IPR AND CLIMATE TECHNOLOGY TRANSFER: OVERCOMING THE LEGAL CHALLENGES

1. Introduction

Global impacts of rising climate change danger are increasing gradually and becoming more devastating over time. International organizations, governments, private companies, and civil society organizations are seeking various resolutions to secure transformation into more sustainable approaches by promoting environmentally friendly business models and practices. The development and distribution of Environmentally Sound Technologies (ESTs) is a crucial subject that needs to be readdressed to prevent or mitigate climate change.

This issue has various dimensions concerning environmental law and IPR. Several international environmental law agreements aim to prevent or mitigate climate change by promoting political, economic and technological cooperation between countries. On the other hand, IPR conventions and treaties regarding trade and technology transfer of ESTs are striving to establish the framework to maximize the functionality of IPR enforcement to satisfy the expectations of patent holders, while ensuring not to constitute barriers to international trade and elimination of environmental concerns.[1] Enabling the effective distribution of ESTs, especially to developing countries, is essential to combating the problem of climate change globally.[2] Existing regulations and mechanisms need to be questioned in terms of providing solutions. Due to the intricate and complex nature of the subject, it is necessary to take a holistic approach by examining the regulations on environmental law and IPR together and examining the relationship between them to ascertain a convenient IPR framework to implement.

In this respect, this article will assess the objectives of IPR and environmental law regulations, evaluate the present IPR approaches regarding the transfer of ESTs, question the efficiency of these mechanisms in the context of climate change prevention, and evaluate which novel models or interdisciplinary mechanisms can be proposed as a solution to the identified problems. This article aims to review the relationship between IPR and environmental law regard to the dissemination of climate technologies. The ongoing debates in terms of intellectual property rights on the distribution of environmentally friendly technologies will be evaluated and new mechanisms that promise solutions to overcome the identified obstacles will be analyzed.

2. Disconnection Between Existing IPR and Environmental Regimes

Since technology transfer is considered indispensable to enhancing enthusiasm for collaboration and cooperation for climate change mitigation,[3] provisions in this direction have been given an important place in international environmental agreements. United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change is one convention that obliges its developed member countries to promote, facilitate and finance the transfer of climate technologies to developing countries according to Article 4 paragraph 5.[4] The Paris Agreement includes parallel provisions that fulfil a similar function, assigning member states to cooperate on climate technology transfer.[5] It envisages establishing a technology framework as an overarching guidance to the work of the technology to promote and facilitate enhanced action on technology development and transfer.[6]

However, the practical results of such regulations on enhancing technology transfer are dubious without taking into account the provisions of the IPR and its implementation. Therefore, no institutional framework to foster the transfer of ESTs under the UNFCCC can avoid engaging with the TRIPS Agreement,[7] which is the most comprehensive multilateral agreement on IPR, including articles regarding technology transfer.[8] Correspondingly, article 66.2 of TRIPS requires developed countries to promote and encourage technology transfer to the least-developed country.[9] There are several methods to enable the transfer of technology to least-developed countries. It can be transferred by Foreign Direct Investment, stipulated transfer, copying or with a free transfer method according to Article 31 of the TRIPS.[10] Different problems arise in the application of each method.
For example, foreign investors should be assured by host countries' regulations and economic stability concerning the protection of their investments and the protection of IPR to stimulate FDI.[11] Similarly, investors are more interested in licensing either within their countries or with other developed countries since they feel more comfortable in these predictable and profitable boundaries since licensing itself is already a complex stipulation to assess the possible fiscal outcomes.[12]

Experiencing similar problems in terms of implementation has led to the search for supportive methods in realizing the purpose of TRIPS provisions in terms of technology transfer. Declaration on the TRIPS agreement and public health was one attempt to address this issue by recognizing a more flexible approach to the interpretation of TRIPS provisions on technology transfer to increase the diffusion of technology.[13] However, the declaration tackled the matter limited to transferring pharmaceutical developments to the least-developed countries. Embracing a parallel perspective for EST transfer is challenging due to the discrepancies between pharmaceutical and clean energy technologies.[14] The moral reasons and the urgency of the solution are quite evident for unaffordable patented drugs, as the result of not being able to reach them in developed countries means the loss of life of countless people, unlike climate change which is a slowly and gradually occurring process.[15] Compulsory licensing provisions are also compelling to execute for clean technologies because it relies on the existence of sufficient local production facilities. It is hard to argue for ESTs that such capacity is present in many developing countries.[16]

