Team Code 055 Respondent

9TH MANIPAL RANKA INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023
Team Code: TC055
IN THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
AT THE PEACE PALACE

THE HAGUE, THE NETHERLANDS
THE CASE CONCERNING THE VIOLATION OF TRIPS AGREEMENT IN THE

UNION OF BHARANESIA
Federal States of Imperia

APPLICANT
v.
Union of Bharanesia
RESPONDENT
Jointly Notified and Submitted in the Registry of the Court under Article 40(1) of the
Statute of ICJ
MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

----UNION OF BHARANESIA----
1
9TH MANIPAL RANKA INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023
2
Table of Contents
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS......................................................................................................iii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES........................................................................................................iv
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION........................................................................................viii
STATEMENT OF FACTS..........................................................................................................ix
ISSUES RAISED.........................................................................................................................xii
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS...............................................................................................xiii
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED.......................................................................................................1
ARGUMENT 1...............................................................................................................................1
WHETHER UOB'S ASSERTION REGARDING PRIORITIZING PUBLIC HEALTH

OVER PATENT PROTECTION UNDER TRIPS AGREEMENT DURING COVID
PANDEMIC IS JUSTIFIED?.......................................................................................................1
A. The patent protection hinders the healthcare access to the poorer sections in ongoing
COVID pandemic amidst the persistence of new variants and mutants..............................1
A.1. Right to Health care access as the primary concern.........................................................1
A.2. Patent protection hinders the healthcare access to the poorer sections in ongoing
COVID pandemic.....................................................................................................................2
B. The TRIPS agreement does not undermine the legitimate right of WTO members to
formulate their own public health policies..............................................................................3
B.1. DOHA declaration on public health policies....................................................................3
B.2. TRIPS agreement allows State members to formulate their own domestic public health
policies......................................................................................................................................4
ARGUMENT 2...............................................................................................................................5
i
WHETHER UOB'S DECISION TO AVAIL BY CHAPTERS 16 AND 17 OF PATENT

ACT TO EXCLUDE COVID-RELATED INVENTIONS FROM PATENT PROTECTION
VIOLATES THE TRIPS AGREEMENT UNDER WTO?.......................................................5
A. UOB is bound to enforce the WTO TRIPS agreement in good faith as a signatory
party............................................................................................................................................5
A.1. The good faith principle...................................................................................................5
A.2. UOB is in accordance with good faith principle and it has not created an unnecessary
obstacle to TRIPS.....................................................................................................................7
B. UOB’s action does not downgrade the Intellectual property protection of TRIPS........8
B.1. Intellectual Property Protection........................................................................................8
B.2. Compulsory License.......................................................................................................10
ARGUMENT 3.............................................................................................................................11
WHETHER OR NOT THE INHERENT FLEXIBILITY WITHIN MINIMUM

STANDARDS GRANT MEMBER STATES THE AUTHORITY TO ADAPT THE
APPLICATION OF THE TRIPS AGREEMENT BASED ON THEIR SPECIFIC NEEDS
AND CIRCUMSTANCES?........................................................................................................11
A. UOB has the discretion to determine the extent of protection for data and newly
developed drug testing protocols resulting from clinical trials............................................11
A.1. UOB's authority to formulate measures that align with its own national policies and
priorities while upholding its sovereignty..............................................................................11
A.2.UOB’s discretion to determine the protection for clinical trials data..............................12
B. The flexibility of Minimum Standards under TRIPS agreement allows UOB to make
informed decisions based on its specific circumstances and needs.........................................13
B.1. TRIPS and its exceptions...............................................................................................13
B.2. UOB’s specific circumstances and needs relating to Public Health...............................14
PRAYERS FOR RELIEF...........................................................................................................16
ii
LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS
ABBREVIATION FULL FORM
Art. Article
FSI Federal States Of Imperia
UOB Union of Bharanesia
TRIPS Trade Related Aspects On Intellectual Property Rights
WTO World Trade Organization
UDHR Universal Declaration On Human Rights
WHO World Health Organization
UN United Nations
ICJ International Court Of Justice
ICESCR International Covenant On Economic Social And Cultural Rights
V. Versus
Hon’ble Honorable
GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade
VCLT Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties
COVID Corona Virus Disease
CDSCO Central Drugs Standard Control Organization
Para, ¶ Paragraph
UOI Union of India
iii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
S. No International Treaties, Conventions And Other Relevant Document
1. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969
2. WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, 1995
3. General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 1947
4. Constitution of the World Health Organization, 1946
5. Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, 1883
6. Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works, 1886
7. Statute of The International Court of Justice, 1945
8. Patent Cooperation Treaty, 1970
9. Constitution of WHO, 1946
 INTERNATIONAL LAWS
 CASE LAWS
S. No Case Laws
1. The AZT Case, 1991
2. F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd v Cipla Ltd, 2012
3. Bristol-Myers Squibb v. FH Faulding, 2000
4. India-Patent (US), 1997
5. FMC corporation and Ors. v Best Crop Science, 2022
6. The Nuclear tests case, 1974 (Australia v France)
7. Nicaragua v Honduras, 1988
8. Chile v Peru, 1925
iv
9. France v Espagne, 1957
10. Hungary v Slovakia, 1997
11. Novartis AG v. Union of India(UOI), 2013
12. Bayer corporation v Natco Pharma, 2013
13. Merck Frosst Canada Inc. v. Canada ( Minister of National Health and Welfare),
1998
14. AstraZeneca Canada Inc. v. Canada ( Minister of Health), 2006
15. United States — Transitional Safeguard Measure on Combed Cotton Yarn from
Pakistan, 2001
16. Wellcome Foundation Ltd v Commissioner of Patents, 1983
17. Pharmaceuticals manufacturers association and others v. President of the republic of
South Africa and others, 2000
 BOOKS
S. No Books
1. Simon Lester and Bryan Mercurio, World Trade Law (2008)
2. Catherine Colston, Principles of Intellectual Property Law (1999)
3. P. Narayanan, Intellectual Property Law 3rd Edition (2001)
4. Matthew Fisher, Fundamental of Patent law (2007)
5. Alan L. Durham, Patent Law Essentials (2009)
6. Rudolf Bernhardt, Encyclopedia of Public International Law (1981)
7. Jocelyn Downie, Timothy Caulfield, Colleen Flood, Canadian Health Law and Policy
(2007)
v
8. L. Kay Bartholomew, Guy S. Parcel, Gerjo kok, Nell H. Gottlieb, Planning Health
promotion program (2006)
9. George Halvorson, Health Care Reform Now (2007)
10. Raj Kumar Suwal, Patent Specification (2008)
11. Roscoe Pound, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Law (1922)
 JOURNALS, ARTICLES AND REPORTS
S. No Journals, Articles and Reports
1. COVID 19: Should intellectual property rights to be challenged? By Etienne Bilette De

Villemeur, Vianney Dequiedt, Bruno Versaevel
2. ‘Human Rights Watch, ‘Seven Reasons the EU Is Wrong to Oppose the TRIPS
Waiver’ (2021)
3. Patents for critical Pharmaceuticals: The AZT Case' (1991) 17 American Journal of
Law and Medicine 145,148
4. The Dilemma in COVID-19 Pandemic: The Protection of Intellectual Property Rights

or A Life? Debby Kristin and Chloryne Trie Isyana Dewi.
5. Public health and international patent protection: A never ending conflict
6. Christine Breining, Kaufmann Frederick M. Abbott Thomas Cottier International Trade

and Human Rights: Foundations and Conceptual Issues (World Trade Forum, Volume
5) (Studies in International Economics)
7. The Exceptions to Patent Rights under the WTO-TRIPs Agreement: Is the Right to
Health Denied?
9. Solidarity Call to action, WHO
10. EU Steps Up Effort to Boost Domestic Production of Jab Raw Materials by M. Peel, S.
Fleming, E. Solomon, and D.P. Mancini, Financial Times
vi
11. Delhi Law Review, Vol. XXI- 1999, Faculty of Law, University of Delhi
12. Is the Patent Misuse doctrine obsolete? Harvard Law Review, Vol.110, 1997
13. Internationalization of Services Trade: Its consequences and impacts on developing

countries, Delhi University Law Journal, 1997
14. Intellectual Property in International Trade and the Uruguay Round, A.K. Koul, Delhi
Law Review, Vol.14, 1992
 IMPORTANT DEFINITIONS
Applicant for the purpose of this memorandum shall stand for “Federal States of Imperia”.
Respondent for the purpose of this memorandum shall stand for “Union of Bharanesia.”
 DYNAMIC LINK
- http://www.casemine.com/
- http://www.scconline.com/
- http://www.law.justia.com/
- https://www.jstor.org/
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
vii
The Federal States of Imperia [“FSI”] and the Union of Bharanesia [“UOB”] have agreed to
submit the present dispute to the International Court of Justice [“The Court”] for final
resolution, by virtue of special agreement and have transmitted a copy thereof to the Registrar of
the Court pursuant to Article 40(1) of the Statute of the ICJ concerning the violation of WTO
TRIPS agreement by UOB. Therefore, both parties have accepted the jurisdiction of the ICJ
pursuant to article 36(1) of the Statute of the Court. Both parties shall accept the Court’s decision
as final and binding and execute it in good faith.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
UOB Union of Bharanesia (UOB) is a peninsular country which is situated in
viii
South Asian region and is similar to India in terms of constitution, legal

systems, statues and system of governance.
During 1950s Independence of colonial domination in UOB
During 1990s UOB was recognized as a developing country and became as a founding
member of the WTO TRIPS agreement.
2001-2020 UOB went significant development along with globalization that helped
the country to make advancements in various fields as well as boosted
its economy. Despite declaring itself a Nuclear Power, it chose not to
join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, leading to enduring
economic and military sanctions. However, its strong implementation of
economic reforms helped to overcome the impact of these sanctions.
In 2020 UOB ranked within top 8 countries globally in terms of its economic
size.
FSI Federal States of Imperia (FSI) is a progressive South American

country that resembles the United States in terms of its constitution,
statutes, and system of governance. It is a major player in International
arena ranking top 4 economies of the world because of its strong
economy and also a home to most of the research-driven, multinational
pharmaceutical companies. It is a progressive and liberal country that
played pivotal role in uplifting the economy of other country as well
who were considered as ‘basket cases’.
During 2021 FSI considered a top choice for post graduate education and research
pursuits, UOB-originated people became integrated into the local
population of FSI and Around 3% of FSI's population in 2021 were
estimated to have UOB origin.
End of 2021 The COVID-19 pandemic had a huge impact on the world, it’s
economy and International Relations. More than 5.5 million COVID
related deaths which will easily match the deaths from the world wars
ix
affected the pace of economic and social globalization. The nations who
had strong commitment to protect the new pharmaceuticals inventions
started to reconsider the new COVID-related inventions invented during
pandemic.
2021-2023 In the span of only two years, six different types of vaccine were
invented with the entry of Russia’s SPUTNIK, followed by Pfizer,
AstraZeneca, and Shinopharm of China and India’s revolutionary and
impactful COVISHIELD AND COVAXIN vaccine.
2021-2024 UOB suffered greatly during the pandemic but the India’s vaccine
helped UOB to control the situation. However, even with the 100%
vaccination of population and reduce in mortality rate, people continued
to be infected with new and mutant varieties of COVID.
Exemptions to Patent UOB availing to chapter 16 and 17 of its Patent Act, decided to exclude
protection to COVID- COVID-related inventions from patent protection for easy access of
related inventions medicine despite being a founding member of WTO TRIPS agreement.
UOB also lacked the data exclusivity protection for clinical trial data
and newly evolved drug testing protocols under specialized legislation.
FSI’s objection to The FSI government claimed that UOB’s decision to deny the patent
UOB’s decision protection for COVID-related inventions by resorting to chapter 16 and
17 of its Patent Act and failure to safeguard clinical trial data and newly
evolved drug testing protocols infringe upon the International Minimum
Standard Requirement mentioned in Article 27 of the TRIPS
agreements to protect inventions across all technological domains
without discrimination.
x
Jurisdiction The violation of this agreement is under the jurisdiction of WTO and is
to be solved through WTO’s dispute settlement mechanism. However,
due to failure to appoint the nominees in WTO, FSI and UOB agreed to
refer this matter in ICJ through a special agreement between the
countries.
xi
ISSUES RAISED
ISSUE 1
Whether UOB's assertion regarding prioritizing public health over patent

protection under TRIPS agreement during COVID pandemic is justified?
ISSUE 2
Whether UOB's decision to avail by Chapters 16 and 17 of Patent Act to exclude

