Dogs and Cats Living Together? The New WIPO, WTO and WHO Book.

On February 5, 2013, WIPO, the WTO, and the World Health Organization issued a jointly authored book titled, “Promoting Access to Medical Technologies and Innovation – Intersections between public health, intellectual property and trade.”  The 253 page book is an ambitious one—tackling the intersection of innovation and access.  The press release states:

Today’s health policy‑makers need a clear understanding both of the innovation processes that lead to new technologies and of the ways in which these technologies are disseminated in health systems. This study captures a broad range of experience and data in dealing with the interplay between intellectual property, trade rules and the dynamics of access to, and innovation in, medical technologies.

The study is intended to inform ongoing technical cooperation activities undertaken by the three organizations and to support policy discussions. Based on many years of field experience in technical cooperation, the study has been prepared to serve the needs of policy‑makers who seek a comprehensive presentation of the full range of issues, as well as lawmakers, government officials, delegates to international organizations, non‑governmental organizations and researchers.

The book has four parts: 1) Medical Technologies: The Fundamentals; 2) The Policy Context for Action for Innovation and Access; 3) Medical Technologies: The Innovation Dimension; and 4) Medical Technologies: The Access Dimension.  The study is very complete and attempts to tie together a lot of different concepts, and generally does so well (although I know I need to spend more time with it).  Some interesting items in the report include: a statement that a goal of the report is to find some “policy coherence” between the three organizations and that the report was made in a spirit of cooperation began by the Doha Declaration, the WIPO Development Agenda, and the WHO Global Strategy and Plan of Action for Global Health; a specific section on traditional medicine and knowledge; a statement that “[t]he overarching condition for providing access to needed medical technologies and health services is a functioning national healthcare system”; a dizzying chart concerning Tanzania’s medical supply systems; placing the human right to health within the intellectual property law context; and a helpful table breaking down pharmaceutical related provisions in FTAs.

On the Bayh-Dole Act and similar policies, the report states:

Such policies, and a general trend towards more active management of technologies created through publicly funded research, are leading to the steady accumulation of publicly held patent portfolios, including on key upstream technologies that provide platforms for a range of new medical technologies.

This report appears to be a great step toward harmonizing a lot of concepts in public health and intellectual property.  There is no question that trying to find solutions to the problems outlined in the report requires expertise in a lot of different areas and much collaboration. 

WHO seeks $147bn -- can it be done for less?

An interesting piece in the excellent Intellectual Property Watch ("WHO Puts Nearly $150 Billion Price Tag On Global R&D Strategy For Neglected Diseases" by Kaitlin Mara) reports on a new document from the World Health Organization which estimates funding needs for the implementation of its strategy on global public health and intellectual property. According to this article,

"Estimated needs total more than US$2 billion for the years 2009 to 2015 in order to build capacity to innovate and to deliver health products, engage in technology transfer and in the application and management of intellectual property, promote new research and development and sustainable financing mechanisms for that R&D, and establish monitoring systems. It also budgets an additional US $147 billion for the actual cost of research, including education of researchers and infrastructure building, noting that this number is difficult to determine ahead of time".

IP Finance is curious to know whether it is possible to compare and contrast the WHO's budget for neglected diseases with the sort of business plan that the private sector might conjecture, given (i) the availability of IP protection but (ii) the existence of only a small market or one with limited purchasing power.

Green IP and patent insurance

Writing in the excellent Intellectual Property Watch last Friday, Itaru Nitta (Green Intellectual Property Project, Geneva, Switzerland) describes how, in its 2008 Assembly, the World Health Organization (WHO) adopted its Global Strategy and Plan of Action on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property. This initiative seeks to direct global R&D and IP policy towards the problems facing impoverished nations. In her article, " Patent Insurance Scheme: Financial Resource For WHO Global IP Strategy?" she writes of a proposed Patent Insurance Scheme (also called “Green IP") which would impose

"... an extra, official fee on patent applicants and holders as a form of insurance premium, and to establish a trust fund that would defend patent rights against the risk of compulsory licence and other flexibilities increasingly justified by growing anti-patent protests, while at the same time provide a wide variety of financial assistance relating to R&D and IP for developing countries ...".

She goes on to explain:

"Since the Patent Insurance Scheme is designed to be embedded in the existing patent system, the scheme would possess a substantive and sustainable financial scale (possible annual revenue: up to several tens of billions in US dollars ...) due to continuing growth of both quantity (e.g., filing number) and quality (e.g., subject matter) in the present patent system worldwide".

Readers of this weblog are invited to read Itaru Nitta's article in full (it's not very long) and to take a look at the ideas on the Green IP website too. Without prejudice to the issue of whether the proposal has any merits, it's my feeling is that it's refreshing to see proposals of any sort that seek to build constructively on the present system by adapting it to the present economic, political and environmental challenges it faces. The big challenge will come in trying to sell something like this, which is emanating from a single-issue agency such as the WHO, to WIPO as the body that is often almost paralysed by the conflicting interests arising from the many types of rights and stake-holders involved.