It should be admitted that the abovementioned agreements related to environmental law and intellectual property law provided positive impacts on technology transfer and IPR protection. For instance, studies found empirical evidence that The Kyoto Protocol[17] has increased the number of patents significantly in terms of environmentally sound technologies, especially in wind energy and solar energy.[18] Nevertheless, the effectiveness of enforcement mechanisms has been criticized due to the lack of sanctions if the requirements are not met which is a general problem of international agreements on environmental law, as it is called soft law.[19] Similarly, the TRIPS agreement increased IPR protection globally but did not provide specific regulations for EST transfer.[20] As a result, two fundamental disconnections stand out at the point of transfer of ESTs. First, the connection between IPR and environmental law agreements is ambiguous. Second, how IPR protection affects technology transfer is also contentious.[21]

Since the interpretation of TRIPS on technology transfer is obscure, some studies argued that UNFCCC may be an appropriate tool to provide guidance in the interpretation of relevant provisions.[22] This collaboration may help examine the justifications and procedures required to transfer climate technology.[23] Otherwise, as will be elaborated below, the dilemma of which approach should be adopted in the IPR provisions regarding technology transfer seems difficult to resolve because the current uncertainty causes developed and developing countries to argue arbitrarily in line with their economic interests.[24] Ecuador, for example, submitted a proposition during COP-19 stating that disseminating environmental technologies is essential to mitigate climate change and strong IPR regulations are constituting a barrier to access them.[25] The US on the other hand, robustly advocating that strengthening IPR will encourage ventures for innovations and foster the dissemination of new technologies.[26] These ongoing discussions prevent the necessary technological steps from being taken while climate change becomes an emergency over time. Eventually, a broad perspective is required to conclude these debates by involving an interdisciplinary approach because it appears, that is no longer tolerable for IPR to hinder EST transfer.[27]

3. A Deep-Rooted Deadlock In Dilemma: Is IPR a Barrier or Catalyst to Technology Transfer?

The controversiality of the subject remains as there contrary opinions and evidence exist for the positive and negative effects of strict IPR practices. Under the IPR regime, patent holders are entitled to prevent the use of these technologies without their consent which comes as a natural right of the inventor.[28] However, climate technologies also have a public dimension. One argument considers clean technologies should be considered public goods.[29] According to that, IPRs can prevent access to new technology. For instance, by allowing corporations that possess patented inventions to maintain their costs excessively high.[30] There are examples of abuse of patent rights by making unacceptable claims, resulting in the deprivation of access to environmental technologies in developing countries.[31] One example is, Indian producers wanted to replace the substance R12 used in air conditioners with HFC-134a which is significantly less harmful for ozone depletion. Nevertheless, this attempt failed because in exchange patent holders offered to take majority ownership of the Indian company that wished to seek access.[32]

The opposite perspective is advocating that stronger IPR protection is essential to foster climate technology transfer because it increases the incentive for technology production and distribution to developed countries and enhances the formal channels of technology transfer through international commerce.[33] Furthermore, some studies concluded that stricter IPR regimes increase the dissemination of low-carbon technologies such as solar thermal and wind power technologies.[34] It has been noticed that stricter IPR protection would encourage foreign investment in developing countries for the majority of low-carbon technology.[35] Although the certainty of these empirical conclusions is constrained by data problems, the general acceptance is that there is a correlation between strengthening IPR and increasing technology transfer.[36]

