Patents Vs. Patients: Re-Evaluation Of Intellectual Property In Public Health
- IJLLR Journal
- Feb 12
- 2 min read
Updated: Feb 14
Himanshu Parmar, Chanakya National Law University, Patna
Zehra Naqvi, Queen Mary University of London
Introduction: When Patents Became Prisons
The COVID-19 pandemic did something rarely seen in modern history—it exposed the cruel machinery at the heart of our global intellectual property system. For nearly two years, a vaccine existed that could save lives. Yet, millions of people across Africa, South Asia, and Latin America watched from the sidelines as wealthier nations hoarded doses. By November 2023, 79.86% of people in high-income countries were fully vaccinated, while only 32.82% in low-income countries had received even a single dose. This was not a story of vaccine scarcity. It was a story about who was allowed to own the machinery that saves lives.
The crisis crystallised a fundamental question that legal scholars have grappled with for decades: can a system designed to reward innovation simultaneously deny access to lifesaving medicines? The patent system was supposed to encourage the creation of new drugs by offering inventors temporary monopolies. That much is true. But somewhere along the way, we forgot to ask what happens when poor people cannot afford those drugs.
The Global Framework: How TRIPS Promised Balance But Delivered Monopolies
When the World Trade Organization established the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) in 1995, it created a minimum floor of patent protection across all member countries. For pharmaceuticals, this meant a standard 20-year patent period, which in theory sounds reasonable. In practice, it gave pharmaceutical corporations the power to set prices that only wealthy nations could afford.
The framers of TRIPS were not ignorant of public health concerns. They built in what looked like safeguards—flexibilities such as compulsory licensing and parallel imports that member states could invoke during health emergencies. But like so many legal protections, they existed only on paper until someone had the courage to challenge the corporations that ignored them.
