[Ip-health] Extracts of WTO member comments on the Trade Policy Review of India

[Thiru Balasubramaniam]

--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]


Here below are extracts of comments made by Switzerland, Brazil and the
United States at the Trade Policy Review of India at the WTO in May
2007 in addition to responses by the Government of India.

--------------------

WT/TPR/M/182
9 July 2007

Trade Policy Review Body
23 and 25 May 2007

Trade Policy Review

INDIA

Minutes of Meeting

Chairperson:  H.E. Mr. Vesa Himanen (Finland)



---------------------

<SNIP>

59.	The representative of Switzerland welcomed the dynamism of Indian
businesses, which had benefited from a progressive opening of the
Indian economy, and had taken advantage of the opportunities of
globalization.  As Indian entrepreneurs were increasingly becoming
competitive in international markets, he was convinced that India would
play an active role in the global economy.  He commended the increase
in bilateral trade.  The globalization of the Indian economy was also
reflected in the recent increase of outward investment activities of
Indian companies.

<SNIP>

61.	With the introduction of the new Patent Act in 2005, India had
showed its willingness and capacity to achieve substantial progress in
sensitive issues related to IPR protection.  Ensuring effective
implementation would be in the interest of India's own industry.  As
the new Patents Act had not yet been subject to review, he sought
clarification related to, inter alia, the scope of patentability, the
treatment of patents relating to pharmaceuticals filed before the entry
into force of the new Patents Act, patent administration, and rules
relating to the unfair commercial use of test data.


<SNIP>


93.	The representative of Brazil stated that India's impressive
economic performance was not a recent phenomenon.  Between 1980 and
2002, the country's economy had grown on average at 6% annually, making
India one of the best-performing nations in the last quarter of the
20th century.  At present, more than 100 Indian companies had a market
capitalization of over US$1 billion, and 125 of the fortune 500
companies had R&D bases in India.  The age curve of the Indian
population pointed to the imminence of a "demographic dividend",
whereby a large young workforce would become ripe for contributing to
the expansion of the economy, as long as the appropriate conditions
were in place.  In 2005, the combined output of emerging economies
surpassed that of the developed economies, accounting for more than 50%
of the world's GDP.  India's share should not be underestimated.  The
re-emergence of India provided additional impetus to the growth of the
world economy, making new partnerships possible and providing new
investment opportunities to the benefit of all.  A new geography of the
world economy was taking shape, and Southeast Asia would be a
significant component.

94.	The Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health,
unanimously adopted by WTO Members on 14 November 2001, asserted that
intellectual property rules should not prevent countries from
protecting public health.  Brazil welcomed certain elements in India's
national patent legislation and practices, in particular the
application of an effective threshold of novelty and inventive step in
the examination of patents on drugs and medicines, which appeared to be
a considerable improvement in the quality of patens granted in India.
Public consultations regarding the state of art in the medical
technologies also seemed to contribute to a more effective system.  He
asked India to share its experience in this area.  Brazil also
commended India for its efforts to improve the international IP system,
as concerned certain principles and objectives of the Convention on
Biodiversity.  In particular, India's active support for an amendment
to the TRIPS Agreement on disclosure of origin of genetic resources and
associated traditional knowledge was a critical step.

<SNIP>

127.	The representative of India (Mr. Pillai) appreciated Members'
interest and the lively discussion on India's Trade Policies Review.
India had been one of the fastest growing economies in the world during
the past few years.

<SNIP>

146.	Since its last Review, India had updated its IP-related
legislation to meet international obligations.  The Patent Act, amended
in 2005, had introduced a product patent regime for food, drugs, and
chemicals.  At the same time, adequate safeguards were introduced to
protect India's national interests, in particular, issues related to
public health.


<SNIP>

149.	He considered the Patents Act fully compliant with the TRIPS
Agreement, as well as the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health.
Section 3(d) of this Act was aimed at maintaining a balance between IP
protection and public health concerns.  This section was incorporated
in the Patents Act with the deliberate intention of allowing access to
medicines, while rewarding real innovations.  A dilution of this
provision could have far-reaching consequences on the access to
essential medicines by millions of people in the developing world.

<SNIP>

185.	The representative of the United States appreciated the written
responses provided by India, and asked for some further
clarifications...

<SNIP>

189.	On intellectual property, he asked India to elaborate how Section
3(d) of the Patents Act fell within the three categories for
determining patentability:  i.e. novelty, inventive step, and
industrial applicability.  Further, as the Section 3(d) applied to
pharmaceutical products, he asked whether and how this provision
applied to other fields of technology.


190.	On copyrights, the United States still had questions about whether
a compulsory licence could be issued under Section 31 and 31A for a
U.S.-produced work if that work was published in India within 30 days
of publication in another territory.  He also asked about the number of
licences granted by the Registrar of Copyrights pursuant to Sections 31
and 31A in the last five years, and requested information as to the
types of works, uses of works sought by complainants, and any
additional information on how these licences were granted.



---------------------------------
Thiru Balasubramaniam
Geneva Representative
Knowledge Ecology International (KEI)
voice +41.22.791.6727
fax +41.22.723.2988
mobile +41 76 508 0997
thiru@keionline.org
--