Cover des Buchs: Eli Lilly and Beyond
Monographie Open Access Vollzugriff

Eli Lilly and Beyond

The Role of International Intellectual Property Treaties in Establishing Legitimate Expectations in Investor-State Dispute Settlement
Autor:innen:
Verlag:
 2018

Zusammenfassung

Durch mehrere namhafte Investitionsschiedsverfahren sind die Auswirkungen von geistigem Eigentum als Investitionen in internationalen Investitionsabkommen endlich ans Licht gekommen. Der jüngste Schiedsspruch, das einzige Schiedsverfahren mit Bezug auf Patente als Rechte am geistigen Eigentum – der Fall “Eli Lilly v. Canada“ – hat einige interessante Fragen aufgeworfen. Zwei von Lilly’s Patenten wurden ihm entzogen, woraufhin das Unternehmen versuchte, sie durch ein Investitionsschiedsverfahren zurückzuerhalten. Einer der von Eli Lilly vorgebrachten Ansprüche war, dass sein berechtigtes Vertrauen, ein Schutzstandard des internationalen Investitionsrechts, durch Kanada verletzt wurde. Durch die vermeintliche Nichtbeachtung seiner Pflichten aus Kapitel 17 der NAFTA soll Kanada das berechtigte Vertrauen von Eli Lilly verletzt haben. Die Dissertation soll herausarbeiten, wie die Beziehung zwischen internationalen IP-Vereinbarungen und berechtigtem Vertrauen funktioniert.

Publikation durchsuchen

Bibliographische Angaben

Copyrightjahr
2018
ISBN-Print
978-3-8487-5109-9
ISBN-Online
978-3-8452-9311-0
Verlag
Nomos, Baden-Baden
Reihe
Munich Intellectual Property Law Center - MIPLC Studies
Band
33
Sprache
Englisch
Seiten
84
Produkttyp
Monographie

Inhaltsverzeichnis

KapitelSeiten
  1. Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis 1 - 14 Download Kapitel (PDF)
  2. I. Introduction 15 - 17 Download Kapitel (PDF)
  3. Download Kapitel (PDF)
      1. 1. International Intellectual Property Treaties
      1. 1. International Investment Agreements
      2. 2. International Investment Arbitration
      3. 3. Intellectual Property Rights as Protected Investments
    3. C. NAFTA
  4. Download Kapitel (PDF)
      1. 1. Strattera Patent
      2. 2. Zyprexa Patent
      1. 1. Eli Lilly’s Position
      2. 2. Canada’s Position
      1. 1. Eli Lilly’s Position
      2. 2. Canada’s Position
  5. Download Kapitel (PDF)
    1. A. Canadian Law and Courts
      1. 1. Historical Developments
      2. 2. Pharmaceutical Patents in Canada
        1. a) Protectable Subject Matter
          1. (1) Novelty
          2. (2) Non-Obviousness
            1. (a) Demonstrated Utility
            2. (b) Sound Prediction Doctrine
            3. (3) Promise of a Patent
    3. C. Compliance of Doctrine with International Intellectual Property Standards
  6. Download Kapitel (PDF)
      1. 1. General Characteristics
        1. a) Metalclad v. Mexico
        2. b) S. D. Myers v. Canada
        3. c) Pope & Talbot v. Canada
        4. d) Mondev v. USA
        5. e) Waste Management v. Mexico
        1. a) Legitimate Expectations Arising out of Contractual Basis
        2. b) Legitimate Expectations Arising out of Representations of State
        3. c) Legitimate Expectations Arising out of State’s Regulatory Framework
        1. a) Thunderbird v. Mexico
        2. b) Glamis Gold v. USA
        3. c) Grand River v. USA
        4. d) Mobil v. Canada
        1. a) Philip Morris v. Australia
        2. b) Philip Morris v. Uruguay
  7. Download Kapitel (PDF)
      1. 1. Customary International Law
        1. a) Patents as Representations of State
        2. b) Patentability Requirement Standards as Representations
      3. 3. Direct Application of International Intellectual Property Norms
      4. 4. “Arbitrary”, “Grossly Unfair”, “Unjust” or “Idiosyncratic” Changes in Law
    2. B. Eli Lilly outside of NAFTA – International Investment Agreements and TRIPS as a Source of Legitimate Expectations
  8. VII. Is Conformity with International Intellectual Property Norms Enough? 75 - 76 Download Kapitel (PDF)
  9. VIII. Conclusions 77 - 78 Download Kapitel (PDF)
  10. List of Works Cited 79 - 84 Download Kapitel (PDF)

Literaturverzeichnis (53)

