Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T06:19:31.092Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Potential Threats to Patent Rights in Climate-Friendly Technologies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Douglas H. Pearson
Douglas H. Pearson*
Affiliation:
Jones Day in Washington, DC
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The transfer of climate-friendly technologies from developed countries to developing countries has been identified in international forums as a key factor in efforts to mitigate climate change. Commentators and negotiators have argued, however, that efforts to transfer climate-friendly technologies from developed countries to developing countries have fallen far short of what is needed. Although a host of barriers play a role in the pace of transfer of clean technologies, such as lack of financial resources, inadequate infrastructure, trade barriers, and lack of skilled workers to name a few, intellectual property rights (IPRs) have been accused of being a particularly significant barrier. Developing countries have made strong proposals to severely curtail IPRs on clean technologies, particularly patent rights. These proposals present potential threats to patent rights on clean technologies in developing countries and include expanded compulsory licensing, excluding clean technologies from patenting, and revoking existing patent rights on clean technologies in developing countries. The motivation for such proposals stem largely from theoretical considerations, when, in fact, recent studies provide evidence that patent rights are not a barrier to the transfer of clean technologies to the developing world and, to the contrary, are more likely facilitating the diffusion of clean technologies in developing countries.

Type
Reports
Information
European Journal of Risk Regulation , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , June 2011 , pp. 247 - 254
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2011

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 The words “green” and “clean” are used synonymously herein with “climate friendly”, “environmentally sound”, or “environmentally friendly”, etc.

2 See UNFCCC, 1992, United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change, Article 4.5., UN Doc. FCCC/INFORMAL/84, United Nations, New York., available on the Internet at <http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/convkp/conveng.pdf> (last accessed on 25 March 2011).

3 See, e.g., Martin Khor, “The Climate and Trade Relation: Some Issues” (Geneva: South Centre), Research Paper, 29 May 2010, pp. 3–4, 31, available on the Internet at <http://www.southcentre.org> (last accessed on 25 March 2011); Matthew Littleton, “The TRIPS Agreement and Transfer of Climate-Change-Related Technologies to Developing Countries”, DESA Working Paper No. 71 (United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs, October 2008), p. 1, available on the Internet at <http://www.un.org/esa/desa/papers/2008/wp71_2008.pdf> (last accessed on 25 March 2011); Thomas J. Bollyky, “Intellectual Property Rights and Climate Change: Principles for Innovation and Access to Low-Carbon Technology”, Center for Global Development, CGD Notes, December 2009, p. 4, available on the Internet at <http://www.cgdev.org/files/1423378_file_IP_Climate_Change_FINAL.pdf> (last accessed on 25 March 2011).

4 See, e.g., Khor, “Climate and Trade Relation”, supra note 3, at p. 32; Littleton, “TRIPS Agreement”, supra note 3, at p. 3; Bollyky, “Intellectual Property Rights”, supra note 3, at p. 2; Hutchison, Cameron, “Does TRIPS Facilitate or Impede Climate Change Technology Transfer into Developing Countries?”, 517(3) University of Ottawa Law and Technology Journal (2006), p. 520 Google Scholar.

5 Consistent with other usage in the literature, “IPRs” as used here refer to limited monopoly rights that provide a right to exclude, traditionally considered to be patents, utility models, design rights, trademarks, copyrights, and domain names. See, e.g., Copenhagen Economics A/S and The IPR Company ApS, “Are IPR a Barrier to the Transfer of Climate Change Technology?”, 19 January 2009 (hereinafter “Copenhagen Economics”), p. 9, available on the Internet at <http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2009/february/tradoc_142371.pdf> (last accessed on 25 March 2011).

6 See, e.g., Sangeeta Shashikant, “Developing Countries Call for No Patents on Climate-Friendly Technologies”, TWN Bonn News Update 15, 11 June 2009, p. 2, available on the Internet at <http://www.twnside.org.sg/title2/climate/bonn.news.3.htm> (last accessed on 25 March 2011).

