Tag: COVID-19

Categories
Patents Pharma

Policy Brief: The TRIPS Waiver for COVID-19 Vaccines, and Its Potential Expansion: Assessing the Impact on Global IP Protection and Public Health

This policy brief, including the following “Introduction and Executive Summary,” comes from Eric M. Solovy.

CLICK HERE to read the brief in full.

Overlaid images of pills, a gloved hand of someone expecting a pill, and an eyedropperIntroduction and Executive Summary

On June 17, 2022, in the early morning hours of the final day of the World Trade Organization’s (“WTO”) 12th Ministerial Conference, the Members of the WTO adopted a waiver of the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (“the TRIPS Agreement”), commonly known as the “TRIPS Waiver for COVID-19 Vaccines” or the “TRIPS Waiver.”[1]  The TRIPS Waiver, with its primary focus on compulsory licensing of patents (i.e., licensing without the authorization of the patent owner) that are “required for the production and supply of COVID-19 vaccines,” reflected a compromise position among WTO Members.[2]  The initial proposal advanced by India and South Africa, on October 2, 2020, would have gone much further, authorizing WTO Members to waive the substantive and enforcement-related provisions of the TRIPS Agreement not only for patents but also for copyrights, industrial designs, trade secrets, and test data protection; moreover, the original proposal would have gone far beyond COVID-19 vaccines, to cover intellectual property (“IP”) “in relation to prevention, containment or treatment of COVID-19.”[3]

The debate over the TRIPS Waiver began at a time when the development of the first COVID-19 vaccines was already nearing completion.  To wit, the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine received emergency use authorization from the U.S. Food & Drug Administration (“FDA”) on December 11, 2020 – i.e., just two months after India and South Africa had submitted their original TRIPS waiver proposal.[4]  Yet, at the same time that certain countries began attacking IP rights as an obstacle to addressing the pandemic, it was already well understood that the rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines, therapeutics, and diagnostics would not have been possible but for the billions of dollars in private investments, over the course of many years, in technologies that were incentivized by strong IP protection.[5]  It is no coincidence that the first COVID-19 vaccines were developed in industrialized countries that offer strong IP protection – protection that provided the incentives necessary for private investors to take the huge risks required when researching revolutionary technologies.[6]

For example, although mRNA was discovered in 1961, it took many years of research, at huge expense and great risk, to create the mRNA-based technology used in COVID-19 vaccines.[7]  BioNTech’s Dr. Sahin and Dr. Tureci, a married couple, had been working on mRNA technology for more than 25 years, without any successful commercial applications prior to developing their COVID-19 vaccine.[8]  To take another example, before going public in 2018 with its mRNA technology, Moderna had raised USD 2.6 billion in investments and partnership funding, along with USD 600 million raised in an IPO.[9]  At the time of its IPO, Moderna was spending hundreds of millions of dollars a year, reporting in September 2018 that it “had an accumulated deficit of $865.2 million.”[10]  This scale of private investment in a venture as risky as these ground-breaking new technologies would simply have been impossible but for the upside potential offered by the promise of IP rights over any resulting therapeutics or vaccines and, in turn, the potential to recoup returns on those investments.  Further, the assurance that IP rights would be honored and, where necessary, enforced, in multiple countries enabled the creators of vaccines to enter into voluntary licensing agreements with enterprises around the world for the manufacture and distribution of the vaccines, making them rapidly available throughout the world.[11]

Since the inception of the TRIPS Agreement nearly thirty years ago, there have been voices calling for its dilution.  The ongoing COVID-19 pandemic amplified some of these voices.  Ignoring the role of IP in the creation of COVID-19 vaccines (and diagnostic and therapeutic products), many governments bought into the narrative claims that protection of IP rights obstructs access to important vaccines and therapeutic products.  In making this argument, they conveniently put to the side the multitude of trade, regulatory and logistical barriers that clearly prevented vaccines from quickly going into arms in a number of developing countries.[12]  At the same time, some have argued that certain countries viewed the pandemic, and a TRIPS waiver in particular, as a strategic opportunity to get access to next generation technologies that would provide benefits to their domestic economies long after the COVID-19 pandemic ends.[13]

Upon the announcement and public release of the terms of the TRIPS Waiver, the reactions were, not surprisingly, mixed.  They were generally aligned with the long-term views of international IP rights that had been consistently expressed by countries, activists, and industry since the inception of the TRIPS Agreement.

For those countries and activists that have long advocated against IP protection for pharmaceutical products, they characterized the TRIPS Waiver as a compromise that did not go far enough but that nevertheless served to validate (in their view) that they had been right all along about the relationship between IP protection and global health.  For example, Médecins Sans Frontières (“MSF”) expressed disappointment that the scope of the TRIPS Waiver was not as broad as the original proposal but then went on to question whether patent protection is ever appropriate for pharmaceutical products, calling “on governments to take concrete steps to rethink and reform the biomedical innovation system to ensure that lifesaving medical tools are developed, produced and supplied equitably where monopoly-based and market-driven principles are not a barrier to access.”[14]

For those who, in record time, created and produced the revolutionary vaccines, diagnostics, and therapeutics that have enabled families and businesses around the world to begin returning to normal, the TRIPS Waiver was understood as a threat to IP rights, to the incentives they create, and ultimately, to innovation itself.  As the U.S. Chamber of Commerce stated in advocating against a TRIPS waiver:

Waiving intellectual property rights would only hobble the innovation that is critical to improving lives and raising living standards globally.  If enacted, this move would set an unfortunate precedent and may limit innovative companies’ ability to devote unprecedented resources to quickly discover and deliver solutions for the next global crisis, be it pandemic, food security, or climate-related.[15]

There are currently calls for a further expansion of this waiver, both in terms of duration and product scope.  As explained below, any expansion of the waiver could deal an additional blow to incentives to biopharmaceutical innovation, which would, in turn, compromise our ability to deal with future public health emergencies (as well as possible future variants of COVID-19).

When WTO Members gather in Geneva, Switzerland, to decide, pursuant to the direction in paragraph 8 of the TRIPS Waiver, whether the waiver should be “extend[ed] to cover the production and supply of COVID-19 diagnostics and therapeutics,” it is important to take a step back from the public rhetoric and evaluate the TRIPS Waiver in view of its actual text, as well as the text of the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement that it waives and/or purports to “clarify.”

In Part II, below, this paper briefly discusses the evolution of global IP protection and why a multilateral treaty such as the TRIPS Agreement is absolutely essential to incentivizing R&D in an increasingly globalized economy.  Part III then offers a summary of the legal content of the TRIPS Waiver.  Part IV places the TRIPS Waiver into its proper context in the WTO system, explaining the legal nature of a waiver as a matter of WTO law.

Next, in Part V, I turn to the potential impact of the TRIPS Waiver.  After first noting that no WTO Member has given notice of an intent to make use of the TRIPS Waiver since its inception over five months ago, I explain (in Part V(A)) that, by creating uncertainty as to the value of pharmaceutical patents, the TRIPS Waiver may serve to decrease the incentives to innovation created by the patent system, to the detriment of global public health.  Part V(B) highlights how, in contrast to the mechanism set out in Article 31bis of the TRIPS Agreement, the failure to include tracking, tracing, and detailed transparency requirements in the TRIPS Waiver could lead to diversion of vaccines, which would be counterproductive to the stated intent of the TRIPS Waiver.

