RESTRICTED  
  
IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
7 June  2017 
(17-3022) Page: 1/73 
Council for Trade -Related Aspects of  
Intellectual Property Rights  
   
 
MINUTES OF MEETING  
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD ON 1-2 MARCH 2017  
Chairperson: Ambassador Alfredo Suescum (Panama)  
Addendum  
The present document contains the statements made during the Council for TRIPS meetings held 
on 1-2 March  2017. 
 
_____________ __ 
 
AGENDA ITEM 1: ELECT ION OF CHAIRPERSON  ................................ ................................ . 4 
AGENDA ITEM 2: NOTIF ICATIONS UNDER PROVI SIONS OF THE AGREEME NT ..................  4 
AGENDA ITEM 3: REVIE WS OF NATIONAL IMPLE MENTING LEGISLATION  ........................  7 
AGENDA ITEM 4. REVIE W OF THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 27.3(B)  ...............................  9 
AGENDA ITEM 5: RELAT IONSHIP BETWEEN THE TRIPS AGREEMENT AND THE 
CONVENTION ON BIOLOG ICAL DIVERSITY  ................................ ................................ ...... 9 
AGENDA ITEM 6: PROTE CTION OF TRADITIONAL  KNOWLEDGE AND F OLKLORE  ...............  9 
AGENDA ITEM 7: NON -VIOLATION AND SITUAT ION COMPLAINTS  ................................ . 18 
AGENDA ITEM 8:  REVI EW OF THE IMPLEMENTA TION OF THE TRIPS AG REEMENT 
UNDER ARTICLE  71.1 ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 22 
AGENDA ITEM 9: REVIE W OF THE APPLICATION  OF THE PROVISIONS OF  THE 
SECTION ON GEOGRAPHI CAL INDICATIONS UNDE R ARTICLE 24.2  ................................  22 
AGENDA ITEM 10:  FOL LOW -UP TO THE FOURTEENTH  ANNUAL REVIEW UNDER 
PARAGRAPH 2 OF THE D ECISION ON THE IMPLE MENTATION OF ARTICLE  66.2 
OF THE TRIPS AGREEME NT ................................ ................................ ............................  23 
AGENDA ITE M 11: TECHNICAL COOP ERATION AND CAPACITY -BUILDING  .....................  24 
AGENDA ITEM 12: THE UNITED NATIONS SECRE TARY -GENERAL'S HIGH LEVEL  
PANEL REPORT ON ACCE SS TO MEDICINES  ................................ ................................ .... 27 
AGENDA ITEM 13: WORK  PROGRAMME ON ELECTRO NIC COMMERCE  .............................  38 
AGENDA ITEM 14:  INT ELLECTUAL PROPERTY A ND INNOVATION: INCLU SIVE 
INNOVATION AND MSME COLLABORATION ................................ ................................ .... 49 
AGENDA ITEM 15: INFO RMATION ON RELEVANT DEVELOPMENTS ELSEWHE RE IN 
THE WTO  ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................  70 
AGENDA ITEM 16:  OBS ERVER STATUS FOR INT ERNATIONAL 
INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGAN IZATIONS  ................................ ................................ ....... 71 
AGENDA ITEM 17: OTHE R BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ..............  73 IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 2 - 
 
   
 
INDEX OF THE STATEMENTS MADE  
AT THE MEETING OF COUNCIL FOR TRIPS 1-2 March  2017 * 
 
 
Argentina  
IP and Innovation - MSME collaboration , 64 
Non-violation, 19  
Work Programme on E -Commerce, 40  
Australia  
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK, 14  
IP and Innovation - MSME collaboration , 49 
UN HLP on Access to Medicines, 35  
Work Programme o n E-Commerce, 46  
Bangladesh on behalf of the LDC Group  
Article 66.2, 23  
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK, 10  
IP and Innovation  
MSME collaboration , 69 
Non-violation, 19  
Observer status, 72  
UN HLP on Access to Medicines, 29  
Work Programme on E -Commerce, 41  
Bolivia,  Plurinational State of  
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK, 10  
Observer status, 73  
Brazil  
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK,, 9  
IP and Innovation - MSME collaboration , 69 
Non-violation , 18 
Observer status, 72  
Technical cooperation, 27  
UN HLP on Access to Medicines, 29, 36  
Work Programme on E -Commerce, 38, 49  
Canada  
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK, 15  
IP and Innovation - MSME collaboration , 62 
Review of Legislation, 8  
UN HLP on Access to Medicines, 33  
Work Programme on E -Commerce, 44  
Chair  
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK, 17, 18  
UN HLP on Access to Medicines, 37, 38  
Chile  
UN HLP on Access to Medicines, 36  
Work Programme on E -Commerce, 48  
China  
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK, 13  
Non-violation, 19  
Notifications, 6  
Observer status, 73  
UN HLP on Access to Medicines, 31  
Colombia  
IP and Innovation - MSME collaboration , 62 
Work Programme on E -Commerce, 47  
Cuba  
Observer status, 73  
Dominican Republic  
IP and Innovation - MSME collaboration , 67 
 
 Ecuador  
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK, 12, 16  
Notifications, 5  
Egypt  
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK, 13  
Non-violation,  20 
Observer status, 72  
UN HLP on Access to Medicines, 32  
El Salvador  
Article 24.2, 22  
European Union  
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK, 16  
IP and Innovation - MSME collaboration , 56 
Observer status, 72  
UN HLP on Access to Medicines, 35, 37  
Work Programme on E -Commerce, 42  
Guatemala  
IP and Innovation - MSME collaboration , 64 
India  
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK, 11  
IP and Innovation - MSME collaboration , 60 
Non-violation, 20  
Observer status, 71  
UN HLP on Access to Medicines, 27  
Work Programme on E -Commerce, 48  
Indonesia  
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK, 13  
Observer status, 73  
UN HLP on Access to Medicines, 31  
Israel  
IP and Innovation - MSME collaboration , 66 
Japan  
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK, 15  
IP and Innovation - MSME collaboration , 55 
Notifications, 7  
UN HLP on Access to Medic ines, 33  
Kazakhstan  
Review of Legislation, 8  
Korea, Republic of  
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK, 15  
UN HLP on Access to Medicines, 34  
Work Programme on E -Commerce, 48  
Mexico  
IP and Innovation - MSME collaboration , 65 
Notifications, 7  
Work Programme on E -Commerce , 46 
Moldova, Republic of  
Work Programme on E -Commerce, 45  
Montenegro  
Notifications, 6  
New Zealand  
IP and Innovation - MSME collaboration , 69 
Work Programme on E -Commerce, 49  
 
 
 IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 3 - 
 
  Nigeria on behalf of the Africa Group  
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK, 14, 17  
IP and  Innovation - MSME collaboration , 70 
Non-violation, 22  
Observer status, 71, 73  
UN HLP on Access to Medicines, 32  
Norway  
UN HLP on Access to Medicines, 34  
Work Programme on E -Commerce, 42  
Paraguay  
Work Programme on E -Commerce, 40  
Russian Federation  
IP and I nnovation - MSME collaboration , 68 
Non-violation, 20  
Work Programme on E -Commerce, 47  
Seychelles  
Review of Legislation, 8  
Singapore  
Work Programme on E -Commerce, 43  
South Africa  
Observer status, 72  
UN HLP on Access to Medicines, 31, 37, 38  
Switzerland  
Article 24.2, 23  
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK, 15  
IP and Innovation - MSME collaboration , 58 
Non-Violation, 19  
Notifications, 5  Review of Legislation, 7, 8, 9  
UN HLP on Access to Medicines, 35, 38  
Work Programme on E -Commerce , 41 
Chinese Taipei  
IP and Innovation - MSME collaboration , 54 
Non-violation, 19  
UN HLP on Access to Medicines, 36  
Work Programme on E -Commerce, 44  
Turkey  
Work Programme on E -Commerce, 47  
United States  
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK, 14, 16, 17  
Election of Chairman, 4  
IP and Innovation - MSME colla boration , 51 
Non-violation, 21  
Observer status, 71  
Review of Legislation, 9  
UN HLP on Access to Medicines, 32, 37  
Work Programme on E -Commerce, 42  
Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of  
Observer status, 73  
WHO Secretariat  
UN HLP on Access to Medicines, 36  
WTO S ecretariat  
Information on Developments in WTO , 70 
Notifications, 4  
Technical cooperation, 24  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
___________________  
* A record of statements as delivered in the formal session of the Council. Some statements have been 
lightly edited as appropriate to ensure the consistency of presentation.  IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 4 - 
 
  AGENDA ITEM 1: ELECTION OF CHAIRPER SON 
1.1 United States  
1.  On behalf of the United States,  we are happy to agree to the appointment of Ambass ador 
Suescum to serve as our interim Chair of the meeting of the Council. Thank you Ambassador for 
your willingness to step in and serve in this important role. However, we wish to signal the concern 
of the United States with the unfortunate developments that hav e left the General Council unable 
to agree on a slate of Chair s for WTO Councils and Committees this year. As a Member that is 
dedicated to the effective and improved functioning of our WTO committee structures, it is a 
matter of considerable concern to th e United States that we find ourselves unable to succeed in 
whatever most basic tasks as Members, the selection of Chairs.  
2.  Again we thank Ambassador Suescum for making himself available, and we hope that the 
Organization as a whole can quickly move toward s a satisfactory resolution of the current 
destructive standoff over chairmanships. The United States looks forward to working with the 
interim Chairman on promoting our common objective ensuring that the TRIPS Council is a 
productive, constructive body wh ere we engage in discussion of relevant IPR issues.  
AGENDA ITEM 2: NOTIFICATIONS UNDE R PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT  
2.1 WTO Secretariat  
3.  Under Article  63.2. of the Agreement, the Council has received the following notif ications:  
 From China, the revised Trademark Law and the revised Regulations for its implementation;  
 From Montenegro, amendments to the Law on Copyright and Related Rights,  to the Law on 
Trademarks, to the Law on Legal Protection of Industrial Design , and to the Law on 
Protection of Topographies of Semiconductors ; 
 From Ecuador, the consolidated Intellectual Property Act and its Implementing Regulations, 
the Law on Books, the Publication of a Certified Copy of UPOV 1978, an Amendment to 
Resolution No. 003 on Patent Fees, the Instructions for the Grant of Compulsory Licences for 
Pharmaceutical Patents, the Declaration of Public Interest Regarding Access to Medicines for 
Human Use, a Regulation Establishing the Ecuador Country Brand Licensing Procedure, and 
a number of other laws and regulations;  
 From Greece, an amendment to the Law on Reinforcement and Development of Film Art and 
Other Provisions, a Law implementing certain EU Directives in the field of copyright and 
amending the Law on Copyright, Related Rights  and Other Cultural Issues, an amendment to 
the Presidential Decree in application of the Act Revising the Convention on the Grant of 
European Patents, a Ministerial Decision regarding the Electronic Distribution of Documents 
to and from the Industrial Pro perty Organization and Electronic Filing of Industrial Design or 
Model Registration, an amendment to provisions in Law 3377/2055 dealing with counterfeit 
goods, and a Presidential Decree setting out the administrative process of imposing fines to 
collectin g societies and collective protection societies;  
 From Mexico, a Decree Amending, Adding and Repealing Certain Provisions of the 
Regulations under the Industrial Property Law (IP/N/1/MEX/I/12); and  
 From Japan, the Act on the Protection of the Names of Speci fic Agricultural, Forestry and 
Fishery Products and Foodstuffs and the Amendment of the Act.  
4.  These notifications are referred to on the revised agenda for this meeting. They are available in 
the IP/N/1 - series of documents, and the actual texts of laws are  on the Documents Online 
database.  
5.  Since the distribution of the revised agenda the delegation of Switzerland has also notified an 
update of the list of laws and regulations in force dealing with intellectual property and legislative IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 5 - 
 
  amendments that have b een made since May 2013. These notifications will also be made available 
to Members in this series of documents IP/N/1 - as quickly as possible.  
6.  Also, Saint Kitts and Nevis has notified its initial responses to the Checklist of Issues on 
Enforcement.1 No other initial responses or updates to earlier responses have been submitted 
since our last meeting.  
7.  Finally, Benin has submitted information regarding contact points under Article 69 for the 
exchange of information and cooperation on trade in infringing goo ds.2 The information on the 
Members ' transparency toolkit page has been updated accordingly.  
2.2 Switzerland  
8.  I would like to thank the Secretariat for informing the Council about the recent update of our 
notification in a ccordance with Article 63.2 of the TRIPS Agreement.  
9.  This update concerns the period since our last notification in and up to 2012 and covers 
amendments in the field of TRIPS relevant Swiss IP legislation in force on the 1 January 2017. We 
won't impose on the Council a lengthy presentation of the notified changes. A short description of 
every notified amendment is contained in the written document submitted to the WTO Secretariat.  
10.  Two developments in the Swiss IP framework since 2012 might nevertheless be worthwhile to 
be shortly mentioned. On one hand, this concerns the establishment of a specialized Federal 
Patent Court competent for patent litigation at first instance, which replaces the 26 cantonal 
courts. In the new Patent Court, proceedings and pre -trial procedural acts may be conducted in 
English . 
11.  Further, the amendment of the national legislation regulating in more detail the use of the 
indication of source "Swiss ", of the Swiss cross and of the Swiss coat of arms on goods and 
services which entered into force on 1 January 2017. This set of new legislation provided also a 
new register for geographical indications for non -agricultural products.  
12.  For more details on our notification, we refer Members to the document notified and we thank 
the WTO Secreta riat for editing and circulating the documents among the Membership.  
2.3 Ecuador  
13.  As explained by my delegation at the TRIPS Council meeting in November last year, Ecuador 
has submitted to the WTO Central Registry of Notifica tions the notification of various intellectual 
property laws and regulations, in accordance with Article 63.2 of the TRIPS Agreement.  
14.  Fifteen notifications were submitted on various intellectual property related laws, regulations 
and decrees, the details o f which are described in the documents listed on the agenda. The 
notifications most worthy of note were undoubtedly those referring to amendments made to the 
Intellectual Property Act and the Regulations thereto, which establish a set of standards and rule s 
issued by the competent authority to improve the enforcement and implementation of the Act; and 
the amendments to the Law on Books, which declares literary creation and the production, 
publication and distribution of books, considered key means of streng thening national identity, to 
be of national interest.  
15.  Also notified is the Decree providing that access to medicines used for the treatment of 
diseases affecting the Ecuadorian population is a matter of public interest, and that compulsory 
licences may ac cordingly be issued on patents of such drugs for human use as are needed for their 
treatment.  
16.  These notifications on intellectual property bring Ecuador up to date as regards the fulfilment 
of its commitments.  
                                                
