We wrote in support of the TRIPS IP Proposal and its legal and political significance.
We explain why IP law is a barrier, how patents and secrecy interact, why compulsory licensing is not enough & why a waiver is necessary.
Pls RT& spread it far and wide! papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cf…
This is the product of intense collaboration over the last few weeks w/ @DrLukeMcDonagh@AislingMMcMahon@SivaThambisetty@gmdutfield.
We believe it's vital that IP scholarship doesn't respond to the pandemic in a legal formalist way, but understand law in its full social effect.
Our arguments: 1)TRIPS waiver is a necessary & proportionate legal measure for clearing IP barriers enabling the freedom to operate for more companies to produce COVID-19 vaccines and other health technologies w/out fear of infringing another party’s IP rights & of litigation;
The statement in the article that other manufacturers don't have the ability to manufacture the vaccine and that it would take 3 yrs to produce is wrong.
Teva had offered but was rejected & there are other facilities in India and S. Korea, that can do it but are not utilised.
production starts on average around 6 months after tech transfer. KEI's database of manufacturing capacity is v helpful, via @abinader keionline.org/35364
Seeing lots of tweets today who dismiss TRIPS waiver initiative for good or bad reasons, none of them IP specialists. That's fine. But there has been LOTS of discussion pro&contra already.
from IP law point of view, the compulsory license requirements in TRIPS are onerous and not suitable for a pandemic emergency situation. TRIPS was designed for global pandemic but for global trade.
TRIPS waiver or compulsory license is not enough, yes you need tech transfer, but they go hand in hand bec tech transfer is dependent on the IP holder of patent or trade secret.
1 added to My Authors