Part V(C) considers the potential harm that may arise if WTO Members rely on one of the so-called “existing good practices,” as referenced by the TRIPS Waiver, for determining remuneration to a patent owner whose patent is compulsorily licensed.  In Part V(D), I consider the potential impact of the provision of the TRIPS Waiver addressing regulatory data protection, a type of IP right distinct from patents which provides important incentives to bring new pharmaceutical technologies to market.  Part V(E) considers the public debate, particularly in the United States, surrounding the possible impact of the TRIPS Waiver on the global competitiveness of certain WTO Members.

Finally, Part VI considers how the proposed expansion of the product scope of the TRIPS Waiver to COVID-19 diagnostics and therapeutics (as not yet defined) could serve to create uncertainty for a much larger group of patent owners and, in turn, further reduce incentives for innovation, to the detriment of global public health.  It would do so at a time when R&D is rapidly progressing in preparation for new variants of COVID-19 and ultimately for the next pandemic.

CLICK HERE to read the brief in full.

[1] See Ministerial Decision on the TRIPS Agreement, WTO Doc. WT/MIN(22)/30 (Jun. 22, 2022), available at: https://docs.wto.org/dol2fe/Pages/SS/directdoc.aspx?filename=q:/WT/MIN22/30.pdf&Open=True (“TRIPS Waiver”).

[2] Id. at ¶ 1.

[3] TRIPS Council, Communication to the TRIPS Council from India and South Africa, Waiver from Certain Provisions of the TRIPS Agreement for the Prevention, Containment and Treatment of COVID-19, Annex at ¶ 1, WTO Doc. IP/C/W/669 (October 2, 2020).

[4] Press Release, U.S. Food & Drug Admin., FDA Approves First COVID-19 Vaccine(Aug. 23, 2021), available at https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-covid-19-vaccine#:~:text=The%20first%20EUA%2C%20issued%20Dec,trial%20of%20thousands%20of%20individuals.

[5] Eric M. Solovy, The Doha Declaration at Twenty: Interpretation, Implementation, and Lessons Learned on the Relationship Between the TRIPS Agreement and Global Health, 42 Nw J. Int’l L. & Bus. 253 (2022), at 289-296, available at https://jilb.law.northwestern.edu/issues/?vol=vol%2042%20-%20issue%202.

[6] See Bojan Pancevski & Jared Hopkins, How Pfizer Partner BioNTech Became a Leader in Coronavirus Vaccine Race, Wall Street Journal (Oct. 22, 2020), https://www.wsj.com/articles/how-pfizer-partner-biontech-became-a-leader-in-coronavirus-vaccine-race-11603359015.

[7] See Elie Dolgin, The Tangled History of mRNA Vaccines, Nature (Sept. 14, 2021), https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02483-w.

[8] See Pancevski & Hopkins, supra note 6; see also David Gelles, The Husband-and-Wife Team Behind the Leading Vaccine to Solve Covid-19, New York Times (Nov. 10, 2020), https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/10/business/biontech-covid-vaccine.html.

[9] See Moderna, Inc., U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission filing (Amendment No. 1 to Form S-1 Registration Statement), November 28, 2018, at i, 1.

[10] Id. at 20.

[11] See, e.g., Guilherme Cintra, Is an extension of the TRIPS waiver needed for COVID-19 tools?, Global Health Matters, IFPMA (Oct. 15, 2022), available at https://www.ifpma.org/global-health-matters/is-an-extension-of-the-trips-waiver-needed-for-covid-19-tools/; see also COVID-19 vaccines and treatments output continues apace, IFPMA (Apr. 13, 2022), available at https://www.ifpma.org/resource-centre/covid-19-vaccines-and-treatments-output-continues-apace-as-health-systems-and-last-mile-hurdles-remain-collective-stumbling-blocks/ (“The COVID-19 vaccine manufacturing scale-up has seen 372 partnerships forged, of which 88% (329) include technology transfer or fill & finish. 51 manufacturing and production agreements were made in developing countries (LICs and LMICs).”).

[12] See Indicative List of Trade-Related Bottlenecks and Trade-Facilitating Measures on Critical Products to Combat COVID-19, WTO Information Note (July 20, 2021), available at  https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/covid19_e/bottlenecks_report_e.pdf.

[13] See Shayerah I. Akhtar, Cong. Rsch. Serv., R47231, World Trade Organization: “TRIPS Waiver” for COVID-19 Vaccines (2022), at 13.

[14] Lack of a real IP waiver on COVID-19 tools is a disappointing failure for people, Médecins Sans Frontières (Jun. 17, 2022), available at https://www.msf.org/lack-real-ip-waiver-covid-19-tools-disappointing-failure-people (asserting that “we are disappointed that a true intellectual property waiver, proposed in October 2020 covering all COVID-19 medical tools and including all countries, could not be agreed upon, even during a pandemic that has claimed more than 15 million people’s lives.”).

[15] Press Release, U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Proposal at WTO to Waive Intellectual Property Would Set Harmful Precedent (Jun. 15, 2022), available at https://www.uschamber.com/intellectual-property/proposal-at-wto-to-waive-intellectual-property-would-set-harmful-precedent; see also, e.g., Press Release, PhRMA, PhRMA Statement on the TRIPS Waiver Agreement (Jun. 17, 2022), available at https://phrma.org/resource-center/Topics/Trade/PhRMA-Statement-on-the-TRIPS-Waiver-Agreement (stating that the COVID-19 TRIPS Waiver “undermine[s] the very intellectual property rights that enabled hundreds of collaborations to produce the COVID-19 vaccines on a global scale.”).

Categories
Biotech C-IP2 News International Law Patents

Panel Discussion: Vaccines, Intellectual Property, and Global Equity

scientist looking through a microscopeThe following post comes from Colin Kreutzer, a 2E at Scalia Law and a Research Assistant at C-IP2. 

The COVID-19 pandemic has shined a spotlight on the role of intellectual property in modern medicine and on the complex social questions surrounding a system that grants exclusive rights over life-or-death products. On the one hand, there is clearly a difference between public access to lifesaving medicines and other patented goods, such as consumer electronics. However, creating these drugs required billion-dollar investments and enormous risk, made feasible only by that promise of IP rights. Wouldn’t taking that promise away harm future development of new medicines? As the world considers a waiver of IP rights over COVID-19 vaccines and other technologies, experts are analyzing not only what’s right and what’s wrong, but also what works and what doesn’t.

On June 10, 2021, C-IP2 and the Smithsonian’s Lemelson Center for the Study of Invention and Innovation held a panel discussion on vaccines, intellectual property, and global equity. With opening remarks by Lemelson Director Arthur Daemmrich, and moderated by C-IP2 Faculty Director Professor Sean O’Connor, the panel featured Dan Laster, Director of the Washington State COVID-19 Vaccine Action Command and Coordination System (VACCS) Center; Professor Arti K. Rai, Elvin R. Latty Professor of Law and Co-Director of the Duke Law Center for Innovation Policy; and Eric Aaronson, Senior Vice President and Chief Counsel, Corporate Affairs, Intellectual Property and Intellectual Property Enforcement, Pfizer Inc.

