Compulsory Licensing: How Governments Override Patents to Save Lives
When a life-saving drug costs more than a person’s annual income, what’s the law supposed to do? That’s the real-world question behind compulsory licensing - a legal tool that lets governments authorize cheaper versions of patented medicines without the drug company’s permission. It’s not about stealing intellectual property. It’s about balancing profit with survival.
What Exactly Is Compulsory Licensing?
Compulsory licensing is when a government gives a third party - usually a generic drug maker - the right to produce a patented product, like a medicine, without asking the patent holder first. The patent owner still gets paid, but the price drops dramatically. This isn’t a loophole. It’s written into international law.
The foundation comes from the TRIPS Agreement (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights), part of the World Trade Organization rules from 1994. Article 31 of TRIPS says countries can issue these licenses under specific conditions: the invention must be used for the domestic market, the patent holder must get fair compensation, and usually, the government must try to negotiate a voluntary license first. But there’s an exception: in emergencies, like a pandemic or a public health crisis, those negotiations can be skipped.
Between 2000 and 2020, 95% of all compulsory licenses reported to the WTO were for medicines. That’s not a coincidence. It’s a response to the fact that patents can block access to essential drugs.
How It Works in Practice: Real Examples
India has issued 22 compulsory licenses since 2005 - more than any other country. The most famous case was in 2012, when Natco Pharma got permission to make a generic version of Bayer’s cancer drug Nexavar. The original price was $5,500 per month. The generic version cost $175. That’s a 97% drop. The Indian government ruled that Bayer hadn’t made the drug affordable or widely available, which under Indian law qualifies as a failure to meet public needs.
Thailand did something similar in 2006. They issued licenses for HIV drugs like lopinavir/ritonavir and efavirenz. Before the licenses, Abbott and Bristol-Myers Squibb charged over $1,200 per year per patient. Afterward, prices fell to $230 and $200 respectively. The government didn’t wait for negotiations. They declared a public health emergency and moved.
Brazil took on Merck’s HIV drug efavirenz in 2007. The price dropped from $1.55 per tablet to $0.48. The move wasn’t popular with U.S. trade officials, but it saved thousands of lives. And it worked - by 2010, Brazil was treating 90% of its HIV patients with generic drugs.
These aren’t outliers. They’re the rule in countries that prioritize health over profit.
Why the U.S. Rarely Uses It - and How It Still Can
The United States has the legal tools for compulsory licensing, but it rarely uses them. There are three main paths:
- Title 28, U.S.C. § 1498: Lets the federal government use any patented invention - including drugs, vaccines, or tech - without permission. The patent holder can sue for compensation in the Court of Federal Claims, but can’t stop the government from using it. Between 1945 and 2020, there were only 10 such cases, mostly for military tech.
- Bayh-Dole Act ‘march-in’ rights: If a drug was developed with federal research funding (like from NIH), the government can force a license if the patent holder isn’t making it available to the public. The NIH has received 12 petitions since 1980. Not one has been granted. Why? The agency says the company is ‘meeting demand’ - even if the price is $100,000 a year.
- Environmental laws: The Clean Air Act allows compulsory licensing for patented tech needed to meet pollution standards. This has been used for industrial processes, not drugs.
So while the U.S. has the power, it avoids using it. Political pressure from pharmaceutical companies, fear of trade retaliation, and legal complexity keep it on the sidelines.
How Other Countries Compare
Germany and the UK have compulsory licensing laws on the books, but they’ve never issued one for medicines. Spain, however, did in 2020 - fast-tracking licenses for COVID-19 treatments without waiting for negotiations. Canada used the system once, in 2012, to export HIV drugs to Rwanda under a special WTO waiver.
The biggest difference? Speed and willingness. Countries like India and Brazil treat compulsory licensing as a public health tool. Others treat it as a last-resort legal threat - something to scare drug companies into lowering prices, not something to actually use.
The Trade-Off: Innovation vs. Access
Drug companies argue that compulsory licensing kills innovation. A 2018 study in the Journal of Health Economics found that countries with active licensing programs saw 15-20% less pharmaceutical R&D investment. The International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers & Associations (IFPMA) says each license announcement causes an 8.2% drop in stock prices for affected companies.
But here’s the flip side: the threat of a compulsory license has led to voluntary price cuts in 90% of HIV drug deals since 2000. Companies lowered prices just to avoid the government stepping in. That’s not innovation killing - that’s market pressure working.
And when licenses are issued, the results are clear. A Harvard study found that in 83% of cases, prices dropped 65-90%. That’s not just a savings - it’s a lifeline.
