GWU CII IPR Summit -Controversies galore?

The recently concluded GW-CII IP Summit  (covered here,here and here) seems to have stirred a Hornet’s nest.

On February 26, 2010, several NGOs including Naz Foundation & Center for Internet and Society wrote a letter  to Mr. Anand Sharma, Minister of Commerce and Industry urging immediate preventive actions to stop industry sponsored lobbying with the judges and policymakers. The seven pages long letter highlighted the chief contentious issues with regards to the Summit, esp. pharma cos lobby against patent rejections, failure of CII to protect national interests, role of DIPP (Dept.of Industrial Policy and Planning) and imposition of the US worldview on IP etc., and urged the Government to take into account the interests of the Indian industry, especially the small and medium enterprises along with public interest before proceeding to push for a strong IP regime. The said letter also suggested that GW be recognized as an industry lobby and a detailed noting of their sources of funding, agenda, presentations etc., be made public.

In a strongly worded article in Business Standard , Latha Jishnu heavily criticized the said Summit suggesting that such MNC backed IP summits tries to influence sitting judges on patent law enforcement issues pending in Indian The grand sponsor of the Summit was US-India Business Council (USIBC), “a lobby that which has been leading a powerful campaign against certain provisions in the Indian Patent Law” along with Gilead Sciences. Jishnu also criticized the moot court competitions hosted as a part of the Summit, suggesting that instead of honing the skills of argumentation, the mock trials were aimed at discussing patent enforcement issues pending in the courts. Incidentally, several prominent sitting judges were also among the list of invitees.

Spicy IP contacted GWU for their views with regards to the controversy and Dean Frederick M. Lawrence, the Dean of the George Washington University Law School, replied stating that “GW Law’s activities relating to India both here in the United States and in India have been in furtherance of our educational objective to promote understanding. Over the years students, judges from other countries including the UK, Germany, and Japan, as well as the US and India, lawyers, academics, members of the NGO community, and representatives from business have participated in the lively discussions on the issues, including ones that go beyond IP such as constitutional law and environmental law. We have always welcomed a debate on the issues and have had some interesting ones. As an institution we are not interested in shaping the outcome of the discussion although we do have an interest in promoting a better understanding of the relevant legal standards and their implications.”

When SpicyIP contacted CII, they stated their commitment for the use of IPRs for the overall, inclusive growth of this country and suggested that the observations quoted by media were specific remarks made by individual faculty members and attendees at a round table discussion at the Summit. Hence, it was not reflective of CII’s official position on the IPR policy in the country. It further stated that the “ outcome of the Moot Court chaired by the Supreme Court Judges clearly supported a well-balanced view on pharmaceutical patenting, thus making it educational for the large section of the law students present at the program. The interactive sessions with the Judges addressed topics concerning IP litigation in general and were not directed at pharmaceutical patent litigations. That was strictly an academic dialogue aimed at educating the student audience on the intricacies of the judicial system.”

C.H.Unnikrishnan of Mint who was one of the invitees at the Summit shared his personal experience on a blog post. He stated that at least his session was conducted in a fully transparent manner with a heterogeneous audience. Through a non-written and very interactive session, Unni noted, what emerged was “not a TRIPS-plus agenda, but a loudly heard “middle-path” solution to handle these issues in a developing country like India.” (Issues being: introduction and enforcement of data security, pre-grant opposition and the Innovation or Bayh-Dole Bill in India). The focus of the Summit was to explore the possibilities for India to use its sovereign powers to frame a law which “balances its own economic and social situation with the requirements of a progressing world.” Unni is of the opinion that it is only through such interactive and transparent discussions can some progress be achieved in India’s IP policies. Questioning the sponsors or funding thus seems to be wholly unwarranted.

SpicyIP will track the further developments surrounding this controversy.