Theory and practice of intellectual property
№ 3 / 2019

ISSN (Print) 2308-0361
ISSN (Online) 2519-2744

DOI: https://doi.org/10.33731/32019.173815

Published      2019-07-19

Multilateral Investment Court: prospects of creation and potential impact on the Ukrainian system of intellectual property rights’ protection and enforcement

Anastasiia Kyrylenko
Spain, France

Abstract
On April 30, 2019, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered its Opinion 1/17, confirming the compatibility of the mechanism for the resolution of disputes between investors and States, provided for by the free trade agreement between the EU and Canada, with the EU law. This Opinion may become the first step towards the creation of a Multilateral Investment Court, the project, which is preliminary promoted by the European Union through the conclusion of bilateral trade agreements. While Ukraine is no alien to investment disputes over intellectual property rights, the interplay between investment law and intellectual property rights has received limited attention among local scholars. Consequently, this article starts with introducing the reader to the key elements of existing international investment treaties that are relevant for the intellectual property regime. It is followed by an overview of main investment disputes, involving intellectual property rights, with a view of mapping potential issues such a dispute may present to the Ukrainian system. The third part of the article analyses the European Union’s new generation of international investment agreements. Although Ukraine has not yet been involved in such negotiations, art. 89 of the EU/Ukraine free trade agreement allows for its review to include provisions on investment protection and investor-to-state dispute settlement procedures. Consequently, two recent investment chapters are contrasted, the one included in the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with Canada, as a developed-to-developed country negotiations model; the one included in the draft of the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement with Tunisia, as a developed-to-developing country negotiations model. Such comparative analysis has allowed me to discern both common and diverging provisions, relevant for the national intellectual property systems, which, in turn, will allow Ukraine to adopt informed decisions during a potential negotiation with the European Union.

Keywords: multilateral investment court, EU investment agreements, international investment law, TRIPS, EU/Ukraine free trade agreement, EU/Tunisia free trade agreement

References

EU-Canada CET Agreement. Opinion of 30 April 2019 – Opinion 1/17.
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-1/17 

Comprehensive and Economic Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of one part, and Canada, of the other part.
http://ec.europa.eu/trade/policy/in-focus/ceta/ceta-chapter-by-chapter/ 

Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Singapore.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/resource.html?uri=cellar:04c776da-4322-11e8-a9f4-01aa75ed71a1.0003.02/DOC_2&format=PDF#page=2 

Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and the Socialist Republic of Viet Nam.
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2018/september/tradoc_157337.pdf 

Draft of the Deep and Comprehensive Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of one part, and Tunisia, of the other part. Investment Chapter.
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2018/july/tradoc_157219.pdf 

Philip Morris Brands SÀRL, Philip Morris Products S. A. and Abal Hermano S. A. v. Oriental Republic of Uruguay, ICSID Case No ARB/10/7, Award, 8 July 2016.
https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0346.pdf 

Philip Morris Asia Limited (Hong Kong) v. The Commonwealth of Australia, PCA Case No 2012-12, Award on Jurisdiction and Admissibility, 17 December 2015.
https://www.pcacases.com/web/sendAttach/1711 

Eli Lilly and Company v. Government of Canada, ICSID Case No UNCT/14/2, Award, 16 March 2017.
http://icsidfiles.worldbank.org/icsid/ICSIDBLOBS/OnlineAwards/C3544/DC10133_En.pdf 

Bridgestone Licensing Services, Inc. and Bridgestone Americas, Inc. v. Republic of Panama, ICSID Case No ARB/16/34, Decision on Expedited Objections, 13 December 2017.
http://icsidfiles.worldbank.org/icsid/ICSIDBLOBS/OnlineAwards/C5946/DS10865_En.pdf 

Peterson L. E., Williams Z. Gilead Pharma corp withdraws investment arbitration after Ukraine agrees to settlement of dispute over monopoly rights to market anti-viral drug. ISDS Platform.
http://isds.bilaterals.org/?gilead-pharma-corp-withdraws&lang=en 

Association Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Ukraine, of the other part.
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=OJ:L:2014:161:FULL&from=EN 

Free Trade Agreement with Singapore. Opinion of 16 May 2017 – Opinion 2/15.
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-2/15 

European Commission. Trade for all. Towards a more responsible trade and investment policy —2015.
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/docs/2015/october-/tradoc_153846.pdf 

Mercurio B. C. Awakening the Sleeping Giant: Intellectual Property Rights in International Investment Agreements. Journal of International Economic Law. 2012. Вип. 15 (3). С. 871−915.