COVID-related inventions from patent protection violates the TRIPS agreement
under WTO?
ISSUE 3
Whether or not the inherent flexibility within Minimum Standards grant member
States the authority to adapt the application of the TRIPS Agreement based on their
specific needs and circumstances?
xii
SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS
ISSUE 1
It is humbly submitted before the International Court of Justice that the patent protection hinders
the healthcare access to the poorer sections in ongoing COVID pandemic amidst the persistence
of new variants and mutants as Right to Health care access as the primary concern of every
nation. The Committee on Economic Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) in its General
Comment No. 14 explained Article 12 as an obligation to respect and fulfil the right to health. It
also recognizes that access to affordable medicines is one of the components of the right to
health and without medicines this right cannot be attained. The patent protection might hinder
the fulfilment of collective human rights, precisely the right to life and the right to access
healthcare. Under TRIPS, the 20- year minimum patent protection period for products and
processes confers exclusive monopoly for the manufacture, distribution and sale of medicines.
The monopolies granted TRIPS allow pharmaceutical giants to suppress competition from
alternative, low-cost producers and to charge prices far above what is reasonable. 1 TRIPS
agreement allows State members to formulate their own domestic public health policies. Hence,
the UOB’s assertion regarding prioritizing public health over patent protection under TRIPS
agreement during COVID pandemic justified.
ISSUE 2
It is humbly submitted before the International Court of Justice that the UOB's decision to avail
by chapters 16 and 17 of Patent Act aligns with the principle of good faith and it retains the right
to choose implementation methods under the TRIPS Agreement as the it acknowledges the
method of implementation as a national prerogative as referred in Article 1.1 of TRIPS
Agreement.2 Moreover, UOB is in accordance with good faith principle and it has not created an
unnecessary obstacle to TRIPS as the “Minimum Standard” was the extent of implementation
and the element of flexibility also permits the member states to elect whether they would permit,
or prohibit, the direct application of the TRIPS Agreement. 3 Members State have the right to
1
World Trade Law, Text, Materials and Commentary, Simon Lester and Bryan Mercurio, 2010
2
Article 1.1, TRIPS Agreement,
https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips.pdf
3
UNCTAD/ICTSD resource Book on TRIPS,
xiii
protect public health while complying with the Agreement better suited to its legal system.
Overall, UOB's decision falls within the boundaries of good faith and is consistent with TRIPS'
flexibility, reinforcing the balance between treaty obligations and national prerogatives.
ISSUE 3
It is humbly submitted before the International Court of Justice that the inherent flexibility within
minimum standards grant member states the authority to adapt the application of the TRIPS
agreement based on their specific needs and circumstances. UOB has the discretion to determine
the extent of protection for data and newly developed drug testing protocols resulting from
clinical trials as it has authority to formulate measures that align with its own national policies
and priorities while upholding its sovereignty. The flexibility of minimum standards under
TRIPS agreement allows UOB to make informed decisions based on its specific circumstances
and needs, particularly in exceptional circumstances such as a pandemic. UOB maintains the
balance between intellectual property rights and public health interests, while situating UOB's
decision within the context of the ongoing global COVID-19 pandemic.
https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/ictsd2005d1_en.pdf
xiv
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED
ARGUMENT 1
WHETHER UOB'S ASSERTION REGARDING PRIORITIZING PUBLIC HEALTH

