Canada Denies Patent For Drug, So US Pharma Company Demands $100 Million As Compensation For 'Expropriation'
from the money-for-nothing dept
An increasingly problematic aspect of free trade agreements (FTAs) is the inclusion of investor-state provisions that essentially allow companies -- typically huge multinationals -- to challenge the policies of signatory governments directly. The initial impulse behind these was to offer some protection against the arbitrary expropriation of foreign investments by less-than-democratic governments. But now corporations have realised that they can use the investor-state dispute mechanism to challenge all kinds of legitimate but inconvenient decisions in any signatory nation. Here's a good example of how this provision is being invoked to contest a refusal by Canadian courts to grant a patent on a drug, as explained on the Public Citizen site:
Eli Lilly and Company has initiated formal proceedings under the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to attack Canada's standards for granting drug patents, claiming that the denial of a medicine patent is an expropriation of its property rights granted by the agreement. The investor privileges provisions included in NAFTA and other U.S. "free trade" agreements (FTAs) empower private firms to directly challenge government policies before foreign tribunals comprised of three private-sector attorneys, claiming that the policies undermine their "expected future profits." Eli Lilly's move marks the first attempt by a patent-holding pharmaceutical corporation to use U.S. "trade" agreement investor privileges as a tool to push for greater monopoly patent protections, which increase the cost of medicines for consumers and governments.
The claim that denying a patent is somehow an "expropriation" of property is pretty extraordinary. Patents are intellectual monopolies that are granted by governments; Eli Lilly does not have such a monopoly in Canada unless the government there grants it, which it does by applying its well-established laws and rules. Here's the background to the current dispute:
Eli Lilly launched its NAFTA attack after Canadian courts invalidated Eli Lilly's monopoly patent rights for an attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) drug, having determined that the drug had failed to deliver the benefits the firm promised when obtaining the patent. However, in its formal notice of intent to take Canada to a NAFTA investor tribunal, Eli Lilly makes clear that it is not only challenging the invalidation of its particular patent, but Canada's entire legal doctrine for determining a medicine's "utility" and, thus, a patent's validity. While pushing for a patent standard that would raise medicine prices, Eli Lilly, the fifth-largest U.S. pharmaceutical corporation, is demanding $100 million from Canadian taxpayers as compensation for Canada's enforcement of its existing medicine patent standards.
Basically Eli Lilly failed to deliver its side of the bargain, since the drug doesn't work very well, so Canada refused to allow the company to retain a patent that was contingent on it being effective. What's worrying is that the drug company's present action is not just challenging that decision, but the whole approach that requires drugs to work well enough to deserve a patent -- not unreasonably.
The case will not be heard before any ordinary national or even international court, with all that this implies in terms of transparency and fairness, but by a very special kind of tribunal:
The tribunals are comprised of three private sector attorneys, unaccountable to any electorate, who rotate between serving as "judges" and bringing cases for corporations against governments. The tribunals operate behind closed doors, and there are no conflict of interest rules. The tribunalists are paid by the hour and governments are often ordered to pay for a share of tribunal costs even when cases are dismissed. There is no limit to the amount of money tribunals can order governments to pay corporations. There are very limited appeal rights.
The entire approach is clearly biased towards companies and against the national governments, so the following facts will come as no surprise:
Under U.S. FTAs and related deals, private investors have already pocketed over $3 billion in taxpayer money via investor-state cases, while more than $15 billion remains in pending claims.
However, bad as things are currently, they promise to get even worse if the TPP agreement is finalized in line with leaked versions:
Ironically, while Canada faces an investor-state challenge from Eli Lilly, the country has joined negotiations to establish the TPP, which would expand the investor-state system further. To date, Canada has paid more than $140 million to foreign investors after NAFTA investor-state attacks on energy, timber and toxics policies. Part of Eli Lilly's claim against Canada is that the invalidation of its patent constituted an expropriation of its "investment." NAFTA does not list patents in its definition of a protected "investment," although some analysts have long worried that the broad, vague NAFTA definition could be used to attack medicine patent policies. But in the TPP, the proposed Investment Chapter explicitly names "intellectual property rights" as a protected "investment."
That is, TPP aims to formalize precisely the argument that Eli Lilly is trying to make using some rather far-fetched legal logic, discussed at length in the Public Citizen post quoted above. Moreover, it seems highly likely that a similarly far-reaching investor-state section will be included in the new Transatlantic FTA (TAFTA), now being discussed more widely.
