[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]
What does it mean to release patents on COVID-19 vaccines?
[/vc_column_text][us_separator][vc_column_text]The world of medicines and other inventions in the health sector are covered by patents that provide legal protection to prevent them from being counterfeited. Vaccines are no exception. Patents grant manufacturers the rights to their discoveries and innovations. These exclusive rights allow them to use and exploit their invention and prevent third parties from using it for a period of time without their consent. This right, granted by the state, not only generates financial compensation for the owner, but also constitutes an incentive to promote innovation. The patent becomes an incentive insofar as it offers the inventor recognition for their creative activity and material compensation for their commercial invention. These incentives, in turn, encourage invention, which also contributes to improving the quality of human life. In return for obtaining exclusive rights, the inventor has the obligation to disclose the patented invention to the public so that third parties can benefit from the new knowledge and thus contribute to technological development.
Approach to the initiative
Regarding this issue, India and South Africa proposed to the World Trade Organization (WTO) that patents on COVID-19 vaccines and other products be exempted from this protection, arguing that, given the extreme nature of the pandemic, these vaccines should be widely available so that other manufacturers can mass-produce them locally. The main objective is that by eliminating restrictions and liberalizing production, more countries and companies can use the formula to boost production of these vaccines, which would, in turn, help more nations, especially poorer ones, gain greater access.
What is the real problem?
The proposals were met with immediate criticism from pharmaceutical companies and Western nations, including the European Union and the United Kingdom, as the majority of the costs involved in vaccine development occur during the research and development phase, as manufacturing tends to be lower-cost. But the main problem is that the objection to lifting patents could not only erode economic revenues but also discourage technological innovation, as it would deal a severe blow to medical innovation, as it would "disincentivize the industry in the face of future pandemics."
So will this proposal improve the supply situation or create more problems?
Waiving patents alone would not solve much, since the patent covers the fundamentals of the research project, but not its manufacturing and production process. For example, mRNA vaccines, such as those from Pfizer and Moderna, use very sophisticated new technology and only a small number of people know how to produce them. Therefore, without access to all the technical knowledge involved in their production and distribution, as well as the availability of the necessary raw materials, an exemption to this protection could generate major problems with quality, safety, efficacy, and quite possibly lead to counterfeits that would pose a high risk to people's health. In that sense, infrastructure is not the biggest problem in manufacturing more quickly; the real problem lies in the shortage of highly specialized raw materials needed for the vaccine. Therefore, liberalizing patents will not lead to more vaccines being manufactured. The main problem with releasing patents, aside from the economic incentives, is that there aren't many companies or countries with the capacity and technology to start producing vaccines. Therefore, in the long term, releasing patents, rather than benefiting, could hinder vaccine development and administration in all countries. Ensuring the quality of production could be a complicated issue because many of these materials are difficult to produce and are subject to their own patents.
What would be the alternative?
Vaccines are not just products, but also processes. Expanding manufacturing also requires technology transfer, an aspect that would be best articulated through voluntary licensing and appropriate compensation mechanisms. An immediate alternative to vaccinating the world is for wealthy countries to incentivize manufacturers to grant voluntary licenses to new manufacturers, share the know-how associated with their patents, and assist them in producing and selling in specific markets. In return, the patent holder must guarantee the quality of the new product and may receive royalties on its sales, which could be paid by multilateral organizations. Voluntary licenses also provide a positive image for large pharmaceutical companies.
Written by:
[/vc_column_text][us_person image=”7736″ name=”Paola Alarcon” role=”Asociada” link=”url:http%3A%2F%2Flexincorp.com%2Fequipo_elsalvador%2Fmarta-alarcon%2F|title:Paola%20Alarc%C3%B3n||” layout=”cards” img_size=”full”][/us_person][/vc_column][/vc_row]
