Authored By:

Sayantani Ray (Research Intern)


The representation of the global discussion over patent law and access to basic drugs centres around general human rights worries about HIV/AIDS, intestinal sickness, tuberculosis, the SARS infection, flu, and illnesses of destitution. The book investigates the strategic arrangements and questions in key global fora, for example, the World Trade Organization, the World Health Organization, and the World Intellectual Property Organization. Drawing upon global exchange law, development strategy, protected property law, health law, human rights, and theory, the creators look to campaign strategy arrangements that empower and reward advantageous pharmaceutical development while guaranteeing reasonable access to cutting edge medicines. Various imaginative approach choices are surveyed, including the improvement of a Health Impact Fund, prizes for clinical advancement, the utilization of patent pools, public-source tranquillize advancement and types of 'innovative capitalism’.


It is frequently guaranteed that lone 10% of international human rights research is committed to conditions that represent 90% of the international sickness trouble.[1] When one notes the amazing benefits made by pharmaceutical organizations in building up the medications that relate to that littler rate of international illnesses, the case is maybe less surprising.[2] Pharmaceutical specialists and patent backers demand that without the monetary motivating force for undertaking the improvement of medications for ignored infections, the customary medication process self-destructs. The innovative work framework can't support itself on minor altruism. Human rights activists and social insurance supporters contend that the ravenousness of the patent-holding pharmaceutical organizations can't be permitted to direct the soundness of tremendous quantities of the human populace.

In May 2008, a workshop of this equivalent title was held at the Australian National University. Focused on a lively conversation on the crossing point of international and public law with attention on human rights, the workshop came about in the introduction of twenty papers by analysts and more than ten other introductions. The book is an assemblage of those papers illustrating the patent/get to discuss and proposing arrangements from four territories: international exchange, development, protected innovation, and social insurance. As talked about in Section III beneath, the aggregated papers present scope of the proposition that at last succeeds just in showing the desperate requirement for international coordination and collaboration in formulating an answer.


The initial four articles in the book address the entrance issue as saw through international exchange and public law. The exchange section starts with a paper by Rochelle Dreyfuss[3] that spreads out the foundation for understanding the remainder of the book: a clarification of the TRIPS Understanding, the Doha Declaration, and their connections to pharmaceutical medication licenses specifically. Dreyfuss contends that TRIPS Committee isn't exploiting the ability vested in the different accessible international organizations, for example, WIPO and WHO.[4] Without the coordination of information among these organizations, the entrance issue will keep on developing. Expanding on the foundation set out by Dreyfuss, Andrew Mitchell, and Tania Voon[5] proceed by examining the Doha Declaration in detail and introducing a contention that arrangements like those in that ought to be officially actualized into the TRIPS Understanding by revision. In any case, the creators contend that these arrangements should just be made lasting after an assessment by WTO individuals from their adequacy considering provincial patent frameworks and the "Excursions Plus" understandings made by numerous individuals.[6] Hitoshi Nasu's[7] exposition is a characteristic follow-up to Mitchell and Voon; he contends intensely against TRIPS-Plus understandings absolutely because they decline the viability of the Doha arrangements as for basic medication get to.[8]The the fourth article in the exchange area, at last, tends to the genuine issue of the accumulation: the fight between patent rights as insurance for advancement, what's more, the requirement for confirmations that basic drugs can at present be made accessible. There, Elizabeth Siew-Kuan Ng [9] spreads out the discussion at the debate that the necessary authorizing arrangements of TRIPS and Doha could be the suitable answers.

