[A2k] India clarifies re WIPO Casablanca meeting

[Martin Khor]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
Please see below an article on India clarifying its position on the Casabla=
nca meeting
held by the DG of the WIPO.  This article was published in the South-North =
Development Monitor (SUNS) of 11 April 2005.

Martin Khor, TWN




India clarifies it does not support WIPO's Casablanca outcome


Geneva, 7 Apr (Martin Khor) --  The Indian government has clarified to the =
World Intellectual Property Organisation that it does not support the recom=
mendations arising from a meeting organized by the WIPO Director General in=
 Casablanca on 16 February.  Instead, it associates itself with a critical =
statement on the meeting by the Group of Friends of Development.

The Casablanca meeting, which was in the form of informal consultations, ha=
d been earlier criticized by 14 developing countries in the Group of Friend=
s of Development in a statement in March.

The Casablanca meeting had ended with a statement with recommendations on h=
ow WIPO should proceed with its work on patents, particularly on the contro=
versial negotiations taking place in WIPO on a substantive patent law treat=
y (SPLT).

The Casablanca statement said that WIPO should deal with six issues in an a=
ccelerated way.  WIPO's standing committee on patents (SCP) should only foc=
us on four issues (prior art, grace period, novelty and inventive step), wh=
ich are the topics being pushed by the developed countries in the SPLT nego=
tiations.

The statement proposed that two other issues (sufficiency of disclosure and=
 genetic resources) which are also on the agenda of the SCP and actively pu=
rsued by developing countries, should be dealt with instead in the Intergov=
ernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditi=
onal Knowledge and Folklore (IGC).  It recommended that the next meetings o=
f the SCP and IGG endorse the objectives and work program set out at Casabl=
anca.

The Group of Friends of Development had particularly criticized the proposa=
l that the SCP focus on only the four issues.  The Group said that the conc=
erns of all parties had to be taken into account, and thus the SPLT should =
include, inter alia, provisions on the transfer of technology, on anticompe=
titive practices, on the safeguarding of public interest flexibilities, as =
well as specific clauses on principles and objectives.

It is known that many developijng countries are against the attempt to "tra=
nsfer" their issues of disclosure and genetic resources from the Standing C=
ommittee on Patents to the IGC, as the intention of the transfer is to excl=
ude these issues from the new patent treaty, the SPLT.

The Casablanca meeting's statement mentioned that the delegate of Brazil di=
d not associate himself with the foregoing text, implying that the countrie=
s of other participants endorsed the statement.

As the Casablanca meeting had been chaired by Dr. R.A. Mashelkar, Director =
General of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research of India, thi=
s had given rise to questions as to whether the Indian government officiall=
y endorsed the outcome of the Casablanca meeting.   India has been a leadin=
g participant arguing the case for development and developing countries' in=
terests at WIPO meetings.

A Note Verbale was sent recently by the Indian Mission in Geneva to WIPO to=
 clarify the government's position, with a request that the Note be circula=
ted to WIPO members.

The Note Verbale clarified that with regards to the Casablanca consultation=
, there is no change in the position of the Indian government on the issues=
 that were discussed there.
The Note also clarified that Dr. Mashelkar who had participated in and chai=
red the meeting did so in his individual capacity.

India underscored the importance that a holistic approach be adopted to add=
ress inter-connected intellectual property issues and that they be addresse=
d in a single negotiating framework.

The Note added that India does not support recommendations in the Casablanc=
a informal consultations which would have the effect of separating intercon=
nected issues by placing them in two independent tracks.

The Note also said that the government of India associates itself with the =
statement of the Group of Friends of Development issued following the Casab=
lanca informal consultations.

The Casablanca meeting had been attended by participants from Brazil, Chile=
, China, France, Germany, India, Italy, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Morocco, R=
ussian Federation, Switzerland, UK, USA, EU and African, European and Euras=
ian regional patent organizations.

The 14 developing countries in the "Group of Friends of Development" are Ar=
gentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Iran, K=
enya, Peru, Sierra Leone, South Africa, Tanzania and Venezuela.

The Group has also proposed that WIPO adopt a "development agenda", and thi=
s subject is being discussed on 11-13 April at a meeting in WIPO.

The Group's statement in March, now supported by India, reflected the unhap=
piness of many delegations of developing countries over the process by whic=
h the WIPO Director General Dr Kamil Idris had chosen to conduct consultati=
ons and over the substance of the consultations.

During WIPO's General Assembly meetings last September/October, there were =
heated discussions in the SCP on how to proceed with the SPLT negotiations.=
 The developed countries were pushing that the SPLT only cover harmonizatio=
n of patent laws in relation to four issues - definition of prior art, grac=
e period, criteria for novelty and inventive step.

Many developing countries do not consider the proposed upward harmonization=
 of patent laws in these four areas as being suitable for their development=
 needs, and they have proposed that development-related issues be included =
in the SPLT negotiations, including disclosure of sources of origin of gene=
tic resources and traditional knowledge, exceptions and limitations to pate=
nts for public interest purposes and to deal with anti-competitive practice=
s, and provision for technology transfer.

A US-Japan proposal that the SCP take on a limited agenda of an "initial pa=
ckage of priority items" (i.e. their four items of prior art, grace period,=
 novelty and inventive step) and to conclude a more limited SPLT as soon as=
 possible was opposed by several developing countries, including India..

As a result of the stand-off, the General Assembly adopted a decision that =
no consensus had been reached on the US-Japan proposal and that the dates o=
f the next SCP "should be determined by the Director General following info=
rmal consultations that he may undertake."

The Director General Dr Kamil Idris convened the Casablanca consultations o=
n 16 February.  The Group of Friends of Development, referring to the limit=
ed mandate that the General Assembly had given to the Director General,  sa=
id the consultations should only focus on the date of the SCP meeting, and =
should not involve matters of substance relating to the SPLT negotiations o=
r to establish a work programme.


ends
--