New version of TPP IP chapter leaked

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

New version of TPP IP chapter leaked

On Tuesday, Knowledge Ecology International released a new leak of the Transpacific Partnership (TPP) chapter on intellectual property, and it shows that the US and Japan have abandoned at least one controversial patent-related demand

Knowledge Ecology International's leaked document is dated May 11 2015, so it would not reflect any changes from last week's negotiations in Hawaii, though it is likely close to the working version entering those discussions.

US negotiators have consistently been arguing for stronger IP protections to be built into the TPP, but the newest leak seems to show that it has backed down on at least one demand. That demand was a provision that signatory countries may not deny a patent "solely on the basis that the product did not result in an enhanced efficacy of the known product" if the invention otherwise met all the other requirements of patentability.

This provision was a response to the India Supreme Court's ruling in 2013 invalidating Novartis's Glivec patent on the grounds that it violated Section 3(d) of the Patent Act, which states that a new form of a known substance is not patentable unless it shows enhanced efficacy.

The provision in the TPP, proposed by the US and Japan but opposed by the other TPP countries, was in Article QQ.E.1 in both the leaks released in November 2013 and October 2014, but not in the most recent version.

Going into last week's negotiations, reports pointed to IP protection as one of the main issues to be hammered out. Debates over data exclusivity provisions, particularly for biologics is one of several issues believed to be a sticking point.

US law provides data exclusivity for biologics for 12 years and it is believed that its negotiators were seeking an identical term in the TPP. However, countries such as Australia would only go up to five years. For countries like Australia, the logic was simple- the government through its national healthcare system would have to bear the additional costs due to lower-cost biosimilars entering the market at a later date.

Interestingly, in the debates that ultimately resulted in the 12-year data exclusivity period in the US, the Obama administration initially argued for a shorter seven-year term, saying that Medicare would have to bear the additional costs.

Knowledge Ecology International director James Love is one of Managing IP's 50 most influential people this year.

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Firms with established sports relationships and specialised expertise are well positioned to capture the market’s expanded pool of IP work
Gunjan Paharia discusses developing RIA, an AI platform built to draw on decades of institutional knowledge, support junior lawyers, and reshape how legal teams work
A strong Canadian business helped lift profits, but the IP service group's latest results underline the pressure facing its operations in Australia, New Zealand and parts of Asia
Wins in court have been key to the six-year-old firm’s growth, as one of its founders explains
The firm’s co-CEO discusses patent litigation, collaboration with overseas colleagues and the next generation of leaders
Two recent decisions demonstrate the courts’ creativity in cutting-edge IP disputes that tested their jurisdictional powers
Aditi Verma Thakur, managing partner at Aishani Partners, discusses 5 am wake-ups, working with high-performing professionals and staying calm under pressure
After more than three decades at Wilson Sonsini, Ian Edvalson explains why he moved to expand his life sciences transactional practice
While individual lateral hires and full-scale mergers remain popular options to scale a firm’s IP practice, recent activity indicates that a third option is proving successful
Lead King & Spalding trial lawyer says that while this is the first IP litigation defence victory for DoorDash, it certainly won’t be the last
Gift this article