The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), negotiated during the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) and administered by the World Trade Organization (WTO), has had a resounding impact on the global landscape of intellectual property rights (IPRs) and access to essential medicines, including vaccines. The TRIPS Agreement attempts to establish minimal standards of IPR protection and enforcement among the Members of WTO. Still, its provisions have raised significant concerns regarding their potential to hinder access to affordable healthcare in developing and least-developed countries, hereinafter referred to as the Global South. Indeed, the Agreement has been noted for advancing the interests of developed nations and multinational corporations at the expense of public health imperatives in the Global South, jeopardizing access to life-saving medicines and technologies. In addition, the TRIPS Agreement’s stringent intellectual property standards have been noted as a means of blocking technology transfer and knowledge-sharing, which may delay the development of local pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries in developing countries.[1] This chapter critically looks into the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement, focusing on the barriers these provisions pose to accessing vaccines in the Global South. Through an in-depth analysis, the chapter explores the impact that patent rights and other intellectual property rights (IPR) obligations under TRIPS may have regarding the availability, affordability, and accessibility of life-saving vaccines.

2 Patentability Requirements and their Impact on Vaccine Access

Article 27 of the TRIPS Agreement lays down the criteria for patentability, under which member states are obligated to grant patents for any inventions, either products or processes, in all fields of technology, provided the standards of novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability are met. This provision carries great importance for the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors, vaccine development, and production. By mandating the granting of patents across all technological fields, Article 27 effectively takes away the ability of WTO members to exclude certain areas, like pharmaceutical products or biotechnological inventions, from patentability based on public policy considerations or developmental priorities.[2]

This provision has raised alarm over the possible adverse effects on access to essential medicines and healthcare technologies, especially in the Global South. Expanding patentability to include genetic resources, microorganisms, and biotechnological processes raises concerns about the increasing concentration of proprietary rights over crucial components in the process of vaccine research, development, and manufacturing. Concerns have been expressed that the broadness of patentable subject matter in TRIPS would put at risk the ability of developing countries to promote homegrown innovation, technology transfer, and access to affordable healthcare solutions, including vaccines.[3]

The application of patentability criteria under Article 27 has also been marked with different interpretations and legal challenges, thus further muddling the terrain of intellectual property rights on pharmaceuticals and biotechnology. The ambiguity of concepts such as “novelty,” “inventive step,” and “industrial applicability” has provoked debates and disputes that only clarification from the WTO’s Dispute Settlement Body could provide to establish a standard and guideline in this field.[4]

2.1 Scope of Patentable Subject Matter

The TRIPS Agreement’s broad definition of patentable subject matter, encompassing products and processes in all fields of technology, has facilitated the proliferation of patents on various vaccine components, such as active ingredients, formulations, delivery systems, and manufacturing processes. This expansive scope has led to a phenomenon where multiple overlapping patents cover different aspects of a single vaccine and create complex legal barriers for generic manufacturers trying to produce and distribute more affordable versions. The far-reaching implications of this broad patentable subject matter definition cannot be overstated. It has paved the way for a veritable explosion of patent filings and grants related to vaccine technologies, covering every conceivable aspect of the research, development, and production processes. From the genetic sequences and biological materials used in the initial stages of vaccine development to the final formulations, delivery mechanisms, and manufacturing techniques, patents have been secured by pharmaceutical companies and research institutions, effectively creating a dense web of intellectual property rights surrounding vaccines. This has led to so-called \”patent thickets,\” where a single vaccine is encumbered by literally dozens of overlapping and potentially conflicting patents held by different entities. These thickets create a formidable legal labyrinth for generic manufacturers looking to produce and distribute more affordable versions of patented vaccines.[5] This complex web of intellectual property rights requires extensive legal expertise, substantial financial resources, and the potential risk of patent infringement litigation in order to navigate the patent thickets.

Moreover, the issue of patentable subject matter has been made more complex with the extension of biotechnological inventions within the ambit of TRIPS. Article 27.3(b) allows the patentability of microorganisms and non-biological and microbiological processes, with some exceptions. This has made possible the patenting of genetically modified organisms, gene sequences, and other biological materials used in vaccine development, which may limit access to these critical technologies in the Global South. The extension of patent protection to biotechnological inventions has been said to open up Pandora’s box of legal and ethical controversies. Patenting living organisms, genetic sequences, and biotechnological processes may have opened up some fundamental questions on whether life can be commodified and monopolized by the few powerful entities.[6] This could impede scientific progress, stifle research efforts, and consolidate proprietary rights over critical technologies, thus harming the development of new and innovative vaccines, particularly in resource-poor settings. Much more important, however, is the fact that this would also have far-reaching implications in the Global South, where the degree of access to the cutting-edge technologies is greatly constrained because of economic and infrastructural limitations. In fact, by granting exclusive rights over the essential elements of vaccine development, the TRIPS Agreement may inadvertently further widen the chasm of the technological divide between developed and developing nations, exacerbate the existing inequalities in access to healthcare, and impede the capability of the Global South to develop and produce its own vaccines and therapeutic solutions.

2.2 Exceptions to Patent Rights and Flexibilities under TRIPS

While the criteria for novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability in the patenting of an invention aim at the promotion of genuine innovation, such criteria have been interpreted and applied with much debate and legal challenge. The Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) has interpreted these issues in various cases, including the highly influential Canada – Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products and India – Patents cases. In the case of Canada – Patent Protection, the DSB made it clear that Article 27.1 prohibits discrimination based on the place of invention or the field of technology.[7] Technologically, this amounts to significant ramifications for vaccine development because it disallows the exclusion of some technologies or inventions from patentability based exclusively on public health considerations by the WTO member countries. This was precisely the center of the controversy in the case of Canada, as its patent law allowed stockpiling patented pharmaceutical products during the life of the patent, often considered as the “regulatory review exception” or “Bolar exception.” The EU and the pharmaceutical industry of the EU held the view that this exception violates the obligations of Canada under TRIPS because of the discrimination against pharmaceutical patents. The DSB, however, ruled in favor of Canada and stated that the regulatory review exception was a limited exception permitted under Article 30 of TRIPS and was not considered as discrimination against a particular field of technology.[8] This ruling established an important precedent for the meaning of the non-discrimination principle under Article 27.1. It established that the WTO members are not allowed to categorically exclude particular fields of technology, such as pharmaceuticals or biotechnology, from patentability based on public policy considerations or developmental priorities. This interpretation has extensive ramifications for vaccine innovation and access because it effectively forestalls countries from using patentability criteria to strike a balance between the competing interests of innovation and the addressing of public health concerns.

The India-Patents pursued the meaning of \”inventive step\” further and the need for balance that truly encourages innovation but addresses public health concerns. In the case, the DSB turned to the Indian law on patents that had introduced a heightened requirement of an inventive step for the patents of products belonging to the pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical category. Known as the “enhanced efficacy” test, India explained that this is necessary to avoid evergreening and that patents are only given for those products that are genuinely innovative, with an enhanced therapeutic effect.[9] However, the DSB eventually held that the \”enhanced efficacy” test violated the TRIPS Agreement’s principle of non-discrimination and the requirements of patentability as spelled out in Article 27.1. While it recognized the importance of the protection of public health and the evergreening of patents, the DSB clarified that TRIPS does not prohibit the patentability of pharmaceutical products, which are mere developments of or improvements to the already existing compounds. On this, it emphasized that the requirement for inventive steps must be the same in all fields of technology, but the members are allowed a certain degree of flexibility in defining what is considered enough inventiveness, provided that it does not violate the TRIPS Agreement. These landmark cases reveal the fine balancing that has to be made between encouraging innovation by way of patent protection and concerns of public health, more particularly in the context of access to lifesaving medicines and vaccines. It is true that the TRIPS Agreement intends to spur research and development through the award of intellectual property protection rights, but overly stringent patentability criteria may probably deny access to the same lifesaving technologies through broad and unwarranted monopoly privileges.

On the other hand, lax patentability criteria can result in patents on incremental or trivial advancements, which only stifle genuine innovation by allowing evergreening of patents, thereby delaying entry of cheaper generic versions. It is a tricky balancing act between these two competing interests, and the task indeed has serious implications for vaccine development and access in the Global South.

3 Patent Rights and their Impact on Vaccine Access

The TRIPS Agreement grants a portfolio of exclusive rights to patentees, which impose various impacts on vaccine access to the Global South. Minimum rights that must be provided to patent owners are detailed in Article 28 of the Agreement, including the right to prevent third parties from making, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing the patented product or process without their consent. The patent rights provided under the TRIPS Agreement are some of the farthest-reaching and comprehensive in the global landscape of intellectual property. In this sense, with Article 28 of the TRIPS Agreement, by obliging WTO member states to confer patent owners with the exclusive right to exploit their inventions and to bar unauthorized use, it effectively represents the legal monopoly on patented technologies, including vaccines and their associated processes.[10] This monopolistic control over patented inventions has huge implications for the access of medicines and health technologies essential to the health needs of the Global South. This includes the ability of patentees to exclude others from making, using, or importing patented products or processes, effectively creating legal barriers, which stand in the way of producing and distributing more affordable generic versions of patented vaccines. Furthermore, the scope of patent rights under the TRIPS Agreement extends beyond the mere sale or commercial exploitation of patented inventions. These include a host of activities, such as the use of patented processes for research, testing, and regulatory approval purposes.[11] This expansive scope of patent rights has raised concerns regarding the potential chilling effect on scientific research, knowledge-sharing, and the development of follow-on innovations, particularly in resource-constrained settings.

Exclusive rights that the TRIPS Agreement bestows on patentees are further strengthened by the provisions on the duration of protection for patent rights. Article 33 provides that the term of protection shall not end before the expiration of twenty years counted from the filing date of the application. This would mean that patent holders enjoy a long period of market exclusivity for their patented inventions. This has severe economic implications because it allows the holders to maintain a monopolistic control of the market and price their products at extremely high prices, which may impede access to medicines or other healthcare solutions in the Global South.[12] Moreover, the TRIPS Agreement’s strong provisions on enforcement of patent rights have further led to controversies over the possibilities of misuse and the inequitable effect on developing and least-developed countries. The Agreement requires members to introduce effective enforcement procedures and remedies, including civil and administrative procedures and remedies, in order to deter and stop patent infringement. These provisions, although aimed at the protection of the legitimate interests of patentees, have been criticized for potentially strangling fair competition, facilitating strategies of patent evergreening, and imposing burdensome legal and financial costs on the governments and producers of generic medicines in the Global South .It is in this context of strong and extensive patent rights that a debate arises on access to vaccines and other medicines for the Global South. The tension between the monopolistic rights vested in patent rights and the dire public health needs of developing and least-developed nations was at the heart of discussions of the impact of the TRIPS Agreement on access to healthcare globally.

3.1 Limitations on Generic Competition and Affordable Vaccines

One of the major apprehensions regarding patent rights under TRIPS is that they can curtail generic competition and access to low-cost vaccines in the Global South. Under the Agreement, exclusive rights are granted to the patentee, thereby creating legal barriers for generic manufacturers to produce and distribute low-cost versions of the vaccines covered by the patents, even when the rationale for such an act comes with public health emergencies or limited access to essential medicines. The core issue here is that of monopolistic control provided by the patent rights that enable the patentee to exclude others from making, using, or even importing the invention without permission. This monopoly prevents generic manufacturers from producing and selling more affordable versions of patented vaccines, even when the prices set by the patent holders are too high or when there is a felt need for increased access to life-saving medicines.[13] This limitation on generic competition causes a blow that is felt much more acutely in the Global South, where a large part of the population may remain without access to essential health care because it is too poor to afford it. Many individuals, governments, and health care systems in developing and least-developed countries lack the financial resources to afford vaccines priced too high by the patent holders, exacerbating existing disparities in access to vital medical treatment. Moreover, patent rights under TRIPS place legal hurdles in front of states to combat public health emergencies or pandemics effectively.[14] In this context, where timely access to vaccines and treatment is of utmost importance in containing the spread of disease and saving lives, the monopolistic control granted by the patent can delay or prevent the quick production and distribution of low-cost generic versions, thus exacerbating the health crisis.

This issue has become very critical in the case of the COVID-19 pandemic, where, until recently, many Global South countries did not have widespread availability of vaccines, thus highlighting the demand for increased access to affordable generic versions. Several developing countries, such as India and South Africa, proposed a temporary waiver of certain provisions of TRIPS related to COVID-19 vaccines and treatments. The aim was to facilitate increased production and distribution. This proposal, however, met with much resistance from developed nations and the pharmaceutical industry, bringing into sharp relief the continuing tensions between IP protection and public health concerns. The idea of the proposed TRIPS waiver was to suspend temporarily the application of certain provisions, like patent rights and trade secrets, with respect to COVID-19 vaccines and treatments. This would allow generic manufacturers in countries of the South to produce and distribute more affordable versions of these life-saving medicines without the legal hindrances of patents. However, opposition against the waiver proposal came from several developed nations and the pharmaceutical industry, who argued that it would undermine the incentives for innovation and compromise the intellectual property rights essential for the development of new medicines and vaccines. Critics also pointed to the potential impact this could have on future research and development efforts, including the potential for the waiver to set a precedent that could erode the overall TRIPS Agreement. The controversial debate over the proposed TRIPS waiver for COVID-19 vaccines and treatments simply highlighted the deep-rooted tensions between monopolistic rights granted by patent protection and the imperative need for equitable access to essential medicines during global health crises.[15] It brought out most sharply the challenges one continues to face in trying to strike a balance between incentivizing innovation through intellectual property rights and addressing the public health needs of the Global South, especially in the context of life-threatening pandemics.