Opening Remarks

Mr. Daemmrich began with a historical perspective of medical developments in this country, as well as the social, economic, and regulatory issues that would invariably be tangled up within them. His tale foretold many of the conflicts we see today—going from a time when most modern medicines didn’t exist, and high mortality was a fact of life, to a time when vaccines and other treatments existed, but access depended partly on wealth. In between those two periods, we saw rapid growth in IP protection that helped move society from one to the other. But whether in the form of religious opposition to smallpox inoculation, regulatory reforms after tragedies from bad medicine, or protests from a marginalized community during the AIDS crisis, legal and social issues have always played a prominent role in the story of medical science.

Building on this historical base, Mr. Daemmrich posed the problem now facing us: compared to other medicines, there are relatively few vaccines. On a grand scale, the entire field of vaccination is still in a stage of early development, and there exists great potential for growth in the future. The question is how to best stimulate that growth, or rather, how to ensure the greatest access to already-developed vaccines without stifling the creation of new ones?

Prof. O’Connor then led the panel with a series of questions. He began by asking about the difference between two classes of medicine. Vaccines are generally thought of as biologics—treatments that are derived from live cells­—whereas pharmaceuticals belong to the class of “small-molecule” drugs. They are primarily chemical compounds rather than a biological product.

Q: From an IP perspective, are vaccines different from small molecule pharmaceuticals? What role does IP play in making vaccines available?

 Prof. Rai responded that vaccines are indeed very different from small molecule drugs. From an IP perspective, the two classes derive their greatest protection from different sources.

Small molecule drugs can be produced without the need for company trade secrets. All the most critical information can be found within the text of the patent. So, the greatest protection comes from the patent itself, which grants its owner the right to exclude others from making or using the drug, and from data exclusivity, which prevents other companies from using the original developer’s clinical data to obtain regulatory approval of its own product.

Vaccines, on the other hand, cannot be quickly copied solely by reading the patent. There is a great deal of “know-how” involved in the manufacturing process. Because of this, trade secrets can be just as important to vaccine protection as the patent.

The role of IP in vaccine access, she said, is an interesting question. While public funding exists in the world of small molecule drugs, it has a “heavier footprint” in vaccine development, which then has some impact on the incentive model as it applies to vaccines.

Mr. Laster said the role of public funding was critical to his prior work at PATH, an organization devoted advancing global healthcare equity through public-private partnerships and other initiatives. Public funding has a “de-risking” effect in that the high costs and uncertainty of clinical trials are not borne entirely by the private sector. And because vaccine development typically requires cooperation among many parties, it is valuable to have different types of incentives in play (i.e., “pull”-type incentives, such as patent grants, as well as “push”-types, such as public funding). But from an IP perspective, exclusivity can pose a challenge to those cooperative efforts.

Additionally, he said that the detailed know-how involved with vaccines makes technology transfer incredibly difficult. If the intended receiver in a developing nation lacks the capacity to utilize the technology, how can effective tech transfer work in real-world practice? The question is less about whether we should be transferring vaccine technology to developing nations than it is about whether we can.

Mr. Aaronson said that a key piece of our IP system is that it does allow for greater cooperation by providing a means of transferring technology among partners while preventing that technology from being used for unauthorized purposes. He credits that cooperative system for enabling Pfizer to partner with BioNTech, producing a vaccine in record time. He added that this vaccine is currently supplied in 116 countries and counting, that they have committed to supplying at least 2.5 billion doses, and that they have just struck a purchase agreement with the United States for 500 million doses to supply lower-middle income nations. The required research, discovery, and development would not have been possible without a strong IP system that provides the right incentives and enables secure technology sharing among a large host of players.

Q: While we don’t know what final form the waiver might take, do you see it playing a necessary role in actually increasing vaccine supply and access in the coming year or two? Are there potential downsides to an IP waiver that should be considered?

Prof. Rai said that the biggest effect of a waiver would likely be its “symbolic” value, as other factors will have a much greater impact on vaccine access. But even if there were no substantive effect, it would be good for high-income nations to demonstrate an interest in global health issues. However, she considered the waiver issue “a little bit of a sideshow,” saying it likely would be “neither as bad as opponents fear nor as good as proponents hope.”

Prof. O’Connor noted that this is a particularly difficult question to answer when nobody knows what form any potential waiver would eventually take.

Mr. Laster based his perspective on his ten years of negotiating vaccine development and distribution efforts with PATH, saying he is “not sure [the waiver] aligns well” with what’s needed. Recognizing the importance of trade secrets and the complexity of the partnerships involved, he says a successful system must encourage willing cooperation. Simply waiving IP rights won’t necessarily do that. He also cautioned against taking a “static view” of the problem by taking for granted that the vaccine already exists rather than considering the IP system that helped create it, and failing to ensure that the same system is incentivizing new vaccines in the future. That said, the threat of a waiver might provide enough encouragement to bring about voluntary participation before an actual waiver becomes a reality. He credits this threat with already having a noticeable effect on pricing and other strategies.

Mr. Aaronson added that we are dealing with multiple vaccines based on very different technologies. Concentrating “a little more on the practical versus the theoretical,” he noted that the impacts of an IP waiver can vary greatly from one technology to another. The mRNA vaccine is the first drug of its type to ever receive approval. Much of the necessary tech transfer would not be limited to COVID-19, but could apply to the entire mRNA technology platform, drastically impacting its value. Waiving the rights to a groundbreaking technology could reduce the incentive to explore uncharted technological fields.

He also said it’s not certain that waiving IP rights would yield a net increase in the number of doses produced. The existing developers are producing large amounts of the vaccine. Opening the supply chain up to new entrants who may not be able to effectively utilize those supplies could yield a net decrease in production.

Prof. O’Connor also took audience questions for the panel. Some are listed below, starting with a “great foundational question.”

Q: How would it be ethical to allow lifesaving medicines and vaccines to be patented?

Prof. O’Connor began by addressing the purely legal perspective—that such patents are allowed under U.S. law, although there have been exceptions in some other countries at certain times because of this complex ethical question.

Mr. Aaronson said it’s important to think about patents as a part of a broader incentive structure. Are we putting the incentives in place to get someone to get up every morning and put in the work, money, and risk to create a product? We need an incentive structure, or there won’t be anyone making those lifesaving medicines. A patent system is one way to achieve this.

Q: If patent disclosures cannot teach producers how to make a vaccine without also getting corresponding know-how, how can they satisfy the disclosure requirement for patentability?

Prof. Rai has written multiple articles about this question (see one here) and offered several reasons. Some of the know-how is not easily written down. The need for shared know-how could possibly be satisfied by depositing biological materials with the Patent Office, but this is unlikely to happen. Another reason is that the final product that emerges from a years-long regulatory approval process is not always identical to the product described in the patent. There is also a mistaken view that patents and trade secrets cannot protect the same product. It is true that a singular feature cannot be both patented and kept as a trade secret, but a single product may have different features that are protected under one regime or the other.

Mr. Aaronson also pointed out that a single drug may be protected by many patents. Some of the know-how simply involves knowing how to properly combine the patented technologies.

Q: If most of the medical innovations occur in wealthy nations, IP laws will lock developing nations out, at least initially. Is there a way to include developing nations earlier in the innovation process?

