect Intellectual Property Rights holders&#39; interests.

 
While the Government of India made some noteworthy improvements to the overall IP environment in 2017, the Alliance for Fair Trade with India (AFTI) said New Delhi did not address numerous critical and longstanding shortcomings to its IPR regime.

 
These critical shortcomings include costly and time-consuming patent opposition hurdles for patent applicants, and long timelines for receiving patents; and lack an effective system for protecting data generated to obtain marketing approval for pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical products, it said.

 
&quot;There is strong evidence that India has not made sufficient efforts to emerge from its current status under the Priority Watch List, or to protect adequately IPR holders&#39; interests with respect to patents, copyright, and trade secrets,&quot; it said in its submission to the USTR on the latter&rsquo;s Special 301 review.

 
The Special 301 Report is prepared annually by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) which identifies trade barriers to US companies and products due to the intellectual property laws, such as copyright, patents and trademarks, in other countries.

 
&quot;AFTI requests that USTR once again place India on its Priority Watch List, where it has been placed &ndash; except for the few years it was listed as a Priority Foreign Country &ndash; since the first Special 301 Report in 1989,&quot;it said. 
AFTI members saw several new actions over the past year that created significant new IP challenges, it said.

 
These include troublesome steps related to Section 8 of the Patent Law, new court rulings related to &quot;patent working&quot;, and a stronger push by India in international forums to weaken strong international rules for IPR protection, AFTI said.

 
The AFTI alleged that forced localisation continues to be a chronic issue facing US IPR holders in India.

 
&quot;The Modi administration has not taken meaningful action to revise protectionist forced localisation policies clearly aimed at favouring domestic IP holders at the expense of goods, services, and IP from other countries,&quot; it said. 
&quot;In addition, his &#39;Make in India&#39; campaign has given some additional fodder to those who wish to promote local IPR and local manufacturing at the expense of US companies and products,&quot; the AFTI said.

Alliance for Fair Trade with India said New Delhi did not address numerous critical and longstanding shortcomings to its IPR regime

An American business advocacy group has asked US Trade Representative to continue to place India on its priority watch list, alleging that there is strong evidence that New Delhi has not made sufficient efforts to protect Intellectual Property Rights holders' interests. While the Government of India made some noteworthy improvements to the overall IP environment in 2017, the Alliance for Fair Trade with India (AFTI) said New Delhi did not address numerous critical and longstanding shortcomings to its IPR regime. These critical shortcomings include costly and time-consuming patent opposition hurdles for patent applicants, and long timelines for receiving patents; and lack an effective system for protecting data generated to obtain marketing approval for pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical products, it said. "There is strong evidence that India has not made sufficient efforts to emerge from its current status under the Priority Watch List, or to protect adequately IPR holders' interests with respect to patents, copyright, and trade secrets," it said in its submission to the USTR on the latter’s Special 301 review. The Special 301 Report is prepared annually by the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) which identifies trade barriers to US companies and products due to the intellectual property laws, such as copyright, patents and trademarks, in other countries. "AFTI requests that USTR once again place India on its Priority Watch List, where it has been placed – except for the few years it was listed as a Priority Foreign Country – since the first Special 301 Report in 1989,"it said. AFTI members saw several new actions over the past year that created significant new IP challenges, it said. These include troublesome steps related to Section 8 of the Patent Law, new court rulings related to "patent working", and a stronger push by India in international forums to weaken strong international rules for IPR protection, AFTI said. The AFTI alleged that forced localisation continues to be a chronic issue facing US IPR holders in India. "The Modi administration has not taken meaningful action to revise protectionist forced localisation policies clearly aimed at favouring domestic IP holders at the expense of goods, services, and IP from other countries," it said. "In addition, his 'Make in India' campaign has given some additional fodder to those who wish to promote local IPR and local manufacturing at the expense of US companies and products," the AFTI said.

India hasn't made enough efforts to protect IPR holders' interests: US trade body

Ipr, News on Ipr, stories on Ipr, articles on Ipr, Ipr stories at Wion, Ipr news, Ipr latest news

ipr

WION Explains: New Zealand loses almost decade-old fight for 'mānuka honey' trademark. Here's what it means

IP protection: US puts India on Priority Watch List

57 countries join India on COVID vaccine IPR waiver: Indian minister

Cross-country IPR wars are back

India hasn't made enough efforts to protect IPR holders' interests: US trade body