This is the published version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Overall, we find substantial differences across jurisdictions in terms of caseloadsnotably, courts in Germany hear by far the largest number of cases, not only in absolute terms, but also when taking macro-economic indicators into account-and we further find important cross-country variances in terms of case outcomes. Moreover, we show empirically that a considerable number of patents are litigated across multiple European jurisdictions; and further, that in the majority of these cases divergent case outcomes are reached across the different jurisdictions, suggesting that the long-suspected problem of inconsistency of decision-making in European patent litigation is in fact real. Finally, we note that the coming into force Permanent repository link

The structure of global intellectual property law as incorporated in the World Trade Organization (WTO) Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) is implicated in the current lack of COVID-19 vaccines, medical equipment, medicines and diagnostics needed to combat the pandemic. In this paper, we elucidate the legal issues surrounding the 'TRIPS waiver' proposal initially put forward by India and South Africa in October 2020, which, as of June 2021, is supported by more than 60 states. We analyse the different intellectual property rights relevant to the proposal -focusing primarily on patent rights and trade secrets -which are most relevant to the present COVID-19 vaccine context. We explain why the existing TRIPS flexibilities around compulsory licensing are incapable of addressing the present pandemic context adequately, in terms of both procedure and legal substance. Given the ongoing absence of sufficient engagement by the pharmaceutical industry with proposed global mechanisms to share intellectual property rights, data and know-how to address the pandemic, we argue that both incentives and mandatory mechanisms are needed.We make two arguments to this effect: first, the TRIPS waiver is a necessary and proportionate legal measure for clearing intellectual property (IP) barriers in a direct, consistent and efficient fashion, enabling the freedom to operate for more companies to produce COVID-19 vaccines and other health technologies without the fear of infringing another party's IP rights and the attendant threat of litigation; and second, the TRIPS waiver acts as an important political, moral and economic lever towards encouraging solutions aimed at global equitable access to vaccines, which is in the wider interest of the global public. The TRIPS waiver is an essential legal instrument in this context for enabling a radical increase in manufacturing capacity, and hence supply, of COVID-19 vaccines, creating a pathway to achieve global equitable production and access.

We compare patent litigation cases across four European jurisdictionsGermany, the UK (England and Wales), France, The Netherlands-using case-level data gathered from cases filed in the four jurisdictions during the period 2000-2008. Overall, we find substantial differences across jurisdictions in terms of caseloadsnotably, courts in Germany hear by far the largest number of cases, not only in absolute terms, but also when taking macro-economic indicators into account-and we further find important cross-country variances in terms of case outcomes. Moreover, we show empirically that a considerable number of patents are litigated across multiple European jurisdictions; and further, that in the majority of these cases divergent case outcomes are reached across the different jurisdictions, suggesting that the long-suspected problem of inconsistency of decision-making in European patent litigation is in fact real. Finally, we note that the coming into force

No abstract

This article examines global vaccine inequity during the COVID-19 pandemic. We critique intellectual property (IP) law under the 1994 WTO TRIPS Agreement, and specifically, the role that IP has played in enabling the inequities of production, distribution and pricing in the COVID-19 vaccine context. Given the failure of international response mechanisms, including COVAX and C-TAP, to address vaccine inequity, we argue the TRIPS waiver proposal should be viewed as offering a necessary and proportionate legal measure for clearing IP barriers that cannot be achieved by existing TRIPS flexibilities. Finally, we reflect on the waiver debate in the wider context of TRIPS and the need to boost global pandemic preparedness.