Patents Pooling: How It Plays an Important Role During the Corona Virus Pandemic

Must Read

Should the Exorbitant Amounts Charged for RT-PCR Tests be Refunded?

Introduction A plea has been filed in the Honourable Supreme Court of India seeking a refund of exorbitant amounts charged...

Should CCTV’s be Installed in the Police Station?

Introduction In a recent judgment, the bench led by Justice Nariman issued directions to both the state and Union Territory...

A Legal Analysis of the West Bengal Political Crisis on IPS Deputation

The Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) has recently summoned three IPS officers of West Bengal (WB). The decision was...

Explained: Postal Ballot for NRIs

At the end of November 2020, Election Commission sent a proposal to the law ministry to amend the Representation...

Explained: Constitutional Provisions and Legislations With Regards to a Person with Disabilities

The world celebrates December 3 as International Day of Persons with Disabilities (IDPD). This day is also called World...

“Pro-Enforcement Bias” Towards Foreign Arbitral Awards Domestically, in light of Vijay Karia and Ors. V. Prysmian Cavi E Sistemi S.R.L and Ors.

International Arbitration faces challenges domestically due to unharmonized local laws for enforcement. Often it may occur that an award...

Follow us

The current article seeks to elaborate on the Patent Pool System. It is a mechanism that can play a vital role in combating the Novel Coronavirus. Readers are advised to first read the article titled ‘Coronavirus Vaccine and the Problems of Patent Rights’. The same is available here.


A patent pool is an association of at least two patent holders. These patent holders agree to cross-licensing their patents on a specific technology. This is how many organizations pool in their patents on a particular technology.

A specific drug consists of a plethora of patents. It is a herculean task for a pharmaceutical company to source all the licenses necessary to produce a potential vaccine. Further, there are problems like ‘Holdout’ and ‘Royalty Stacking’. Patent pools can improve innovation and cost efficiency while addressing these concerns.

Patent Pools are not a new concept. They have existed since the 1800s. The first recorded formation of a patent pool is in the sewing industry. Grover, Baker, Singer, and Wheeler & Wilson formed the same. It was to ensure that they do not sue each other out of profits for patent infringements. There has also been an instance of the formation of an involuntary patent pool. Such an action was undertaken by the US Government. It was against the aircraft industry to expedite the manufacturing process during the First World War.


Imagine the coronavirus vaccine as the construction of a mall. The builder requires all the patches of the property where he wished to construct the mall. These individual pieces of land are like individual patents needed to make a vaccine. Let’s say that ten plots are necessary to construct the mall. The nine plots are intrinsically worthless without the tenth. If the tenth plot owner gets a whiff that construction is underway, he may increase the price of the plot. This is a situation of a holdout.

Such a situation is often faced by pharmaceutical companies. In a legal sense, a patent holdout is when a Standard Essential Patent (SEP) holder exploits a licensee’s costs to switch away from the associated standard as a method of gaining royalties above the fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) level.

A patent pool does away with this problem as all the necessary patents are already pooled in. The issue of the final patent holder holding out does not even arise. Even if the voluntary patent pool is unable to get all the patents necessary for the vaccine, it will be able to get a majority of them. The same will reflect in a significant reduction in the cost of manufacturing. The same will also aid generic manufacturers to produce the vaccine. As a rule, the price of drugs falls when there exists competition. Making the vaccine well within the reaches of LDCs too.

Royalty Stacking

Royalty Stacking occurs when a single invention potentially infringes on many patents. Thus, the same may endure multiple royalty payments. 

The multiple royalty payments increase the cost of the potential vaccine. Firms transfer the same to the customer along with the profit margin. The issue of multiple royalty payments makes the vaccine out of reach for LDCs and many developing nations. The only viable option in this scenario would be the heavy subsidization of the vaccine by the concerned government. This would deplete the coffers and slow down the process. It also introduces new risks of under-the-table transactions, vaccine hoarding, and vaccine black-markets.

A patent pool addresses this problem. The producers of this vaccine will only be liable to pay a FRAND fee. The producer pays this fee to the administrator. It licenses all the patents necessary instead of making multiple royalty payments.

