Impact of International Investment Dispute Arbitration on the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights in Host States: Current Status and Development Trends
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54097/hbem.v16i.10602Keywords:
International investment disputes; Intellectual property; Investor-state arbitration; Fair and equitable treatment; Public interest.Abstract
In recent years, international investment treaties have included intellectual property rights into the category of "investment", and the protection methods are no longer limited to disputes between states (diplomatic protection and WTO dispute settlement). Investors can start international investment arbitration proceedings against host states through investment treatment clauses and Investor-state dispute settlement. Cases such as the Morris Asia v Australia and Eli Lilly v. Canada show that intellectual property owners are trying to use international investment treaties and their arbitration mechanisms more actively to challenge IP policies (measures) in host states. However, this situation will affect the IP policy and practice of the host state and break the balance established between the protection of private rights and the welfare of society. Based on this, host states should be more careful in establishing international treaties that specify IP policies and the obligations of investors. At the same time, host states and the international community have made clear the boundaries of IPR protection in investment treaties, and it is necessary to maintain the autonomy of host states' IPR policies (measures).
Downloads
References
Newcombe A, Paradell L. Law and Practice of Investment Treaties: Standards of Treatment. The Netherlands: Kluwer Law International, 2009.
Yu P K. The Investment-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights. American University Law Review, 2016, 66(3): 829-909.
Baker B K, Geddes K. Corporate Power Unbound: Investor-State Arbitration of IP Monopolies on Medicines-Eli Lilly and the TPP. Journal of Intellectual Property, 2015, 23(1): 3-54.
Mercurio B. Awakening the Sleeping Giant: Intellectual Property Rights in International Investment Agreements[J]. Journal of International Economic Law, 2013, 15(3): 871-915.
Seda, Karaman. “PROTECTION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS UNDER INVESTMENT ARBITRATION.” School of Social Sciences and Humanities of Koç University, Dec. 2019.
Martin Hunter and Barbuk Alexei. Reflections on the Definition of an “Investment.” Liber Amicorum in honour of Robert Briner, 2005, http://library.iccwbo.org/%5Ccontent%5Cdr%5CARTICLES%5CART_0193.htm#TOC_BKL1_3.
Bridgestone Americas,Inc.and Bridgestone Licensing Services, Inc.v.Republic of Panama, ICSID Case No.ARB/16/34, Claimants’ Response to Panama’s Expedited Objections,13 December 2017,
Cotula L. Reconciling Regulatory Stability and Evolution of Environmental Standards in Investment Contracts: Towards a Rethink of Stabilization Clauses. Journal of World Energy Law & Business, 2008, 1(2): 158-179.
Eli Lilly and Company v. The Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, ICSID Case No. UNCT/14/2
Gagliani G. International Economic Disputes, Investment Arbitration and Intellectual Property: Common Descent and Technical Problems. Journal of World Trade, 2017, 51(2):335-356.
Philip Morris Brands Sarl, Philip Morris Products S. A. and Abal Hermanos S. A. v. Oriental Republic of Uruguay, ICSID Case No.ARB/10/7, Request for Arbitration, 19 February 2010.
Vadi V. Towards A New Dialectics: Pharmaceutical Patents, Public Health and Foreign Direct Investments. Journal ofIntellectual Property & Entertainment Law, 2015, 5(1):2-81.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