The second section of expositions in the book tends to the creative proposition for answers for the back-and-forth between patent rights and access to basic medicines. The principal paper proposes Thomas Pogge's s[10] Health Effect Fund - "an international office that would give a standing choice to enlist any new medication on for human rights sway rewards."[11] Proclaimed all through the remainder of the book as at any rate the most uncommon proposition, if not the most reasonable, Pogge portrays a framework that requires a least of $6 billion method cash and methods for evaluating the "human rights sway" of each medication gave to LDCs by pharmaceutical organizations who choose to partake.'[12] The proposition asks numerous inquiries, some of which are tended to in the following article by Kathleen Liddell.[13] Although her exposition depends on a past form of Pogge's proposition, a considerable lot of the glaring gaps despite everything exist and warrant Liddell's conversation, counting worries about pharmaceutical organizations' potential endeavours at gaming the framework. The following creators, William W. Fisher and Talha Syed[14] propose another novel revamping to the procedure of pharmaceutical innovative work: a prize framework. They characterize also, outline the two unique models of prize frameworks - "push" and"pull" - and participate in a conversation of whether either framework is fit to the kind of motivating force that patent promoters state is required to drive research what's more, improvement of medications for ignored infections. To balance the development area, Thomas Faunce[15] presents a part contending for the execution of both security and clean measures on exchange human rights innovations. Faunce noticed that guidelines of this nature are important to expressly ensure the public intrigue that is apparently at the core of these exchange plans the primary spot.

As a change between the innovation and intellectual property sections of the book, the paper by Dianne Nicol and Jane Nielsen[16] fittingly consider another "sickness explicit" style of patent pools as a creative alternative for filling the "revelation, improvement, conveyance" pattern of pharmaceutical items. After discovering that a conveyance centred patent pool would harvest the best outcomes for the members, the creators temper their expectations by taking note that the counter serious impacts of license pools can be counterproductive.[17] Krishna Ravi Srinivas[18] proceeds with the topic of innovative employments of generally old deceive by examining the chance of a public source sedate disclosure program. Taking note of the achievement of public source programming, he contends that new methods for animating inventive arrangements could be very fruitful. Changing gears from theoretical answers for genuine contextual investigations, Charles Lawson and Barbara Hocking's [19] article dissects the contention that emerged among Indonesia and its commitments under the United Countries' Convention on Biological Diversity during the H5N1 flare-ups there. The creators utilize this case to delineate the need they see for adaptable international licensed innovation assurance commitments in less-developed nations. The last article in the licensed innovation area is the main article in the book to address a type of IP other than licenses - Matthew Rimmer[20] talks about the utilization of brand names and superstar supports in endeavours to fund-raise for and loan attention to the get to issue. Drawing on subjects of corporate social duty and "innovative private enterprise," Rimmer contends that these effective methods can be unfavourable to the causes they mean to advance, particularly when tested on the inquiries of straightforwardness, responsibility, and sustainability.[21]

The last section of expositions is focused on the issue of human rights also, the right to health. This area proceeds with the organization of conversations on explicit cases rather than speculative strategy recommendations. Noah Novogrodsky's [22]article is extraordinary to the volume in that it talks about activities taken by and accessible to non-state entertainers, explicitly NGOs. He mourns the current job of NGOs as guides to global chambers and appointments and is supportive of a less latent way for the associations. Two instances of that less inactive way are talked about by Katherine Young.[23] She looks at two legitimate activities, one in South Africa[24] and one in Ghana,[25] where non-state on-screen characters prevailing with regards to drawing the consideration of the courts to the issue of a protected right to human rights. The third nation with a protected right to human rights - India - is talked about in Rajshree Chandra's[26] article. Chandra traces the milestone accomplishment of nonexclusive makers over a patent proprietor for the leukemia sedate Glivec.[27] The surprising conditions of that case lead to the medication being accessible in India, at that point expelled from treatment plans of patients who couldn't bear it once Novartis was allowed selective advertising rights.[28]Subsequently, conventional fabricates prevailing with regards to having Novartis' patent application dismissed, publishing the entryway for practical conventional adaptations of the medication to return into the international market.[29] Illustrating another road for the arrangement of economical medications in an LDC, Jonathon Burton-MacLeod" examines the issues Thailand has had executing the sections of Outings that take into account obligatory permitting of protected medications. In its endeavour to bring AIDS and coronary illness medications to its residents, Burton MacLeod[30] contends that Thailand has uncovered the grave deficiencies that still stay in the alleged adaptabilities of TRIPS.


