Expand Document  |  Expand Chapter  |  Full TOC  |  Printable HTML version
Implications of the Doha Declaration on the Trips Agreement and Public Health - Health Economics and Drugs Series No. 012
(2002; 56 pages) [French] [Spanish] View the PDF document
Table of Contents
View the documentForeword
View the documentAcknowledgements
View the documentAbbreviations and acronyms
View the documentExecutive summary
View the documentIntroduction
View the documentScope
View the documentThe role of TRIPS and IPRs
Open this folder and view contentsPublic health measures
Open this folder and view contentsFlexibility in TRIPS
Open this folder and view contentsMembers with insufficient or no manufacturing capacities
View the documentTransfer of technology to LDCs
View the documentExtension of transitional period for LDCs
View the documentSpecial treatment under TRIPS
View the documentLegal status of the Doha Declaration
View the documentIssues not covered in the Declaration
View the documentConclusions
View the documentAnnex 1 - Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health
View the documentAnnex 2 - Levels of development of pharmaceutical industry, by country
View the documentReferences
 

Issues not covered in the Declaration

The Doha Declaration does not cover all the areas where flexibility of the TRIPS Agreement exists, such as the exceptions to patent rights (Article 30) and the protection of data submitted for the registration of pharmaceutical (and agrochemical) products (Article 39.3). Nor does it refer to the room left to Members to determine the patentability standards in ways that prevent patenting strategies aiming at expanding or temporally extending the protection conferred in the pharmaceutical field131.

131 See, e.g., Correa, 2001.

Proposals made in the pre-Doha negotiation phase by different Members included, inter alia, language on the need to prevent diversion of drugs sold at discounted prices in developing countries to high-income markets132, and to ensure that data protection requirements of Article 39.3 do not become a barrier to the registration and introduction of generic drugs and the use of compulsory licensing133. The USA proposed a five year moratorium on dispute settlement action in relation to “non-violation” complaints, which was limited to sub-Saharan African countries134.

132 The EC regretted that this issue was not dealt with by the Conference (European Commission, 2001, p. 6).

133 See IP/C/W/296.

134 Acceptance of this proposal would have implied that Article 64 of the TRIPS Agreement on “non-violation” complaints could be immediately applied to any other Member, something that most Members rejected since the scope and modalities of such complaints have not been determined yet by the Ministerial Conference.

 

to previous section
to next section
 
 
The WHO Essential Medicines and Health Products Information Portal was designed and is maintained by Human Info NGO. Last updated: November 5, 2014