3.2 Exceptions to Patent Rights and Flexibilities under TRIPS

While the TRIPS Agreement provides for voluminous patent rights, it also considers some exceptions and flexibilities which may mitigate barriers to vaccine access in the Global South. Article 30 permits limited exceptions to the rights conferred by a patent provided they do not conflict with the normal exploitation of the patent and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the patent owner. A relevant exception is the “regulatory review exception” or “Bolar exception,” which allows use of patented inventions for purposes of obtaining regulatory approval without infringing on the patent.[16] Such an exception may allow the introduction of generic versions of patented vaccines as soon as the patent has expired, while the patent is still in force, by enabling generic manufacturers to conduct the necessary testing and regulatory processes. In the absence of the Bolar exception, generic manufacturers would have to wait until the patent has expired before the initiation of the long and complex regulatory approval process, hence creating a de facto extension of the monopoly period for the patent holder. The aim of allowing regulatory activities to take place while the patent is still in force is to encourage competition and increase access to cheaper generic alternatives as soon as the patent has expired.[17] Furthermore, Article 31 of the TRIPS Agreement identifies the conditions under which compulsory licenses may be issued, where a government may allow the exploitation of a patented invention without the patent holder’s consent, but under certain specified conditions and limitations. Compulsory licensing has been a contentious issue under the TRIPS Agreement in the context of access to essential medicines, with several members of the WTO evoking this provision to tackle public health emergencies and increase access to cheaper drugs and vaccines.[18]

Obligatory licenses may be issued on several grounds, including national emergencies, anti-competitive practices, and public non-commercial use, subject, however, to certain conditions such as previous negotiations with the patent holder and adequate remuneration. This flexibility allows governments to override patent rights in exceptional circumstances, particularly when public health interests override the commercial interests of the patent holder. The Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health affirms the right of WTO members to use the flexibilities and safeguards under TRIPS to protect public health and ensure access to medicines for all. The Declaration recognized the gravity of public health crises, particularly those besetting developing and least-developed countries, and acknowledged the necessity of a balanced interpretation of the TRIPS Agreement to protect public health while promoting innovation. However, the exercise of these flexibilities has been made very difficult by political and economic pressures exerted by the developed nations and the pharmaceutical industry, as well as by complex legal and administrative requirements imposed for the issuance of compulsory licenses or other exceptions.[19] The WTO General Council Decision of 30 August 2003 aimed to address these difficulties by providing a mechanism for countries with insufficient or no manufacturing capacities to import generic versions of patented pharmaceutical products that can be produced under compulsory licenses issued in other countries.[20] This Decision was later incorporated into the TRIPS Agreement by way of the 2005 Amendment, known as the “Paragraph 6 System”. Despite these efforts, the Paragraph 6 System has not been effective in providing easy and cheap access to vaccines and other essential medicines due to several procedural and practical difficulties. Only a handful of countries have, until 2023, successfully availed themselves of the system.[21]

Another potential flexibility under TRIPS is that of international exhaustion of rights, which permits parallel importation of patented products from other countries where they were legitimately sold at lower prices. However, this flexibility is still subject to the national laws and regulations of individual members, and political pressures and threats of trade disputes have hindered its practical application. The TRIPS Agreement, therefore, includes exceptions and flexibilities specifically to balance patent rights with public health considerations. These are full of challenges and limitations during implementation. In short, the battles of countries of the Global South continue to maneuver through labyrinthine legal frameworks and political and economic pressures to secure access to affordable vaccines and essential medicines.

4 Compulsory Licensing and Its Implementation Challenges

4.1 Grounds for Compulsory Licensing under TRIPS

The provisions of the TRIPS Agreement offer a number of grounds on which compulsory licenses may be granted, which provide some flexibility to WTO members for addressing different circumstances. Under Article 31, compulsory licenses may be issued in times of national emergency or other circumstances of extreme urgency, such as public health crises or pandemics, in which case prompt access to lifesaving medicines or vaccines is critical. A compulsory license may also be granted to remedy practices deemed after judicial or administrative processes to be anti-competitive, serving as a means for promoting competition and stopping the abuse of the rights granted by patents.[22]

It also allows for compulsory licenses for use by the public in a non-commercial manner. It enables governments to authorize the use of the invention of a patented invention by a government or for public non-commercial use, for example, public health programs or research institutions. In cases where patent holders have not sufficiently exploited the patented invention within the territory of the granting authority, compulsory licenses may be issued to allow local production and availability to address the issue of insufficiency of working of the patented invention.

4.2 Administrative and Procedural Hurdles

Notwithstanding the legal provision for compulsory licensing under TRIPS, the implementation of this flexibility has been inhibited by a number of administrative and procedural impediments. The procedure for issuing compulsory licenses often involves complex legal and administrative procedures, requiring significant expertise and resources. Many developing and least-developed countries may lack the necessary institutional capacity or legal frameworks to be able to negotiate these intricate processes effectively, thereby providing a significant challenge to using this flexibility.

In addition, the TRIPS Agreement sets forth general principles for compulsory licensing but gives no detailed guidelines or interpretations; hence, it makes it easier to be ambiguous and to have a different national implementation. This could mean that there may be a lack of clarity leading to possible legal disputes, making the exercise a pretty complicated process for countries with resource constraints. Another point of contention that has been debated is the level of remuneration to be paid to the patent holder for the compulsory license, where there are different opinions on what may constitute “adequate” compensation.[23]

Aside from this, most Global South countries, because of a lack of manufacturing capacity, cannot effectively take advantage of compulsory licenses, since they may have to import the licensed products anyway from other countries. This dependence on sources extraneous to their country diminishes the benefit of compulsory licensing and plays into the continued issues of affordability and access.

4.3 Political and Economic Pressures against Compulsory Licensing

Beyond the administrative and legal challenges, compulsory licensing has, over time, also been a subject of serious political and economic pressures from the developed nations and the pharmaceutical industry. Developed nations with well-established pharmaceutical industries often let developing countries understand that trade retaliation or sanctions could be inflicted on them in case of the issuance of compulsory licenses for patented medicines or vaccines.[24] Of course, such threats of economic consequences resulted in a chilling effect on the readiness of many developing countries to invoke compulsory licensing, even when public health interests may demand it.

In addition, many FTAs and BITs negotiated between developed and developing countries have TRIPS-plus provisions that further restrict the use of compulsory licensing or add extra conditions other than those stipulated in the TRIPS Agreement. These provisions most often embody the interests of developed nations and their pharmaceutical industries in such a way that they limit the flexibilities intended under the TRIPS Agreement.[25]

The pharmaceutical industry has ever been against the large-scale application of compulsory licensing, as it undermines the provision of incentives for innovation and investing in research and development. The pharmaceutical sector has lobbied a lot and placed its influence through industry associations on trade negotiations and policy decisions, usually in favor of strengthening intellectual property protection and narrowing compulsory licensing provisions.

Most often, however, developed nations have moved to exert diplomatic and political pressure on developing nations through the use of aid, trade, and investment relations in trying to discourage the use of compulsory licensing or other TRIPS flexibilities. In this way, political pressure, augmented by the constant threat of economic consequences, provided a complex web of challenges for countries seeking to utilize compulsory licensing to address public health priorities.[26]

4.4 Compulsory Licensing for HIV/AIDS Medications

Many countries, despite the challenges, have applied compulsory licensing for increased access to essential medicines, especially within the context of the HIV/AIDS pandemic. These cases serve as important examples of the potential impact of compulsory licensing on public health and the challenges faced in implementing this flexibility.

In the early 2000s, Brazil issued compulsory licenses for several patented antiretroviral drugs used in the treatment of HIV/AIDS. Through that, the country was able to produce or import generic versions of such medicines at a considerably lower cost, thus expanding its national HIV/AIDS treatment program to thousands of patients in need of life-saving therapies. This means that Brazil had to face much opposition from the pharmaceutical industry and developed nations, with respect to the use of compulsory licensing, since the latter highlights political and economic tensions.[27]

Thailand similarly granted compulsory licenses for various patented HIV/AIDS and cancer drugs between 2006 and 2008 on the same grounds: high prices by patent holders and the need to address public health emergencies. Although this action was highly opposed by the pharmaceutical industry and developed nations, the act ensured that Thailand would provide the necessary access to these life-saving drugs at more reasonable prices.[28]

These cases highlight the likely effects of compulsory licensing on enhancing access to essential medicines in the face of public health emergencies, such as the HIV/AIDS pandemic. They also point out the difficulties and the opposition faced by countries seeking to draw upon this flexibility, thus underlining the continued effort needed to strengthen and streamline the implementation of compulsory licensing under TRIPS. Article 31 of the TRIPS Agreement sets forth compulsory licensing as one of the most important flexibilities, which allows governments the ability to override a patent right in exceptional circumstances when the public health interest outweighs the commercial interest of the patent holder. In practice, many difficulties have been experienced with the implementation of this mechanism, which has hampered its effectiveness in facilitating access to affordable vaccines and essential medicines in the Global South.

5 Data Exclusivity and Its Impact on Vaccine Access

5.1 The Rationale behind Data Exclusivity Provisions

Data exclusivity provisions grant exclusive rights over clinical trial data and other regulatory data submitted by a pharmaceutical company for getting marketing approval for new drugs or vaccines. In many senses, the rationale behind data exclusivity provisions stems from major investment inputs required in conducting clinical trials and generating the required data to show the safety and efficacy of new medical products.[29] These proponents maintain that without adequate protection of this costly and time-consuming process, pharmaceutical companies would not have incentives for underwriting the material risks and investments that come with developing new drugs and vaccines, thereby stifling innovation and discouraging the development of lifesaving medical technologies.

In addition, data exclusivity provisions are designed so that no competitor can use regulatory data in an unfair manner for commercial purposes. Absent such protection, competitors could potentially free-ride on the originator’s data to gain marketing approval for their products without incurring the same costs and risks. This would essentially reduce incentives to innovate and invest in research and development. Therefore, data exclusivity is supposed to provide a fair and competitive environment, ensuring the originator company a chance to recoup its investment before the entry of generic competition availing of the same regulatory data.

5.2 TRIPS-Plus Obligations and Data Exclusivity in Free Trade Agreements

While the TRIPS Agreement does not contain provisions regarding data exclusivity, developed countries have sought inclusion of data exclusivity provisions in bilateral and regional FTAs with developing and least-developed countries. The so-called “TRIPS-plus” obligations, these provisions go beyond the minimum standards set in the TRIPS Agreement and impose additional requirements on the protection of regulatory data submitted for marketing approval.[30] The most prominent example is the United States, which has consistently called for the inclusion of data-exclusivity provisions in its FTAs with developing and least-developed countries. These would typically provide 5 to 10 years of exclusive rights over the regulatory data submitted for pharmaceutical products, including vaccines. During this exclusivity period, regulatory authorities cannot, in effect, rely on the originator’s data to approve generic or biosimilar versions, even where the patent term has expired or where there has been no patent over the product at all.

The inclusion of this data exclusivity provision in FTAs has been highly controversial because it would substantially delay the introduction of more affordable generic or biosimilar alternatives into the market.[31] This would potentially worsen problems of access to essential medicines and vaccines within less-developed and least-developed countries, where financial and other resource constraints are significant barriers to affordable healthcare.

5.3 Implications for the Development of Biosimilar Vaccines

Data exclusivity provisions have particular implications for the development and approval of biosimilar vaccines, which are follow-on versions of existing biologic medicines. Unlike traditional small-molecule drugs, biologics are complex molecules derived from living organisms, hence making them more difficult to characterize and replicate precisely. Development of biosimilar vaccines requires, inter alia, deep analytical and clinical investigations to demonstrate similarity in quality, safety, and efficacy to the reference biologic product.[32] This procedure is, therefore, often very dependent on access to the originator’s regulatory data, which usually includes information on the manufacturing process, analytical methods, and results of clinical trials.

Data exclusivity provisions, however, pose important barriers to biosimilar manufacturers who want to obtain regulatory approval of their products. Since the regulatory authorities are barred from using the originator’s data for the period of exclusivity, biosimilar developers may want to generate their full set of clinical and regulatory data, which may well be prohibitively expensive and time-consuming to generate. This delays or prevents the entry of more affordable vaccines in the form of biosimilars into the marketplace, since such access might be seriously restricted by finance and resource conditions in the Global South.[33]

5.4 The Debate Surrounding Data Exclusivity and Public Health Priorities

Such data exclusivity has elicited sharp debates between the argument for stronger intellectual protection and the one on increased access to affordable medicines and vaccines. Some view data exclusivity measures as having placed commercial interest ahead of public health priorities, especially for developing and least-developed countries, where resources are meager and disease burdens are high.[34] Opponents argue that the provisions on data exclusivity create unwarranted monopolies by granting over-protections beyond what is traditionally available to the owner under patent rights. Upon expiration or invalidation of a patent, when all relevant regulatory requirements are met, generic or biosimilar competition should be permitted. This delays such competition through data exclusivity, which can result in higher prices and reduced access to lifesaving medicines and vaccines, especially in resource-poor settings.

Moreover, this argument for incentives to innovation through data exclusivity may not work in the face of the developing world, where the market potential for new drugs and vaccines is many times low and the financial incentive would play a relatively smaller role in driving research and development effort compared to the developed world.

On the other hand, supporters assert that data exclusivity is important to protect the important investment made by originator companies in clinical trials and regulatory data generation. They postulate that without proper protection, there would be less reason for pharmaceutical companies to take on the risks and costs involved in developing new medical technologies, which will basically impede innovation and development in the health sector of the world.[35] This debate underlines the tension that has existed between advancing innovation through intellectual property protection and access to affordable medicines and vaccines in the Global South. Finding a balanced approach that accommodates public health priorities without depriving innovation of the appropriate incentives is a difficult task and requires prudence considering the unique circumstances and needs of developing and least-developed countries.