7 Ibid.

8 See Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action, Sixth session, Bonn, 1–12 June 2009, UN Doc. FCCC/AWGLCA/2009/INF.1, 22 June 2009, Revised Negotiating Text, available on the Internet at <http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca6/eng/inf01.pdf> (last accessed on 25 March 2011).

9 See, e.g., Shashikant, “Developing Countries Call for No Patents”, supra note 6, at p. 2.

10 See Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action, Sixth session, Bonn, 1–12 June 2009, Doc. FCCC/AWGLCA/2009/INF.1, supra note 8, at p. 185 (emphasis added).

11 Ibid. (emphasis added).

12 Ibid., at p. 184 (emphasis added; internal bracketing omitted).

13 Ibid., at p. 185 (emphasis added). Trade secrets do not grant a right to exclude and therefore are often not viewed as IPRs, but the identified proposal relating to trade secrets is nevertheless included in this list to further provide a sense of the scope of the proposals from developing countries.

14 Ibid., at p. 186 (emphasis added).

15 Ibid., at p. 185 (emphasis added).

16 Ibid., at pp. 184–186.

17 See Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, Annex 1C of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, 15 April 1994, Art. 31, available on the Internet at <http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips.pdf> (last accessed on 25 March 2011).

18 See ibid., at Arts. 41–50.

19 See Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action, supra note 8, at p. 185.

20 See Bonadio, Enrico, “Climate Change and Intellectual Property”, 1(1) European Journal of Risk Regulation (2010), pp. 72–76 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

21 See, e.g., Khor, “Climate and Trade Relation”, supra note 3, at p. 45.

22 See Lane, Eric, “Clean Tech Reality Check: Nine International Green Technology Transfer Deals Unhindered by Intellectual Property Rights”, 26(4) Santa Clara Computer & High Technology Law Journal (2010), pp. 533–558, at pp. 541–542Google Scholar.

23 Ibid.

24 Ibid.

25 Foreign Relations Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011, H.R. 2410, 111th Cong., Sec. 1120A.

26 American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, H.R. 2454 EH, 111th Cong. (2009), Sec. 441(10).

27 See Report of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention on its Eighth Session, held in Copenhagen from 7 to 15 December 2009, UN Doc. FCCC/AWGLCA/2009/17, 5 February 2010, pp. 27–28, available on the Internet at <http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/awglca8/eng/17.pdf> (last accessed on 25 March 2011).

28 See Draft Decision -/CP.15, Copenhagen Accord, UN Doc. FCCC/CP/2009/L.7, 18 December 2009, p. 3, # 11, available on the Internet at <http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/cop15/eng/l07.pdf> (last accessed on 25 March 2011).

29 See Khor, “Climate and Trade Relation”, supra note 3, at p. 33.

30 See Littleton, “TRIPS Agreement ”, supra note 3, at p. iii.

31 See ibid., at pp. iii, 1, 3–4, 21.

32 See, e.g., David Ockwell, “Intellectual Property Rights and Low Carbon Technology Transfer to Developing Countries – A Review of Evidence to Date”, Sussex Energy Group, TERI, and Institute of Development Studies, April 2008, pp. 3–4, available on the Internet at <http://www.sussex.ac.uk/sussexenergygroup/documents/spru_teri_ids_phase_2_iprs_and_low_c_tt_final.pdf> (last accessed on 25 March 2011); John H. Barton, “Intellectual Property and Access to Clean Energy Technologies in Developing Countries: An Analysis of Solar Photovoltaic, Biofuel and Wind Technologies”, ICTSD Trade and Sustainable Energy Series, Issue Paper No. 2, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, Geneva, Switzerland, December 2007, pp. x, 4, available on the Internet at <http://www.iprsonline.org/unctadictsd/docs/BARTON_DEC_2007.pdf> (last accessed on 25 March 2011).

33 Metz, Bert (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Working Group III) et al. (eds), Methodological and Technological Issues in Technology Transfer (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000), p. 99 Google Scholar.

34 Ibid.

35 Hutchison, “Does TRIPS Facilitate or Impede Climate Change Technology Transfer?”, supra note 4, at p. 531, footnotes 66–68. See footnote 68 in particular (“In the opinion of Korean firms, the exorbitant high royalties are an expression of a lack of intention to transfer the alternative technology on the part of technology owners.”) (internal citations omitted).