Subsequent Innovation

A common argument against patent pools is that they are anti-competitive. It is also argued that they stifle future innovation. The US National Bureau of Economics conducted a research on the same. It concluded that after the formation of a patent pool, companies experience a drop in innovation. The research measures this drop by means of subsequent patents filed. There seems to be a visible decrease in new patents filed.

Keyvan Vakili, a doctoral candidate at the University of Toronto scrutinized the MPEG-2 technology pool. He arrived at a different conclusion. Dr. Keyvan realized that patents are only one indicator of innovativeness. The companies that joined the MPEG-2 pool were not filing new patents since they focused their R&D efforts towards the application of the MPEG-2 know-how in new end-products. Such end products did not amount to new patents but still were noteworthy inventions. The creation of the MPEG-2 patent pool enabled a surge in similar products and not a dip in innovation.

What patent pools do is that it acts as a uni-directional catalyst. If the pool were not formed there would have definitely been more wraparound patents. But the formation of the pool eliminated the need for the same. Instead, the pool members were free to focus on creating better end-products. This helps them earn a good profit.

The same process will happen in the case of a vaccine. The primary vaccine would be costly and the delivery mode would be rather unrefined. A patent pool will help access to the necessary patents. Hence, manufacturers can now focus on improving the delivery mechanism and reducing costs.

Pandemic Patent Pool

The creation of a pandemic patent pool will ease the creation of a coronavirus vaccine. Organizations such as the Oxford University Innovation have announced new procedures for fast-tracked non-exclusive licenses. It offers these to potential partners interested in using Oxford’s coronavirus associated intellectual property.

A trusted international body should administer the pandemic pool. The same must be formed on the lines of Medicines Patent Pool (MPP), except much broader. Officials from organizations such as the World Health Organisation (WHO), Unitaid, and the United Nations (UN) should form the core body of the new patent administer. 

Many world leaders including the President of the United States (POTUS) have declared their anti-corona measures as “a war on the Coronavirus”. The same brings forth the notion that the Pandemic Patent Pool (PPP) should be an involuntary one. This will be like the forced pool created during the First World War. But, such a drastic measure could have very negative repercussions on the pharma industry. It might kill any private corona R&D.

But, the Pandemic Patent Pool must be formed with utmost caution. One cannot deny that the pharma industry has found a golden goose with corona. Such a pool shouldn’t bottleneck potential profits that recoup R&D efforts.

Author’s Suggestions

The personal suggestions by the author to put forth a potential patent pool are:-

  1. The patent pool administration must be unbiased. The administrators should not be from any pharmaceutical company. They shouldn’t be allowed to join one subsequently.
  2. The Pandemic Patent Pool must not be a standing pool. The same must only come into existence when a pandemic/epidemic is present. The patents in the pool will be transferred to the medicine patent pool upon the termination of the pool at higher royalty rates. Such a move will persuade more pharmaceutical companies to offer their patents.
  3. The voluntary patent offerings to the Pandemic Patent Pool should constitute the Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) of the offering firms. Such offerings must also qualify for tax breaks akin to those for charity.
  4. The Pandemic Patent Pool must be more to partners than the Medicine Patent Pool. The vaccine pre-qualification measures by WHO are lengthy and cumbersome. The process averages at around a year to complete. A fast-tracked process may provide the much-needed opportunity to small drug manufacturers. 
  5. The Pandemic Patent Pool must not be limited to various drug and process patents that are required to produce the vaccine. It should also license patents that are essential for the vaccine delivery mechanism.


The decision of pharmaceutical companies in the present situation is critical to their survival. A move for reaping maximum profits through the IP regime will attract public hatred. Non-enforcement of a vaccine patent will cause the losses in R&D to be in billions of dollars. This makes the idea of patent pools that much alluring. But, creating and administering a Patent pool is no trivial takes. The same entails months of negations and planning. The administrator must fix royalty rates, draft license agreements, and lay down territorial specifications. Such a huge initial investment throws the possibility of a patent pool into the side-lines.

