Pending the Moratorium: the Status of Non-Violation and Situation Complaints Under the TRIPS Agreement Following MC14
By Viviana Munoz Tellez, Nirmalya Syam
The 14th WTO Ministerial Conference (MC14), held in Yaoundé, Cameroon, concluded on 30 March 2026 without extending the moratorium on non-violation and situation complaints (NVSCs) under the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement). This policy brief argues that the expiry of the moratorium does not render NVSCs automatically applicable to disputes under the Agreement. The requirement under Article 64.3 for the TRIPS Council to examine the scope and modalities of NVSCs and for the WTO Ministerial Conference to adopt a consensus decision thereon, has not been fulfilled.
Until such a decision is taken, NVSCs remain inapplicable to TRIPS disputes. However, unless the implications of the non-extension are addressed, it may discourage the adoption of measures in the public interest by developing countries and least developed countries (LDCs) which would be fully legitimate under the TRIPS Agreement. Any attempt to suggest that NVSCs are now applicable to the obligations under this Agreement in the interim should be firmly contested. Resolving this issue through continued discussions in the TRIPS Council must be prioritized.
Access to Medicines and Intellectual Property: taking advantage of TRIPS flexibilities for post-COVID-19 resilience in Africa
By Ismaelline Eba Nguema
The call by India and South Africa for the provisional lifting of patents on pharmaceutical products has had the merit of putting the issue of access to medicines and public health back on the agenda. However, the difficulty of reconciling access to medicines and intellectual property has many factors which cannot be reduced solely to the commitments of WTO member states. A more in-depth analysis reveals the intrinsic limitations of some of its members. These include the weakness of the legislative and regulatory framework in some countries, such as those on the African continent. Consequently, the aim of this article is to demonstrate that effective use of the flexibilities in the TRIPS Agreement is only possible if African countries equip themselves with an appropriate legal framework, in addition to the judicial institutions that are supposed to guarantee the effectiveness of the standards adopted. The methodology used consisted of an exegesis of various documents, including articles, working documents of the TRIPS Council, declarations and resolutions of various bodies, as well as the national case law of certain WTO members, etc. This method led us to conclude that the compatibility between access to medicines and intellectual property is caught between human rights and economic interests. However, for the TRIPS flexibilities to be fully utilized by African countries, they would benefit from reforming their legal frameworks to take advantage of the flexibilities in the TRIPS Agreement.
Addressing Barriers to Accessing Monoclonal Antibodies (mAbs) in Developing Countries: Challenges and Potential Solutions
By Nirmalya Syam
Monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) have revolutionized treatment in oncology, autoimmune disorders, and infectious diseases due to their high specificity and efficacy. However, access to mAbs in developing countries remains severely limited due to high costs, market concentration in high-income regions, regulatory hurdles, and intellectual property barriers. Despite the potential of biosimilars to enhance affordability, their availability remains restricted due to expensive development processes, patent thickets, and complex regulatory requirements. The dominance of multinational pharmaceutical companies in the market further restricts competition, delaying biosimilar approvals and preventing price reductions. Additionally, regulatory agencies in developing countries often lack the resources to expedite biosimilar approvals, further exacerbating delays in access.
Policy interventions such as improved regulatory harmonization, stricter patent examination guidelines, and expanded public investment in mAb production are necessary to address these barriers. The adoption of the revised 2022 WHO Similar Biotherapeutic Products (SBP) Guidelines could streamline biosimilar approval by reducing unnecessary comparative clinical trials. Moreover, technology transfer initiatives and market-shaping incentives, including compulsory licensing, could help lower costs and accelerate the availability of mAbs in underserved regions.
By implementing these strategies, developing countries can bridge the access gap, ensuring that lifesaving mAb therapies reach the patients who need them most. A coordinated global effort involving policymakers, regulators, and industry stakeholders is essential to establishing a sustainable and equitable mAb supply chain.
UN Human Rights Council Resolutions on Access to Medicines and the Use of TRIPS Flexibilities: A Review
By Nirmalya Syam
This paper reviews almost twenty years of the United Nations Human Rights Council’s (UNHRC) work on access to medicines. The UNHRC has repeatedly framed access to medicines as part of the right to health and has urged States to rely on flexibilities in the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) to make essential treatments more affordable. Although the UNHRC has strengthened the human rights foundation for using such flexibilities, its resolutions have produced little change on the ground. The commitments embodied in the UNHRC resolutions stay broad and non-binding, leaving the deep structural barriers in place, including restrictive intellectual property (IP) clauses in trade deals, pressure from powerful States, limited technical and manufacturing capacity, and weak policy coordination within governments. Moreover, several recent resolutions reaffirm the value of IP protection, which creates tension that dilutes the Council’s support for the wider use of TRIPS flexibilities. The paper finds that the main gap between global human rights commitments and national action on advancing access to medicines reflects political choices and structural barriers, and concludes by calling for stronger mandates for States to review access barriers during the Universal Periodic Review, increased technical assistance from the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, more civil society participation, national right-to-health action plans, and systematic monitoring of TRIPS implementation.
History of the Negotiations of the TRIPS Agreement
By Carlos Correa
When the currently developed countries started their industrialization process, the intellectual property system was very flexible and allowed them to industrialize based on imitation, as it was notably the case of the United States. The international intellectual property system evolved since the end of the XIX Century based on a number of conventions on which the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) was later built on. Developing countries resisted the incorporation into the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) of broad disciplines on intellectual property, as they were conscious that they were disadvantaged in terms of science and technology and that a new agreement, with a mechanism to enforce its rules, would freeze the comparative advantages that developed countries enjoyed. Faced with the threat of not getting concessions in agriculture and textiles -that were crucial for their economies- they were finally forced to enter into negotiations of an Agreement, the terms of which were essentially dictated by developed countries. Coercion rather than negotiations among equal partners seems to explain the final adoption of this Agreement.