What’s Changing Now?
The global landscape is shifting. In June 2022, the WTO agreed to a temporary waiver on COVID-19 vaccine patents. It lets developing countries produce vaccines without permission until 2027. But so far, only 12 facilities in 8 countries have been approved to use it. The system is still too slow, too bureaucratic.
The European Union is pushing new rules in 2023 that would force patent holders to offer licensing terms within 30 days - or risk automatic compulsory licensing. That’s a game-changer. It flips the script: instead of waiting for a crisis to act, governments can demand fair access upfront.
And the WHO is drafting a new Pandemic Treaty. One draft article says that during a declared global health emergency, essential medicines should be automatically licensed - no negotiations needed. That could make compulsory licensing the default, not the exception.
Who Benefits? Who Pays?
Generic manufacturers are the biggest winners. Teva Pharmaceutical made $3.2 billion extra between 2015 and 2020 from drugs produced under compulsory licenses. Patients win too - they get life-saving drugs at prices they can afford.
Who pays? The patent holders. But they’re not left empty-handed. The law requires ‘adequate remuneration.’ In India, it’s 6% of net sales. In the U.S., courts use the ‘Georgia-Pacific factors’ - 15 different metrics to calculate a fair royalty. Compensation isn’t zero. It’s just not monopolistic.
And here’s the quiet truth: most patents on medicines are built on publicly funded research. Taxpayers paid for the early science. The private company just added the final polish. Compulsory licensing doesn’t erase that. It just ensures the public gets its return.
Why Isn’t This Used More Often?
Because it’s hard. It takes legal expertise, political will, and public pressure. Most low- and middle-income countries lack the staff or lawyers to navigate the process. The World Health Organization found that 60% don’t have the technical capacity to issue licenses properly.
Even when the law is clear, the fear of trade sanctions lingers. The U.S. has listed countries that use compulsory licensing as ‘priority watch’ in its Special 301 Report - a diplomatic warning. But no country has been punished with tariffs since 2012.
The bigger barrier? Misinformation. Many believe compulsory licensing means ‘stealing patents.’ It doesn’t. It means balancing rights with responsibility.
Is This the Future?
Yes - but not the way drug companies want it. The future of compulsory licensing isn’t about chaos or confiscation. It’s about precision. Experts predict that by 2030, 75% of licenses will be limited to specific emergencies: pandemics, antimicrobial resistance, or climate-related health threats.
The goal isn’t to destroy patents. It’s to make sure they don’t kill people.
Compulsory licensing isn’t radical. It’s practical. It’s the law saying: when lives are on the line, profit can’t be the only factor.
Is compulsory licensing legal under international law?
Yes. Compulsory licensing is explicitly allowed under Article 31 of the TRIPS Agreement, part of the World Trade Organization rules. Countries can issue these licenses for public health emergencies, national defense, or if a patent isn’t being used to meet public needs - as long as the patent holder receives fair compensation.
Does compulsory licensing mean the patent is stolen?
No. The patent holder still owns the patent. The government simply grants another party the right to make or sell the product under strict conditions. The patent owner gets paid - often through royalties or lump-sum compensation. It’s a legal override, not a seizure.
Can any country issue a compulsory license?
All WTO members can. But many don’t. Only 12 countries have ever issued a compulsory license for pharmaceuticals since 1995. Legal frameworks vary: some require negotiation first, others allow immediate action in emergencies. Capacity, political will, and fear of trade pressure often stop countries from using it.
How do countries decide how much to pay the patent holder?
Methods vary. India uses a formula: 6% of net sales. The U.S. uses the ‘Georgia-Pacific factors,’ which consider 15 elements like comparable license rates, the patent’s economic value, and the licensor’s usual royalty practices. The goal is ‘adequate remuneration’ - fair, but not monopoly-level profit.
Why don’t more countries use compulsory licensing if it lowers drug prices?
Three main reasons: legal complexity, lack of expertise, and political pressure. Many countries don’t have lawyers or agencies trained to handle these cases. Pharmaceutical companies often threaten trade sanctions or legal action. And in wealthier nations, there’s less public pressure - because patients can still afford the high prices.
Did compulsory licensing help during the COVID-19 pandemic?
Yes - but not as much as it could have. Around 40 countries prepared or issued licenses for COVID-19 tests, treatments, or vaccines. But most didn’t use them because drugmakers lowered prices voluntarily. The WTO’s 2022 vaccine patent waiver was a breakthrough, but only 12 production sites have been approved so far - showing the system is still too slow for emergencies.
You might like