1 Circulated in document IP/N/6/KNA/1.  
2 Circulated i n document IP/N/3/BEN/1.  IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 6 - 
 
  2.4 China  
17.  The rev ised Trademark Law entered into force on 1 May 2014. It is the third revision to the 
Trademark Law since i t was first  adopted in 1982. This revision aims to facilitate the trademark 
registration, promote a fair and competitive market and strengthen the pro tection on trademark 
rights.  
18.  Among others, it specifies the following rules:  
 enriching elements applicable for trademark registration, for example sound;   
 offering opportunities  for applicants to explain or correct their filed application;   
 allowing appl icants to apply for registration of the same trademark for multiple types  
of goods in one application;  
 improving the objection procedure and the protection on well -known trademarks;  
 providing a heavier punishment if a party has committed trademark infringe ment on 
two or more occasions within five years or falls under any other serious 
circumstances;  
 increasing the amount of compensation for damages caused by infringement of 
trademark rights.  
19.  According to the amendments to the Trademark law, the regulation s for the implementation of 
the trademark law were so amended.  
2.5 Montenegro  
20.  Thank you for giving me the opportunity to present the latest Montenegrin  Intellectual  
Property legislation submitted to the WTO and the Members o n 13 December 201 6. During 2016, 
Montenegro adopted Amendments to the Law on Copyright and Related Rights, to the Law on 
Trademarks, to the Law on Legal Protection of Industrial Design , and to the Law on Protection of 
Topographies of Semiconductors . The pr imary objective of these amendments was further 
strengthening of the protection of intellectual property rights in Montenegro , as well as fulfilment 
of the obligations in the process of accession of Monte negro to the European Union, through 
harmonisations  and alignment with the European Union legislation and relevant international 
standards.  
21.  The following is a short description of the amendments which entered into force in 2016. The 
most important novelties in the law on the amendment to the Law on Copyrig ht and Related Rights 
are regulating issues related to the issues of child labour and orphan works, increasing terms of 
protection of the rights of phonogram producers from 50 to 70 years, more detailed regulations sui 
generis  rights of makers of databases  and introducing community exhaustion of rights from  the 
rights of the accession of Montenegro to the European U nion. This  law determines strict 
restrictions on the use of orphan works, the end of orphan works status and the issue of fair 
compensation for their use. The law also prescribes collective management of rights on voluntary 
basis with extended effect, as well as granting multi territorial licences for online rights in musical 
works. The law prescribes the possibility for a right holder , whose copy right or related rights has 
been infringed  to file a claim requesting an injunction against an intermediary whose services was 
used by a third party on infringing  his or her right.  
22.  The most important novelties in the Law on Amendments the Law on Trademark s are in more 
detailed regulations of the inspection supervision procedures in case of infringement of rights, 
extension of validity to the territory of Montenegro of community trademark applications and 
community trademarks from the date of accession of M ontenegro the European Union and 
introducing community exhaustion of rights from the date of accession of Montenegro to the 
European Union. The law prescribes that licence agreement, the transfer of trademark, the pledge 
and the levy of execution produce t he legal effect against a third parties after entry into the 
register.  
23.  Finally , the Law on Amendments to the Law on Legal Protection of Industrial Design  describes 
in detail inspection supervision procedures in the case of infringement of rights. This law  extends IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 7 - 
 
  validity to the territory of Monte negro of community design applications and community designs 
from the date of accession of Monte negro to the European Union and introduces community 
exhaustion applies from the date of accession of Montenegro to t he EU. Procedure for declaration 
of invalidity of industrial design has also been described. Lastly , the Law on Amendments to the 
Law on Protection of Topographies of Semiconductors  describes the misdemeanours for violation of 
topography  introduces communi ty exhaustion of price from the date of access of Montenegro to 
the European Union and specifies the component inspections supervision authority.  
24.  Montenegro is fully dedicated to the implementation of this important amendments and 
further improvements of legislative and institutional framework for the protection of intellectual 
property rights. In  addition, Montenegro intends to further strengthen cooperation regarding the 
respect of all intellectual property rights , since this is one of the conditions for  effective 
enforcement of IP rights.  
2.6 Mexico  
25.  We would like to thank the Secretariat for the ongoing work and efforts they have deployed 
with regards to Members notifications . Mexico, in compliance with its obligations on not ifications , 
has submitted to the Council the recent amendments which have been made to the regulation on 
the industrial property law . These  can f ound in document IP/N/1/MEX/I/2. Modifications or 
amendments here, amongst other aspects, refer to the periods of time and provisions which relate 
to the submission and processing of requests submitted to the Mexican Institute of Industrial 
Property, in the name of simplifying and expediting these procedures.  
2.7 Japan  
26.  This delegation i s pleased to inform the Council that Japan enacted the Act on Protection of 
the Names of Specific Agricultural, Forestry and Fishery Products and Foodstuffs  of 2014. The Act 
entered into force in June 2015. This has been notified to this Council in accorda nce with 
Article  63.2. The reference number of this document is IP/N/1/JPN/G/2. The purpose of this Act 
was to establish a sui generis system to protect geographical indications based on the TRIPS 
Agreement. It is designed to ensure producers profit, devel op agricultural forestry and fishery 
industries and protect the interests of consumers.  
27.  The main points of the GI Act are as follows:  
28.  First, the Act establishes procedures such as a three -month opposition period so that GIs can 
be registered in a transpa rent manner. It also provides transparent rules conforming to the TRIP S 
Agreement. In particular, if applications to register GIs contain product names that are generic, or 
are identical with or similar to registered trademarks, the applications shall be r ejected.  
29.  Second, Japan 's GI Act provides the same level of protection as in TRIPS Article 23 to the 
registered GIs.  Third, administrative actions are able to protect registered GIs from infringements.  
30.   This delegation is also pleased to inform the Council  that Japan amended the GI Act in 
December 2016. This revision has been notified to this Council in accordance with Article 63.2. The 
reference number of the document is IP/N/1/JPN/G/3.  
31.  The Act was amended to realize the protection of geographical indicati ons of agricultural 
products through an international agreement. The basic procedures and the level of protection is 
essentially the same as under the existing direct application system.  The Government of Japan is 
committed to continue to fulfil its obliga tion to ensure the accessibility and the transparency of the 
Japanese intellectual property system.  
AGENDA ITEM 3: REVIEWS OF NATIONAL IMPLEMENTING LEGISLA TION  
Agenda Item 3.1 Follow -up to reviews already undertaken  
3.1 Switzerland  
32.  Switzerland would like to thank the delegation of St Kitts and Nevis for engaging in an active 
and constructive manner in the review process, and for the work carried out. We appreciate the IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 8 - 
 
  written responses received to the questions and  have reviewed them. We consider the review 
procedure to be an important element to ensure consistency and transparency of the WTO legal 
system and its implementation in national legislation. We do not have further questions to St Kitts 
and Nevis at presen t. 
3.2 Canada  
33.  Canada would like to take this opportunity to thank St Kitts and Nevis for its communication 
of 19 December 2016 responding to questions posed by Japan, Canada, Switzerland, the United 
States and the Euro pean Union as contained in document IP/ C/W/623. Canada would also like to 
acknowledge St Kitts and Nevis ' continued efforts in implementing its obligations under the TRIPS 
Agreement in domestic legislation, and note our appreciation for the recent updates on this 
process under this agenda item of the TRIPS Council. In particular, w e note the ongoing legislative 
review  of the Government of St Kitts and Nevis, notably in respect of copyright protection, and 
look forward to any updates that St Kitts and Nevis may be able to share on this topic in the future 
as the review process continues. Canada continues to review the responses to our questions, 
gratefully received from St Kitts and Nevis, and will communicate any follow -up questions if 
necessary before the n ext meeting of the TRIPS Council.  
Agenda Item 3.2  Review of the national implementing legislation of Seychelles  
3.3 Seychelles  
34.  The delegation of Seychelles would like to take this opportunity to thank all Member s for their 
consideration of our TRIPS legislations. After Seychelles had notified its TRIPS related legislation to 
WTO in 2016, Member s were invited to submit any questions they may have on these legislation. 
In November 2016, Seychelles received questions  from Switzerland focusing on patent and the 
protection of undisclosed information which is covered under the Industrial Property Act, 2014 and 
on provisional measures and enforcement of IP laws which is catered for under the Copyright Act, 
2014, the Indus trial Property Act, 2014 and Customs Management (Border Measures) Regulation, 
2014. The latter regulation deals with the treatment of goods deemed to be "counterfeit ", "pirated " 
and "infringing ", at the border. The questions submitted were already catered for under our 
current legislations.  
35.  The delegation of Seychelles would like to take this opportunity to inform the TRIPS Council 
that the Government of Seychelles had undergone a complete overhaul of the IP regime, during it s 
accession process, with a view  to modernise the old regime and bringing it into full conformity with 
the requirements of the TRIPS Agreement. This was done with the assistance of WIPO and the 
WTO Secretariat. However, we continue to review our IP regime and the relevant regulations to 
ensure that implementation of these legislations are in conformity to the TRIPS Agreement.  
Finally, the delegation of Seychelles would like to take this opportunity to thank the respective 
organisations for their kind assistance during this process . 
3.4 Switzerland  
36.  We would like to thank the delegation  of Seychelles for its presentation and for the responses 
to our questions and also for the effort put into the process of answering them. We have received 
and review ed the responses and do not have follow -up questions for the time being. Switzerland 
would get back to the delegation of the Seychelles bilaterally if need be.  
Agenda Item 3.3  Review of the national implementing legislation of Kazakhstan  
3.5  Kazakhstan  
37.  Kazakhstan became a Member to the WTO in November 2015, and in its obligations, 
Kazakhstan agreed to fully apply the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement from the date of accession 
to the WTO without recourse to any t ransitional period. However, during the process of its 
accession to the WTO, Kazakhstan already ensured full compliance of its legislation with 
commitments undertaken in accordance with the TRIPS Agreement and the Protocol on Accession 
of Kazakhstan to the  WTO.  IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 9 - 
 
  38.  At the present moment, Kazakhstan has submitted around 30 notifications that describe our 
intellectual property system s in detail. We would like to thank Switzerland for the attention paid to 
Kazakhstan 's intellectual property system s, and questions that were raised by their delegation 
during the review process. We are also grateful to the WTO Secretariat  for their support and help 
provided during this process. Kazakhstan has submitted responses to the questions raised by 
Switzerland in February  2016, special attention was p aid to the issues on patents, protection of 
undisclosed information, provisional measures and enforcement of intellectual property  rights. Our 
detailed responses to the questions of Swit zerland can be found in the relevant documents  
submitted to the WTO Secretariat.  
39.  After our accession to the WTO, Kazakhstan continues its efforts on further improvement  of 
the legislation in the field of intellectual property . The Minister of Justice of Kazakhstan submitted 
to the Parliament of Kazak hstan in November 2016 a draft law and a development of the sci entific  
and technological pro cess simplification of registration procedures , and management of legal gaps 
and provisions that may create administrative barriers in the field of intellectual pro perty.  
40.  In the future, Kazakhstan plans to continue its work on further improvement of legislation and 
enforcement of intellectual property and we are open to any collaboration on th ese issues with 
WTO Members. We are also open to any further questions th at WTO Members may have on our 
intellectual property system.  
3.6 Switzerland  
41.  We would like to thank  the delegation of Kazakhstan for its extensive and carefully drafted 
responses to our questions. We are still exam ining them, and might get back bilaterally. We 
understand that Kazakhstan will submit its checklist on issues of enforcement after this Council 's 
meeting. As the national regime of enforcement is a relevant component of the review of IP 
legislation, we tha nk Kazakhstan for preparing its responses to the checklist and would ask 
questions if need be in view of the next  meeting of the  Council.  
3.7 United States  
42.  The United States welcomes the review of Kazakhstan an d appreciates the implementation 
efforts of the Government of Kazakhstan concerning the TRIPS Agreement. In furtherance of 
Kazakhstan 's implementation efforts, the United States looks forward to Kazakhstan 's upcoming 
responses to the enforcement checklist and similarly to Switzerland we will revert at the next 
meeting of the Council should we have any questions. Also in reviewing Kazakhstan 's amended 
copyright law, we do have some additional questions that we are in the process of circulating to 
the Secreta riat and to the Government of Kazakhstan for responses, and we look forward to 
receiving those responses.  
AGENDA ITEM 4. REVIE W OF THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 27.3(B)  
AGENDA ITEM 5: RELAT IONSHIP BETWEEN THE TRIPS AGREEMENT AND THE 
CONVENTION ON BIOLOG ICAL DI VERSITY  
AGENDA ITEM 6: PROTE CTION OF TRADITIONAL  KNOWLEDGE AND FOLKLO RE 
6.1 Brazil  
43.  Brazil has a well -known position regarding the promotion of mutual support between TRIPS 
and the CBD. In our view, the best way to  ensure the proper use of genetic resources and 
associated traditional knowledge is through an amendment to the TRIPS Agreement as set out in 
document TN/C/W/59. The amendment will introduce a mandatory requirement for the disclosure 
of the origin of these  resources in patent applications. This would create a multilateral and efficient 
mechanism to combat misappropriation, a concern that remains, especially in developing 
countries.  
44.  The issue this amendment intends to address remains very much alive. A recen t academic 
study shows that patent applications related to "bauhinia. " were filed in several countries. Bauhinia 
is a plant found in Brazil and other countries in the Amazon region. Its tea is used by indigenous 
and local communities to treat diabetes. Thi s example with other, older cases, such as that of 
turmeric in India and the Phyllomedusa bicolor toad, whose venom has analgesic effects.  IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 10 - 
 
  45.  A mandatory multilateral disclosure requirement would enable a clear assessment of whether 
those patents related to the bauhinia complied with the legal requirements in the country of origin. 
It would also contribute to enhancing transparency about the utilization of genetic resources and 
associated traditional knowledge, dispelling questions regarding the misappropriat ion of valuable 
national resources.  
46.  The disclosure requirement as provided in document TN/C/W/59 will not be burdensome for 
industrial property offices, since they will be simple "check points " in the new system. To illustrate 
it, the Brazilian Biodiversit y Law, which entered into force in 2016 , attributes to the Council for 
Management of Genetic Heritage the task of authorizing access to genetic resources and 
associated traditional knowledge. The Council is composed of representatives from the 
government, industry, academia, indigenous peoples and local communities.  
47.  The National Institute of Industrial Property merely requires from patent applicants, when 
applicable, the document from the Council that authorized access to genetic resources and 
associated tr aditional knowledge. This allows INPI to focus on its core activities of substantive 
examination of patent applications. It creates no obligation for the patent examiner to conduct a 
thorough review of the document provided by the applicant.  
48.  A mandatory di sclosure requirement will meet the objectives of the CBD and the intellectual 
property system by providing appropriate incentives and rewards for traditional knowledge 
holders, in recognition of their contribution to society. For these reasons, Brazil join ed China, 
Colombia, Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Peru, Thailand, the ACP Group, and the African Group in 
supporting the amendment of the TRIPS Agreement with the introduction of a mandatory 
requirement for the disclosure of origin of genetic resources and tr aditional knowledge in patent 
applications.  
6.2 Plurinational State of Bolivia  
49.  Bolivia considers it extremely important to prevent the patentability of life forms and genetic 
resources simp ly because they have been isolated or described. This practice is permitted by 
Article  27.3(b) and, unlike any other international rule, it encourages undue appropriation of such 
resources through the patent system.  
50.  The adoption of Article 27.3(b) has perm itted the proliferation of private monopolies over life, 
genetic resources, gene sequences, seeds, animals, plants and even fundamental components of 
human life, leading to a worrying concentration of control over them by some multinationals, with 
negative  consequences for the innovation itself and for scientific research, as well as access to its 
findings.  
51.  Preventing the patentability of life forms and genetic resources would help to prevent 
biopiracy and would act as a complement to a mechanism for disclo sing sources of origin. A 
proposal in this respect for the 11th Ministerial Conference in Buenos Aires would be a most 
appropriate step in favour of a pro -development outcome. Document IP/C/W/59 would be a good 
basis for this.  
52.  We would also like to stress that Bolivia supports the idea that the Secretariat of the 
Convention on Biological Diversity be asked to address this Council so that we can be updated on 
what is happening in that forum, and we are also in favour of updating the Secretariat 's factual 
notes describing relevant developments in recent years.  
6.3 Bangladesh on behalf of the LDC Group  
53.  The delegation of Bangladesh does not support the patenting of life forms comprising pla nts 
and animals and living  beings for ethical reasons.  We therefore call for the review of 
Article  27.3(b) in order to protect developing countries and LDCs from the negative effects  of this 
provision on the key sectors that affect livelihoods in these cou ntries such as agriculture, health, 
food and climate change. This would help, inter alia, food security and preserve the integrity of 
rural and local communities. Patenting of life forms at a multilateral level should be prohibited.  IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 11 - 
 
  54.  On the relationship be tween the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD, we hold that States have the 
right and duty to protect their traditional knowledge and genetic resources. There is therefore a 
need to amend the TRIPS Agreement to ensure this, with a view to require patent applicants  
relying on  biological materia ls to provide information on the source and country of origin of 
biological resources and traditional knowledge used in the invention. Along  the same line s, the 
applicants must show evidence of prior informed consent from and benefit sharing arran gement s 
with the concerned authorities or holders under the relevant national regime. This requirement , 
which is consistent with the transparency principle established in the multilateral trading system , 
will help reduce the number of erroneous patents. We believe that while traditional knowledge 
should receive legal recognition, its protection and proper use would contribute significantly to 
achievement of development goals, especially SDGs.  
55.  For LDCs this is a core issue, and they are  hardest hit by cases of bio piracy and 
misappropriation of the traditional knowledge and folklore, due to their lack of capacity to protect 
these resources. Action on this important issue has been unanimously recommended by our 
Ministers in Doha and Hong K ong, and they were right to consider this as a doable option. So we 
believe that these proposals and subsequent action in line with IP/C/W/59 would be a good way to 
start our next course of action. The LDC Group has also extended their support to IP/C/W/59 . 
56.  In the same  vein, we consider that the CBD Secretariat could brief the Council so that we can 
base our future deliberations on their briefing. These are long -standing issues , as has been 
mentioned, and we would like to see sincere political will from the  Members to resolve the 
problem.  
6.4 India  
57.   India is one of the seventeen identified mega bio -diverse countries of the world. India is also 
rich in traditional knowledge associated with biological resources. This tr aditional knowledge is 
both coded, as in the texts of Indian systems of medicine such as Ayurveda, Unani and Siddha; 
and non -coded, which exists in the oral undocumented traditions.  
58.  India has been a major victim of bio -piracy. Pursuant to its ratification of the Convention on 
Biological Diversity (CBD), India developed a comprehensive legislation on biodiversity, including a 
Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL) database to prevent misappropriation of traditional 
knowledge at international patent off ices so that cases of biopiracy can be prevented. India has 
signed a TKDL Access Agreement with nine International Patent Offices. While India has pioneered 
the TKDL to overcome language and format barriers, the results could only be limited. Improving 
prior art searches through the TKDL is only one part of the solution. Further, the TKDL represent s 
a subset of the universe of available traditional knowledge. The realm of traditional knowledge in 
areas other than herbal cures and genetic resources is not co vered by the TKDL.  
59.  While India is undertaking a number of measures at the national level in order to prevent 
misappropriation of genetic resources and /or associated traditional knowledge, the problem has an 
obvious international dimension and needs an int ernational solution in order to be addressed 
effectively. The TRIPS Agreement continues to ignore the numerous IPR -related obligations in the 
CBD which are of interest to the developing countries. The disclosure proposal (IP/C/W/474) which 
was submitted in  2006 was followed up by the submission TN/C/W/52 in Jun e 2008 with the 
support of 109 members. The latest submission on this issue TN/C/W/59 in April 2011, which is a 
draft decision to enhance mutual supportiveness between TRIPS Agreement and CBD , has bee n 
proposed by a vast majority of WTO Membership, including India. This proposal seeks an 
amendment of the TRIPS Agreement by inclusion of a new Article 29bis for disclosure of origin of 
genetic resources and/or associated traditional knowledge. A mandatory  disclosure requirement in 
patent applications to include disclosure of origin and evidence of prior informed consent and 
access and benefit sharing, would, in addition to combating biopiracy, further strengthen the 
credibility of the patent system by faci litating assessment of the novelty and inventiveness criteria.  
60.  The Nagoya Protocol of the Convention on Biodiversity (CBD) entered into force on 
12th October 2014. So far 96 Countries, including India,  have ratified the Protocol. According to the 
CBD websi te, the Access and Benefit -sharing Clearing -House (ABS -CH), which is a platform for 
exchanging information on access and benefit -sharing established by Article 14 of the Protocol, is 
now fully operational. The ABS -CH is a key tool for facilitating the impl ementation of the Nagoya IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 12 - 
 
  Protocol, by enhancing legal certainty and transparency on procedures for access, and for 
monitoring the utilization of genetic resources along the value chain, including through the 
internationally recognized certificate of compli ance. So far, four countries (Guatemala, India, 
Mexico and South Africa) have published 50 internationally recognized certificate of compliance 
(IRCC) with details of prior informed consent for access to genetic resources and benefit sharing 
on mutually ag reed terms.  
61.  In the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, two targets (SDG 2.5 and 15.6) related to 
genetic diversity and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits have been included. This 
demonstrates that ABS and the Nagoya Protocol are making an imp ortant contribution to the 
conservation of biodiversity and sustainable economic development for all. Furthermore, the 
second meeting of the Conference of the Parties serving as the meeting of the Parties to the 
Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit -sharin g was held in Cancun, Mexico from 4 -17 December 
2016. According to the CBD website, decisions that were adopted at this Meeting include progress 
made towards Aichi Biodiversity Target 16, the Access and Benefit -sharing Clearing -House, 
measures to assist in  capacity -building and cooperation with other international organizations or 
initiatives.  
62.  It would be quite useful to the delegates of the TRIPS Council if the CBD Secretariat is 
requested to brief the TRIPS Council in the June session on the latest devel opments in the 
implementation of the Nagoya Protocol, including the decisions that were taken at the December 
Meeting at Cancun in Mexico. The briefing by the CBD Secretariat would be very important to 
understand the implications of the entry into force of  the Nagoya Protocol on the TRIPS 
Agreement. We reiterate our demand for a formal briefing by the CBD Secretariat in the interest of 
the large majority of developing countries. We also support E cuador 's proposal for updating the 
three factual briefs by the  Secretariat.  
63.  I conclude by stating that the TRIPS -CBD issue is one of the outstanding implementation 
issues and positive outcomes on outstanding implementation issues are one of the most important 
deliverables of the Doha Round for the developing countrie s.   
6.5 Ecuador  
64.  My country 's position has been expressed repeatedly in this Council. We believe that it should 
be possible to revi ew Article 27.3(b) so as to enable the Council to examine  the patentability of all  
life forms or parts thereof. Ecuador 's view is that this type of patent should be prohibited, since life 
or parts thereof should not be considered a tradeable good subject to inventions or patents.  
65.  We have also said that we consider th at there is a close relationship between the TRIPS 
Agreement and the C BD, and we therefore reiterate the need for multilateral legal instruments 
that can improve the use of genetic resources, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural 
expressions, and give them effective and adequate protection. In this regard, Ecuador believes 
there is a need to establish legal mechanisms to allow disclosure of the source of origin, prior 
informed consent, and access to, and the equitable sharing of, benefits in order to protect genetic 
resources and traditional knowledge.  
66.  We reiterate our support for the proposal that the CBD Secretariat inform this Council of the 
negotiations conducted in the framework of the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources 
and the Fair and Equitable Shari ng of Benefits Arising from their Utilization. The information 
provided will help to enhance our judgement, thus improving the quality of our discussions.  
67.  Lastly, several years ago, Ecuador suggested that the Secretariat prepare an update of the 
factual no tes on previous topics, since the last compilation of the ideas discussed was produced in 
2006. We believe that updated versions of documents IP/C/W/368 /Rev.1 , IP/C/W/369/Rev.1 and 
IP/C/W/370/Rev.1 would provide us with a clearer idea of what was already d iscussed a number of 
years ago, the aim being for Members to have an updated picture that could contribute to 
informing the debate on these issues, thus enabling us to move forward in our discussions. We will 
see if we were right or not and if this updatin g actually takes place , but we must be given the 
opportunity to conduct discussions on the basis of more detailed information that could be 
presented by the Secretariat in a neutral manner without compromising any of the Members ' 
positions.  IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 13 - 
 
  6.6 Egypt  
68.  We would like to make reference to our statements as delivered during the previous meeting 
of the TRIPS Council. The protection of biological resources, traditional knowledge and folklore 
presents an important developmen tal issue for Egypt. In view of the importance of this issue, we 
continue to support engagement in full negotiations on the relationship between the TRIPS 
Agreement and the CBD, which is a critical part of the implementation -related issues and 
concerns, as  contained in the Doha Work Programme. Therefore, we urge all Members to engage 
in this issue of high importance to both developing countries and LDCs.  
69.  We believe that the TRIPS Agreement should be amended  in order to provide that Members 
shall require a  patent  applicant using  biological materials or associated traditional knowledge in the 
invention to disclose the source and the country of origin of the biological resources and associated 
traditional knowledge . Furthermore, the applicant shall also provid e evidence of prior consent and 
evidence of fair and equitable benefit sharing under the relevant national regime.  
70.  Finally, we also support inviting the CBD Secretariat to provide us with a briefing on the 
Nagoya Protocol and all the progress and the deve lopments in this area.  
6.7 Indonesia  
71.  The delegation of the Republic of Indonesia attaches importance to the negotiation of the 
relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the C BD, as well as the protection of T K and 
folklore under the se agenda items. Indonesia emphasises the need for cohesion, coherence and 
consistency of the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD. The TRIPS Agreement should be 
complementary and support t he international instruments. Our delegation believe s that TRIPS 
should be in line with the proposed objective s of the CBD and the Nagoya Protocol, in particular 
the provision of prior informed consent and access and benefit sharing. Our delegation is of the 
view that Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPS Agreement does not contain  any legal obligation  for its 
Member s to take on necessary measures for fair and equitable sharing of benefits as required by 
the CBD and the Nagoya Protocol. Such legal inequality provides a room for misappropriation and 
misuse of genetic resources and traditional knowledge. The lack of such legal norms in TRIPS will 
defeat the proposed objective s of the CB D and the Nagoya Protocol.  
72.  The Government of the Republic of Indonesia reiterates the urgency of including  a mandatory 
disclosure requi rement, including on prior informed consent and access and benefit sharing , into 
Article 29 of the TRIPS Agreement. As stipulated in the IP/C/W/59 document, Indonesia is of the 
view that a mandatory disclosure requirement is important  to prevent misappropr iation of genetic 
resources and traditional knowledge. Our delegation believes that such a requirement can provide 
a greater transparency and efficacy in the patent system. The Government of the Republic of 
Indonesia is developing national laws on GRTKF, and several consultations have been conducted 
internally.  
73.  We urge this Council to provide guidance to the TRIPS Special Session on modalities on how 
to move forward the triplets ' negotiations. The delegation of the Republic of Indonesia would like 
to reque st that the WTO norm -setting process be in line with the negotiation process in sustainable 
development goals and intergovernmental committee on GRTKF in WIPO. The WTO c annot be 
isolated in a vacuum , with its legal system separated from the multilateral pr ocesses both in SDGs 
and intergovernmental Committee on GRTKF in WIPO. We are open to discuss our efforts to 
revitalise the negotiation of GRTKF in the WTO.  
6.8 China  
74.  The relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and  CBD is an important issue in the TRIPS 
Council. China always attaches importance to this issue and actively participates in the 
discussions. China hopes that Members could further constructively take part in the discussion.  
75.  Regarding the substantial issu es, China notes that the majority of Members support an 
amend ment to  the TRIPS Agreement so as to ensure the mutually support iveness  of the TRIPS 
Agreement, the CBD and the Nagoya Protocol. China believes that the introduction of a mandatory 
disclosure req uirement, including on  benefit sharing, could prevent misappropriation and IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 14 - 
 
  erroneous patents. And providing the information concerning the prior informed consent and 
benefit -sharing would not be burdensome. However,  the benefit -sharing  arrangement s on 
contractual basis and the database solution s could not serve the purpose of sufficient protection 
for genetic resources.  
76.  As to disclosure, two documents TN/C/W/52 and TN/C/W/59 co -sponsored by Members , 
including China,  have provided the detailed suggestions on  improving the transparency on genetic 
resources utilization, preventing the misappropriation of genetic resources and traditional 
knowledge, and preventing the grant of erroneous patent s. 
77.  As regard s procedure, China thinks that the discussion and negotiat ion in WIPO/IGC could not 
hinder members from finding a solution in the WTO. Furthermore, the mandate to examine the 
relationship between TRIPS and CBD has been given to this Council by the Ministers, and therefore 
members should follow the instruction s and mandate to work to find the solution. In this regard, in 
order to strengthen the understanding so as to carry on a constructive discussion in this Council, 
China supports the proposal to  invite the CBD Secretariat to brief on the Nagoya Protocol. China 
also hopes that the Secretariat could renew the three factual notes.  
6.9 Nigeria, on behalf of the Africa Group  
78.  The Africa Group agrees that there should be a legal obligation establis hing a mandatory 
requirement in patent applications. We believe that the measure would prevent misappropriation 
of genetic resources and also enhance transparency in the utilisation of genetic resources. In this 
context, the Africa Group, together with a l arge group of developing countries, have submitted a 
series of proposals, in particular the document TN/C/W/59. In order to move the pro cess forward, 
we suggest that the Chairman of the TRIPS Council undertake urgent consultations with a view to 
determine how to move the proposal forward, so that we would be able to have an early harvest at 
MC11. Regarding the participation of the CBD Secretariat , in the context of the TRIPS Council and 
in particular the developments regarding the implementation of the Nago ya Protocol, we believe 
that it is high time that the CBD Secretariat be allowed to come and brief us on developments that 
are taking place on the Nagoya Protocol.   
6.10 Australia  
79.  Australia considers that follo wing the renewal of the mandate of the W IPO's 
Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge 
and Folklore as agreed by WIPO Members in October 2015, WIPO is best placed to consider the 
complex intellectual pr operty issues relating to genetic resources and associated traditional 
knowledge.  
80.  In relation to TRIPS and the C BD, as we have said at previous TRIPS Council  sessions, 
Australia considers that the TRIPS Agreement and the C BD are consistent. Australia fully  
implements its obligations under both agreements, which we view as mutually supportive.  
6.11 United States  
81.  The United States ' views on these issues are well -known, but let me make some brief remarks 
today. Regarding genetic resources, traditional knowledge and folklore, we continue to believe that 
WIPO serves as the best forum to address these issues. The WIPO IGC is looking at unresolved 
issues  - in fact, just this week, less than a 15 minute w alk away  - and working on a common 
understanding of these core issues, using an evidence -based approach and examples of national 
experiences. The United States will continue to engage in technical discussions at WIPO 's IGC and 
looks forward to hearing more from the dem andeurs regarding data supporting their positions on 
this issue.  
82.  With respect to the various  requests from the previous speakers that we have heard today, 
we are not in a position to support their requests, but we remain open to discussions, including 
bilaterally with delegations, in  between and at the margins of the TRIPS Council meetings.  IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 15 - 
 
  6.12 Switzerland  
83.  My delegation takes the floor in respect of agenda item 5. Let me first revert to the two 
procedural pr oposal s that have been submitt ed to the Council earlier and that you reminded the 
Council of in your introductory remarks.  
84.  My delegation would like to express its support for the proposal that the CBD Secretariat 
attend the next TRIPS Council meeting to gi ve a presentation of the Nagoya Protocol on Access to 
Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits arising from their Utilization to 
the CBD. One way to achieve agreement on this proposal in the Council could be to organize such 
a prese ntation when the Council meets in an informal mode.  
85.  We also support Ecuador 's proposal for updating the three factual notes by the WTO 
Secretariat to reflect any new ideas and thinking in the Council 's discussion since the factual briefs 
were last circula ted among the Membership.  
86.  Switzerland is a Member of the W/52 coalition, a group 109 WTO members which are 
promoting and proposing solutions on the three TRIPS issues in favour of better and more 
equitable protection for geographical indications and genet ic resources, traditional knowledge and 
folklore under the TRIPS Agreement. This coalition of WTO Members, representing 2/3 of the 
Membership, proposed relevant modalities solutions on the three TRIPS issues in TN/C/W/52 in 
July 2008. The se are long outsta nding implementation issues : they remain of great concern to a 
large part of the Membership and need to be addressed by the WTO work programme. Our 
position on TRIPS/CBD is part of this greater whole. Switzerland considers the CBD and the TRIPS 
Agreement to be mutually supportive . We consider that a non -burdensome requirement to disclose 
the source of genetic resources or TK in patent applications in the TRIPS Agreement is a useful tool 
to further enhance this mutual supportiveness of the TRIPS Agreement an d the CBD.   
6.13 Korea, Republic of  
87.  As for the three items, Korea maintains  the same positions as my delegation  has shared at 
these Council meetings since long . Korea is of the opinion  that the  current  provisions  of the TRIPS 
Agreement  offer flexibilities for both biotechnological innovation and protection of life -forms. There 
is no need to review the TRIPS Agreement for implementing CBD as the two instruments have 
different purposes and subject matters , while supporting each other in their respective 
implementation . We are of the opinion that  WIPO is the right forum to discuss the protection of 
traditional knowledge and folklore.  
6.14 Japan  
88.  Japan 's view is well known. This delegation believes that the WIPO IGC is the most 
appropriate forum for holding technical discussions on IP aspects. The 33rd Session of IGC is being 
held this week. Japan remains willing to contribute to discussions on these issues in a constr uctive 
manner.  
6.15 Canada  
89.  Canada continues to firmly believe that the TRIPS Agreement and the C BD are mutually 
supportive, and that there is therefore no need to amend the TRIPS Agreement in this regard.  
90.  At the s ame time, and without prejudice to Canada's position on substantive matters, Canada 
is not opposed from a procedural standpoint to a briefing from the CBD Secretariat to the TRIPS 
Council, should there be sufficient interest from other Members on this matt er. Similarly, Canada 
could support the compilation of the three factual notes on the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD by 
the Secretariat. We remain of the understanding that this would remain a purely factual collating 
exercise. In both cases, this is without prejudice to national positions on these issues.  
91.  Canada would also like to note its continued support for the important work of the WIPO I GC, 
particularly the discussions underway this week at WIPO. Canada continues to believe that WIPO, 
and particularly t he IGC, is the best and most appropriate forum for multilateral and expert 
engagement on these complex issues. Canada remains an active and committed participant in this IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 16 - 
 