Compulsory licensing is another mechanism which may foster technology transfer of climate technologies. Nevertheless, the applicability of the compulsory licensing provisions in terms of ESTs is controversial as well. Article 8 of TRIPS states that members may “adopt measures necessary to protect public health and nutrition, and to promote the public interest in sectors of vital importance to their socio-economic and technological development.”[37] Article 31 of TRIPS as a complementary provision in this direction regulates that member states may allow usage of the patented technology without the authorization of the right holder when certain special conditions are met.[38] One condition to fulfil is that the user must make efforts to obtain authorization from the patent holder on reasonable terms.  However, article 31(b) provides an exemption from meeting this requirement in case of a national emergency and other situations that require urgent action.[39] Whether climate change can be considered a valid reason to exercise this exemption under that provision, is another matter of debate to analyze, especially considering the flexibility brought by the Doha Declaration in terms of compulsory licensing.[40]

It may be possible to apply the provisions of compulsory licensing for environmental technologies. Firstly there is no indication in TRIPS in this direction or the opposite, and no restriction on the concept of “public disease” as expressed in the Doha declaration.[41] Already solid scientific studies show that climate change and air pollution have the possibility to cause diseases such as cancer to pose a danger in terms of spreading in society in the long term, and therefore similar issues should be evaluated under the scope of compulsory licensing.[42] In some parts of the world, air pollution has already become a devastating threat to public health as in the case of China.[43] Apart from that, the Doha Declaration recognizes a broad mandate to the Member States on deciding which licenses are granted on what grounds.[44] In fact, it has been observed that these arguments have already produced some practical consequences. In Paice v Toyota Motor Corporation,[45] Toyota as an infringer of a patent, successfully claimed that the injunction demand should be denied by the court since it is contrary to the public interest as it does not serve the purpose of reducing carbon emissions.[46] According to the US Supreme Court, the public interest is one of the four criteria that courts examine when deciding whether to impose an injunction in patent infringement cases.[47]

While expressing that it is theoretically possible to apply the provisions of compulsory licensing in this field within the scope of the current TRIPS provisions, due to economic and political backlashes, implementation seems to be difficult from a practical point of view. For example, Brazil was warned by the Bush presidency in 2005 that sanctions could be imposed if it granted mandatory licenses to AIDS drugs.[48] Similarly to the strong IPR protection debate, developed countries like the US strictly oppose ​​compulsory licensing. This may be one area where the principles of International environmental law will assist to compel developed countries. The growing climate engineering trend may constitute a new ground for the application of compulsory licensing as recently, a significant increase has been observed in climate engineering patents. The possibility that such technologies will be monopolized by some private companies has raised concerns due to the dramatic increase in climate engineering patent applications and grants.[49] Using these technologies without a comprehensive examination of ecological vulnerability is dangerous since the complex nature of the scientific application brings uncertain results.[50] Additionally, allowing this technology exclusive to a limited amount of people may deprive the rest of the world of the potential benefits of climate technologies which prevents it from reaching its objective because these projects can only be successful if they are implemented globally.[51] Ultimately, emerging technologies in this aspect may underline that IPR provisions are behind the times in terms of the transfer of climate technologies and soon international organizations may find themselves in a situation where IPR regulations to be discussed and reformed again due to the contemporary necessities of the globe.

4. A Quest to Untie The “Gordion Knot”.

As explained above the parties are reluctant to reach a solution through reasonable dialogues because of their political and economic interests. The uncertainty that allows parties to argue arbitrarily occurs due to the absence of reliable and objective data on climate technologies.[52] Classification of patent-linked environmentally friendly technologies is challenging Because they are present in various technological fields.[53] The EPO (European Patent Office) program prepared by United Nations Environmental Program and European Patent Office is one illustration of a practical approach that, by easing patent searches, may help the IP system create a more attractive environment for technological dissemination.[54] In order to offer ongoing, precise, and user-friendly patent information, the EPO established a new classification method for patents in clean environment technologies.[55] UNEP-EPO and the International Centre on Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) collaboration also conducted the first survey in the clean technology area to assess global licensing and submitted a report with several suggestions to increase technology transfer.[56]