  1. Adeleke, Fola, INVESTOR–STATE ARBITRATION AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST THEORY, ONLINE PROCEEDINGS, Working Paper No. 2014/12, Soc. Intʼl Econ. L., 1, (2014) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2451446
  2. Bacalski, Juan, MEXICOʼS PHARMACEUTICAL PATENT DILEMMA AND THE LESSONS OF INDIA, 23 Ariz. J. Intʼl & Comp. L., 717, (2006) Google Scholar öffnen
  3. Baker, Brook K. Et al, CORPORATE POWER UNBOUND: INVESTOR-STATE ARBITRATION OF IP MONOPOLIES ON MEDICINES – ELI LILLY V. CANADA AND THE TRANS-PACIFIC PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT, (Northeastern Pub. Law and Legal Theory Faculty Research Paper Ser., Paper No. 242, 2015) 1, Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.2667062
  4. Bernasconi-Osterwalder, Nathalie, STATE-STATE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT IN INVESTMENT TREATIES, (IISD Best Practice Ser. 2014), 1, Google Scholar öffnen
  5. Bijlmakers, Stephanie, EFFECTS OF FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT ARBITRATION ON A STATEʼS REGULATORY AUTONOMY INVOLVING THE PUBLIC INTEREST, 23 Am. Rev. Intʼl Arb. 245, (2012) Google Scholar öffnen
  6. Billingsley, James, ELI LILLY AND COMPANY V. THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA AND THE PERILS OF INVESTOR-STATE ARBITRATION, 20 Appeal 27 (2015) Google Scholar öffnen
  7. Dreyfuss, Rochelle et al, FROM INCENTIVE TO COMMODITY TO ASSET: HOW INTERNATIONAL LAW IS RECONCEPTUALIZING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, 36 Mich. J. Intʼl L. 557, (2014-2015) Google Scholar öffnen
  8. Dumberry, Patrick, THE PROTECTION OF INVESTORSʼ LEGITIMATE EXPECTATIONS AND THE FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT STANDARD UNDER NAFTA ARTICLE 1105, 31(1) J. Intʼl Arb. 47, (2014) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1163/22129000-01502004
  9. Erstling, Jay, et al, USEFULNESS VARIES BY COUNTRY: THE UTILITY REQUIREMENT OF PATENT LAW IN THE UNITED STATES, EUROPE AND CANADA, Faculty Scholarship Paper 3(1) Cybaris, 1, (2012) Google Scholar öffnen
  10. Falconi, Adam, CETA: AN OPPORTUNITY TO FIX CANADAʼS BROKEN PHARMACEUTICAL PATENT LINKAGE SYSTEM, 27 I.P.J., 325, (2015) 158 Google Scholar öffnen
  11. Griffiths, Johnathan, ON THE BACK OF A CIGARETTE PACKET: STANDARDIZED PACKAGING LEGISLATION AND THE TOBACCO INDUSTRYʼS FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT TO INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, 4 I. P. Q. 243, (2015) Google Scholar öffnen
  12. Grosse Ruse-Khan, Henning, LITIGATING INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN INVESTOR-STATE ARBITRATION: FROM PLAIN PACKAGING TO PATENT REVOCATION, (Uni. Of Cambridge Faculty of Law Legal Studies Research Paper Ser., Paper No. 52/2014, 2014), 1 Google Scholar öffnen
  13. Grosse Ruse-Khan, Henning, et al, PATENTABILITY OF PHARMACEUTICAL INVENTIONS UNDER TRIPS, DOMESTIC COURT PRACTICE AS A TEST FOR INTERNATIONAL POLICY SPACE, (Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition Research Paper Ser., Paper No. 16-02, 2016) 1, Google Scholar öffnen
  14. Henckles, Carloline, PROTECTING REGULATORY AUTONOMY THROUGH GREATER PRECISION IN INVESTMENT TREATIES: THE TPP, CETA AND TTIP, 19 J. Intʼt Econ. L., 27, (2016) Google Scholar öffnen
  15. Hicks Laurinda L., et al, CONVERGENCE OF NATIONAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY NORMS IN INTERNATIONAL TRADING AGREEMENTS, 2 Am. U. J. Intʼl L. & Polʼy, 769, (1997) Google Scholar öffnen
  16. Ho, Cynthia M., SHOULD ALL DRUGS BE PATENTABLE?: A COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE, 17 Vand. J. Ent. & Tech. L. 295, 340 (2015). Google Scholar öffnen
  17. Humm, Vanessa, AMERICAN TRADE NEWS HIGHLIGHTS FOR SUMMER 2013, THE RISE OF THE INVESTOR – STATE SUIT AND THE CALL FOR REFORM, 5 Law & Bus. Rev. Am. 425, (2013) Google Scholar öffnen
  18. Jaime, Margie-Lys, RELYING UPON PARTIESʼ INTERPRETATION IN TREATY-BASED INVESTOR-STATE DISPUTE SETTLMENT: FILLING THE GAPS IN INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT AGREEMENTS, 46 Geo. J. Intʼl L. 261, (2014-2015) Google Scholar öffnen
  19. Kalicki, Jean, et al, FAIR, EQUITABLE AND AMBIGUOUS: WHAT IS THE FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT IN INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW?, 22(1) ICSID Rev. Foreign Invsʼt L. J., 24, (2007) Google Scholar öffnen
  20. Karamanian, Susan L., Balancing Investor Protections, the Environment and Human Rights: The Place of Human Rights in Investor-State Arbitration, 17 Lewis & Clark L. Rev., 423, 432 (2013) Google Scholar öffnen
  21. Klopschinski, Simon, THE WTOS DSU ARTICLE 23 AS GUIDING PRINCIPLE FOR THE SYSTEMIC INTERPRETATION OF INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT AGREEMENTS IN THE LIGHT OF TRIPS, J. Intʼl Econ. L., 211, (2016) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgw011
  22. Liddell, Kathleen, et al, FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT AND JUDICIAL PATENT DECISIONS, 19 J. Intʼl Econ. L., 145, (2016) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgw012
  23. Mercurio, Bryan, AWAKENING THE SLEEPING GIANT: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT AGREEMENTS, 15(3) J. Intʼt Econ. L., 871 (2012) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1093/jiel/jgs032