6 Technology Transfer and Local Production Capabilities

6.1 The Importance of Technology Transfer for Vaccine Access

The issues of vaccine access in the Global South are critical in regard to the transfer of technology and the creation of local production capacity. Very often, countries that are in the process of development or belong to the least-developed ones suffer from a lack of necessary infrastructure, technological skills, and manufacturing capacity in their countries to develop and produce vaccines and other essential medicines on their own. This leads to overdependence on imports from multinational pharmaceutical companies from developed countries.[36] This would, in turn, lead to a worsening in issues of affordability, availability, and sustainability of vaccine supply chains, specifically during public health emergencies or any period of global supply chain disruption. Good technology transfer will empower these countries with the knowledge, skills, and technical know-how in vaccine development, production, and quality control processes. By establishing an independent manufacturing capability, countries within the Global South can become less dependent on foreign suppliers in meeting their own public health needs. Domestic production of vaccines might help to provide reliable and secure supply chains with a reduced risk of shortages or disruptions due to global supply chain failures or trade barriers. It may also enable more regional cooperation and collaboration in vaccine manufacturing, helping to pool resources and expertise among countries in a region that face similar problems.

6.2 TRIPS Provisions and the Facilitation of Technology Transfer

The TRIPS Agreement states that transfer of technology is important and carries provisions to implement transfer of technology to least-developed countries. Article 66.2 of the Agreement holds developed country members responsible for providing incentives to their enterprises and institutions so as to promote and encourage technology transfer to least-developed countries with the view of enabling them to establish a viable technological base.[37] However, the implementation of the clause has been open to criticism and questions about its effectiveness. Developing and least-developed countries have criticized the measures taken by the developed world to promote technology transfer as being too thin, and more concerted efforts are made necessary to see meaningful transfer of knowledge and technical capabilities.

Furthermore, inside the TRIPS Agreement, some provisions have been identified as a potential barrier to effective technology transfer, such as protection of undisclosed information, also known as trade secrets, and the enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights. These provisions may just restrict the sharing of proprietary knowledge and technical information, therefore hampering the free flow of technology and expertise that is otherwise vitally required for building up local production capacities in the South.[38]

6.3 Barriers to Effective Technology Transfer in the Global South

The level of technology transfer, however, is still seriously limited by a number of barriers, notwithstanding the recognition of its importance. The first one is the absorptive capacity in many developing and least-developed countries, which refers to the scarcity of human resources, technical expertise, and institutional frameworks that can effectively absorb and utilize transferred technologies. This usually limits the integration and adaptation of new technologies into local contexts, hence developing sustainable production capabilities. The other barriers to technology transfer include stringent patent protection regimes, intellectual property barriers, and the enforcement of trade secrets. Proprietary knowledge and technical information are closely guarded by patent holders and multinational corporations, thus limiting the free flow of knowledge and access to critical technologies that are indispensable for vaccine production.[39] In addition, limited financial resources of Global South countries may also hamper the acquisition, adaptation, and implementation of new technologies, as all these processes normally require serious investment in research and development, infrastructure development, and capacity-building initiatives.

Other regulatory and policy barriers to consider include inconsistent or weak regulatory systems, complex bureaucratic processes, and poor policy guidelines that will undoubtedly encourage investment, collaboration, and the sharing of technical knowledge and expertise. Furthermore, geopolitical tensions, sanctions, and trade barriers between nations often impede international cooperation and collaboration, consequently hindering the free flow of technology and knowledge in the field of vaccine development and production.[40]

6.4 Strategies for Enhancing Local Production Capacities

The underlying barriers can be addressed, and local production capacities for vaccines enhanced in the Global South through a multifaceted approach. One important strategy is to invest in capacity building through human resource development, technical training programs, and institutional strengthening initiatives. Such initiatives would go a long way toward enhancing the absorptive capacity of developing and least-developed countries to effectively absorb and utilize the transferred technologies, leading to the creation of sustainable domestic production capabilities.[41] Capacity building may be done in partnership with academic institutions, research centers, and international organizations to facilitate knowledge transfer and skill development. Such partnerships could bring with them access to technical expertise, training resources, and best practices in vaccine development and manufacturing; this should enable the sharing of critical knowledge and expertise with local stakeholders. Another key strategy is the promotion of public-private partnerships between governments, multinational pharmaceutical companies, and local manufacturers. This could be done to share both technical knowledge and expertise as well as resources while aligning incentives so that all players derive mutual benefits. Collaboration between the public and private sectors can leverage the strength and capability of both sectors in expediting technology transfer, knowledge exchange, and robust local production capacity building. Governments in the Global South can also implement policies and regulatory frameworks that incentivize technology transfer and local production. This can be in the form of tax incentives, streamlined regulatory processes, and clear guidelines related to intellectual property that balance the need for protection of proprietary rights with that of knowledge sharing and access to critical technologies.[42] Furthermore, investment can be channeled into research and development infrastructure, including laboratories, pilot plants, and manufacturing facilities.

Multilateral initiatives and international cooperation are also indispensable for the improvement of local production capacity. Regional collaborations and knowledge-sharing platforms facilitate the exchange of best practices, expertise, and resources among other neighboring countries with similar challenges. Initiatives such as WHO’s Technology Transfer Hub and the COVID-19 Technology Access Pool enable the voluntary sharing of knowledge, data, and intellectual property regarding COVID-19 health technologies, including vaccines.[43] Ultimately, overcoming the barriers to effective technology transfer and improving local production capacities requires a collective effort of a range of actors, including states, multinational companies, international organizations, and local bodies.[44] By facilitating an enabling environment through capacity building, public-private partnerships, enabling policies, and international cooperation, countries in the Global South can gradually reduce their dependence on external suppliers and approach self-sufficiency in meeting their vaccine and healthcare needs.

7 Enforcement Mechanisms and Potential Abuse

7.1 TRIPS Requirements for IP Enforcement

The TRIPS Agreement establishes minimum standards for the protection of intellectual property rights, at the same time requiring the members of the WTO to undertake the effective enforcement mechanisms necessary for compliance with such standards. Part III of the Agreement, titled “Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights,” outlines specific requirements for civil and administrative procedures, provisional measures, and criminal procedures related to IP infringement.[45] Article 41 of TRIPS mandates Members to ensure fair and equitable civil judicial procedures for the enforcement of intellectual property rights, including expeditious remedies to prevent infringements and deterrent remedies against further infringements.

In addition, the Agreement calls on its members to provide for prompt and effective provisional measures, like preliminary injunctions, for stopping infringement and preserving relevant evidence in Article 50; it further calls for actual criminal procedures and penalties in cases of willful trademark counterfeiting or copyright piracy on a commercial scale in Article 61.[46] These enforcement provisions were supposed to ensure that intellectual property rights, in particular patents on pharmaceuticals and biotechnological inventions, were really taken seriously by their infringements, properly addressed in legal mechanisms. However, there have been concerns that the implementation and interpretation of these provisions are encouraging abuse and bringing disproportionate effects on the access to affordable medicines and healthcare technologies in the Global South.

7.2 Concerns over Excessive Enforcement and Patent Evergreening

TRIPS enforcement, coupled with pressure from developed countries and the pharmaceutical sector, has led to the implementation of exceedingly stringent enforcement measures and the likelihood of abuse of intellectual property rights.[47] Of great concern is patent evergreening, whereby pharmaceutical companies use legal and strategic tools to extend the de facto patent term and market exclusivity of their products beyond the original patent expiry date. Evergreening strategies for patents might be filing successive patents on minor variations or new formulations of existing medicines, strategic litigation around patents to delay generic entry, or taking advantage of regulatory mechanisms to lengthen periods of market exclusivity. These practices can effectively delay or prevent the entry of more affordable generic alternatives, potentially hampering access to essential medicines and vaccines in resource-constrained settings.

There is a disquieting feeling of its disproportionate impact on developing and least-developed countries from over-law in IP enforcement. Together with the high costs of IP litigation, the risk of trade sanctions or political pressure from developed countries can produce a chilling effect on the willingness of countries in the Global South to exercise their rights under the flexibilities of the TRIPS Agreement, such as compulsory licensing or parallel importation.

7.3 The Role of TRIPS-Plus Provisions in Free Trade Agreements

The presence of TRIPS-plus provisions in bilateral and regional free trade agreements has exacerbated the problem of over-protection and potential abuse of intellectual property rights. Such provisions, often advocated by developed nations and the pharmaceutical industry, go beyond the minimum standards set by the TRIPS Agreement in respect of IP protection and enforcement.[48]

TRIPS-plus provisions in FTAs include tougher enforcement measures, such as heightened border measures, extended data exclusivity periods, extension of the patent term, and limitation on the use of compulsory licensing or parallel importation. These additional requirements may further encroach on the policy space and flexibilities available for developing and least-developed countries with respect to the protection of public health priorities and the right to have access to cost-effective medicines and vaccines.

The incorporation of TRIPS-plus provisions in FTAs has been contentious, as most of the provisions mirror the commercial interests of developed countries and multinationals, not the public health needs of the South. They are critical because they might undermine the carefully crafted balance that the TRIPS Agreement has taken between intellectual property protection and access to essential goods and services.[49]

7.4 Balancing Enforcement and Access to Medicines

The desire is to find an appropriate balance between the effective enforcement of intellectual property rights and access to affordable medicines and vaccines. Proper mechanisms for the enforcement of intellectual property would protect legitimate rights, incentivize further innovation, and create a competitive market environment that is also fair. At the same time, over-enforcement in terms of intellectual property rights and disproportionate measures will lead to barriers to access and turn into an anti-public health stance by developing and least-developed countries.[50] This challenge has to be approached with a nuanced and context-sensitive view, keeping in mind the varied situations and needs of different countries and regions.[51] A collective cooperation among governments, international organizations, and stakeholders concerned should be engaged to develop guidelines and best practices for IP enforcement consistent with TRIPS and its flexibilities. Such measures could include: Clear guidance on appropriate interpretation and implementation of enforcement provisions under TRIPS, to prevent abuse or disproportionate impact, is imperative. The TRIPS Agreement carries with it provisions on enforcement, but how they are interpreted and applied can vary across countries. Clear guidelines from international organizations such as the World Trade Organization and the World Health Organization can ensure that enforcement is undertaken in a manner that gives due consideration to intellectual property rights and public health interests. This should focus on potential issues: a disproportionate interpretation of TRIPS enforcement, too widely broad, or disproportionate penalties imposed on parties found to violate those provisions, as such might ultimately impact the accessibility of essential medicines. Through fostering a common understanding of TRIPS enforcement provisions, countries can avoid unintended consequences that may undermine their efforts to promote access to affordable healthcare.

Ensure that all judicial and administrative proceedings related to the enforcement of IP rights are transparent and fair, with due process and considerations of public health implications. This is because IP-related disputes and enforcement actions may potentially bring out wide-ranging effects on public health if they involve patents or other protections relating to essential medicines or medical technologies. Transparent and fair proceedings are vital in ensuring that all relevant considerations get made, including public health implications. This may also involve measures such as allowing relevant information, participation of interested parties, and clear justifications for decisions. Procedural safeguards should also be in place to insulate against possible abuses, such as frivolous litigation or overbroad injunctions that might choke the supply of essential medicines. Encouragement of the adoption of balanced IP policies and regulatory frameworks that encourage access to essential medicines as they respect legitimate intellectual property rights. The essence of granting intellectual property rights is the motivation and encouragement of innovation and investment, but this must be balanced with public health considerations, more so where access to essential medicines is concerned.[52] Countries should aspire to develop IP policies and regulatory frameworks that balance the protection of legitimate intellectual property rights and the affordable access to medicines saving lives. This can be done by, among other things, availing compulsory licensing provisions in cases of public health emergencies, the adoption of patent exceptions for research and experimentation, or even the exploration of alternative models that delink the costs of research and development from the final prices of medicines.

International cooperation and knowledge exchange with respect to effective enforcement strategies that balance IP protection and public health priorities are crucial. Intellectual property enforcement is a global and complex issue, and no single country or organization can address this issue alone. Collaboration and knowledge-sharing among countries, international organizations, and stakeholders are critical to work out and implement effective enforcement strategies that balance the protection of intellectual property with the imperative of public health. This can include the sharing of best practices, coordination of enforcement efforts, and the development of harmonized guidelines or frameworks.[53] In addition, capacity-building efforts can help countries be adequately resourced and equipped to put in place balanced enforcement strategies that take into account both IP rights and public health considerations.

The patent evergreening practices are to be approached through robust criteria of patentability, opposition to patent mechanisms, and clarity on what a genuine innovation is. Patent evergreening is a strategy that involves pharmaceutical companies extending the effective life of their patent beyond the initial patent term, which could probably delay the entry of generic competition and affordable alternatives. This can be done within countries by making sure that robust patentability criteria are set up to ensure that only genuine innovations are given patent protection. Furthermore, patent opposition mechanisms could be set in place so that there can be a challenge to patents not meeting the exact standards of novelty, inventive step, or industrial application. Clear guidelines on what constitutes a genuine innovation and what does not, including incremental or trivial modifications, could help prevent the unwarranted granting of patent extensions and provide for a more balanced patent system—one that truly rewards innovation while making medicines timely and affordable.

Ultimately, achieving balance between enforcement and access to medicines depends on a collaborative approach of all actors involved, including governments, international organizations, the pharmaceutical industry, and civil society. With a view to ensuring transparency and due process in enforcement, elaborating on the competing interests at stake, mechanisms of enforcement that respect intellectual property rights and are fully cognizant of public health priorities, especially in resource-constrained settings, might be developed.

8. Policy Recommendations and Strategies for Improving Vaccine Access

8.1 Strengthening TRIPS Flexibilities and Their Implementation

Ensuring that the flexibilities within the TRIPS Agreement, such as compulsory licensing and parallel importation, are usefully availed of would be a step toward improving vaccine access in the Global South. This requires concerted efforts on clarifying and streamlining procedures for the invocation of these flexibilities, against the administrative and legal hurdles that have stymied efforts at their application in the past. International organizations, such as the World Trade Organization and the World Health Organization, can do much toward the provision of clear guidelines and technical assistance to developing and least-developed countries to assist them in the complexities of the TRIPS Agreement and the flexibilities that it carries.[54]

Encouraging regional pooled procurement initiatives and patent-sharing arrangements can help to ensure access to patented vaccines and essential medicines in a more effective and organized way. Using their combined bargaining power, groups of countries may be better placed to negotiate more favorable pricing and licensing terms with patent holders for increased accessibility and affordability.[55] Moreover, capacity-building programs aimed at strengthening national patent offices and regulatory bodies will go a long way toward helping them to overcome legal and administrative complications in meaningfully using TRIPS flexibilities.