  1. Introduction

  2. Prologue

  3. Connecting public and International law

  4. The international institutions

  5. The World Trade Organization

  6. World Intellectual Property Organization

  7. The World Health Organization

  8. International trade

  9. The TRIPS Waiver as recognition of public health concerns in the WTO

  10. Public law challenges to the regulation of pharmaceutical patents in the US bilateral free trade agreements

  11. Global health and development: patents and public interest

  12. Innovation

  13. The Health Impact Fund: better pharmaceutical innovations at much lower prices

  14. The Health Impact Fund: a critique

  15. A prize system as a partial solution to the health crisis in the developing world

  16. Innovation and insufficient evidence: the case for a WTO–WHO Agreement on Health Technology Safety and Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation

  17. Intellectual property

  18. Publishing the dam: patent pools, innovation and access to essential medicines

  19. Public Source drug discovery: a revolutionary paradigm or a Utopian model?

  20. Accessing and benefit-sharing avian influenza viruses through the World Health Organization: a CBD and TRIPS compromise thanks to Indonesia’s sovereignty claim?

  21. The Lazarus Effect: the (RED) Campaign and creative capitalism

  22. Healthcare

  23. Beyond TRIPS: the role of non-state actors and access to essential medicines

  24. Securing health through rights

  25. The role of national laws in reconciling constitutional right to health with TRIPS obligations: an examination of the Glivec patent case in India

  26. Tipping point: Thai compulsory licenses redefine essential medicines debate

  27. Conclusion



Generally, there have been serious clashes over the possession and misuse of pharmaceutical medications and indicative tests managing irresistible sicknesses.

All through the 1980s, there was a lot of logical, lawful and moral banter about which logical gathering ought to be credited with the disclosure of the human immunodeficiency infection and the innovation of the blood test formulated to identify antibodies to the virus.[31] In May 1983, Luc Montagnier, Françoise Barré-Sinoussi, and other French researchers from the Institute Pasteur in Paris distributed a paper in Science, itemizing the disclosure of an infection called lymphadenopathy ('LAV').[32] A logical opponent, Robert Gallo of the National Cancer Institute, recognized the AIDS infection and distributed his discoveries in the May 1984 issue of Science.[33] In May 1985, the United States Patent and Trademark Office granted the American patent for the Helps blood test to Gallo and the Department of Health and Human Administrations. In December 1985, the Institute Pasteur sued the Department of Human rights and Human Services, battling that the French were the first to distinguish the AIDS infection and to concoct the counteracting agent test and that the American test was needy upon the French exploration.

In March 1987, an understanding was expedited by President Ronald Reagan and French Prime Minister Jacques Chirac, which came about in the Department of Health and Human Services and the Institut Pasteur sharing the patent rights to the blood test for AIDS.[34] In 1992, the Federal Office of Research Integrity found that Gallo had submitted logical wrongdoing, by erroneously detailing realities in his 1984 logical paper.[35] An ensuing examination by the National Institutes of Health, the US Congress and the US Attorney-General cleared Gallo of any bad behaviour.

In 1994, the US Government and the French Government renegotiated their understanding concerning the AIDS blood test patent, to make the dissemination of sovereignties more equitable.[36] Under the understanding, the US and French examination organizations would keep 20 percent of eminences produced using testing units that each group has created from its research centres. The staying 80 percent would be pooled. A quarter of the pool was distributed to the World AIDS Foundation. Under the new understanding, the French got 66% of the rest of the Americans 33%. In a composed articulation, Gallo watched he had 'reliably recognized the huge commitments of the Pasteur researchers' and that 'it is currently an ideal opportunity for this scene to be for all time shut'.[37] By 2002, Gallo and Montagnier were adequately accommodated to compose a joint paper for Science, communicating the regular conviction that 'an international facilitated reaction is required to battle the scourge of AIDS'.[38]

