[Open-wipo] Informal notes from Day 1 of the WIPO SCP (June 1)

[Thiru Balasubramaniam]

Here are some notes from day one of the WIPO Standing Committee on the
Law of Patents (SCP) which took place in Geneva last week. Please
read these notes in conjunction with documents SCP/11/3 and SCP/11/4.
What was somewhat striking about the first day of the SCP was the
presence of at least five ambassadors from developing countries
(Argentina, Brazil, India, Peru, and Sri Lanka) which gave evidence of
the importance these WIPO Member States placed on the outcome of these
discussions. The general tenor of the first day of discussions on the
future work programme of the SCP was the emergence of two camps-one
which supported the Casablanca process and one which opposed the
Casablanca programme.



Thiru Balasubramaniam


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


http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/html.jsp?url=3Dhttp://www.wipo.int/edocs/md=
ocs/scp/en/scp_11/scp_11_3.doc

http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/html.jsp?url=3Dhttp://www.wipo.int/edocs/md=
ocs/scp/en/scp_11/scp_11_4.doc


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


June 1, 2005. WIPO SCP meeting

Notes by Marina Kukso


Moldova: We would like to nominate Mr. Boris Simonov, Director General
for Russia=92s Federal Service for Intellectual Property, Patents, and
Trademarks as Chair and we would like to nominate vice-chairs from China
and Nigeria.

Italy (On behalf of Group B): We second his nomination and the
nomination of the vice-chairs.

Argentina: Before the adoption of the agenda, we would like to put
forward a few points on behalf of the Group of Friends of Development
(GFOD). We congratulate you on your election as chair of the committee.
We're ready to contribute to a positive outcome. As is tradition, we
expect this committee to work on basis of consensus. We hope every
delegation will be heard and their views reflected in the final outcome.
We have rules of procedure and we hope the committee will abide by them
at all times. In our view, a final report should be prepared for future
adoption. For that purpose, it is important that Item 7 be agreed upon
by all. We ask the chair to confirm this will be done.

Chair: I thank the delegation of Argentina. Our task will strictly
observe the rules of procedure. And the discussions will be completely
clear and understandable but as far as I've understood the delegate, a
proposal was made on how to conduct the meeting which we should adopt or
reject. Any views? ...(no one has any views)...since the proposal made
by Argentina has received no requests for statements I will consider
that there is a unanimous decision that the summary by the chair under
Item 7 should be discussed and adopted by consensus. Since there are no
other proposals, we adopt the proposal.

On Item 3: Are there any comments? Since there are no comments, we will
adopt the agenda.

On Item 4: Are there any comments? (no comments) Since there are no
comments, we will adopt this item.

Item 5: Are there any comments?

China: In paragraph 24, in the ninth line, two phrases need to be
corrected: the recent report by trade commission published in October
2003 does not agree with the opinion that the patent applicants, other
than the general public, should be regarded as the customers. This
opinion is too narrow and inadequate...

Chair: Would anyone wish to discuss that amendment? (no comments) We can
adopt this. And we adopt the report as a whole.

Item 6: ...

Secretariat: This document is short. As the delegations will recall,
last September we had difficulty reaching a decision on a work program
and no consensus was reached on that proposal. GA also decided that the
dates of this committee should be determined by DG following informal
consultation. He convened them in Casablanca in February and those
consultations led to a series of recommendations by those present and
those present are listed in the annex to the document to the DG as to
how in the view of those present the work program of the standing
committee might be handled in the future. The DG adopted those
recommendations and the advice given to him and now they are here for
your consideration. The recommendations and the various delegations who
participated and the position of one of those in particular are recorded
in the annex.

Chair: Now that we have that information I have a proposal that
Argentina should introduce document SCP/11/4 as it is very important.

Argentina: I am also introducing another short document. Certainly this
is a document on which we have had some consultations but unfortunately
we couldn't afford Casablanca so we conducted our discussions here in
Geneva on behalf of Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Cuba, Dominican
Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Iran, Kenya, Peru, Sierra Leone, South Africa,
Tanzania, and Venezuela. I will introduce document SCP/11/4. We find the
Standing Committee very important and the turn of discussions lately
particularly in relation to the draft of SPLT. Patent law has
significant, cross-cutting implications for many areas of public policy.
New norms seeking to develop more stringent norms may have a serious
impact in fields as diverse as public health, environment, and
nutrition. The implications for public health were brought to the
attention of the international community in Doha. This crucial
declaration acknowledges that patent norms should not stand in the way
of public health goals of developing countries and LDCs. Doha encouraged
countries to take advantage of the flexibilities in TRIPs. ...We must
take into account the development dimension of our work. The central
concern of the development agenda is the need to ensure that WIPO does
not run counter to the policy space of developing countries and LDCs.
This means that norm-setting should safeguard...public policy goals.
This means that pre-grant and post-grant flexibilities should be
safeguarded, all of which have serious public implications. One of these
is fully in line with Doha. Negotiations on SPLT have been taking place
in WIPO since 2000. Some suggested that SPLT should be a new treaty.
They have proposed SPLT as an instrument of best practices. ...This
approach to negotiations embodies a vision of IP that believes that
norm-setting in WIPO should increase protection of patents without
consideration of developing country needs. This is highly debatable.
...In Casablanca the participant list was not balanced and not
representative of the full range of positions of member states.
...Organizations that are not fully part of WIPO were included and other
people were invited too. This has led several groups to disassociate
themselves from some aspects of the resolution. The purpose of the
amendment is to safeguard the flexibilities and policy space of WIPO
states. What they have sought is an inclusive and balanced approach
where all views are duly considered. The program of work by SCP adopted
at Casablanca does not constitute a new element in the negotiations of
the SPLT. As far as the work of SCP is concerned, it reflects a proposal
that was tabled and rejected. It was also rejected in May 2004. It is
surprising, therefore, that the same proposal is being submitted for
consideration for member states for a third time.