Another approach is emphasizing market failures that occur due to insufficient IPR protection provided by the domestic laws of developing countries along with transaction expenses and data inaccuracies. Domestic IPR regulations should be supported by complementary institutions or mechanisms.[57] IPEx Cleantech Asia (ICA) aims to accelerate clean technology transfer in Asia with a system that is combining the fields of technology, law and business. It was founded as a brokerage platform to make technology transfer and implementation transactions easier in the Asia-Pacific area.[58] It is an IP transfer marketplace specialising in clean technologies.[59] Several advantages for the dissemination of clean technologies are provided by this system to resolve the abovementioned issues. ICA facilitates both the direct IP-related transactions involving the manufacture of technology and the inclusion of technology into a project through a straightforward sales procedure.[60] As a result, ICA lowers the cost of transactions for sellers' and purchasers' information research, and creating the network.[61] WIPO GREEN is also an online platform that promotes the dissemination of clean Technologies by aiming to connect investors and innovators of ESTs which is another attempt to bring transparency into the clean technology market.[62]

The abovementioned mechanisms are extensions of a relatively fresh perspective which is called public-private partnership (PPP) for technology transfer. This concept seems promising for the future since it is successful to acknowledge the importance of cooperation between the public and private sectors[63] to realize the objectives of TRIPS and UNFCCC. Government procurement to establish or support a market for a certain technology, rules, standards, and tax incentives to influence consumers' purchase decisions are the key policy tools on the market-pull side.[64] From the perspective of technology innovation, climate technology transfer occurs when innovative discoveries from studies conducted by academic and research institutions, or technology-based businesses are distributed to local proponents, such as entrepreneurs like medium-sized businesses.[65] The PPP model can build a long-term relationship between industrial networks, innovators, consumers and suppliers. Such a model may encourage the incorporation of private sector innovations into public scientific institutions, which would result in the development or expansion of a reliable institutional capability.[66]

For example, as a result of the Cancun Agreements, Technology Mechanisms (TM), a relatively new institution, has been established for the objective of accelerating the development and diffusion of climate change technologies. TM consist of Technology Executive (TEC) as a policy body and Climate Technology Centre and Network (CTCN) to implement necessary actions which constitute a novel structure and allows it to function efficiently.[67] TEC is determining and recommending policies to encourage PPP for the development and transfer of climate technologies while CTCN is proceeding with building a wide variety of networks to provide technical support, information, and capacity development.[68] Although this method seems promising, it still has not touched the core of the ongoing debate between IPR and environmental technologies either in terms of a policy aspect or practical aspect.[69] Furthermore, CTCN is unable to obtain enough funds to meet the objectives. Dialogue with collaborators for resource allocation and funding within the scope of responsibilities and duties should be increased.[70] It also needs to be mentioned that establishing functioning cooperation is a long-term process and yet CTCN is still in its infancy to succeed in this achievement.[71] For that reason, as an inventive matchmaker, the CTCN should adopt a strategy to enable further involvement of new players in the creation of a supportive national innovation system, as well as increased participation of National Designated Entities and network members.[72]

5. Conclusion

Although climate change is an increasingly serious problem in the field of environmental law, it is seen that there is no special IPR regulation regarding the transfer of climate technologies, and the current IPR provisions are quite open to interpretation. It is not yet possible to express that UNFCCC, WTO and WIPO collaborate harmoniously to ensure intellectual property rights do not constitute a barrier to the climate technology transfer. Along with that, it has been observed that the IPR corpus is stuck in the sterile debates on technology transfer within itself. Developing countries, which are especially affected by climate change and need technology primarily, favour flexible practices, while developed countries suggest strong IPR regimes and seem satisfied with the status quo. Similarly, developed and developing countries adopt opposing views in the discussion of compulsory licensing. However, it is possible that the recently increased geoengineering projects can add a different dimension to the discussion, in favour of flexible IPR provisions.

The climate technology transfer issue requires holistic solutions. The IPR dilemma seems to have led to the rise of alternative searches such as PPP. Public-Private Partnership mechanisms can enable reliable transformation by strengthening communication between technology manufacturers, consumers and industry. However, PPPs still operating at an early stage have shortcomings in sourcing and networking. Although CTCN and TEC mechanisms have provided positive developments, adequate contact with intellectual property rights regulations has not been established. Overall, organizations for international IPR policies like WTO and WIPO are failing to meet the needs and demands of developing countries. TRIPS provisions in their current form seem to constitute a barrier to technology transfer, however, there is no serious reform attempt. While the threat of climate change is rising at the global level, legal and scientific alternative solutions other than IPR are rapidly being sought, it does not seem possible for the TRIPS provisions, which are behind the times, to deny this problem in the future. The amendment should at the very least provide explicit incentives for the transfer of vital technology related to climate change and other issues to developing countries. If this isn't done, the transfer of technology as a whole will continue to be merely a theoretical promise included in international legal documents.[73]

