In recent years, controversy has arisen over perceived conflicts between intellectual property protection and public health, and also over the role of international investment rules that allow corporations to sue governments before international tribunals. A new case combines both issues. Pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly has filed a claim before a NAFTA tribunal, alleging that Canadian court decisions in response to challenges from the Canadian generic drug industry have unfairly invalidated some of the company’s Canadian patents. Eli Lilly has asked for CDN$500 million as compensation for the damages it has suffered. This forum assembles experts with different perspectives on the case to sort through the various intellectual property, public health, and international law issues involved: Is the “promise utility” doctrine relied on by the Canadian courts credible? Is public health undermined or helped by this shift, which will favor the generic drug industry? Is it appropriate for international tribunals to play a role here? Please join us for a spirited discussion.
Featuring Holly Bell, Associate Professor (Business), University of Alaska Anchorage; and Hester Peirce, Senior Research Fellow, Mercatus Center; moderated by Louise C. Bennetts, Associate Director, Financial Regulation Studies, Cato Institute.
- Legal Briefs
- Cato Handbook for Policymakers
- Cato Journal
- Cato's Letter
- Cato's Letters
- Cato Papers on Public Policy
- Cato Policy Report
- Cato State Legislative Guide
- Cracking the Books
- Economic Freedom of the States of India
- Economic Freedom of the World
- Public Comments
- Supreme Court Review
In this issue of Regulation, Jonathan H. Adler and Nathaniel Stewart make the case for property-based fishery management, utilizing territorial or catch-share allocation among fishery participants. Also in this issue, Michael L. Wachter explores the relationship between the much-maligned National Labor Relations Act and the decline in union membership.
April 23, 2014
April 23, 2014
Latest CommentaryContrary to what some have written, McCutcheon actually left intact all the limits on contributions to single candidates, parties and political committees.
Timothy Sandefur’s insightful new book documents a vital, forgotten truth: our Constitution was written to secure liberty, not to empower democracy.