The document would fragment the SPLT into two tracks. The first period
....while leaving behind the issues that are of concern to LDCs. LDCs
have shown flexibility and have participated constructively by tabling
suggestions in past SCPs. An SPLT that limits itself to those four
issues would lead to considerable loss of flexibility of LDCs of
determination of national policy. This cannot be approached as a merely
procedural exercise. These issues involve core aspects of the patent
regime. Currently under article 27 of TRIPs, countries enjoy flexibility
to establish patent conditions domestically. The negotiation of this
treaty is important and we cannot leave issues that are important to
LDCs behind. document SCP/11/3 would not allow all states to make
proposals on all issues they consider to be relevant. And this would be
=93not fair.=94 In order to strike a balance, negotiations of SPLT should
take issues of concern to all members into account. For these reasons,
we are not in a position to accept document SCP/11/3. Negotiations
should continue on the basis of the draft treaty as a whole if we are to
get a final outcome that is balanced and inclusive. ...The SCP should
address all issues on the same footing and with the same level of
commitment. Mr. chair: a new treaty that would not take into account
flexibilities would be at odds with development objectives that the
international community has enshrined in international fora. This is
very important and this is a practical test of WIPO's commitment to
those development goals. Let us all work together to demonstrate that we
can treat IP issues with concern to development issues. We want to
reiterate our commitment to working on consensus and rules of procedure.

Chair: Thank you for introducing document SCP/11/4. We now have all the
information and can start discussion. We already have a proposal from
India and Egypt to take part in the discussion but i think we shouldn't
fly in the face of tradition, we should first of all give the floor to
the group of coordinators, for the spokesmen of the groups, and then we
can hear from individual delegations. No comments?

Italy: Group B looks forward to a positive and constructive outcome.
Harmonization will benefit all stakeholders. Concerning document
SCP/11/3, we think it represents an effective way of structuring and
progressing the work of this committee and of IGC. Group B believes it
represents a balanced work plan that represents the interests of all
member states.

Singapore: On behalf of the ASEAN association of Brunei, Cambodia,
Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, and Viet
Nam. ASEAN countries are interested and want to see more progress. While
it is important for SCP to address the issues of prior art, grace
period, etc, it is equally important that similar focus on disclosure
and genetic resources should be given. ASEAN wants to underscore the
salience of both moving in tandem so everyone is fully on board on
setting up the agenda. We understand the importance of a =93strong=94 paten=
t
regime but it has to be sensitive to economic, social, and other needs
of member states. It must promote flexibilities. We are in favor of
balancing users and rights holders. We stress the importance of
multilateralism and look forward to engagement of all members.

Chair: Both positions were very clear. Any other group coordinators wish
to take the floor? (none do)

India: We are interested in a positive outcome. We also wish to
associate my delegation and some others with the statement on procedure
that was made by Argentina. I was encouraged by your statement earlier
that the committee and the chair will respect the rules of procedure and
that the summary would be discussed and be agreed upon by all member states=
.

Egypt: We respect tradition and we have a statement. Can we make it now?
Thank you. We also agree with Argentina. Since beginning of SPLT
negotiations, Egypt has been unambiguous with regards to the necessity
to carry out negotiations in a balanced manner. This reflects core
values of the UN system. Egypt has not welcomed the exclusive and
unbalanced approach as has been reflected in SPLT. We believe that
Casablanca is discriminatory by focusing on issues of developed
countries while issues of relevance to developing countries are on a
different track. This view is reflected in document SCP/11/4. If
proponents of these negotiations have genuine desire to take it forward,
they should take into account the views of all members, including those
of developing countries such as prior art, grace period, etc. We are
interested in cooperation and interests of WIPO. The ending document
should reflect values of developed and developing countries and should
be responsive to public policy concerns.

Luxembourg: Speaking on behalf of EU, EU and its member states support
Group B. We support the work program in document SCP/11/3.

(break)

Chair: I would ask those who make statements to make constructive proposals=
.

Brazil: Brazil would like to be associated with Argentina. Patent law
harmonization is not just of interest to developed countries. It has
many serious implications for LDCs and we are firmly of the view that we
cannot approach harmonization as a purely technical exercise. We are all
fundamentally concerned with the potential substantive implications of
this new treaty. And we do not see how we can ultimately disassociate
the final, substantive outcome of these discussions from the general
setup and environment within which the negotiations take place,
including the underlying principles that guide them. This is an area
where substance and procedure intersect. The way the negotiations are
conducted may influence the outcome. ...Negotiations should always take
place in an open, transparent, and member-driven manner. Several
developing countries have found it necessary that we do not agree with
the proposed work plan. So it should be clear that this is a point to
which we attach great importance.

As for substance, we agree with Argentina and would stress in particular
that the four patent law provisions which document SCP/11/3 proposes as
the focus of accelerated discussions involve core aspects of the patent
regime. A new SPLT containing these four provisions but not containing
appropriate safeguards for the public interest and other issues of
relevance for developing countries would certainly compromise in an
undue manner the flexibilities of TRIPs. And our policy space has
already been considerably narrowed by conclusions of Uruguay round. But
we fully endorse the view that we should, and we can do it, to find a
balanced work plan for the SCP that would be able to cover issues of
interest to both developed and developing countries. Let us apply our
minds and efforts to do that. We would all gain from that and we are
willing to fully contribute.

Chair: Can i clarify one point? A balanced work plan...what do we mean
by that?

Brazil: Issues must be taken up together...otherwise it would be
unbalanced...that is what I mean by balanced.

Switzerland: Switzerland remains convinced that the harmonization of
material patent legislation is a key item and we must continue pursuing
this at a multilateral level, that means within WIPO because that will
enable us to increase the quality of patents granted and it will avoid
useless duplication of work amongst IP offices. So this is of interest
also to system users and the public at large. So it is important that
everything be done to ensure that efforts can be unified and that the
results be reached as soon as possible. Full harmonization of basic
patent law is a very comprehensive task, a very broad task, and the way
that work has been organized in the past few years has shown clearly
that satisfactory progress has not been achieved on any topic. So it is
urgent that if we want to achieve proper results to agree a new working
method in order to move forward in our work. A constructive solution
which we feel should be pragmatic and useful is given in document SCP/11/3.

Now why do I believe that it's both pragmatic and balanced? It's
pragmatic in that it proposes that we focus our work in the SCP on a
first list of four priority matters. But it also says that the IGC
should look at two priority matters and doing that we would be able to
achieve tangible results in the short term.

The solution offered in document SCP/11/3 is also balanced in that it
proposes that we continue with the same priorities and under the same
conditions and accelerate our work in order to rapidly achieve our
results on matters of great interest to our organization whether these
are matters linked to harmonization of patent law itself or questions
linked to development issues related to IP and genetic resources and
disclosure thereof. This is a subject in which Switzerland has a very
great interest. We have submitted very specific proposals and with
respect to the results of the two committees, it's up to the GA how they
should be dealt with in order to achieve the final results for our
international agreements. For all of these reasons, and with a view to
structure our work with harmonization of patent law, because this is the
issue before us today, Switzerland would join preceding delegations in
supporting the approach of document SCP/11/3. We should recommend this
to the next session of the GA.

South Africa: We align ourselves with Argentina. We approve of
transparency as a core element of making WIPO more responsive to the
needs and wishes of developing countries. We want to underscore the
mandate of the general assembly that the group should determine the date
of the next meeting. Our understanding was that they were only focused
on the date and not involve matters of substance or issues related to
SPLT. We do not agree with the Casablanca statement. We reinforce our
commitment to multilateralism. We should look at SPLT as a whole,
including all amendments, to ensure a balanced treaty on the substantive
harmonization of patent law. The SPLT should focus on the safeguarding
of public interest flexibilities and should not run counter to
flexibilities in the TRIPS agreement. It is important to have
comprehensive negotiations which address the interests of all countries.
Important proposals were made by developing countries and it was agreed
that issues of public health, etc, were issues of IP and that we should
discuss them. It is imperative that SPLT pay careful attention both to
the interests of right holders and interests of users and public at
large. We attach great importance to the preservation of flexibilities
and negotiations should be based on the mutual respect of the interests
of all countries. The discussions of all elements would therefore pave
the way to achieving a balanced approach. The present drive to
harmonization will undermine an entire element of the development
agenda. Harmonized standards would close a space of developing countries
to adapt their own patent laws to their own needs. If developing
countries were to adapt to developed countries' standards, they would
lose flexibilities. Our delegation cannot afford to lose this
opportunity and we believe in a transparent modus operandi. The
Casablanca statement does not constitute a new element in consultations.
[It looks similar to a] proposal made which was overwhelmingly rejected
by a majority of developing countries. If adopted, the Casablanca
statement would fragment negotiations of the SPLT into independent
tracks. And within the SCP where the outcomes are very clear, there
would be a treaty, leaving behind issues of importance to developing
countries. International negotiations should proceed on the basis of a
single undertaking as it has been going so far. We should consider the
treaty as a whole, not in a fragmented manner as proposed by the statement.

Chair: This is the last meeting of the committee before the GA so we
must come to a conclusion here. Have you proposed an additional meeting?

South Africa: No.

Morocco: We worked hard [in Casablanca] to ensure that the work went
well on the basis of a constructive approach. We welcome comments from
all members, so there was a very positive spirit. We wish to reaffirm
the importance of maintaining a multilateral framework, particularly
within WIPO, which is the suitable forum of debate for patents,
traditional knowledge, and genetic resources. We feel that the
objectives and program of work in the statement should set the frame for
work for SCP to accomplish harmonization. The delegation of Morocco
reaffirms its interest in harmonizing substantive patent law with a view
to improve the quality of patents and have a less costly and more
accessible patent system. We want a fair system for all users,
especially developing countries. Harmonization should promote economic
and social development of all countries so all people of the world can
have better conditions of living. If we don't lose site of these issues,
all issues will be overcome. We are convinced that multilateral work,
dynamic work, can be undertaken within the IGC. In looking at
international aspect of the matter, we would point to the importance of
having a development aspect and program of IP... This will promote even
more use of the IP system as a tool for economic, social, and cultural
development and as a means for humanity as a whole to achieve prosperity
through economic development. We hope all parties will be satisfied with
the eventual outcome.

Sudan: We support the statement by Morocco and the Casablanca statement.
We look forward to building a consensus that will enable us to carry on
and move forward.

India: We associate ourselves with Argentina. We are meeting today at an
important juncture of the ICP. Patent law is an important part of IP law
that has cross-cutting implications for public health, the environment,
etc. It is important for developing countries to understand the full
implications of the SPLT on their freedom to develop their own patent
laws and integrate them into their own development policies.

The mandate that was given was to have informal consultations to decide
dates. It was our expectation that these would take place in Geneva in
an open manner. The mandate did not include a time frame for conclusion
of selective issues. The representation in Casablanca was limited and
the vast majority of member countries were not invited. These informal
consultations should have been inclusive, transparent, and should have
included the wishes of all people, including developing countries.
....The decoupling of issues and identifying some for selective fast
tracking is not acceptable to us. We will continue discussions if items
are discussed holistically and if the last two items are included.

Pakistan: We are confronted with a critical challenge which we have been
facing for some time. We are being called upon to demonstrate that we
can formulate and agree upon norms in changing the world while making
sure that we take into account the needs of developing countries. Given
the slow pace of norm-setting exercises, there are grounds for
pessimism. But such pessimism may not be necessary if we do this with
shared objectives, common understanding, and negotiate transparently.
These principles clearly apply to our present deliberations. For the
past five years, a major component of SCP work has been on the SPLT
treaty, but much more remains to be done. This leads to a proposal to do
a first phase and then discuss two possible additional issues. This
hints that if there is no quick movement, these issues will be pursued
outside WIPO. We must ensure that concerns of all member states are
addressed and that there is a balanced outcome. This is accompanied by a
growing sense of unease and an increasing reluctance to quicken the
program by picking elements for early harvest. If some countries wish to
proceed outside WIPO, they are welcome to do so. The ingredients for a
deadlock appear to be in place. But a failure to progress should be
unacceptable to all of us. It will reflect badly on us and on the
organization and on our collective ability to address important issues.
More dangerously, it may lead to a situation where multiple IP regimes
come into existence. This will negatively affect users and hurt the idea
that IP should be more development-friendly.

Here are our suggestions:

1. Bring back complete transparency. Further work cannot proceed on the
basis of restricted access such as that which was embodied in the
Casablanca meeting. A few countries cannot be required to give
directives to other countries on any matter. Hence the SCP should begin
where it left off. And its future work should not be compromised by
initiatives such as Casablanca.
2. We need to reaffirm the objectives underpinning this exercise. These
include not just efficiency goals such as reducing the workload of
patent offices and increasing patent quality, but also the interests of
enhancing balance and equity. So we must include competitive practices, etc=
.
3. We need to take time to clarify a complex issue. We can produce a
comprehensive paper on the implications of the draft SPLT on public
issues such as national access to innovation, protection of national IP
assets, and so on. The paper can be carefully elaborated to ensure that
issues are fully addressed. A benefit will be to allay apprehensions
that may exist because of incomplete understanding of complex issues.
4. On the basis of discussions of the paper, a more informed decision
may be taken.

The more limited, =93early harvest=94 approach can be considered if the
package contains the interests of all countries and are not otherwise
selected. This may be perceived as slowing down an already slow process,
but in our view, this would not be the case. This is not our intent. A
transparent approach that seeks to enhance clarity would help build
consensus and provide a robust addition. This conforms with the idea of
making haste, but slowly.

US: From the perspective of the US, the importance of meaningful patent
law harmonization to all stakeholders highlights the urgent and imminent
need for adoption of a sensible work plan. We support the statement of
Group B. We believe that the proposal to limit the scope of the work of
the SCP to the discussion of four issues provides the best opportunity
for achieving near term agreement on core prior art principles of patent
law and provides the best opportunity for meaningful results. These
issues are key to patent quality throughout the world. Agreement on four
issues promotes higher patent quality, facilitates work sharing, and
decreases workloads and duplication. More importantly, it would allow
innovators to benefit from their own innovations in a way that is not
possible currently because of differences in national patent laws. We
firmly believe that continuing with the previous model of discussion in
document SCP/11/4 of discussing the entire treaty in addition to other
issues is inefficient, unmanageable, and unworkable and we cannot
proceed in this manner. We can however support the proposal in Paragraph
3 in document SCP/11/3 to adopt the SCP work plan and urge this
committee to do so.

Chile: We support Argentina. The best, if not the only, way of achieving
a balanced result in a possible SPLT is to include and discuss all
important aspects of patents including those being worked on at present.
So we agreed on first package to be negotiated to have a smaller scope
and then go on to other subjects. We thought that was balanced and would
take into account all member states' interests. That has been our
unvarying position. In any negotiation, the interests of all member
states should be taken into account, and we feel that Casablanca does
not take into account all these issues. We don't believe that some
issues more closely connected than others to IP. The belief that some
issues are more important, is not consistent with development goals. It
will be difficult to get balance and have two committees coordinate.
Many countries will not be properly represented at both meetings because
of lack of resources. What happens to those issues that are not
mentioned such as objectivity, exceptions and limitations to exclusive
rights of rightholders and other issues of public interest? So we do not
accept the proposal by the secretariat.

Philippines: We associate with Argentina, Morocco, and India. A balanced
and inclusive approach is significant to the achievement of the SCP
objective of improving the quality of benefits while taking into
consideration the national patent laws not only of developed countries
but also developing and least developed countries. The impact of these
countries attached to the SPLT must be carefully understood and
considered since we think that the progress of a patent system should be
geared not just toward improvement of system itself but also to
development of developing countries and LDCs.

Ecuador: We want to achieve a positive result. ...It is necessary that
we make several additional references to the reasons for convening this
meeting. I don't want to go into reasons for why Ecuador has sponsored a
program that considers the impacts of patent law, particularly in
developing countries, especially those affected by poverty and economic
crisis. This patent law, if not correctly agreed on, affects health,
education, agriculture, biological and genetic resources, access to
knowledge, transfer of technology, and an ever greater increase in the
gap between those countries that are able to invest in science and
innovation and those that quite simply have not enough to cover the
basic needs of their people. Just let me remind you of the impact of
patents on the manufacture of medicines and pharmaceuticals that is of
such magnitude that WTO adopted the Doha Declaration in explicit
recognition of the close link between IP and health and the impacts on
countries with epidemics and pandemics that affect the poorest
countries. I won't refer to other fields that are affected by an
inadequate and partial vision of the patent regime, but I can't omit
mentioning education and agricultural as areas that when affected do not
just hold up the progress of a country, but affect the very survival of
a country. Once again, in no way what I have said implies disregard for
IPR, neither does it imply that we ignore our international commitments
on the subject, but we would be in a difficult position if there were an
increase in obligations and a decrease in flexibilities. In other words,
if there were more norms with regards to patents and other IP issues. I
think it's clear why Ecuador, a developing country, is filled with
concern and was worried when we were not invited to Casablanca,
especially as those consultations did not follow the principles of
transparency and inclusion that are required if we are to have
negotiations on an extremely sensitive subject that affects large groups
of people. We are surprised that that privilege was given to
organizations that cannot replace the views of a member state of this
organization. It seems that these are procedures that should be
rectified for the very good of IP itself and its credibility at the
international level. In addition, document SCP/11/3 does not contain any
innovation. It is nothing new. It was rejected, there was no consensus,
and it has been the subject of many questions. While lack of novelty
resolves many procedural aspects, the greatest difficulty resides in its
contents and the difficult nature of negotiating these difficult
subjects. And these issues imply the acceptability of principles that
would affect the policy decisions of developing countries applying Doha
and fulfilling other objectives... If we have a proposal like this, we
will be jeopardizing issues of concern to many people. We are prepared
to work together to fulfill the GA mandate in line with all the rules of
this house for the benefit of all.

Iran: We associate with Argentina. The developing world has a unified
perception about this document. In order to be constructive, we have to
deconstruct =96 deconstruct document SCP/11/3. There are fundamental
issues with this. First, procedurally. The mandate that was given and
the scope of recommendations and the discussions procedurally contradict
WIPO regulations and laws. Second, psychology. Psychology refers to
delegates. In the document we have the word =93delegates,=94 which is, I
think, legally and officially something else compared to what was there.
Finally, on the substance. The substance contradicts the discussions
that had already taken place...It is somehow a repetitious tendency.
Putting all of these issues in a package, we cannot accept it. Now what
can be done? Very easy. Three short but very important mega-concepts:

1. Be inclusive and transparent.
2. Keep the interests of all member states in mind. WIPO is a member
driven entity and it is not in the interest of some countries to have
harmonization...it affects many areas of public life..and we are here to
represent the interests of the public.
3. We have to make consensus. Consensus-building has its own psychology
and this means norm-setting with careful attention to all countries.
So these issues and the development agenda must be taken into more
account, but I will limit my comments because now, I think, lunch is
more important.

Chair: very relevant comments, but now we break for lunch.

(break)

...

UK: I did attend the Casablanca meeting. I have no regrets. I found the
discussion open and constructive. I agree with the statement from
Argentina. It is very important to get the global IP system right so
that it benefits all member states and the public. Those who know me
know that I often quote a very important philosopher who said that
philosophers often interpret the world but that we must make it better.
I think that IP can be used to make progress. We have not made progress
and one of the reasons could be that we're trying to attack too many
issues and issues where we're at different stages of understanding the
issues involved. I found the Casablanca discussions useful and what came
out of those discussions was not a directive, it was a suggestion for
things to discuss. It's important to remember that six issues are
supposed to be involved, 4 at ICP and 2 at IGC. [We believe that a]
robust, effective, and actionable agenda could emerge. I have thought
about the outcome of the Casablanca meeting in light of various
discussions since then. I still believe that the best way to make
progress is to take issues of equal importance in parallel. To focus on
substantive issues in SCP and others in IGC...a grace period would
provide a safety net for those who need to go public, and a novelty
definition would ensure that patent rights could only be obtained for
genuine additions to knowledge. That is a very detailed agenda for this
committee...and I believe that separating the issues at this stage is
wise because it will let us focus our agenda clearly. The IIM has
already started its work. Yes, it's important that the development
implications are taken account. Yes, it's important that we address the
direct issues as to how IP affects technology transfer but we must also
consider fringe issues, even if we can't determine them. That work gives
each body a full working agenda. I have always understood that the
outcome of those working groups have to be brought together (as
suggested by Switzerland), so that we can all look at those outcomes,
see what they provide, and see where a truly diplomatic conference could
have an effect. The whole point is to be pragmatic, to identify the
changes, and bring them to fruition. This mechanism has a bigger chance
of working than a mechanism that has failed in the past.

Australia: We too endorse group B. How can we proceed in light of
interventions that have already been made? Australia did not attend the
Casablanca meeting. We have no comment on the process. Australia's
endorsement is based on our view that it is broader than the original
work that was put forward last year. This new work program includes two
additional patent law issues. This new work program includes an
international development agenda. It explicitly proposed a key need of
civil society [to avoid] unwanted encroachments on public domain. The
work program may require some refinement so we can see how committing to
it will benefit all member states. Especially how we will make sure that
all issues are dealt with as we continue discussion. My suggestion asses
the impact of the patent law change on a range of particular interests,
such as small business. [In my country]...this must be approved by a
separate committee. ...the most fundamental role of WIPO has been that
of creating and managing international law regarding IP law. But I
stress the term =93law.=94 We should maintain our focus on the law. We
should not transform ourselves into an agency that affects the law of
all things. We should improve the law of patents. But we must analyze
the impact of patent law on civil society. Adopting a work program that
is based on this issue is what [we suggest]. (He mentions Pakistan's
proposal as being similar to Australia's.)

Japan: Our delegation attended Casablanca. We think that in document
SCP/11/3, with six issues, the first four issues, contribute to all
member states and all member states can benefit. We fully support the
discussion of both issues concurrently. We support acceleration in this
forum. The statement in document SCP/11/3 is a good basis for further
progress.

Argentina: We would like to respond to the invitation you made to us
about the proposal you made. However, we would like to explain that we
think that all proposals presented today are constructive and in fact,
this morning you described the Swiss proposal as constructive, we
believe that the Friends Group made a useful proposal and we could move
ahead with negotiations this way. A great majority of countries
expressed themselves in favor of our proposal because they see it as
balanced and defending the interests of everyone. Regarding a possible
package negotiation...we have a mathematical questions....4+2 issues,
6-4, we don't think this is constructive. And the concerns of the
developing countries were clear from today with two subjects and many
other topics we felt to be of interest during the negotiations. For this
reason, we would like to state that in fact we don't see any way out of
this if we start going round in circles around the Casablanca statement.
There are other proposals on the table, such as [our] proposal. We don't
think we're going to find a way out if we start going round in circles.
Unfortunately this will make us turn round the Casablanca declaration.

Chair: Certainly all proposals are constructive. I concentrated my
attention on the approach which was suggested which would cover the
positions of both sides, the win-win situation, nothing more than that.
I don't wish to anticipate item 7, but we just have to find a way out.
Of course we don't want to go round in circles because that won't
provide us with a constructive solution, but a solution that gives all
countries a winning side [is ideal]. If i was misunderstood when I spoke
about the Swiss proposal, that's not true, I just wanted to highlight
Switzerland.

China: ...The Chinese delegation previously emphasized that the selected
topics should not just cover the issues of concern to developed
countries but also issues important to developing countries,
particularly the issue of disclosure of the source of genetic resource.
The final text formulated by SCP should reflect the discussion on both
sides of the issue. We regret to see that our sentiment was not captured
by Casablanca.

We would like to reiterate that the issue of disclosure is often of
paramount importance for us. The issue of genetic resources has drawn
broad attention internationally and has been discussed in other fora
besides WIPO. Since this issue relates to the requirements for patent
applications, WIPO and especially the SCP is quite competent for the
settlement of this problem. We would like to cooperate and integrate
those efforts...and take a more activist attitude toward internationally
acceptable law on this issue. We strongly encourage the inclusion of the
results into the final text of the SPLT. Conversely, a treaty that
merely includes other issues, other results, precluding the results
concerning developing countries, this is not desired by us. We call on
the SCP to act by including this issue in the agenda. Finally, the
Chinese delegation believes that facilitating technology transfer, etc.,
is of importance for effective operation of the patent system. We
support broad and extensive discussion of these issues in WIPO, maybe
even in the long term.

Colombia: We are worried about the unofficial discussions held without
our countries and many other countries. We feel that this procedure does
not allow us to participate as the organization would enable us to but
was restricted to a limited amount of countries on a subject which was
of interest to many other countries. We hope that the consultative
process in the future will be open and inclusive. We should not leave
aside the other two equally important issues. These last two are closely
related to the patent system.


Bolivia: We agree with Argentina. We fully recognize the agenda for
development. We are concerned with procedures used on other occasions.
Sticking strictly to the rules of procedure will give us credibility.
Our negotiations and possible results should fully include the interests
of all, I repeat, all the member states and not just some. Along these
lines we cannot accept the proposal made by the secretariat in document
SCP/11/3 because we have doubts about its basis and legitimacy in terms
of procedure as well as in terms of content. Specifically we are
concerned with references to a process done on an equal footing. There
are common subjects in both fora, be they separate or together.
Pragmatism should be wedded to the concept of consensus. There is an
opportunity for all interlocutors to get the good intentions that we
have had in previous rounds.

Germany: We support group B. document SCP/11/3 is useful. A reduced
package is the only way to get tangible results. The broad technique has
been proven to be ineffective. It would be prudent to focus on
development, so we want to support the practical and pragmatic approach.

Canada: Canada generally supports group B. In the interventions so far,
there appear to be two concerns: one for a balanced approach, and one
for the idea that some urgency should be attached to certain issues. We
fully support both ides. We should be focusing on outcome and substance
and not on the process. document SCP/11/3 outlines a process for
balanced and accelerated discussion and we call on WIPO to get on with
work which we believe has the potential to respond to all member states'
concerns and needs. We urge SCP to continue to advance these important
issues to achieve a balanced and tangible result and to avoid any
progression of deadlock. We should all be concerned with the problem of
deadlock which appears to be creeping in. We hope that all countries
will support document SCP/11/3 as a manageable approach keeping in mind
the needs of all parties.

Italy: We refer to Group B: Italy was in Casablanca and took part in
that meeting to find an agreement as to how to continue discussion
seeing what impact this would have on all WIPO meetings. The interests
of all, not just of some, should be safeguarded. In our statement we
reaffirmed the importance of carrying on a discussion of problems in
WIPO on the development dimension and emphasized the need to carry on
issues in the committees concerned and we highlighted six major issues.
To react to your request about the Swiss proposal: we find it's useful.

Korea: We fully endorse the key elements of Casablanca. The object of
future work is prevalent. We agree that we should discuss each of the 6
issues in the future. We have two comments:

1. The importance of transparency in conducting our work. As mentioned
before, multilateralism is the cornerstone of the UN system and should
for the basis of our discussions. In a view to work in a transparent
manner, consultations should continue.
2. We need to get consensus between developing and developed countries.
Harmonization would make applications more convenient, etc etc. The
sooner that we do this, the better it will be for all member states. But
we also think that careful consideration should be given to the needs of
developing countries.

Peru: We associate with Argentina. This committee could not adopt all
recommendations in document SCP/11/3 because one of them is to ensure
that the disclosure of genetic material should be discussed in the IGC.
As we know, the meeting that will be held next week will be the last
under the present mandate of IGC and it is unclear what the future of
that committee will be. What is clear is that disclosure of genetic
resources is connected with the discussion of the patent system which is
why it should remain in this committee and not in any other. For Peru,
the issues that have been included in document SCP/11/3 are all
important but we think that disclosure of origin is the most important
one and should be dealt with here. But there are also many issues apart
from these six that are important and have different priorities for
different delegations and one delegation cannot say to another that this
or that issue should have priority. That work was more consistent with
possible negotiations of a possible SPLT. If we followed work along
those lines, it might have been more useful, but we hope to find a solution=
.

France: We agree with Group B. We were present at Casablanca. The
results were a proposal and we have to discuss it now. We are not
discussing a decision, but a proposal. That proposal is how we can
achieve progress and tangible and balanced results. Separate fora will
help efficiency. We like the impact study proposal. We believe that
study would be important and would make it possible to clarify the
situation as regards the possibilities, challenges, and possibly even
threats that have been mentioned.

New Zealand: We support the consideration of the origin of genetic
resources, but this does not exclude consideration of these issues at
some later date because these issues do have a direct bearing on the
SPLT. Having two parallel sources does not mean that they remain separate.

Chair: Now the observers have a chance to speak.

Brazil: Just before we hear the observers, we'd like to stress the
Argentinian point of view. As far as we're concerned, the Casablanca
statement is not a basis for agreement here and not a basis for a future
work program. I am concerned because when you referred to a Swiss
alternative, versus that from developing countries, you said that
developing countries' proposal only had six elements. But there is a
position in document SCP/11/4 and that position is that countries are
willing to continue negotiations on all issues on the table, we do not
preclude, and do not fragment, but we are willing to work on a
manageable and effective work program on the basis of all issues on the
table and on any understanding that they are not fragmented and
separated into different tracks.

Sweden: We support the G Group and Luxembourg. document SCP/11/3 has
important issues that we need to work on. We need to have a step by step
approach and focus on the issues. The four issues in document SCP/11/3
are of utmost importance to increase patent quality and reduce
duplication of work. This should be in the interest of all members of
this committee. We would like to stress that the other two issues are of
equal importance, especially that of disclosure of origin of genetic
material. We support interface of the work in different committees. We
want constructive efforts for a balanced agreement.

Ireland: We are committed to patent law harmonization and to make
progress on the disclosure of genetic resources. We support Casablanca =96
it deals with not just the four issues, but the other two issues too. In
December of 2004, the EU had a proposal for WIPO. We believe IGC is the
most appropriate forum for this issue.

USA: We are responding to the request for reactions to the Swiss
proposal. The proposal is that the four and two issues move forward in
parallel to a single diplomatic conference at some point in time. The US
cannot support this proposal because it prejudges a possible outcome for
an issue for which there is little agreement at all in the international
realm. There has been some reference to disclosure with regards to
genetic material. This issue is too immature to suggest that it would
move to a diplomatic conference.

Spain: We support Group B and the EU. We support the work program in
document SCP/11/3 because we believe it is constructive and achieves
results in the short term.

Ecuador: Regarding the various proposals. I said this morning that we
were concerned about only dealing with a couple of specific aspects of
the implications of any changes to patent law. And I note that in
reaction, there is only a references to issues relating to genetic
resources and in some cases to traditional knowledge. While it's true
that this is an important aspect, it cannot in any way be considered as
one of the issues that might balance the contents of a discussion that
would cover all issues coming under the heading of patents. I think i
spoke at some length this morning when i said that there are issues that
do have impacts on development and this is precisely what should urge us
to have a broad open discussion that covers all those aspects so that we
can focus properly and cover all concerns of all members and all parties
that are interested in working on a comprehensive agreement. This is
exactly what a majority of the delegations have been supporting,
especially on those aspects of concern to developing countries, not just
aspects that are important to certain parties and that would not cover
the whole range of problems or issues that would be included in a
conversation involving everybody.

Hungary: We support B group. Hungary is hopeful that a proposal will
contribute to a solution. We also endorse the Pakistan and Australia
proposal concerning an impact study.

(break)

European Patent Office: We associate ourselves with Group B. Some
delegations were concerned with the impact on development and the
suggestion about impact studies would be an excellent idea which would
bring the discussion forward.

EGA: We are the Association of European Generic Medicines. Our motto is
=93to assist the right of people to access of medicines at an affordable
price.=94 Most sensitive issues like AIDS and malaria are in the
pharmaceutical field. Patents are a very important tool in market
competition. They can be a very useful tool which promotes innovation.
They can be dangerous if they block competition. They can be used to
abuse patent rights. All six points are important but cannot take issues
out of context because patent life has two parts: grant of patent (six
issues) and enforcement of patents. Both should be discussed in full
context. We are interested in strong, well-examined patents, but we are
of the opinion that patents should keep their original object of
promoting innovation and not become a bar to prevent innovation and a
source of abuse.

India: We also have spoken on the need for proper impact assessment.
Impact assessment has a place, but a different one from here, now. The
question of impact assessment rightly sits with the development agenda.
We will have a chance to discuss impact assessment with the development
agenda. Impact assessment will not make the Casablanca statement more
palatable to developing countries.

Chair: I have a question. How do you propose to carry out these
studies...through WIPO? Or through an integrated follow up of countries
who are most concerned with this. Who would carry this out? Interested
countries or the secretariat?

India: In the context of work undertaken by the secretariat, surely the
question of an impact assessment can be undertaken with the assistance
of WIPO, but that is a separate issue. We are here talking about a very
limited issue. And impact assessment is not very relevant no matter how
important it may be.

Pakistan: Since this question of impact assessments has been touched on
by a number of delegates, we would like to clarify our proposal. Our
proposal is in the context of proposing a comprehensive paper jointly
with UNCTAD on public policy issues such as national capacities to
innovate, protection of national IP assets, etc, and we have proposed
that the terms of reference of such a paper may be carefully evaluated
to ensure that different levels of development will be fully addressed.
The benefits would be that it would allay the apprehensions that exist
because of an incomplete understanding of this fairly complex issues and
it would identify the areas ...where additions may be proposed. There is
a degree of divergence of how to go about the future program in terms of
one or the other option and in no way have we accepted the procedure
through which Casablanca was carried out. But what we see as the utility
of this exercise is that once we take away the options of how to carry
away the process forward, this will allow us to take some time out to
look at this complex issue more closely. And this exercise will help us
move forward on taking a decision on the procedure decision in front of us.

Chair: How much time will it take to investigate the study of the impact
assessment?

Pakistan: Putting a timeline on it is for all of us to agree on. The
study must be comprehensive to examine all the implications of all the
issues involved. So it should be fairly comprehensive. As for the
timeline, we would be willing to go with whatever is decided as long as
the terms of reference are clearly laid out.

India: The point made by Pakistan captures a basic concern and demand
made by this and other delegations. Before we proceed further down this
path of greater harmonization at increasingly high levels, we should
make a comprehensive study of the impact of existing international laws
and conventions of IP and the likely impact of the laws that are being
considered. It would have to be a very comprehensive process and I agree
that we should have this study before we continue because at the end of
it, many of the doubts and misgivings that have beset this committee
will be removed because developing countries will be ensured that the
proposals will lead to a greater benefit for them.

Switzerland: Having tried to formulate some possible middle-ground way
forward which ultimately could hopefully be to the benefit of all of us,
I would like to maybe clarify our position a little bit more so that it
is clear for everybody what is meant by it because we have no written
communication on this issue. Since November of 2000 the SCP has held six
sessions to discuss the scope and content of the SPLT. This work has led
to many useful results. While a good deal of progress has been achieved
so far, recent discussions in the SCP suggest that the current model for
discussion may not be as productive as it could and should be. According
to us, there are several reasons for the lack of progress. First is
complexity of the issues. This leads to inadequate discussion of certain
issues and leads to postponement of others. Several issues in SPLT have
been very controversial. Discussions on these divisive issues have been
the focus of much debate within the SCP and have often hampered the
desired progress. The same is also true for several of the proposals
tabled to the newly established IIM in the various papers. An expansive
SPLT including all issues currently in the draft SPLT documents and in
the various papers in the IIM might therefore not be achievable in the
near future. So if we do not want to overload the boat, I think that all
stakeholders should opt for a reduced package. A reduced package doesn't
mean a =93no=94 to other issues, it just means that during this harvest we
try to get what we can get and maybe next harvest get what we can get
then. This is why Switzerland is proposing a practical approach aiming
for a reasonable package without adherence to a rigid framework. The
so-called reduced package of document SCP/11/3 containing 4 more
patent-law-technical issues should be dealt with in SCP as a priority
and the two issues should be dealt with as a priority in IGC. Having
said this, I can make it very clear that to my delegation, we are
willing to prolong the mandate of IGC which ends this year. So both
packages are reduced packages. And this reduction should have no
negative impact on any issue of interest for any delegation present in
this room. The goal would be that the SCP as well as the IGC, which can
both not decide but just make recommendations, will make recommendations
to the GA as soon as they have finished the discussion on these issues.
Nobody would lose anything following such a procedure and every
delegation would then have the possibility to decide in the GA in light
of the results of both reduced packages whether they ultimately get a
plus and therefore are willing to go to a diplomatic conference or
whether they think the package is not interesting enough to go to a
diplomatic conference. Such a pragmatic approach would not affect patent
harmonization, but it would guarantee that SCP work would continue with
a clear focus and that work in IGC could continue with a clear focus and
we will all get a result in the near future which is for the benefit of
all of us.

US: We have misgivings about impact assessments. We share the view of
Argentina that transparency and inclusiveness are paramount. In that
light, it troubles us that an impact assessment would appear to involve
convening some sort of body, potentially involving a subset of this
secretariat, and this type of discussion would raise concerns with
regards to transparency and inclusiveness. Member states would be better
situated to determine impacts and we would have misgivings about impact
assessments.

Eurasian Patent Office: Almost all the delegations have spoken in favor
of the harmonization process of patent law continuing. As we see it, the
harmonization of the norms of patent law is only possible for such norms
as exist in the legislations of the states. And regard to whose
application a certain experience is being acquired and the consequences
of applying these norms are basically known. Such norms as prior art,
etc etc, all exist in the laws of the states which are represented here.
Therefore, these norms in the form in which they exist could quite
successfully be harmonized. At the same time, experience and the
legislation of states to date do not correspond to how sources of
genetic resources and traditional knowledge are used by those states in
defining inventive steps....In any case, in the earlier work of our
committee, this kind of clear information about how these concepts are
being applied to assess prior art and novelty, such information was not
submitted in any clear form. And subsequently the Eurasian Patent Office
supports the contents of document SCP/11/3 so that the process of
harmonization can be implemented in package form, that is, as proposed
in this document. At the same time, we feel that it is very important,
and perhaps the most important thing, to look at how to define sources
of genetic resources and how inventions should be announced and what is
the situation of traditional knowledge, of folklore, etc, and only once
such concepts have been established, we will acquire the experience and
research and analysis will be carried out on the effect of such concepts
on the assessment of novelty of invention. ...And then it will become
possible if it is objectively proven that corrections are needed to the
conference, then we can harmonize, even now.

AIPPI: This exercise initially did not' look too difficult...but it
became obvious that problems were becoming more and more
complex...AIPPI, with a concern for efficiency, voted for a resolution
limiting the SPLT to a certain number of issues, specifically on patents
limiting questions arising before the granting of a patent. If we don't
want to talk about counterfeit, we'll go on discussing those issues
until the end of the third millennium which his why we wanted a limited
amount of issues. We agreed on the importance of this subject while
feeling that this subject ought to be addressed by the IGC. We are now
faced by the end of the mandate of the committee...there was practically
unanimity and this resolution was adopted. The aim of the resolution
which would have made it possible to achieve a first treaty for
harmonization and the other points will be dealt with in other treaties.
AIPPI was not present in Casablanca, but we give our strong support to
document SCP/11/3. This document represents a balance and seems to us to
fulfill the interests of all countries. This gives a valid defense of
the interests of patent holders because it reduces costs for obtaining a
patent while avoiding reproductions and repetitions. The lowering of
costs would be significant. Finally, increase in quality of patents
granted seems to be extremely important and seems to be of importance to
patent holders and others.

MSF: [see statement]

ABAPI: [see complete paper]...Our association supports broad
harmonization to bring predictability which will increase incentive for
foreign direct investment in developing countries. We are now in
deadlock and fear a risk if it persists. Pakistan suggested a reduced
package would be acceptable if it is balanced. We also believe that a
reduced package can be of advantage to developing countries from a
development perspective. The current proposal should be supplemented by
a first to file system...

CPTech: [see statement:]

APAA: We support the Casablanca statement. This issue is important for
Asian countries.

BioTech Industry Association: Many of our members are small companies
who are 5-10 years away from producing new products. Our members need
strong IP. Patents will lead to more and better products, so we support
document SCP/11/3.

Denmark: We support the Casablanca process and we think that we should
begin doing something with that. We support both the agenda with the
reduced package and the other agenda. We think that the time is ripe for
going further and going into real negotiations concerning these issues.

FICPI: The last resolution had mostly unanimity. If no progress is made
here in SCP, the governments will independently enact a reduced package
and developing countries will lose an opportunity to pursue their
interest and express their concerns about harmonization. We support
document SCP/11/3.

JIPA: The main role of patents is to develop industry. Now we have many
difficulties without harmonization. We hope harmonization will be
realized as soon as possible...the most important issue is acceleration
of discussion of SPLT...therefore we believe that Casablanca is helpful
and we support it.

CSC: [See statement.]

Turkey: The six issues should be addressed in discussions on harmonization.

Pakistan: We thank those who have supported our proposal and would like
to make two clarifications:
Regarding the statement of the US: Our proposal is not comparable with
Casablanca in terms of transparency. Our proposal would ensure
transparency because terms approved through intergovernmental process
and efficiency would help us take informed decisions.

Regarding the statement of ABAPI: We think that a comprehensive approach
is the preferable approach but then we said that limited early harvest
approach could be considered if the issues were balanced and reflected
the concerns of all, not just the 4 issues included.

Chair: I'd like to thank all participants. We are all looking to find a
promising plan for future work and a worthy solution. Certainly
everybody has expressed the need for harmonization. Everybody wants a
balance of interest and this is being done in a positive and
constructive manner, so I thank everyone. I also thank the NGO's who
represent the business community and its concerns if the situation goes
off in the wrong direction. This is all very important and we have to
take into account the conditions which have brought them to this.

In substance, we have two plans for development. It's clear that most of
the developed countries support the plan for development in document
SCP/11/3. the positions of concern to the developing countries have been
listed in document SCP/11/4. A proposal was made by Switzerland to find
a way to ensure the further development of this process. Many countries
supported this proposal but some also opposed it. Tomorrow we have to
summarize the discussion and before we all go off to the reception of
the DG I hope that we can try tomorrow to find and establish a
recommendation that we can put before the meeting of the 41st assembly
and this will already be movement forward, we won't be going round in
circles, and we will show that we have tried to find a pragmatic way to
show how we will progress on the work for a future plan and with this
recommendation we can start discussion at assembly sessions. So we
haven't been wasting our time yet again if we simply talk about our
impressions without making clear recommendations, then once again,
inevitably we will have to repeat our positions, repeat our concerns and
call for the construction of a workable approach. The process is not
just technical, there are political decisions as well. We could find
solutions for the technical aspect, but today the process of
globalization is not just standing still, it gives us new challenges and
we will have to find a solution that will help us take into account the
concerns of all countries. If we don't take this into account, then we
won't be helping find a solution for the development of all society
because IP is already legal and political and I would call upon all of
you, in tomorrow's discussion already, to be more pragmatic in your
approaches and to seek confined recommendations that we can send to the
assembly. Thank you.

Argentina: We would like to be the first to reserve our position and
leave space for discussion until tomorrow because we've said that we
have to examine the timeliness, possibility, and need to put a
resolution before the GA. This is very important and we can discuss this
tomorrow. The GFOD and the friend of the Friends will meet at 9:15 in
room 32.

Chair: We will try to create a draft summary which we would like to
distribute by 10:0AM. We propose that we discuss this draft in group
meetings: Group of Friends, etc, but we hope this discussion will take
place country by country and that by 11:00AM we'll come back to the
general discussion of the summary.

Argentina: But we note that at 10:00AM there will be a draft summary you
will present. Then each member state is free to analyze this draft and
doing so in groups to which they belong is helpful, although we don't
think we need to force that, but it has to be done in regional groups.

Chair: Certainly that's a recommendation that I'm simply proposing that
the proposal will be distributed and you will have an hour to discuss it.

Italy: Group B will meet in room A at 10:00AM.