36 See Barton, “Intellectual Property and Access to Clean Energy Technologies”, supra note 32, at p. x.

37 See Copenhagen Economics, supra note 5, at pp. 4–5, which examined patents registered in the following countries: Argentina, Brazil, Russia, Ukraine, India, China, the Philippines, Burkina Faso, Benin, Central Africa Republic, Congo, Ivory Coast, Cameron, Gabon, Guinea, Equatorial Guinea, Guinea Bissau, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Chad, Togo, Senegal, Botswana, Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Malawi, Mozambique, Namibia, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Swaziland, Uganda, Zambia and Zimbabwe, Uruguay, Moldova and Egypt.

38 Ibid., at pp. 33–35.

39 Ibid., at pp. 37–38.

40 Ibid., at p. 38.

41 See Lane, “Clean Tech Reality Check”, supra note 22, at pp. 541– 542.

42 Ibid., at p. 544.

43 Ibid., at pp. 544–555.

44 See Lane, Eric L., “Cancun, Climate Change, and Intellectual Property Rights: No News is Good News for Green Patents”, 1(1) European Journal of Risk Regulation (2011), pp. 61–67 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

45 Branstetter, Lee G., Fisman, Raymond and Fritz Foley, C., “Do Stronger Intellectual Property Rights Increase International Technology Transfer? Empirical Evidence from U.S. Firm-Level Panel Data”, 121 Quarterly Journal of Economics (February 2006), pp. 321–349 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The countries examined were Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China, Columbia, Indonesia, Japan, Mexico, Philippines, Portugal, South Korea, Spain, Taiwan, Thailand, Turkey and Venezuela.

46 Ibid., at pp. 321, 337.

47 Ibid., at p. 347.

48 See Pugatch, Meir Perez, “Mitigating Climate Change through the Promotion of Technology Transfer and the Use of Environmentally Sound Technologies (ESTs): The Role of Intellectual Property Rights”, 1(4) European Journal of Risk Regulation (2010), pp. 408–414 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

49 Ibid., at p. 414.

50 Ibid.

51 Ibid.

52 See, e.g., Khor, “Climate and Trade Relation”, supra note 3, at p. 32; Littleton, “TRIPS Agreement ”, supra note 3, at p. 3; Bollyky, “Intellectual Property Rights”, supra note 3, at p. 2; Hutchison, “Does TRIPS Facilitate or Impede Climate Change Technology Transfer?”, supra note 4, at p. 520; Douglas H. Pearson, “Intellectual Property Rights in Cleantech: A Patent Practitioner's Perspective”, 8th Annual Hot Topics in Intellectual Property Symposium, 6 February 2009, Duke University School of Law, slides available on the Internet at <http://www.dukeipcs.org/documents/2009/Pearson.pdf> (last accessed on 25 March 2011).

53 See Catherine Saez, “UN Climate Talks Find Make-Do Solution; IP Rights Dismissed”, Intellectual Property Watch, 14 December 2010, available on the Internet at <http://www.ip-watch.org/weblog/2010/12/14/climate-change-talks-find-make-do-solution-till-next-year-ip-rights-dismissed/> (last accessed on 25 March 2011).

54 Ibid.; see, also, Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention, Draft decision -/CP.16, 11 December 2011, available on the Internet at <http://unfccc.int/files/meetings/cop_16/application/pdf/cop16_lca.pdf> (last accessed on 25 March 2011).

55 See Lane, “Clean Tech Reality Check”, supra note 22, at pp. 544– 546.

56 See Branstetter, “Stronger Intellectual Property Rights”, supra note 45, at pp. 321, 337, 347.

57 See Barton, “Intellectual Property and Access to Clean Energy Technologies”, supra note 32, at p. x.

58 See Bollyky, “Intellectual Property Rights”, supra note 3, at p. 5; Khor, “Climate and Trade Relation”, supra note 3, at pp. 33–34.