As a coda to the question, Montagnier and his countryman Françoise BarréSinoussi were granted a Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2008 for the disclosure of human immunodeficiency infection. The Nobel Assembly noted in an official statement: 'at no other time has science and medication been so snappy to find, distinguish the root and give treatment to another malady substance'.[39] Even though Gallo was excluded from the Nobel Prize reference, Montagnier did recognize the commitment of his at some point associate and some point rival. Consequently, Gallo discharged an announcement, watching: 'I am satisfied with my long-lasting companion and associate Dr Luc Montagnier, just as his partner Françoise Barré-Sinoussi, have gotten this respect.' [40] He included: 'I was satisfied to peruse Dr Montagnier's thoughtful explanation toward the beginning of today communicating that I was similarly meriting'.[41]

The question between Luc Montagnier and Robert Gallo was not a confined instance of logical competition and patent races. It foreshadowed further patent clashes over exploration regarding HIV/AIDS.[42] Michael Kirby, previous Justice of the High Court of Australia, analyzed a conflict between two particular schools of theory – 'researchers old fashioned … working by luck with free sharing of information and research', and 'those of the new school who saw the expectation of improvement as lying in enormous ventures in logical experimentation'. [43] Indeed, the patent race between Robert Gallo and Luc Montagnier has been an antecedent to more extensive exchange debates over access to basic drugs during the 1990s and 2000s.[44] The question between Robert Gallo and Luc Montagnier catches in microcosm various subjects of this book: the wild rivalry for protected innovation rights; the conflict between sovereign states over access to drugs; the squeezing need to guard human rights, especially the privilege to human rights; and the requirement for new motivations for innovative work to battle irresistible infections as both an international and household issue.


This volume is the second in another arrangement bringing public and international attorneys and public and international approach creators together to analyze key issues in the twenty-first century. This arrangement widens both public and international laws' comprehension of how these two regions cross and are exceptional in intentionally uniting public and international legal advisors to consider and take part in every others' grant. What can public legal advisors bring to international law and what can global legal counsellors bring to public law? What are the basic interests? What strains become evident when we consider public and global law together?

This subsequent volume centres on these inquiries with regards to the contemporary discussion over access to fundamental medications. This discussion happens against the foundation of amazing wellbeing errors: both among well-off and less created nations and likewise, inside the last mentioned, among rich and helpless families. Among the world's poor, somewhere in the range of 18 million kick the bucket every year from Group I causes – transmittable sicknesses, maternal and perinatal conditions, and dietary deficiencies – which cause just negligible mischief among the princely. Eighteen million is proportionate to a little more than 30 percent of all human deaths.[45] And this rate is extensively bigger when taking age at passing into account, one gauges how long of human life is lost because of Group I causes.[46] Life anticipation is 79.4 in the high-pay nations and 49.2 in the African region.[47] Similarly, dramatic health inequalities exist inside the less evolved nations. In Peru, under-five mortality is 11 for every 1000 among the most extravagant 20 percent of the populace versus 63 among the least fortunate 20 per cent, for instance, and in Nigeria, the relating figures are 79 versus 257.[48]

These tremendous health inequalities stem to some degree from the way that poor individuals are at more danger of ailment, because of the absence of food, cover, uncontaminated water, garments, and physical security. Another essential factor is that the world poor have little access to clinical consideration and, specifically, to the medications that could assist them with adapting to their incapacitating and frequently perilous conditions.

This absence of access to fundamental drugs has three segments. To begin with, medications for sicknesses concentrated among the poor are ignored by pharmaceutical exploration. This wonder has come to be known as the 10/90 hole, suggesting the case that 'lone 10 percent of international wellbeing research is committed to conditions that represent 90 percent of the international ailment trouble.' [49] Pneumonia, looseness of the bowels, tuberculosis, and jungle fever, which represent more than 20 percent of the international weight of sickness, get under 1per penny of all public and private finances dedicated to wellbeing research.[50] And illnesses bound to the tropics will, in general, be the generally dismissed: of the 1556 new medications endorsed somewhere in the range of 1975 and 2004, just 18 were for tropical illnesses and 3 for tuberculosis.[51]

