Compulsory Licensing of Medicines Can be Purely Economic

We are accustomed to the idea that the decision to relax (or more inaccurately, "break") medical product patents through compulsory licenses almost always addresses a specific health care emergency or remedies a violation of competition laws.  But a recent dispute (see WSJ, FT) involving the U.S. and Brazil highlights the fact that the desire to access patented drug information can be purely economic. 

The dispute involved improper U.S. subsidies to domestic cotton growers that inhibited free trade.  Brazil brought a complaint before the WTO, and the dispute settlement procedure was utilized to determine the outcome.  In its complaint, Brazil argued for countermeasures in the amount of $2.5 Billion.  Significantly, one of the measures it requested was the ability to suspend its intellectual property obligations under TRIPS.  Although specific products are not identified in the WTO filings, reports indicate that Brazil intended to take compensation by suspending the enforcement of patents held by U.S. companies -- essentially, a compulsory license outside of the TRIPS regime:

According to a report in a Brazilian newspaper the government has prepared a "provisional measure" - a presidential decree that takes immediate effect, although it must later be ratified by Congress - to allow Brazilian pharmaceuticals companies to copy medicines protected by US patents.  (FT).

The WTO ultimately denied Brazil's request regarding TRIPS, stating that the amount of compensation due at this time ($295 million) was insufficient to justify such a countermeasure.  But the case stands as an example that all patent compulsory licenses are not necessarily related to human rights goals.  They can be based on a purely economic motive.