In 2012, Eli Lilly, a US pharmaceutical corporation, initiated an investor-state arbitral claim against the Canadian government after the Canadian courts invalidated two of Eli Lilly's Canadian patents, claiming that the application of the so-called ‘promise doctrine’ violates international patent law agreements. Even though this is not the first investment arbitration case in which intellectual property rights have played such a substantial role, Eli Lilly's claim against Canada illustrates an innovative attempt to employ an international investment agreement to protect IPRs, with a private actor seeking to claim compensation for the invalidation of its patents. Furthermore, it has created significant controversy over the inclusion and recognition of intellectual property rights as ‘investments’ within the scope of international investment agreements. Therefore, in this article, we examine the initial granting and revocation of Eli Lilly's patents in more detail, and discuss the critical problems arising from the possibility of private investors directly challenging domestic patent laws’ compliance with international patent agreements before international arbitral tribunals.

中文翻译：

---

礼来公司诉加拿大案：知识产权与国际投资法之间令人不安的联络

2012年，在加拿大法院使礼来的两项加拿大专利无效之后，美国制药公司礼来对加拿大政府提起了投资人与国家之间的仲裁请求，声称所谓的“承诺原则”的申请违反了国际专利。法律协议。即使这不是知识产权发挥了如此重要作用的第一起投资仲裁案，礼来公司对加拿大的索赔也表明了一项创新的尝试，即利用国际投资协议来保护知识产权，而私人行为者则寻求为之寻求赔偿。专利无效。此外，在将知识产权作为国际投资协定范围内的“投资”的纳入和承认方面，它引起了很大的争议。因此，在本文中，我们将更详细地研究礼来公司的专利的最初授予和撤销，并讨论由私人投资者向国际仲裁庭直接挑战国内专利法对国际专利协议的遵守的可能性而引起的关键问题。