The central problem with these investor-state provisions is that they elevate companies to the level of entire countries. Secret, unaccountable and biased tribunals with unlimited powers then enable them to overturn democratic decisions and legislation passed to preserve things like public health or the environment, simply because they would reduce corporate profits. And yet few people are even aware that such investor-state provisions exist, despite their massive impact on the lives of millions. That's a hugely troubling combination for the future.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: canada, expropriation, investor-state provisions, nafta, patents, tafta, trade agreements, us
Companies: eli lilly
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It may be difficult to convince people that it's actually happening. The idea of a single company being powerful enough to boss around an entire nation is something out of dystopian science-fiction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Smartphones.
The iPad.
Those things once fell under the realm of science fiction, too.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
- Nute Gunray, Episode I
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The only difference between now and the movies is in the movies it was always night.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
the US entertainment industries have been doing this for years, it's just never been admitted, is kept from being news because the media companies are owned by the same members in the industries and as soon as there is any leak, those industries do what they do best, shout their bullshit and lies loud and long and prevent any counter claims!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Eli-Lilly is big enough to hire enough Blackwater/Xe/Academi operatives to successfully invade Canada and win. I wonder if that's next on their agenda if TPP falls through.
I hate what people like this (lawyers, politicians, and bureaucrats) have done with the world. This is not the world I grew up in. That was sold to the highest bidder long ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Aren't we overlooking something?
Now, I'm not saying I'm for big corporations doing shitty stuff that will cost tax payers money, I'm merely pointing out that this Treaty wasn't something one side forced the other to sign without letting them read said Treaty. If that were the case, Canada would be in front of an International Tribunal having the Treaty nullified. If the Canadian people don't like the Treaty their Government entered into with the US Government, then they can do what the US Citizens are allowed to do, vote in a new government and have said Treaty to no longer be in their best interest and will no longer abide by it.
Goes to show you, that it's not just the US that has citizens that would rather complain loudly then actually get off their collective couches and elect representatives that will stand for what the Citizens do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Aren't we overlooking something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Aren't we overlooking something?
Exactly, and nationalists on all sides never seem to fail to fall for the ploy. This isn't USA vs. Canada. It's governments and corporations vs. us all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Aren't we overlooking something?
Do you really expect the average citizen to stay on top of these things?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Aren't we overlooking something?
It's always best hearing the story from more than one source.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Aren't we overlooking something?
These corporations are not loyal to US only as much as it bring them boodles.. Many of them prefer to register in Ireland where they can dis the US and peoples by dodging the taxes. They can be seen on the album cover of Steely Dan, Royal Scam.. towering over the homeless man with holes in his shoes. And thankful he has shoes he is, logging some horizontal ZZZs..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Aren't we overlooking something?
That the country that ballyhoos the "rights of the people" is probably one of the countries where the people have the least rights, and corporations have the most. And where in fact it is the corporations that create the "illusion" of freedom for the masses.
Look at what is going on in Europe between corporations and citizens, it will be the rights of the citizens that trump every time. i.e. patents only matter if they benefit society more than the patent holder, is the ruling general leanings. Copyrights only matter if they don't interfere with the creative rights of others etc. etc. It's time that the good old US wakes up and gives the head a shake, and sees clearly what direction the world is headed, and they are not on the train.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow, a new term!
Since the corporation is a citizen, why can't it be a nation, too? While we're at it, let's let the, elevate themselves to the position of "deity"!!
Oh, wait: the catholic church has already managed that...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Aren't we overlooking something?
What I mean is that not everyone has access to this rarefied knowledge or the experience to deal with it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Aren't we overlooking something?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So meet the future of corporations as was explained previously in the pages of Shadowrun.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadowrun
Corporations gaining more and more rights until they just become their own 'nations' with more power than actual countries.
I only hope that magic and dragons reappearing happens soon. Then we might get the high speed internet we all deserve.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
tpp... the next step
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What's the penalty if Canada refuses the "ruling" of the tribunal?
Will the US invade Canada?
The US ignores rulings by foreign tribunals all the time!
Look at the stories about the US failing to follow the World Trade Organization's tribunal's decision about Antigua!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
You're not entitled to potential future profits. Period.
Except that's not expropriation. Expropriation is taking some property you already had. Diminishing "expected future profits" is not expropriation. You are not entitled to "expected future profits"; you only have property rights in what you already own.
Think of the ridiculous outcomes that happen otherwise. Government health inspectors shutting down a restaurant location? "Expropriation" from the chain's mother corporation. Government wins an antitrust action against a corporation, forcing it to let competitors into the market? "Expropriation". Etc.
