_76a2348
25 September 2020PatentsSir Robin Jacob

COVID-19 and IP

Silent enim leges inter arma: Cicero used these words in his speech on behalf of Titus Annius Milo, who was on trial for murder in 52 BC. They are loosely translated as: “In times of war, the law falls silent.”

Lord Atkin did not agree. In Liversidge v Anderson (1942), decided in the middle of World War 2, he said: “In this country, amid the clash of arms, the laws are not silent. They may be changed, but they speak the same language in war as in peace.”

Cicero or Atkin?

What then of IP in a time of pandemic? Cicero or Atkin? Can governments simply override all IP rights which cover anything to do with COVID-19? Or can they do so if the law allows?

The question applies to patent rights for medicines, vaccines and testing kits, but other rights too: design rights (eg, in ventilators), or trade secrets (eg, recipes for reagents to make tests). And what about the laws of competition and state aid—should they be shelved or ignored?

COVID-19 is so dangerous and destructive that there is no difficulty in deciding the key guiding principle. No rights (not just IP) should stand in the way of preventing its spread, detection, treatment, cure or, ultimately, making the world safe again through vaccinations.

But equally, governments cannot without lawful power seize, or ignore property rights. Just as in war where laws entitle governments to requisition property, the rule should be that where property is taken or used the owner should have compensation rights.

Competition laws

Governments should never act as if they are above the law, and that is why competition laws and state aid laws should be changed for crisis-related arrangements.

Some competition authorities merely say they will not interfere with such arrangements. It is not for the police to say they will not enforce the law. If the law is bad or inappropriate, it should be changed.

Another way governments might intervene is via compulsory licensing, and there is a huge clamour for this by various non-governmental organisations and UN agencies.

There should be no surprise here—compulsory licences have long been favoured by such bodies. But compulsory licences have seldom worked well. Compulsory licensees are just as avaricious as patent holders, if not more so, since they are not in the business of trying to find new medicines or new uses for old ones. Some become very rich indeed.

It is particularly irrelevant to talk about compulsory licences for COVID-19-related inventions at the moment. The big target, a vaccine or vaccines, is simply not suitable at all for compulsory licences.

Already registered?

Login to your account

To request a FREE 2-week trial subscription, please signup.
NOTE - this can take up to 48hrs to be approved.

Two Weeks Free Trial

For multi-user price options, or to check if your company has an existing subscription that we can add you to for FREE, please email Adrian Tapping at atapping@newtonmedia.co.uk


More on this story

Patents
20 November 2020   How do you manage an IP portfolio in a time of crisis? Rory O’Neill discovers what patent owners need to know.
article
13 January 2021   Nearly nine in ten IP professionals have confirmed that the COVID-19 pandemic has adversely affected their organisation or strategy in some way, while 40% said this impact was severe, according to a new report by IP services provider, NovumIP.
Patents
15 March 2021   Salaries in the IP profession remain healthy following a year that presented many economic challenges to firms due to COVID-19, a report by recruitment agency, Dawn Ellmore Employment, has confirmed.