17
The Future of Intellectual Property Arbitration? A Case Study on IP Arbitration: the Portuguese System for Settlement of Disputes Derived from Industrial Property Rights Where Reference Medicines and Generic Medicines are in Question Emmanuel GILLET, Ph D Teaching Fellow, The Hong Kong Polytechnic University – [email protected] UNCITRAL Emergence Conference 30 November 2015 Macau

2015 11 30 Arbitration: the Portuguese System for Settlement of Disputes Derived from Industrial Property Rights Where Reference eaedicines and Generic Medicines are in Question

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

TheFutureofIntellectualPropertyArbitration?ACaseStudyonIPArbitration:thePortugueseSystem

forSettlementofDisputesDerivedfromIndustrialPropertyRightsWhereReferenceMedicinesand

GenericMedicinesareinQuestion

EmmanuelGILLET,PhDTeachingFellow,TheHongKongPolytechnicUniversity–[email protected]

UNCITRALEmergenceConference30November2015Macau

Genericdrug

“A pharmaceutical product, usually intended to beinterchangeable with an innovator product, that ismanufactured without a licence from the innovatorcompanyandmarketedaftertheexpirydateofthepatentorotherexclusiverights.”(WorldHealthOrganization).Sold under its International Nonproprietary Name (INN):“of\icial generic and nonproprietary name given to apharmaceutical drug or active ingredient” (World HealthOrganization).

UNCITRALEmergenceConference,30Nov.2015,MacauCCBY-NC-ND4.0|[email protected]

Anethicalissue

UNCITRALEmergenceConference,30Nov.2015,MacauCCBY-NC-ND4.0|[email protected]

Genericsindustrydynamics

UNCITRALEmergenceConference,30Nov.2015,MacauCCBY-NC-ND4.0|[email protected]

Genericsindustrydynamics

Trendinshareofgenericsinthepharmaceuticalmarket,selectedcountries,2000to2011

UNCITRALEmergenceConference,30Nov.2015,MacauCCBY-NC-ND4.0|[email protected]

Genericsindustrydynamics

Trendinshareofgenericsinthepharmaceuticalmarket,selectedcountries,2000to2011

UNCITRALEmergenceConference,30Nov.2015,MacauCCBY-NC-ND4.0|[email protected]

Law no. 62/2011 of 12th December 2011creating a “system for settlement ofdisputes derived from industrial propertyrights where reference medicines andgenericmedicinesareinquestion”

Legislativeandregulatorybackground

UNCITRALEmergenceConference,30Nov.2015,MacauCCBY-NC-ND4.0|[email protected]

Article2oftheLawno.62/2011of12thDecember2011

“CompulsoryarbitrationLitigations derived from the claim of industrial propertyrights, including preliminary injunction proceedings,regarding reference medicines (…) and generic medicines,irrespective ofwhether process patents, product patents orpatents of use are at issue, as well as SupplementaryProtection Certi\icates, shall be subject to compulsoryarbitration,whetherornotinstitutionalised.”.”

Legislativeandregulatorybackground

UNCITRALEmergenceConference,30Nov.2015,MacauCCBY-NC-ND4.0|[email protected]

Compulsoryarbitration

•  Parties’autonomy:limited

•  However,someprovisionsoftheUNCITRALrulesmayapply(particularlyincaseofanadhocarbitration)

Natureofthearbitralproceedings

UNCITRALEmergenceConference,30Nov.2015,MacauCCBY-NC-ND4.0|[email protected]

PublishedonthewebsiteoftheNationalAuthorityofMedicinesandHealthProducts

(Infarmed)Applicant

MarketingApplication(MA)toobtainamarketing

authorization

30daystosubmitanarbitralrequest

PatentOwner

ArbitraltribunalAdhoc

Arbitrationinstitution

PatentOwner 30daystoreplytothearbitralrequest

or

Legislativeandregulatorybackground

ArbitraltribunalAdhoc

Arbitrationinstitution

or

(1)

UNCITRALEmergenceConference,30Nov.2015,MacauCCBY-NC-ND4.0|[email protected]

(1) After 30 days: patent holders are prevented fromenforcing their IP rights against generics manufacturers(LisbonCourtofAppeal,30September2014)

/Thelegalprovisionsestablishingacompulsory30daystermto initiate mandatory arbitration procedures for theenforcementofpatents,areunconstitutional,ifinterpretedinthe sense that patent owners are not allowed to initiateprocedures against the MA applicant beyond such deadline(Constitutionalcourt,12February2015)

Proceduralissues:deadlines

UNCITRALEmergenceConference,30Nov.2015,MacauCCBY-NC-ND4.0|[email protected]

Proceduralissues:designationofarbitrators

LisbonCourtofAppeal,24March2015– Arbitratordesignatedin50arbitrationproceedingsbythesameparty

–  LisbonCourtmakingreferencetotheIBARules–  Internationalstandards:•  Article16UNCITRALRules

•  IBAGuidelinesonCon\lictsofInterestinInternationalArbitration,GeneralStandardsRegardingImpartiality,IndependenceandDisclosure.

•  A“nichearbitration”issue

UNCITRALEmergenceConference,30Nov.2015,MacauCCBY-NC-ND4.0|[email protected]

ReferringaQuestiontotheCJEUforaPreliminaryRuling(CJEU,13February2013,C-555/13,MerckCanada)þ Whichdiffersfromthegeneralrule.

Proceduralissues:powersofthearbitraltribunal

UNCITRALEmergenceConference,30Nov.2015,MacauCCBY-NC-ND4.0|[email protected]

Decidingonthevalidityofapatent(CourtofAppealofLisbon,13February2014)ý

Substantiveissues

UNCITRALEmergenceConference,30Nov.2015,MacauCCBY-NC-ND4.0|[email protected]

Confiden'alityissues

•  Communicationtothenationalindustrialpropertyof\iceandtoINFARMED

•  PublishedintheIndustrialPropertyBulletin

UNCITRALEmergenceConference,30Nov.2015,MacauCCBY-NC-ND4.0|[email protected]

Lack of power to decide on the validity/existence/opposabilityofapatent(LisbonCourtofAppeal,13February2014)

Powersofthearbitraltribunal

UNCITRALEmergenceConference,30Nov.2015,MacauCCBY-NC-ND4.0|[email protected]

Conclusion

•  Auniquemodel– Necessity to imagine new models for IParbitration

•  Critics– Limitedpartyautonomy:arbitration?– Limitedresources(numberofquali\iedarbitrators)

–  ImpossibilityforthearbitratortoruleonthevalidityorexistenceoftheIPR

UNCITRALEmergenceConference,30Nov.2015,MacauCCBY-NC-ND4.0|[email protected]