8.2 Fostering Collaborative Approaches and Public-Private Partnerships

Vaccine access, due to the complexity of challenges, requires a collaborative effort by the government, international organizations, civil society, and the private sector. PPPs can work to facilitate technology transfer, knowledge sharing, and the creation of innovative solutions that are responsive to the needs and constraints of the Global South. One way forward lies in creating incentives for originator companies to voluntarily license their technologies and enter technology transfer arrangements with local manufacturers in countries of the South and least-developed countries. Such partnerships foster the development of domestic production capacity while ensuring appropriate remuneration and protection of the intellectual property rights of the originating firms.[56] Moreover, the product development partnerships that concentrate on the research for neglected diseases can bring together academic institutions, research organizations, and pharmaceutical companies to collaborate on the development of vaccines and treatments for diseases that disproportionately affect the Global South.

On top of this, the acceleration of open science and data-sharing initiatives should be encouraged. The free flow of research data, scientific findings, and technical know-how can help to overcome the barriers of intellectual property and spur collaborative actions to devise health affordable solutions. However, striking a balance between promoting open access and appropriateness of incentives to the innovation may rather call for exploring alternative incentive models and delinkage strategies.

8.3 Exploring Alternative Incentive Models and Delinkage Strategies

Whereas the TRIPS Agreement is intended to spur innovation through intellectual property protection, a number of alternative models and approaches have been put forward to attend to its limitations and possible negative implications on access to life-saving medicines and vaccines.[57] One of these is prize funds or rewards for vaccine development, in which innovators are rewarded via lump-sum payments or prizes rather than through patent-based market exclusivity. The method may segregate the research and development cost from the eventual pricing of the product, making vaccines and treatments more affordable in resource-constrained settings.

The other is the development of pools and open collaborative models of patents, where holders of intellectual property rights contribute to the development of a common pool through which to access and engage in collaborative research efforts. The advantage of these pools is that they facilitate cross-licensing agreements, reducing transaction costs and alleviating the difficulties posed by patent thickets or overlapping patent rights.[58] Another possible approach may involve delinking strategies in which the costs of research and development are separated from the pricing of products, maybe by new mechanisms of financing or by alternative incentive systems that aim at increasing access and affordability without undermining incentives to innovate sufficiently.

8.4 Strengthening Global Governance and International Cooperation

Improving global governance mechanisms and international cooperation is relevant to strengthen the possibility of confronting the complex challenges of vaccine access and intellectual property rights. This may therefore provide for the expansion of the mandate and resources of international organizations such as the World Health Organization and the World Intellectual Property Organization to coordinate efforts better and provide guidelines for balancing intellectual property protection with public health concerns.[59]

On the one hand, harmonized regulatory standards and mutual recognition agreements will help in the cross-border movement of medicines and vaccines, reducing duplication of efforts and streamlining approval processes. In addition, initiatives that facilitate the cross-border movement of health professionals and knowledge will help build capacity and transfer expertise to resource-constrained regions.[60]

Moreover, international cooperation can share best practices, make collaborative research efforts, and coordinate responses to global health emergencies. By pooling the various resources and expertise that different stakeholders can put in, the international community would be better placed to address the challenges brought about by intellectual property barriers and improve the spread of life-saving vaccines and medical technologies equitably.

8.5 Addressing Socioeconomic Determinants of Health Inequities

While intellectual property barriers pose a very important barrier to vaccine access, strategies addressing the underlying socioeconomic determinants of inequities in health will be equally important. Improving access to health facilities will require continued investment in infrastructure and delivery systems, especially in underserved and remote areas. This may involve the construction of healthcare facilities, the deployment of mobile clinics, and the training of healthcare professionals for adequate coverage and accessibility.[61] Increased education and scientific literacy can empower communities and result in better decision-making about vaccination and preventive health measures. Similarly, investment in STEM education can supply a body of people who can help with local research and development and lessen the country’s reliance on other sources for health solutions.

Essentially, sustainable economic development and poverty reduction will be key in the reduction of these socioeconomic barriers that act as an impediment to health care. Inclusive economic growth, job opportunities, and improvement in living standards are initiatives that can reduce financial constraints that may keep individuals and communities from key medical services, among them vaccination programs.

By assuming the holistic, multi-faceted strategy that addresses barriers to intellectual property and the systemic problems at large, the world community stands the chance to achieve meaningful advances in vaccine access and health equity in the Global South. The objectives, however, call for continued dedication, cooperation across the globe, and a deep understanding of the delicate balance between stimulating innovation and ensuring that life-saving medical technologies reach all persons.

9 Alternative Approaches and Proposals for Reform

9.1 The Proposed TRIPS Waiver for COVID-19 Vaccines and Treatments

The issue of access to vaccines and treatments has taken on fresh urgency in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, bringing into relief the limitations of the current TRIPS regime in dealing with global health emergencies. In October 2020, India and South Africa proposed a waiver on certain TRIPS provisions with respect to COVID-19 vaccines, treatments, and other health technologies. The main justification for the proposed waiver was the temporary suspension of the application of TRIPS rules on patents, trade secrets, copyrights, and other intellectual property rights related to COVID-19 health technologies. This would have enabled countries to reproduce, manufacture, and distribute these essential medical products without legal constraints imposed by the application of intellectual property rights during the pandemic. The justification for the waiver was that it was a measure necessary to facilitate the scaling up of production and distribution of COVID-19 vaccines and treatments, all in ensuring equitable access by all countries, and especially by the Global South. It was held that existing TRIPS flexibilities, such as compulsory licensing, are not enough to effectively meet the unprecedented global health crisis, given the complexity and time-consuming nature of the processes involved. However, the proposal of the waiver met heavy opposition from several developed nations and the pharmaceutical industry. They argued that it would undermine incentives for innovation and jeopardize the intellectual property rights necessary for the development of new medicines and vaccines.[62] Critics also raised concerns over what this could portend for future research and development efforts and the precedent it could set to undo the general TRIPS Agreement.

In June 2022, the WTO finally reached a compromise after years of negotiations and debates, agreeing to a partial and temporary waiver of some TRIPS provisions in regard to COVID-19 vaccines. The waiver applies only to patents on the manufacture and provision of COVID-19 vaccines and does not extend to other health technologies or medical products. While the partial waiver was hailed as a step towards the global inequity in vaccine access, it has also been criticized for its narrow scope and the complicated procedural requirements for its application.[63] In fact, some argue that the waiver does not go far enough in addressing the broader systemic issues pertaining to intellectual property rights and access to essential medicines in the time of public health emergencies.

9.2 Exploring Compulsory Licensing Pools and Patent Pooling Initiatives

Compulsory licensing pools and patent pooling initiatives are another set of mechanisms that have been designed as an alternative to the problems that intellectual property rights pose to access to vaccines and other essential medicines. Pooling mechanisms entail the voluntary or compulsorily pooling of patents and other intellectual property rights over specific technologies or medical products for purposes of collective management and licensing of these rights to interested parties.[64] Compulsory licensing pools involve pooling relevant patents and intellectual property rights by governments or international organizations that may issue non-exclusive licenses to manufacturers and distributors against royalty payments. This approach seeks the production and distribution of affordable generic versions of patented medicines or vaccines and ascertains that the patent holder is compensated for their intellectual property.

On the other hand, patent pooling initiatives are voluntary arrangements that involve the depositing of relevant patents by patent holders into a pool, which is managed by a central entity. Such an entity can then issue licenses to manufacturers and distributors, allowing access to the pooled technologies and production of generic versions of the patented products, subject to agreed terms and conditions.

Such pooling mechanisms have been used in different contexts, like the Medicines Patent Pool for HIV, viral hepatitis, and tuberculosis medicines, and the COVID-19 Technology Access Pool proposed by the World Health Organization in the face of the pandemic. Aggregating and managing intellectual property rights under such initiatives are to overcome the barriers of fragmented and overlapping patent landscapes in order to facilitate access to essential medical technologies and incentivize innovation through royalty payments or otherwise as part of compensation mechanisms.[65]

However, the success of such initiatives relies on two points: one, patent holders must be willing to contribute voluntarily, and two, licensing terms and conditions that are just and reasonable must be arrived at. Moreover, there would be issues around governance and management of such pools, questions on antitrust implications, and the need for adequate safeguards against potential abuse or anti-competitive practices.

9.3 Strengthening TRIPS Flexibilities and Safeguards

Another strategy toward assuaging the tensions between intellectual property rights and access to vaccines is to strengthen and clarify the existing flexibilities and safeguards within the TRIPS Agreement itself. While the Agreement leaves some flexibilities, such as compulsory licensing and parallel importation, a number of challenges and limitations arose in the attempt to put them into practice, as has already been discussed.[66] In addition, ways can be found to simplify and make these flexibilities easier to invoke, especially in public health emergencies or compelling national needs. Such guidelines would include the development of guidelines and best practices that would consider the specific circumstances and constraints of the developing and least-developed countries in implementing compulsory licensing, parallel importation, and other TRIPS flexibilities.

In addition, it has been called for to provide more clarity and guidance in the interpretation of the key provisions within the TRIPS Agreement, including the ambit of patentable subject matter, the criteria for patentability, and the limitations and exceptions to patent rights. As such, the authoritative interpretations and guidelines by the WTO and other international organizations would go a long way in ensuring more consistent and balanced application of the Agreement, taking into consideration Global South public health priorities and development needs.[67]

The TRIPS Agreement will have to be strengthened by efforts in the areas of safeguards and monitoring mechanisms that would forestall possible abuse or misuse of intellectual property rights. It can also be done through increased transparency requirements, creating robust mechanisms of patent opposition, and measures against patent evergreening, undue enforcement actions, among other anti-access practices, which impede access to essential medicines and vaccines.

9.4 The Role of Differential Pricing and Voluntary Licenses

Other mechanisms, apart from the alternative approaches above, to make vaccines and essential medicines more accessible in the Global South with due respect to intellectual property rights and innovation incentives, may include differential pricing strategies and voluntary licensing arrangements. Differential pricing means the practice of selling a given medical product at different prices in different markets, influenced by the purchasing power and economic conditions of the target population among other factors. Pharmaceutical firms and vaccine manufacturers, under this approach, would be charging lower prices for their products in developing and least-developed nations where affordability is a great barrier. Proponents argue that differential pricing makes it possible for companies to maintain their profit margins in high-income markets while still making their products affordable in resource-constrained settings. However, concerns have been raised about the possibility of parallel importation or re-importation of lower-priced products into higher-income markets, hence undermining the pricing strategy and potentially leading to market segmentation or other unintended consequences. On the other hand, voluntary licensing arrangements involve patent holders voluntarily licensing manufacturers or distributors in developing and least-developed countries under specific terms and conditions. Such arrangements make the production and distribution of more affordable generic versions of patented medicines or vaccines possible while at the same time keeping royalty payments or other forms of compensation that the patent holders get. Examples of voluntary licensing initiatives include the Medicines Patent Pool and various bilateral licensing agreements between pharmaceutical companies and generic manufacturers or public health organizations.[68] Although such voluntary arrangements can enhance access, their effectiveness is determined by the willingness of patent holders to participate and negotiate fair and equitable licensing terms that balance commercial interests with public health imperatives.

Differential pricing and voluntary licensing approaches will have their strengths and limitations, whose implementation will require the utmost care considering the changing dynamics of the market, innovation incentives, and the potential for unintended consequences or abuse. In a nutshell, a combination of these approaches with other reforms, flexibilities, and several changes in the intellectual property rights framework should be developed to comprehensively solve the issue of vaccine access in the Global South.

10 The Way Forward: Reconciling IP Protection and Vaccine Access

10.1 The Need for a Balanced Approach

Reconciling the intellectual property protection regime with access to vaccines and other essential medicines in the Global South has been an issue of reconciliation for the complex and frequently competing interests at the crossroads of both. On the one hand, protection of intellectual property rights is important to incentivize innovation, promote investment in research and development, and foster a healthy and competitive pharmaceutical industry. On the other hand, ensuring access to essential medical technologies, especially in resource-constrained settings, is a basic public health imperative and a matter of human rights and social justice.

This balance is found in a nuanced and context-specific approach informed by the unique circumstances and needs of different countries and regions.[69] A one-size-fits-all approach is unlikely to work for this issue, especially when considering the challenges faced by least-developed countries, which can differ radically from those of emerging or middle-income nations.

The inclusion of this approach means an inclusive and collaborative way of balancing the situation among all concerned parties: governments, international organizations, civil society, and the pharmaceutical industry. They should engage in constructive dialogues and try to understand each other’s point of view and concerns. Having encouraged the atmosphere of mutual understanding and compromise, it would be possible to develop the framework of intellectual property and policy, in correspondence with the priorities of public health, yet taking into consideration appropriate incentives for innovation and investment.

Enhanced international cooperation and sharing of knowledge are necessary for resolving the problems of access to vaccines and balancing the rights of intellectual property with public health interests. The COVID-19 pandemic has underscored the interrelatedness of the global community and how very vital international cooperation is in dealing with public health emergencies and ensuring access to medical countermeasures for everyone.[70]

Other efforts include the COVID-19 Technology Access Pool and the WHO’s Technology Transfer Hub in initiatives aimed at the sharing of knowledge, data, and intellectual property on a voluntary basis toward COVID-19 health technologies, including vaccines. These platforms will facilitate the sharing of technical know-how and expertise to support the rapid scale-up of production and distribution of lifesaving medical products, particularly in resource-constrained settings.

