WORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONIP/C/W/400/Rev.1
18 June 2003
(03-3259)
Council for Trade-Related Aspects
of Intellectual Property RightsOriginal:  English
ARTICLE 27.3(b), THE RELATIONSHIP  BETWEEN THE TRIPS AGREEMENT
AND THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY, AND
THE PROTECTION OF TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE
Communication from Switzerland
Revision
The present document is a revised version of  the Swiss communication previously circulated
in document IP/C/W/400.  It contains, as an annex, Switzerland’s proposals regarding the declarationof the source of genetic resources and traditional knowledge in patent applications, which was
circulated as WIPO document PCT/R/WG/4/13 to the Fourth Session of the Working Group on
Reform of the Patent Cooperation Treaty held on 19-23 May 2003.
_______________
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The present communication from Switzerland complements the communication of
15 June 2001
1 on the review of Article 27.3(b) and addresses the issues set out in paragraph 19 of the
Doha Ministerial Declaration.  As a concrete and practical measure, Switzerland presents proposalsregarding the declaration of the source of genetic resources and/or traditional knowledge in patent
applications.
I. A FAIR AND BALANCED APPROACH
With regard to the issues addressed in this communication, Switzerland holds the view that a
fair and balanced approach must be taken.  On one hand, Switzerland supports the effective protection
of biotechnological innovations through intellectual pr operty rights, in particular patents.  Switzerland
considers the current wording of Article 27.3(b) to provide a well-balanced solution that takes into
account the interests and needs of all Members of the WTO.  On the other hand, a fair and balancedapproach necessitates effective, efficient, practical and timely solutions to the issues arising in the
context of access to genetic resources and traditional knowledge and the fair and equitable sharing of
the benefits arising out of their utilization.
II. PROPOSALS REGARDING THE DECLARATION OF THE SOURCE OF GENETIC
RESOURCES AND TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE IN PATENT APPLICATIONS
Switzerland proposes to explicitly enable the national patent legislation to require the
declaration of the source of genetic resources and traditional knowledge in patent applications.  More
specifically, Switzerland proposes to amend the Regulations under the Patent Cooperation Treaty
                                                     
1 See document IP/C/W/284.IP/C/W/400/Rev.1
Page 2
(PCT) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) to explicitly enable the Contracting
Parties of the PCT to require patent applicants, upon or after entry of the international application into
the national phase of the PCT procedure, to declare the source of genetic resources and/or traditional
knowledge, if an invention is based on or uses such  resource or knowledge.  Furthermore, Switzerland
proposes to afford applicants the possibility of satisfying this requirement at the time of filing aninternational patent application or later during the in ternational phase.  In case an international patent
application does not contain the required declaration, national law may foresee that in the national
phase the application is not processed any further until the patent applicant has furnished the required
declaration.
By reference, the proposed amendment to the PCT would also apply to the Patent Law Treaty
(PLT) of WIPO.  Accordingly, the Contracting Parties of the PLT would be able to require in theirnational patent laws that patent applicants declare the source of genetic resources and/or traditional
knowledge in national patent applications.  Based on the PLT, national law may foresee that the
validity of granted patents is affected by a lacking or incorrect declaration of the source, if this is due
to fraudulent intention.
These proposals are to be seen in the wider context of the efforts of various international
forums in the area of access to genetic resources and traditional knowledge and the fair and equitable
sharing of the benefits arising out of their uti lization, including in particular the Convention on
Biological Diversity (CBD);  th e Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO);  the Intergovernmental
Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore(IGC) of WIPO;  and the TRIPS Council.  The proposals are intended to enhance the cooperation
between these international forums and the mutual  supportiveness of the applicable international
agreements.
III. THE FARMERS' PRIVILEGE
In the view of Switzerland, the current wording of Article 30 of the TRIPS Agreement allows
the national legislator to introduce the Farmers' Privilege in the national patent law.  In the ongoing
revision of the Swiss Federal Law on Patents for Inventions (LPI), it is foreseen to introduce the
Farmers' Privilege in the Swiss patent legislation.
IV. THE PROTECTION OF TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE
In the view of Switzerland, the IGC of WIPO is  the primary international forum to deal with
the intellectual property-related issues of the protection of traditional knowledge.  The work of the
TRIPS Council on these issues should benefit from and draw upon the work being carried out by the
IGC of WIPO.  This approach will help to avoid the duplication of efforts and outcomes.
At the outset of the discussions on the protection of traditional knowledge, it is necessary to at
least establish a working definition of the term "traditional knowledge" and to determine the
objectives of this protection.  Only the clarification of these two very fundamental issues will allow to
focus the discussions and bring the results necessary for an effective protection of traditional
knowledge.
With regard to specific measures for the protection of traditional knowledge, Switzerland
considers the international gateway it proposed and described in greater detail in its communication of
15 June 2001, to be of crucial importance.IP/C/W/400/Rev.1
Page 3
V. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TRIPS AGREEMENT AND THE
CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
Switzerland generally takes the view that the relationship between the trade regime as
established by the WTO and multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs) should be governed bythe principles of no hierarchy, mutual supportiveness and deference.  With regard to the TRIPS
Agreement and the CBD, Switzerland thus holds the view that they can and should be implemented
without conflict.  Accordingly, there is no need to  modify the provisions of either one of these
agreements.IP/C/W/400/Rev.1
Page 4
TABLE OF CONTENTS
OVERVI EW....................................................................................................................... ....................5
I. A FAIR AND BAL ANCED APPR OACH ..............................................................................5
II. PROPOSALS BY SWITZERLAND REGARDING THE DECLARATION OF
THE SOURCE OF GENETIC RESOURCES AND TRADITIONAL
KNOWLEDGE IN PATENT APPLICATIONS UNDER THE PATENT
COOPERATION TREATY (PCT) OF THE WORLD INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY ORGANIZATION (WIPO)...............................................................................5
(1) OVERVIEW ............................................................................................................................... ....5
(2) SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSALS BY SWITZERLAND .......................................................................6
(3) APPLICATION BY REFERENCE OF THE PROPOSALS TO THE PATENT LAW TREATY (PLT)
OF WIPO ............................................................................................................................... ........7
(4) ASSESSMENT OF THE PROPOSALS BY SWITZERLAND ...................................................................7
(5) ESTABLISHMENT OF A LIST OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES COMPETENT TO RECEIVE
INFORMATION ON DECLARATION ................................................................................................7
III. POSITION OF SWITZERLAND WITH REGARD TO OTHER
TRANSPARENCY MEASURES PROPOSED UNDER PATENT LAW:
EVIDENCE OF PRIOR INFORMED CONSENT (PIC) AND OF FAIR AND
EQUITABLE BENEFIT SHARING IN PATENT APPLICAT IONS.................................8
(1) EVIDENCE OF PRIOR INFORMED CONSENT (PIC) ..........................................................................8
(2) EVIDENCE OF FAIR AND EQUITABLE BENEFIT SHARING ..............................................................9
IV. THE FARMERS' PRIVILEGE.............................................................................................10
V. THE PROTECTION OF T RADITIONAL KN OWLEDGE ..............................................11
(1) INTERNATIONAL FORUMS COMPETENT TO DISCUSS THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY -
RELATED ISSUES OF THE PROTECTION OF TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE .....................................11
(2) TWO FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES :  WORKING DEFINITION OF "TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE "
AND OBJECTIVES OF ITS PROTECTION ........................................................................................11
(3) THE DETERMINATION OF PRIOR ART :  INTERNATIONAL GATEWAY FOR TRADITIONAL
KNOWLEDGE ..............................................................................................................................1 2
VI. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TRIPS AGREEMENT AND THE
CONVENTION ON BIOLOG ICAL DIVERSITY..............................................................12IP/C/W/400/Rev.1
Page 5
OVERVIEW
1. Switzerland expressed its views on the review of Article 27.3(b) of the Agreement on
Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS Agreement) in its communication of
15 June 20012, and in several oral interventions to the TRIPS Council.  This present communication
further elaborates the views of Switzerland on Article 27.3(b) and addresses the issues set out in
paragraph 19 of the Doha Ministerial Declaratio n, that is, the relationship between the TRIPS
Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the protection of traditional
knowledge, and other relevant new developments.  As a practical measure supporting a fair and
balanced approach, Switzerland presents proposals regarding the declaration of the source of genetic
resources and/or traditional knowledge in patent applications, if an invention is based on or uses such
resources or knowledge.
I. A FAIR AND BALANCED APPROACH
2. With regard to the issues addressed in this communication, Switzerland holds the view that a
fair and balanced approach must be taken.  On one hand, Switzerland supports the effective protection
of biotechnological innovations through intellectual property rights, in particular patents.  As stated in
its communication of 15 June 2001, Switzerland considers the current wording of Article 27.3(b) toprovide a well-balanced solution, which takes into account the interests and needs of all Members,
whether they are developing or developed countries.  Switzerland is thus in favor of the current
wording of Article 27.3(b) and the existing level of protection of biotechnological inventions and the
flexibility of Members it provides for.
3. On the other hand, a fair and balanced approach necessitates effective, efficient, practical and
timely solutions to the issues arising in the cont ext of access to genetic resources and traditional
knowledge and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of their utilization.  Given the
complexity and multiplicity of issues to be dealt with in this regard, their examination should not
imply that satisfactory answers will be found to all issues at the same time and in a single forum.
Furthermore, given the variety of mechanisms and measures and competent institutions, which couldbe instrumental to find appropriate solutions, a pragmatic, phased approach could be worthwhile.
This is why Switzerland has been actively supporting efforts to find these solutions in various
international forums, including the CBD; the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO);  the
Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge
and Folklore (IGC) of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO);  and the TRIPS Council.
II. PROPOSALS BY SWITZERLAND REGARDING THE DECLARATION OF THE
SOURCE OF GENETIC RESOURCES AND TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE INPATENT APPLICATIONS UNDER THE PATENT COOPERATION TREATY (PCT)
OF THE WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION (WIPO)
3
(1) OVERVIEW
4. The just mentioned international forums have been addressing the need for and the realization
of measures that increase transparency in the context of access to genetic resources and/or traditionalknowledge and the sharing of the benefits arising out of their utilization, in particular with regard to
the obligations of the users of genetic resources and traditional knowledge (hereinafter "transparency
measures").  Some of the proposals put forward concern patent law.  They include:
- the declaration of the source of genetic resources and/or traditional knowledge;
                                                     
2 See document IP/C/W/284.
3 A more detailed description of these proposals is contained in the Annex to this communication.IP/C/W/400/Rev.1
Page 6
- evidence of prior informed consent (PIC) from the competent authority in the country
of origin of the genetic resource;  and
- evidence of fair and equitable benefit sharing;
in patent applications, if an invention is based on or uses such resources or knowledge.4
5. Switzerland holds the view that transparency measures are an important element in the fair
and balanced approach that should be taken with regard to the issues addressed in this
communication.  This is why Switzerland considered in detail the various options available for such
measures and their possible modalities and implications.  Based on these considerations, Switzerland
submitted proposals to the fourth session of the Working Group on Reform of the PCT held between19 and 23 May 2003.  These proposals are summarized below.
6. By submitting these proposals, Switzerland intends to continue its active and constructive
participation in the discussions on the issues arising in the context of access to genetic resources and
traditional knowledge and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of their utilization.
These proposals are a clear sign of the willingness of Switzerland to find solutions to issues that are ofimportance to developing countries.  In the view of Switzerland, the proposals submitted present one
simple and practical solution that could be introduced in a timely manner and would not require
extensive changes to the provisions of the releva nt international agreements.  Additionally, because
the proposed transparency measures do not require modifications of the TRIPS Agreement, they are
further evidence of the flexibility that this agreement provides for.
(2)
SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSALS BY SWITZERLAND
7. Switzerland proposes to enable the national patent legislation to require the declaration of the
source of genetic resources and traditional knowledge in patent applications.  More specifically,
Switzerland proposes to amend the Regulations under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) toexplicitly enable the Contracting Parties of the PCT to require patent applicants, upon or after entry of
the international application into the national phase of the PCT procedure, to declare the source of
genetic resources and/or traditional knowledge, if an invention is based on or uses such resource or
knowledge.
5  Furthermore, Switzerland proposes to afford applicants the possibility of satisfying this
requirement at the time of filing an international pa tent application or later during the international
phase.6  In case an international patent application does not contain the required declaration, national
                                                     
4 See paragraph 10 of the communication by Brazil on behalf of Brazil, China, Cuba, Dominican
Republic, Ecuador, India, Pakistan, Thailand, Venezuela, Zambia and Zimbabwe (document IP/C/W/356).  For
similar such proposals see footnotes 37-39 of document IP/C/W/368.
5 The proposed new subparagraph (g) of Rule 51 bis.1 of the Regulations under the PCT would read as
follows:
"(g) The national law applicable by the design ated Office may, in accordance with Article 27,
require the applicant:
(i) to declare the source of a specific genetic resource to which the inventor has had 
access, if an invention is directly based on such a resource; if such source is unknown, this shall be declared accordingly;
(ii) to declare the source of knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local
communities relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity,if the inventor knows that an invention is directly based on such knowledge, 
innovations and practices; if such source is unknown, this shall be declared 
accordingly."
6 The proposed new subparagraph (vi) of Rule 4.17 of the Regulations under the PCT would read as
follows:IP/C/W/400/Rev.1
Page 7
law may foresee that in the national phase the application is not processed any further until the patent
applicant has furnished the required declaration.
(3) APPLICATION BY REFERENCE OF THE PROPOSALS TO THE PATENT LAW TREATY (PLT) OF WIPO
8. With regard to "requirements relating to form or contents of an application," Article 6.1 of the
PLT refers to the provisions of the PCT, in particular Rules 4.1 and 51bis of the Regulations under thePCT.  Based on the reference to the PCT contained in Article 6.1 of the PLT, the proposed
Rule 51bis.1(g) of the PCT would also apply to the PLT.  The Contracting Parties of the PLT would
thus be able to introduce in their national patent laws a declaration requirement that applies to national
patent applications.  Based on Article 10 of the PLT, the national patent law may foresee that the
validity of a granted patent is affected by a lacking or incorrect declaration of the source, if this is due
to "fraudulent intention".  This could, for example, be the case if the patent applicant submits an
intentional wrongful declaration that the source is unknown.
(4)
ASSESSMENT OF THE PROPOSALS BY SWITZERLAND
9. The proposals made by Switzerland will enable the Contracting Parties of relevant
international agreements, including the TRIPS Agreement, the PCT, the PLT, the CBD and the
FAO-IT, to fulfill their respective obligations.  This applies in particular to the Articles 27.1 and 62.1of the TRIPS Agreement as well as Articles 8(j), 15.4, 15.5, 15.7 and 16.5 of the CBD.  These
proposals provide the means to ensure that the international agreements on intellectual property and
the CBD can be implemented in a mutually supportiv e way.  Furthermore, the Swiss proposals will
enable the Contracting Parties of the CBD to im plement the provisions of the "Bonn Guidelines on
Access to Genetic Resources and Fair and Equitable Sharing of the Benefits Arising Out of TheirUtilization" (Bonn Guidelines), in particular their paragraph 16(d), as well as paragraph 46 of
Decision VI/10 and paragraph 1 of Section C of Deci sion VI/24 adopted by COP6.  And finally, the
possibility to require the declaration of the source will also support the determination of prior art with
regard to traditional knowledge, as it will simplify searching the databases on traditional knowledge
that are increasingly being established at the local, regional and national level.
10. The implementation of the proposals submitted by Switzerland in the national legislation may
require legal and technical cooperation and assistance to developing and least-developed countries.
The same applies to other measures introduced at the national level with regard to genetic resources
and traditional knowledge, such as for example the creation and management of databases on
traditional knowledge.  The implementation of national legislation and measures concerning genetic
resources and traditional knowledge may, in many cases, only be achieved if national institutions are
reinforced and public-private partnerships are developed.  Switzerland therefore invites theappropriate international forums to provide, upon request by governments, such cooperation and
assistance.
(5)
ESTABLISHMENT OF A LIST OF GOVERNME NT AGENCIES COMPETENT TO RECEIVE
INFORMATION ON DECLARATION
11. The proposed transparency measure could be further strengthened by establishing a list of
government agencies competent to obtain inform ation about patent applications containing a
declaration of the source of genetic resources and/or traditional knowledge.  For easy reference, this
list could be made accessible on the internet.  Patent offices receiving patent applications containing
such declaration could inform the competent government agency that the respective State is declaredas the source.  This information could be provided in a standardized letter sent to the competent
                                                                                                                                                                    
"(vi) a declaration as to the source of a specific genetic resource and/or knowledge, innovations and
practices of indigenous and local communities relevant for the conservation and sustainableuse of biological diversity, as referred to in Rule 51 bis.1(g)."IP/C/W/400/Rev.1
Page 8
government agency.  Switzerland invites WIPO, in close collaboration with the CBD, to further
consider the possible establishment of such a list of competent government agencies.
III. POSITION OF SWITZERLAND WITH REGARD TO OTHER TRANSPARENCY
MEASURES PROPOSED UNDER PATENT LAW:  EVIDENCE OF PRIOR
INFORMED CONSENT (PIC) AND OF FAIR AND EQUITABLE BENEFITSHARING IN PATENT APPLICATIONS
12. In the discussions on transparency measures, it has been proposed to require patent applicants
– in addition to disclosing the source of genetic resources and traditional knowledge – to provide
evidence of:  (1) PIC of the country providing the genetic resources;  and (2) fair and equitable benefit
sharing.
7  With regard to these proposals, Sw itzerland holds the following views:
(1) EVIDENCE OF PRIOR INFORMED CONSENT (PIC)
13. Article 15.5 of the CBD states that "[a]ccess to genetic resources shall be subject to prior
informed consent of the Contracting Party provid ing such resources, unless otherwise determined by
that Party".  Contracting Parties may thus decide that PIC is not required under their national law.
Additionally, the CBD leaves it up to the Contracting Parties to specify the elements and modalities of
their national system of PIC.  The Bonn Guidelines contain more detailed provisions on PIC in
paragraphs 24 to 40;  according to paragraph 25, these provisions are intended to assist ContractingParties in the establishment of a national system of PIC.  Some Contracting Parties of the CBD
already implemented national legislation on PIC, while others have not done so.  Existing and future
national systems on PIC can be expected to differ substantially;  some of the national systems of PIC
may provide that PIC is not necessary at all or only in certain cases, whereas other national systems
may spell out in detail the elements and modalities of PIC.
14. Transparency measures have been called for that enable the Contracting Parties of the CBD to
verify whether their national system of PIC has been adhered to.  In this context, Brazil proposes to
"require that an applicant for a patent relating to biological materials or to traditional knowledge shall
provide, as a condition to acquiring patent rights:  [...] (ii) evidence of prior informed consent through
approval of authorities under the relevant national regimes".
7  According to this proposal, providing
the required evidence would be a condition for acquiring patent rights.  Patent granting authorities
would thus have to verify whether the provided ev idence is correct and whether the national system of
PIC has been followed.  For several practical reasons,  patent granting authorities are not in a position
to carry out this verification:
- These authorities are neither designed to carry out this task nor do they have the
necessary legal and technical competence to determine the correctness of the
provided evidence.
- Patent granting authorities would need to search for and have access to the various
national legislations on PIC and would have to familiarize themselves with each of
the national systems of PIC each time a patent application is submitted containing
such evidence.  This would burden patent granting authorities with substantialadministrative work.
- It seems questionable whether any such determination could be done with the
necessary legal certainty.
                                                     
7 See paragraph 10 of the communication by Brazil on behalf of Brazil, China, Cuba, Dominican
Republic, Ecuador, India, Pakistan, Thailand, Venezuela, Zambia and Zimbabwe (document IP/C/W/356).IP/C/W/400/Rev.1
Page 9
- The requirement to provide evidence of PIC in patent applications is also problematic
with regard to the plant genetic resource s for food and agriculture (PGRFA) covered
by the International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture
(FAO-IT).  This treaty does not foresee that PIC must be obtained from the
Contracting Party providing the PGRFA.  Thus, if this requirement were to beintroduced, it would apply to the genetic resources covered by the CBD, but not the
PGRFA covered by the FAO-IT.  Patent granting authorities would thus not only
have to verify whether the provided evidence is correct, but also whether the genetic
resources in question were obtained according to the provisions of the CBD or the
FAO-IT.
15. Consequently, the task of verifying whether the national systems of PIC have been adhered to
can best be done by the Contracting Party providing the genetic resources in accordance with
Article 15.5 of the CBD.  In order to simplify this task, Switzerland proposed at the fourth session of
the Working Group on Reform of PCT to explicitly enable the national patent legislation to require
the declaration of the source of genetic resources and traditional knowledge in patent applications.
Furthermore, it proposed discussion on the establishment of a list of government agencies that couldbe informed by the office receiving a patent application containing such a declaration.  The
declaration and the respective information will allow the Contracting Parties providing the genetic
resources to verify whether the patent applicant has fulfilled the requirements and procedures of their
national system of PIC.  It is therefore neither necessary nor feasible to require, in addition to the
declaration of the source of genetic resources, evidence of PIC in patent applications.  This isacknowledged in Paragraph 1 of Section C of Decision VI/24 adopted by COP6 of the CBD,
according to which the declaration of the source of genetic resources in applications for intellectual
property rights is "a possible contribution to tracking compliance with prior informed consent and the
mutually agreed terms on which access to those resources was granted".  The solution proposed by
Switzerland is also in accordance with Article 62.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, according to which"Members may require, as a condition of the acquisition or maintenance of intellectual property rights
[...] compliance with reasonable procedures and formalities".
(2)
EVIDENCE OF FAIR AND EQUITABLE BENEFIT SHARING
16. According to Article 15.7 of the CBD, the sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilization
of genetic resources shall be on mutually agreed terms.  Generally, the mutually agreed terms will be
laid down in a contract between the provider and th e user of the genetic resources in question.  The
relationship between the provider and the user is thus of a purely contractual nature, and the
enforcement of that contract the task of the respective contracting parties.
17. In order to simplify the task of these contracting parties when verifying whether the other
contracting party is complying with its benef it sharing obligations, and when enforcing these
obligations, suitable transparency measures may be of use.  In this context, Brazil proposes to "requirethat an applicant for a patent relating to biological materials or to traditional knowledge shall provide,
as a condition to acquiring patent rights:  [...] (iii) evidence of fair and equitable benefit sharing under
the relevant national regimes".
8
18. The proposal does not specify whether the patent applicant must provide evidence of the fact
that benefits have actually been shared in a fair and equitable way, or whether evidence must beprovided that in the mutually agreed terms provisi on has been made for benefits to be shared in the
future in accordance with the relevant national regime s.  In the first case, it has to be considered that
benefits can only be shared if and when they arise, that is, once a product is being commercialized.
9
                                                     
8 See paragraph 10 of the communication by Brazil on behalf of Brazil, China, Cuba, Dominican
Republic, Ecuador, India, Pakistan, Thailand, Venezuela, Zambia and Zimbabwe (document IP/C/W/356).
9 This is expressly stated in Article 13.2(d)(ii) of the FAO-IT.IP/C/W/400/Rev.1
Page 10
In contrast, at the time when a patent application is submitted to the patent granting authority, the
commercial success of the invention is generally unknown and no monetary benefits will have arisen
yet.  Furthermore, not all patents that are applied for will be granted, and a large part of the granted
patents will never be commercialized.  In most instances, the patent applicant will thus not be able to
provide evidence that benefits have actually been shared in a fair and equitable way at the point intime when submitting a patent application.  In the second case, the proposed requirement could be met
by submitting a copy of the contract concluded between the provider and user of genetic resources.
19. In either case, the following practical and legal problems arise:  According to the Brazilian
proposal, providing this evidence would be a condition for acquiring patent rights.  The patent
granting authority would thus have to verify whether the provided evidence is correct and whether the
sharing of the benefits is "fair and equitable" and in accordance with "the relevant national regime".
Patent granting authorities, however, will generally be ill equipped to determine the correctness of theprovided evidence.  Benefit sharing is on mutually agreed terms between the provider and the user of
the genetic resource or traditional knowledge, that is, for example, between a State agency and a
university or a private company, and may vary, among others, with regard to the form of benefits
shared, the timing, or other conditions.  In many cases, these conditions remain confidential and are
thus not accessible by the patent granting authority.  Furthermore, what has to be considered "fair andequitable" can only be determined on a case by case basis
10, and, because of the contractual autonomy,
is primarily the competence and task of the contract ing parties to the contract containing the mutually
agreed terms on benefit sharing.  Any such determination by the patent granting authorities would
unduly impair this contractual autonomy.
20. To avoid these practical and legal problems, Switzerland proposed at the fourth session of the
Working Group on Reform of PCT to explicitly enable the national patent legislation to require the
declaration of the source of genetic resources and traditional knowledge in patent applications.
Furthermore, it proposed discussion on the establishment of a list of government agencies that could
be informed by the office receiving a patent application containing such a declaration.  In the view of
Switzerland, the declaration of the source and the respective information will allow contracting partiesto a contract on access and benefit sharing to verify whether the other contracting party is complying
with its obligations arising under that contract, and will thus assist in and simplify the enforcement of
these obligations.  Should patent applicants additionally be required to provide evidence of fair and
equitable benefit sharing in patent applications, they would have to submit double and triple
information that would bring little advantage to the contracting parties of the contract regulating
access and benefit sharing with regard to genetic resources.  Furthermore, such an additional
requirement would likely be contrary to Article 62.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, which only allows for"reasonable procedures and formalities".
IV. THE FARMERS' PRIVILEGE
21. As stated above, Switzerland holds the view that  with regard to the issues addressed in this
communication, a fair and balanced approach must be taken.  One possible measure to achieve this
approach is the so-called "Farmers' Privilege".  In the ongoing revision of the Swiss Federal Law onPatents for Inventions (LPI), it is foreseen to in troduce the Farmers' Privilege in the Swiss patent
legislation.
22. According to Article 30 of the TRIPS Agreement, "Members may provide limited exceptions
to the exclusive rights conferred by a patent, provided that such exceptions do not unreasonably
conflict with a normal exploitation of the patent and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimateinterests of the patent owner, taking account of the legitimate interests of third parties".  In the view of
                                                     
10 This is acknowledged by the Bonn Guidelines, which state in paragraph 45 that "[m]utually agreed
terms could cover the conditions, obligations, procedures, types, timing, distribution and mechanisms of benefitsto be shared.  These will vary depending on what is regarded as fair and equitable in light of the circumstances".IP/C/W/400/Rev.1
Page 11
Switzerland, the Farmers' Privilege as foreseen in  the draft for a revised LPI is covered by this
provision.  There is thus no need to change the wording of the TRIPS Agreement to allow the national
legislator to introduce the Farmers’ Privilege in national patent laws.
V. THE PROTECTION OF TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE
23. In the view of Switzerland, the realization of effective and timely mechanisms and measures
to protect traditional knowledge are a further importa nt element in the fair and balanced approach that
was advanced above.  In this respect, Switzerland welcomes the mandate given to the TRIPS Council
in paragraph 19 of the Doha Ministerial Declarati on to examine the issue of traditional knowledge in
pursuing its work programme.
(1) INTERNATIONAL FORUMS COMPETENT TO DISCUSS THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY -RELATED
ISSUES OF THE PROTECTION OF TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE
24. Various international forums are discussing the protection of traditional knowledge.  They
include the IGC of WIPO, the TRIPS Council, the Ad Hoc Open-Ended Inter-Sessional Working
Group on Article 8(j) and Related Provisions of the CBD, UNCTAD and several other UN forums.
With regard to intellectual property-related issues, Switzerland holds the view that these issues should
be dealt with by the international forums competent for intellectual property, that is, the IGC of WIPO
and the TRIPS Council.
25. The IGC of WIPO was established by the General Assembly of WIPO in the fall of 2000 and
held so far four sessions.  The fifth session is scheduled for July of 2003.  Since its establishment, the
IGC has been able to substantially advance the discussions on the protection of traditional knowledge.
It decided to undertake a number of tasks that will help to further clarify the issues arising and
advance the effective and efficient protection of traditional knowledge.  As the IGC is rather atechnical than a political body, it seems best suited to deal with the many technical issues related to
intellectual property that arise in the discussions on the protection of traditional knowledge.
26. In the view of Switzerland, the IGC is thus in the foreground as the international forum to
deal with the intellectual property-related issues of the protection of traditional knowledge.  The work
of the TRIPS Council on these issues should benefit from, and therefore draw upon, the work beingcarried out by the IGC of WIPO.  This approach will help to avoid the duplication of efforts and
outcomes.
27. This notwithstanding, Switzerland will actively contribute to the discussions on the
intellectual property-related issues of the protec tion of traditional knowledge in the TRIPS Council:
This concerns issues which in the view of other Me mbers are not or not adequately dealt with by the
IGC and that these Members wish to address in the TRIPS Council.  Furthermore, this concerns issues
that are directly linked to the TRIPS Agreement.
(2)
TWO FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES :  WORKING DEFINITION OF "TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE " AND
OBJECTIVES OF ITS PROTECTION
28. At the outset of the discussions on the prot ection of traditional knowledge, two very
fundamental issues should be clarified.  First, the establishment of at least a working definition of the
term "traditional knowledge", and, second, the determination of the objectives of the protection oftraditional knowledge.  Only the clarification of  these issues will allow to adequately focus the
discussions and bring the results necessary for an effective protection of traditional knowledge.
29. For these reasons, Switzerland proposed in different international forums, in particular the
IGC of WIPO and the CBD, to further pursue th e two issues.  Based on a Swiss proposal, the
Conference of the Parties of the CBD requests in paragraph 34(a) of Decision VI/10 the Ad HocIP/C/W/400/Rev.1
Page 12
Open-Ended Inter-Sessional Working Group on Article 8(j) and Related Provisions, when addressing
the sui generis protection of traditional knowledge,  to clarify relevant terminology.  Furthermore,
Switzerland proposed that the IGC of WIPO establish at least a working definition of the term
"traditional knowledge".  It thus welcomes the decision of the IGC to further pursue work on
operational terms and definitions with regard to traditional knowledge at its future sessions.  At therequest of Switzerland, the WIPO Secretariat will furthermore prepare a document that will lay out
the possible objectives of the protection of traditional knowledge.
(3)
THE DETERMINATION OF PRIOR ART :  INTERNATIONAL GATEWAY FOR TRADITIONAL
KNOWLEDGE
30. In the past, several cases became public where patents were granted for inventions that were
based on or used traditional knowledge and that did not meet the criteria of novelty and/or inventivestep.  Generally, the granting of such "bad" patents can be traced to the lack of the accessibility of
prior art regarding this knowledge by patent authorities.  Often, traditional knowledge is only
transmitted orally and is therefore not documented in a written form;  oral information, however, may
not be accessible at all by these authorities.  Or, if it is documented in writing, it may be so in
languages that these authorities are not familiar wit h.  Therefore, even if these authorities try their
best, they may not be able to access prior art regarding traditional knowledge.
31. One way to substantially improve this situation is the collection of traditional knowledge in
databases.  Patent authorities could search these databases when dealing with patent applications
raising questions regarding traditional knowledge as an element of prior art.  Various governments,
indigenous and local communities and non-government al organizations  (NGOs) have become active
in the establishment of such databases at the local, regional and national levels.  Examples are the
"China Traditional Chinese Medicine Patents Database" of China, the "Health Heritage Database" and
the "Traditional Knowledge Digital Library" of India, the "Biozulua Database" of Venezuela, and the
"StoryBase Database" of the Tulalip Tribes of Washington State, USA.
32. The number of such databases can be expected to further increase in the future.  These
databases are likely to have differing structures and to store traditional knowledge in different forms
and formats.  Great variability of the structure and contents of these databases, however, will seriously
hinder the efficient access of patent authorities to these databases and the effective search for prior art.
To avoid these problems, at least a minimum harmonization of the structure and contents of these
databases should be achieved.  This would also allow to make the local, regional or national databases
available through an international gateway for trad itional knowledge to be administered by WIPO, as
was proposed by Switzerland in its communication to the TRIPS Council of 15 June 2001.
11
VI. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TRIPS AGREEMENT AND THE
CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY
33. Switzerland holds the view that the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD are mutually
supportive.12  The two agreements can and should thus be implemented without conflict.
Accordingly, there is no need to modify the provisions of either one of these agreements.
                                                     
11 See document IP/C/W/284, paragraphs 16-19.  At its third meeting held in June 2002, the IGC of
WIPO discussed document WIPO/GRTKF/IC/3/6, entitle d "Inventory of Existing Databases of Disclosed
Traditional Knowledge".  Among others, this document deals with the structure of such databases.  Switzerlandnotes with great satisfaction that the IGC decided to further pursue the issue of databases for traditionalknowledge, including the possible harmonization of the structures and contents of such databases and the idea of
an international gateway for traditional knowledge.
12 See also documents WT/CTE/W/139, WT/CTE/W/168 and TN/TE/W/4, which present the views of
Switzerland on the relationship between the rules of the World Trade Organization and multilateralenvironmental agreements (MEAs) in general.IP/C/W/400/Rev.1
Page 13
34. It is sometimes asserted that the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD are at present not mutually
supportive and that therefore modifications to these agreements are necessary.13  It is claimed that
these modifications would have to be made in the TRIPS Agreement.  Such an approach would mean,
however, that the CBD is superior to the TRI PS Agreement.  Switzerland finds no grounds for any
such hierarchy between the two agreements neither in the CBD nor in the TRIPS Agreement, andconsiders them to be mutually supportive instead.
35. To dispel any uncertainties that may nevertheless exist with regard to the relationship between
the WTO-rules and multilateral environmental agreements (MEAs), Switzerland proposes to clarify
this relationship through an interpretative decision to be adopted by the WTO Members. Switzerland
recalls the several proposals it submitted to the WTO's Committee on Trade and Environment (CTE)
and its Special Session on this relationship which, if accepted, would provide guidance to the dispute
settlement bodies in cases of conflict of the rules of the WTO and MEAs.
36. The existing mutual supportiveness of the CBD and the TRIPS Agreement can be enhanced
by introducing, when implementing one or both of these agreements, appropriate measures and
mechanisms promoting the objectives of the other agr eement.  This is, for example, the case with the
introduction of the requirement to declare the source of genetic resources and/or knowledge,
innovations and practices of indigenous and lo cal communities embodying traditional lifestyles
relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity, in patent applications, if the
invention in question is based on or has used such resources or knowledge, innovations and practices,
as is proposed by Switzerland in Part II of this communication.  While such a declaration will
promote the objectives of the CBD, it is not prohibited by the TRIPS Agreement.
                                                     
13 See document IP/C/W/356.IP/C/W/400/Rev.1
Page 14
ANNEX
The text of a submission by Switzerland to the In ternational Bureau of WIPO, circulated as WIPO
document PCT/R/WG/4/13 to the Fourth Session of the Working Group on Reform of the Patent
Cooperation Treaty held on 19-23 May 2003
PROPOSALS BY SWITZERLAND REGARDING
THE DECLARATION OF THE SOURCE OF GENETIC RESOURCES
AND TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE IN PATENT APPLICATIONS
SUMMARY
The present document contains the proposals by Switzerland regarding the declaration of the
source of genetic resources and knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local
communities (traditional knowledge), in patent applications, if an invention is directly based on suchresources or traditional knowledge. These proposals are to be seen in the wider context of the efforts
of various international fora in the area of access to genetic resources and traditional knowledge and
the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of their utilization. These international fora
include in particular the Convention on Biolog ical Diversity (CBD); the Food and Agriculture
Organization (FAO); the "Intergovernmental Co mmittee on Intellectual Property and Genetic
Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore" (IGC) of the World Intellectual Property
Organization (WIPO); and the Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
(TRIPS Council) of the World Trade Organization (WTO). The proposals are intended to enhance the
cooperation between these international fora a nd the mutual supportiveness of the applicable
international agreements.
With regard to the underlying issues, Switzerl and holds the view that a fair and balanced
approach must be taken: on one hand, Switzerland supports the effective protection of
biotechnological innovations through intellectual property rights, in particular patents.  On the other
hand, a fair and balanced approach necessitates effective, efficient, practical and timely solutions to
the issues arising in the context of access to genetic resources and traditional knowledge and the fair
and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of their utilization. Various approaches are currentlybeing discussed at the international level, including the realization of measures that increase
transparency in the context of access and benefit sharing, in particular, with regard to the obligations
of the users of genetic resources and/or traditional knowledge (transparency measures). Switzerland
considered in detail the options available and the possible modalities and implications of such
transparency measures.  Based on these considerations, Switzerland submits the following proposals:
Switzerland proposes to explicitly enable the national patent legislation to require the
declaration of the source of genetic resources and traditional knowledge in patent applications. More
specifically, Switzerland proposes to amend the Regulations under the Patent Cooperation Treaty
(PCT) to explicitly enable the Contracting Partie s of the PCT to require patent applicants, upon or
after entry of the international application into the national phase of the PCT procedure, to declare the
source of genetic resources and/or traditional knowledge, if an invention is directly based on such
resource or knowledge. Furthermore, Switzerland proposes to afford applicants the possibility of
satisfying this requirement at the time of filing an international patent application or later during the
international phase.  In case an international patent application does not contain the requireddeclaration, national law may foresee that in the national phase the application is not processed any
further until the patent applicant has furnished the required declaration.
By reference, the proposed amendment to the PCT would also apply to the Patent Law Treaty
(PLT). Accordingly, the Contracting Parties of the PLT would be able to require in their nationalIP/C/W/400/Rev.1
Page 15
patent laws that patent applicants declare the source of genetic resources and/or traditional knowledge
in national patent applications. Based on the PLT, national law may foresee that the validity of
granted patents is affected by a lacking or incorrect declaration of the source, if this is due to
fraudulent intention.
In the view of Switzerland, the proposed ame ndments to the PCT-Regulations present one
simple and practical solution to the issues arising in the context of access to genetic resources and
traditional knowledge and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of their utilization.
These amendments could be introduced in a timely manner and would not require extensive changes
to the provisions of relevant international agreements.IP/C/W/400/Rev.1
Page 16
PROPOSALS BY SWITZERLAND REGARDING
THE DECLARATION OF THE SOURCE OF GENETIC RESOURCES
AND TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE IN PATENT APPLICATIONS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. OVERVIEW…………………………………………………………………………… 17
II. A FAIR AND BALANCED APPROACH……………………………………………. 17III. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS AT THE INTERNATIONAL LEVEL……………….. 18IV. THE CURRENT INTERNATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK…………………….. 19
(1) The Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) ………………………………………………... 20
(2) The Patent Law Treaty (PLT)…………………………………………………………. 20
(3) The TRIPS Agreement……………………………………………………………….… 21
(4) The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)………………………………………. 21
(5) The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture of
FAO(FAO-IT)………………………………………………………………………….. 21
V. PROPOSALS BY SWITZERLAND REGARDING THE DECLARATION OF THE
SOURCE OF GENETIC RESOURCES AND THE RELATED TRADITIONAL
KNOWLEDGE IN PATENT APPLICATIONS………………………………………. 22
(1) Proposal to Amend Rule 51bis.1 of the Regulations Under the PCT………………….. 22
(2) Proposal to Amend Rule 4.17 of the Regulations Under the PCT…………………….. 24
(3) Effects of the Proposals by Switzerland on the PLT………………………………….. 24
VI. ESTABLISHMENT OF A LIST OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES COMPETENT
TO RECEIVE INFORMATION ON THE DECLARATION………………………… 25
VII. CONCLUSIONS………………………………………………………………………. 25IP/C/W/400/Rev.1
Page 17
I. OVERVIEW
37. 1. The present document contains proposals by Switzerland regarding the declaration of
the source of genetic resources and knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local
communities (traditional knowledge), in patent applications, if an invention is directly based on such
resources or traditional knowledge.
38. 2. Part II outlines the general approach that according to Switzerland should be taken
with regard to the underlying issues (see paras. 3-4). Part III summarizes the recent developments at
the international level that are of importance with regard to transparency measures under patent law
(see paras. 5-11), and Part IV provides an overview of the current international legal framework
affecting the form, structure and contents of such measures (see paras. 12-19). Part V presents the
proposals of Switzerland regarding the declaration of the source of genetic resources and traditional
knowledge in patent applications (see paras. 20-29).  Switzerland proposes to amend Rules 51bis.1and 4.17 of the Regulations under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) to explicitly enable the
national patent legislation to require the declaration of the source of genetic resources and traditional
knowledge in international patent applications, if an invention is directly based on such resources or
knowledge.  By reference, these amendments would also apply to national patent applications that are
in accordance with the provisions of the Patent Law Treaty (PLT). Finally, in Part VI, Switzerlandinvites the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), in close collaboration with the
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), to cons ider the establishment of a list of government
agencies competent to receive information about patent applications containing a declaration of the
source of genetic resources and/or traditional knowledge (see paras. 30-32).
II. A FAIR AND BALANCED APPROACH
3. With regard to the issues addressed in this document, Switzerland holds the view that a fair
and balanced approach must be taken: On one hand, Switzerland supports the effective protection of
biotechnological innovations through intellectual property rights, in particular patents. On the other
hand, a fair and balanced approach necessitates effective, efficient, practical and timely solutions to
the issues arising in the context of access to genetic resources and traditional knowledge and the fairand equitable sharing of the benefits arising out of their utilization. This is why Switzerland has been
actively supporting efforts to find these solutions in various international fora, including the CBD;
1
the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO); the "Intergovernmental Committee on IntellectualProperty and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore" (IGC) of WIPO;
2 and the
Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Inte llectual Property Rights (TRIPS Council).3
4. One crucial issue that these international fora have been addressing is the need for and the
realization of measures that increase transparency in the context of access to genetic resources and/or
traditional knowledge and the sharing of the benefits arising out of their utilization, in particular with
                                                     
1 In the CBD, Switzerland presented the "Draft Gu idelines on Access and Benefit-Sharing Regarding
the Utilization of Genetic Resources," which formed an important basis in the discussions that led to theadoption of the "Bonn Guidelines on Access to Genetic Resources and Fair and Equitable Sharing of theBenefits Arising Out of Their Utilization" by the sixth Conference of the Parties (COP6) of the CBD in April
2002. At COP6, Switzerland furthermore presented a study on the certification for bioprospecting activities (see
Lyle Glowka, Towards a Certification System for Bioprospecting Activities (documentUNEP/CBD/COP/6/CH/RPT); this document can be found at <http://www.biodiv.org/doc/meetings/cop/cop-06/other/cop-06-ch-rpt-en.pdf>).
2 In the In the past meetings of the IGC, Switzerland proposed several practical and concrete steps and
solutions with regard to the issues on the agenda of the committee. Furthermore, Switzerland supported a
proposal that WIPO shall provide additional financial means allowing for the increased participation of
indigenous and local communities in the future meetings of the IGC.
3Among others, Switzerland proposed an international gateway for traditional knowledge (see
paras. 16-19 of document IP/C/W/284).IP/C/W/400/Rev.1
Page 18
regard to the obligations of the users of genetic resources and traditional knowledge (hereinafter
"transparency measures"). Such measures will enhance the mutual supportiveness of the applicable
international agreements and can only be successfully realized if all relevant international fora
coordinate their efforts closely and strive for coherent results. Switzerland holds the view that
transparency measures are an important element in the fair and balanced approach that was advancedabove. This is why Switzerland considered in detail the various options available for such measures
and their possible modalities and implications. Based on these considerations, Switzerland elaborated
proposals regarding the declaration of the source of genetic resources and traditional knowledge in
patent applications presented in Part V, below.
III. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS AT THE INTERNATIONAL LEVEL
5. When addressing the issue of transparency measures under patent law, the developments in
several international fora need to be considered. Of primary importance are the following:
6. The PLT, adopted 1 June 2000 by a diplomatic conference convened by WIPO, aims at
harmonizing certain formalities in national patent laws with regard to the acquisition and maintenance
of patents. Among others, it contains provisions on the formal requirements that patent applicantsmust fulfill and limits the freedom of its Contracting Parties to introduce additional such requirements
in their national patent laws.
7. The 31st FAO Conference adopted 3 November 2001 the International Treaty on Plant
Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture (FAO-IT). This treaty contains, among others, provisionson access to plant genetic resources for food and ag riculture (PGRFA) and the sharing of the benefits
arising out of their utilization.
8. The Doha Ministerial Declaration, adopted 14 November 2001, states in para. 19 that the
TRIPS Council is instructed, "in pursuing its work program including under the review of Article27.3(b), the review of the implementation of the TRIPS Agreement under Article 71.1 and the work
foreseen pursuant to paragraph 12 of this declarati on, to examine, inter alia, the relationship between
the TRIPS Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity, the protection of traditional
knowledge and folklore, and other relevant new developments raised by Members pursuant to
Article 71.1."
9. The sixth meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP6) of the CBD was held in April
2002. Among others, COP6 adopted the "Bonn Guidelines on Access to Genetic Resources and Fair
and Equitable Sharing of the Benefits Arising Out of Their Utilization" (Bonn Guidelines). According
to its para. 1, this voluntary instrument "may serve as inputs when developing and drafting legislative,
administrative or policy measures on access and benefit-sharing with particular reference to
provisions under Articles 8(j), 10(c), 15, 16 and 19; and contracts and other arrangements undermutually agreed terms for access and benefit-sharin g."  With regard to transparency measures, the
Bonn Guidelines state in para. 16(d) that:
"Contracting Parties with users of genetic resources under their jurisdiction should take
appropriate legal, administrative, or policy measures, as appropriate, to support compliancewith prior informed consent of the Contracting Party providing such resources and mutually
agreed terms on which access was granted. These countries could consider, inter alia, the
following measures:
[...]IP/C/W/400/Rev.1
Page 19
(ii) Measures to encourage the disclosure of the country of origin of the genetic resources and
of the origin of traditional knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local
communities in applications for intellectual property rights[.]" 4
10. The IGC of WIPO decided at its third meeting held in June 2002 to carry out the technicalstudy referred to in para. 4 of Section C of Deci sion VI/24 adopted by COP6. In this paragraph, WIPO
is invited:
"to prepare a technical study, and to report its findings to the Conference of the Parties
at its seventh meeting, on methods consistent  with obligations in treaties administered
by the World Intellectual Property Organization for requiring the disclosure within
patent applications of, inter alia:
(a) Genetic resources utilized in the development of the claimed inventions;(b) The country of origin of genetic resources utilized in the claimed inventions;
(c) Associated traditional knowledge, innovations and practices utilized in the
development of the claimed inventions;
(d) The source of associated traditional knowledge, innovations and practices; and
(e) Evidence of prior informed consent[.]"
11. The World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD), held in August/September 2002,
calls in para. 42(o) of the Plan of Implementation on States to "negotiate within the framework of the
Convention on Biological Diversity, bearing in mi nd the Bonn Guidelines, an international regime to
promote and safeguard the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of the utilization of
genetic resources." The General Assembly of the United Nations invites in para. 8 of Resolution
A/Res/57/269 adopted at the 57 th session the COP of the CBD "to take appropriate steps in this
regard." It is foreseen that the seventh meeting of the Conference of the Parties (COP7) of the CBD,
to be held in April 2004, will address the issue of an international regime.
IV. THE CURRENT INTERNATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORK
12. When addressing the issue of transparency measures under patent law, the provisions of
several international agreements need to be considered. These are in particular the PCT, the PLT once
it enters into force, the TRIPS Agreement, th e CBD and the FAO-IT once it enters into force.
                                                     
4The following decisions adopted by COP6 also refer to the disclosure of the source of genetic
resources and traditional knowledge in patent applications: In para. 1 of Section C of Decision VI/24 ("Access
and benefit-sharing as related to genetic resources"), the Conference of the Parties "
[i]nvites Parties and Governments to encourage the disclosure of the country of origin of genetic
resources in applications for intellectual property rights, where the subject-matter of the application
concerns or makes use of genetic resources in its development, as a possible contribution to tracking
compliance with prior informed consent and the mutually agreed terms on which access to those
resources was granted[.]".
Furthermore, in para. 46 of Decision VI/10 ("Article 8(j) and related provisions"), the Conference of the Parties
"[i]nvites Parties and Governments to encourage the disclosure of the origin of relevant traditional
knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities relevant to the
conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity in applications for intellectual property rights,
where the subject matter of the application concerns or makes use of such knowledge in itsdevelopment[.]"IP/C/W/400/Rev.1
Page 20
(1) The Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT)
13. The PCT provides a widely used centralized system for receiving and searching international
patent applications. According to Art. 27.1, "[n]o national law shall require compliance with
requirements relating to the form or contents of  the international application different from or
additional to those which are provided for in this treaty and the regulations." In this regard, Rules 4.1and 51bis.1 of the Regulations under the PCT are of particular importance:
• Rule 4.1 enumerates the mandatory and optional contents of the request of an international patent
application. According to Rule 4.1(c)(iii), such request may contain "declarations as provided inRule 4.17." Rule 4.17 deals with certain declarat ions that are required by national laws in
accordance with Rule 51bis.1(a). Rule 4.17 permits applicants to include in the request certain
declarations corresponding to the matters set out in Rule 51bis.1(a)(i) to (v), relating to which
designated Offices may require evidence or documents. According to Rule 4.18(a), "[t]he requestshall contain no matter other than that specified in rules 4.1 to 4.17 [...]"; furthermore, Rule
4.18(b) requires the receiving Office to delete ex officio any such additional matter.
• Present Rule 51bis.1 lists in subparas. (a) to (f) a number of matters relating to which the
applicant may be required to furnish documents or evidence under the national law applicable by
the designated Office. This rule provides clarit y for both applicants and designated Offices that
such items may be required to be furnished by the applicant under the national law applicable by
the designated Office.
14. The current Rule 4 of the Regulations under the PCT does not require the declaration of the
source of genetic resources and/or traditional knowledge in international patent applications.Furthermore, Rule 4 prevents patent applicants submitting an international patent application from
voluntarily including any such information as part of the PCT procedure, except in the specification,
that is, the description, of the invention. Furthermore, Rule 51bis.1, as currently worded, does not
expressly mention the possibility of designated Offices to require the applicant to furnish information
on the source of genetic resources and/or traditional knowledge under the national law applicable bythe designated Office.
(2) The Patent Law Treaty (PLT)
15. Art. 6.1 of the PLT, which deals with the form and contents of national patent applications,
states that:
"[e]xcept where otherwise provided for by this Treaty, no Contracting Party shall require
compliance with any requirement relating to the form or contents of an application different
from or additional to:
(i) the requirements relating to form or c ontents which are provided for in respect of
international applications under the Patent Cooperation Treaty;
(ii) the requirements relating to form or contents compliance with which, under the Patent
Cooperation Treaty, may be required by the Office of, or acting for, any State party to
that Treaty once the processing or examination of an international application, as
referred to in Article 23 or 40 of the said Treaty, has started[.]"
In this context, Rules 4.1 and 51bis.1 of the Regulations under the PCT are of particular importance.16. Art. 10 of the PLT states that "[n]on-compliance with one or more of the formal requirements
referred to in Articles 6(1) [...] with respect to an application may not be a ground for revocation orinvalidation of a patent, either totally or in part, except where the non-compliance with the formalIP/C/W/400/Rev.1
Page 21
requirement occurred as a result of a fraudulent intention." The validity of granted patents is thus not
affected should the patent applicant not comply with the formal requirements enumerated in Art. 6.1.
The only exception to this general rule is where such non-compliance results from fraudulent
intention. Art. 10 of the PLT, however, only applies once a patent is granted, whereas it does not
apply to the national patent granting procedure as such. Art. 10 does therefore not prevent ContractingParties of the PLT from introducing sanctions for non-compliance with formal requirements prior to
the granting of a patent (see Art. 6.8 of the PLT).
(3) The TRIPS Agreement
17. Art. 27.1 of the TRIPS Agreement does not allow for any other substantive conditions for
patentability than (1) novelty, (2) inventive step or non-obviousness, and (3) capability of industrial
application or usefulness. Members are therefore prohibited from introducing different or additionalsubstantive conditions for patentability. Furthermore, according to Art. 29, patent applicants must
"disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for the invention to be carried out
by a person skilled in the art [...]." And finally, Art. 62.1 only allows for "reasonable procedures and
formalities,"
5prohibiting Members from burdening patent applicants with procedures and formalities
that are not reasonable within the meaning of Art. 62.1.
(4) The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD)
18. With regard to access to genetic resources a nd traditional knowledge and the sharing of the
benefits arising out of their utilization, Arts. 8(j),6 10(c), 15.4, 15.5, 7 15.78  and 16.59  of the CBD are
of particular relevance. The CBD itself does not prescribe specific transparency measures that theContracting Parties should introd uce in their national legislation. These measures are addressed in
greater detail in the Bonn Guidelines and in two decisions adopted by COP6: Para. 16(d) of the Bonn
Guidelines
10 as well as para. 46 of Decision VI/10 a nd para. 1 of Section C of Decision VI/2411 all
refer to the disclosure of the source of genetic resources and traditional knowledge in patent
applications.
(5) The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture of FAO (FAO-IT)
19. With regard to access to PGRFA and the sharing of the benefits arising out of their utilization,
Arts. 12.2, 12.3(b), 12.4, 12.5 and 13.2 of the FAO-IT  are of particular relevance. The FAO-IT
                                                     
5 Art.62.1 of the TRIPS Agreement states that "Members may require, as a condition of the acquisition
or maintenance of the intellectual property rights provided for under Sections 2 through 6 of Part II, compliancewith reasonable procedures and formalities. Such procedures and formalities shall be consistent with theprovisions of this agreement."
6 Art. 8(j) of the CBD requires Contracting Par ties to "respect, preserve and maintain knowledge,
innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the
conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and promote their wider application with the approvaland involvement of the holders of such knowledge, innovations and practices and encourage the equitablesharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of such knowledge, innovations and practices[.]"
7 Art. 15.5 of the CBD states that "[a]ccess to genetic resources shall be subject to prior informed
consent of the Contracting Party providing such resources, unless otherwise determined by that Party."
8 Art. 15.7 of the CBD states that "[e]ach Contracting Party shall take legislative, administrative or
policy measures, as appropriate, [...] with the aim of sharing in a fair and equitable way the results of researchand development and the benefits arising from the commercial and other utilization of genetic resources with theContracting Party providing such resources. Such sharing shall be upon mutually agreed terms."
9Art. 16.5 of the CBD states in the context of access to and transfer of technology that "[t]he
Contracting Parties, recognizing that patents and other intellectual property rights may have an influence on the
implementation of this Convention, shall cooperate in this regard subject to national legislation and international
law in order to ensure that such rights are supportive of and do not run counter to its objectives."
10 See para. 9 above.
11 See footnote 4 above.IP/C/W/400/Rev.1
Page 22
introduces a specific transparency measure, that is, an internationally agreed standard material transfer
agreement (MTA). This measure, however, is not re lated to the international intellectual property
rights system.
V. PROPOSALS BY SWITZERLAND REGARDING THE DECLARATION OF THE
SOURCE OF GENETIC RESOURCES AND THE RELATED TRADITIONAL
KNOWLEDGE IN PATENT APPLICATIONS
20. Based on the aforementioned developments at the international level and the applicable
provisions of relevant international agreements, Switzerland considered in detail the various options
available for transparency measures and their possible modalities and implications. These
considerations were guided by the following principl es: First, any such measure should allow to attain
the desired transparency in an effective and efficient manner. Second, any transparency measureshould ensure legal certainty, be practicable and avoid unnecessary administrative burdens and costs
for patent applicants and patent authorities. Third, any measure should leave States with as much
freedom as possible, enabling them to introduce solutio ns at the national level that take into account
national needs and interests. And fourth, the proposed transparency measure should be mutually
supportive with existing obligations of relevant international agreements. Based on theseconsiderations, Switzerland submits the following pr oposals to the fourth session of the Working
Group on Reform of the PCT:
(1) Proposal to Amend Rule 51bis.1 of the Regulations Under the PCT
21. Switzerland proposes to introduce a new subpara. (g) in Rule 51bis.1 of the Regulations under
the PCT, which could read as follows:
"(g) The national law applicable by the designated Office may, in accordance with
Article 27, require the applicant
(i) to declare the source of a specific genetic resource to which the inventor has had
access, if an invention is directly based on such a resource; if such source is unknown,
this shall be declared accordingly;
(ii) to declare the source of knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local
communities relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity,if the inventor knows that an inventi on is directly based on such knowledge,
innovations and practices; if such source is unknown, this shall be declared
accordingly."
22. With regard to the terminology used in this proposal, the following can be said:
• First, the proposal uses the rather general term "source." This term is intended to be
understood in its broadest sense possible: It not only includes other terms used in this context
such as "origin," "geographical origin,"
12 "country of origin of genetic resources"13 or
"Contracting Party providing genetic resources,"14 but also any other source such as
                                                     
12 This term is used in Recital 27 of the Directiv e 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 6 July 1998 on the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions (EU Biotech Directive).
13 This term is used in Art. 15.3 of the CBD. It is defined in Art. 2 of the CBD as "the country which
possesses those genetic resources in in-situ conditions."
14 This term is used Arts. 15.5 and 15.7 of the CBD. Art. 2 of the CBD defines the term "country
providing genetic resources" as meaning "the country supplying genetic resources collected from in-situsources, including populations of both wild and domesticated species, or taken from ex-situ sources, which mayor may not have originated in that country."IP/C/W/400/Rev.1
Page 23
publications in scientific journals or books,15 databases on traditional knowledge, or ex situ
collections of genetic resources. This broad meaning of the term "source" will help to avoid
the difficulties and uncertainties that could arise with other terms used in this context.
Furthermore, it allows to indicate whether the genetic resource in question was obtained from
the Multilateral System established under the FAO-IT or on mutually agreed terms accordingto the CBD. This is of importance since the rules of the FAO-IT on access to PGRFA and the
sharing of the benefits arising out of their utilization differ from the respective rules of the
CBD. Additionally, the term "source" allows to specifically declare the region, community or
individual that provided the knowledge, innovations and practices. And finally, if genetic
resources or traditional knowledge have more than one source, this can be declared
accordingly. This may, for example, apply to traditional knowledge of a local community that
is described in a scientific journal. In this case, the declaration of the secondary source"scientific journal" would not be adequate; instead, the local community would have to be
declared as the primary source as well.
• Second, the proposal uses the term "genetic reso urce" instead of terms such as "biological
material"
16 to ensure consistency with the CBD a nd the FAO-IT. Art. 2 of the CBD defines
the term "genetic resources" as meaning "genetic material of actual or potential value," andthe term "genetic material" as meaning "any material of plant, animal, microbial or other
origin containing functional units of heredity." These definitions are in harmony with the
definitions of the terms "PGRFA"
17 and "genetic material"18in Art. 2 of the FAO-IT.
• And third, the proposal uses the term "knowle dge, innovations and practices of indigenous
and local communities relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological
diversity" instead of the term "traditional knowledge." This is to ensure consistency with Art.
8(j) of the CBD and to avoid difficulties that could arise with the term "traditional
knowledge," for which at present no internationally agreed definition exists.19  A s  t h e
proposed declaration of the source of knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and
local communities concerns patent law, it is self-evident that the focus will be on the technicalforms of such knowledge, innovations and practices.
23. Rule 51bis.1(g) would only apply if the nati onal law of a Contracting Party of the PCT
requires patent applicants submitting an international patent application to declare the source of
genetic resources and/or knowledge, innovations and practices, in their patent applications.  It is thusthe national legislator who decides whether such a declaration is required or not.  In case an
application does not contain the required declaration, the national law may foresee that the application
                                                     
15 This may, for example, be the case where knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and
local communities, were found in a scientific journal.
16This term is used in Recital 27 of the Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the
Council of 6 July 1998 on the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions (EU Biotech Directive).
17Art. 2 of the FAO-IT defines the term "PGRFA" as meaning "any genetic material of plant origin of
actual or potential value for food and agriculture."
18Art. 2 of the FAO-IT defines the term "genetic material" as meaning "any material of plant origin,
including reproductive and vegetative propagating material, containing functional units of heredity."
19 The following definition of the term "traditional knowledge", for example, would seem much too
broad for the purposes of the proposed new subpara. (g) in Rule 51bis.1: This term is defined as "encompassingtraditional and tradition-based literary, artistic or scie ntific works; performances; inventions; scientific
discoveries; designs; marks, names and symbols; undiscl osed information; and all other traditional and tradition-
based innovations and creations resulting from intellectual activity in the industrial, scientific, literary or artisticfields." (See para. 13 of document WIPO/GRTKF/IC/Q.2 "Questionnaire of Contractual Practices and ClausesRelating to Intellectual Property, Access to Genetic Resources and Benefit-Sharing").IP/C/W/400/Rev.1
Page 24
is not processed any further until the patent applicant has furnished the required declaration; the
national law may also foresee that non-declarati on will not affect the processing of patents.20
24. The proposed wording "if an invention is directly based on" makes clear that the requirement
is complied with if an invention makes immediate use of the genetic resource and/or the knowledge,innovations and practices.
25. Patent applicants will only be able to declare the source of genetic resources and knowledge,
innovations and practices, if in fact they do have information about this source.  Patent applicants,
however, that have no such information, should not be freed from any obligations.  For this reason, it
is proposed that patent applicants can be required to declare that the source is unknown to them.
Consequently, if an invention fulfils the conditions of the new Rule 51bis.1(g), the proposed wordingwould explicitly enable national legislation to require patent applicants to either declare the source of
the genetic resource or knowledge, innovations and practices, or to declare that this source is
unknown to them.
(2) Proposal to Amend Rule 4.17 of the Regulations Under the PCT26. Complementary to the new subpara. (g) of Rule 51bis.1, Switzerland proposes to introduce a
new subpara. (vi) in Rule 4.17 of the Regulations under the PCT, which could read as follows:
"(vi) a declaration as to the source of a specific genetic resource and/or knowledge,
innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities relevant for the conservation
and sustainable use of biological diversity , as referred to in Rule 51bis.1(g)."
27. This proposal would give patent applicants the possibility of satisfying the declaration
requirement under national patent law in accordance with the proposed new Rule 51bis.1(g) at thetime of filing an international patent application or later during the international phase. This would
further simplify procedures related to the declaration of the source of genetic resources and/or
knowledge, innovations and practices, with regard to international patent applications.
28. The standard wording in the Administrative Instructions for such a declaration would have to
be amended accordingly.
(3) Effects of the Proposals by Switzerland on the PLT
29. With regard to "requirements relating to form or contents of an application," Art. 6.1 of the
PLT refers to the provisions of the PCT, in particular Rules 4.1 and 51bis of the Regulations under the
PCT. Based on the reference to the PCT contained in Art. 6.1 of the PLT, the proposed new Rule51bis.1(g) of the PCT would also apply to the PLT.  The Contracting Parties of the PLT would thus be
able to introduce in their national patent laws a declaration requirement that applies to national patent
applications. Based on Art. 10 of the PLT, the national patent law may foresee that the validity of a
granted patent is affected by a lacking or incorrect declaration of the source, if this is due to
"fraudulent intention." This could, for example, be the case if the patent applicant submits anintentional wrongful declaration that the source is unknown.
                                                     
20This is, for example, the case with the EU Biotech Directive. Recital 27 of this directive reads as
follows: "Whereas if an invention is based on biological material of plant or animal origin or if it uses such
material, the patent application should, where appropriat e, include information on the geographical origin of
such material, if know; whereas this is without prejudice to the processing of patent applications or the validityof rights arising from granted patens[.]"IP/C/W/400/Rev.1
Page 25
VI. ESTABLISHMENT OF A LIST OF GOVERNMENT AGENCIES COMPETENT TO 
RECEIVE INFORMATION ON THE DECLARATION
30. Several factors weaken the effectiveness of the proposed requirement to declare the source of
a genetic resource and/or knowledge, innovations and practices, in patent applications: If the source of
a genetic resource or knowledge, innovations and practices, is merely declared in patent applications,States and other stakeholders interested in verifying whether they are named in patent applications
would have to scrutinize the large number of patent applications filed annually worldwide.
Additionally, some patent offices do not publish patent applications at all or only after the expiration
of a certain period of time; furthermore, it may take several years from the filing of a patent
application to the granting of a patent and its publication. Thus, if patent applications are not
published, the declaration of the source would not become publicly accessible until the patent is
granted and published.
31. This could be changed if the office receiving a patent application containing a declaration of
the source of a genetic resource or knowledge, innovations and practices, would inform a government
agency of the State declared as the source about the respective declaration. Particularly well suited for
this task would seem to be the national focal point for access and benefit sharing as described in para.13 of the Bonn Guidelines. Switzerland therefore invites WIPO, in close collaboration with the CBD,
to consider the establishment of a list of governme nt agencies competent to receive this information.
This list could be made accessible through WIPO and the Clearing House Mechanism (CHM) of the
CBD. States interested in receiving such info rmation could indicate to WIPO the competent
government agency, which would then be included in the proposed list.
32. The information about the declaration could be provided in a standardized letter which is sent
to the competent government agency in the State indi cated in the patent application. This letter would
inform this government agency that the respective State has been declared as the source of the genetic
resource or knowledge, innovations and practices, and contain the name and address of the patentapplicant.
VII. CONCLUSIONS
33. The proposals submitted by Switzerland would explicitly enable the Contracting Parties of
relevant international agreements, including the PCT, the PLT, the TRIPS Agreement, the CBD and
the FAO-IT, to fulfill their respective obligations. This applies in particular to Art. 27.1 of the PCT,
which prohibits additional requirements relating to the form or contents of international patentapplications; Art. 6.1 of the PLT, which prohibits additional requirements relating to the form or
contents of national patent applications; Arts. 27.1 and 62.1 of the TRIPS Agreement, which prohibit
additional criteria of patentability and unreasonable procedures and formalities, respectively; and
Arts. 8(j), 15.4, 15.5, 15.7 and 16.5 of the CBD.
34. The proposals submitted by Switzerland furthermore provide the means to ensure that the
relevant international agreements on intellectual property, the CBD and the FAO-IT can be
implemented in a mutually supportive way. Additionally, the proposals will enable the Contracting
Parties of the CBD to implement the provisions of the Bonn Guidelines, in particular their para. 16(d),
as well as para. 46 of Decision VI/10 and para. 1 of Section C of Decision VI/24 adopted by COP6.
35. Transparency measures have been called for that enable the Contracting Parties of the CBD to
verify whether their national systems of prior in formed consent (PIC) have been adhered to and
whether benefits arising are shared fairly and equita bly. In the view of Switzerland, this task can best
be carried out by the Contracting Party providing the genetic resources in accordance with Art. 15.5of the CBD. In order to facilitate this task, Switzerland proposes to explicitly enable national patentIP/C/W/400/Rev.1
Page 26
legislation to require the declaration of the source of genetic resources in patent applications.21
Additionally, Switzerland invites WIPO, in close collaboration with the CBD, to consider the
establishment of a list of government agencies that would be competent to receive information about
patent applications containing declarations of the source. The disclosure and the respective
information would allow the Contracting Party providing the genetic resources to verify whether thepatent applicant has fulfilled the requirements and procedures of its national system of PIC and
whether provision has been made for fair and equitable benefit sharing.
__________
                                                     
21 This is acknowledged in para. 1 of Section C of Decision VI/24 adopted by COP6 of the CBD,
according to which the disclosure of the source of gene tic resources in applications for intellectual property
rights is "a possible contribution to tracking compliance with prior informed consent and the mutually agreed
terms on which access to those resources was granted."