OVER PATENT PROTECTION UNDER TRIPS AGREEMENT DURING COVID
PANDEMIC IS JUSTIFIED?
A. The patent protection hinders the healthcare access to the poorer sections in
ongoing COVID pandemic amidst the persistence of new variants and mutants.
A.1. Right to Health care access as the primary concern.
"Salus populi suprema lex esto," is a popular Latin maxim which translates to "Let the welfare of
the people be the supreme law." Every human being is entitled to the enjoyment of the highest
attainable standard of health conducive to living a life in dignity. 4Access to health is a right for
all. As rightly stated by WHO in its Constitution, the enjoyment of the highest attainable
standard of health is one of the fundamental rights of every human being without distinction of
race, religion, political belief, economic or social condition. 5 The achievement of any State in the
promotion and protection of health is of value to all. Herein, the States Parties to the present
Covenant recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of
physical and mental health.6 In every part of the world, the right to health is protected under
Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which asserts that, “Everyone has the
right to a standard of living adequate for the health of himself and of his family, including food,
7
clothing, housing, and medical care and necessary social services”. The Committee on
Economic Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) in its General Comment No. 14 explained Article
4
General Comment No. 14 (2000), No.1 https://www.ohchr.org/en/treaty-bodies/general-comments
5
Constitution of World Health Organization, The Constitution was adopted by the International Health Conference
held in New York from 19 June to 22 July 1946, signed on 22 July 1946 by the representatives of 61 States (Off.
Rec. Wld Hlth Org., 2, 100), and entered into force on 7 April 1948. Amendments adopted by the Twenty-sixth,
Twenty-ninth, Thirty-ninth and Fifty-first World Health Assemblies (resolutions WHA26.37, WHA29.38,
WHA39.6 and WHA51.23) came into force on 3 February 1977, 20 January 1984, 11 July 1994 and 15 September
2005 respectively and are incorporated in the present text.
6
Art 12. ICESCR, 1966
7
Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
1
12 as an obligation to respect and fulfil the right to health. It also recognizes that access to
affordable medicines is one of the components of the right to health and without medicines this
right cannot be attained. It has been argued by the scholars that right to life is not limited to stop
killing the people but it also includes access to those medicines which can save life. Art. 8 of the
principle of TRIPS agreement explicitly mentions the member countries can adopt measures
necessary for the promotion of public health. In 2001, the WTO Ministerial Conference adopted
a separate Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health. This declaration is called
Doha Declaration which explicitly states that “the TRIPS Agreement should be interpreted as
supportive of the members’ right to protect public health and, in particular, to promote access to
medicines for all.”8
A.2. Patent protection hinders the healthcare access to the poorer sections in ongoing COVID
pandemic.
Patent protection is the highest form of appreciation that could be provided to the patent owners.
The objective of Patent would be that the invention should pass on to the community as large as
the ultimate beneficiary.9However, the patent protection might hinder the fulfilment of collective
human rights, precisely the right to life and the right to access healthcare. The Patent protection
makes a more significant group suffer since they cannot access it. The inaccessibility of
consuming certain medicines and vaccines creates some fundamental rights of a person being
abused.10 Strict Patent regimes required by TRIPS allow pharmaceutical corporations to set
prices of patented medicines at high, often exorbitant levels. Under TRIPS, the 20- year
minimum patent protection period for products and processes confers exclusive monopoly for the
manufacture, distribution and sale of medicines. The monopolies granted TRIPS allow
pharmaceutical giants to suppress competition from alternative, low-cost producers and to charge
prices far above what is reasonable.11 (Mercurio, 2010) Intellectual property is currently a barrier
to swiftly scaling up and diversifying the production of Covid-19 health products, including
vaccines. There are manufacturers with capacity to produce additional Covid-19 vaccines and
other health products at factories in Bangladesh, Canada, Denmark, India, and Israel, but they are
8
Declaration on the TRIPS agreement and public health Adopted on 14 November 2001, WTO | Ministerial
conferences - Doha 4th Ministerial - TRIPS declaration, accessed at August 24, 2023
9
FMC corporation and Ors. v Best Crop Science LLP and ORs
10
The Dilemma in COVID-19 Pandemic: The Protection of Intellectual Property Rights or A Life? Debby Kristin
and Chloryne Trie Isyana Dewi.
11
World Trade Law, Text, Materials and Commentary, Simon Lester and Bryan Mercurio, 2010
2
unable to contribute because they do not yet have the right to license. So, IP is a barrier to
them.12 In the direct context of healthcare all health facilities, goods and services must be
“accessible to all, especially the most vulnerable or marginalized sections of the population, in
law and in fact, without discrimination on any of the prohibited grounds”. 13As an immediate
obligation, the CESCR has stressed that non-discrimination in access to health must be ensured
even in times of severe resource constraints.14
B. The TRIPS agreement does not undermine the legitimate right of WTO members to
formulate their own public health policies.
B.1. DOHA declaration on public health policies.
In 2001, the WTO Ministerial Conference adopted a separate Declaration on the TRIPS
Agreement and Public Health. This declaration is called Doha Declaration which explicitly states
that “the TRIPS Agreement should be interpreted as supportive of the members’ right to protect
public health and, in particular, to promote access to medicines for all.” The Declaration thus
sets the scene for differentiating intellectual property policies to protect public health. It
explicitly recognizes “the right of WTO members to use, to the full, the provisions in the TRIPS
Agreement, which provide flexibility for this purpose.”
The ministerial Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health resulting from the
meeting recognizes that TRIPS does not prevent countries from taking measures to protect public
health and that the WTO members are entitled to use TRIPS provisions which provide flexibility
for this purpose. Each member has the right to determine what constitutes a national emergency
or other circumstances of extreme urgency, it being understood that public health crises,
including those relating to HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis, malaria and other epidemics, can represent a
national emergency or other circumstances of extreme urgency.” 15
12
Human Rights Watch, ‘Seven Reasons the EU Is Wrong to Oppose the TRIPS Waiver’ (2021)
https://www.hrw.org/news/2021/06/03/seven-reasons-eu-wrong-oppose-trips-waiver accessed 23 August 2023.
13
General Comment No. 14 (2000), para no.12(b)
14
Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) https://www.ohchr.org/en/treaty-bodies/cescr
15
Declaration on the TRIPS agreement and public health Adopted on 14 November 2001, WTO | Ministerial
conferences - Doha 4th Ministerial - TRIPS declaration, accessed at August 24, 2023
3
The declaration is more than an expression of political ambition. It provides a legal basis for
interpreting the TRIPS Agreement as consistent with public health objectives and for using the
flexibility of the agreement for this purpose.16
B.2. TRIPS agreement allows State members to formulate their own domestic public health
policies.
The Article 8 of TRIPS Agreement emphasizes that the protection and enforcement of
intellectual property rights should contribute to the promotion of technological innovation and
the transfer and dissemination of technology, all in a manner conducive to social and economic
welfare. It recognizes the importance of balancing rights and obligations and highlights the
legitimate interests of members in sectors of vital importance to their socio-economic and
technological development.
The Article 30 provides members the flexibility to incorporate limited exceptions to the
exclusive rights conferred by patents, as long as these exceptions do not unreasonably conflict
with the normal exploitation of the patent and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate
interests of the patent owner, taking into account the interests of third parties. This provision
allows members to adopt measures necessary to protect public health and nutrition, as well as
promote the public interest in vital sectors. The Art 31 acknowledges that members can allow
other uses of patented inventions without the authorization of the patent holder under certain
conditions.17
16
Public health and international patent protection: A never ending conflict
17
Art. 31, TRIPS agreement.
4
ARGUMENT 2
WHETHER UOB'S DECISION TO AVAIL BY CHAPTERS 16 AND 17 OF PATENT

