Health Policy and Management (보건행정학회지)

Korean Academy of Health Policy and Management (한국보건행정학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Compulsory Licensing as a price control and supply policy of patented drugs : Is it a possible alternative in South Korea?

특허신약의 가격통제 및 공급 정책으로서의 강제실시 : 한국에서의 가능성과 한계

  • 변진옥 (서울대학교 보건대학원) ;
  • 정정훈 (공익변호사모임 '공감')
  • Published : 2010.03.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

Korea has had problems with the price and supply of essential drugs such as Gleevec for leukemia, Fuzeon for HIV/AIDS, and Tamiflu for both avian flu and swine flu. The shortage or refusal of patented drugs supply is imposing a heavy burden in not only developing countries but also developed countries. Thinking over the serious results, we need to concern about the limited access to patented drugs by multinational drug companies' patent monopoly especially for pandemic and life threatening diseases. The effective response regarding to pandemic and life threatening diseases. The effective response regarding to pandemic situation requests collaborative and unbiased provisions of all countries in the world, however, sometimes patent monopoly may hinder the efforts. Compulsory licensing has been considered to be a useful alternative to the abuse of patent rights. However, the Korean experiences of compulsory licensing have left some controversial issues in connection with the availability of it in Korea. 'Flexibility' allowed in TRIPS and Doha Declaration has not come into effect in Korea for several reasons. Although the situation shows the limitations of compulsory licensing as a pharmaceutical supply policy, it is clear that compulsory licensing still has the possibilities of enhancing the access to medicines of all countries in need. Through searching the institutionalization process and experiments of compulsory licensing in Korea, this article explores the possibilities and the limits.