However, such initiatives can only function effectively when there is active participation and support by all stakeholders, including governments, international organizations, and the private sector. More incentives and mechanisms must be developed to encourage the voluntary sharing of intellectual property and proprietary knowledge while still safeguarding the legitimate interests of patent holders and innovators.

Further, international cooperation should go beyond knowledge sharing to include capacity building, technology transfer programs, and robust regulation for the development and quality control systems. This can help enhance the technical and institutional capacities of developing and least-developed countries to empower such nations in establishing domestic, sustainable manufacturing capacity and lowering dependence on outside suppliers for certain essential medical products.

10.3 Addressing Capacity and Infrastructure Gaps in the Global South

A key challenge to equitable access to vaccines and other essential medicines in the Global South is the inadequacy of most developing and least-developed countries in terms of manufacturing capacities, infrastructure, and technical expertise.[71] These capacity and infrastructure gaps are key to building self-sufficiency and less reliance on external suppliers. Investments in research and development facilities, quality control laboratories, and manufacturing plants are just as important to building a resilient and sustainable pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry in the Global South. These investments, however, should be supported by human capital development through education, training programs, and knowledge transfer initiatives.

International bodies, developed nations, and private firms can assist in this regard through technical assistance, technology transfer programs, and public-private partnerships. These partners, through their respective means and resources, can share knowledge and capacity with these countries and close the gaps to enable developing and least-developed countries to establish their own manufacturing facilities for vaccines and essential medicines. Besides, improving regulatory frameworks and strengthening quality control systems in general would help to ensure the safety, efficacy, and quality of locally produced medical products.[72] Such cooperation may be done by national regulatory authorities, international organizations, and industry partners that will help in the development of harmonized standards, guidelines, and good practices aimed at creating an enabling environment characterized by a strong and dependable regulatory regime in the Global South.

10.4 The Role of International Organizations and Multilateral Initiatives

International organizations and initiatives are crucial in balancing the protection of intellectual property with access to vaccines and essential medicines. Organizations such as the WHO, the WIPO, and the WTO offer the opportunity to facilitate dialogue, negotiate global agreements, and work out guidelines and frameworks that balance the interests of different stakeholders. In that respect, the WHO has been in the lead with efforts towards equity in access to medical technologies and addressing challenges in intellectual property rights.[73] The WHO has worked out initiatives like the Pandemic Influenza Preparedness Framework and the COVID-19 Technology Access Pool, which would enable the sharing of viruses, data, and intellectual property to have timely and fair access to vaccines and treatments in case of public health emergencies. Furthermore, the TRIPS Agreement of the WTO and its subsequent amendments and interpretations have been fundamental to the shaping of the international regime of intellectual property and its relation to public health concerns. An ongoing discussion and negotiation within the WTO could bring about further clarifications, flexibilities, or reforms that align better with the needs of the Global South.[74] Finally, multilateral initiatives, such as the Access to COVID-19 Tools Accelerator, which brings together multiple stakeholders, have also emerged as critical platforms for coordinating global efforts and mobilizing resources to deal with the challenges of vaccine access and distribution during the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, for these international organizations and multilateral initiatives to be useful, they must continue to evolve to face the new realities of global health and intellectual property. Continued dialogue, transparency, and consideration of diverse views, in particular from the Global South, are essential for making these platforms relevant and responsive to all nations and their populations. Ultimately, the future to reconcile the protection of intellectual property with the access to vaccines and other essential medicines is a many-pronged and collaborative effort. It is a balancing act between innovation incentives and the respect of intellectual property rights, coupled with the urgent public health concerns of the Global South.[75] By fostering global cooperation, building local capacities, and encouraging broad dialogue and compromise, the global community can work toward a future where health-saving medical technologies will be available to all, without regard to their place or economic status.

11 The Role of Financing Mechanisms and Resource Mobilization

11.1 Financial Resources

Access to vaccines and essential medicines in the Global South requires significant financial resources and new financing mechanisms. Addressing the intellectual property rights, manufacturing, and infrastructure gaps will require concrete efforts in fund mobilization and the development of sustainable financing strategies that meet the particular needs and context of developing and least-developed countries. Innovative Financing for Vaccine Access Traditional funding sources, particularly government budgets and international aid, have often fallen short in providing much-needed finance to meet the complex and multidimensional challenges of vaccine access in the Global South.[76] Consequently, there has been an increased focus on finding innovative financing mechanisms that complement and supplement traditional funding streams.

One approach is the use of solidarity levies or taxes on specific goods or services, whereby part of the revenues are channeled to financing vaccine access and global health initiatives. For instance, the International Finance Facility for immunization uses long-term pledges from donors to issue vaccine bonds on the capital markets, which provide front-loaded funding for immunization programs in low-income countries. Another innovative way of financing is through public-private partnerships and blended finance. These align the interests of the private sector and public health goals, or even go beyond just funding from donors. One example of this is the Global Fund’s Debt2Health initiative, where developing countries can swap parts of their sovereign debt to invest in local health initiatives, such as vaccine procurement and distribution programs.[77] There is also the potential for impact investing and social impact bonds to become a financing tool for vaccine access. These instruments allow investors to provide upfront capital for public health interventions, where a portion of the investment returns is related to the achievement of predetermined social or health outcomes, such as increased vaccination coverage or a reduction in the overall disease burden.

Although innovative financing mechanisms hold promise, successful implementation requires sensitive design, strong governance frameworks, and effective coordination by multiple stakeholders: governments, international organizations, and the private sector. Transparency, accountability, and incentive alignment are key for building trust and sustained commitment by all parties.

11.2 The Importance of Sustainable Funding

Beyond the frontiers of innovative financing mechanisms lies a call for ensuring sustainable and predictable funding streams for vaccine access and distribution. Inconsistent or unreliable funding could break the continuity of immunization programs, undermine long-term planning efforts, and erode public confidence in the healthcare system.

Governments in the Global South have to set aside adequate space in the national budgets for the procurement of vaccines and their distribution, including delivery. However, this might not be adequate, especially in resource-constrained environments, where competing priorities and fiscal space may limit the ability to adequately fund healthcare initiatives.

International development assistance and foreign aid play an extremely important role in supplementing domestic resources and supporting vaccine access initiatives in the Global South. However, the predictability and sustainability of such funding streams have often been at issue, as fluctuations in aid flows and changes in priorities from donors could upset running programs and initiatives. For such challenges, calls have been made for greater coordination and harmonization of international development assistance, with the same calling for long-term, multi-year funding commitments from donor countries and organizations.[78] There are further efforts that have to do with strengthening domestic resource mobilization by improving tax collection, managing public finances better, and attempting to curtail illicit financial flows so as to increase the fiscal capacity of developing and least-developed countries to finance their health priorities, including vaccine access and distribution programs.

11.3 Public-Private Partnerships (PPP) and Blended Finance

Addressing the complex challenges of vaccine access and overcoming barriers to intellectual property often requires combined efforts by both public and private sector actors. Public-private partnerships are blended finance models that create a collaborative approach, drawing on the strengths and resources of different stakeholders, including governments, international organizations, philanthropic foundations, and the private sector.[79] Under this context, PPPs for vaccine access may take different forms, such as PDPs—public-private partnerships formed to research, develop, and produce vaccine candidates and other medical countermeasures. These partnerships could bridge these gaps in funding, technical competence, and manufacturing capacity while incentivizing the outputs to be accessible and affordable for the Global South.

Blended finance models engage the strategic use of development finance and philanthropic funds in mobilizing private capital for both the project or initiative that may build financial returns and demonstrate positive social or environmental impact. In the context of vaccine access, blended finance can be applied to mobilize private investment in the development of new vaccines, the expansion of manufacturing facilities, or the improvement of distribution and delivery systems in developing and least-developed countries.

For instance, Global Health Investment Fund (GHIF) is a social investment fund into blended finance for late-stage vaccines, drugs, and diagnostic products for diseases of the Global South. By pooling catalytic capital of the governments, philanthropic organizations, and development finance institutions, the GHIF seeks to motivate and de-risk investments from the private sector in critical areas. However, the successful implementation of PPPs and blended finance models depends on careful structuring, strong governance frameworks, and clarity of alignment of interest and incentives of all stakeholders involved.[80] Transparency, accountability, and the fair distribution of risks and rewards must be observed in order to build trust and sustained commitment among all parties involved.

11.4 Global Initiatives and Funding Mechanisms

Besides national and regional efforts, global initiatives and funding mechanisms also play a critical role in mobilizing resources and coordinating efforts to address the challenges of vaccine access and distribution in the Global South. These efforts, to a great extent, are often the result of collaboration among multiple stakeholders, including governments, international organizations, philanthropic foundations, and the private sector. One example of a leading global initiative is Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance. Gavi is a public-private global partnership whose task is to increase the access to immunization in poor countries. Gavi, therefore, mobilizes funding from donor governments, private sector companies, and other partners to support the procurement and delivery of vaccines, strengthen health care systems, and foster market shaping efforts for the availability of affordable and sustainable vaccine supplies. Another significant global initiative is the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria. This provides financial support to the prevention, treatment, and care of the three infectious diseases, including the procurement and distribution of essential vaccines and medical supplies. The Global Fund, therefore, relies on donations from donor governments, private foundations, and the private sector to support its grant-making activities and health system strengthening efforts in developing countries. Several global funding mechanisms and initiatives have also emerged with the COVID-19 pandemic, all of which have the intention of accelerating the development, production, and fair and equitable distribution of vaccines and treatments. ACT Accelerator—convened by the WHO, the European Commission, and various other partners—represents a global collaboration that facilitates rapid development and fair and equitable access to COVID-19 diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines, particularly for low- and middle-income countries.

Though these international efforts and financing mechanisms have been vital in mobilizing resources and coordinating actions, they often face challenges related to securing sustainable and predictable funding streams, ensuring effective governance and accountability, and navigating the complex web of intellectual property rights and regulatory frameworks, which can be barriers to access to vaccines and medical technologies in the Global South. Continued coordination, collaboration, and a shared commitment by all stakeholders are required to overcome these challenges and guarantee that global funding mechanisms enable the development, procurement, and distribution of life-saving vaccines and medical countermeasures—particularly in resource-constrained settings..

12 Ethical Considerations and Human Rights Implications

The issue of reconciling intellectual property rights with access to vaccines and essential medicines is not merely a matter of legal and economic considerations but also carries profound ethical and human rights implications. It raises fundamental questions about the right to health, the principles of global justice and equity, and the need to balance competing interests and priorities.

12.1 The Right to Health and Access to Essential Medicines

The right to health is a basic human right; it is considered fundamental by international treaties and conventions, such as the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. This includes not only timely and appropriate healthcare services but also the underlying determinants of health, such as access to essential medicines and vaccines. The inability to avail of life-saving medical technologies, either as a result of intellectual property barriers, high costs, or lack of accessibility, may be viewed as a violation of this basic human right. It perpetuates health inequities and disproportionately impacts the most vulnerable populations, particularly those living in developing and least-developed countries.[81]

Those in favor of widening access to critical medicines argue that these are not more important than the basic human right to health, especially if there are emergencies in public health or alarming burdens of diseases and urgent interventions are required. They justify that the protection of intellectual property rights be counterpoised with the ethical mandate to protect human life and foster the welfare of all people, whatever their economic status or geographical location may be.

At the same time, the protection granted to intellectual property rights is necessary in order to protect innovation and investment in the manufacture of new medical technologies, hence the realization of the right to health in the long term. They argue that intellectual property rights weakening would undermine the very incentives that spur medical progress and might finally lead to a lack of new treatments and solutions, thus depressing efforts toward the betterment of global health.[82]

12.2 Ethical Frameworks for Balancing IP and Public Health

Several ethical frameworks have been mooted with the view of guiding the decision-making process and trying to find a balance between intellectual property rights and public health priorities, given the intricate and often conflicting interests.

One of the frameworks is that of utilitarianism, which focuses on increasing the utility of all society and the greatest number of people. In doing so, from this perspective, policies and decisions shall be judged against the ability of producing the most desirable outcome for the most people. With regard to vaccine access, this could mean balancing the potential benefits of increased access against the potential risks of undermining innovation incentives.

Another ethical framework is centered on the principles of human rights and social justice. This view holds that access to essential medicines and life-saving technologies should be considered a basic human right, and that policies should be as such to protect this right above all for the most vulnerable and underserved populations. Advocates of this framework state that IP rights do not supersede the right to health and alternative incentive mechanisms for innovation must be explored to attain equitable access to medical technologies.

Another important contribution to ethical concerns about vaccine access comes from the principle of global justice and equity. From this view, health inequities between countries and populations are mainly based on historic, social, and economic injustices; reducing these requires a collective commitment to fairness and equity at the global level. From this viewpoint, the policies and initiatives that will increase vaccine access in the Global South should be considered not as an act of charity or even assistance, per se, but rather as a way of setting straight some long-standing inequities so that everyone has an equal opportunity to live a healthy and meaningful life.

12.3 The Principle of Global Justice and Equity

The principle of global justice and equity forms the very core of ethical considerations in vaccine access and reconciliation of intellectual property rights with public health priorities. This principle affirms that health inequities among nations and populations are greatly a product of historical, social, and economic injustices and that their remedial intervention requires a unified effort to enhance fairness and equity across the globe. Advocates of this principle say that huge disparities in access to life-saving health technologies, including vaccines, between developed and developing nations, reflect longstanding global inequities and power imbalances. These are now further propagated by the present regime of intellectual property rights, with the commercial interests of developed nations and multinational corporations getting more protection than is required by urgent public health needs in the Global South. Seen in this light, equitable access to vaccines and other essential medicines is not an exercise in benevolence or aid but one in redress of historical wrongs and fair play in ensuring that all people, irrespective of their geographical locations or socioeconomic status, have an equal opportunity to lead healthy lives. This forms a moral duty born out of the principles of human dignity, equality, and the value placed on human lives as equal.[83] Moreover, the principle of global justice and equity takes on board the fact that health disparities and inequities in access to medical technologies have wider implications transcending individual welfare. This includes the perpetuation of poverty cycles, undermining of economic development, and encouragement of social and political instability, which endangers the promises of global sustainable development and peace.