Klopschinski S. Der Schutz geistigen Eigentums durch völkerrechtliche Investitionsverträge. Köln: Carl Heymanns Verlag, 2011. 583 c.

Grosse Ruse-Khan H. The Protection of Intellectual Property in International Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016. 544 c.

Ho C. M. A Collision Course Between TRIPS Flexibilities and Investor-State Proceedings. UC Irvine Law Review. 2016. Вип. 6(3). С. 395−468.

Geiger C. The TTIP and its Investment Protection: Will the EU Still be Able to Regulate Intellectual Property?. International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law. 2018. Вип. 49(6). С. 631−635.

Treaty for the Promotion and Protection of Investments (with Protocol and Exchange Notes) between Pakistan and Germany.
https://www.iisd.org/pdf/2006/investment_pakistan_germany.pdf 

Treaty between the United States of America and Ukraine concerning the Encouragement and Reciprocal Protection of Investment.
https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/laws/italaw8547.pdf

North American Free Trade Agreement between Canada, Mexico and the United States of America.
https://idatd.cepal.org/Normativas/TLCAN/Ingles/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement-NAFTA.pdf

Fina S., Lentner G. M. The European Union’s New Generation of International Investment Agreements and its Implications for the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights. Journal of World Investment and Trade. 2017. Вип. 18. С. 271−305.

Usynin M., Gáspár-Szilágyi S. The Rising Trend of Including Investment Chapters into PTAs. Netherlands Yearbook of International Law. 2017. Вип. 48. С. 267−304.

Lavery R. A. Coverage of Intellectual Property Rights in International Investment Agreements: An Empirical Analysis of Definitions in a Sample of Bilateral Investment Treaties and Free Trade Agreements. TDM. 2009. Вип. 6(2).

The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights.
https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips.pdf 

Gáspár-Szilágyi S. Quo Vadis EU Investment Law and Policy? The Shaky Path Towards the International Promotion of EU Rules. European Foreign Affairs Review. 2018. Вип. 23(2). С. 167−186.

Correa C. M. Investment Protection in Bilateral and Free Trade Agreements: Implication for the Granting of Compulsory Licenses. Michigan Journal of International Law. Вип. 26(1). С. 331−353.

Philip Morris Asia Limited (Hong Kong) v. The Commonwealth of Australia, PCA Case No 2012-12, Notice of Arbitration, 21 November 2011.
https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0665.pdf 

Philip Morris Brands SÀRL, Philip Morris Products S.A. and Abal Hermano S.A. v. Oriental Republic of Uruguay, ICSID Case No ARB/10/7, Request for Arbitration, 19 February 2010.
https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/case-documents/ita0343.pdf 

Nath Upreti P. IP Licence as an Investment Insights from Bridgestone v. Panama. Stockholm Intellectual Property Law Review. 2018. Вип. 1. С. 16−28.

Australia – Certain Measures Concerning Trademarks and Other Plain Packaging Requirements Applicable to Tobacco Products and Packaging. DS434.
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds434_e.htm 

Eli Lilly and Company v. Government of Canada, ICSID Case No UNCT/14/2, Notice of Intent, 12 September 2013.
https://www.italaw.com/sites/default/files/casedocuments/italaw1172.pdf 

Про підписання Мирової угоди між Україною та компанією «Гілеад Сайєнсиз, Інк.» : Розпорядження Кабінету Міністрів України від 25 січня 2017 р. № 45-р.

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
https://eurlex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A12012E%2FTXT 

Communication from the Commission to the Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions. Towards a comprehensive European international investment policy.
http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2010/EN/1-2010-343-EN-F1-1.Pdf