Cover of book: Eli Lilly and Beyond
Monograph Open Access Full access

Eli Lilly and Beyond

The Role of International Intellectual Property Treaties in Establishing Legitimate Expectations in Investor-State Dispute Settlement
Authors:
Publisher:
 2018

Summary

Through the emergence of several high-profile investment arbitration cases, the effects of IPRs as investments covered under IIAs have finally come to light. The latest award, the only arbitration case dealing with patents as IPRs – the Eli Lilly v. Canada case – has brought up a number of interesting questions. Two of Eli Lilly's patents have been revoked, whereupon the company tried to redeem them through investment arbitration. One of the claims put forward by Eli Lilly is that his legitimate expectations, a standard of protection found in international investment law, have been frustrated by Canada. By allegedly failing to observe its obligations contained in Chapter 17 of the NAFTA, Canada frustrated the legitimate expectations of Eli Lilly. The thesis tries to analyze how the relationship between international IP treaties and legitimate expectations functions.

Bibliographic data

Edition
1/2018
Copyright Year
2018
ISBN-Print
978-3-8487-5109-9
ISBN-Online
978-3-8452-9311-0
Publisher
Nomos, Baden-Baden
Series
Munich Intellectual Property Law Center - MIPLC Studies
Volume
33
Language
English
Pages
84
Product Type
Monograph

Table of contents

ChapterPages
  1. Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis 1 - 14 Download chapter (PDF)
  2. I. Introduction 15 - 17 Download chapter (PDF)
  3. Download chapter (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 chapter (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 chapter (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 chapter (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 chapter (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 chapter (PDF)
  9. VIII. Conclusions 77 - 78 Download chapter (PDF)
  10. List of Works Cited 79 - 84 Download chapter (PDF)

Bibliography (53)