An examination of the present IP rights regime and its effect on the Global South is fundamentally re-examined by proponents of global justice and equity. They advocate for policies and activities that will bridge the gap in the equitable distribution of medical resources, the diffusion of knowledge and technologies to developing nations, and empowering the developing world to create their own sustainable health systems and manufacturing capacity. This may involve exploring different incentive models for innovation that decouple the cost of research and development from the price of medical products, stimulating collaborative efforts in research and knowledge-sharing platforms, and building up international cooperation and solidarity to rise to global health challenges collectively.

12.4 Incorporating Ethical Principles into Policy Decisions

Ethical considerations and principles do provide the very crucial framework within which the intricate trade-offs and their implications relating to vaccine access and intellectual property rights could be judged. But to date, it is very difficult to convert these principles into concrete policy decisions. Decision-makers face a tough task negotiating through a complex web of competitive interest, stakeholder viewpoints, and practical constraints while using ethical principles to enhance the common good. The adoption of deliberative and inclusive decision-making processes is one of the approaches toward incorporating ethical principles into policy decisions. Such processes would encourage open and transparent dialogues with a broad range of stakeholders, including civil society representatives, healthcare professionals, bioethicists, and representatives from the affected communities.[84] By stimulating constructive debates and encompassing diverse views, policymakers are bound to gain a much deeper understanding of the ethical consequences of their decisions and seek to arrive at answers that are balanced and consider ethical principles in the face of pragmatic realities.

Second is the development of ethical guidelines and frameworks better fitted for the problems of vaccine access and intellectual property rights. Such guidelines could be developed by the joint work of bioethicists, legal experts, public health specialists, and representatives from the pharmaceutical industry and international organizations. Guidelines developed through multi-stakeholder collaboration could be helpful in making decisions in a structured and principled way, integrating ethical considerations coherently into the policy process.

Other possible interventions that policymakers could consider involve the adoption of ethical impact assessments or human rights impact assessments as part of policy formulation and implementation. Ethical or human rights impact assessments would examine the potential ethical and human rights effects of proposed policies or actions, identify possible risks or inadvertent effects, and suggest mitigation measures or alternative actions that better correspond to ethical principles and human rights standards.

Ultimately, ethical principles embedded in policy decisions will require a commitment to transparency, accountability, and a willingness to make difficult but necessary trade-offs and compromises. It also calls for continuing dialogue, capacity-building, and ethical literacy among the policy-maker, stakeholders, and society. Ethical consideration in decision-making guarantees policies that not only ensure fair access to life-saving medical technologies but also take into account the valid interests of the involved parties and ensure protection of basic human rights and ethical standards.[85]

13 The Intersection of IP, Access, and Other Global Challenges

The issues of intellectual property rights, access to vaccines and essential medicines, and global health inequity are not stand-alone problems. They are all inextricably linked to and influenced by other pressing global challenges: climate change, food security, the digital divide. These are the interdependent issues that, for a holistic and integrated approach, make attempts toward solutions that simultaneously address a number of priorities.[86]

13.1 Climate Change and Environmental Sustainability

Climate change stands as one of the greatest threats to human life, amid other issues that have far-reaching implications for global health, food security, and economic stability. The impacts of climate change—climate warming, extreme weather events, and environmental degradation—are likely to escalate the existing health challenges and create new ones, especially in the poorer parts of the world. The intersection that exists between climate change, intellectual property rights, and access to medical technologies is multi-dimensional. On the one hand, the development and deployment of green technologies, including renewable energy sources and sustainable practices in agriculture, can play a key role in reducing the ill-effects of climate change and initiating a process of environmental sustainability.[87] However, the intellectual property rights accruable over these technologies could actually act as barriers to the wide-scale diffusion of technologies, especially in developing and least-developed countries where financial resources and technological capabilities are generally low.

On the other hand, the impacts of climate change, such as rising vector-borne diseases, water scarcity, and food insecurity, might not only exacerbate the prevailing health challenges, but also spur more demand for vaccines, medicines, and other medical interventions. With higher demand, potential disruptions in supply chains and manufacturing processes due to climate-related disasters will strain further the already limited resources and capacities of healthcare systems in the Global South.

The junctures between climate change, intellectual property rights, and access to medical technologies require a manifold response. This may include mechanisms for technology transfer and knowledge-sharing to diffuse green technologies to developing countries, while ensuring that intellectual property does not stand in the way of gaining access to the necessary medical countermeasures for addressing the health effects of climate change. Further efforts in strengthening the resilience of healthcare systems and their associated supply chains against climate-related disruptions can also be enhanced in international cooperation and resource mobilization.

13.2 Food Security and Agricultural Innovation

Food security is a fundamental right of human beings and an integral part of global health and well-being. However, this remains one of the major challenges in the world, with problems persisting as the global population increases, the climate changes, and the environment deteriorates. Intellectual property rights play a pivotal role in the agricultural sector, precisely in the development, dissemination, and adoption of innovative technologies and practices with a view to improving crop yields, improving resilience against environmental stresses, and increasing nutritional value. However, the subject of intellectual property rights protection in agricultural innovation has long been a thorny issue—especially concerning the potential impact it might have on smallholder farmers, traditional farming practices, and developing countries’ ability to meet their food security obligations. The patenting of genetically modified organisms (GMOs), plant varieties, and agricultural biotechnologies has become a hotly contested issue where those for the innovations argue that these are absolutely necessary for increasing food production and guaranteeing global food security, while those against argue there is the risk of environmental hazard, the dominance of multinational corporations, and the erosion of traditional farming practices and seed sovereignty. Additionally, intellectual property rights applied within agriculture may have implications in terms of access to essential medicines and vaccines.[88] For instance, the patenting of medicinal plants or traditional knowledge over their use may have the potential to limit the accessibility of these resources for pharmaceutical research and development, especially in resource-constrained settings where traditional medicine is an integral part of health care.

A nuanced approach, attuned to balancing the need for encouragement of innovation with equitable access and sustainable agriculture, is required to address the interplay of intellectual property rights, food security, and access to medical technologies. Another aspect might be the exploration of alternative incentive models, such as prize funds or open-source platforms, in order to encourage the development and dissemination of agricultural technologies that are accessible and affordable to smallholder farmers and developing countries. Moreover, traditional agricultural knowledge and practices, as well as the sustainable use of genetic resources, shall be conserved and enhanced.[89] It may include strengthening recognition and protection under existing intellectual property frameworks or the exploration of alternative systems for sharing and access to knowledge with benefit-sharing.

13.3 Digital Divide and Access to Information

The digital divide, characterized by the differences in access to information and communication technologies between developed and developing countries, has far-reaching consequences in global health, education, and economic development. In the context of intellectual property rights and access to medical technologies, the digital divide has the potential to enhance already existing inequalities and create new barriers for knowledge-sharing and technology transfer.

On one hand, digital technologies and the internet ease the spread of scientific knowledge and the results of scientific research, thus making cooperation on a global scale faster and speeding up the tempo of innovation.[90] However, restricted access to these digital resources and technologies within the Global South often precludes the ability of researchers, health professionals, and policy managers from accessing essential information required in contributing to the expansion of medical knowledge.

The digital divide is also likely to hinder the capacity and position of the developing world to understand and make maximum use of the opportunities presented by intellectual property. Indeed, the right to information through online patent databases, legal resources, and information-sharing platforms is very important for the purpose of determining the existence of intellectual property rights, determining patentability, and further framing strategies for technology transfer or compulsory licensing. Poor digital infrastructure, together with a lack of connectivity, tends to create barriers in accessing and making use of such resources, which, in turn, widens the knowledge and capacity gaps between the developed and developing countries.

Reducing the digital divide and promoting universal access to information and digital technologies can empower the Global South in the fields of health, innovation, and management of intellectual property. This could include investment in digital infrastructure, increasing connectivity to the internet, and advocacy for skills in and the use of digital literacy, especially in rural and marginalized communities.

Further, open-access platforms and repositories could be created for the sharing of scientific knowledge, research data, and intellectual property information to bridge the digital divide and democratize the access to critical resources. Open-source drug discovery platforms, crowdsourced research collaborations, and clinical trial data sharing can help in knowledge transfer and fair access to medical innovations.

13.4 Addressing Intersecting Challenges through Holistic Approaches

Interconnected global challenges, such as climate change, food security, digital divide, and access to medical technologies, require holistic and integrated approaches to address these complex issues. When these matters are not considered interlinked, but as separate occurrences, segmented and uncoordinated attempts at solving these problems may not lead to long-term and sustainable solutions. A holistic approach to dealing with these cross-cutting challenges requires a systems thinking paradigm and a recognition of the intricate web of relationships and feedback loops that exist between the various sectors and domains. This involves moving across traditional disciplinary lines and facilitating cross-sectoral collaborations of experts, policymakers, and stakeholders from various fields, including healthcare, agriculture, environmental science, technology, and intellectual property rights. One possible framework through which a holistic approach can be integrated is by using the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) as a guiding principle. The SDGs, adopted by the United Nations in 2015, provide a comprehensive and integrated plan that would address various global problems regarding health, poverty, inequality, climate action, and sustainable economic growth.[91] Through the recognition of the interrelations between goals, and prioritizing integrated strategies that would address numerous objectives simultaneously, the global community can make progress in achieving sustainable and equitable development. For instance, sustainable agriculture and food security can be integrated through SDG 2 with actions that address climate change (SDG 13) and promote responsible consumption and production (SDG 12). Similar strategies can be done in increasing access to clean and affordable energy under SDG 7, coupled with the need to enhance access to essential health services under SDG 3 and reduce inequalities under SDG 10. Through the adoption of a holistic approach that captures synergies between these interconnected goals, the global community will maximize impact and effectiveness.

Moreover, conquering global challenges requires the active involvement and participation of multi-stakeholders in the process, inclusive of governments, international organizations, civil society, academia, and the private sector. The multi-stakeholder partnerships and joint work that will leverage the different areas of knowledge, resource, and expertise of many actors for the development of innovative solutions and driving transformative change. Ultimately, the comprehensive approach towards issues at the juncture of intellectual property rights, access to medical technologies, and other global challenges calls for a change in mindset and commitment to holistic integrated approaches. In recognizing the links between these issues and embracing systems thinking, the global community is capable of devising more effective and sustainable solutions that work for equal access, stimulate innovation, and result in the general well-being of humanity and the planet.

Bibliography

Achamkulangare G, ‘An Analysis of the Resource Mobilization Function within the UNITED NATIONS SYSTEM’ (2014) https://www.un.org/en/ecosoc/qcpr/pdf/jiu_report-analysis_of_resource_mobilization.pdf

Balasubramaniam K, ‘Access to Essential Medicines as a Human Right ’ (Health Action International 2012) https://haiweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Access-to-essential-medicines-as-a-human-right.pdf

Becker R, ‘Introductory Note’ (2023) https://health.ec.europa.eu/document/download/a4e50eb2-5a3e-4980-a23b-92522f8517a2_en?filename=mp_20231213_co01_en.pdf&prefLang=sl

Bio, ‘The Trans-Pacific Partnership and Innovation in the Bioeconomy: The Need for 12 Years of Data Protection for Biologics’ https://www.bio.org/sites/default/files/legacy/bioorg/docs/TPP%20White%20Paper%20_2_.pdf

Bond EW and Saggi K, ‘Compulsory Licensing, Price Controls, and Access to Patented Foreign Products’ (2014) 109 Journal of Development Economics 217 https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/mdocs/en/wipo_ip_econ_ge_4_12/wipo_ip_econ_ge_4_12_ref_saggi.pdf

Boschiero N, ‘Intellectual Property Rights and Public Health’ (2017) https://d1vbhhqv6ow083.cloudfront.net/contributi/Boschiero.2_Intellectual.pdf

Centre for WTO Studies , ‘Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)’ (16 November 2010) https://wtocentre.iift.ac.in/FAQ/english/TRIPS.pdf

Cockburn I, ‘THE ECONOMICS of INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS and PHARMACEUTICALS: CHALLENGES and OPPORTUNITIES for ECONOMIC RESEARCH’ https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_1012-chapter5.pdf

Congressional Research Service, ‘Intellectual Property Rights and International Trade’ (2020) https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL34292

Congressional Research Service, ‘World Trade Organization: “TRIPS Waiver” for COVID-19 Vaccines’ (2022) https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R47231/2

Correa C and Syam N, ‘The WTO TRIPS Decision on COVID-19 Vaccines: What Is Needed to Implement It?’ (2022) https://www.southcentre.int/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/RP169_The-WTO-TRIPS-Decision-on-COVID-19-Vaccines_EN.pdf

Correa C, ‘The Bolar Exception: Legislative Models and Drafting Options’ (2016) https://www.southcentre.int/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/RP66_The-Bolar-Exception_EN1.pdf

Cullet P, ‘Food Security and Intellectual Property Rights in Developing Countries’ (2003) https://ielrc.org/content/w0303.pdf

Ehsassi A, ‘OVERCOMING the BARRIERS to GLOBAL VACCINE EQUITY and ENDING the PANDEMIC Report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development’ (2022) https://www.ourcommons.ca/Content/Committee/441/FAAE/Reports/RP11968481/faaerp05/faaerp05-e.pdf

Ellis J, ‘Supporting Innovation in Next-Generation Medicines’ (www.wipo.intJune 2017) https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2017/03/article_0007.html

Eugui D, ‘Center for International Environmental Law What Agenda for the Review of TRIPS?: A Sustainable Development Perspective’ https://www.ciel.org/Publications/AgendaTrips_Summer02.pdf