Bibliography

Cases

Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp., 504 F.3d 1293, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2007)

Legislations

Agreement On Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, (adopted 15 April 1994, entered into force 1 January 1995) 1869 UNTS. 299

Kyoto Protocol to The United Nations Framework Convention On Climate Change (adopted 11 December 1997, entered into force 16 February 2005) 2303 UNTS 162

Paris Agreement, (adopted 12 December 2015, entered into force 4 November 2016) 55 UNTS 175

United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (adopted 9 May 1992, entered into force 21 Mar 1994) 1771 UNTS 107.

World Trade Organization, Declaration on the TRIPS agreement and public health (adopted 14 November 2001) WT/MIN(01)/ DEC/2

Books

Latif AA, “The Rise of Public–Private Partnerships in Green Technologies and the Role of Intellectual Property Rights”, The Cambridge Handbook of Public-Private Partnerships, Intellectual Property Governance, and Sustainable Development, (Cambridge University Press 2018)

Mascus KE and Reichman JH, International Public Goods and Transfer of Technology Under a Globalized Intellectual Property Regime, (Cambridge University Press 2005)

Shashikant S And Khor M, Intellectual Property and Technology Transfer Issues in the Context of Climate Change (TWN 2010)

United Nations, Transfer on Technology, (United Nations Publication 2001)

Zhuang W, Intellectual Property Rights and Climate Change: Interpreting the TRIPS Agreement for Environmentally Sound Technologies (Cambridge University Press 2017)

Journal Articles

Blair HO, “Overview of Licensing and Technology Transfer” (2016) 8 North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation 167

Branstetter LG, Fisman R and Foley CF, “Do Stronger Intellectual Property Rights Increase International Technology Transfer? Empirical Evidence from U. S. Firm-Level Panel Data” (2006) 121 The Quarterly Journal of Economics 321

Dussaux D, Dechezleprêtre A and Glachant M, “The Impact of Intellectual Property Rights Protection on Low-Carbon Trade and Foreign Direct Investments” (2022) 171 Energy Policy

Fair R, “Does Climate Change Justify Compulsory Licensing of Green Technology?” (2010) 6 Bringham Young University International Law and Management Review 21

Fox DM “Technology Transfer and the TRIPS Agreement Are Developed Countries Meeting Their End of the Bargain?” (2019) 10 The Hastings Science & Technology Law Journal 1

Glachant M and Dechezleprêtre A, “What Role for Climate Negotiations on Technology Transfer?” (2016) 17 Climate Policy 962

Gonzales AD, “Regional: Establishing a Pilot Center to Facilitate Climate Technology Investments in Asia and the Pacific.” (2016) ADB Pilot Asia-Pacific Climate Technology Finance Center (CTFC)

Guo M, “Interests Analysis on Compulsory License” (2016) 07 Beijing Law Review 205

Hardin B, “Compulsory Licensing of Climate Engineering Patents: How Embracing Technology- and Research-Sharing Strategies Brings Us One Step Closer to Solving Climate Change” (2020) 73 Arkansas Law Review 611

Hufbauer GC and Kim J, “Reaching a Global Agreement on Climate Change: What Are the Obstacles?” (2010) 5 Asian Economic Policy Review 39

Latif AA, “Intellectual Property Rights and Green Technologies from Rio to Rio: An Impossible Dialogue?” ICTSD Policy Brief No. 14

Latif AA, Maskus K, Okediji R, Reichman J and Roffe P, “Overcoming the Impasse on Intellectual Property and Climate Change at the UNFCCC: A Way Forward”(2011) 11 ICTSD Policy Brief

Lee WJ, Juskenaite I and Mwebaza R, “Public-Private Partnerships for Climate Technology Transfer and Innovation: Lessons from the Climate Technology Centre and Network” (2021) 13 Sustainability 3185