The second part of the entrance issue of the poor is that existing medications are, during their underlying years available, normally estimated inconceivably higher than their expense of production.[52] Such significant expenses are encouraged by licenses, which award the patentee the selective right to produce and convey the medication. Licenses are given in about all national locales for the motivation behind boosting and fulfilling advancement. A firm getting a charge out of such market eliteness will value its item to amplify benefit, which is (improving somewhat) its increase duplicated by its business volume. Taking into account the predominant tremendous disparities in the pay what's more, riches, the ideal value will, in general, be high. If medication is significant, deals to, or for, the individuals in wealthy nations and the prosperous people in the helpless nations won't be ruined by a significant expense. What's more, arriving at a portion of the staying 80 percent of mankind is just not beneficial because the patentee would lose more from the vital cost decrease than it would increase through an expanded deal volume. Strangely, this holds even inside numerous helpless nations, where the benefit augmenting cost regularly prohibits a dominant part of the national population.[53]

The third part of helpless people groups' absence of access to basic medicines is the deficiency of even negligibly sufficient neighbourhood wellbeing foundation. In the vast majority of the less evolved nations, there is an extraordinary shortage of centres and emergency clinics, of symptomatic gear, just as of specialists, what's more, medical caretakers who are frequently effectively enrolled to move to additional rich nations. In the year 2000, somewhere in the range of 65,000 doctors and 70,000 medical attendants conceived – and for the most part, additionally prepared – in Africa were working overseas,[54] deserting enormous holes in their nations of origin's human services inclusion just as in their instruction spending plans. The impact of unexpected weakness framework is that helpless patients get no skilful finding and afterwards end up with no medication by any stretch of the imagination, with an inappropriate medication, with counterfeit or weakened medication (frequently sold by road sellers), or without guidance about how to produce the medication for ideal results. Medication that is weakened or not taken appropriately can add to the rise of drug-specific opposition as patients are not presented to enough of the dynamic element for an adequately significant stretch to execute off the stronger pathogenic operators. The development of medication safe strains of transmittable sicknesses, (for example, multi-tranquillize safe and widely drug-resistant tuberculosis) can incredibly disturb the harm done by an illness – particularly among poor people who can't manage the cost of the further developed second-line and third-line treatments which are regularly still under patent.

This simple portrayal of the entrance to medicines issue brings out the exchange of national and global measurements and, specifically, the extraordinary difficulties the national wellbeing frameworks of less fortunate nations go up against by an international domain they can do very little to impact. Certainly, helpless nations consented to receive a US-style pharmaceutical patent system when they marked the Trade-Related Parts of Intellectual Property Agreement ('TRIPS Agreement') – yet they had the minimal decision as declining to sign would have implied rejection from the World Trade Organization (WTO).[55] Moreover, numerous poor nations need the pharmaceutical assembling limit and along these lines were substantially more seriously influenced by India's increase to the TRIPS. Understanding than on their own.[56] Poor nations likewise have little control over the specialists and medical caretakers they train – they can't drive them to remain, nor pay them anything like the compensation they are being offered by unfamiliar enrollment specialists. Beneficiary nations may execute enactment that would compel the importation of clinical experts from helpless nations or on the other hand would, at any rate, expect managers to cover the precursor costs of preparing these experts. Be that as it may, a beneficiary nation is probably not going to pass such enactment all alone, as it would just burden itself in the rivalry with other rich nations over the additions from enlisting specialists and medical attendants from the creating scene.

Given the gigantic size of the entrance to drugs issue, it is genuinely evident that this issue can't be defeated through the different international wellbeing activities of ongoing years, even though these have undoubtedly been amazing. As expressed in the ongoing WHO Global Strategy:

The Member States, the pharmaceutical business, altruistic establishments, and Non-governmental associations have taken activities lately to grow new items against ailments influencing creating nations and building access to existing wellbeing items and clinical gadgets. Notwithstanding, these activities are not adequate to overcome the difficulties of meeting the objective of guaranteeing access and advancement for required wellbeing items and clinical devices.[57]

Notwithstanding these activities, significant advancement requires an incorporated arrangement that consolidates public law and international law components to structure a viable change bundle: 'Proposition ought to be created for wellbeing needs determined innovative work that incorporates investigating a scope of motivation components, including where proper, tending to the de-linkage of the expenses of innovative work and the cost of wellbeing items and techniques for fitting the ideal blend of motivators to a specific condition or item with the target of tending to ailments that excessively influence creating nations'.[58]

