Abstract

Intellectual Property (IP) has shaped the landscape in the pharmaceutical sector. In this industry, these protections have resulted in varying sentiments ranging from pro-lax proponents like advocacy groups supporting less stringent IP so that medicines can be made affordable and widely available in emerging countries, such as in the form of generic drugs, while pro-stringent actors encompassing multinational pharmaceutical corporations and trade representatives espouse more IP safeguards for political and economic leverage. India and China are two emerging economies, yet they have achieved varying results in implementing IP law. This thesis examines the roles of international and domestic pro-lax and pro-stringent actors that have shaped the political and legal landscape surrounding IP in the pharmaceutical industry, analyzing their influence based on the theoretical underpinnings of framing, lobbying, venue shopping, and agenda-setting, with a focus on landmark court cases in both regions. Findings demonstrate that, given the greater influence of pro-lax actors in India domestically and internationally, there is less stringent implementation of IP law. In contrast, given the more pronounced influence of pro-stringent actors in China domestically and internationally, IP law implementation in the pharmaceutical sector contains greater IP legal protections.