ACT TO EXCLUDE COVID-RELATED INVENTIONS FROM PATENT PROTECTION
VIOLATES THE TRIPS AGREEMENT UNDER WTO?
A. UOB is bound to enforce the WTO-TRIPS Agreement in good faith as a signatory party.
A.1. The good faith principle
The definition of good faith in international law has been largely elusive, and its indefinite
boundaries complicate its use in the World Trade Organization. Nevertheless, good faith is
almost certainly a general principle of law and a principle of customary international law. It is
also a principle of WTO law that is reflected in several provisions of the Understanding on Rules
and Procedures Governing the Settlement of Disputes. WTO Tribunals may use the principle of
good faith not merely to interpret WTO provisions, but also in the exercise of their inherent
jurisdiction, such as when employing the doctrine of estoppel, which is one particularization of
good faith. However, the use of good faith in WTO dispute settlement entails three important
considerations and qualifications. First, the principle should not be used to overwhelm WTO
provisions that appear to be based on concepts similar to those underlying the principle of good
faith, such as non-violation complaints, which are subject to detailed rules. Second, the principle
should not be confused with other principles that may appear to be related, particularly due
process. WTO Tribunals have no legal basis for finding that a Member has violated a principle of
good faith independent of a violation of a WTO provision.
Men must be able to assume that those with whom they deal in the general intercourse of society
will act in good faith.18 The ordinary meaning of good faith is ‘honesty of purpose or sincerity of
declaration’ or the ‘expectation of such qualities in others’. 19 ‘Good faith’ is often used
18
Roscoe Pound, An Introduction to the Philosophy of Law (1922) 188.
19
Arthur Delbridge et al (eds), The Macquarie Dictionary (2nd ed, 1991) 754.
5
interchangeably with ‘bona fides’, which is defined as ‘freedom from intent to deceive’. 20 The
touchstone of good faith is therefore honesty, a subjective state of mind, but the principle can
also incorporate notions of fairness and reasonableness, both of which concern an objective state
of affairs. Unfortunately, terms like honesty, fairness and reasonableness are almost as vague as
good faith. This leads Rosenne to ask of good faith: ‘Is it a principle and a rule of law, having an
identifiable and where necessary enforceable legal content, or is it nothing more than a throw-
back to outmoded natural law concepts?’21 If good faith has no independent legal content, it may
be of little use to World Trade Organization Tribunals in resolving disputes: ‘one may
acknowledge the power and attraction of a general idea but the idea may be so general that it is
of no practical utility to the merchant’.22
A number of international tribunals have recognized the principle of good faith. According to the
International Court of Justice, although good faith is ‘one of the basic principles governing the
creation and performance of legal obligations’, 23 it is ‘not in itself a source of obligation where
none would otherwise exist’. This could suggest that, in a treaty context, a violation of good
faith cannot arise in the absence of a violation of a treaty provision. Conversely, the ICJ has
rejected the contention that a violation of a treaty provision cannot arise in the absence of a
violation of good faith.24 This distinction may reflect the gravity of a good faith violation, which
also explains why international tribunals often presume that states act in good faith and why they
do not lightly find bad faith.25
The principle of good faith in international law is a fundamental principle from which the rule
pacta sunt servanda and other legal rules distinctively and directly related to honesty, fairness
and reasonableness are derived, and the application of these rules is determined at any particular
time by the compelling standards of honesty, fairness and reasonableness prevailing in the
20
John Simpson and Edmund Weiner (eds), The Oxford English Dictionary (2nd ed, 1989) vol. 2, 379
21
Shabtai Rosenne, Developments in the Law of Treaties 1945–1986 (1989) 135. https://unov.tind.io/record/2431
22
Royston Goode, ‘The Concept of Good Faith in English Law’ (Paper presented at the Centro di Studi e Ricerche di
Diritto Comparato e Straniero, Rome, Italy, March 1992).
https://books.google.com.np/books/about/The_Concept_of_good_Faith_in_English_Law.
23
Nuclear Tests (Australia v France) (Merits) [1974] ICJ Rep 253, 268 (‘Nuclear Tests
Case’). https://www.icj-cij.org/case/58
24
Border and Transborder Armed Actions (Nicaragua v Honduras) (Jurisdiction and
Admissibility) [1988] ICJ Rep 69, 105. https://www.icj-cij.org/case/120
25
Tacna-Arica (Chile v Peru) (1925) 2 RIAA 921, 930; Affaire du Lac Lanoux (France v Espagne) (1957) 12 RIAA 281,
313. https://www.icj-cij.org/case/137
6
international community at that time.26 Good faith was recognized as a general principle of law
during the drafting of the Statute of the Permanent Court of International Justice. 27
A.2. UOB is in accordance with good faith principle and it has not created an unnecessary
obstacle to TRIPS.
Also as regards treaties, art 26 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (‘VCLT’) 28 is
entitled ‘Pacta sunt servanda’ and provides that ‘every treaty in force is binding upon the parties
to it and must be performed by them in good faith’. The ICJ has read the good faith requirement
in art 26 as meaning that the purpose of the Treaty, and the intentions of the Parties in
concluding it, should prevail over its literal application. The principle of good faith obliges the
parties to apply it in a reasonable way and in such a manner that its purpose can be realized. 29
‘WTO agreements are themselves creatures of international law; they are treaties binding only
because of the underlying norm of international law pacta sunt servanda’.30 This suggests that
good faith may underlie the WTO agreements as a whole. Perhaps this is what the Appellate
Body had in mind when it referred to the ‘general principle of good faith that underlies all
treaties’.31
Good faith is also mentioned in several provisions of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects
of Intellectual Property Rights (‘TRIPS Agreement’). 32 Respondent humbly submits that it has
the right under the TRIPS Agreement, that gives freedom to the state members to adopt and
determine the method of implementation.
26
Anthony D’Amato, ‘Good Faith’ in Rudolf Bernhardt (ed.), Encyclopaedia of Public International Law (2003) vol. 2,
599, 599.
27
Lord Phillimore in Permanent Court of International Justice: Advisory
Committee of Jurists, Procès-verbaux of the Proceedings of the Committee, June 16th – July
24th, 1920, with Annexes (1920) 335.
28
Opened for signature 23 May 1969, 1155 UNTS 331 (entered into force 27 January 1980).
29
Gabčíkovo-Nagymaros Project (Hungary v Slovakia) (Merits) [1997] ICJ Rep 7, 79. https://www.icj-cij.org/case/92
30
Donald McRae, ‘Comments on Dr. Claus-Dieter Ehlermann’s Lecture’ (2003) 97 American
Society of International Law Proceedings 87, 89.
31
United States — Transitional Safeguard Measure on Combed Cotton Yarn from Pakistan,
WTO Doc WT/DS192/AB/R, AB-2001-3 (8 October 2002) [81] (Report of the Appellate
Body) https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds192
32
Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization, opened for signature 15
April 1994, 1867 UNTS 3 (entered into force 1 January 1995), annex 1C (Agreement on
Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) 1867 UNTS 299
7
Even though the Pacta Sunt Servanda obligation as provided by Article-26 of Vienna
Convention33, which requires the “giving of effect” to the agreement, the TRIPS agreement
however acknowledges that the method of implementation is a national prerogative as referred in
Article 1.1 of TRIPS Agreement.34 The WTO Appellate Body Report stated in the India-Patent
case that the member states are free to determine and elect the method of implementation. 35
However, the extent of the implementation and the obligations are determined by the scope of
the treaty. To determine the scope of TRIPS one needs to consider the contents of the TRIPS
Agreement in the light of the preamble and Article-1, where it is clearly mentioned that the state
members are free to decide appropriate methods. This clearly represents the understanding that
no two legal systems are identical.
Also, as the “Minimum Standard” was the extent of implementation, the element of flexibility
also permits the member states to elect whether they would permit, or prohibit, the direct
application of the TRIPS Agreement. 36 Thus, we submit that UOB is in accordance with
accordance with good faith principle and it has not created an unnecessary obstacle to TRIPS.
B. UOB’s action does not downgrade the Intellectual property protection of TRIPS.
B.1. Intellectual Property Protection