  1. FOLSOM, RALPH H., PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL TRADE LAW (2014) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845293110
  2. 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) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845293110
  3. Siebrasse, Norman, HGS V. LILLY: HOW SOON IS TOO SOON TO PATENT?, 24 I. P. J., 41, (2011). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845293110
  4. Snodgrass, Elizabeth, PROTECTING INVESTORʼS LEGITIMATE EXPECTATIONS: RECOGNIZING AND DELIMITING THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE, 21(1) ICSID - For. Inv. L.J., 1, (2006) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845293110
  5. Stone, Jacob, ARBITRAIRNESS, THE FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT STANDARD, AND THE INTERNATIONAL LAW OF INVESTMENT, 25(1) L.J.I.L., 77, (2012) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845293110
  6. 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) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845293110
  7. Vadi, Valentina, TOWARDS A NEW DIALECTICS: PHARAMACEUTICAL PATENTS, PUBLIC HEALTH AND FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT, 5(1) NYU J. Intell. Prop. & Ent. L., 113, (2015) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845293110
  8. Vadi, Valentina Sara, THROUGH THE LOOKING-GLASS: INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW THROUGH THE LENS OF PROPERTY THEORY, 8 Manchester J. Intʼl Econ. L., 22, (2011) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845293110
  9. 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) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845293110
  10. Books: Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845293110
  11. DOLZER, RUDOLF, ET AL, PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW, 1st ed. (2008) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845293110
  12. DRAHOS, PETER, ET AL, INFORMATION FEUDALISM, WHO OWNS THE KNOWLEDGE ECONOMY, (2002) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845293110
  13. GERVAIS, DANIEL, THE TRIPS AGREEMENT: DRAFTING HISTORY AND ANALYSIS, 3rd ed. (2008) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845293110
  14. FOLSOM, RALPH. H., NAFTA, FREE TRADE AND FOREIGN INVESTMENT IN THE AMERICAS IN A NUTSHELL (2014) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845293110
  15. 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) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845293110
  16. HORNER, JESSI J., CANADIAN LAW AND THE CANADIAN LEGAL SYSTEM (2007) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845293110
  17. JUDGE, ELIZABETH F., ET AL, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY: THE LAW IN CANADA, (2011) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845293110
  18. KRATZ, MARTIN P.J. Q.C., CANADAʼS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY LAW IN A NUTSHELL, 2nd ed., 202 (2010) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845293110
  19. KLÄGER, RONALD, ʼFAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENTʼ IN INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW (2011) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845293110
  20. MILES, KATE, THE ORIGINS OF INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW, EMPIRE, ENVIRONMENT AND THE SAFEGUARDING OF CAPITAL (2013) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845293110
  21. PASTOR, ROBERT A., THE NORTH AMERICAN IDEA, THE VISION OF A CONTINENTAL FUTURE (2011) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845293110
  22. PERRY, STEPHEN J., ET AL, CANADIAN PATENT LAW, 2nd ed. (2014) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845293110
  23. SCHILL, STEPHAN W., THE MULITILATERIZATION OF INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW (2009) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845293110
  24. SOUTH CENTER, THE TRIPS AGREEMENT, A GUIDE FOR THE SOUTH, THE URUGUAY ROUND AGREEMENT ON TRADE-RELATED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS (2000) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845293110
  25. THE OXFORD HANDBOOK OF INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT LAW, (PETER MUCHLINSKI, FEDERICO ORTINO & CHRISTOPH SCHREUER EDS., 2008) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845293110
  26. VAN DEN BOSSCHE, PETER, THE LAW AND POLICY OF THE WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION, 2nd ed. (2010) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845293110
  27. VANHONNAEKER, LUKAS, INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS AS FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENTS: FROM COLLISION TO COLLABORATION (2015) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845293110
  28. Henckles, Carloline, PROTECTING REGULATORY AUTONOMY THROUGH GREATER PRECISION IN INVESTMENT TREATIES: THE TPP, CETA AND TTIP, 19 J. Intʼt Econ. L., 27, (2016) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845293110
  29. Bacalski, Juan, MEXICOʼS PHARMACEUTICAL PATENT DILEMMA AND THE LESSONS OF INDIA, 23 Ariz. J. Intʼl & Comp. L., 717, (2006) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845293110
  30. 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, Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845293110
  31. Bernasconi-Osterwalder, Nathalie, STATE-STATE DISPUTE SETTLEMENT IN INVESTMENT TREATIES, (IISD Best Practice Ser. 2014), 1, Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845293110
  32. Bijlmakers, Stephanie, EFFECTS OF FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT ARBITRATION ON A STATEʼS REGULATORY AUTONOMY INVOLVING THE PUBLIC INTEREST, 23 Am. Rev. Intʼl Arb. 245, (2012) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845293110
  33. Billingsley, James, ELI LILLY AND COMPANY V. THE GOVERNMENT OF CANADA AND THE PERILS OF INVESTOR-STATE ARBITRATION, 20 Appeal 27 (2015) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845293110
  34. 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) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845293110
  35. 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) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845293110
  36. 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) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845293110
  37. Falconi, Adam, CETA: AN OPPORTUNITY TO FIX CANADAʼS BROKEN PHARMACEUTICAL PATENT LINKAGE SYSTEM, 27 I.P.J., 325, (2015) 158 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845293110
  38. 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) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845293110
  39. 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 Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845293110
  40. 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, Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845293110
  41. Adeleke, Fola, INVESTOR–STATE ARBITRATION AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST THEORY, ONLINE PROCEEDINGS, Working Paper No. 2014/12, Soc. Intʼl Econ. L., 1, (2014) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845293110
  42. Hicks Laurinda L., et al, CONVERGENCE OF NATIONAL INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY NORMS IN INTERNATIONAL TRADING AGREEMENTS, 2 Am. U. J. Intʼl L. & Polʼy, 769, (1997) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845293110
  43. Ho, Cynthia M., SHOULD ALL DRUGS BE PATENTABLE?: A COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE, 17 Vand. J. Ent. & Tech. L. 295, 340 (2015). Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845293110
  44. 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) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845293110
  45. 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) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845293110
  46. 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) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845293110
  47. 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) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845293110
  48. 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) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845293110
  49. Liddell, Kathleen, et al, FAIR AND EQUITABLE TREATMENT AND JUDICIAL PATENT DECISIONS, 19 J. Intʼl Econ. L., 145, (2016) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845293110
  50. Mercurio, Bryan, AWAKENING THE SLEEPING GIANT: INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS IN INTERNATIONAL INVESTMENT AGREEMENTS, 15(3) J. Intʼt Econ. L., 871 (2012) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845293110
  51. 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) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845293110
  52. Petersmann, Ernst-Ulrich, THE JUDICIAL TASK OF ADMINISTERING JUSTICE IN TRADE AND INVESTMENT LAW AND ADJUDICATION, 4(1) J. Intʼl Dis. Sett., 5, (2013) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845293110
  53. 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) Open Google Scholar DOI: 10.5771/9783845293110

Similar publications

from the series "Munich Intellectual Property Law Center - MIPLC Studies"
Cover of book: The Relationship between Law and Biomedical Sciences in the Context of Article 53(a) of the European Patent Convention
Monograph Full access
Jurgita Randakevičiūtė-Alpman
The Relationship between Law and Biomedical Sciences in the Context of Article 53(a) of the European Patent Convention
Cover of book: Personality Merchandising and the GDPR: An Insoluble Conflict?
Monograph Full access
Jingzhou Sun
Personality Merchandising and the GDPR: An Insoluble Conflict?
Cover of book: Merger Regulation in Eastern and Southern Africa
Monograph Full access
Vincent Angwenyi
Merger Regulation in Eastern and Southern Africa
Cover of book: The Notion of Secrecy
Monograph Full access
Teresa Trallero Ocaña
The Notion of Secrecy
Cover of book: Unlocking the Right to Data Portability
Monograph Full access
Stephanie Elfering
Unlocking the Right to Data Portability

Notice

This work is protected by copyright and may only be used in accordance with the provisions of the Terms of Use and License Agreement. Any use of the work beyond this is expressly prohibited and will be prosecuted.

Give feedback

We welcome your feedback on content and features. Your message helps us to continuously improve our service.

Rating
Attach images
or drag and drop
PNG or JPG (max. 3 MB)

Login

Forgotten your password?
Login via your Institution (SSO, Shibboleth, OpenAthens)
Don't have an account yet?
Register now

Cite publication

Download: RIS BibTex