Public Law Researsh

Current Issue

By Issue

By Author

By Subject

Author Index

Keyword Index

About Journal

Aims and Scope

Publication Ethics

Indexing and Abstracting

Related Links

FAQ

Peer Review Process

Journal Metrics

News

Cost of Arbitration and Printing

Referees

Referees 2020

Referees 2021

Referees 2022

Referees 2022

A Reflection on the Invalidation of Patents in the Light of Constituent Elements of Indirect Expropriation under Foreign Investment Law

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 International Trade, Intellectual Property and Virtual Space Law, Faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

2 Intellectual Property Law, faculty of Law, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

3 International Trade and Investment Law, Faculty of Law, Shahid beheshti University, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Patents are considered as investments protected under the International Investment Law. Although, these properties are protected under the principle of territoriality, similar to other investments, they can be expropriated as a result of host states’ regulatory measures inconsistent with protection standards stemming from foreign investment protection regulations and treaties including fair and equitable treatment and legitimate expectations of foreign investors. Considering the fact that few arbitration awards have been issued by arbitration panels in this regard, it is yet difficult to claim there is a strong precedent in International Investment Law. Nevertheless, reflecting the provisions of international regulations, the stance of the domestic law and the most important relevant case, this article provides the most significant elements of indirect expropriation as well as existing doctrines in this respect and further investigates whether invalidation of patents can amount to indirect expropriation. It will also be mentioned that despite the fact that according to several foreign investment protection treaties, invalidation of patents shall not be subject to regulations regarding indirect or creeping expropriation, the final determination lies with the arbitration panel.  

Keywords

References
الف- فارسی
کتاب‌
-         دالزر، رودلف و شروئر، کیریستف، اصول حقوق بین‌الملل سرمایه‌گذاری، ترجمه سید قاسم زمانی و به‌آذین حسیبی‌، چاپ سوم (تهران: موسسه مطالعات و پژوهش‌های حقوقی شهر دانش، 1393).
 
مقاله‌ها
-         جنیدی، لعیا و همکاران، «سلب مالکیت غیرمستقیم سرمایه‌گذاران خارجی؛ جستاری در حقوق ایران و بین‌الملل»، فصلنامه پژوهش حقوق خصوصی، سال ششم، شماره 24، (1397).
-         صادقی، محمود و امینی، مهدی، «موجبات و آثار ابطال گواهینامه حق اختراع»، مجله مطالعات حقوق تطبیقی، بهار و تابستان، دوره 3، شماره 1، (1391).
 
Reference
Books
-          Bücheler, Gebhard, Proportionality in Investor-state Arbitration, First Edition (Oxford: United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 2015).
  -          Dolzer, Rudolf and Stevens, Margrete, Bilateral Investment Treaties (Hague: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1995).
 -          Paulsson, Jan and Douglas, Zachary, Indirect Expropriation in Investment Treaty Arbitration, In N. Horn and S. Kroll (eds.), Arbitrating Foreign Investment Disputes (Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2004).
 -          Vanhonnaeker, Lukas, Intellectual Property Rights as Foreign Direct Investments: From Collision to Collaboration (UK: Elgar International Investment Law, 2015).
 -          Wadlow, Christopher, Utility and Industrial Applicability in T. Takenaka (ed.), Patent Law and Theory: A Handbook of Contemporary Research, Research Handbooks in Intellectual Property Cheltenham (UK: Edward Elgar, 2008).
 
Articles
-          Baker, B. K. and  Geddes , K, ˮThe Incredible Shrinking Victory: Eli Lilly v. Canadaˮ, Success, Judicial Reversal, and Continuing Threats from Pharmaceutical ISDS, Loyola University Chicago Law Journal, Vol 49, Issue 2, (2017).  
 -          Correa, C. M., ”Investment Protection in Bilateral and Free Trade Agreements: Implications for the Granting of Compulsory Licenses”, Michigan Journal of International Law, Vol. 26, Issue 1, (2004).
 -          Diependaele L., Cockbain, J. and Sterckx S., ”Eli Lilly v Canada: The Uncomfortable Liaison between Intellectual Property and International Investment Law”, Queen Mary Journal of Intellectual Property, Vol. 7, Issue 3, (2017).
 -          Isakoff, P. D., ”Defining the Scope of Indirect Expropriation for International Investments”, Global Business Law Review, Vol. 3, Issue 2, (2013).
 -          Kriebaum ,Ursula, Regulatory Takings: ”Balancing the Interests of the Investor and the State”, Journal of World Investment & Trade, Volume 8, Issue 5 (2007).
 -          OECD,” Indirect Expropriation and the Right to Regulate in International Investment Law”, OECD Working Papers on International Investment, 2004/04, OECD Publishing., http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/780155872321 (2004).
 -          UNCTAD, “Taking of Property”,  UNCTAD Series on Issues in International Investment Agreements, (2000).
 -          Weiner, A. S., “Indirect Expropriations: The Need for a Taxonomy of Legitimate Regulatory Purposes”, International Law FORUM du droit international, Vol 5, Issue 3 (2003).
 
