[Ip-health] LDCs call for disclosure of origin

[Sean Flynn]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
--
[ Picked text/plain from multipart/alternative ]
Trade: LDCs join call for TRIPS disclosure requirements



Geneva, 25 Oct 2007:  By Kanaga Raja

www.twnside.org.sg <http://www.twnside.org.sg/>



TRIPS: LDCs join call for TRIPS disclosure requirements

Published in SUNS #6352 dated 26 October 2007

The least developed countries have joined a proposal co-sponsored by
many developing countries that calls for the TRIPS Agreement to be
amended so that patent applicants have to disclose the origin of genetic
resources and/or associated traditional knowledge used in their
inventions.



Lesotho, speaking on behalf of the least developed countries, made this
announcement Wednesday at a formal meeting (23-24 October) of the TRIPS
Council.



Earlier Tuesday, the first day of the two-day meeting, the TRIPS Council
agreed to extend the deadline by two years for countries to accept an
amendment to provisions on pharmaceutical patents that would make it
easier for poorer countries to obtain cheaper generic versions of
patented medicines (see below).



The two-day meeting also discussed issues relating to China's
transitional review mechanism, enforcement, and technology transfer and
technical cooperation.



According to trade officials, on the issue of enforcement, several
developing countries voiced concerns about discussing this issue and
insisted that this not be a regular agenda item.



On the TRIPS/Convention on Biological Diversity issue, the least
developed countries have now joined the African Group (represented by
Uganda) as well as individual countries that include Brazil, China,
Colombia, Cuba, India, Pakistan, Peru, Thailand, Tanzania, South Africa,
Ecuador, Venezuela and Paraguay as co-sponsors of the proposal outlined
in document IP/C/W/474.



The issue of disclosure of origin of genetic resources is being
discussed outside the TRIPS Council by some of the major players that
include India, Brazil and the European Union as part of the Doha
negotiations. According to diplomatic sources, the developing countries
are insisting that a satisfactory solution to this issue has to be part
of a Doha deal.



The proposal co-sponsored by the developing countries said that the
relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD) is an outstanding implementation issue.



In addition to the intensive technical work in the TRIPS Council, the
Director-General has undertaken dedicated consultations through his
Friends, including more recently through Mr. Rufus Yerxa, Deputy
Director-General, it added.



The proposal noted that there have been extensive discussions in these
processes on the introduction into the TRIPS Agreement of a mandatory
requirement for the disclosure of origin of biological resources and/or
associated traditional knowledge used in inventions for which
intellectual property rights are applied for.



The proposal has outlined text in the form of Article 29bis on
disclosure of origin of biological resources and/or associated
traditional knowledge.



The proposed text said that where the subject matter of a patent
application concerns, is derived from or developed with biological
resources and/or associated traditional knowledge, Members shall require
applicants to disclose the country providing the resources and/or
associated traditional knowledge, from whom in the providing country
they were obtained, and, as known after reasonable inquiry, the country
of origin.



Members shall also require that applicants provide information including
evidence of compliance with the applicable legal requirements in the
providing country for prior informed consent for access and fair and
equitable benefit-sharing arising from the commercial or other
utilization of such resources and/or associated traditional knowledge.



It added that Members shall publish the information disclosed jointly
with the application or grant, whichever is made first. It also said
that Members shall put in place effective enforcement procedures so as
to ensure compliance with the obligations set out in this Article.



In particular, Members shall ensure that administrative and/or judicial
authorities have the authority to prevent the further processing of an
application or the grant of a patent and to revoke, subject to the
provisions of Article 32 of the TRIPS Agreement, or render unenforceable
a patent when the applicant has, knowingly or with reasonable grounds to
know, failed to comply with the obligations of this Article or provided
false or fraudulent information.



According to trade officials, positions remained unchanged on this
subject.



Brazil however indicated that it and other members are exploring some
flexibility in their positions on the key "implementation" issues and
related subjects - biodiversity/traditional knowledge, the extension of
the higher level of protection for geographical indications beyond wines
and spirits, and the multilateral register for wines and spirits.



However, said Brazil, this would depend on the priority issues of
agriculture and non-agricultural market access.



Peru presented its latest paper on its experience in trying to track
down bio-piracy (IP/C/W/493). According to trade officials, the paper
offers some background data on Peru's genetic and demographic diversity,
describes how it tries to track down instances of bio-piracy and gives
examples of challenges to "bad" patents in various countries where
Peruvian materials (or materials available in Peru) were involved.



Japan presented a proposal for setting up databases of traditional
knowledge to help patent examiners decide whether an invention uses
existing traditional knowledge and therefore avoiding "bad" patenting.
Access to the databases would be restricted only to computers with
specific Internet protocol (IP) addresses.



On Tuesday, the TRIPS Council agreed to extend the deadline by two years
for countries to accept an amendment to provisions on pharmaceutical
patents that would make it easier for poorer countries to obtain cheaper
generic versions of patented medicines.



The original deadline of 31 December 2007 has now been extended to 31
December 2009.



According to trade officials, the decision still has to be confirmed
when the General Council meets in December, but this is likely to be a
mere formality.



Trade officials said that the deadline for ratifying the amendment was
extended because so far only 11 countries have accepted the amendment
(two-thirds of the membership have to accept before the amendment takes
effect).



(The members that have accepted are the United States, Switzerland, El
Salvador, Korea, Norway, India, Philippines, Israel, Japan, Australia,
and Singapore.)



According to trade officials, the EU said that the European Council of
Ministers should approve the acceptance soon.



The African Group (Uganda speaking) urged members to agree to the
two-year extension and said that its members will be able to accept the
amendment "sooner rather than later."



Canada and Rwanda reported on the first compulsory license issued under
the waiver.



Canada said that it received a request from a generic manufacturer,
Apotex, on 4 September and the compulsory license - which allows Apotex
to produce the generic version without the permission of the patent
owner and to export it to Rwanda - was issued on 19 September.



The license is valid for two years, with the possibility of extending
for another two years if the approved quantity of 260,000 has not all
been exported by then, Canada said.



The medicine is TriAvir, a fixed-dose combination product of Zidovudine,
Lamivudine and Nevirapine.



According to trade officials, Canada said that it has completed a review
of its revised law and the experience of issuing a compulsory license.



The report should be finished soon and Canada said that it hopes to
present it at the next TRIPS Council meeting. It added that the waiver
(agreed in 2003) and amendment are not the only tool for helping poorer
countries acquire cheaper medicines. Canada said that it is working on
tax incentives as another way of achieving this.



China said that it would appreciate countries presenting information on
the lessons they have learned, as Canada had promised, because this
would help other countries change their own laws.



Switzerland said that its Parliament passed revised laws in June, and
these will take effect in "early 2008".



Trade officials said that previously, Norway, Canada, India and the EU
formally informed the TRIPS Council that they had changed their laws.



With regards to China's transitional review mechanism, trade officials
said that China described in detail the "impressive" actions it has
taken to strengthen intellectual property protection - some of this
highlighted in its document IP/C/W/505.



It also replied at length to most of the questions asked by Japan, the
US and EU (documents IP/C/W/498, 502 and 503). According to trade
officials, it however declined to answer some of the questions on the
grounds that these were related to a current dispute.



Trade officials said that Japan, the US and EU recognized China's
efforts but voiced concerns about an increase in piracy and
counterfeiting. The US and EU said that over 80% of counterfeits they
seized were from China, although Chinese piracy has declined in some
areas - the US mentioned software piracy.



On the issue of enforcement, trade officials said that this was on the
agenda because Japan wanted to introduce its new paper. However, Brazil,
China, Argentina and India reiterated their concerns over discussing
this issue and continued to insist that it is not a regular agenda item.



According to trade officials, Japan's paper (IP/C/W/501) focuses on its
customs seizures. Increasingly, counterfeited products arrive in smaller
packages - particularly by post, which Japan partly attributed to the
development of electronic commerce - and described as for "personal
use".



Japan said that it has responded by focussing more on personal-use
items, and by strengthening information on databases, the customs'
internal Intranet, and training.



According to trade officials, the US, Chinese Taipei, Canada, the EU and
Switzerland appreciated Japan's information - some of them expressing an
interest in the reference to e-commerce and the use of the Intranet.
They defended discussing this issue in the TRIPS Council.



Brazil said that the Council's mandate on discussing enforcement should
be on whether and how countries are complying with enforcement
provisions written into the TRIPS Agreement, and not on what it called
"trade measures at the border".



According to trade officials, Brazil then went through the TRIPS section
on enforcement, provision by provision, and asked how Japan was
complying with the many requirements (such as to ensure that the
procedure is fair and equitable, that there are no undue delays, that
accused parties have a fair hearing and are allowed judicial review).



Japan said that it would reply to Brazil later.



With respect to Art. 66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement (developed countries
reporting on how they meet the requirement to provide incentives to
their companies and institutions to transfer technology to
least-developed countries) and Art. 67 (on technical cooperation),
reports on both had been supplied by Switzerland, Japan, the EU and some
of its members, New Zealand, Norway, the US and Australia.



Sierra Leone and Uganda also presented papers on their needs for
technical cooperation. According to trade officials, this made them the
first two least-developed countries to do so under the TRIPS Council's
2005 decision to allow least-developed countries until 1 July 2013 to
implement the TRIPS Agreement.



The decision includes provisions for "enhanced technical cooperation"
for these countries and says: "With a view to facilitating targeted
technical and financial cooperation programmes, all the least-developed
country Members will provide to the Council for TRIPS, preferably by 1
January 2008, as much information as possible on their individual
priority needs for technical and financial cooperation in order to
assist them taking steps necessary to implement the TRIPS Agreement."



Trade officials said that the US, EU and Egypt welcomed the two
countries' papers and urged others to do the same. The EU hoped that by
the next meeting, more papers would be available so that the Council
could discuss the issues in depth.



According to trade officials, Brazil went through a large number of
items in several reports from developed countries and argued that they
were too long and complicated, and inappropriate for the two articles.



For example, Brazil questioned whether some assistance is truly for
technology transfer under Art. 66.2 and whether "harmonizing"
intellectual property laws is appropriate for Art. 67 when the TRIPS
Agreement says that countries are free to choose how to protect
intellectual property in their own ways.



Trade officials said that Brazil, China and India raised concerns
particularly over sections supplied by the European Patent Office for
the EU's report on technical cooperation, which they described as
un-factual, erroneous, subjective and patronizing.



On the other hand, developed countries defended their reports.



Chairperson Ambassador Yonov Agah of Nigeria reported that members
remain deadlocked over whether to make the secretariat of the Convention
on Biological Diversity (CBD) an observer in the TRIPS Council.



According to trade officials, Brazil and Egypt said that this was
illogical since the CBD is more directly concerned in some of the
Council's work than some existing observers. Brazil urged the Chair to
provide more information on who objects and why at the next meeting.



The next meeting of the TRIPS Council is scheduled for 26-27 February
2008. +