All panelists agreed on the importance of this issue, as well as on the fact that it’s much easier said than done. Prof. Rai said that every nation must begin to create its own manufacturing capacity to avoid reliance on others, but this requires large amounts of human capital and infrastructure. The problem really goes beyond medicine to the balance of rich and poor nations generally. Mr. Laster said this is the sort of thing he was working on with PATH, which has created some networks, but there is a long way to go. Building the required skillsets and infrastructure locally takes time, but public-private partnerships can help. Mr. Aaronson said that it’s essentially like asking a nation to stop being a low-income country. It’s a somewhat circular issue, in which money is required to build infrastructure, but infrastructure is required to make money. However, this is where IP is not the problem; it is the solution. A strong IP system can create the necessary investment incentives to begin building a better future in any nation.

Closing Remarks

In closing, Prof. Rai said that “regrettably, the public debate on the . . . waiver has been very simplistic.” She hoped that the panel had “shed some light” on the issue and thanked her fellow panelists for a respectful and productive dialogue. Mr. Last er agreed that “it is a complex topic” but said that “it’s not about the waiver;  I do think there are mechanisms that can lead more likely to the outcomes we want.” Mr. Aaronson finished by saying that “we all have the same goal, to figure out ways to bring medicines and vaccines to patients, no matter where they are in the world. We’re fortunate and thrilled that our vaccine has had that potential to change lives, and our goal is to continue . . . to ensure access” to both this and to future vaccines.

A recording of the panel is available here.

Categories
Healthcare International Law

A View from Both Sides: COVID-19, the TRIPS Waiver, IP Rights, and How to Increase the Supply of Vaccines

scientist looking through a microscopeIssue

The United States and other wealthy nations have access to plenty of COVID-19 vaccine doses and thus are beginning to get the pandemic under control, while less affluent countries do not have access to adequate doses and are still struggling with rising cases. In October 2020, India and South Africa proposed addressing this problem by waiving certain portions of the TRIPS Agreement, the most comprehensive agreement on intellectual property (IP) aspects of international trade among the WTO’s 164 member states. The waiver cites “an urgent call for global solidarity, and the unhindered global sharing of technology and know-how in order that rapid responses for the handling of COVID-19 can be put in place on a real time basis.” While this proposal broadly applies to any COVID-19-related technology, much of the conversation is currently focused on vaccines.

The proposal would temporarily suspend patent rights covering COVID-19 vaccines and possibly also be used to compel the transfer of trade secret “know-how” and “show-how.” Proponents say this would allow any manufacturer to begin production—boosting vaccine supply while slashing prices—to end the surge of cases in less developed nations. Critics argue that the reality is more complicated: the waiver will be ineffective, even harmful, and it would have a devastating impact on our readiness for future health crises.

In Support of the Waiver

For supporters of the waiver, the answer is clear: cases are rising in many nations because they still don’t have the vaccines they need. It’s only reasonable to make exceptions to our ordinary system of business incentives during times of global crisis.

The Biden Administration

That is essentially what U.S. Trade Representative Katherine Tai stated when the Biden Administration announced its support for the waiver: “This is a global health crisis, and the extraordinary circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic call for extraordinary measures. The Administration believes strongly in intellectual property protections, but in service of ending this pandemic, supports the waiver of those protections for COVID-19 vaccines.”

It affects all of us

WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus says that the “me-first approach” among powerful nations “is self-defeating and will lead to a protracted recovery with trade and travel continuing to suffer.” Under this rationale, even purely self-interested parties should support the waiver, if only because modern commerce is so globally connected.

Dropping IP barriers will facilitate greater collaboration

Many say the threat of IP litigation prevents the kind of collaboration needed to quickly ramp up production and development, and that a waiver can remove that threat. The president of Médecins Sans Frontières, Dr. Christos Christou, says that “[t]he waiver proposal offers all governments opportunities to take action for better collaboration in development, production and supply of COVID medical tools without being restricted by private industry’s interests and actions, and crucially would give governments all available tools to ensure global access.”

Patents were not meant to impede emergency action

A recent editorial in the journal Nature argues that patents are designed to protect ordinary commercial interests, not to hinder global cooperation against a common threat: “A pandemic is not a competition between companies, but a race between humanity and a virus. Instead of competing, countries and companies need to do all they can to cooperate to bring the pandemic to an end.”

It solves an immediate need without setting a troubling precedent

While opponents of the waiver argue that it will weaken future drug patent protection, Imron Aly and Ahmed M.T. Riaz of Schiff Hardin LLP call those concerns “unfounded” in their post at IPWatchdog. Not only is the current proposal limited specifically to COVID-19, but it was also not created carelessly. Instead, it “has taken substantial international efforts and official international law amendments.” Aly and Riaz say this exceptional action is appropriate if it can succeed where our IP system has yet to do so: “The TRIPS waiver simply allows countries the option to suspend patent enforcement to encourage COVID-19 vaccine production, which makes sense for those countries where current investment has not resulted in vaccine access.”

Even if the waiver doesn’t work, it might work

University of Houston Law Center Professor Sapna Kumar acknowledges a number of functional issues with the waiver approach but notes that it may still have a positive effect on the pandemic: “Overall, the greatest benefit of the Biden Administration’s support for the waiver is that it signals a departure from the prior approach of punishing countries facing health crises and that it might spur pharmaceutical companies to voluntarily increase out-licensing and donations of vaccines.” Her prediction was borne out by a recent pledge to donate 2.3 billion doses by Pfizer/BioNTech, Johnson & Johnson, and Moderna.

Opposed to the Waiver

Opponents of the waiver argue that it will not be effective because it fails to address the real problems. Further, it could actually be detrimental to quality control and supply chains in the present crisis, while quite possibly affecting how pharmaceutical companies choose to allocate investment dollars in the future.

It’s a long process that requires much more than a temporary waiver of licenses

Vaccines are not like other drugs. Writing for Foreign Affairs, Peter J. Hotez, Maria Elena Bottazzi, and Prashant Yadav say that we can’t compare the current situation to similar actions on HIV treatments, and that most nations are not prepared to make use of the patented technology: “Producing vaccines—particularly those as technologically complex as the messenger RNA (mRNA) inoculations against COVID-19—requires not only patents but an entire infrastructure that cannot be transferred overnight.” The authors state that “[t]he effective transfer of such complex technology requires a receiving ecosystem that can take years, sometimes decades, to build.”

We need another way

Professor Yogesh Pai of the National Law University Delhi says that simply waiving trade secret protection won’t automatically disclose everything a manufacturer needs to know. Accessing “hard tacit knowledge of manufacturing/quality control measures for production and clinical data required for regulatory clearances” could require forced technology transfer (FTT) by national governments. He recalls how detrimental such efforts were to India’s economy when it tried FTT with Coca-Cola in the 1970s, prompting the company to leave the country altogether.

Prof. Pai instead recommends efforts to encourage voluntary cooperation: “Where blunt legal instruments don’t work, using track-1 and track-2 diplomacy to place moral coercion on western governments to nudge firms to actively engage in technology licensing may still work wonders.”

“China First” policy?

Sixteen U.S. senators issued a sharply worded letter to the executive branch, questioning the true motives of “China and other countries which regularly steal American intellectual property—like India and South Africa,” and expressing shock that an American president would go along with it: “These nations are falsely claiming that granting such a waiver would speed the development of new vaccine capacity. Nothing could be further from the truth.” Instead, the senators are suggesting that the waiver is being used as a means to unfairly to acquire trade secrets that took massive resources and time to develop.

Reuters reports that “some U.S. officials fear the move would allow China to leapfrog years of research and erode the U.S. advantage in biopharmaceuticals” and quotes a senior U.S. official as saying that the country “‘would want to examine the effect of a waiver on China and Russia before it went into effect to ensure that it’s fit for purpose.’”