Regulation & Treaties
-          ASEAN–Australia–New Zealand FTA (2009).
-          Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO), ‘Patent Office Manual of Patent Office Practice (MOPOP) (1998 Edition, Revised June 2016; November 2017).
 -          Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement between India – Singapore (2005).
 -          Energy Charter Treaty, Dec. 17, 1994, 2080 U.N.T.S. 100.
 -          Korea –Singapore Free Trade Agreement (2006) North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), 17 December 1992, 32 ILM 296.
 -          U.S BIT Model (2012).
 -          US – Singapore Free Trade Agreement (2003).
 -          Patent Cooperation Treaty (1970) 9 ILM 978 (PCT).
 -          Patent Act RSC 1985 c. P-4 (Canada), available at: https://wipolex.wipo.int/en/text/207521.
 
Cases
-          Archer Daniels Midland Company and Tate & Lyle Ingredients Americas, Inc. v. The United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB (AF)/04/5, (2007).
 -          Biloune and Marine Drive Complex Ltd. v. Ghana Investments Centre and the Government of Ghana, (Investment Agreement), Award, 27 October 1989, 95 ILR 183.
 -          Compañía de Aguas del Aconquija S.A. and Vivendi Universal S.A. v. Argentine Republic, (France-Argentine BIT), Award20 August 2007, ICSID Case No. ARB/97/3.
 -          Eli Lilly and Company v. The Government of Canada, UNCITRAL, ICSID Case No.UNCT/14/2; Award:16 March 2017.
 -          Generation Ukraine Inc. v. Ukraine, ICSID Case No. ARB/00/9, Award (Sep. 16, 2003).
 -          IUSCT, Phelps Dodge Corp., et al. v. The Islamic Republic of Iran, Award No. 217-99-2 (19 March 1986), 10 IUSCTR 121.
 -          IUSCT, Tippetts, Abbeu, McCarthy, Stratton v. TAMS-AFFA Consulting Engineers of Iran, Award No. 141-7-2 (29 June 1984), 6 IUSCTR 219.
 -          Matos and Silva EGMR, Matos e Silva v. Portugal, Judgment of27 August 1996, ECHR 1996-IV.
 -          Metalclad Corp. v. United Mexican States, (NAFTA), ICSID Case No ARB (AF)/97/1, Award (30 August 2000), 5 ICSID Reports (2002) 212-35.
 -          Methanex Corp. v. U.S. (NAFTA), Final Award (3 August 2005) 4 I.L.M. 1345 (2005).
-          Novopharm Limited v Eli Lilly and Company (2010), FC  915. (Canada).
 -          Pope & Talbot Inc. v. The Government of Canada, NAFTA Arbitration (UNCITRAL).
 -          Saluka Investments BV v. Czech Republic, (Netherlands -Czech BIT), Partial Award, 17 March 2006.
 -          S.D. Myers, Inc. v. Government of Canada, NAFTA Arbitration (UNCITRAL), 2002.
 -          Southern Pacific Properties (Middle East) Limited (SPP) v. Arab Republic of Egypt, (National Law), Award, (20 May 1992), 3 ICSID Reports 189.
 -          Técnicas Medioambientales Tecmed, SA v. United Mexican States, ICSID Case No. ARB(AF) 2/00, (Mexico-Spain BIT)  Award, 29 May 2003, 43 I.L.M. 133, (2004).
 -          Telenor Mobile Communications A.S. v. The Republic of Hungry, ICSID, case No. ARB/04/15, Award, 13 September 2006.
  
Public Law Researsh
Volume 22, Issue 69
June 2021
Pages 203-233
Files
Share
How to cite
Statistics