Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T13:56:34.694Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

16 - Tipping point: Thai compulsory licences redefine essential medicines debate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 August 2010

Thomas Pogge
Affiliation:
Yale University, Connecticut
Matthew Rimmer
Affiliation:
Australian National University, Canberra
Kim Rubenstein
Affiliation:
Australian National University, Canberra
Get access

Summary

Introduction

In November 2006 Thailand's Ministry of Public Health issued a compulsory licence for the Merck-patented AIDS drug Efavirenz. This announcement was followed by two other compulsory licences issued in January of 2007, for the AIDS drug Kaletra and the cardiac drug Plavix. Compulsory licensing is an oft-used mechanism under article 31 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (‘TRIPS Agreement’ or ‘TRIPS’) but Thailand's action was notable as it represented the first use of a compulsory licence for a second-line antiretroviral – at once more lucrative and more effective than the first-line AIDS drugs that had preceded it. In the context of the access to essential medicines debate, this was the confrontation that drug companies, civil society and their derivative allies had been anticipating.

The dispute

Dispute over the proper use of compulsory licences erupted as Thailand ordered the generic equivalents from India. Abbott Laboratories, patent holder for Kaletra, withdrew its patent applications from the Thai market for a period. After initial mixed messages, the United States Trade Representative (‘USTR’) placed Thailand on the punitive 301 list, citing in part Thailand's diminishing regard for intellectual property rights. For its part Thailand, under a new military junta, pushed ahead with its generic supply purchases, refusing to rule out further usage of additional compulsory licences.

Type
Chapter
Information
Incentives for Global Public Health
Patent Law and Access to Essential Medicines
, pp. 406 - 424
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×