Keywords

References

  1. 강희갑, 박준우. TRIPS 협정의 의약품 특허와 공중보건논의에 관한 미국의 입장과 대응방안. 산업재산권 2006 ; 20 : 79-108.
  2. 김남규. 특허발명의 강제실시제도 : 의약품 접근권 향상을 위한 제도개선을 중심으로. 법과 정책연구 2006 ; 6(2) : 805-824.
  3. 김홍국. 조류독감약 ‘강제실시권’ 검토. 문화일보 2005년 10월 31일자.
  4. 남희섭. 공공의 이익을 위한 특허발명의 강제실시. 창작과 권리 2003 ; 30 : 77-108.
  5. 남희섭. 특허발명의 강제실시. 2008. Available from : URL : http://www.ipleft.or.kr/node/ 2484
  6. 배은영. 약제비 증가의 기여요인과 영향분석. 보건경제와 정책연구 2007 ; 13(2) : 39-54.
  7. 배은영, 정연, 이병란. 의약품 등재가 결정방식 및 개선방안 연구. 건강보험심사평가원 : 2008.
  8. 보건복지부. 국민건강보험 요양급여의 기준에 관한 규칙 일부개정령(안) 및 신의료기술 등의 결정 및 조정기준 개정(안) 입법예고. 2006.
  9. 서환주, 정동진, 송종국. 특허권강화는 기술혁신을 촉진하는가 : 한국의 특허법개혁을 중심으로. 국제경제연구 2004 ; 10(2) : 183-216.
  10. 안영진. 식약청, 인체감염 조류독감 비상땐 타미플루 카피약 생산 고려. 한겨레신문 2005년 10월 20일자.
  11. 양희진. 자유무역협정과 지적재산권 강화, 어떻게 대응할 것인가, 진보평론 2005 ; 23 :101-123.
  12. 오준병, 장원창. 특허권 강화와 기술혁신에 관한 실증연구 : 우리나라의 제 11차 특허법 개혁을 중심으로. 경제학연구 2008 ; 56(2) : 63-90.
  13. 육소영. 특허법상 강제실시권의 연구. 충남대학교 법학연구 2005 ; 16(1) : 117-140.
  14. 이수연. 다국적 제약자본의 지적재산권 보호 대 국민 건강권 보장간의 갈등. 사회복지연구 2004 ; 23 : 139-168.
  15. 이영수. 제약사 비싼 약값 요구, 약가협상 결렬 원인. 국민일보 쿠키뉴스 2009년 10월 15일. Available from : URL : http : //news.kukinews.com/article/view.asp?page=1&gCode=kmi&arcid=1255591314&cp=nv
  16. 이익희 특허발명의 강제실시제도 공중보건문제 . : 해결을 위한 제도개선을 중심으로. 특허청 : 2005.
  17. 이준규. 신종플루 치료제 ‘타미플루’ 복제품 국내 생산하게 해야. 경향신문 2009년 5월 21 일자.
  18. 정명진, 이병관, 정윤택, 정아영, 장진영. 2008년 의약품산업 분석보고서. 한국보건산업진흥원 : 2008.
  19. 한국보건산업진흥원. 제약산업 실태분석. 2008.
  20. Abott FM, Reichman JH. The Doha Round's Public Health Legacy : Strategies for the Production and Diffusion of Patented Medicines under the Amended TRIPS Provisions. Journal of International Economic Law 2007 ; 10(4) : 921-987. https://doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgm040
  21. Arndt HW. GATT and the developing world : Agenda for a new trade round. Review of World Economics 1987 ; 123(4) : 705-718.
  22. Azra J. How Can State Provide Affordable Pharmaceuticals to the Underserved? Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved 2006 ; 17(4):808-820. https://doi.org/10.1353/hpu.2006.0138
  23. Bale HE Jr. Industry, innovation and social values. Sci Eng Ethics 2005 ; 11(1):31-40. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-005-0053-9
  24. Berndt ER. Pharmaceuticals in U.S. health care : Determinants of quantity and price. The Journal of Economic Perspectives 2002 ; 16 : 45–66.
  25. Bird RC. Defending Intellectual Property Rights in the BRIC Economies. Am Bus Law J 2006 ; 43(2) : 317-363. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-1714.2006.00019.x
  26. Cahoy DR. The Impact of Compulsory Licensing on Foreign Direct Investment: A Collective Bargaining Approach. American Business Law Journal 2008 ; 45(2) : 299-300.
  27. Chaudhuri S. The WTO and India's Pharmaceuticals Industry : Patent Protection, Trips, and Developing Countries. New Delhi : Oxford University Press : 2005.
  28. Chien C. Cheap Drugs at What Price to Innovation: Does the Compulsory Licensing of Pharmaceuticals Hurt Innovation? Berkeley Technology Law Journal 2003 ; 8 : 853-908.
  29. Cohen J, Cairns C, Paquette C, Faden L. Comparing Patient Access to Pharmaceuticals in the UK and US. Appl Health Econ Helath Policy 2006 ; 5(3) : 177-187. https://doi.org/10.2165/00148365-200605030-00004
  30. Commission on Intellectual Property Rights(CIPR). Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy. CIPR : 2002.
  31. Cugno F, Ottoz E. Static Efficiency of Compulsory Licensing: Price Vs. Quantity Competition June 9, 2006. Available from: URL : http : //ideas.repec.org/p/uto/dipeco/200606.html.
  32. Danzon PM, Wang YR, Wang L. The Impact of Price Regulation on the Launch Delay of New Drugs- Evidence from Twenty-five Major Markets in the 1990s. Health Economics 2005 ; 14 : 269-292. https://doi.org/10.1002/hec.931
  33. Drahos P. Global Property Rights in Information : The story of TRIPS at the GATT. Prometheus 1995 ; 13(1) : 6-19. https://doi.org/10.1080/08109029508629187
  34. Drahos P, Braithwaite J. Intellectual property, corporate strategy, globalisation : TRIPS in context. Wisconsin International Law Journal 2002 ; 20(3) : 451- 480.
  35. Health Intervention and Technology Assessment Program(HITAP). Final Report-Assessing the Implication of Thailand‘s Government Use Licenses, Issued in 2006-2008. HITAP : 2009.
  36. Ho CM. Patent Breaking or Balancing? Separating Strands of Fact from Fiction Under TRIPS. North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation 2009 ; 34(2) : 371-470.
  37. International Trade Administration. Pharmaceutical Price Controls in OECD Countries. U.S. Department of Commerce : 2004.