International Regulation of Industrial Designs: The TRIPS Agreement in the Light of European Union Law
By Adèle Sicot
This paper analyzes the provisions of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) on industrial designs, and the manner in which the narrow aspects dealt with by the Agreement have been addressed by European Union (EU) legislation. The paper highlights the absence of a definition of protectable subject matter, and the considerable flexibility left to the member countries of the World Trade Organization to determine the framework of protection, notably on the basis of copyright. The paper also notes certain areas in which European legislation is more elaborate, and others which could be considered incompatible with the TRIPS Agreement.
Health, Intellectual Property and Biodiversity Programme, November 2024
The following matrix provides a factual overview and analysis of the standing and non-standing agenda items of the regular session of the WTO TRIPS Council of 6-7 November. The matrix also discusses the TRIPS Implementation issues as part of the WTO Doha Development Round of negotiations.
Régulation internationale des dessins et modèles industriels : l’Accord sur les ADPIC à l’aune du droit de l’Union européenne
Par Adèle Sicot
Ce document analyse les dispositions de l’Accord sur les aspects des droits de propriété intellectuelle qui touchent au commerce (l’Accord sur les ADPIC) sur les dessins et modèles et la manière dont les aspects limités traités par l’Accord ont été abordés par la législation de l’Union Européenne (l’UE). Il note l’absence d’une définition de la matière susceptible de protection et une considérable flexibilité laissée aux pays membres de l’Organisation Mondiale du Commerce pour déterminer le cadre de protection, notamment sur la base du droit d’auteur. Le document note aussi certains aspects dans lesquels la législation européenne est plus élaborée et d’autres dans lesquels on pourrait observer une incompatibilité avec l’Accord sur les ADPIC.
Lessons for the Global South from U.S. Legislation on Patent Thickets
By Nirmalya Syam
The US Senate’s passage of the Affordable Prescription for Patients Act (S-150) targets patent thickets, strategic barriers used by pharmaceutical companies to delay the entry of biosimilar drugs and maintain high prices. This US legislative act offers valuable lessons for the Global South, where similar reforms can strengthen patent review processes, encourage competition, and utilize TRIPS flexibilities to improve access to affordable medicines, fostering a more equitable healthcare system.
What Can Cambodia Learn from Thailand and India as It Prepares to Graduate from Least Developed Country Status?
By Brigitte Tenni, Deborah Gleeson, Joel Lexchin, Phin Sovath, and Chalermsak Kittitrakul
Cambodia is expected to graduate from Least Developed Country status soon, at which time it will be required to make patents available for pharmaceutical products and processes to meet its obligations under the Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). Given its impending transition from LDC status, there is a need to balance Cambodia’s intellectual property (IP) policies and regulations with public health priorities to ensure access to affordable life-saving medicines. This will be critical to achieving universal health coverage, one of the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals. This paper examines Cambodia’s IP laws and regulations to identify provisions that could reduce access to affordable generic medicines when it starts granting patents for pharmaceuticals. It systematically compares Cambodia’s IP laws and regulations with those of Thailand and India – two developing countries that have had some successes in preserving access to medicines despite the introduction of pharmaceutical patents. It identifies lessons for Cambodia from the experiences of Thailand and India in implementing TRIPS and using TRIPS flexibilities such as compulsory licensing to ensure access to a sustainable supply of affordable generic medicines. Key recommendations for reform for Cambodia include strengthening the use of preventive and remedial TRIPS flexibilities and removing criminal sanctions for patent infringements. Cambodia should reject any TRIPS-plus provisions in its patent legislation and avoid membership in bilateral or plurilateral trade agreements that include TRIPS-plus provisions as well as signing patent treaties and memorandums of understanding that may facilitate the granting of unwarranted patents.
Compulsory Licensing as a Remedy Against Excessive Pricing of Life-Saving Medicines
By Behrang Kianzad
The COVID-19 crisis intensified decade-long debates on the interaction between intellectual property rights (IPRs), competition law and access to affordable life-saving treatments and vaccines. Compulsory licensing of patented medicines is a tried-and-tested method to expand access, particularly in a situation of “national emergency or other circumstances of extreme urgency” within the meaning of Article 31(b) of the TRIPS Agreement. Some legislations, such as European competition law, offer a toolbox for curbing the exercise of IPRs if they would be found in conflict with certain competition rules, such as rules prohibiting excessive pricing by dominant undertakings. The paper analyses the interface between intellectual property law and competition law in general, moving on to the settled case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) on this matter. It provides a general overview of legal and economics arguments related to excessive pricing prohibition and the main case law of European competition law on the matter and discusses whether compulsory licensing as a remedy against excessive pricing of patented life-saving pharmaceutical products can be a viable and appropriate remedy. Finally, the paper offers policy recommendations relating to compulsory licensing based on excessive pricing.
Proposal for a new Article 11bis in the WHO Pandemic Accord: a Pandemic Technology Transfer Mechanism
by Olga Gurgula and Luke McDonagh
The COVID-19 pandemic demonstrates the failure of voluntary mechanisms during global emergencies and exemplifies the need for effective involuntary technology transfer tools. The WHO Pandemic Accord offers an opportunity to provide an effective mechanism to build upon existing TRIPS flexibilities in the specific pandemic context. We propose a new provision (Article 11bis) that outlines a mechanism on cross-border procedure of non-voluntary technology transfer during a pandemic. This procedure could be invoked in a pandemic scenario in which voluntary technology transfer mechanisms have failed to provide sufficient supplies of a needed pandemic product.