European Parliament , ‘Improving Access to Medicines and Promoting Pharmaceutical Innovation’ (2023) https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2023/753166/EPRS_STU(2023)753166_EN.pdf

European Parliament , ‘The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence: Issues and Initiatives’ (2020) https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2020/634452/EPRS_STU(2020)634452_EN.pdf

FAO, ‘Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights: Plant Varieties and Biodiversity, Traditional Knowledge and Benefit-Sharing’ https://www.fao.org/4/y4852e/y4852e08.pdf

Gai P, Kemp M and Serrano A, ‘Regulatory Complexity and the Quest for Robust Regulation’ (2019) https://www.esrb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/asc/esrb.asc190604_8_regulatorycomplexityquestrobustregulation~e63a7136c7.en.pdf

GCT, ‘Chapter 12 Protection of Intellectual Property PROTECTION of INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OVERVIEW of RULES’ https://www.meti.go.jp/english/report/downloadfiles/gCT0112e.pdf

Gurgula O, ‘Compulsory Licensing v the IP Waiver: What Is the Best Way to End the COVID-19 Pandemic?’ [2021] SSRN Electronic Journal https://www.southcentre.int/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/PB104_Compulsory-licensing-vs.-the-IP-waiver_EN-2.pdf

Health Action International , ‘TRIPS FLEXIBILITIES and ACCESS to MEDICINES: A European Approach’ (2020). https://haiweb.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/06/HAI-TRIPS-Brochure.pdf

Hoekman BM, Maskus KE and Saggi K, ‘Transfer of Technology to Developing Countries: Unilateral and Multilateral Policy Options’ (2005) 33 World Development 1587 https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/737591468762912473/pdf/wps3332.pdf

IFPMA, ‘Encouraging Development of New Medicines’ (2011) https://www.ifpma.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/01/i2023_IFPMA_2011_Data_Exclusivity__En_Web.pdf

IIFT, ‘FOCUS WTO FOCUS WTO INDIAN INSTITUTE of FOREIGN TRADE’ (2010) https://cc.iift.ac.in/research/Docs/Papers/WTO/2010/5.pdf

Japan Patent Office , ‘Japan Patent Office Introduction to TRIPs Agreement’ (2008) https://www.jpo.go.jp/e/news/kokusai/developing/training/textbook/document/index/TRIPs_Agreement.pdf

Jessyca Van Weelde and others, ‘Reflection on the Implementation of Decision on Implementation of Article 66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement: Incentive for Technology Transfer to Least-Developed Countries’ [2023] Social Science Research Network https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4623380

JHG, ‘THE TRIPS AGREEMENT and COMPULSORY LICENSING’ (www.jogh.org) https://www.jogh.org/documents/issue202001/jogh-10-010358.htm

Kohler J, Wong A and Tailor L, ‘Improving Access to COVID-19 Vaccines: An Analysis of TRIPS Waiver Discourse among WTO Members, Civil Society Organizations, and Pharmaceutical Industry Stakeholders’ (2022) 24 Health and human rights 159 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9790937/#:~:text=In%20October%202020%2C%20a%20wholesale

Kuanpoth J, ‘Compulsory Licences: Law and Practice in Thailand’ [2014] MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law 61 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7122632/

LawNet, ‘Para 6 Solution of the Doha Declaration, Article 30 of TRIPS and Non-Prohibition of Exports under the TRIPS Agreement’ (LawNet) https://www.lawnet.gov.lk/para-6-solution-of-the-doha-declaration-article-30-of-trips-and-non-prohibition-of-exports-under-the-trips-agreement/

Lívia R and Batista, ‘The Intersection between Intellectual Property, Public Health and Access to Climate-Related Technologies’ (2023) https://www.southcentre.int/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/RP188_The-Intersection-Between-Intellectual-Property-Public-Health-and-Access-to-Climate-Related-Technologies_EN.pdf

M. Correa C, ‘5 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS and the USE of COMPULSORY LICENSES: OPTIONS for DEVELOPING COUNTRIES SOUTH CENTRE’ (1999) https://www.iatp.org/sites/default/files/Intellectual_Property_Rights_and_the_Use_of_Co.pdf

Medecins Sans Frontieres, ‘WTO COVID-19 TRIPS Waiver Proposal’ (2020) https://msfaccess.org/sites/default/files/2020-12/COVID_TechBrief_MSF_AC_IP_TRIPSWaiverMythsRealities_ENG_Dec2020.pdf

MFS, ‘From TRIPS to PPR: Addressing Intellectual Property Barriers on Lifesaving Medical Products Challenges and Shortcomings in Addressing Public Health Issues Using Existing International IP Rules’ (2023) https://msfaccess.org/sites/default/files/2023-09/IP_MSF-AC_TechBrief_PPR%20IP%20Recommendations_Final_15.9.2023_ENG_3.pdf

Motari M and others, ‘The Role of Intellectual Property Rights on Access to Medicines in the WHO African Region: 25 Years after the TRIPS Agreement’ (2021) 21 BMC Public Health https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7951129/

MSF, ‘COMPULSORY LICENSES, the TRIPS WAIVER and ACCESS to COVID-19 MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES’ (2021) https://msfaccess.org/sites/default/files/2021-05/COVID_TechBrief_MSF_AC_IP_CompulsoryLicensesTRIPSWaiver_ENG_21May2021_0.pdf

OECD, ‘Intellectual Property Rights in International Investment Agreements’ [2010] OECD Working Papers on International Investment http://www.oecd.org/daf/inv/investment-policy/WP-2010_1.pdf

Park S-P and others, ‘Designing the Global Vaccine Supply Chain: Balancing Intellectual Property Rights with Post COVID-19 Vaccine Equity’ (2023) 8 BMJ Global Health. https://gh.bmj.com/content/bmjgh/8/11/e013669.full.pdf

Partnership Brokers Association , ‘Stories from the Frontline of Public Private Partnerships’ (2024). https://partnershipbrokers.org/w/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Stories-from-the-frontline-of-Public-Private-Partnerships-May-2024.pdf

Privor-Dumm L and others, ‘Vaccine Access, Equity and Justice: COVID-19 Vaccines and Vaccination’ (2023) 8 BMJ Global Health. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10254992/

Rajec S, ‘Patent Term Tailoring ’ (2024) https://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=11524&context=ilj

Said E, ‘A Policy Guide Public Health Related TRIPS-plus Provisions in Bilateral Trade Agreements’ (2010) https://applications.emro.who.int/dsaf/dsa1081.pdf

Solovy E and Raju D, ‘Recent Threats to Global Trade Secret Protection: Why Compulsory Licensing Is Not (and Should Not Be) a Viable Legal Option CENTER for INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY X INNOVATION POLICY’ (2021) https://cip2.gmu.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/31/2021/10/GMU-CIP2-Solovy-Raju-1021-WEB.pdf

TRIPATHI J, ‘The TRIPS Agreement and Public Health: Understanding the Reform Agenda’ (orfonline.org2021) https://www.orfonline.org/public/uploads/posts/pdf/20230419204633.pdf

UNAIDS, ‘Questions & Answers’ (2016) 4 International Journal of Dental Hygiene 50. https://www.unaids.org/sites/default/files/media_asset/JC2820_en.pdf

UNCTAD, ‘STUDIES in TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER Selected Cases from Argentina, China, South Africa and Taiwan Province of China’ (2014) https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/dtlstict2013d7_en.pdf

UNDP, ‘Inequality in Access to Essential Health and Medicine: COVID-19 Vaccines’ (2021) https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/2023-02/UNDP-Inequality-in-Access-to-Essential-Health-and-Medicine-COVID19-Vaccines-2021.pdf

UNDP, ‘The TRIPS AgReemenT and AcceSS to ARVs’ (2006) https://www.undp.org/sites/g/files/zskgke326/files/publications/5.pdf

UNDP, UNAIDS, ‘THE POTENTIAL IMPACT of FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS on PUBLIC HEALTH’ (2012) https://www.unaids.org/sites/default/files/media_asset/JC2349_Issue_Brief_Free-Trade-Agreements_en_0.pdf

United Nations, ‘Sustainable Development Goals: 17 Goals to Transform Our World’ (United Nations2022) https://www.un.org/en/exhibits/page/sdgs-17-goals-transform-world

United Nations, ‘The International Forum for Social Development United Nations’ (2006) https://www.un.org/esa/socdev/documents/ifsd/SocialJustice.pdf

UNU Wider, ‘UNU-WIDER : Research Brief : The Rise of Social Protection in the Global South – the Role of Foreign Aid’ (www.wider.unu.edu2023) https://www.wider.unu.edu/sites/default/files/Publications/Research-brief/PDF/RB2023-3-rise-social-protection-global-south.pdf

Urias E and Ramani SV, ‘Access to Medicines after TRIPS: Is Compulsory Licensing an Effective Mechanism to Lower Drug Prices? A Review of the Existing Evidence’ (2020) 3 Journal of International Business Policy https://dx.doi.org/10.1057%2Fs42214-020-00068-4

Volman L, ‘The TRIPS Article 31 Tug of War: Developing Country Compulsory Licensing of Pharmaceutical Patents and Developed Country Retaliation ’ (Osf.io2015) https://osf.io/6cxaj/download

WHO, ‘Data Exclusivity and Other “Trips-Plus” Measures’ https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/272979/Data-exclusivity.pdf?sequence=1#:~:text=Requirements%20to%20offer%20exclusive%20rights,plus%E2%80%9D%20requirements%20are%20given%20below.

WHO, ‘Public Health Protection in Patent Laws: Selected Provisions’ (2017) https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/272976/Public-health-protection.pdf?sequence=1

WHO, ‘Regional Committee for the Eastern Mediterranean Sixty-Seventh Session Provisional Agenda Item 4(A)’ (2020) https://applications.emro.who.int/docs/EMRC676-eng.pdf?ua=1

WHO, ‘TRIPS, Intellectual Property Rights and Access to Medicinesa,B’ https://iris.who.int/bitstream/handle/10665/258915/TRIPS.pdf?sequence=1

WHO, ‘Using TRIPS Flexibilities to Improve Access to HIV Treatment’ https://www.unaids.org/sites/default/files/media_asset/JC2049_PolicyBrief_TRIPS_en_1.pdf

WHO, ‘Western Pacific Regional Action Agenda on Regulatory Strengthening, Convergence and Cooperation for Medicines and the Health Workforce’ (2019) https://iris.who.int/rest/bitstreams/1276885/retrieve

WIPO, ‘Collaboration in Intellectual Property: An Overview’ (Wipo.int2020) https://www.wipo.int/wipo_magazine/en/2012/06/article_0008.html

WIPO, ‘Implications of the TRIPS Agreement on Treaties Administered by WIPO Treaties’ (1996) https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_464.pdf

WIPO, ‘Incentives in Technology Transfer a Guide to Encourage, Recognize and Reward Researchers and Professionals’ (2024) https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo-pub-2002-en-incentives-in-technology-transfer.pdf

WIPO, ‘NATIONAL WORKSHOP on ENFORCEMENT of INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS for JUDGES’ (Wipo.int2024) https://www.wipo.int/dcea/en/meetings/2012/albania/national_workshop_for_judges_on_enforcement/files/Ficsor_Tirana_judges1.pptx

WIPO, ‘WIPO Lex’ (www.wipo.int23 January 2017) https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/500864

WIPO, ‘WIPO Sub-Regional Workshop on Patent Policy and Its Legislative Implementation’ (2013). https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/patent_policy/en/wipo_ip_skb_13/wipo_ip_skb_13_t10.pdf

Woods N and others, ‘O c c a S I O N a L PA P E R 2 0 1 3 / 0 9 Human Development Report Office Human Development Report Office United NationsDevelopment Programme United NationsDevelopment Programme Transforming Global Governance for the 21st Century’ (2013) https://hdr.undp.org/system/files/documents/hdro1309woods.pdf

World Bank , ‘Intellectual Property Rights Can Promote Development’ https://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/285571468337817024/310436360_20050012013328/additional/multi0page.pdf

World Bank , ‘Saving the Lives of the Most Vulnerable – with Financial Returns’ (2017) https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/ru/959631487668386111/pdf/GHIF-An-Innovative-Funding-Structure-Tackles-Neglected-Diseases-Around-the-World.pdf

World Economic Forum , ‘Regionalized Vaccine Manufacturing Collaborative a Framework for Enhancing Vaccine Access through Regionalized Manufacturing Ecosystems’ (2024) https://www3.weforum.org/docs/WEF_Regionalized_Vaccine_Manufacturing_Collaborative_2024.pdf

World Trade Law, ‘AGREEMENT on TRADE-RELATED ASPECTS of INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS’ https://www.worldtradelaw.net/document.php?id=uragreements/tripsagreement.pdf&mode=download

World Trade Organization, ‘Control of Anti-Competitive Practices in Contractual Licences PART III ENFORCEMENT of INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS 1. General Obligations 2. Civil and Administrative Procedures and Remedies 3. Provisional Measures 4. Special Requirements Related to Border’ (1994) https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips.pdf

WTO, ‘Canada-Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products, Report of the Panel, WTO, WT/DS114/R (2000)’ https://unctad.org/ippcaselaw/sites/default/files/ippcaselaw/2020-12/WTO%20Canada%20pharmaceuticals.pdf

WTO, ‘India -Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical Products Complaint by the European Communities and Their Member States Report of the Panel’ (1998) https://www.globalhealthrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/03/India-Patent-Protection-for-Pharmaceutical-and-Agricultural-Products.pdf

WTO, ‘Intersections between Public Health, Intellectual Property and Trade Promoting Access to Medical Technologies and Innovation SECOND EDITION’ (2020) https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/essential-medicines/intellectual-property/978-92-4-000826-7-extract.pdf?sfvrsn=1325fb86_2&download=true

WTO, ‘REPORT of the WORKSHOP on DIFFERENTIAL PRICING and FINANCING of ESSENTIAL DRUGS’ (2001) https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/hosbjor_report_e.pdf

Yearick A, ‘The Power of a Patent: The Impact of Intellectual Property Protections in the F Otections in the Free Trade Area of the Americas Agr Ea of the Americas Agreement on Eement on the Plight of Prescription Drug Availability and Affordability in Central and South America ’ (September 2004) https://digitalcommons.pace.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1171&context=pilr

York N, ‘Facilitating Transfer of Technology to Developing Countries: A Survey of Home-Country Measures UNITED NATIONS’ (2004) https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/iteipc20045_en.pdf

York N, ‘UNCTAD/ITE/1 UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE on TRADE and DEVELOPMENT Geneva the TRIPS Agreement and Developing Countries UNITED NATIONS’ (1996) https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/ite1_en.pdf

[1] World Trade Organization, ‘Control of Anti-Competitive Practices in Contractual Licences PART III ENFORCEMENT of INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS 1. General Obligations 2. Civil and Administrative Procedures and Remedies 3. Provisional Measures 4. Special Requirements Related to Border’ (1994).