IP is not the Issue

A waiver on patent rights, even with the corresponding trade secrets, can only give permission to manufacture. But Eva Bishwal of Fidus Law Chambers writes that the real problems in India “are state inaction, dearth of raw materials and low production capacity.”

According to Patrick Kilbride of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Global Innovation Policy Center, and as cited in Pharmaceutical Technology, “[p]roposals to waive intellectual property rights are misguided and a distraction from the real work of reinforcing supply chains and assisting countries to procure, distribute and administer vaccines to billions of the world’s citizens.”

Low-quality vaccines could do more harm than good

Former USPTO Director Andrei Iancu voiced concern recently at a World IP Day event, asking, “if we waive IP rights, and exclude the original manufacturers, how are we going to control the quality of the vaccines that go into people’s arms? How are we going to control for the fake vaccines? Just last week we saw fake Pfizer vaccines.” And as Philip Thompson points out for IPWatchdog, when investigators are forced to “determine if adverse events or sub-par effectiveness originate from ‘real’ vaccines or fake doses, we should expect global production starts and stops to become much more frequent.”

It will discourage investment in the most critical areas

Pharmaceutical developers invest unfathomable amounts of money into bringing drugs to market. The path to success is long, expensive, and highly uncertain. But what is certain is that successful drugs can yield a profit that covers the loss from failures. Now critics are deeply worried that this waiver will skew future cost-benefit analyses against important classes of medicine. All other things being equal, a developer has a better chance at a positive return by investing in drugs that pose no risk of seizure during a global emergency. As Amanda Glassman of the Center for Global Development writes, the waiver sends the wrong message to innovators and investors: “don’t bother attacking the most important global problems; instead, throw your investment dollars at the next treatment for erectile disfunction, which will surely earn you a steady return with far less agita.” The scramble amongst pharmaceutical giants to develop a vaccine was an all-out race, with good reason, and that’s exactly how it should be. If those companies believe that forfeiture is waiting at the finish line next time around, we might see fewer contestants.

Even “no-profit” vaccine makers appear to oppose the waiver

Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla laid out everything the company has done to combat the vaccine in an equitable manner and argued that “waiver of IP rights could only derail this progress.” And while Pfizer and Moderna are selling their vaccines at a profit, Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca have pledged not to do so during the pandemic.

However, it appears that even those companies oppose the waiver. As reported in The Wall Street Journal, the trade group PhRMA, which represents Johnson & Johnson and AstraZeneca among many others, is “lobbying members of Congress to oppose the Biden administration’s support for the waiver.” Johnson & Johnson’s Chief IP counsel Robert DeBerardine says that patent rights are responsible for the breakneck pace of development and that the drug’s makers are the best-equipped people to continue the fight: “What we’re able to do, because we have control of the IP, is to pick the best companies to help us supply the world. If you were to give everything to everybody, you may see a flood of vaccines, but you would have no idea if they’re safe and effective.”

Conclusion

While we share the concerns of other organizations that effective, affordable, and accessible vaccines be made available to all persons regardless of location or wealth, we do not believe that upending longstanding U.S. patent policy for a solution that will do little if anything to increase the vaccine supply is advisable. Strong IP rights remain the best way to incentivize innovation and ultimately increase the supply of life-saving medicines. The Biden administration’s unprecedented support of the proposed WTO IP waiver, while well intended, is likely to create long-term harm and unlikely to have much of an impact on global vaccine supplies. Ultimately, encouraging companies to license IP and engage in voluntary knowledge transfer, along with the sharing of excess doses that are being produced, are methods far more likely to alleviate the vaccine supply issues than waiving IP rights and would be a better path forward out of the current crisis.

Categories
Healthcare Patents

WTO IP Waiver Too Simplistic: Global Vaccine Tech-Transfer Needs Other Strategies

a scientist looking through a microscopeBy Yogesh Pai

Since October 2020, India and South Africa, joined by two-thirds of the WTO Members (African Group, LDCs and most of developing world) have been actively pursuing other developed country Members to agree to their request to waive global intellectual property (IP) rules. The waiver asserts that by suspending IP protection for COVID-19 technologies, countries will be able to quickly augment production and foster equitable access for COVID-19 related products.

The push for the IP waiver proposal rests on an often simplistic textbook assumption that IP controls exercised through legal rights allow IP owning firms exclusive control on production by reducing output (by restricting competitive copycat entry) and thus increasing prices. Of course, this is something no country wants during a pandemic where equitable access is paramount.

However, truth be told, the IP waiver proposal, even if passed by approval of three-fourths of current WTO Members (a minimum requirement under WTO Rules) or with a consensus, will not enable India or any other country (even with decent production capabilities) to quickly access complex technologies and augment production, particularly in the context of COVID-19 vaccines.

The critical issue surrounding access to COVID-19 vaccine technologies involves an active technology licensing component, which the waiver/suspension of IP laws cannot achieve (e.g. by suspending patents or trade secret protection).

Most complex technologies such as vaccines and other biological products contain two major knowledge components. One component is the knowledge that can be copied by competitors and hence patented to legally prevent copying for at least 20 years in India. Another component involves any undisclosed information such as a trade secret or know-how, including hard tacit knowledge of manufacturing/quality control measures for production and clinical data required for regulatory clearances.

IP waiver simply can’t achieve access to tacit knowledge components which are in the exclusive possession of a firm in the form of trade secrets or any other undisclosed information. Any IP lawyer with an understanding of IP intensive industries would confirm that trade secrets do not require any ‘exclusivity’ type of legal protection (e.g. like patents). Trade secret laws provide defensive protection to a firm that already has exclusive possession of some undisclosed information against industrial espionage, breach of confidence/contracts by its employees or by connected parties who benefit from such misappropriation. Of course, unconnected parties (i.e. competitors) are always free to come out with their own products/processes through capital intensive and time consuming (months/years) reverse-engineering or independent innovation, which the law on trade secrets does not prohibit.

So even if the WTO IP waiver will allow countries like India to suspend legal protection for trade secrets/undisclosed information, it means nothing in the real-world unless the law  (and often a draconian criminal measure) is used against a firm and its employees physically located in its territory to engage in forced technology transfer (FTT). Such FTT requirements have never worked in practice without other social and economic costs. India has already had a taste of it in its unsuccessful bid to get Coca-Cola to reveal its know-how under foreign exchange laws in the late 1970s. It led to Coke’s exit from India and return in the post-liberalisation era in the early 1990s.

Realising such complexities and the potential futility of blunt legal instruments early on, the Serum Institute of India (SII) actively collaborated with AstraZeneca/Oxford for obtaining a technology licence involving a reported fee of Rs. 75/- per jab. This allowed SII access to AstraZeneca’s tacit knowledge (trade secrets/other undisclosed information) and clinical trial data to engage in quality-controlled production. Scaling-up is a different challenge altogether as it requires both time and investment in heavily quality-controlled production facilities.

Similarly, India’s Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR) – Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB), which already has certain expertise in mRNA technologies, is pursuing Moderna to engage in vaccine technology licensing. Although Moderna has allowed free access to its mRNA patents for COVID-19 vaccine production, the crux lies in active technology licensing.