However, in view of the scale of the pandemic and the pressing international need for speedy treatment of the novel coronavirus, it is in the general public interest that the likelihood of a Pandemic Patent Pool is not buried in the files. is now on Telegram. Follow us for regular legal updates and judgements from the court. Follow us on Google News, InstagramLinkedInFacebook & Twitter. You can also subscribe for our Weekly Email Updates. You can also contribute stories like this and help us spread awareness for a better society. Submit Your Post Now.

Latest News

London Court Rejects Assange’s Extradition – What Happens Now? 

Earlier last week, District Judge Vanessa Baraitser, sitting in the Westminster Magistrates’ Court denied the Government of the U.S.A.'s request to the U.K. to...

Calcutta High Court Decides in Favor of Contractor as He Accidentally Pays an Excessively High Amount

Introduction The present writ petition has been filed for a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the Respondents to revoke the Petitioner’s offer as...

Petition Filed in Delhi High Court Challenging the New Privacy Policy of WhatsApp

A petition has been raised before the Delhi High Court challenging the updated privacy policy of the instant messaging app, WhatsApp. It is accused of looking into the virtual activities of the users,

Bombay High Court Says Pleas Against the Rejection of Nomination Before the Polls Is Not Maintainable

Bombay High Court on Wednesday held that a candidate cannot challenge his nomination by filing a writ petition before a court prior to the polls after his nominations have already been rejected by the Returning Officer (RO) for the Panchayat elections of January 15.

Bombay HC: It Will Be Difficult if Civic Bodies Don’t Take Action on Illegal Constructions

The Bombay High Court said on Wednesday that if the Municipal Corporations do not take action on the illegal constructions, things will become very difficult. This observation was made by a bench comprising Chief Justice Dipankar Dutta and Justice Girish Kulkarni while hearing a PIL after the Bhiwandi building collapse on September 21st, 2020 which led to the death of 39 lives. Mumbai Thane, Ulhasnagar, Kalyan-Dombivli, Vasai-Virar, Navi Mumbai, and Bhiwandi-Nizampur corporations were filed as respondents.

Uttarakhand High Court Directed State Authorities To Frame SOP Regarding Kumbh Mela 2021

Noticing the commencement date of Kumbh Mela 2021 amid pandemic from 27 February 2021, the Uttarakhand High Court on Monday expressed concern with regard to organizing and conducting of the Mela and directed State Authorities to discuss and resolve the logistical problems which can come in organizing the Mela during the pandemic time.

Writ Petition Not Maintainable Against Mahindra Finance, Being a Purely Private Body: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court reiterated that Writ Petition against the purely private body is not maintainable and dismissed the petition which was filed against Mahindra Finance Bank as Arif Khan v. Branch Manager Mahindra Finance Sultanpur & Another.

Publication of Notices for Inter-Faith Marriages No Longer Mandatory: Allahabad High Court

The Allahabad High Court has passed a landmark judgment that likely brings relief to inter-faith marriage. The Court on Wednesday said that the mandatory publication of Notices of Inter-Faith marriages will now be optional to protect the Privacy and Liberty of the Couple. The Court observed that the publication of the notice would “invade the fundamental rights of liberty and privacy”. Therefore, it has made it optional for the couple, they can now request in form of writing to a marriage officer to publish or not to publish a notice regarding the marriage.

Bombay High Court to NIA: Consider Health and Age of Varavara Rao Before Opposing His Bail Plea

The Bombay HC on Wednesday observed that ‘we are all humans’ and asked the National Investigation Agency and the Maharashtra Government to consider the health and age of the Telugu poet-activist Varavara Rao before making submissions in response to his bail plea application on medical grounds.

Supreme Court Agrees To Examine Centre’s Plea To Keep Adultery a Crime in Armed Forces

The Centre appealed to the Supreme court on Wednesday, pleading that the 2018 judgment of decriminalizing adultery under IPC must not apply to the armed forces. The Supreme Court in a path-breaking verdict in 2018 decriminalized adultery and declared all its provisions unconstitutional as it diminishes the value of women, but maintained that it continues to be a ground for divorce.

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -