Abstract
This article explores the interaction between international investment law and intellectual property rights through examining two arbitration disputes known as Philip Morris versus Uruguay and Philip Morris versus Australia. Once intellectual property rights are recognized as a form of investment under international agreements, new challenges concerning autonomy regulation of States are imposed. The field of research is intellectual property. The proposed objective is to verify whether arbitral tribunals have restricted autonomy regulation of Uruguay and Australia. Because of this objective, the research adopts the case study method. The results demonstrate: (i) further investment disputes can consider national measures to regulate intellectual property as indirect expropriation; (ii) the principle of abuse of rights is useful to preclude jurisdiction recognition over investment disputes. Two main conclusions are obtained: (i) the final arbitration awards do not restrict national regulatory autonomy of Uruguay and Australia; (ii) the international investment agreements can impact national regulatory autonomy.
Keywords
Intellectual property; indirect expropriation; investor-State arbitration; national regulatory autonomy; investment agreements