Canada Capitulates: Supreme Court Throws Away Government's Great Pharma Patent Victory
from the who-needs-the-law-when-you-can-bully? dept
Techdirt readers will probably recall a long-running saga involving corporate sovereignty, $500 million, the US pharma company Eli Lilly, and drug patents. In its claim against the Canadian government, made using NAFTA's Chapter 11, Eli Lilly insisted it should have been given some drug patents, despite Canada's courts finding that they had not met the requirements for patentability -- specifically that there was no evidence that the drugs in question provided the benefits in the patent. Eli Lilly said that Canada was being unreasonable in setting a slightly higher bar than other countries by demanding that a patented drug should actually do something useful. As Mike reported back in March, even the lawyers that made up the corporate sovereignty tribunal hearing this case agreed that Canada was within its rights to take this view. They not only dismissed the claim, but ordered Eli Lilly to pay Canada's legal fees.
This was a huge win for Canada in particular, and governments in general. At the time, it all felt a little too good to be true. And now seems it was: as infojustice.org reports, the Supreme Court of Canada has just overturned decades of precedent -- and implicitly the Eli Lilly ruling -- by making it easier for Big Pharma to gain patents on medicines that don't really work:
This reversal in AstraZeneca Canada Inc. v. Apotex, Inc. is particularly disconcerting because Canada had just won an investor-state arbitration award in the long awaited Eli Lilly v. Canada case upholding its more stringent promise/utility doctrine that had been used successfully to overturn two dozen secondary patents, particularly those claiming new uses of known medicines, where patent claimants failed to present evidence in support of the prediction of therapeutic benefit promised in their patent applications.
Thus Canada's Supreme Court has inexplicably thrown away the government's earlier victory, and undermined the country's more rigorous approach to granting pharma patents. Writing for infojustice.org, Brook K. Baker believes this stunning capitulation is a result of unremitting bullying from the US:
Canada had been under intense pressure from the US, which had placed Canada on its Special 301 Watch List for five years threatening that the promise/utility doctrine unreasonably harmed Big Pharma in the US and from the pharmaceutical industry itself which claimed that the doctrine violated global patentability criteria. President Trump's hardball campaign promise to rewrite or leave the North American Free Trade Agreement because of its failure to adequately protect US intellectual property interests may also have played a role. Likewise, President Trump's more recent assertions that US payers are unreasonably subsidizing biomedical research and development because other countries, like Canada, are paying lower prices for innovator medicines than insurers and other payers in the US may also have increased pressure on the Court.
It's really sad to see the Canadian court kowtowing like this, undermining its own independence and moral authority in the process. Weaker patents will lead to the Canadian taxpayer paying higher prices for less-effective drugs. Worst of all, the Big Pharma bullies, aided and abetted by a newly-aggressive US government indifferent to other countries' health problems, will be encouraged to push for even more patent protection all around the world. That will lead not just to higher prices, but to more suffering and avoidable deaths, as crucial medicines become unaffordable for poorer patients.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and +glynmoody 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, corporate sovereignty, isds, patents, trade agreements
Companies: apotex, astrazeneca, eli lilly
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Contradiction to concept
If a patent doesn't do what it claims, or can't be proved to be what it is and does not conflate prior art, or is amended minimally to create a supposed new patent, then why is it patent-able?
Unreasonably harmed seems like a capitulation to corpratocracy. Just what is the harm to the end user, and why was that not part of the consideration? ISDS? Screw that, the people are the power, and eventually the government, all three branches will come to that understanding. For a time, and then it will be necessary to remind them again.
These things should be done in such a way that it does not matter which administration is in power...anywhere. So far as the US is concerned, the Constitution says it:
To promote progress,not profit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Supreme Court != Government
That is a really outrageous claim, perhaps worthy of some proof.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Supreme Court != Government
I don't see any specific claim from the author that the Supreme Court was lobbied and corrupted, only statements of fact that the USG has intensely pressured the Canadian government over this issue, and now the Court has delivered the desired result, seemingly against the country's best interests. It now needs to be asked why the Court made this decision, and whether there was any connection between the Government and Court, which there obviously should not be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Supreme Court != Government
So heck yeah this is politics.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Supreme Court != Government
I think you're conflating the USSC with the SCC -- there is no "the other party".
Here's how appointments work in Canada (courtesy of Wikipedia):
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Supreme Court != Government
Supreme Courts don't make decisions based purely on law. If the law were obvious one way or the other, the case wouldn't get to them. The justices always issue statements explaining how their decisions are "based on Canadian Law", even when they reach opposite conclusions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
our canadain govt is run by idiots
if your not a foreigner or female your done for...dont bother this is not your govt....
they wont be in office next term
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Wikipedia: Evergreening
This describes ways that a drug company can effectively extend their patents long after they would have run out.
Under the NAFTA-induced Canadian regulations, Health Canada was prevented from issuing an authorization for market entry until all of the relevant patents on a brand name product had been proven to have expired. Including follow-on patents for the same drug, patents over uses, delivery systems and even packaging.
The new patented compounds don't exist to have therapeutic efficacy. They exist as playing cards to extend the patents of those that do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kill em All
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Couple of things
http://infojustice.org/archives/38424 - and is a couple of weeks old already.
It would also be good to qualify the opinion of Mr Baker by perhaps pointing out that he has been a pretty strong opponent of almost every trade agreement under the sun. The rest of his stories on that site are all pretty monotone. So it's not surprising that he has an opinion about the Canadian Supreme Court being pushed, but with seemingly nothing more to work from than his own feelings and paranoia. If he posted them here, PaulT would rip him a new one.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Couple of things
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
one-sided
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: one-sided
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: one-sided
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What is the big deal, they can have their patent but no sales.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Setting the "precedent" is the worst part. Would you maintain that same position if a loved one were suffering but could not access a drug that could potentially save them?
I have faced this problem before, I hope you remember this post if you have to face the same.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
There are quite a few generic drugs that are in short supply, one of them is the best treatment for a form of cancer. Why isn't it easily available? Its off patent, so anyone can make it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmm, I couldn't imagine this backfiring on a bunch of elderly justices who are more prone to getting sick and needing medication.
Nope, surely these healthy justices will never need to take any medication. So surely they'll never fall victim to scam prescription medications that don't actually provide any benefits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Entirely missing from the article is any discussion of what laws the supreme court was interpreting and what their stated reasoning was for their decision. Also entirely missing is any indication of why the decision might be and incorrect interpretation of canadian law.
To blame the supreme court you need at least some speculation as to how the decision is an incorrect interpretation of the law
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Techdirt RSS feed appears to be broken !!!
My "live bookmark" for the site fails to load.
I can still reach this page directly with my browser
https://www.techdirt.com/techdirt_rss.xml
when I try to create a new bookmark for the feed.
Same as yesterday (and maybe day before?)
Creating a new RSS bookmark doesn't help.
The Techdirt Podcast feed does appear to be working,
as do the feeds for all my other sites.
So this problem appears to be specific to Techdirt itself.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Save the hate for the spineless.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]