The debate over the consequences of patenting essential products including medicine is not new.
Certain discoveries in the field of medicine and surgery are too valuable to be subject to a patent.
As they might have a significant impact upon health. In the recent case of Bristol-Myers Squibb
v. FH Faulding, Justice Finklestein stated the important question: ‘is it ethical to patent a
pharmaceutical substance or a method of medical treatment?’37
33
Article 26, Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties,
https://legal.un.org/ilc/texts/instruments/english/conventions/1_1_1969.pdf
34
Article 1.1, TRIPS Agreement,
https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips.pdf
35
India — Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical Products,
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds50_e.htm
36
UNCTAD/ICTSD resource Book on TRIPS,
https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/ictsd2005d1_en.pdf
37
Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. F.H. Faulding & Co. Ltd., FCA 316, 170 ALR 439 (2000), Industry Canada which
oversees the NOC regulation, has maintained that the regulations continue to be in the public interest even though
the supreme court of Canada has gone so far as to call them “Draconian” in its leading patent cases like Merck
Frosst Canada Inc. v. Canada (Minister of National Health and Welfare), 1998
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/7988
8
Under the TRIPS Agreement, Member States have to grant patents, for a minimum of 20 years,
to any inventions of a pharmaceutical product or process that fulfils the established criteria of
novelty, inventiveness and usefulness. These standards were derived from those of the
industrialized countries and are not necessarily appropriate for all countries' levels of
development.
Strict patent regimes required by TRIPS allow pharmaceutical corporations to set prices of
patented medicines at high, often exorbitant levels. Under TRIPS, the 20-year minimum patent
protection period for products and processes confers exclusive monopoly for the manufacture,
distribution and sale of medicines. The monopolies granted by TRIPS allow pharmaceutical
giants to suppress competition from alternative, low-cost producers and to charge prices far
above what is reasonable. The fields of research or industrial progress which were vital to the
national health or wellbeing should be exempted from the application of patent law. 38
The government of FSI also took objection to the UOB’s government act of availing the
Statutory provisions of the patent acts stating that it is violative of obligation under TRIPS
agreement regarding intellectual property protection, contending that the effects of the COVID
pandemic are of history and is no more a serious threat of humanity. 39 However, Canada’s
recourse to compulsory licensing has made it clear that the number of persons threatened by
serious health problems is not a determining factor for the definition of National emergencies.
When the Canadian government tried to override existing patent rights, not a single case of
anthrax infection had been registered at the domestic level. Similarly, the number of affected US
citizens was limited when the US government began putting pressure on Bayer. 40 This justifies
the conclusion that any situation can qualify as a national emergency, independently of the
number of persons already affected, so long as a serious and imminent threat to health can be
demonstrated. Therefore, the application of Art. 31 of TRIPS agreement does not necessarily
require an existing measure public health crisis like COVID-19 or other pandemics, but can also
apply to situation of potential risk.
38
Novartis AG v. Union of India(UOI), 2013
39
Moot proposition Para no. 6, 9th Manipal Ranka International moot court competition.
40
Dragon DC, Elkin BT, Nishi JS, Ellsworth TR. A review of anthrax in Canada and implications for research on the
disease in northern bison. J Appl Microbiol. 1999 Aug;87(2):208-13. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2672.1999.00872.x.PMID:
10475950.
9
B.2. Compulsory License
We do not dispute that the TRIPS Agreement is the most comprehensive treaty concerning
Intellectual property right. However, it is characterized by trade issues and has, in certain
respects, refrained from regulating all aspects of Intellectual property right. An example is:
Article 31 which deals with Compulsory Licenses. Article 31 requires that member states abide
by certain procedural elements when granting a Compulsory License. 41 However, it does not
prescribe the grounds for a Compulsory License.
While Article 31 of the TRIPS Agreement gives WTO members the right to issue a compulsory
license, it limits the cases in which such license can be issued and requires that certain
remuneration is to be paid for the license. Even though it is said that these given conditions
ensure abuse does not happen, practically it was seen that those countries which have the
capability to manufacture, could make very limited use of the provision, and those developing
countries which lacked manufacturing capabilities could not make use of the provision. Each
country has the right to grant a compulsory license to benefit the general public. 42 Also, under the
Paris Convention to which both FSI and UOB were party, subject to certain limitations, member
countries could grant compulsory licenses for refusal to deal or non-working.43
The flexibilities of the TRIPS Agreement was taken to another step when the WTO Ministerial
Conference in Doha on 14 November 2001 granted rights of Members to take measures to
protect public health by granting compulsory licenses as well as acknowledging that members
have the right to determine when a national emergency of extreme urgency arises in its
territory.44 It can be concluded from this that, Members have the right to protect public health
while complying with the Agreement better suited to its legal system.
41
WTO TRIPS agreement, Art.31
42
Bayer Corporation v Natco Pharma, 2013
43
Article 5A.2 of the Paris Convention (1883), Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (wipo.int)
which provides that, "Each country of the union shall have the right to take legislative measures providing for the
grant of compulsory licenses to prevent abuses which might result from the exercise of the exclusive rights
conferred by the patent, for example failure to work. See also E Ackiron "Patents for critical Pharmaceuticals: The
AZT Case' (1991) 17 American Journal of Law and Medicine 145,148, reported in Sisule (n14 above) 34.
44
DOHA ministerial Conference, https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dda_e/dohaexplained_e.htm
10
ARGUMENT 3
WHETHER OR NOT THE INHERENT FLEXIBILITY WITHIN MINIMUM
STANDARDS GRANT MEMBER STATES THE AUTHORITY TO ADAPT THE
APPLICATION OF THE TRIPS AGREEMENT BASED ON THEIR SPECIFIC NEEDS
AND CIRCUMSTANCES?
A. UOB has the discretion to determine the extent of protection for data and newly
developed drug testing protocols resulting from clinical trials.
A.1. UOB's authority to formulate measures that align with its own national policies and
priorities while upholding its sovereignty.
The preamble of Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties talks about the principles such as the
principle of the equal rights and self-determination of peoples, of the sovereign equality and
independence of all States, of non-interference in the domestic affairs of States. 45 UOB has right
to self-determination and formulating its measures that aligns with national priorities while
upholding its sovereignty.
Duty of the State is to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to improve public
health. The State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its
people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties. UOB as a state has the
duty to protect the public health of its citizen as its top most national priority in the ongoing
COVID pandemic as mentioned in its fundamental law.46
There exists a concept of the supremacy of national priorities over international priorities refers
to a nation's ability and right to prioritize its own interests, values, and objectives above those of
the international community or other nations. This concept reflects the principle that each
sovereign state has the authority to make decisions that best serve its own citizens and fulfill its
national goals, even if those decisions may not align with global norms, agreements, or
expectations. UOB prioritizing to protect the health of its citizens during a major health
45
Vienna Convention on law of treaties
46
Constitution of UOB, Article 47 Duty of the State to raise the level of nutrition and the standard of living and to
improve public health. —The State shall regard the raising of the level of nutrition and the standard of living of its
people and the improvement of public health as among its primary duties…
11
pandemic over emphasizing international priorities itself cannot be taken as a violation of

international laws.
A.2.Specialized legislation for protecting data generated under the clinical trials.
FSI contends that UOB government by not protecting the clinical trial data under specialized
legislation is violative of the obligation to provide international minimum standards. However,
the question remains where under TRIPS Agreement is it a mandatory provision for national
members to have a specialized legislation.
We do not dispute that UOB does not have a specialized legislation like Hatch-Waxman
legislation specifically aimed at providing data protection for clinical trial data as a distinct
concept. However, UOB has implemented certain measure related to data protection including
clinical trial data which falls under purview of Central Drugs Standards Control
47
Organization(CDSCO) and the Drugs and Cosmetic ACT, 1940. While both CDSCO and
Hatch Waxman Act are related to pharmaceutical regulations, their goals, mechanism and effects
are distinct, because it is important to note that the regulatory frameworks in different countries
are set by their unique health care system, legal traditions and policies, priorities which also
aligns with the WTO appellate body report’s statement in the India-Patent case which bestow
that the member stats are free to determine and elect the method of implementation. 48 This
statement represents the understanding that no two legal systems are identical.
UOB after COVID pandemic had a strong commitment to providing affordable health care to the
poorer sections of the populations. If UOB were to implement a data exclusivity regimes similar
to Hatch-Waxman legislation, it limits the ability of UOB’s generic manufacturers to produce
affordable versions of patented drugs in considerable costs at the time of need as data exclusivity
can delay the entry of generic drugs into the market.
47
https://cdsco.gov.in/opencms/opencms/en/Acts-and-rules/Drugs-and-Cosmetics-Act/
CDSO and Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940
48
India-Patent case, https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds50_e.htm accessed at August 28
2023.
12
B. The flexibility of Minimum Standards under TRIPS Agreement allows UOB to make
informed decisions based on its specific circumstances and needs.
B.1. TRIPS and its exceptions.
Article 31(1) of the VCLT provides that a treaty should be interpreted in the light of its
49
objectives and basic purposes. Since Article 7 provides for the objectives of the TRIPS it can
of great interpretative value when interpreting other provisions of the Agreement (Xiong, 2012).
Article 7 seeks to reconcile the diverse interests and promotes innovation as well as
dissemination of knowledge at the same time.
TRIPS is flexible in the matter of patent protection when it comes to national laws. Some of the
provisions allow member states a kind of autonomy to address public health. Members may
exclude from patentability inventions, the prevention within their territory of the commercial
exploitation of which is necessary to protect order public or morality, including to protect
human, animal or plant life or health or to avoid serious prejudice to the environment, provided
that such exclusion is not made merely because the exploitation is prohibited by their law. 50
Members may also exclude from patentability: (a) diagnostic, therapeutic and surgical methods
for the treatment of humans or animals; 51 ICESCR, state parties to which are also state parties to
WTO, recognizes both the right to health and the right to protection of inventions as equally
important. However, the right to patent protection can be taken as a priority for developed
countries and the right to health takes importance in developing countries and LDCs.
TRIPS Article 8 states that, Members may, in formulating or amending their laws and
regulations, adopt measures necessary to protect public health and nutrition, and to promote the
public interest in sectors of vital importance to their socio-economic and technological
development, provided that such measures are consistent with the provisions of this agreement.
Appropriate measures, provided that they are consistent with the provisions of this agreement,
may be needed to prevent the abuse of intellectual property rights by right holders or the resort to
practices which unreasonably restrain trade or adversely affect the international transfer of
technology.52
49
Vienna Convention on Law of Treaties,1969
50
TRIPS Article 27(2)
51
TRIPS Article 27(3(a))
52
TRIPS Article 8
13
There is no express reference to human rights in the TRIPS Agreement. More so, it refers to the
protection given to authors and inventors as “private rights” 53, principally justifying them on
economic grounds rather than as inalienable liberties. 54 Another point is that the TRIPS
Agreement frames private rights in the form of positive obligation, and addresses public interests
by way of negative or exceptional rights.55 In Section 5, part 2 of the Agreement detailed
provisions relating to the availability, use and scope of patent rights are mentioned. This section
on patents has had the most important repercussions in terms of public health, especially for
access to drugs in developing countries.56
B.2. UOB’s specific circumstances and needs relating to Public health.
On March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) declared the disease caused by the
coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, better known as Covid-19, to be a pandemic. To the date, The WHO
states that, there have been 769,774,646 confirmed cases of COVID-19, including 6,955,141
deaths. As of 12 August 2023, a total of 13,498,472,794 vaccine doses have been administered. 57
More than 5.55 billion people worldwide have received a dose of a Covid-19 vaccine, equal to
about 72.3 percent of the world population.58 The COVID-19 IHR Emergency Committee
members highlighted the decreasing trend in COVID-19 deaths, the decline in COVID-19
related hospitalizations and intensive care unit admissions, and the high levels of population
immunity to SARS-CoV-2 during the deliberative session on fifteenth meeting of the IHR (2005)
Emergency Committee on the COVID-19 pandemic.59 Director General of WHO announced end
to COVID-19 as a global health emergency. 60 WHO research shows that through vaccination, the
transmission rate of this disease can lessen, and even if subjects do get infected, vaccination can
still reduce mortality and severity.61 Even though the vaccination programs around the world
53
Preamble of the TRIPS Agreement
54
The Exceptions to Patent Rights under the WTO-TRIPs Agreement: Is the Right to Health Denied?
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2213216
55
Christine Breining, Kaufmann Frederick M. Abbott Thomas Cottier International Trade and Human Rights:
Foundations and Conceptual Issues (World Trade Forum, Volume 5) (Studies in International Economics)
56
Globalization and Access to Drugs: Perspectives on the WTO/TRIPS Agreement. Health Economics and Drugs.
DAP Series No. 7. Geneva: WHO, 1998 (WHO/DAP/98.9-REV), Page 15 accessed 21 August 2023.
57
World Health Organization, WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard | WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19)
Dashboard With Vaccination Data accessed 21 August 2023.
58
COVID World Vaccination Tracker - The New York Times (nytimes.com)
59
https://www.who.int/news/item/05-05-2023-statement-on-the-fifteenth-meeting-of-the-international-health-
regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee-regarding-the-coronavirus-disease-(covid-19)-pandemic?
60
https://news.un.org/en/story/ accessed 21 August 2023.
61
Evaluation of COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness (who.int)
14
have been successful and the mortality rate is low, WHO said the virus – first made a public
health emergency of international concern by the WHO chief on 30 January, 2020 - was here to
stay: “It is still killing and it is still changing. The risk remains of new variants emerging that
cause new surges in cases and deaths.”62
UOB, as a state suffered massive casualties related to COVID-19. The UOB became one of the
worst victims of the pandemic. In terms of human lives, it lost 1 million people over a span of 3
years.63 At least 10% of the population was infected by one or the other forms of mutated COVID
disease. 64 Thus, it is UOB’s specific circumstances and needs relating to public health that laid
UOB to make informed decisions utilizing the flexibilities provided under WTO-TRIPS
Agreement.
PRAYERS FOR RELIEF
62
WHO chief declares end to COVID-19 as a Global Health Emergency,
https://news.un.org/en/story/2023/05/1136367 accessed 21 August 2023.
63 th
9 Manipal Ranka International Moot Court Competition, Moot Problem Paragraph no. 5
64 th
9 Manipal Ranka International Moot Court Competition, Moot Problem Paragraph no. 5
15
In the light of the issues raised, arguments advanced and authorities cited, may this
Hon’ble International Court of Justice be pleased to:
1. Hold that UOB’s assertion regarding prioritizing public health over patent protection
under TRIPS agreement during COVID pandemic is justified.
2. Hold that the TRIPS agreement does not undermine the legitimate right of WTO
members to formulate their own public health policies.
3. Hold that UOB has the discretion to determine the extent of protection for data and newly
developed drug testing protocols resulting from clinical trials.
AND/OR
Pass any other order that it deems fit in the interest of Justice, Equity and Good
Conscience.
And for this, the Respondent as in duty bound, shall humbly pray.
16