Lee WJ and Mwebaza R, “The Role of the Climate Technology Centre and Network as a Climate Technology and Innovation Matchmaker for Developing Countries” (2020) 12 Sustainability 7956

Littleton M, “The TRIPS Agreement and Transfer of Climate-Change-Related Technologies to Developing Countries” (2009) 33 Natural Resources Forum 233

Ma Z, “The Effectiveness of the Kyoto Protocol and Consummating the Legal Institution for International Technology Transfer” (2010) 6 Asian Social Science 19

Miyamoto M and Takeuchi K, “Climate Agreement and Technology Diffusion: Impact of the Kyoto Protocol on International Patent Applications for Renewable Energy Technologies” (2019) 129 Energy Policy 1331

Mwaura C, “Technology Transfer for Climate Change Mitigation: A Perspective from Kenya.” (2016) The African Journal of Information and Communication 165

Ni KJ, “Legal Aspects (Barriers) of Granting Compulsory Licenses for Clean Technologies in Light of WTO/TRIPS Rules: Promise or Mirage?” (2015) 14 World Trade Review 701

Ockwell DG and others, “Intellectual Property Rights and Low Carbon Technology Transfer: Conflicting Discourses of Diffusion and Development” (2010) 20 Global Environmental Change 729

Oh C and Matsuoka S, “Complementary Approaches to Discursive Contestation on the Effects of the IPR Regime on Technology Transfer in the Face of Climate Change” (2016) 128 Journal of Cleaner Production 168

Rimmer M, “Beyond the Paris Agreement: Intellectual Property, Innovation Policy, and Climate Justice” (2019) 8 Laws 7

Saha PK, “Technology Transfer in TRIPS Agreement: Implications for Developing Countries” 3 Dehradun Law Review 38

Shugurov MV, “TRIPS Agreement, International Technology Transfer and Least Developed Countries.” (2015) 2 Journal of Advocacy, Research and Education 74

Taylor MS, “TRIPS, Trade, and Technology Transfer” (1993) 26 The Canadian Journal of Economics 625

Veefkind V and others, “A New EPO Classification Scheme for Climate Change Mitigation Technologies” (2012) 34 World Patent Information 106

Vutsova A, “The Role of Public-Private Partnership for Effective Technology Transfer” (2014) 10 Applied Technologies and Innovations 83

Zaman K, “The TRIPS Patent Protection Provisions and Their Effects on Transferring Climate Change Technologies to LDCs and Poor Developing Countries: A Critical Appraisal” (2012) 3 Asian Journal of International Law 137

Zhou C, “Can Intellectual Property Rights within Climate Technology Transfer Work for the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement?” (2019) 19 International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 107

Official Reports

Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark, Review of the Climate Technology Centre and Network (CTCN) Review Report, (2018), DANIDA International Development Cooperation

Thesis

Lukac K “Compulsory Licensing for Green Technology Transfer” (Master Thesis, Tilburg University 2017)

----------------

[1] M Scott Taylor, “TRIPS, Trade, and Technology Transfer” (1993) 26 The Canadian Journal of Economics 625, 626 http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/135891.

[2] Gary Clyde Hufbauer and Jisun Kim, “Reaching a Global Agreement on Climate Change: What Are the Obstacles?” (2010) 5 Asian Economic Policy Review 39,43 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1748-3131.2010.01144.x.

[3] Matthieu Glachant and Antoine Dechezleprêtre, “What Role for Climate Negotiations on Technology Transfer?” (2016) 17 Climate Policy 962 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14693062.2016.1222257.

[4] United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (adopted 9 May 1992, entered into force 21 Mar 1994) 1771 UNTS 107.

[5] Chen Zhou, “Can Intellectual Property Rights within Climate Technology Transfer Work for the UNFCCC and the Paris Agreement?” (2019) 19 International Environmental Agreements: Politics, Law and Economics 107, 111 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10784-018-09427-2.

[6] Paris Agreement, (adopted 12 December 2015, entered into force 4 November 2016) 55 UNTS 175, art 10.4

[7] Chaewoon Oh and Shunji Matsuoka, “Complementary Approaches to Discursive Contestation on the Effects of the IPR Regime on Technology Transfer in the Face of Climate Change” (2016) 128 Journal of Cleaner Production 168,168 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclepro.2015.09.050.

