A new report has underlined the crucial role that intellectual property plays in economic development in the biotechnology sphere, particularly in developing and emerging economies. Entitled Taking Stock: How Global Biotechnology Benefits from Intellectual Property Rights, the report was commissioned by the Biotechnology Industry Organisation (BIO) and unveiled at their annual international convention in Boston last week. 

The debate about the role of intellectual property in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sphere has, according to the report, often been based on theory rather than evidence. However, there is now a growing body of empirical and economic evidence available on the value that IP rights have in relation to increasing innovation and facilitating economic growth. The report’s authors have analysed this evidence; looking at research that has been done over the past 20 years as well as case studies focusing on the current IP environment in a number of jurisdictions. What they found is a positive correlation between IP rights - particularly patents - and economic development. 

The report’s key findings are summarized as follows: 

- IPRs, especially patents, are actively facilitating and contributing to upstream and downstream biotechnology activities in both developed and developing countries.

- Today, not only mature economies but also major emerging economies are making growing use of the patent system to facilitate biotechnology research and commercialization.

- Accordingly, biotechnology alliances for research and technology transfer have increased markedly since the early 1990s. 

Case study analysis suggests that strengthening IPRs and introducing technology transfer frameworks based on IPRs in combination with other reforms can have a positive and sustained impact on innovation, economic development and growth, biopharmaceutical R&D and access to biotech products in emerging economies. 

The report examined a number of countries with fast-growing economies that have implemented IP policies that promote biotechnology research, technology transfer and collaboration - these include Brazil, India and China - and found a link between improved IP protection and economic growth. For example, Brazil’s introduction of IP regulations in 1996 led to increased levels of patenting, innovation and commercialisation: the report gives the example of Aché Laboratories, which waited until patent protection was available before bringing to market an anti-inflammatory treatment. China, meanwhile has made “remarkable strides in reforming and strengthening its IPR environment” with a considerable increase in the amount of innovation and patenting emerging from universities in particular. A note of caution, however, is sounded with regards to India. While the authors commend the progress India has made since 2005 and its implementation of TRIPs, this risks being undermined by a lack of clarity and direction on where India’s IP protection is headed: particularly worrying is India’s recent move towards the use of compulsory licensing. 

That IP is good for innovation and economic development is not surprising news. However, further clarity regarding the impact of intellectual property is particularly welcome in the biotechnology sector, where debate on issues such as access to medicines in developing countries can be controversial. Joseph Damond, senior vice president of international affairs at BIO, explained the need for such a study at this time: “We felt it was important to provide empirical evidence and case studies for a more informed discussion on the role of intellectual property in global economic development and in commercializing innovative products for patients and other consumers.” The report concludes on a similar theme, arguing that it is vital that policymakers understand the role that intellectual property plays in driving biotechnical innovation in the real world.

Sectors

IP politics, Patents, IP business