  24. Mercurio, Bryan, Safeguarding Public Welfare?—INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS, HEALTH AND THE EVOLUTION OF TREATY DRAFTING IN INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT AGREEMENTS, 6 J. Intʼl Econ. L., 252, (2015) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1093/jnlids/idv017
  25. Petersmann, Ernst-Ulrich, THE JUDICIAL TASK OF ADMINISTERING JUSTICE IN TRADE AND INVESTMENT LAW AND ADJUDICATION, 4(1) J. Intʼl Dis. Sett., 5, (2013) Google Scholar öffnen
  26. Potesta, Michele, LEGITIMATE EXPECTATIONS IN INVESTMENT TREATY LAW: UNDERSTANDING THE ROOTS AND THE LIMITS OF A CONTROVERSIAL CONCEPT, 28(1) ICSID - For. Inv. L.J., 88, (2013) Google Scholar öffnen
  27. Okediji, Ruth L., IS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY "INVESTMENT"? ELI LILLY V. CANADA AND THE INTERNATIONAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SYSTEM, 35 U. Pa. J. Intʼl L. 1211, 1219 (2013-2014) Google Scholar öffnen
  28. Schreuer, Christoph, et al, AT WHAT TIME MUST LEGITIMATE EXPECTATIONS EXIST? in A Liber Amicorum: Thomas Wälde - Law Beyond Conventional Thought, 265, (Jacques Werner & Arif Hyder Ali 1st ed. 2009) Google Scholar öffnen
  29. Siebrasse, Norman, HGS V. LILLY: HOW SOON IS TOO SOON TO PATENT?, 24 I. P. J., 41, (2011). Google Scholar öffnen
  30. Snodgrass, Elizabeth, PROTECTING INVESTORʼS LEGITIMATE EXPECTATIONS: RECOGNIZING AND DELIMITING THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE, 21(1) ICSID - For. Inv. L.J., 1, (2006) Google Scholar öffnen
  31. Stone, Jacob, ARBITRAIRNESS, THE FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT STANDARD, AND THE INTERNATIONAL LAW OF INVESTMENT, 25(1) L.J.I.L., 77, (2012) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1017/S0922156511000598
  32. Taubman, Anthony, AUSTRALIAʼS INTERESTS UNDER TRIPS DISPUTE SETTLEMENT: TRADE NEGOTIATIONS BY OTHER MEANS, MULTILATERAL DEFENSE OF DOMESTIC POLICY CHOICE, OR SAFEGUARDING MARKET ACCESS?, 9 Melb. J. Intʼl L., 217, (2008) Google Scholar öffnen
  33. Vadi, Valentina, TOWARDS A NEW DIALECTICS: PHARAMACEUTICAL PATENTS, PUBLIC HEALTH AND FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT, 5(1) NYU J. Intell. Prop. & Ent. L., 113, (2015) Google Scholar öffnen
  34. Vadi, Valentina Sara, THROUGH THE LOOKING-GLASS: INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW THROUGH THE LENS OF PROPERTY THEORY, 8 Manchester J. Intʼl Econ. L., 22, (2011) Google Scholar öffnen
  35. Voon, Tania, et al, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT AGREEMENTS: STRIVING FOR COHERENCE IN NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL LAW, (Melbourne Legal Studies Research Paper, Paper No. 675, 2013) Google Scholar öffnen
  36. Books: Google Scholar öffnen
  37. DOLZER, RUDOLF, ET AL, PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW, 1st ed. (2008) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1093/law:iic/9780199211753.001.1
  38. DRAHOS, PETER, ET AL, INFORMATION FEUDALISM, WHO OWNS THE KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY, (2002) Google Scholar öffnen
  39. GERVAIS, DANIEL, THE TRIPS AGREEMENT: DRAFTING HISTORY AND ANALYSIS, 3rd ed. (2008) Google Scholar öffnen
  40. FOLSOM, RALPH. H., NAFTA, FREE TRADE AND FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN THE AMERICAS IN A NUTSHELL (2014) Google Scholar öffnen
  41. FOLSOM, RALPH H., PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW (2014) Google Scholar öffnen
  42. HORNER, JESSI J., CANADIAN LAW AND THE CANADIAN LEGAL SYSTEM (2007) Google Scholar öffnen
  43. JUDGE, ELIZABETH F., ET AL, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: THE LAW IN CANADA, (2011) Google Scholar öffnen
  44. KRATZ, MARTIN P.J. Q.C., CANADAʼS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW IN A NUTSHELL, 2nd ed., 202 (2010) Google Scholar öffnen
  45. KLÄGER, RONALD, ʼFAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENTʼ IN INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW (2011) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511974915.010
  46. MILES, KATE, THE ORIGINS OF INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW, EMPIRE, ENVIRONMENT AND THE SAFEGUARDING OF CAPITAL (2013) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139600279
  47. PASTOR, ROBERT A., THE NORTH AMERICAN IDEA, THE VISION OF A CONTINENTAL FUTURE (2011) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1093/acprof:osobl/9780199782413.001.0001
  48. PERRY, STEPHEN J., ET AL, CANADIAN PATENT LAW, 2nd ed. (2014) Google Scholar öffnen
  49. SCHILL, STEPHAN W., THE MULITILATERIZATION OF INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW (2009) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511605451.007
  50. SOUTH CENTER, THE TRIPS AGREEMENT, A GUIDE FOR THE SOUTH, THE URUGUAY ROUND AGREEMENT ON TRADE-RELATED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS (2000) Google Scholar öffnen
  51. THE OXFORD HANDBOOK OF INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW, (PETER MUCHLINSKI, FEDERICO ORTINO & CHRISTOPH SCHREUER EDS., 2008) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199231386.001.0001
  52. VAN DEN BOSSCHE, PETER, THE LAW AND POLICY OF THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION, 2nd ed. (2010) Google Scholar öffnen
  53. VANHONNAEKER, LUKAS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS AS FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENTS: FROM COLLISION TO COLLABORATION (2015) Google Scholar öffnen doi.org/10.4337/9781784712518