In fact, even in case of an indigenously developed vaccine technology by Bharat Biotech with an early-stage lab support from the publicly-funded Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) – National Institute of Virology (NIV), the Department of Biotechnology had to recently nudge Bharat Biotech to engage in talks with Panacea Biotech (the only other company in India which is currently equipped to produce Covaxin) to scale-up production.

So, a WTO IP Waiver to suspend IP obligations domestically will not help unless India engages in FTT – a recipe for complete disaster, particularly when we have finally decided to open-up to more foreign players. The Government of India must not waste its valuable energy in pursuing the waiver proposal in trying to look for solutions that are far removed from the real-world complexities and constraints posed by economics of vaccine technologies and production, and an equally complex IP ecosystem in the context of global tech-transfers. Where blunt legal instruments don’t work, using track-1 and track-2 diplomacy to place moral coercion on western governments to nudge firms to actively engage in technology licensing may still work wonders.

Allowing manufacturers to strike early deals with tech players to facilitate risk-sharing and exploration of synergies driven by a predictable and transparent entry-enabled regulatory environment is a pre-requisite for sustainable vaccine production. Securing cheap upfront volume discounts for state-sponsored distribution and allowing private players to cross-subsidise through differential pricing in private sales will help in meeting the demand. This will facilitate scaling-up of production and pave the way towards healthy competition by driving down vaccine prices in order to attain vaccine equity.

Dr. Yogesh Pai is an assistant professor and the DPIIT, Ministry of Commerce and Industry IPR Chair at National Law University Delhi. He has served as a legal member of the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare’s Committee on Invoking Provisions of Compulsory Licensing under the Patents Act, 1970 in the Context of Affordable Healthcare (2013). Views are personal.

This piece first appeared on April 28, 2021, in the Express Pharma edition of the Indian Express.

Categories
Antitrust Patent Law Pharma

USPTO-DOJ Workshop on Promoting Innovation in the Life Science Sector: Day Two Recap

The following post comes from Austin Shaffer, a 2L at Scalia Law and a Research Assistant at CPIP. 

night view of Washington, D.C.By Austin Shaffer

This past fall, the Department of Justice (DOJ) and U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) hosted day two of their public workshop to discuss the importance of intellectual property rights and pro-competitive collaborations for life sciences companies, research institutions, and American consumers. While day one focused on how patents and copyrights impact collaboration and innovation for business development in life science technologies, day two concentrated on competition, collaboration, and licensing, and how those tools can promote access to therapeutics, diagnostics, and vaccines. Video of day two of the workshop is available here, and our summary of day one is available here.

Welcome Remarks, Fireside Chat, and Program Overview

Makan Delrahim, Assistant Attorney General for the DOJ Antitrust Division, kicked off day two with some opening remarks, emphasizing the significant role that IP and antitrust play to encourage innovation and healthy competition as entities around the globe race to find a COVID vaccine.

Mr. Delrahim was then joined by USPTO Director Andrei Iancu for a fireside chat, moderated by Judge Kathleen O’Malley of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Mr. Iancu spoke to the critical pro-competitive role of patents at this time, as they incentivize innovation and disclosure and create transferrable financial instruments. Indeed, obtaining a patent boosts viability and employment growth, particularly for small companies. Additionally, Mr. Iancu highlighted some of the measures that the USPTO is taking to foster innovation and collaboration in the life science sector. One such measure, the Patents 4 Partnerships program, provides the public with a user-friendly, searchable repository of patents and published applications related to the COVID pandemic that are available for licensing. Additionally, the USPTO has extended deadlines and discounted application fees pursuant to the CARES Act.

Following the fireside chat, David Lawrence, Chief, Competition Policy & Advocacy Section at the DOJ, gave a brief overview of the day’s program. Mr. Lawrence noted that the life science sector relies on both competition and collaboration—the key question throughout the upcoming panels is where to draw the line at the cross-section of those factors to promote efficiency and effectiveness.

Session V: Collaboration and Licensing Strategies

Partnerships can serve as a key tool in the development of therapeutics and vaccines from initial research, through product development and clinical trials, and into the market-ready stage. These partnerships and various licensing strategies are particularly relevant to addressing the current pandemic. This panel focused on public-private partnerships, private partnerships, exclusive versus non-exclusive licensing, ownership rights, and information pooling.

The panel included Laura Coruzzi of Regenxbio, Lauren Foster from MIT, Prof. Sheridan Miyamoto from Penn State University, Mita Mukherjee of Emergent BioSolutions, Mark Rohrbaugh of the NIH, and Dick Wilder of the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, and it was moderated by DOJ Deputy Associate Attorney General Brian Pandya.

Each panelist took a turn discussing the role of collaboration in the development of therapeutics and vaccines. Ms. Coruzzi said that while collaboration is important throughout product development, it is particularly critical in the early research stage. Gene therapy research is precariously risky, and investors tend to stay away from those endeavors. Collaboration between multiple entities leads to a higher success rate, thereby providing a greater incentive for investors to get on board. Ms. Mukherjee explained that while big pharma has the expertise in researching and developing a marketable product, the initial work is often more appropriate for smaller, niche companies.

Ms. Foster explained that at MIT, the mission is to make technology broadly available, and by prudently engaging in a collaborative relationship, they can better ensure advancement. While the NIH approaches licensing in a similar manner to MIT, Mr. Rohrbaugh noted some of the statutory requirements and regulations that govern the NIH’s ability to license, such as the requirement to post on the Federal Register for comment. Mr. Wilder argued that the key to successful collaboration is to manage projects on a collective basis to ensuring that the resulting IP is used properly.

Turning to recent developments in licensing structures, Mr. Pandya noted the recent increase in invalidation of IP rights and posed the question: How has this negatively impacted licensing? Ms. Coruzzi cited Mayo v. Prometheus, a 2012 Supreme Court case which held that a natural phenomenon must be sufficiently added upon or transformed in order to make an idea, formula, mechanism, or test patentable. That decision, she argued, has squandered tax-funded university research and placed the U.S. at a competitive disadvantage with other countries that protect purified or engineered natural products. She called on the legislature to fix a decision that “knocked the legs out of patents.”

Session VI: How do Regulation and Antitrust Enforcement Impact Competition and Incentives for Innovation?

The extent to which regulation and antitrust enforcement are necessary to maintain competition is a contested issue, and the answer can have a significant impact on the incentives for innovation. The panelists in this session considered the tradeoffs between the two and the resulting consequences, especially within the context of a pandemic.

The panel included Alden Abbott of the FTC, Prof. Ernst Berndt from MIT, David Kappos of Cravath, Swaine & Moore, Prof. William Kovacic from George Washington University Law School, and Dick Wilder of the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, and it was moderated by Deputy Assistant Attorney General Alexander Okuliar.

Mr. Kappos argued that the patent system has been disabled and marginalized in its role of incentivizing innovation and bringing ideas from the university level to the marketplace for a variety of reasons. Mentioning a host of companies that agree, Mr. Kappos deemed the patent system broken, calling on congressional reform of 35 U.S.C. § 101. From his observations, our restricted statutory scheme has caused investment to flee elsewhere, recent Supreme Court decisions have resulted in decreased overall investment, and venture capital funding is decreasing in patent-reliant sectors.

Pertinent to regulation and antitrust enforcement concerns, several of the panelists pointed to the March 2020 FTC-DOJ Joint Statement as a positive step forward. The statement outlined ways that firms, including competitors, can engage in collaboration for the purpose of public health and safety protection without violating the antitrust laws. Mr. Kovacic called on further FTC and DOJ action, explicating that those agencies have the capacity to analyze the effects of previous policymaking on the life science sector that can provide useful guidance moving forward.