[8] David M. Fox “Technology Transfer and the TRIPS Agreement Are Developed Countries Meeting Their End of the Bargain?” (2019) 10 The Hastings Science & Technology Law Journal 1, 5

[9] Agreement On Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, (adopted 15 April 1994, entered into force 1 January 1995) 1869 UNTS. 299

[10] Fox (n 8), 16

[11] United Nations, Transfer on Technology, (United Nations Publication 2001),19

[12] Homer O. Blair, “Overview of Licensing and Technology Transfer” (2016) 8 North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation 167, 182

[13] World Trade Organization, Declaration on the TRIPS agreement and public health (adopted 14 November 2001) WT/MIN(01)/ DEC/2

[14]Kuei Jung Ni, “Legal Aspects (Barriers) of Granting Compulsory Licenses for Clean Technologies in Light of WTO/TRIPS Rules: Promise or Mirage?” (2015) 14 World Trade Review 701, 711 http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s1474745614000524.

[15] Ibid, 712

[16] Ibid, 712

[17] Kyoto Protocol to The United Nations Framework Convention On Climate Change (adopted 11 December 1997, entered into force 16 February 2005) 2303 UNTS 162

[18] Mai Miyamoto and Kenji Takeuchi, “Climate Agreement and Technology Diffusion: Impact of the Kyoto Protocol on International Patent Applications for Renewable Energy Technologies” (2019) 129 Energy Policy 1331 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2019.02.053.

[19]Zhongfa Ma, “The Effectiveness of the Kyoto Protocol and Consummating the Legal Institution for International Technology Transfer” (2010) 6 Asian Social Science 19, 24 http://dx.doi.org/10.5539/ass.v6n4p19.

[20] Wei Zhuang, Intellectual Property Rights and Climate Change: Interpreting the TRIPS Agreement for Environmentally Sound Technologies (Cambridge University Press 2017), 348.

[21] Caroline Mwaura, “Technology Transfer for Climate Change Mitigation: A Perspective from Kenya.” [2016] The African Journal of Information and Communication 165, 168 http://dx.doi.org/10.23962//10539/21580.

[22] Zhou (n 5), 117

[23] Ibid, 117

[24] Prabhat Kumar Saha, “Technology Transfer in TRIPS Agreement: Implications for Developing Countries” 3 Dehradun Law Review 38,38

[25] Oh and Matsuoka (n 7), 170

[26] Lee G Branstetter, Raymond Fisman and C Fritz Foley, “Do Stronger Intellectual Property Rights Increase International Technology Transfer? Empirical Evidence from U. S. Firm-Level Panel Data” (2006) 121 The Quarterly Journal of Economics 321, 322 http://dx.doi.org/10.1162/003355306776083482.

[27] Matthew Littleton, “The TRIPS Agreement and Transfer of Climate-Change-Related Technologies to Developing Countries” (2009) 33 Natural Resources Forum 233,242 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1477-8947.2009.01228.x.

[28] David G Ockwell and others, “Intellectual Property Rights and Low Carbon Technology Transfer: Conflicting Discourses of Diffusion and Development” (2010) 20 Global Environmental Change 729,730 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.04.009.

[29] Ibid,730

[30] Ibid,730

[31] Sangeeta Shashikant And Martin Khor, Intellectual Property and Technology Transfer Issues in the Context of Climate Change (TWN 2010),30

[32] Ibid,31

[33] Mark V. Shugurov, “TRIPS Agreement, International Technology Transfer and Least Developed Countries.” (2015) 2 Journal of Advocacy, Research and Education 74, 80

[34] Damien Dussaux, Antoine Dechezleprêtre and Matthieu Glachant, “The Impact of Intellectual Property Rights Protection on Low-Carbon Trade and Foreign Direct Investments” (2022) 171 Energy Policy, 6 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.enpol.2022.113269.