Team Code 055 Respondent

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Team Code 055 Respondent

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

9TH MANIPAL RANKA INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION 2023

Team Code: TC055

IN THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE

AT THE PEACE PALACE

THE CASE CONCERNING THE VIOLATION OF TRIPS AGREEMENT IN THE

Federal States of Imperia

MEMORIAL ON THE BEHALF OF RESPONDENT

9TH MANIPAL RANKA INTERNATIONAL MOOT COURT COMPETITION, 2023

WHETHER UOB'S ASSERTION REGARDING PRIORITIZING PUBLIC HEALTH

A.1. Right to Health care access as the primary concern.........................................................1

B.1. DOHA declaration on public health policies....................................................................3

WHETHER UOB'S DECISION TO AVAIL BY CHAPTERS 16 AND 17 OF PATENT

A.1. The good faith principle...................................................................................................5

B.1. Intellectual Property Protection........................................................................................8

B.2. Compulsory License.......................................................................................................10

WHETHER OR NOT THE INHERENT FLEXIBILITY WITHIN MINIMUM

A.2.UOB’s discretion to determine the protection for clinical trials data..............................12

B.1. TRIPS and its exceptions...............................................................................................13

B.2. UOB’s specific circumstances and needs relating to Public Health...............................14

PRAYERS FOR RELIEF...........................................................................................................16

ABBREVIATION FULL FORM

FSI Federal States Of Imperia

UOB Union of Bharanesia

TRIPS Trade Related Aspects On Intellectual Property Rights

WTO World Trade Organization

UDHR Universal Declaration On Human Rights

WHO World Health Organization

ICJ International Court Of Justice

ICESCR International Covenant On Economic Social And Cultural Rights

GATT General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade

VCLT Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties

COVID Corona Virus Disease

CDSCO Central Drugs Standard Control Organization

UOI Union of India

S. No International Treaties, Conventions And Other Relevant Document

1. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, 1969

2. WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, 1995

3. General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 1947

4. Constitution of the World Health Organization, 1946

5. Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property, 1883

7. Statute of The International Court of Justice, 1945

8. Patent Cooperation Treaty, 1970

9. Constitution of WHO, 1946

2. F. Hoffman-La Roche Ltd v Cipla Ltd, 2012

3. Bristol-Myers Squibb v. FH Faulding, 2000

4. India-Patent (US), 1997

5. FMC corporation and Ors. v Best Crop Science, 2022

6. The Nuclear tests case, 1974 (Australia v France)

7. Nicaragua v Honduras, 1988

8. Chile v Peru, 1925

9. France v Espagne, 1957

10. Hungary v Slovakia, 1997

11. Novartis AG v. Union of India(UOI), 2013

12. Bayer corporation v Natco Pharma, 2013

14. AstraZeneca Canada Inc. v. Canada ( Minister of Health), 2006

1. Simon Lester and Bryan Mercurio, World Trade Law (2008)

2. Catherine Colston, Principles of Intellectual Property Law (1999)

3. P. Narayanan, Intellectual Property Law 3rd Edition (2001)

4. Matthew Fisher, Fundamental of Patent law (2007)

5. Alan L. Durham, Patent Law Essentials (2009)

6. Rudolf Bernhardt, Encyclopedia of Public International Law (1981)

9. George Halvorson, Health Care Reform Now (2007)