Session VII: Competition and Collaboration: Examining Competitive Effects and Antitrust Risks Associated with Collaborations

In this session, the panelists discussed what makes a collaboration or partnership successful and procompetitive, antitrust concerns that can arise, and potential safeguards that can reduce antitrust risk.

The panel included William Diaz of Amgen, Andrew Finch of Paul Weiss, Prof. Luba Greenwood from Harvard University, and Chuck Loughlin of Hogan Lovells, and it was moderated by the DOJ’s Jennifer Dixton, Special Counsel for Policy & Intellectual Property, Antitrust Division.

Mr. Finch started off the penultimate panel by identifying the hallmarks of a successful joint venture: mechanisms that enable participants in the venture to increase output, clear boundaries as to the scope of the venture, and safeguards to make sure the venture stays “on the rails.” He proposed a “red-yellow-green” system that lawyers can articulate to business clients to let them know what can and cannot be shared, and when to seek advice from counsel for further guidance. Mr. Diaz echoed those sentiments, adding that ventures need a clear charter from the onset of the relationship that provides comprehensive plans for what to do in a variety of scenarios. Also, he continued, it is imperative to keep detailed meeting agendas to avoid members straying into discussions that might raise antitrust concerns.

The panelists went on to commend the usefulness of the DOJ’s Business Review Letters, which provide unusually expedited advisory guidance to firms wondering whether their collaborations will pass antitrust muster. Ms. Dixton, fielding those comments as moderator and in her capacity at the DOJ, then posed a final question to the panel: What else could the Department be doing? The panelists called for updates to the FTC-DOJ Antitrust Guidelines for Collaborations Among Competitors. While still useful, the Guidelines have not been updated in twenty years, leaving many gray areas in today’s world.

Keynote Speech

The keynote speech was delivered by Dr. Elias Zerhouni, Emeritus Professor of Radiology and Biomedical Engineering and Senior Advisor at Johns Hopkins Medicine.

Dr. Zerhouni shared his wealth of life science knowledge and experience in the day’s keynote speech. He made a key point when it comes to the need for collaboration to combat COVID: no single university, single company, or even single country is able to address modern biological issues by themselves—the amount of data generated in the life science sector is simply beyond the capabilities of one player.

Dr. Zerhouni agreed with some of the previous panelists that developments in the patent system have changed the structure of innovation and created a difficult market to negotiate in. He argued for statutory reform that will allow US innovators to pool their IP together to operate more effectively. Although there are many contributing factors to the current state of the patent system, Dr. Zerhouni referred to the Federal Circuit’s 2002 decision in Madey v. Duke University as an inhibitor to pre-competitive innovation. (Madey held that the experimental use defense applied only to acts taken for amusement, to satisfy curiosity, or for strictly philosophical inquiry).

Session VIII: Academics’ and Economists’ Views on Collaboration and Competition

The final panel featured the perspectives of experts from academia and the field of economics, including Prof. Rena Conti from Boston University, Prof. Scott Hemphill from NYU School of Law, Richard Manning of Bates White Economic Consulting, and Prof. Joanna Shepherd from Emory Law School, and it was moderated by Patrick Greenlee, Economist with the DOJ’s Antitrust Division.

Mr. Greenlee asked one question of the final panel: Are the current prices for life sector IP too high? That question fielded diverse opinions and evaluations. Mr. Manning said there is no cause for worry because the profit margins “aren’t that big.” Prof. Shepherd agreed, citing historically low lifetime revenues for new drugs, resulting in decreasing returns on R&D for pharmaceutical companies. Prof. Hemphill took a step back, arguing that our economic knowledge is still too limited to know the optimal level for the collaboration-competition tradeoff. Prof. Conti contended that we may be looking at the system entirely wrong—when evaluating mergers and the value of IP assets, the value of labor and manufacturing assets and access to raw materials is often overlooked.

Conclusion

Overall, the second day of the DOJ-USPTO workshop on promoting innovation in the life science sector left us with a lot to consider in the coming months as COVID vaccinations continue to be developed and distributed. What is the optimal level of antitrust enforcement? How can firms effectively, and legally, take advantage of licensing strategies and collaboration to expedite development? Does our patent system need to be reformed in the wake of the pandemic? These are questions of the upmost importance for our industry leaders and policymakers to consider and solve.

Categories
Copyright Innovation Patents Pharma

IP Industries Step Up in This Time of Crisis

the word "inspiration" typed on a typewriterThe global COVID-19 pandemic has challenged multiple aspects of modern society in a short time. Health and public safety, education, commerce, research, arts, and even basic government functions have had to change dramatically in the space of a couple months. Some good news in all this is the response of many companies in the intellectual property (IP) industries: they are stepping up to make sure crucial information and materials are available to speed research and development (R&D) towards vaccines, therapeutics, and medical devices. This blog post gives a sampling of the current initiatives facilitating the best innovative work the world has to offer.

Bio-pharmaceutical companies

Bio-pharmaceutical (bio-pharma) companies have been leading the charge, collaborating with academic and government partners to advance vaccine and therapy candidates on a fast track. While there have been isolated stories of some IP-related issues for rapid deployment and use of medical devices such as ventilators, the overall message is clear that research, development, and deployment have not been hindered by IP rightsholders. In fact, problems for distribution of medicines, personal protective equipment, and medical devices have little to do with IP rights but rather with hoarding and nationalistic impulses by governments.

Examples of rapid response are abundant. In February, the Department of Health and Human Services and its Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA) partnered with the Janssen Research & Development unit of Johnson & Johnson to investigate a promising vaccine candidate. Janssen also committed to invest in the scale-up of production and manufacturing capacities to produce the vaccine candidate if it succeeds through clinical trials. By mid-March, 50 drugs that might fight the virus had been identified by collaborations of hundreds of scientists. Research continues apace and 80 clinical trials are proceeding, some on fast track status including a potential vaccine.

Beyond its core R&D, regulatory, manufacturing, and distribution mission, the bio-pharma industry is providing direct support to many places in need. This includes donations of medical supplies and personal protective equipment (PPE), existing treatments and medicines, and monetary and in-kind support.

At the same time, private incentives are more important than ever to get novel vaccines, drugs, and devices out to the world in safe, efficacious form and at scale. Dr. Anthony Fauci, Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, has long recognized that exclusive licenses of IP to bio-pharma industry partners are necessary to get innovative vaccines and drugs to the public:

“We always need a pharmaceutical partner,” [Fauci] told CQ Roll Call in October 2017. “I can’t think of a vaccine, even one in which we’ve put substantial intellectual and resource input, that was brought to the goal line without a partnership with industry. So this is a very natural process that we’re doing right now.”

He argued that for vaccines like Zika, which might predominantly be used in low-income countries, drugmakers don’t see a lot of financial incentive to get involved, which is why the NIH needs to grant exclusive licenses. But he argued that the process hasn’t had an impact on vaccine affordability.

“I have not seen in my experience situations in which we were involved in the development of a vaccine, particularly for low- and middle-income countries that really needed it, where the pharmaceutical companies priced it out of their reach,” Fauci said.

