Abstract
The European Union (EU) pursues an active strategy of negotiating economic partnership agreements (EPAs) and free trade agreements (FTAs) with many developing countries and regions. One central objective is to promote sustainable economic development. An important component of this objective is the articulation of regimes covering intellectual property rights (IPRs) in partner countries to support technology transfer and innovation. In this paper I consider how the provisions in two recent agreements—the EU-CARIFORUM EPA with Caribbean countries and the EU-Colombia-Peru FTA—may help achieve these objectives. After a review of the relevant language and evidence I draw the following conclusions. First, although the agreements do not commit the EU to taking affirmative actions to increase technology transfer, their novel provisions on information sharing and scientific networks could help. Second, the agreements generally recognize the importance of policy flexibility in IPRs. One exception is the significant new disciplines required in IPR enforcement, particularly in the CARIFORUM EPA. Third, both agreements pay particular attention to the protection of geographical indications (GIs), an EU priority. The potential for GIs per se to build global markets is doubtful but they could be useful in fostering benefit sharing from the use of traditional knowledge.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
- 2.
Barton and Maskus (2006).
- 3.
- 4.
See also Drexl (2013) in this volume discussing Article 142(2) in detail.
- 5.
On these provisions, such as extended patent terms, lengthy test data protection and restrictions on generic entry, see Roffe and Spennemann (2006). It should be noted that where the United States has negotiated such rules, they would apply equally to IPRs owned by pharmaceutical companies from the EU.
- 6.
See also Jaeger (2013) in this volume discussing IP enforcement provisions.
- 7.
Yu (2011). It should be noted that ACTA encountered considerable opposition by legislatures in the EU, Mexico and other nations and its ultimate ratification into law is doubtful.
- 8.
See again Jaeger (2013) in this volume.
- 9.
Fink and Maskus (2006).
- 10.
Josling (2006).
- 11.
Another example of this preference arises in Article 144 F, in which the fair use limitations on trademark rights are somewhat broader than those regarding GIs.
- 12.
- 13.
Hobbs and Kerr (2006).
- 14.
Fink and Maskus (2006).
- 15.
Yeung and Kerr (2008).
- 16.
Rimmer (2009).
- 17.
Plotkin (2011)
- 18.
Maskus (2012).
- 19.
- 20.
- 21.
Maskus (2012).
- 22.
Ten Kate and Laird (1999).
- 23.
Dutfield (2005)
- 24.
- 25.
Maskus (2012).
- 26.
Maskus (2012).
- 27.
Dutfield (2005).
- 28.
Gervais (2009).
References
Barton JH, Maskus KE (2006) Economic Perspectives on a Multilateral Agreement on Open Access to Basic Science and Technology. In: Evenett SJ, Hoekman BM (eds) Economic development and multilateral trade cooperation. Palgrave MacMillan, London
Branstetter L, Fisman R, Foley CF (2006) Do stronger intellectual property rights increase international technology transfer? Empirical evidence from US firm-level panel data. Q J Econ 121(1):321–349
Drexl J (2013) Intellectual property and implementation of recent bilateral trade agreements in the EU. In: Drexl J, Grosse Ruse Khan H, Nadde-Phlix S (eds) EU bilateral trade agreements and intellectual property: for better or worse? Springer, Heidelberg (this volume)
Dutfield G (2005) Legal and economic aspects of traditional knowledge. In: Maskus KE, Reichman JH (eds) International public goods and transfer of technology under a globalized intellectual property regime. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Fink C, Maskus KE (2006) The Debate on Geographical Indications at the WTO. In: Newfarmer R (ed) Trade, Doha and development: a window into the issues. The World Bank, Washington, pp 197–207
Gervais DJ (2005) Traditional knowledge and intellectual property: a TRIPS-compatible approach. Mich State Law Rev 2005(1):137–166
Gervais DJ (2009) Traditional knowledge: are we closer to the answers? The potential role of geographical indications. ILSA J Comp Int Law 15(2):551–567
Hobbs JE, Kerr WA (2006) Consumer information, labeling and international trade in agri-food products. Food Pol 31(1):78–89
Jaeger T (2013) IP enforcement provisions in EU Economic Partnership Agreements. In: Drexl J, Grosse Ruse Khan H, Nadde-Phlix S (eds) EU bilateral trade agreements and intellectual property: for better or worse? Springer, Heidelberg (this volume)
Josling T (2006) The war on Terroir: geographical indications as a Trans-Atlantic trade conflict. J Agric Econ 57(3):337–363
Maskus KE (2006) Intellectual Property Rights in the U.S.-Colombia Free Trade Agreement. In: Schott JG (ed) The free trade agreement between Colombia and the United States. Peterson Institute for International Economics, Washington
Maskus KE (2012) Private rights and public problems: the global economics of intellectual property in the 21st century. Peterson Institute for International Economics, Washington
Park WG (2008) Intellectual Property Rights and International Innovation. In: Maskus KE (ed) Intellectual property, growth and trade: frontiers of economics and globalization, vol 2. Elsevier, Amsterdam
Plotkin R (2011) Eight profitable premium tequila trends. Nc&B Forum, 8 February 2011. http://www.nightclub.com/ncb-issue/tequila-puro
Rangnekar D (2004) The socio-economics of geographical indications: a review of empirical evidence from Europe. International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, Issue Paper No. 8, UNCTAD-ICTSD Project on IPRs and Sustainable Development
Rimmer A (2009) The Grapes of Wrath: The Coonawarra Dispute, Geographical Indications and International Trade. In: Kenyon A, Richardson M, Ricketson S (eds) Landmarks in Australian intellectual property law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Roffe P, Spennemann C (2006) The impact of FTAs on public health policies and TRIPS flexibilities. Int J Intellect Prop Manag 1(1–2):75–93
Ten Kate K, Laird SA (1999) The commercial use of biodiversity: access to genetic resources and benefit sharing. Earthscan, London
Yeung MT, Kerr WA (2008) Increasing protection of GIs at the WTO: clawbacks, greenfields and monopoly rents. Canadian Agricultural Trade Policy Research Network, working paper 2008-02
Yu PK (2011) Six secret (and now open) fears of ACTA. SMU Law Rev 64(3):975–1094
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Maskus, K.E. (2014). Assessing the Development Promise of IP Provisions in EU Economic Partnership Agreements. In: Drexl, J., Grosse Ruse - Khan, H., Nadde-Phlix, S. (eds) EU Bilateral Trade Agreements and Intellectual Property: For Better or Worse?. MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, vol 20. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39097-5_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-39097-5_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-39096-8
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-39097-5
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)