[2] New York, ‘UNCTAD/ITE/1 UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE on TRADE and DEVELOPMENT Geneva the TRIPS Agreement and Developing Countries UNITED NATIONS’ (1996)

[3] WIPO, ‘WIPO Sub-Regional Workshop on Patent Policy and Its Legislative Implementation’(2013).

[4] Marion Motari and others, ‘The Role of Intellectual Property Rights on Access to Medicines in the WHO African Region: 25 Years after the TRIPS Agreement’ (2021) 21 BMC Public Health.

[5] Iain Cockburn, ‘THE ECONOMICS of INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS and PHARMACEUTICALS: CHALLENGES and OPPORTUNITIES for ECONOMIC RESEARCH’.

[6] FAO, ‘Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights: Plant Varieties and Biodiversity, Traditional Knowledge and Benefit-Sharing’

[7] ‘WTO, ‘Canada-Patent Protection of Pharmaceutical Products, Report of the Panel, WTO, WT/DS114/R (2000)’

[8] LawNet‘Para 6 Solution of the Doha Declaration, Article 30 of TRIPS and Non-Prohibition of Exports under the TRIPS Agreement’ (LawNet).

[9] ‘WTO, ‘India -Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical Products Complaint by the European Communities and Their Member States Report of the Panel’ (1998)

[10] UNDP, ‘The TRIPS AgReemenT and AcceSS to ARVs’ (2006).

[11] Carlos M. Correa, ‘5 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS and the USE of COMPULSORY LICENSES: OPTIONS for DEVELOPING COUNTRIES SOUTH CENTRE’ (1999).

[12] Sarah Rajec , ‘Patent Term Tailoring ’ (2024).

[13] WHO, ‘TRIPS, Intellectual Property Rights and Access to Medicinesa,B.

[14] IIFT, ‘FOCUS WTO FOCUS WTO INDIAN INSTITUTE of FOREIGN TRADE’ (2010).

[15] Medecins Sans Frontieres, ‘WTO COVID-19 TRIPS Waiver Proposal’ (2020)

[16] WIPO, ‘WIPO Lex’ (www.wipo.int23 January 2017) <https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/text/500864>.

[17] Carlos Correa, ‘The Bolar Exception: Legislative Models and Drafting Options’ (2016).

[18] MSF, ‘COMPULSORY LICENSES, the TRIPS WAIVER and ACCESS to COVID-19 MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES’ (2021).

[19] David Eugui, ‘Center for International Environmental Law What Agenda for the Review of TRIPS?: A Sustainable Development Perspective.”

[20] Angelina Yearick, ‘The Power of a Patent: The Impact of Intellectual Property Protections in the F Otections in the Free Trade Area of the Americas Agr Ea of the Americas Agreement on Eement on the Plight of Prescription Drug Availability and Affordability in Central and South America ’ (September 2004)

[21] Eduardo Urias and Shyama V Ramani, ‘Access to Medicines after TRIPS: Is Compulsory Licensing an Effective Mechanism to Lower Drug Prices? A Review of the Existing Evidence’ (2020) 3 Journal of International Business Policy.

[22] MSF, ‘COMPULSORY LICENSES, the TRIPS WAIVER and ACCESS to COVID-19 MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES’ (2021)

[23] New York, ‘UNCTAD/ITE/1 UNITED NATIONS CONFERENCE on TRADE and DEVELOPMENT Geneva the TRIPS Agreement and Developing Countries UNITED NATIONS’ (1996).

[24] Eric W Bond and Kamal Saggi, ‘Compulsory Licensing, Price Controls, and Access to Patented Foreign Products’ (2014) 109 Journal of Development Economics 217.

[25] MSF, ‘From TRIPS to PPR: Addressing Intellectual Property Barriers on Lifesaving Medical Products Challenges and Shortcomings in Addressing Public Health Issues Using Existing International IP Rules’ (2023).

[26] Lucas Volman, ‘The TRIPS Article 31 Tug of War: Developing Country Compulsory Licensing of Pharmaceutical Patents and Developed Country Retaliation ’ (Osf.io2015).

[27] JHG, ‘THE TRIPS AGREEMENT and COMPULSORY LICENSING’ (www.jogh.org).

[28] Jakkrit Kuanpoth, ‘Compulsory Licences: Law and Practice in Thailand’ [2014] MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law 61.

[29] IFPMA, ‘Encouraging Development of New Medicines’ (2011).

[30] WHO, ‘Data Exclusivity and Other “Trips-Plus” Measures’.

[31] European Parliament , ‘Improving Access to Medicines and Promoting Pharmaceutical Innovation’ (2023).

[32] Bio, ‘The Trans-Pacific Partnership and Innovation in the Bioeconomy: The Need for 12 Years of Data Protection for Biologics’.

[33] Rainer Becker, ‘Introductory Note’ (2023).

[34] WHO, ‘Data Exclusivity and Other “Trips-Plus” Measures’

[35] Jack Ellis , ‘Supporting Innovation in Next-Generation Medicines’ (www.wipo.intJune 2017).

[36] UNCTAD, ‘STUDIES in TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER Selected Cases from Argentina, China, South Africa and Taiwan Province of China’ (2014).

[37] Jessyca Van Weelde and others, ‘Reflection on the Implementation of Decision on Implementation of Article 66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement: Incentive for Technology Transfer to Least-Developed Countries’ [2023] Social Science Research Network.

[38] Eric Solovy and Deepak Raju, ‘Recent Threats to Global Trade Secret Protection: Why Compulsory Licensing Is Not (and Should Not Be) a Viable Legal Option CENTER for INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY X INNOVATION POLICY’ (2021).

[39] Bernard M Hoekman, Keith E Maskus and Kamal Saggi, ‘Transfer of Technology to Developing Countries: Unilateral and Multilateral Policy Options’ (2005) 33 World Development 1587.

[40] Prasanna Gai, Malcolm Kemp and Antonio Serrano, ‘Regulatory Complexity and the Quest for Robust Regulation’ (2019).

[41] Centre for WTO Studies , ‘Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)’ (16 November 2010)

[42] WIPO, ‘Incentives in Technology Transfer a Guide to Encourage, Recognize and Reward Researchers and Professionals’ (2024).

[43] WHO, ‘COVID-19 Technology Access Pool’ (www.who.int2020).

[44] WTO, ‘Intersections between Public Health, Intellectual Property and Trade Promoting Access to Medical Technologies and Innovation SECOND EDITION’ (2020).

[45] Congressional Research Service, ‘Intellectual Property Rights and International Trade’ (2020).

[46] WIPO, ‘NATIONAL WORKSHOP on ENFORCEMENT of INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS for JUDGES’ (Wipo.int2024).

[47] WHO, ‘Public Health Protection in Patent Laws: Selected Provisions’ (2017).

[48] UNDP, UNAIDS, ‘THE POTENTIAL IMPACT of FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS on PUBLIC HEALTH’ (2012).

[49] UNDP, UNAIDS, ‘THE POTENTIAL IMPACT of FREE TRADE AGREEMENTS on PUBLIC HEALTH’ (2012)

[50] WHO, ‘Using TRIPS Flexibilities to Improve Access to HIV Treatment’.

[51] El Said, ‘A Policy Guide Public Health Related TRIPS-plus Provisions in Bilateral Trade Agreements’ (2010).

[52] WHO, ‘Using TRIPS Flexibilities to Improve Access to HIV Treatment’.

[53] GCT, ‘Chapter 12 Protection of Intellectual Property PROTECTION of INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY OVERVIEW of RULES’

[54] Health Action International , ‘TRIPS FLEXIBILITIES and ACCESS to MEDICINES: A European Approach’ (2020).

[55] WHO, ‘Regional Committee for the Eastern Mediterranean Sixty-Seventh Session Provisional Agenda Item 4(A)’ (2020).

[56] Partnership Brokers Association , ‘Stories from the Frontline of Public Private Partnerships’ (2024).

[57] World Bank , ‘Intellectual Property Rights Can Promote Development’.

[58] WIPO, ‘Collaboration in Intellectual Property: An Overview’ (Wipo.int2020).

[59] Ngaire Woods and others, ‘O c c a S I O N a L PA P E R 2 0 1 3 / 0 9 Human Development Report Office Human Development Report Office United NationsDevelopment Programme United NationsDevelopment Programme Transforming Global Governance for the 21st Century’ (2013).

[60] WHO, ‘Western Pacific Regional Action Agenda on Regulatory Strengthening, Convergence and Cooperation for Medicines and the Health Workforce’ (2019).

[61] Ali Ehsassi, ‘OVERCOMING the BARRIERS to GLOBAL VACCINE EQUITY and ENDING the PANDEMIC Report of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development’ (2022)

[62] Jillian Kohler, Anna Wong and Lauren Tailor, ‘Improving Access to COVID-19 Vaccines: An Analysis of TRIPS Waiver Discourse among WTO Members, Civil Society Organizations, and Pharmaceutical Industry Stakeholders’ (2022) 24 Health and human rights 159.

[63] Japan Patent Office , ‘Japan Patent Office Introduction to TRIPs Agreement’ (2008)

[64] Olga Gurgula, ‘Compulsory Licensing v the IP Waiver: What Is the Best Way to End the COVID-19 Pandemic?’ [2021] SSRN Electronic Journal.

[65] WHO, ‘COVID-19 Technology Access Pool’ (www.who.int2020).

[66] JHANVI TRIPATHI, ‘The TRIPS Agreement and Public Health: Understanding the Reform Agenda’ (orfonline.org2021).

[67] UNDP, ‘The TRIPS AgReemenT and AcceSS to ARVs’ (2006).

[68] WTO, ‘REPORT of the WORKSHOP on DIFFERENTIAL PRICING and FINANCING of ESSENTIAL DRUGS’ (2001).

[69] UNAIDS, ‘Questions & Answers’ (2016) 4 International Journal of Dental Hygiene 50.

[70] Sung-Pil Park and others, ‘Designing the Global Vaccine Supply Chain: Balancing Intellectual Property Rights with Post COVID-19 Vaccine Equity’ (2023) 8 BMJ Global Health.

[71] UNDP, ‘Inequality in Access to Essential Health and Medicine: COVID-19 Vaccines’ (2021).

[72] New York, ‘Facilitating Transfer of Technology to Developing Countries: A Survey of Home-Country Measures UNITED NATIONS’ (2004).

[74] WHO, ‘COVID-19 Technology Access Pool’ (www.who.int2020).

[75] Congressional Research Service, ‘World Trade Organization: “TRIPS Waiver” for COVID-19 Vaccines’ (2022).

[76] Gopinathan Achamkulangare, ‘An Analysis of The Resource Mobilization Function within the UNITED NATIONS SYSTEM’ (2014).

[77] WIPO, ‘Implications of the TRIPS Agreement on Treaties Administered by WIPO Treaties’ (1996).

[78] UNU Wider, ‘UNU-WIDER : Research Brief : The Rise of Social Protection in the Global South – the Role of Foreign Aid’ (www.wider.unu.edu2023).

[79] World Economic Forum , ‘Regionalized Vaccine Manufacturing Collaborative a Framework for Enhancing Vaccine Access through Regionalized Manufacturing Ecosystems’ (2024).

[80] World Economic Forum , ‘Regionalized Vaccine Manufacturing Collaborative a Framework for Enhancing Vaccine Access through Regionalized Manufacturing Ecosystems’ (2024).

[81] Kumariah Balasubramaniam, ‘Access to Essential Medicines as a Human Right ’ (Health Action International 2012)

[82] Nerina Boschiero, ‘Intellectual Property Rights and Public Health’ (2017).

[83] Lois Privor-Dumm and others, ‘Vaccine Access, Equity and Justice: COVID-19 Vaccines and Vaccination’ (2023) 8 BMJ Global Health.

[84] United Nations, ‘The International Forum for Social Development United Nations’ (2006)

[85] European Parliament , ‘The Ethics of Artificial Intelligence: Issues and Initiatives’ (2020)

[86] Regina Lívia and Batista, ‘The Intersection between Intellectual Property, Public Health and Access to Climate-Related Technologies’ (2023)

[87] Carlos Correa and Nirmalya Syam, ‘The WTO TRIPS Decision on COVID-19 Vaccines: What Is Needed to Implement It?’ (2022).

[88] World Trade Law, ‘AGREEMENT on TRADE-RELATED ASPECTS of INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS’

[89] Philippe Cullet, ‘Food Security and Intellectual Property Rights in Developing Countries’ (2003)

[90] OECD, ‘Intellectual Property Rights in International Investment Agreements’ [2010] OECD Working Papers on International Investment.

[91] United Nations, ‘Sustainable Development Goals: 17 Goals to Transform Our World’ (United Nations2022)

ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO ACCESS TO VACCINE UNDER TRIPS AGREEMENT IN THE GLOBAL SOUTH

Recent Posts