Likewise, as noted innovation scholars Daniel J. Hemel and Lisa Larrimore Ouellette point out in a recent article, Innovation Policy Pluralism, multiple vectors of public and private incentives and resources work together to advance pioneering innovation. Even in countries with a national health or single payer system, the government health program does not manufacture vaccines, drugs, or devices. Instead, it relies on private firms that in turn work closely and well with public and academic researchers to identify pressing problems, locate relevant basic science advances, and then translate those into actual vaccines, therapies, or devices.

The myth of patients and the public “paying twice” for bio-pharma innovation arising from public-private partnerships is pernicious. It conflates the distinction between basic science research and drug or vaccine candidates, on the one hand, with compounds that can be produced at scale, distributed safely, and that have passed arduous clinical trials to demonstrate safety and efficacy. In the United States, private companies must foot the entire bill for these clinical trials, which run into hundreds of millions of dollars over three phases that enroll thousands of subjects. Simply stated, publicly funded research does not result in a substance or compound that can be manufactured and distributed as is with no further R&D or clinical trials.

A related myth is that governments should use compulsory licenses and similar mechanisms to bypass IP rights holders in an effort to speed research and delivery of drugs and vaccines—when they emerge—to the public at low to no cost. First, there are important distinctions between compulsory licenses, U.S. Bayh-Dole style march-in rights, and government use under statutory provisions like 28 USC 1498, which we have outlined here. But across all of them, IP rights holders must still be compensated at a fair market license rate. Thus, there are no “savings” of IP royalties that could lower the price of vaccines or drugs. This makes sense as we don’t force manufacturers to produce drugs or vaccines for free. Even the Defense Production Act merely directs production, it does not require manufacturers to produce goods for free.

Finally, even if patents could be disregarded, we should be careful about encouraging “open source” or amateur production of regulated devices like ventilators. While the FDA has authorized some limited modifications of approved ventilators to accommodate the exigencies of COVID-19, this does not create a free-for-all in which wholesale changes or entirely new designs of the device or its components can be used. We need to take care that these modifications or new designs are actually safe and efficacious. Thus, while innovation like that of famed inventor James Dyson is most welcome, it does not actually solve the immediate problem of a shortage of ventilators as national regulators must still test and approve these untested devices for medical use. And at any rate, Dyson is not offering their new ventilators for free, even as they are designed to be produced at lower costs and sell at a lower point price in the market.

Thus, we need the bio-pharma industry more than ever to get through this pandemic. Large established firms and nimble start-ups have the resources and expertise to innovate and produce vaccines, drugs, and devices that will pass regulatory muster for safety and efficacy. Now is not the time to attack the patent system and weaken incentives for full-steam-ahead bio-pharma and medical device R&D.

Scientific publishing

Similar to the bio-pharma companies, publishers have been leading the way in making crucial scientific and technological information widely available in order to help fight the global coronavirus pandemic. An open letter from Kelvin Droegemeier, Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) and member of President Trump’s Coronavirus Task Force, issued the call to arms last month (for example, see here, here, and here). Joined by government science leaders from eleven other countries—Australia, Brazil, Canada, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, New Zealand, Singapore, and United Kingdom—the letter called for publishers to make all research and data related to the coronavirus available immediately to the public. Publishers were quick to respond positively to the letter, pointing out that many journals had already been opened up to the public in an effort to support the dissemination of important scientific research and data when it is needed the most.

In the letter, the government science leaders stated: “To assist efforts to contain and mitigate the rapidly evolving COVID-19 pandemic, basic science research and innovation will be vital to addressing this global crisis. Given the urgency of the situation, it is particularly important that scientists and the public can access research outcomes as soon as possible.” The leaders asked the publishers to voluntarily agree to make their coronavirus-related publications, and the data supporting them, immediately accessible in PubMed Central and other public repositories. PubMed Central refers to the digital archive of biomedical and life sciences journal literature at the U.S. National Institutes of Health’s National Library of Medicine. The leaders also requested that the information be made available in both human and machine-readable format to allow for text and data mining using artificial intelligence.

The same day that the government science leaders sent their letter, Maria Pallante, President and CEO of the Association of American Publishers (AAP), issued a statement noting that the organization and its members would be happy to continue doing their part in making the research and data available to the public:

Publishers purposefully and continuously contribute to the advancement of science and medicine by investing billions of dollars in producing and disseminating high-quality, peer-reviewed journal articles. In this urgent and serious environment, we are grateful to the many publishers who are doing their part to communicate valuable discoveries, analyses, and data as quickly as possible, including by making their copyrighted articles pertaining to the virus freely available for public use during this crisis, in both text and machine-readable formats. Many publishers – both commercial companies and nonprofit societies – have been doing so for weeks.

 

Likewise, Elsevier, which specializes in publishing global information on science and health, has taken the lead in ensuring that relevant scientific information is available to the public. Back in January, Elsevier set up its Novel Coronavirus Information Center, offering free health and medical research information on the coronavirus and COVID-19, the disease that is causes. The Information Center is updated daily with the latest research information, including links to nearly 20,000 peer-reviewed journal articles on its ScienceDirect platform that are curated by clinicians and other experts. The information is intended for use by practitioners, such as nurses and doctors, as well by patients and their families. In response to the letter from the government science leaders, Elsevier announced in a press release that same day that the information would be made available to PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories, including in machine-readable format that could be used for full text and data mining.

Kumsal Bayazit, the CEO of Elsevier, also released a statement that day underscoring Elsevier’s continued leadership on this front and concluding:

In working with the White House to improve the discoverability and utility of this important body of knowledge, we are now making it available to PubMed Central and other publicly funded repositories such as the WHO COVID database for full text and data mining and without any limitations for as long as needed while the public health emergency is ongoing. Through this partnership we hope to help researchers to keep up with the rapidly growing body of literature and identify trends as countries around the world address this global health crisis.

 

Numerous other publishers have stepped up as well. Wiley announced that it “is making all current and future research content and data on the COVID-19 Resource Site available to PubMed Central” and “other publicly funded repositories, such as the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 database and Wellcome Trust.” The Resource Site was set up by Wiley in February in order to ensure rapid, public access to COVID-19 research, and in response to the request of the government science leaders, Wiley is now inputting that information into PubMed Central and other publicly-accessible databases. Likewise, Springer Nature stated: “We have made available, for free, all relevant research we have published and continue to publish, [and] are strongly urging our authors submitting articles related to this emergency to share underlying datasets relating to the outbreak as rapidly and widely as possible.” Other publishers, such as American Chemical Society, PLOS, STM Publishing, IOP Publishing, Emerald Group Publishing, F1000 Research, and eLife Research, have committed themselves to the cause of making their coronavirus research and data available publicly.

It is not just scientific research that is being freely shared by publishers. Textbooks for students affected by the pandemic have been made available as well. Wiley recognized the need “to ensure instructors who need to teach remotely have the necessary tools to help their students,” and it opened up its online textbooks so that instructors “can receive free access for their students for the remainder of the Spring 2020 term.” Barnes & Noble announced that it was joining VitalSource and other leading publishers to provide free online textbooks for students at schools where it operates a campus bookstore. Michael P. Huseby, CEO and Chairman of Barnes & Noble Education, said: “Our top priority remains providing schools and students with solutions during this time of unprecedented disruption, while simultaneously protecting the health and safety of our employees and customers.” Other textbook publishers, including Cengage, Gale, Cambridge University Press, among many others, have done the same in order to make the transition to online learning as smooth as possible by ensuring that students have online access to the textbooks that they need.