Skip to main content

Assessing the Development Promise of IP Provisions in EU Economic Partnership Agreements

  • Chapter
  • First Online:

Part of the book series: MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law ((MSIP,volume 20))

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

Chapter
USD   29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD   129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD   169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Learn about institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Roffe and Spennemann (2006); Maskus (2006).

  2. 2.

    Barton and Maskus (2006).

  3. 3.

    Park (2008); Branstetter et al. (2006).

  4. 4.

    See also Drexl (2013) in this volume discussing Article 142(2) in detail.

  5. 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. 6.

    See also Jaeger (2013) in this volume discussing IP enforcement provisions.

  7. 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. 8.

    See again Jaeger (2013) in this volume.

  9. 9.

    Fink and Maskus (2006).

  10. 10.

    Josling (2006).

  11. 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. 12.

    Josling (2006); Fink and Maskus (2006); Yeung and Kerr (2008).

  13. 13.

    Hobbs and Kerr (2006).

  14. 14.

    Fink and Maskus (2006).

  15. 15.

    Yeung and Kerr (2008).

  16. 16.

    Rimmer (2009).

  17. 17.

    Plotkin (2011)

  18. 18.

    Maskus (2012).

  19. 19.

    Rangnekar (2004); Maskus (2012).

  20. 20.

    Rangnekar (2004); Josling (2006).

  21. 21.

    Maskus (2012).

  22. 22.

    Ten Kate and Laird (1999).

  23. 23.

    Dutfield (2005)

  24. 24.

    Gervais (2005, 2009).

  25. 25.

    Maskus (2012).

  26. 26.

    Maskus (2012).

  27. 27.

    Dutfield (2005).

  28. 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Gervais DJ (2005) Traditional knowledge and intellectual property: a TRIPS-compatible approach. Mich State Law Rev 2005(1):137–166

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Hobbs JE, Kerr WA (2006) Consumer information, labeling and international trade in agri-food products. Food Pol 31(1):78–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Google Scholar 

  • Josling T (2006) The war on Terroir: geographical indications as a Trans-Atlantic trade conflict. J Agric Econ 57(3):337–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Maskus KE (2012) Private rights and public problems: the global economics of intellectual property in the 21st century. Peterson Institute for International Economics, Washington

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ten Kate K, Laird SA (1999) The commercial use of biodiversity: access to genetic resources and benefit sharing. Earthscan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu PK (2011) Six secret (and now open) fears of ACTA. SMU Law Rev 64(3):975–1094

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Keith E. Maskus .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics