RESTRICTED  
  
IP/C/M/103 /Rev.1  
25 May 2022 
(22-4030) Page: 1/19 
Council for Trade -Related Aspects of  
Intellectual Property Rights   
 
  
MINUTES OF MEETING  
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD ON 13-14 OCTOBER ; 5, 18 AND 29 NOVEMBER ;  
16 DECEMBER  2021; AND 22 FEBRUARY 2022  
Chair : H.E. Ambassador Dagfinn Sørli  
Revision  
The original  version of this document contain ed the record of the meeting of the Council for TRIPS 
held on 13-14 October ; 5, 18 and 29 November ; and 16 December  2021. This revision adds the 
record of the further resumption of this meeting on 22 February 2022.  
Table of Contents  
1   NOTIFICATIONS UNDER PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT  ................................ ........  3 
2   REVIEW OF NATIONAL IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION  ................................ ................  4 
3   IP MEASURES IN THE CONTEXT OF COVID -19 ................................ .............................  4 
4   REVIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 27.3(B)  ................................ .....................  5 
5   RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TRIPS AGREEMENT AND THE CONVENTION ON 
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 5 
6   PROTECTION OF TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND FOLKLORE  ................................ ..... 5 
7   ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE SPECIAL COMPULSORY LICENSING SYSTEM  
(PARAGRAPH  7 OF THE ANNEX TO THE AMENDED TRIPS AGREEMENT AND  
PARAGR APH 8 OF THE DECISION ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PARAGRAPH 6  
OF THE DOHA DECLARATION ON THE TRIPS AGREEMENT AND PUBLIC HEALTH)  .............  6 
8   NON-VIOLATION AND SITUATION COMPLAINTS  ................................ .........................  7 
9   REVIEW OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TRIPS AGREEMENT UNDER  
ARTICLE 71.1  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  8 
10   REVIEW OF THE APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION ON 
GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 24.2  ................................ ......................  8 
11   NINETEENTH ANNUAL REVIEW UNDER PARAGRAPH 2 OF THE DECISION ON  
THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 66.2 OF THE TRIPS AGREEMENT  ..............................  9 
12   TECHNICAL COOPERATION AND CAPACITY BUILDING  ................................ ............  10 
13   PROPOSAL FOR A WAIVER FROM CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE TRIPS  
AGREEMENT FOR THE PREVENTION, CONTAINMENT AND TREATMENT OF COVID -19 ..... 10 
14   DRAFT GENERAL COUNCIL DECLARATION ON THE TRIPS AGREEMENT  
AND PUBLIC HEALTH IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF A PANDEMIC  ................................ .... 17 
15   INFORMATION REQUEST UNDER ARTICLE 63.3 – REQUEST BY THE  
EUROPEAN UNION  ................................ ................................ ................................ .........  18 
16   INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND INNOVATION: WOMEN AND INTELLECTUAL 
PROPERTY  ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  18 IP/C/M/10 3/Rev.1  
 
- 2 - 
 
  17   INFOR MATION ON RELEVANT DEVELOPMENTS ELSEWHERE IN THE WTO  ...............  19 
18   OBSERVER STATUS FOR INTERNATIONAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL  
ORGANISATIONS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  19 
19   ANNUAL REPORT  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 19 
20   OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 19 
 
  IP/C/M/10 3/Rev.1  
 
- 3 - 
 
  1  NOTIFICATIONS UNDER PROVISIONS OF THE AG REEMENT  
1.  The Chair  invited the Secretariat to update delegations on the notifications under various 
provisions of the TRIPS Agreement that the Council had received since its last meeting in June , to 
then offer the floor to delegations wishing to introduce their notifications.  
2.  The representative of the Secretariat  said that the Council had received the following notifications 
under Article 63.2 of the TRIPS Agreement:  
a. The Republic of Korea  had notified a c onsolidated version of its Customs Act, as well as the 
corresponding enforcement decree . 
b. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia  had notified a regulation regarding the optional registration of 
copyright works with the Saudi Authority for Intellectual Property . 
c. Slovenia  had notified a decree on the implementation of the EU Regulation concerning 
customs enforcement of intellectual property rights, and a consolidated Trade Secrets Act 
transposing EU Directive 2016/943 on the protection of undisclosed know -how and b usiness 
information into domestic legislation . 
d. Japan  had notified a consolidated version of its Patent Act clarifying  the scope of protection 
for trade secrets contained in th e investigation report, and a consolidated Trademarks Act 
that revised the method  of calculating compensations for damages . 
e. Viet Nam  had notified regulations on certain charges and fees to assist businesses and 
ensure social security in response to the CO VID-19 pandemic . 
f. The United Kingdom  had notified a number of separate laws and reg ulations in the areas of 
Patents, Trademarks and Designs legislation . 
g. The European  Union  has notified two Regulations supplementing the rules concerning 
applications for registration of geographical indications of spirit drinks.  
3.  Under Article 69, Uruguay  had notified its contact point for IP enforcement.  
4.  The Chair encouraged delegations that had notified a new or revised legislative measure, to 
inform the Council about the key points of their notification. This had become a well -established 
practice, follow ed by many delegations at recent sessions of the Council  and provide s valuable 
insight into the notifications provided and promotes awareness and transparency.  
5.  The representatives of the European Union;  the Republic of Korea;  the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia;  
Viet Nam  and the United Kingdom  took the floor.  
6.  The Chair  noted that notifications to the Council were not keeping up with the actual development 
of laws and regulations relating to TRIPS. He emphasized that Article 63.2 of the TRIPS Agreement 
was not a one -off requirement. It was a core element of the TRIPS transparency arrangements, and 
a central part of the Council's substantive work. It oblige d Members to notify any new or amended 
laws. He urged Members to complete any outstanding initial notif ications, and to keep up to date 
with notifications on subsequent amendments. The same applie d to the Checklist of Issues on 
Enforcement which had been established by the Council as an element of Members' notification 
obligations. The e -TRIPS platform facility now made it very easy for delegations to fulfil these 
transparency obligations .  
7.  The Chair  encourage d Members , to notify in particular legislative changes made to implement 
the special compulsory licensing system to export medicines covered by the new Article 31 bis of the 
TRIPS Agreement. More than 50 WTO Members, including most of the world's major exporters of 
medicines, ha d adopted implementing legislation that allow ed them to use the system as exporters 
and/or importers. But only 20 Members, inc luding the European Union, ha d formally notified such 
measures to the TRIPS Council. The notification of all relevant laws and regulations could  assist 
Members  in preparing for the potential use of the system and would also help the Secretariat in its 
efforts to provide informed technical support to Members in this area.  IP/C/M/10 3/Rev.1  
 
- 4 - 
 
  8.  The Chair noted that a more comprehensive picture of how the special compulsory licensing 
system ha d been implemented in Members' domestic law could help Members'  on-going discussions 
about how this particular TRIPS flexibility works in practice, and about the causes of any potential 
delays or hindrances in using the system .  
9.  The e-TRIPS submission system was available for Members to notify their laws, and to make 
other required submissions  to the TRIPS Council, through the click of a button. The e-TRIPS system 
not only facilitate s the submission of information by Members – it also permits digital access, 
consultation, and analysis of this information through the e -TRIPS Gateway, an easy -to use interface 
to search and display information related to the TRIPS Council. The Secretariat is available to 
respond to any question in that regard.  
10.  Finally, the Chair recalled that the Secretariat's "Annual Report on Notifications and other 
Information Flows" had been issued in March 2021 , as document IP/C/W/676 . The report 
summarize s submission rates and identifies trends for each of the primary TRIPS transparency 
mechanisms and will be updated ahead of the first formal m eeting TRIPS Council in 2022.  
11.  The Council took note  of the notifications and the statements made.  
2  REVIEW OF NATIONAL IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION  
12.  The Chair  recalled that the Council was preparing for the review of the national implementing 
legislation of Sam oa. As had been  agreed at the end of last year, the Council would  wait for the 
notification of Samoa's revised legislation following their 2018 accession to a number of World 
Intellectual Property Organization ( WIPO ) treaties,1 before commencing the review. He propose d 
that the Secretariat remain in contact with Samoa on the progress of its new legislation ; and that 
the Council revert to the arrangements for Samoa's review at its next meeting. While there were no 
current reviews  pending , he said  Members should feel free to revert to any matter raised in past 
reviews, or to make suggestions regarding further reviews. He would further welcome ideas on how 
to make best use of this agenda item.  
13.  The Council took note of the informatio n provided and agreed to schedule the arrangements for 
the review of Samoa's national implementation legislation as proposed by the Chair.  
3  IP MEASURES IN THE CONTEXT OF COVID -19 
14.  The Chair  recalled that this agenda item ha d been discussed in the Council sin ce its informal 
open-ended meeting in June 2020 and  had been on the Council's agenda at its formal meetings 
since then.  In light of broad support – in principle – for a continuation of these exchanges at the 
Council's  last meetings, the item was on the agenda to facilitate exchange of views on measures 
undertaken as the pandemic persists.  
15.  He referred to the compilation "COV ID-19: Measures Regarding Trade -Related Intellectual 
Property Rights" that was available from the WTO website , which contained a non -exhaustive list of 
IP-related measures taken in the context of COVID -19, compiled by the Secretariat from official 
sources and verified by the Members concerned. This list was updated continuously, even if the rate 
at which new measures are brought  to the attention of the Secretariat was slowing down. He thanked  
those Members that ha d informed the Secretariat of measures that should be included in this list, 
as well as any update or information on the expiry – or end of application – of such measures , and 
encourage d others to do the same.  
16.  The Chair  recalled  that in earlier meetings of th e Council and at the General Council, a n umber 
of Members had asked the Secretariat  to provide and compile data on the number of voluntary 
license agreements regarding COVID -19 vaccine production over time, and on the projected and 
observed volume of vaccine dose production under these  agreements . At the Council's June 2021 
 
1 Samoa has acceded to the WIPO Madrid Agreement and Protocol in 2018, and to the Patent 
Cooperation Treaty, the Geneva Act of the Hague Agreement, and the Geneva Act of the Lisbon Agreement in 
2019.  IP/C/M/10 3/Rev.1  
 
- 5 - 
 
  meeting, the Secretariat had presented an initial set of data from different sources under this agenda 
item. The Chair  invited the  Secretariat to provide an update on the data compilation .  
17.  The Secretariat  took the floor to present document RD/IP/45.  
18.  The representatives of the European Union ; the United States ; Switzerland  and South Africa  
took the floor.  
19.  The Chair  thanked the Secre tariat. In view of the continued interest on this agenda item, he 
proposed that the Council agree to revert to the item at its next meeting, so that the exchanges can 
once again take place, including on the basis of the updated Secretariat document of COVI D-19 
related IP measures.  
20.  The Council took note  of the statements made and agreed to revert  to this item at its next 
meeting.  
4  REVIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 27.3(B)  
5  RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TRIPS AGREEMENT AND THE CONVENTION ON 
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY  
6  PROTECTION OF TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND FOLKLORE  
21.  The Chair  said that the next three agenda items concerned the Review of the Provisions of 
Article  27.3(b), the Relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the Convention on Biological 
Diversity , and the Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Folklore. Following past practice, he 
proposed that these three items be addressed together.  
22.  The Chair  recalled that one tool for the review under agenda item 3 was the information 
provided by Members in respo nse to a list of questions on Article 27.3(b)  of the TRIPS Agreement . 
The "Annual Report on Notifications and other Information Flows" that had been introduced  at 
Council's meeting in March , had illustrated that responses to this checklist had been rather sparse 
recently. So far, only 28 Members had responded to the list of questions on Article 27.3(b), with the 
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia being the most recent Member to submit responses. He encourag ed 
delegations to submit responses or update their previous responses, as well as notify any relevant 
changes in legislation.  
23.  The Chair  recalled that two long -standing procedural issues under these items had also been 
discussed extensively, on the record,  at every regular meeting of the Council for almost ten years  
now: 
a. First, the suggestion for the Secretariat to update the three factual notes on the Council's 
discussions on the TRIPS and Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and related items; 
these n otes were initially prepared in 2002 and last updated in 2006; and  
b. second, the request to invite the CBD Secretariat to brief the Council on the 
Nagoya  Protocol to the CBD, initially proposed in October 2010.  
24.  Following suggestions made at the June 2021 mee ting, the Chair had raised these questions 
with delegations again during the preparatory consultations on 6 October. While he had not detected 
any movement in delegations' positions on these two issues, he had noted a willingness to engage 
bilaterally on p ossible solutions in this regard. He encouraged delegations to pursue this option to 
resolve these differences soon.  
25.  Members' positions on these issues were well known and already extensively recorded in the 
Council's minutes. He encouraged delegations to  focus on suggesting solutions, when addressing 
these procedural questions.  
26.  The representatives of Brazil ; China ; Bangladesh ; India; Indonesia ; Zimbabwe ; the 
Plurinational State of Bolivia ; Nigeria ; South Africa ; Canada ; the United States ; Japan ; Australia ; 
and the United Kingdom  took the floor.  IP/C/M/10 3/Rev.1  
 
- 6 - 
 
  27.  The Council took note  of the statements made  and agreed  to revert to the issues at its next 
meeting.  
7  ANNUAL REVIEW OF THE SPECIAL COMPULSORY LICENSING SYSTEM (PARAGRAPH  7 
OF THE ANNEX TO THE AMENDED TRIPS A GREEMENT AND PARAGRAPH 8 OF THE 
DECISION ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF PARAGRAPH 6 OF THE DOHA DECLARATION ON 
THE TRIPS AGREEMENT AND PUBLIC HEALTH)  
28.  The Chair  recalled that, in the past, the review had been conducted pursuant to Paragraph 6 of 
the 2003 Decision  on the Implementation of Paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on the 
TRIPS  Agreement and Public Health. Since the entry into force of the Protocol Amending the 
TRIPS  Agreement on 23 January 2017, the review also responded to the requirements that had now 
been incorporated into the amended TRIPS Agreement.  
29.  Paragraph 7 of the Annex to the amended TRIPS Agreement and paragraph 8 of the 2003 
Waiver Decision required the Council to review the functioning of the System annually, with a view 
to ensuring its effect ive operation. They also required the Council to report annually on the System's 
operation to the General Council. In the case of the Waiver Decision, this review was also deemed 
to fulfil the requirements of Article IX:4 of the WTO Agreement.  
30.  The Chair updated Members on the status of acceptances of the TRIPS Protocol. The current 
period for accepting it ran until 31 December 2021. The amended TRIPS Agreement was binding for 
133 WTO Members. In other words, 31 Members were yet to accept the Protocol Amendi ng the 
TRIPS Agreement. He encouraged those Members to complete their domestic procedures and deposit 
their instrument of acceptance with the WTO Director -General as soon as possible.  
31.  When the TRIPS Amendment had entered into force in January 2017, Members  had noted that 
it would be useful to consider how to make this new procurement tool work effectively in practice. 
He therefore encouraged Members to engage in a constructive discussion which could also build on 
earlier reviews, as recorded for instance in  the Council's Annual Review of 2016 (circulated in 
document IP/C/76) , as well as the Secretariat's 201 6 Report on Technical Cooperation Activities  
(circulated in document IP/C/W/618) . 
32.  The Chair also noted that during his small -group consultations on the waiver proposal and the 
proposal from the European Union, a detailed discussion on the TRIPS requirements for using 
Article  31bis of the T RIPS Agreement  and the Annex had taken place, including on areas for possible 
improvement. He added that the topics identified there could also usefully inform Members' 
discussion.  
33.  The Chair  turned to the Council's report to the General Council. A draft re port had been prepared 
by the Secretariat (circulated in document JOB/IP/48). It was modelled on previous years' reports 
and contained factual information on the implementation and use of the system. Under the section 
on the Amendment to the TRIPS Agreemen t, it also included a list of Members who were yet to 
accept the Protocol Amending the TRIPS Agreement. As with past reports, an extract from the 
Council's minutes on this agenda item would be attached to the report in Annex 1 and Appendix 1.  
34.  The Council a lso had to decide whether to extend the period for acceptance of the Protocol 
which currently ran until the end of 2021. Since there were 31 Members that had yet to accept the 
Protocol, the Chair suggested that the Council once again extend the period for acceptance for 
another two years – until 31 December 2023. A draft decision for the General Council was included 
in Annex 2 of the Draft Report.  
35.  The representatives of Australia ; Chile; Brazil ; the European Union ; Zimbabwe ; Namibia ; the 
United States ; Switzerland ; the United Kingdom ; Japan  and Argentina  took the floor.  
36.  The Council took note  of the statements made.  
37.  The Council agreed  to adopt the draft report and to attach the record of the discussion to it, 
and to submit, for the General Council's adoption, a decision to extend until 31 December 2023 the 
period for the acceptance by Members of the Protocol Amending the TRIPS Agreemen t. IP/C/M/10 3/Rev.1  
 
- 7 - 
 
  8  NON-VIOLATION AND SITUATION COMPLAINTS  
38.  The Chair  recalled that at its session of 10 December 2019, the General Council had directed 
the TRIPS Council to continue the examination of the scope and modalities for non -violation and 
situation complaints, and  to make recommendations to the 12th Ministerial Conference (MC12). It 
had also been agreed that, in the meantime, Members would not initiate such complaints under the 
TRIPS Agreement.2 Since the n, this item had been discussed at each formal meeting of the Council, 
as well as at informal consultations.  
39.  At the Council meeting in March  2021, his predecessor had shared her impression that a number 
of common understandings regarding TRIPS non -violation could in fact be harvested from the past 
discussions among delegations. In an effort to bring movement into this long -standing and stalled 
debate, she had reiterated her suggestion for the Council to identify such areas of agreement , either 
through delegations' suggestions, or through proposals by th e Chair on the basis of discussion 
records , in order to help focus the discussion on areas of disagreement. These suggestions had not , 
however, attract ed consensus, and Members had reiterated their known positions regarding the 
applicability of non-violati on and situation complaints  in the TRIPS area generally.  
40.  During  the consultations held on 24 March, Members' appetite for engagement had not changed, 
and there had been  no interest in a chair -led process in this regard. Some delegations already had 
antici pated a political linkage of this item with the E -commerce moratorium at the time of MC12, 
while others had insisted that the two moratoria  should be considered on their own merits. In light 
of this, the Chair had emphasized that, while he was ready to facilitate process, there would be no 
outcome without Members' engagement.  
41.  In the most recent consultations held on 6 October, the Chair had also detected no substantive 
movement in delegation s' positions. In th ose meetings he had  shared  his impression that, given the 
short time left before MC12, and the absence of any substantive engagement on scope and 
modalities in 2021, another extension of  the moratorium could not be ruled out. Therefore , in order 
to assist Members in case they should wish to recommend such a decision to the Ministerial 
Conference , he had circulated a draft decision text in document JOB/IP/52, based on previous 
decisions. T he text was intended as a basis for delegations' consideration and could  be improved 
upon, amended  or just put to the side .  
42.  The representatives of Brazil ; Bangladesh ; Chile; Zimbabwe ; Egypt ; Panama ; Indonesia ; 
Switzerland ; China ; Pakistan ; Nigeria ; Norway ; Canada ; the Plurinational State of Bolivia ; India; 
Chinese Taipei ; Guatemala ; South Africa ; the United Kingdom ; Argentina ; New Zealand ; Colombia ; 
Australia ; the European Union ; the U nited States ; and Ukraine  took the floor.  
43.  The Chair  said he had heard support for the draft decision, but no consensus yet. In light of this 
he suggested to keep this agenda item open with a view to reconvening the meeting as appropriate 
when delegations were ready to take a decision on this item.  
44.  At the  reconvened meeting on  5 November 2021 , the Chair proposed that the Council agree to 
adopt the recommendation contained in document JOB/IP/52.  
45.  The Council so agreed .3 
46.  The representatives of Sri Lanka , Brazil  and Chile took the floor.  
47.  The Chair  thanked all delegations for their engagement and cooperation in this matter. He hoped 
that having adopted this recommendation well ahead of MC12 would  send a positive signal to 
Ministers and would allow the Council to focus on the other agenda items that remained open.  
48.  The Council took note  of the statements made.  
 
2 See document WT/L/1080.  
3 The Council's decision on "TR IPS Non -Violation and Situation Complaints" was subsequently circulated 
in document IP/C/91, on 12 November 2021.  IP/C/M/10 3/Rev.1  
 
- 8 - 
 
  9  REVIEW OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TRIPS AGREEMENT UNDER ARTICLE 71.1  
49.  The Chair recalled that Article 71.1 of the TRIPS Agreement  required the Council to conduct a 
review of the implementation once every two years. As the initial review in 1999 ha d not been 
completed, no other review ha d subsequently been initiated.  
50.  During the  consultations on 6 October  2021, he had  pointed out  that th e item ha d been do rmant 
on the Council's agenda , while i n other WTO agreements similar general review mandates regularly 
serve d as an opportunity to pursue in -depth discussions of particular aspects of implementation, as 
agreed by Members , often taking place in dedicated th ematic sessions.  
51.  He said, t he recent intensive discussions on the role of IP in the pandemic response, and on the 
practical application of TRIPS flexibilities in different WTO Members, exemplified  delegations' keen 
interest in discussing these and other a spects of TRIPS implementation . Equally intensive 
engagement on national IP systems  could be seen  in the context of Trade Policy Reviews, where 
Members discuss ed detailed questions of individual approaches to implementation. Other aspects of 
implementation , such as enforcement , had also been requested as ad hoc  agenda items in the TRIPS 
Council in the past. He said that all of this seem ed to indicate that there is considerable interest in 
such discussions among delegations.   
52.  Considering  that the review mand ated in Article 71.1 of the TRIPS Agreement seem ed to have 
been intended as a forum for exactly this type of discussion, the Chair wished  to explore whether 
delegations would be willing to consider resuming this review , which was, in fact, mandated by the 
text of the treaty. This would give a more structured and inclusive home to these and similar 
discussions on the Council's agenda and could establish a more permanent discussion culture around 
examples and experiences from implementin g the Agreement.  
53.  The Chair  suggested  other practices in the house , such as the  reviews of the  Sanitary and 
Phytosanitary Measures ( SPS) or Technical Barriers to Trade ( TBT) Agreements,  could be taken as 
examples . Resuming the review of the TRIPS Agreement  under this item could mean for Members 
to identify, and agree on, selected topics relevant to TRIPS implementation, which could then be 
discussed in dedicated sessions over a two -year period as foreseen in Article 71.1.  
54.  The Chair suggested that, if Membe rs could consider resuming the mandated review function , 
they could hold consultations on the exact process and possible topics for such a review cycle before 
the next meeting. If Members were able to find a suitable approach and format in such consultatio ns, 
resuming the review function could then be considered at the Council's next meeting in March  2022.  
55.  The Council agreed  to revert to the matter at its next meeting.  
10  REVIEW OF THE APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION ON 
GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS U NDER ARTICLE 24.2  
56.  The Chair  recalled that Article 24.2 of the TRIPS Agreement require d the Council to keep under 
review the application of the TRIPS provisions on geographical indications. The principal tool used 
for the review was the Checklist of Questions in documents IP/C/13  and Add.1. Unfortunately, only 
37 out of 164  Members had responded to the Checklist so far; and many of these responses are 
likely to be outdated, being some two decades old. The Chair said that this d id not adequately reflect 
the fact that GI protection was an active area of legal and policy development at domestic level and 
in FTAs. T he "Annual Report on N otifications and Other Information Flows" circulated by the 
Secretariat in March 2021 provide d a Member -by-Member overview of notifications in this area. He 
invited delegations to take a look at whether their responses to the GI Checklist might merit 
updat ing. 
57.  The Chair encouraged delegations to provide responses to the Checklist or to update earlier 
responses. He said that the e -TRIPS Submission System provide d an easy and convenient online 
tool to provide responses to the Checklist and to check the date of the recent submission in that 
regard.  
58.  In line with the Council's recommendation made in March 2010, the Chair also invited Members 
to share information regarding GI chapters in their bilateral agreements.  IP/C/M/10 3/Rev.1  
 
- 9 - 
 
  59.  The Council took note  of the information provided  and agreed  to revert to the matter at its next 
meeting.  
11  NINETEENTH ANNUAL REVIEW UNDER PARAGRAPH 2 OF THE DECISION ON THE 
IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 66.2 OF THE TRIPS AGREEMENT  
60.  The Chair  turned to the Council's 19th annual review of dev eloped country Members' reports on 
their implementation of Article 66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement. Under a Council decision of 
February  2003, developed country Members are to submit annual reports on actions taken or 
planned in pursuance of their commitments under Article 66.2  of the TRIPS Agreement.  New detailed 
reports are required every third year , and updates in the intervening years.  
61.  He recalled that in June 2021, the Council had requested developed country Members to submit 
their seventh set of new deta iled reports in time for the present meeting, and the Secretariat ha d 
since circulated a reminder.4 He also noted that  the LDCs had submitted a proposal of a template 
for the submission of reports on commitments of developed countries under Article 66.2.  
62.  He noted that t he Council had received new reports from Switzerland, Japan, Australia, the 
United Kingdom, the United States, Canada, and the European Union. Since the circulation of the 
revised draft agenda Norway ha d also submitted its report. This docu mentation was being circulated 
under the new dedicated document series with the symbol IP/C/R/TTI /[Member]/  – where "R" stands 
for "Reports" and "TTI" stands for "Technology Transfer Incentives".  
63.  He said that p aragraph 2 of the Council's Decision on the Implementation of Article  66.2 states 
that the annual review sh ould provide Members with an opportu nity to pose questions in relation to 
the information submitted and request additional information; discuss the effectiveness of the 
incentives provided in promoting and encouraging technology transfer to least developed country 
Members in order to enable them to create a sound and viable technological base; and consider any 
points relating to the operation of the reporting procedure established by the Decision.  
64.  Some of the information by developed country Members had been  received only very recently, 
and m ost of it was, so far, available only in its original language. He therefore intended for Members 
to have an opportunity to make further comments at the next meeting of the Council. This would  
give Members a chance to study the information recently circula ted and any additional information 
subsequently received.  
65.  The Chair announced that the Secretariat was planning to hold the Article 66.2 Workshop in 
March 2022. In light of the changing situation, the dates of the workshop ha d not yet been fixed , 
but would  be communicated as soon as they were finalized . This would allow LDCs sufficient time to 
absorb the information provided by developed countries in their reports and also to ensure that 
these reports are available in the official languages of the WTO. It w ould further be an opportunity 
to discuss the LDC  Group s' proposal for a template for reporting on commitments under this Article . 
He indicated that the Workshop w ould comprise two days of workshop sessions, and a reporting and 
review segment within the fi rst TRIPS Council meeting of 2022.  
66.  He reported that in preparation of the next annual Workshop, the Secretariat ha d circulated an 
Article 66.2 survey questionnaire to LDC Members, acceding governments,  and observers on 
27 September 2021. The relevant deleg ations were  invited to answer questions on current areas of 
needs and priority for technological development, projects that are relevant to these areas of 
technology transfer, and their general experience with projects reported under the Article 66.2 
imple mentation and review process. The survey was an optional tool to assist with preparations for 
the annual workshop and aim ed at facilitat ing and inform ing practical dialogue and coordination. The 
deadline to submit answers to this survey questionnaire was Friday, 29 October 2021.  
67.  The representatives of the United Kingdom ; the European Union ; Canada ; Australia ; Norway ; 
the United States ; Switzerland ; Bangladesh, on behalf of the LDC Group ; China; India; and Japan 
took the floor . 
 
4 WTO/AIR/IP/37 of 15 June 2021.  IP/C/M/10 3/Rev.1  
 
- 10 - 
 
  68.  The Chair  suggested that Members be given an opportunity to continue considering the 
information provided at our next meeting.   
69.  The Council took note  of the statements made and agreed to revert  to the matter at its next 
meeting.  
12  TECHNICAL COOPERATION AND CAPACITY BUILDING  
70.  The Chair  recalled that in June 2021, the Council had agreed to hold the annual review of 
technical cooperation at the present meeting.  
71.  Developed country Members had been requested to update information on their technical and 
financial cooperation activities relevant to the implementation of the TRIPS Agreement. Other 
Members who also made available technical cooperation were encouraged to share information on 
these activities. The Secretariat had issued an Airgram on 15 June 2021 reminding developed 
country Members of this request. Intergovernmental organizations observers to the Council and the 
WTO Secretariat had also been invited to provide information.  
72.  The Council had received information from the fol lowing developed country Members: 
Switzerland, Japan, Australia, the United Kingdom, the United States, Canada,  and the European 
Union. Since the circulation of the revised draft agenda Norway has also submitted information in 
this regard. These reports are being circulated under the new dedicated document series with the 
symbol IP/C/R/TC/[Member]/  – where "R" stands for "Re ports" and "TC" stands for "Technical 
Cooperation".  
73.  Intergovernmental organizations had also submitted updated information: the Gulf Cooperation 
Council (GCC), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the World Intellectual Property 
Organization (WIPO). Si nce the circulation of the revised draft agenda , the United Nations 
Conference on Trade and Development ( UNCTAD ) had also submitted information in this regard. 
Their reports were being circulated in the same document series IP/C/R/TC/[IGO  observer]/.  
74.  The report of the  WTO Secretariat  on technical cooperation activities in the TRIPS area was 
available in document IP/C/R/TC/WTO -OMC/2 . 
75.  The representatives of Norway ; Canada ; Australia ; the European Union ; Switzerland ; 
Bangladesh, on behalf of the LDC Group ; the United Kingdom ; the United States ; Japan ; the 
WTO Secretariat ; the Gulf Cooperation Council  (GCC); the World Intellectual Property Organization 
(WIPO ); and  the World Health Organization  (WHO) took the floor.  
76.  The Chair  noted  that most of the valuable information provided by Members and IGO observers 
had been received only very recently. He would  provide delegations  an opportunity at the next 
regular meeting to make further comments on the information submitted.  
77.  The Council took note  of the statements made and agreed  to revert to the matter at its next 
meeting.  
13  PROPOSAL FOR A WAIVER FROM CERTAIN PROVISIONS OF THE TRIPS AGREEMENT 
FOR THE PREVENTION, CONTAINMENT AND TREATMENT OF COVID -19 
78.  The Chair  said that the "Proposal for A Wa iver from Certain Provisions of The TRIPS Agreement 
for the Prevention, Containment and Treatment of C OVID -19" had been circulated in document 
IP/C/W/669  at the request of India and South Africa on 2 October 2020. It had since been 
co- sponsored by the delegations of the Plurinational State of Bolivia; Kenya ; Eswatini ; Mozambique ; 
Pakistan ; the Bolivarian Republic of  Venezuela;  Mongolia ; Zimbabwe ; Egypt ; the African Group ; the 
LDC Group ; the Maldives ; Fiji; Namibia ; Vanuatu ; Indonesia  and Jordan. A revised proposal had 
been circulated by the co -sponsors on 21 May 2021 in document IP/C/W/669/Rev.1 , which had since 
been co -sponsored by the delegation of Malaysia.  
79.  He recalled that, since the formal meeting of the TRIPS Council on 8 -9 June 2021, there had 
been a n intensive schedule of dedicated meetings to discuss this and related proposals in various 
formats. This involved a series of small -group consultations with delegations and group coordinators, IP/C/M/10 3/Rev.1  
 
- 11 - 
 
  five informal open -ended meetings for the purposes of transpar ency and inclusiveness, and two 
additional formal meetings of the Council to adopt successive status reports to the General Council. 
In its most recent oral status report to the General Council on 4 October, Members had concluded 
that: "[…] the TRIPS Counc il has not yet completed its consideration of the revised waiver request. 
The TRIPS Council will therefore continue its consideration of the revised waiver request, including 
through small -group consultations and informal open -ended meetings, and report ba ck to the 
General Council as stipulated in Article IX:3 of the Marrakesh Agreement. In addition, the TRIPS 
Council will also continue in the same manner its consideration of the other related proposals by 
Members" . 
80.  At the informal open -ended meeting of the Council on 14 September 2021, delegations had 
expressed their willingness to continue discussing specific aspects of the proposals in small -group 
meetings. He had  therefore suggested to hold one s mall-group  meeting  in each of the next two 
weeks, and then re unite for an informal open -ended meeting of the TRIPS Council for the sake of 
openness, transparency, and inclusiveness, and to provide an opportunity to take stock and discuss 
how to advance further in light of t hat experience.   
81.  The Chair informed the Council that t he two  small -group consultations were held on 
23 and 29 September. At the first meeting, which was dedicated to discussing 'scope' and 
'implementation', delegations had engaged constructively in the que stions underlying the waiver 
proposal and discussed the practical differences between TRIPS flexibilities and the waiver approach 
at the national level. On that occasion he had also heard delegations expressing their willingness to 
explore areas of common interest. One particular aspect of the discussion  had touched on the 
existing TRIPS flexibilities and the concern voiced by the co -sponsors of the revised waiver proposal, 
that the use of such flexibilities was cumbersome. Thus, the  second small -group cons ultation had 
aimed to examine one of the TRIPS flexibilities cited in the discussions, namely the requirements for 
using compulsory licensing in Articles 31, 31 bis and the Annex  of the TRIPS Agreement ; and to 
relate any assessment of the practical impact o f these requirements to the two proposals before the 
Council.5 Delegations had  detailed exchanges  on individual sub -paragraphs of Article 31 and 31 bis 
of the TRIPS Agreement, and their impact on the practical use of compulsory licensing. In general, 
deliberations had taken  place in a constructive atmosphere and it seemed  that some of these detailed 
discussions could be pursued further . Some delegations  had also voiced their frustration with the 
lack of progress, while a number of delegations had urged Members to focus on practical areas where 
consensus could be feasible in the short term.  
82.  At the informal open -ended meeting o f 4 October  2021, the co -sponsors  of the revised waiver 
proposal had once again indicated their flexibility towards considering the proposal by the 
European  Union as a complementary approach, but they had emphasized that , in their view , a TRIPS 
waiver was a central and necessary element i n the WTO's response to the pandemic. They had urged 
Members to end the binary view of the two proposals as alternatives.  
83.  Other  Members, while welcoming the increased engagement in the small -group consultations, 
had remained unconvinced that a waiver would  be an appropriate or effective tool to scale up 
production or ensure equitable distribution of vaccine doses around the world. The se delegations 
had highlighted the broader Trade and Health initiative as the right tool to address the supply chain 
bottlene cks that the pandemic response was facing. Some had urged convergence on the basis of 
the proposal by the European Union aimed at clarifying, or improving the functioning of, existing 
TRIPS flexibilities.  
84.  While it had been  clear that discussions had not b ridged the persisting disagreement on the 
fundamental approaches underlying the different proposals, he noted that all delegations remained 
willing to continue discussion on the proposals in the various  meeting  formats.  
85.  The Chair  stressed the importance o f bilateral engagement between delegations in order to 
explore common ground and find possible landing zones, which  Members could agree upon to 
conclude these discussions in the TRIPS Council. He said the world was expecting the Council  to find 
a resolutio n of these discussions soon , and this could only happen if  delegations  could find agreement 
amongst themselves. He encouraged delegations to intensify their bilateral contacts  and indicated 
his availability to facilitate engagement in a smaller group, keeping in mind that any outcomes from 
engagement between individual Members regarding the conclusion of the  discussions should feed 
 
5 IP/C/W/669/Rev.1 and IP/C/W/681 . IP/C/M/10 3/Rev.1  
 
- 12 - 
 
  back into th e Council and through it into the broader MC12 di scussions. He sincere ly hoped that 
engagement between delegations could still lead to something the Council could agree on , be that 
in the shape of a recommendation of the TRIPS Council as foreseen under Article IX:3 of the 
Marrakesh Agreement, or be it th rough some other consensus decision representing a conclusion of 
this process.  
86.  The representatives of  the United Kingdom ; South Africa ; Pakistan ; Bangladesh ; the 
Plurinational State of Bolivia ; Chile; Cuba; Nigeria , the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela ; Egypt; 
Indonesia ; the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia ; India; the European Union ; Korea ; Singapore ; Turkey ; 
Japan ; China ; Switzerland ; Norway ; New Zealand ; the United States ; Namibia ; Colombia ; Australia ; 
Brazil;  and Mozambique  took the floor.  
87.  The Chair  said that, with respect to the suggestion to move the current TRIPS discussion into 
the process on trade and health issues Ambassador  Walker  was facilitating under the aegis of the 
Chair of the General Council a t this time, it seemed  clear to him that any concl usions on how different 
WTO disciplines should respond to the pandemic would  all have to be part of the MC12 outcome 
document , and that IP was clearly expected to be part of that, in some form or other. Considering 
the attention and bandwidth that the Coun cil's discussion ha d occupied over the last year, he was 
not concerned  that the waiver request would somehow be forgotten in any prospective MC12 
ministerial declaration.  
88.  In terms of procedure,  he said  it was for  Members to decide whether they would want t o 
terminate the waiver discussions in the TRIPS Council at that time to continue them in 
Ambassador  Walker 's process together with the equally complex trade -related considerations 
discussed there , or whether they  would  prefer to continue focused efforts to  find a consensus 
conclusion on the IP -related discussions in the TRIPS context, which could then be introduced into 
an overall MC12 outcome document , together with any outcome resulting from Amb assador  Walker's 
process.  
89.  While procedural considerations sh ould not stand in the way if consensus among Members 
emerges,  the Chair recalled that it was the TRIPS Council's obligation to come up with a 
recommendation, so that the procedure foreseen under the waiver provisions of the 
Marrakech  Agreement c ould be properly concluded.  
90.  In light of the discussion, it seemed th at the Council was not yet ready to agree on a 
recommendation, but that there remain ed a willingness to continue discussions and exploring 
possible common ground. The Chair proposed to keep th e agenda item open, and thus permit 
delegations to further explore common ground and possible compromise solutions to this discussion. 
If there emerged an indication that Members were in a position to reach consensus, he would 
reconvene the Council to see whether an agreement could be reached on how to conclude these 
discussions before the Ministerial Conference, in a timely manner.  
91.  The Council took note  of the statements made and agreed  to keep the agenda item open.  
92.  During the reconvened meeting on 18 November , the Chair recalled that , as discussed at an 
informal open -ended meeting on 15 November,  he had circulated draft language for an oral status 
report to the General Council on the same day in document JOB/IP/53, w ith an invitation to Members 
to comment by 16 November 2021. An agenda item for this status report had also been placed on 
the agenda of the General Council meeting scheduled for 22 -23 November in the usual fashion. 
Since no  comments had been received on the draft language, delegations had been informed on 
17 November that the Chair  would propose the text as circulated for adoption  on 18 November . The 
language for the oral status report to the General Council which had been circulated in document 
JOB/IP/53  read as follows:   
"At the meeting of the TRIPS Council on 15 -16 October 2020, India and South Africa 
introduced document IP/C/W/669 , requesting a waiver from c ertain provisions of the 
TRIPS Agreement for the prevention, containment and treatment of COVID -19, which 
had been circulated on 2 October 2020 and has since been co -sponsored by the 
delegations of Kenya, Eswatini, Mozambique, Pakistan, the Plurinational S tate of  Bolivia;  
Bolivarian Republic of  Venezuela;  Mongolia;  Zimbabwe;  Egypt;  the African Group ; the 
LDC Group ; the Maldives;  Fiji; Namibia;  Vanuatu;  Indonesia and Jordan.  IP/C/M/10 3/Rev.1  
 
- 13 - 
 
  Since the introduction of the document, discussions took place in various formal an d 
informal TRIPS Council meetings. Delegations exchanged views, asked questions, 
sought clarifications and provided replies, clarifications, and information, including 
through documents IP/C/W/670 , IP/C/W/671 , IP/C/W/672 , IP/C/W/673  and 
IP/C/W/674 , on the waiver request.  
On 21 May 2021 the co -sponsors issued a revised proposal which was circulated in 
document IP/C/W/669/Rev.1 . The revised waiver request was presented at an informal 
open-ended meeting of th e Council on 31 May, and introduced at its formal meeting on 
8-9 June 2021. It has since been co -sponsored by Malaysia. On 29 September 2021, the 
co-sponsors circulated a summary of their interventions in document IP/C/W/684 . 
Since the last oral status report delivered on 7 October 2021, dis cussions continued in 
small -group consultations, at a formal meeting of 13 -14 October, at informal open -
ended meetings on 5 and 15 November, and at an informal and resumed formal meeting 
on 18 November 2021.  
In the course of discussions on the revised wai ver proposal, delegations held focused 
discussions on the topics of 'scope', both from the perspective of products and of IP 
rights, on 'duration', 'implementation' and on protection of undisclosed information. 
Delegations engaged positively and their deta iled substantive exchanges helped clarify 
various aspects and nuances of positions. While delegations remain committed to the 
common goal of providing timely and secure access to high -quality, safe, efficacious and 
affordable vaccines and medicines for all , disagreement persists on the fundamental 
question of whether a waiver is the appropriate and most effective way to address the 
shortage and inequitable distribution of and access to vaccines and other COVID -19 
related products.  
In addition, a proposal f or a draft General Council declaration on the TRIPS Agreement 
and Public Health in the circumstances of a pandemic, issued by the European Union 
and circulated in document IP/C/W/681 , has also been discussed in meetings since its 
circulation on 21 June 2021. Delegations exchanged views, asked questions, sought 
clarifications and provided replies, clarifications, and information. Disagreement persists 
on the fundamental question of whether this proposal is the appropriate and most 
effective way to address the shortage and inequitabl e distribution of and access to 
vaccines and other COVID -19 related products.  
This means that the TRIPS Council has not yet completed its consideration of the revised 
waiver request. The TRIPS Council will therefore continue its consideration of the revis ed 
waiver request, including through small -group consultations and informal open -ended 
meetings, and report back to the 12th Ministerial Conference as stipulated in Article IX:3 
of the Marrakesh Agreement.  
In addition, the TRIPS Council will also continue  in the same manner its consideration of 
the other related proposals by Members. " 
93.  The Chair proposed that  the Council formally adopt the status report as a factual reflection of 
discussions on the TRIPS Waiver request . 
94.  The Council so agreed . 
95.  The Chair  thanked delegations for their cooperation. He would  deliver this report to the General 
Council , on 22 -23 November, as agreed.  
96.  The representatives of India; the European Union ; South Africa ; Indonesia ; Switzerland ; the 
United Kingdom ; and the United States  took the floor.  
97.  The Chair said that, in  line with the report that had been  adopted, it was therefore understood 
that the agenda items 13 and 14 on the Council's agenda continue d to remain open in order to 
permit more time for bilateral engagement, with a view to resuming – at short notice if necessary – 
the meeting, when there were indications that Members might be ready to reach an agreement.  IP/C/M/10 3/Rev.1  
 
- 14 - 
 
  98.  For the  next resumption of th e Council's meeting, meeting room facilities were available for a 
formal resumption for Monday, 29 November 2021. This d id not exclude the possibility of an earlier 
resumption at short notice should the circumstances require this . 
99.  The Chair encouraged delegations to remain seriously engaged, flexible and focused on an 
outcome, which remain ed within reach. The role of IP in the context of the pandemic ha d become 
the centre of attention in the run -up to this Ministerial Conference and a pragmatic and tangible 
outcome of these discussions would be a strong and positive signal to th e Ministerial Conference and 
the global community as a whole. He would r each out to delegations to ensure that  every opportunity 
to find possible landing zones ahead of MC12  would be used . 
100.  The Council took note  of the statements made.  
101.  At the reconvened meeting on 29 November , the Chair suggested to take up agenda items 13 
and 14  together, as mos t delegations were making one single statement  covering both agenda items . 
He recall ed that at the resumed meeting on 18 November , the Council  had adopted an oral st atus 
report to the General Council, which he had  delivered on 22 November 2021. This report had 
concluded that "the TRIPS Council will therefore continue its consideration of the revised waiver 
request, including through small -group consultations and informal open -ended meetings, and report 
back to the 12th Ministerial Conference as stipulated in Article IX:3 of the Marrakesh Agreement. In 
addition, the TRIPS Council will also continue in the same manner its consideration of the other  
related proposals by Members. " 
102.  Since then, the Chair  had held consultations with individual and groups of delegations, as well 
as a small -group consultation on 25 November. He had  also circulated a draft report to the Ministerial 
Conference in document JO B/IP/54. However, in light of the indefinite postponement of the 
12th Ministerial Conference , announced on 26 November 2021, th e draft report was no longer 
proposed for adoption.  
103.  At the  informal meeting that had preced ed the this reconvened formal  meeting,  delegations  
had exchanged views on whether and how they wished to approach work on these items. He had  
shared his view that, although the much -awaited ministerial engagement on the important question 
of the role of IP in the pandemic ha d now been delayed,  the Council could not  afford to lose the 
momentum that had been gathering in the discussions among delegations during the previous  week. 
From delegations' interventions in that meeting it was his sense that there was unanimous  support 
for keeping the mome ntum of the discussions and continuing to engage on these matters, to try and 
harvest any outcome that may still be possible under the changed circumstances.  
104.  The representatives of South Africa ; the European Union ; India; the United Kingdom ; Vanuatu ; 
Indonesia; Chad, on behalf of the LDC Group ; the Plurinational State of  Bolivia ; Pakistan ; Brazil ; 
Maldives ; Switzerland ; and Tanzania, on behalf of the African Group , took the floor.  
105.  The Chair said that he would consult with delegations to help facilitate continued engagement, 
and with a view to finding consensus on a substantive solution . He suggest ed that the agenda items 
remain  open, with a view to resuming the meeting , at short notice, if necessary , when there are 
indications that Members mig ht be closer to agreement on how to conclude these items. He noted 
that the  next options for reconvening the Council's meeting were 10 and 16 December . 
106.  The Council so agreed . 
107.  The Chair thank ed delegations for their engagement on this complex and highly politicized 
issue. He knew  that all delegations share d the common goal of providing timely and secure access 
to high -quality, safe, efficacious and affordable vaccines and medicines for all, and all were working 
hard to narrow their differences on how this common goal c ould be achieved. He said he had heard 
the shared view that IP should not be a barrier to access to medicines, and that governments should 
be able to permit manufacturers that were able and ready to produce COVID -19 vaccines to start 
producing without worrying about a patent.  
108.   While the Chair regret ted that the Council had not been able to reach consensus on a 
substantive recommendation to the 12th Ministerial Conference the previous week, he remain ed 
convinced that a pragmatic compromise solution was within reach, if the political will c ould be IP/C/M/10 3/Rev.1  
 
- 15 - 
 
  mustered.  Although the Council  must now continue its work without the political input from 
ministers, he recalled that  a practical, tangible WTO response to the pandemic was needed, now 
more than ever. As the pandemic continue d to challenge the world's sense of stability, it was 
important that the WTO reach ed agreement on meaningful responses to these challeng es. He urged 
delegations to remain fully engaged with a sense of urgency, and with the objective to find a 
pragmatic consensus -based outcome. This is not the moment to let up, but rather – to quote Lord 
Tennyson – "to strive, to seek, to find, and not to y ield." 
109.  At the reconvened meeting on 16 December , the Chair suggested to once again take up agenda 
items 13 and 14 together, as most delegations were making one single statement covering both 
agenda items. He reported that he had held consultations with a g roup of co -sponsors, and with a 
group of 'non -proponents', respectively, on 8 and 14  December. These separate meetings had not 
indicated any further engagement between these groups at delegation level since mid -November, 
nor had they revealed any movement in positions. The co -sponsors had re-iterated their calls for 
the urgent commencement of text -based negotiations on the basis of the revised waiver proposal 
document IP/C/W/669/Rev.1 , while o ther delegations had seen no promise in any textual 
engagement as long as fundamental dis agreements persisted on the merits of different approaches.   
110.  The Chair  also indicated he had kept in touch with the Director General and DDG Gonzales 
with regard to their political contacts with Members. He invited delegations to share their views on 
recen t developments  and on next steps the Council should take in these matters.   
111.  The representatives of Argentina ; South  Africa ; Mozambique ; the European  Union ; Colombia ; 
Pakistan ; Brazil ; Australia ; Tanzania, on behalf of the African Group ; the Plurinational State of  
Bolivia ; Nigeria ; China ; the United States ; New Zealand ; Norway ; Switzerland ; Indonesia ; India; 
and the United Kingdom  took the floor.  
112.  The Chair  said that what he had heard confirmed the impression he had gathered in the 
consultatio ns with the two groups he had described earlier. On the one hand, there was the 
co- sponsors' insistence that textual engagement should be commenced based on the entirety of 
their proposal. On the other hand, there remained significant scepticism and  outright opposition 
vis- à-vis the waiver approach among a number of delegations, who were therefore reluctant to 
engage on the basis of a text with whose underlying premise they disagree.  
113.  He recalled that, d uring the first small -group consultations in June, th e text of the revised 
waiver had, in fact, been put on the screen with a view to discussing it – but the differences described 
above, and a certain lack of trust among delegations, meant that serious line -by-line engagement 
on that text had simply not been possible among delegations. Despite this , delegations had  managed 
to have quite a number of meetings on substance and on additional proposals – and this was 
reflected in the reports to the G eneral Council . 
114.  During the summer, the Chair said, it had been very much hoped that bilateral engagements 
among delegations would overcome these obstacles and lead to a situation where constructive 
engagement in the Council could be based on a pragmatic focus on common ground, but despite 
some encouraging  signs along the way, this had ultimately not been the case. It was his impression , 
that these obstacles unfortunately still remain ed in place, and he was not able to detect any 
convergence towards a common ground for textual engagement that was any more p romising than 
what had been attempted earlier in the year. To be precise, he said, he did not mean agreement on 
a text, but on a basis for engagement.  
115.  He said that, i n the last few weeks leading up to the planned ministerial conference, it had 
been clear that Members were preparing for engagement at the political level at the conference. 
While it had been rightly pointed that the waiver was not formally part of the designated outcome 
of MC12 and could be addressed at th e level of the TRIPS Council and the General Council, it had 
been clear to everybody, given the timing , that Members wanted those issue s to be discussed at the 
conference.  This was also reflected in the draft report that the Council was ready to adopt at the 
meeting on 29 November. In light o f the postponement of MC12, Members had instead expressed 
their willingness and intention to intensify their engagement with each other. The TRIPS Council 
therefore had decided to stay in session, meaning that the Council could be reconvened at short 
notice.  IP/C/M/10 3/Rev.1  
 
- 16 - 
 
  116.  The Chair  said that,  in the Heads of Delegations meeting held on 2 December he had shared 
with Members his personal assessment that another type of engagement was needed between 
members than what had been witnessed for some time. His first suggestion had been that 
delegations should focus more on what unite d them than on what divide d them, referr ing also  to the 
common objectives shared by Members.  
117.   His second suggestion had been that political engagement an d input was needed to be able 
to change the current dynamic, input that had been anticipat ed from the ministerial conference. He 
had therefore urged members, in particular those who have taken a leading role in the discussions 
on these matters, to engage w ith each other, across the aisle, with a sense of urgency, not only 
here in Geneva, but also, and most importantly, at the political level. He was therefore encouraged 
by what he had heard from some members regarding such political engagement taking place now.  
118.  Against this background, the Chair  believed that the best course of action for the immediate 
future was to let the on -going high -level engagement continue and mature. If a common approach 
to the discussions on these items could be developed among the se Members, he said, this could 
hopefully contribute to unlocking the situation in the Council and allow all Members to take a step 
forward towards developing a consensus outcome. He had also taken note of Members underlining 
the need for transparency and inclusiveness , while welcoming engagement among a few Members. 
He said that it went without saying that any achievement  among a small group of Members would 
have to be brought to the larger membership. He reiterated his belief that a practical, tangible WT O 
response to the pandemic is needed, now more than ever. If members focus on that, he also believe d 
it was within reach.  
119.  In light of this, the Chair  proposed that the Council once again keep the agenda items open, 
with a view to resuming the meeting – at short notice, if necessary – when there are indications that 
Members might be closer to a common understanding on how to proceed towards a possible landing 
zone and ultimately a consensus -based solution. In the meantime, he would remain in touch with 
delegations to keep abreast of any developments and  would make practical arrangements to be able 
to resume whenever there were any new developments or a need to inform Members of the current 
state of play.  
120.  The Council so agreed . 
121.  At the reconvened meeting on 22 February 2022 , the Chair suggested to once again take up 
agenda items 13 and 14 together, as had been the case in past meetings. The Chair recalled that, 
as indicated in his c ommunication dated 11 February 2022, he had circulated draft language for an 
oral status report to the General Council in document JOB/IP/55 on 16 February 2022, with an 
invitation to Members to comment by 18 February 2022. An agenda item for this status r eport had 
also been placed on the agenda of the General Council meeting scheduled for 2 3-24 February  in the 
usual fashion. Since no comments had been received on the draft language, delegations had been 
informed that the Chair would propose the text as cir culated for adoption on 22 February 2022 . The 
language for the oral status report to the General Council which had been circulated in 
document  JOB/IP/5 5 read as follows:  
At the meeting of the TRIPS Council on 15 -16 October 2020, India and South Africa 
introduced document IP/C/W/669 , request ing a waiver from certain provisions of the 
TRIPS Agreement for the prevention, containment and treatment of COVID -19, which 
had been circulated on 2 October 2020 and has since been co -sponsored by the 
delegations of Kenya, Eswatini, Mozambique, Pakistan, Bolivia, Venezuela, Mongolia, 
Zimbabwe, Egypt, the African Group, the LDC Group, the Maldives, Fiji, Namibia, 
Vanuatu, Indonesia and Jordan.  
Since the introduction of the document, discussions took place in various formal and 
informal TRIPS Council meetin gs. Delegations exchanged views, asked questions, 
sought clarifications and provided replies, clarifications, and information, including 
through documents IP/C/W/670 , IP/C/W/671 , IP/C/W/672 , IP/C/W/673  and 
IP/C/W/674 , on the waiver request.  
On 21 May 2021 the co -sponsors issued a revised proposal which was circulated in 
document IP/C/W/669/Rev.1 . The revised waiver request was presented at an informal IP/C/M/10 3/Rev.1  
 
- 17 - 
 
  open-ended meeting of the Council on 31 May, and introduced at its formal meeting on 
8-9 June 2021. It has since bee n co-sponsored by Malaysia and Argentina. On 
29 September 2021, the co -sponsors circulated a summary of their interventions in 
document IP/C/W/684 . 
Status reports on the considerations by the TRIPS Council on the revised "Proposal for 
a Waiver from Certain Provisions of the TRIPS Agreement f or the Prevention, 
Containment and Treatment of COVID -19" were delivered to the General Council on 
3-4 March, 5 -6 May, 27 July, 7 October and, most recently, on 22 November 2021.  
In the course of discussions on the revised waiver proposal, delegations held  focused 
discussions on the topics of 'scope', both from the perspective of products and of IP 
rights, on 'duration', 'implementation' and on protection of undisclosed information. 
Delegations engaged positively and their detailed substantive exchanges hel ped clarify 
various aspects and nuances of positions. While delegations remain committed to the 
common goal of providing timely and secure access to high quality, safe, efficacious and 
affordable vaccines and medicines for all, disagreement persists on the  fundamental 
question of whether a waiver is the appropriate and most effective way to address the 
shortage and inequitable distribution of and access to vaccines and other COVID related 
products.  
In addition, a proposal for a draft General Council declar ation on the TRIPS Agreement 
and Public Health in the circumstances of a pandemic, issued by the European Union 
and circulated in document IP/C/W/681 , has also been discussed in meetings since its 
circulation on 21 June 2021. Delegations exchanged views, asked questions, sought 
clarification s and provided replies, clarifications, and information. Disagreement persists 
on the fundamental question of whether this proposal is the appropriate and most 
effective way to address the shortage and inequitable distribution of and access to 
vaccines and  other COVID -related products.  
This means that the TRIPS Council has not yet completed its consideration of the revised 
waiver request. The TRIPS Council will therefore continue its consideration of the revised 
waiver request, and report back to the Gener al Council as stipulated in Article IX:3 of 
the Marrakesh Agreement.  
In addition, the TRIPS Council will also continue in the same manner its consideration of 
the other related proposals by Members.  
122.  The Chair  proposed that the Council formally adopt the s tatus report as a factual reflection of 
discussions on the TRIPS Waiver request.  
123.  The Council so agreed . 
124.  The Chair thanked delegations for their cooperation and said he would deliver this report to 
the General Council, on 23 -24 February, as agreed. He recal led that, given the upcoming 
opportunities for delegations to place formal statements on the record at the General Council and at 
the next formal meeting of the TRIPS Council on 9 -10 March , he was not intending to open the floor 
under this agenda item, and  he thanked delegations for their cooperation in this regard.  
125.  The Secretariat  briefly announced that a Secretariat Briefing on the TRIPS Council intended 
for new delegations would be held on 1 March 2022.  
14  DRAFT GENERAL COUNCIL DECLARATION ON THE TRIPS AGRE EMENT AND PUBLIC 
HEALTH IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF A PANDEMIC  
126.  The Chair recalled that on 4 June 2021, the Council had received a communication from 
the European Union on "Urgent Trade Policy Responses to the COVID -19 Crisis: Intellectual 
Property ".(document IP/C/W/680 ), which had been followed on 18  June 2021 by a "Draft General 
Council Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health in the Circumstances of a 
Pandemic ".(document IP/C/W/681 ). IP/C/M/10 3/Rev.1  
 
- 18 - 
 
  127.  The European Union had introduced its proposed declaration during an informal meeting held 
on 24  June 2021. The proposal had also been discussed during informal meetings held on 30 June 
and 6 and 14 July, and at a formal meeting on 20 July. It had since been discussed at every meeting 
dedicated to discussing the revised TRIPS waiver proposal under the previous agenda item. As pa rt 
of the TRIPS Council's status reports to the General Council on the revised waiver request on 27 July 
and on 4 October, Members had reported that the TRIPS Council would also continue its 
consideration of the EU's proposal.  
128.  The representatives of the United Kingdom ; Pakistan ; Cuba; Republic of Korea ; Singapore ; 
Turkey ; China ; Switzerland ; Norway ; Brazil ; Mozambique ; India; and the European Union  took the 
floor. 
129.  The Chair  thanked the delegations for their interventions. Noting  that the consideration of t he 
present  item was closely linked to the previous one, he suggested  to also suspend the conclusion of 
this agenda item, so that it c ould be taken up together with the waiver discussion, when the Council 
resume d these items.  
130.  The Council took note  of the statements made and agreed  to keep the agenda item open.  
131.  At the reconvened meeting of 18 November , the report to the General Council was adopted 
and the Chair said that, it was therefore understood that the agenda items 13 and 14 on the Council's 
agenda continued to remain open in order to permit more time for bilateral engagement, with a view 
to resuming – at short notice if necessary – the meeting, when there were indications that Members 
might be ready to reach an agreement. [see paragraphs 93 -99] 
132.  At the reconvened meeting of 29 November , the Chair proposed to take agenda items 13 and 
14 together, as delegations had been making a single statement. [see paragraphs 10 0-107] 
133.  At the reconvened meeting of 16 December , the Chair proposed to take agenda items 13 and 
14 together, as delegations had been making a single statement.  [see paragraphs 10 8-119] 
134.  At the reconvened meeting of 22 February 2022 , the Chair proposed to take agenda items 13 
and 14 together, as delegations had been making a single stateme nt for both items . [see paragraphs 
121-125] 
15  INFORMATION REQUEST UNDER ARTICLE 63.3 – REQUEST BY THE EUROPEAN UNION  
135.  The Chair said the present item has been put on the agenda at the request of 
the European  Union. On 4 June 2021, the Council had received a communication from 
the European  Union to China, entitled "Request for Information Pursuant to Article 63.3 of the 
TRIPS  Agree ment", regarding recent judicial decisions and regulations relating to patents 
(IP/C/W/682). On 7 September 2021, the Council had received a communication from China entitled 
"Response to the European Union's Request for Information Pursuant to Article 63. 3 of the 
TRIPS  Agreement" (IP/C/W/683).  
136.  The representatives of the European Union ; China ; and the  United States  took the floor.  
137.  The Council took note  of the statements made.  
16  INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND INNOVATION: WOMEN AND INTELLECTUAL P ROPERTY  
138.  The Chair said that the  item ha d been put on the agenda at the request of Australia, the 
European Union, Japan, Switzerland, the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen 
and Matsu, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America. These delegations ha d also 
submitted a communication to allow Members to prepare for today's discussion  (document 
IP/C/W/685 ). Since the circulation of the revised draft agenda, the delegation of Chile ha d been 
added to the co -sponsors of this item and the corresponding submission.  
139.  The representatives of the United States ; the European Union ; Chile; the United Kingdom ; 
Chinese Taipei ; Japan ; Australia ; Canada ; Singapore ; Switzerland ; Panama ; South Africa ; China ; 
and WIPO  took the floor.  IP/C/M/10 3/Rev.1  
 
- 19 - 
 
  140.  The Council took note  of the statements made under this item.  
17  INFORMATION  ON RELEVANT DEVELOPMENTS ELSEWHERE IN THE WTO  
141.  The Chair  recalled that the purpose of this agenda item was to keep Members posted of 
developments in other WTO bodies which are relevant to TRIPS matters, s o no discussion was 
required.  He invited the Secretariat to provide the regular briefing on IP -related issues considered 
in the context of individual Members' trade policy reviews, and in the Director -General's Monitoring 
Report.  
142.  The representative of the  Secretariat  took the floor.  
143.  The Council took note  of the information provided.  
18  OBSERVER STATUS  FOR INTERNATIONAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANISATIONS  
144.  The Chair said that there continue d to be 14 pending requests for observer status in the TRIPS 
Council by inte rgovernmental organizations. The updated list was available6 and the i nformation 
provided by these organizations on their respective work and the reasons for their interest in 
observer status was on the Members' website.7 
145.  The representatives of Bangladesh ; the United States ; South Africa ; China ; Indonesia ; and 
the Bolivaria n Republic of Venezuela  took the floor.  
146.  The Council took note  of the statements made and agreed  to revert to the matter a t its next 
meeting.  
147.  The Chair  recalled that, at its meeting in November 2012, the Council had agreed to grant ad 
hoc observer status on a meeting -to-meeting basis to the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) . 
Since then, this invitation ha d been renewed at each meeting. The Chair suggested to invite again 
the EFTA to attend the Council's next form al meeting on an ad hoc basis.  
148.  The Council so agreed . 
19  ANNUAL REPORT  
149.  The Chair said that the draft Annual Report of the Council ha d been circulated  in 
document  JOB/IP/49 and still need ed to be updated in order to reflect the discussions at the present 
meeti ng. He asked if any delegation would have any comments on the draft at this point.  He 
suggest ed that the Council agrees that the Secretariat be requested to update the draft to reflect 
the discussions at this meeting. The draft delegations would have one w eek to comment on the 
updated parts of the draft report.  
150.  The Council so agreed .  
20   OTHER BUSINESS  
151.  The Chair  proposed to hold the TRIPS Council on t he following dates in 2022:  
- 9-10 March 2022  
- 8-9 June 2022  
- 12-13 October 2022.8 
152.  The Council  so agreed . 
__________  
 
6 IP/C/W/52/Rev.14 . 
7 Available at https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/xtrips_e/igo_observer_e.htm .  
8 These dates have been coordinated with WIPO.