This volume thinks about the plan and evaluation of national and international law overseeing the revelation, advancement, and conveyance of propelled medications. It tries to progress innovative answers for the longstanding issues regarding licensed innovation and access to basic drugs. Drawing upon global exchange law, advancement strategy, protected innovation law, wellbeing law, human rights, and theory, this volume energizes interdisciplinary coordinated effort concerning two significant goals: empowering and remunerating beneficial pharmaceutical development and guaranteeing moderate access to cutting edge prescriptions, in any event, for poor people. These goals can remain in some pressure with one another: reasonable access for the poor is probably going to diminish the benefit of patent imposing business models and consequently additionally the motivators for directing pharmaceutical exploration.

In uniting public and international attorneys just as specialists in general wellbeing, financial matters, and a good way of thinking, this volume encourages discourse among scholastics, governments, industry, and common society over access to fundamental drugs and develops our comprehension of the crossing points at play. We trust this discourse won't just advance the different scholarly trains, yet additionally, animate new change thoughts and usage endeavours that will improve access to significant prescriptions around the world.


The global disappointment and domestic systems to give sufficient medications and social insurance, particularly in creating nations, is presently a prominent issue, with genuine and broad ramifications.

This assortment on patent law and access to basic drugs is especially convenient given the worry about a pandemic in regard of Flu A (H1N1) – casually known as 'pig influenza'.[59] Michelle Childs, the Director of Policy and Advocacy at Médecins Sans Frontières' Campaign for Access to Essential Medicines, has cautioned:

On the off chance that a pandemic was to happen, the trial of international solidarity will be whether there is an attention on creating nations who might almost certainly be hit most noticeably terrible since they would be the least arranged. The creation of nonexclusive renditions of flu medicines will be urgent to guarantee these nations can get hold of these medications as well as at a moderate cost. Rich nations can't simply purchase out to the detriment of creating countries.[60]

In this specific circumstance, a scope of inventive thoughts for beating the hindrances to access to basic medications so as better to address general human rights concerns, including Influenza A (H1N1).

In analyzing how the global system has functioned in cooperation with national medicinal services systems, by bringing public and global legal advisors together, the volume tends to how the framework may be improved into an increasingly compelling global system in which no individuals – whatever their economic circumstance or geographic area – must endure or kick the bucket from a preventable infection.

This book is a valuable asset as a gathering of discussion on the reasons for the entrance to medication issue, just as recommendations for and investigates on expected arrangements. The greater part of the recommendations introduced is all the more correctly ordered as "pre-recommendations." For a policymaker who tries to determine the entrance issue, this book holds the germinations of a few possibly reasonable arrangements. It is most helpful, at that point, as a bouncing off point for additional exploration and strategy advancement rather than as a collection on existing policy and law on the issue.


[1] Sameera Al-Tuwaijri ET AL., The 10/90 Report on Health Research, GLOBAL FORUM FOR HEALTH RESEARCH, 2003-2004, available at Report-2003-2004.

[2] Fatal Imbalance: The Crisis in Research and Development for Drugs for Neglected Diseases, DRUGS FOR NEGLECTED DISEASES WORKING GROUP, 2001, available at short.pdf.

[3] Thomas Pogge, Matthew Rimmer, & Kim Rubenstein, Incentives for Global Public Health: Patent Law and Access to Essential Medicines 4 (2010)

[4] Id. at 46-55.

[5] Andrew D. Mitchell and Tania Voon, The TRIPS waiver as recognition of public health concerns in the WTO, in Pogge, Supra note 3 at 56.

[6] Id. at 68-69

[7] Hitoshi Nasu, Public law challenges to the regulation of pharmaceutical patents in the US bilateral free trade agreements, in Pogge, Supra note 3 at 77

[8] Id. at 78-86

[9] Elizabeth Siew-Kuan Ng, Global health and development: patents and public interest in Pogge, Supra note 3 at 101

[10] Thomas Pogge, The Health Impact Fund: better pharmaceutical innovations at much lower prices, in Pogge, Supra note 3 at 135

[11] Id, Supra note 3 at 25

[12] Supra note 13 at 151.

[13] Kathleen Liddell, The Health Impact Fund: A critique, in Pogge, Supra note 3 at 155

[14] William W. Fisher & Talha Syed, A prize system as a partial solution to the health crisis in the developing world, in Pogge, Supra note 3 at 181

[15] Thomas Faunce, Innovation and insufficient evidence: the case for a WTO-WHO Agreement on Health Technology Safety and Cost-Effectiveness Evaluation, in Pogge, Supra note 3 at 209.

[16] Dianne Nicol & Jane Nielsen, Opening the dam: patent pools, innovation, and access to essential medicines, in Pogge, Supra note 3 at 235.

[17] Id. at 254-59.

[18] Krishna Ravi Srinivas, Open Source drug discovery: a revolutionary paradigm or a Utopian model?, in Pogge, Supra note 3 at 263.

[19] Charles Lawson & Barbara Ann Hocking, Accessing and benefit-sharing avian influenza viruses through the World Health Organization: a CBD and TRIPS compromise thanks to Indonesia's sovereignty claim?, in Pogge, Supra note 3 at 284.

[20] Matthew Rimmer, The Lazarus Effect: the (RED) Campaign and creative capitalism, in Pogge, Supra note 3 at 313.

[21] Id. at 336.

[22]. Noah Benjamin Novogrodsky, Beyond TRIPS: the role of non-state actors and access to essential medicines, in Pogge, Supra note 3 at 343.

[23] Katharine G. Young, Securing health through rights, in Pogge, Supra note 3, at 357.

[24] Pharmaceutical Manufacturers' Association of South Africa v. President of the Republic of South Africa, Case No. 4183/98 (High Court of South Africa)

[25] Jeremy Perelman and Lucie White, Stones of Hope: How African Activists Reclaim Human Rights to Challenge Global Poverty (2010, forthcoming).

[26] Rajshree Chandra, The role of national laws in reconciling constitutional right to health with TRIPS obligations: an examination of the Glivec patent case in India, in Pogge, Supra note 3 at 38 1.

[27] Novartis AG et. al v. Union of India et. al (6 August 2007, High Court of Judicature at Madras for W.P Nos. 24759 and 24760 of 2006).

[28] Id

[29] Id

[30] Supra note 3 at 406.

[31] Hal Hellman, ‘Chapter 10, Gallo versus Montagnier, the AIDS War’, Great Feuds in Medicine: Ten of the Liveliest Disputes Ever (2001), 165–84.

[32] Francoise Barre-Sinoussi, ‘Isolation of a T-lymphotropic Retrovirus From a Patient at Risk for Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS)’ (1983) 220 Science 868–71.

[33] Robert Gallo et al. ‘Frequent Detection and Isolation of Cytopathic Retroviruses (HTLV-III) from Patients with AIDS and at Risk for AIDS’ (1984) 224 Science 500–3; J Schupbach et al. ‘Serological Analysis of a Subgroup of Human T-lymphotropic Retroviruses (HTLV-III) associated with AIDS’ (1984) 224 Science 503–5; and Mangalasseril G. Sarngadharan et al. ‘Antibodies Reactive with Human T-lymphotropic Retroviruses (HTLV-III) in the serum of Patients with AIDS’ (1984) 224 Science 506–8.

[34] Luc Montagnier et al. ‘Human Immunodeficiency Viruses Associated with Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS), a Diagnostic Method for AIDS and pre-AIDS, and a Kit, Therefore’, United States Patent No: 4,708,818. See also Luc Montagnier, Virus: The Co-discoverer of the Virus Tracks Its Rampage and Charts it's Future. (1999).

[35] Philip Hilts, ‘Federal Inquiry Finds Misconduct by a Discoverer of the AIDS Virus’, The New York Times, 31 December 1992

[36] Philip Hilts, ‘Key Patent on AIDS to Favor the French’, The New York Times (12 July 1994).

[37] Ibid.

[38] Robert Gallo and Luc Montagnier, ‘Prospects for the Future’ (2002) 298 Science 1730–1.

[39] The Nobel Assembly at Karolinska Institute, ‘The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 2008’, 6 October 2008, 2008/press.html

[40] Robert Gallo, ‘Statement’, New Scientist (7 October 2008), menting/thread?id=dn14881–4.

[41] Ibid.

[42] Apotex Inc v. Wellcome Foundation Ltd, [2002] 4 S.C.R. 153.

[43] Justice Michael Kirby, ‘Foreword’ in Matthew Rimmer, Intellectual Property and Biotechnology: Biological Inventions (2008), vi. See also Ian Freckleton and Hugh Selby (eds.) Appealing to the Future: Michael Kirby and His Legacy (2009).

[44] Patricia Thomas, Big Shot: Passion, Politics and the Struggle for an AIDS Vaccine (2001); Anne-Christine D’Adesky, Moving Mountains: The Race to Treat Global AIDS (2004); and Lawrence Gostin, The AIDS Pandemic: Complacency, Injustice, and Unfulfilled Expectations (2006).

[45] World Health Organization, The Global Burden of Disease: 2004 Update (2004), 10, 17–18.

[46] Ibid., 23.

[47] Ibid., 5.

[48] 18 United Nations Development Programme, Human Development Report 2007/2008 (2007), Table 8, 255–6

[49] Drugs for Neglected Diseases Working Group, Fatal Imbalance: The Crisis in Research and Development for Drugs for Neglected Diseases (2001) also at fatal/fatal.pdf, 10. See also Louis Currat, Andres de Francisco, Sameera Al-Tuwaijri, Abdul Ghaffar and Susan Jupp, Global Forum Health 10/90 Report 2003–2004 (2004).

[50] Ibid., 122.

[51] Pierre Chirac and Els Toreelle, ‘Global Framework on Essential Health R&D’ (2006) 367 The Lancet 1560; Drugs for Neglected Diseases Working Group, Fatal Imbalance, see above n. 19. 10. See also Patrice Trouiller, Piero Olliaro, Els Torreele, James Orbinski, Richard Laing, and Nathan Ford, ‘Drug Development for Neglected Diseases: A Deficient Market and a Public-Health Policy Failure’ (2002) 359 (9324) The Lancet 2188, 2189.

[52] Oxfam International, ‘Investing for Life: Meeting Poor People’s Needs for Access to Medicines Through Responsible Business Practices’ (Briefing Paper No 109, Oxfam, November 2007), 20, giving examples of high prices with mark-ups of up to sixty times what a generic supplier would charge.

[53] Sean Flynn, Aidan Hollis, and Mike Palmedo, ‘An Economic Justification for Open Access to Essential Medicine Patents in Developing Countries’ (2009) 37 Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 184

[54] Michael Clemens, and GunillaPettersson, ‘New Data on African Health Professionals Abroad’ (2008) 6(1) Human Resources for Health content/6/1/1.

[55] Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, opened for signature 15 April 1994, 1867 UNTS 3, annex 1C (Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) (entered into force 1 January 1995) (‘TRIPS Agreement’).

[56] ‘India’s Choice’, The New York Times 18 January 2005.

[57] Global Strategy and Plan of Action on Public Health, Innovation and Intellectual Property, World Health Assembly 61st mtg, Res WHA61.21 (2008) (‘WHO Global Strategy’).

[58] Ibid., article 4.

[59] World Health Organization, ‘Influenza A (H1N1)’, en/index.html at 18 June 2009; and Médecins Sans Frontières, ‘Generics and Access to Influenza Treatment’, (7 May 2009), generics-and-access-to-influenza-treatment/.

[60] Id


Support us

In order to keep our content open accessed and free, we need your support. Please donate any amount up to 500 INR if possible.

© Internationalism™ - AbhiGlobal Legal Research & Media LLP, 2020.


[Registered under the Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 | LLP Identification No. AAQ-1629. Please refer to for more details.]