Over the course of three days, from 30 March to 1 April, European Research Council (ERC) funded PatentsInHumans team members Prof Aisling McMahon (PI), Sharon Adedapo, Lauren Kane, and Dr Aislinn Fanning presented three papers based on emerging research conducted as part of the project at the international Socio-Legal Studies Association (SLSA) conference. This conference took place at the University of Sussex, Brighton UK.
On 31 March, the team presented two papers. Firstly, Prof Aisling McMahon and Lauren Kane presented a paper at the intellectual property law stream which was entitled “Patents & Health Innovation: Walking the Tightrope Between Ensuring Appropriate Incentives for the Development of New Health-Technologies with Ensuring Equitable Access for Patients to Emerging Health-Technologies – The Role of the Right to Science?” Using a right to science lens, this paper examined the tension within Article 15 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) between the protection of rightsholder interests and ensuring access to the downstream benefits of science, focusing on access to the health technologies developed. It argued that a solidarity-based lens could be used to better balance the protection of rightsholder interests with the need to ensure equitable public access to the benefits of science in the contemporary health innovation context.
Also on 31 March, Dr Aislinn Fanning presented a paper (co-authored with Prof Aisling McMahon) at the health law and bioethics stream of the conference, entitled; “Recognising Donors’ Clinical Labour in Health Innovation: Re-Imagining the Role of Intellectual Property Rights Towards Public Stewardship of Health Technologies and Greater Access to Health”. This paper highlighted the tensions between public contributions to the development of new health technologies (for example, through the donation of biomaterials via biobanks) and inequities in accessing technologies developed downstream (to which patents and other intellectual property rights are contributing factors). The paper made the case for a reconceptualisation of the role of donors in this context, highlighting their performance of ‘clinical labour’ in health innovation contexts. It concluded by arguing that how intellectual property rights are used over health technologies must be reconceptualised to enable greater public stewardship of health-technologies.
Finally, on 1 April, Prof Aisling McMahon and Sharon Adedapo presented a paper entitled “Tailoring Injunctions to address Patient Interests in cases of Patent Infringement over Medical Devices: A Critical Analysis of the Unified Patent Court’s Discretion to Consider Impacts of Injunctions on Patients”, at the health law and bioethics stream. This paper examined the extent to which the new unified patent court (UPC) will consider third party interests (particularly patient interests) in applications for injunctive relief related to patent infringement over health technologies. The paper examined recent decisions of the local division (2024) and Court of Appeal of the UPC (2025) in Edwards Lifesciences v Meril, where an injunction was sought by Edwards against Meril related to its transcatheter heart valve technologies. One of the arguments against the injunction was the potential impact of injunctive relief on patients. The paper analysed the UPC’s reasoning in this context, alongside examining relevant legal instruments, and case law to examine the scope of the UPC’s discretion to consider patient interests in deciding on injunctive relief over health-technologies. The paper concluded by considering the supranational enforcement function of the UPC and how this may impact access to medicines more generally in Europe.
You can find out more about the PatentsInHumans project at : www.patentsinhumans.eu
The PatentsInHumans project is funded by the European Union (ERC, PatentsInHumans, Project No. 101042147). Views and opinions expressed are however those of the authors only and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Union or the European Research Council Executive Agency. Neither the European Union nor the granting authority can be held responsible for them.