ocesses of using a known product – a policy that would considerably extend the monopoly of patents that would otherwise expire. In the pharma industry this kind of patent “evergreening” could delay the introduction of less expensive generic drugs.
- Term extension – Delays of more than five years in issuing patents (or granting marketing approval of a drug) will extend the patent term. Critics are concerned that this stipulation could encourage “bad behavior” on the part of pharma companies, giving them an excuse to delay the launch of products in low-priced markets while rewarding them with extended monopoly status.
- Licenses – Governments would be restricted in their right to enact the compulsory licenses that have been used in the past to negotiate medicine prices to the benefit of enhanced public healthcare.
The TPP strengthened the US IPR agenda
The TPP was clearly an opportunity for the US government to pursue its IPR objectives, for better or, as the critics claim, for worse. In Canada, for example, intellectual property law professor Michael Geist was quick to point out that “Those who set the [IPR] rules … put themselves at a competitive advantage and in this instance it’s quite clearly the United States.”
It appears, therefore, that pulling out of the TPP is a missed opportunity for the US to pursue its IPR agenda in the Pacific Rim economies. It will be interesting to see how the IPR issues play out in the bilateral agreements that President-Elect Trump’s administration intends to pursue in place of the TPP.