[35] Ibid, 7

[36] Keith E. Mascus and Jerome H. Reichman, International Public Goods and Transfer of Technology Under a Globalized Intellectual Property Regime, (Cambridge University Press 2005),318

[37] Agreement On Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (n 9), art 8.1

[38] Agreement On Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (n 9), art 31

[39] Agreement On Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (n 9), art 31(b)

[40] Kim Lukac “Compulsory Licensing for Green Technology Transfer” (Master Thesis, Tilburg University 2017),35

[41] Ibid,37

[42] Meirong Guo, “Interests Analysis on Compulsory License” (2016) 07 Beijing Law Review 205,209 http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/blr.2016.73021.

[43] Robert Fair, “Does Climate Change Justify Compulsory Licensing of Green Technology?” (2010) 6 Bringham Young University International Law and Management Review 21,29

[44] Guo (n 42), 210

[45] Paice LLC v. Toyota Motor Corp., 504 F.3d 1293, 1313 (Fed. Cir. 2007)

[46] Fair (n 43),31

[47] Ibid, 32

[48] Ibid,34

[49] Buzz Hardin, “Compulsory Licensing of Climate Engineering Patents: How Embracing Technology- and Research-Sharing Strategies Brings Us One Step Closer to Solving Climate Change” (2020) 73 Arkansas Law Review 611, 620

[50] Ibid,621

[51] Ibid, 621

[52] Ahmed Abdel Latif, Keith Maskus, Ruth Okediji, Jerome Reichman and Pedro Roffe, “Overcoming the Impasse on Intellectual Property and Climate Change at the UNFCCC: A Way Forward”(2011) 11 ICTSD Policy Brief, 5

[53] Victor Veefkind and others, “A New EPO Classification Scheme for Climate Change Mitigation Technologies” (2012) 34 World Patent Information 106, 107 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.wpi.2011.12.004.

[54] Latif (n 52) 6

[55] Ibid,6

[56] Ahmed Abdel Latif, “Intellectual Property Rights and Green Technologies from Rio to Rio: An Impossible Dialogue?” ICTSD Policy Brief No. 14, 7

[57] Oh and Matsuoka (n 7), 174

[58] Ibid, 174

[59] Alan Dale Gonzales, “Regional: Establishing a Pilot Center to Facilitate Climate Technology Investments in Asia and the Pacific.” (2016) ADB Pilot Asia-Pacific Climate Technology Finance Center (CTFC), 37

[60] Ibid, 37

[61] Oh and Matsuoka (n 7), 174

[62] Ahmed Abdel Latif, “The Rise of Public–Private Partnerships in Green Technologies and the Role of Intellectual Property Rights”, The Cambridge Handbook of Public-Private Partnerships, Intellectual Property Governance, and Sustainable Development, (Cambridge University Press 2018), 232.

[63] Albena Vutsova, “The Role of Public-Private Partnership for Effective Technology Transfer” (2014) 10 Applied Technologies and Innovations 83,83 http://dx.doi.org/10.15208/ati.2014.14.

[64] Woo Jin Lee, Irma Juskenaite and Rose Mwebaza, “Public–Private Partnerships for Climate Technology Transfer and Innovation: Lessons from the Climate Technology Centre and Network” (2021) 13 Sustainability 3185, 3 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su13063185.

[65] Ibid, 4

[66] Vutsova (n 63), 87

[67] Latif (n 62),225

[68] Ibid, 226

[69] Matthew Rimmer, “Beyond the Paris Agreement: Intellectual Property, Innovation Policy, and Climate Justice” (2019) 8 Laws 7, 18 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/laws8010007.

[70] Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark, Review of the Climate Technology Centre and Network (CTCN) Review Report, (2018), DANIDA International Development Cooperation, 17

[71] Rimmer (n 69), 18

[72] Woo Jin Lee and Rose Mwebaza, “The Role of the Climate Technology Centre and Network as a Climate Technology and Innovation Matchmaker for Developing Countries” (2020) 12 Sustainability 7956,14 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su12197956.

[73] Khorsed ZAMAN, “The TRIPS Patent Protection Provisions and Their Effects on Transferring Climate Change Technologies to LDCs and Poor Developing Countries: A Critical Appraisal” (2012) 3 Asian Journal of International Law 137,161  http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s2044251312000185.