Ähnliche Veröffentlichungen

aus dem Schwerpunkt "Europarecht & Internationales Recht & Rechtsvergleichung"
Cover des Buchs: Unbeabsichtigte Normenkonflikte zwischen EU-Recht und nationalem Recht
Monographie Kein Zugriff
Yannis Ockernahl
Unbeabsichtigte Normenkonflikte zwischen EU-Recht und nationalem Recht
Cover des Buchs: Der Volkseinwand
Monographie Kein Zugriff
Florian Feigl
Der Volkseinwand
Cover des Buchs: Wie fördert die EU Menschenrechte in Drittstaaten?
Monographie Kein Zugriff
Dennis Traudt
Wie fördert die EU Menschenrechte in Drittstaaten?
Cover des Buchs: Future-Proofing in Public Law
Sammelband Kein Zugriff
Nicole Koblenz LL.M., Nicholas Otto, Gernot Sydow
Future-Proofing in Public Law
Cover des Buchs: Das Weltraumrecht und seine Eignung für den Rohstoffabbau durch Privatakteure
Monographie Kein Zugriff
Justus Schmidt
Das Weltraumrecht und seine Eignung für den Rohstoffabbau durch Privatakteure

Hinweis

Dieses Werk ist urheberrechtlich geschützt und darf nur nach den Vorgaben der Nutzungs- und Lizenzvereinbarung genutzt werden. Jede darüber hinaus gehende Nutzung des Werkes ist ausdrücklich untersagt und wird verfolgt.

Feedback geben

Wir freuen uns über Ihr Feedback zu Inhalten und Funktionen. Ihre Nachricht hilft uns, unseren Service stetig zu verbessern.

Bewertung
Bild anhängen
oder hier ablegen
PNG oder JPG (max. 3 MB)

Anmelden

Passwort vergessen?
Login via Open Athens
Noch kein Benutzerkonto?
Jetzt registrieren

Publikation zitieren

Download: RIS BibTex