Pfizer: Global Protection of Intellectual Property

Lynn S. Paine; Michael  Santoro

Case | HBS Case Collection | February 1992 (Revised April 1995)

Pfizer: Global Protection of Intellectual Property

by Lynn S. Paine and Michael Santoro

Abstract

Top officials at Pfizer are assessing their strategy for improving protection of Pfizer's patents around the world. The outcome of the Uruguay Round of the GATT negotiations is uncertain, and it is not clear whether an acceptable intellectual property protection agreement will emerge. The case describes how Pfizer helped transform intellectual property from a lawyer's specialty to an international trade issue of concern around the world through close cooperation with the U.S. government, leadership in forming a tripartite coalition among U.S., Japanese, and European industry, and mobilization of the Pfizer organization. Shows how far a company may go to protect its intellectual property in a world where the concept of intellectual property is not universally recognized or accepted. May also be used to discuss the effectiveness and legitimacy of Pfizer's strategy, the conflicts between industrialized country and developing country perspectives on international trade and national sovereignty, and the question of appropriate norms of intellectual property protection.

Keywords: Patents; Trade; Policy; Government and Politics; Business Strategy; Agreements and Arrangements; Alliances; Cross-Cultural and Cross-Border Issues; Pharmaceutical Industry; United States; Japan; Europe;

Language: English

Format: Print

29 pages

Educators Purchase

Citation:

Paine, Lynn S., and Michael Santoro. "Pfizer: Global Protection of Intellectual Property." Harvard Business School Case 392-073, February 1992. (Revised April 1995.)

Boards are facing a complex new reality as a result of COVID-19. The new environment is characterized by pressures and demands from various stakeholder groups, heightened expectations for societal engagement and corporate citizenship, and radical uncertainty about the future. These factors are complicating board decision-making and challenging the shareholder-centric model of governance that has guided boards and business leaders for the past several decades. A board’s ability to deliberate in a thorough and thoughtful, but efficient, manner and come to a considered conclusion around key issues will be a critical aspect of its effectiveness in the post-COVID era.

Research suggests that well-run boards take the process of self-evaluation quite seriously, often using a combination of director surveys and personal interviews to assess the functioning and effectiveness of the board, its committees, and its individual members. As boards prepare for their next round of self-evaluation, they will want to assess their capabilities and readiness to govern in the wake of COVID-19. This list offers a guide to the kinds of key questions and statements they should consider adding to their surveys or interview protocols.

This Note has two parts. The first part (A) explores how U.S. private equity firms are incorporating ESG (Environmental, Social, & Governance) factors and impact objectives into their investment strategies and firm practices. It is based on publicly available information and on interviews with representatives from leading firms, limited partners (LPs), academic experts, and relevant nonprofit organizations. The note begins with background on the PE industry. It then examines why and how firms are incorporating ESG and impact objectives, identifies the barriers to integrating these objectives more fully, and summarizes some areas of possible improvement.
The second part (B) offers suggestions for offers suggestions for roles various constituents can play in advocating for improved ESG and impact efforts in the PE industry.

Faculty & Research

Pfizer: Global Protection of Intellectual Property

Abstract

Citation:

About the Author

More from the Author