The anti-expropriation provisions in trade agreements should explicitly be limited to just that: expropriation of property already held by the company in that territory. And that means real, not imaginary, property: buildings and land holdings and money and other tangible assets. And it means actual takings, not actions that might devalue that property indirectly. (If there was entitlement to not have one's property devalued, it would give rise to a private right of action against, say, posters of negative reviews, or a competitor opening a location directly across the street from one of yours, or etc.)
And those clauses should also be amended to require a real, proper court hear all cases -- I imagine the WTO has some sort of tribunals for handling trade disputes, or there's always the Hague. Loser pays the court costs.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: You're not entitled to potential future profits. Period.
So the government is free to take actions that devaule the property so when they actually take it and owe 'fair market value' they get a steep discount? Nope, that won't be abused at all.
Neither of those things devalue the property. An actual analogy would be suing someone for blocking a view, which does lower the value of the property and is actionable under some circumstances.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: You're not entitled to potential future profits. Period.
They can't deface or vandalize the property itself, of course; but restricting them from changing something else nearby (e.g. spoiling a view with new electrical transmission towers) would unduly interfere with their task of maintaining and expanding infrastructure, and restricting them from passing laws that might affect a business model (e.g. passing a pollution tax) would unduly interfere with their task of regulating negative externalities and forcing internalization of their costs.
They reduce its value to its owner, who may end up having paid more for it than it's now worth to them. They may reduce its value to potential purchasers, as well, reducing what the owner can sell it for; a fully-kitted out restaurant that is now in an area with too many competing restaurants to easily be made profitable by any owner, say, or the copyright in a movie that's been roundly panned by critics.
What definition are you using?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Are people aware. Or more importantly, will they be made aware? Who controls the media?
Sadly, those who do become aware and understand the game are labelled "Conspiracists". Fear pushers like Alex Jones don't help.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patents
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
how many times has this been said? how often has this been found to be true? when are governments from around the globe going to wise up and stop helping the USA rather than their own citizens, companies and countries?
it just seems that the US cant even right a law that does what it is supposed to without being a total fuck up!! if those in Congress that normally right laws cant do it properly, the tasks should be left to those that can!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Corporate takeover
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No medication works perfectly for all classes of persons with a medical disorder, and in classes where it has been tested and shown to have efficacy, not everyone in such classes experience positive pharmacological effects for any number or reasons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Is there any room in your mind for the possibility that the pharm corporations might have a little bias?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Change the Law
So for instance if there is a class action suit because the product is discovered to have caused health problems of some kind, then it is only Eli Lilly that gets sued for everyone's product under the patent license. The problem with the patent system is that it grants very special rights without extracting any responsibility liabilities.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Change the Law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Patent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Patent
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Patent
Those poor pharma folks just can't get a break.
-- Cue soft tear jerky music --
Talking head wearing Armani suit and Rolex watch begins:
- Are you being denied monopoly rents?
- Are you suffering loss of astronomical profits?
- Is the market rejecting your products due to efficacy/price concerns?
Well, if you answered yes to any of the above then FTA may be for you. Ask your representative whether FTA is right for you.
Side effects may include:
- law suit
- consumer mistrust
- laughter (at you)
- retaliatory trade sanctions
-
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do you really think that they have realised NOW??? This was very well planned since the begining in every letter drafted...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh noes! my imaginary profits !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Oh noes! my imaginary profits !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh noes! my imaginary profits !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Oh noes! my imaginary profits !
FTFY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh noes! my imaginary profits !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh noes! my imaginary profits !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh noes! my imaginary profits !
Is this how they run their buisness ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh noes! my imaginary profits !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Oh noes! my imaginary profits !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Oh noes! my imaginary profits !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Oh noes! my imaginary profits !
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interesting...
http://www.finnegan.co m/resources/articles/articlesdetail.aspx?news=59ab301b-1d14-441d-85db-67b67f9243ed
It appears that it's not that it doesn't work necessarily. It's that they didn't prove that it works. It looks like it was initially developed to be used to treat depression but the trials for that treatment failed. It was at that time that based on some of it's properties (being similar to the properties of other compounds) they ASSUMED it would work for treatment of ADHD and just claimed that it did but failed to prove it with a thorough follow up trial. Since the second patent is a based on the new use built off of the first one and the first one failed to work, without a sufficient proof of it working for the new patent, it falls apart.
I guess they just didn't buy enough politicians in Canada to get them to rubber stamp it like they did in the US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
They May Regret This
I hope they win. I hope the inhaler hits the market and destroys their profits. Poetic justice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
IP needs to be abolished and it needs to happen soon. The proletariat do not need to be paying for the golden thrones of the bourgeoisie any longer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]