  38. Lee KW. Permitted use of patented inventions in the United States : Why Prescription drugs do not merit compulsory Licensing. Indiana Law Review. 2003 ; 36 : 175.
  39. Azra J. How Can State Provide Affordable Pharmaceuticals to the Underserved? Journal of Health Care for the Poor and Underserved 2006 ; 17(4) : 808-820. https://doi.org/10.1353/hpu.2006.0138
  40. Light DW. In the name of research: Raising drug prices here and abroad 15 Dec. 2004, Available from : URL : http : //www.cptech.org/ip/health/rnd/dlight12152004.ppt
  41. Lybecker KM, Fowlerd E. Compulsory Licensing in Canada and Thailand: Comparing Regimes to Ensure Legitimate Use of the WTO Rules,” Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics 2009 ; 37(2) : 222-240. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-720X.2009.00367.x
  42. Moser P. Compulsory Licensing Evidence from the Trading with the Enemy Act. Stanford University Department of Economics 2008-2009 seminar series 2009.
  43. Nishimura M. Analysis of the Political Processes for the Formation of the TRIPs Agreement : With the Focus on the Pharmaceutical Industry and the Computer Industry in Japan, Europe, and the United States. Available from : URL : http : //www.iip.or.jp/e/summary/pdf/detail2006/e18_28.pdf.
  44. NIHCM Foundation, Prescription Drugs & IPP, Issue Brief August 2000.
  45. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development(OECD). Pharmaceutical Pricing Policies in a Global Market. OECD : 2008.
  46. Paris V, Docteur E. Pharmaceutical Pricing and Reimbursement Policies in Canada. OECD Health Working Papers. OECD : 2006.
  47. Permanand G, Altenstetter C. The Politics of Pharmaceuticals in the European Union. In : Mossialos E, Mrazek M, Walley T, editors. Regulating pharmaceuticals in Europe: striving for efficiency, equity and quality. Open University Press ; 2004. pp. 40-51.
  48. Pugatch MP. The International Political Economy of Intellectual Property Rights. Edward Elgar ; 2004. pp.129.
  49. Putnam R. Diplomacy and Domestic Politics, International organization : The Logic of Two-Level Games. International Organization 1988 ; 42(3) : 427-460. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0020818300027697
  50. Reichman JH. Compulsory Licensing of Patented Pharmaceutical Inventions: Evaluating the Options. J Law Med Ethics 2009 ; 37(2) : 247-263. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-720X.2009.00369.x
  51. Russell S. Bird flu drug maker won't share patent. San Francisco Chronicle. October 13, 2005.
  52. Sell SK. Intellectual Property Rights. In : Held D, McGrew A, editors. Governing Globalization : Power, authority and Global Governance. MA : Blackwell Publishers ; 2002. pp. 171-188.
  53. Thomas C. Trade policy and the politics of access to drugs. Third World Quarterly 2002 ; 23(2) : 251-264. https://doi.org/10.1080/01436590220126621
  54. Van Overwalle G, Van Zimmeren E. Reshaping Belgian Patent Law : The Revision of the Research Exemption and the Introduction of a Compulsory License for Public Health. IIP Forum (Japanese journal) 2006 ; 64 : 42-4. Available from : URL : http : //www.iip.or.jp/e/forum/vol64_overwalle_and_zimmeren.pdf
  55. Werhane PH, Gorman M. Intellectual property rights, moral imagination, and access to life-enhancing drugs. Bus Ethics Q 2005 ; 15(4) : 595-613. https://doi.org/10.5840/beq200515441
  56. World Trade Organization(WTO). Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. WTO : 1994 Available from : URL : http : //www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips.pdf.
  57. World Trade Organization(WTO). Declaration on the TRIPS agreement and public health, Adopted on 14 November 2001. Available from:URL : http : //www.wto. org/english/theWTO_e/minist_e/min01_e/mindecl_trips_e.htm.
  58. World Trade Organization(WTO) Website. Compulsory licensing. FACT SHEET : TRIPS AND PHARMACEUTICAL PATENTS ; Obligations and exceptions. September 2006 Available from : URL : http : //www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/ trips_e/factsheet_pharm02_e.htm#compulsorylicensing.
  59. Wright T. Roche Plans Big Increase in Tamiflu Production. New York Times, November 10, 2005. Available from: URL : http : //www.nytimes.com/2005/ 11/10/business/worldbusiness/10roche.html
  60. Yeh BT. Influenza Antiviral Drugs and Patent Law Issues. CRS Report for Congress ; Congressional Research Service : 2005.

Cited by

  1. Compulsory licensing of pharmaceuticals reconsidered: Current situation and implications for access to medicines pp.1744-1706, 2017, https://doi.org/10.1080/17441692.2017.1407811