  important work, and welcomes both the concrete discussions and exchange s of national 
experiences at WIPO on these issues. Canada believes that the expert discussions and exchanges 
that are so integral to the IGC's work are key to accurately pinpointing the issues at hand, and to 
identifying evidence -based balanced, appropriate, and mutually  beneficial approaches to 
addressing these complex issues.  
92.  Canada would also wish to reiterate our view  that matters relating to Article 27.3(b) of the 
TRIPS Agreement are an implementation issue as outlined in the Doha Ministerial Declaration, as is 
also the case with respect to the relationship between TRIPS and the Convention on Biological 
Diversity, and the protection of traditional knowledge and folklore. Canada continues to support an 
approach that provides for national flexibility on these matters.  
6.16 European Union  
93.  The European Union supports the work of the WIPO IGC related to the three separate issues 
of genetic resources, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expression s. We look forward  to 
its upcoming sessions o n Traditional Cultural Expression s. We also stand by our commitment to 
implement the Nagoya Protocol, and this was done in the EU by Regulation (EU) No 511/2014 . 
6.17 Ecuador  
94.  I apologise  for taking the floor again, but I would like to refer to a very relevant  issue that I 
made reference to in my statement, and that is to update the factual notes. If I am not mistaken, 
I believe that there is a majority of Members who have expressed themse lves in favour of this 
update that we have been requesting for several meetings now. If I am not mistaken, it is only the 
US that does not agree with making this update, so I would really like to make a special request to 
the US to please explain the reaso ns behind their thinking. We have been quite clear in indicating 
that this would not compromise the position s of any delegation here in this room, and that it is 
just a task that we are asking the Secretariat to do in a very neutral, objective way, so that  we 
can have more elements that have been provided over the last 10 years allowing us a more open, 
frank and transparent discussion, and, so I would like to request your indulgence Chairman, to 
please request that the U nited States explain the reasons why  they are opposing this update . We 
have only heard their opposition at various meetings and we have never heard what the 
foundation for it is. Perhaps we might also think about having bilateral meetings to look further 
into this.  
6.18 United States  
95.  The United States acknowledges Ecuador's request to have the Secretariat update the three 
2006 documents with information from recent TRIPS Council meetings. We have raised concerns in 
the past about the utility of the Secretariat pulling Members' interventions from the Minutes of 
TRIPS Council meetings which are already available to Members, on the internet, online, and place 
citations to these interventions in a revised report. As we have noted in the past, we are available 
to talk to Ecuador and others after this meeting about their request with the hope of making 
progress towards reaching agreement and we have maintained that openness intersessionally, but 
regrettably no request has been received by our delegation . However, I would just repeat that we 
have very strong openness to discussing this bilaterally after this meeting should any Member wish 
to discuss this with us.  
6.19 Ecuador  
96.  We are very much open to having bilat eral meetings with the United States, but at least, if I 
am not mistaken, we have not yet heard the foundational basis, the real reason why there is 
opposition to this proposal. Of course we can talk about it bilaterally, but we would like to have 
more det ails and the reasoning behind their position please.  
6.20 United States  
97.  We would just reiterate our intervention, and also again reiterate our very openness to 
discussing this. And I must maintain, yet again , that we have not received any request inter -IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 17 - 
 
  sessionally to deal with this issue, and we happily remain open to discuss bilaterally with Ecuador, 
should  they wish to discuss with us.  
6.21 Nigeria, on behalf of the Africa Group  
98.  I have listened carefully to the explanation by the delegation of the United States, saying that 
these issues are already in the minutes of the TRIPS Council meetings. But I think there is a need 
for sympathy. Some of us have one person covering WTO, UNCTAD, WIPO and perhaps the Human 
Rights Council, and I think it is humanly impossible for a delegation to digest the minutes here and 
there. I believe that such an item, once it is done, will assist us to get a ha ndy document in a 
summary form that could help us, at least those of us from poor nations. I think it would be good 
if we could be helped, because the capacity is not there. We have one delegate, or Ambassador 
plus one, so it is a difficult thing and I thi nk it is a humanitarian issue. There is a need for us to 
begin to be realistic, because blocking A and then blocking B, now the goal on this issue has been 
blocked, and we have listened, and the underlying reason , at least coming from the Africa Group is 
not convincing, rather it is adding more work on our side.  
99.  When we move to the non -violation and situation complaints, there will be another tit -for-tat, 
so I think we are not helping ourselves, we are not telling the outside world that we are willing 
move , so I don't know where we are heading to, but we are appealing at least, on behalf of the 
African Group to assist us to have this compilation so that we will be able to decipher these things 
in good time.  
6.22 Chair  
100.  I have heard a call that the Chair of the TRIPS Council should engage in consultations with 
delegations. I think that is a good beginning. I have heard willingness to engage in bilateral or 
inter-sessional dialogue meetings as well. Let me take up the poi nt of consultations and suggest 
that unless we have any objections to this, that the Chair of the TRIPS Council  - I am the jobbing 
captain here  - once we have the Chairs slate resolved, should engage in consultations with 
delegations to find a way forward on these issues .  
6.23 United States  
101.  We do appreciate very much your efforts to move, or try to make progress on this long -
standing issue, but at the same time we must recognise that it is an issue where the re are deep 
divergences amongst Members, but also where there is tremendous amount of work going on in 
another forum where these issues are being debated this very day, and this very week, and where 
all the delegations represented are working closely toget her, so we do  not see the necessity for 
such consultations . Of course to the extent that the Chair wishes to talk to delegations, that is h is 
or her right, but in terms of this issue, our position ha s been well -known, the positions of the 
demandeurs are we ll known, positions of other delegations around the room are well known, so we 
would just raise that as an area of concern from our end.  
6.24 Chair   
102.  Thank you , United States, you do recognise the Chair's powers to a pproach delegations and I 
will pass that on. I do want also to encourage delegations to take each other up on these offers for 
continued discussions bilaterally, in smaller groups and I guess the expression here is groups of 
variable configuration, take th e initiative, and really, come up with creative ways to move forward 
on this thing. If people have concerns, it is our job as diplomats, as negotiators , to try to find a 
way that we can address concerns and keep everybody happy.  Please do engage in those b ilateral 
discussions.  
6.25 Nigeria on behalf of the Africa Group   
103.  I was hesitating  - in fact we have listened carefully  - but I think it is very clear, when you 
look at the patents th at we are trying to address and the issue of misappropriation of genetic 
resources through patents, I think if there is any impairment or nullification of Members rights in 
the WTO, in terms of a patent, they run to the DSB. And I believe where there is mi sappropriation 
you take that instrument of patent, and then you use it to misappropriate genetic resources . IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 18 - 
 
  Certainly we will want also our voice and complaint to be heard in the DSB, so while we believe 
that the IGC is important, the solution to misapprop riation as we have seen it only lies in the WTO, 
because we have seen material transfer agreement has not resolved these problems, and we have 
been talking abou t these things since the 1990s. So I believe that the only way out is through the 
WTO.  
104.  We have put in a proposal  - I don't know  - does it mean that now there will not be a 
discussion in this forum of W /59? I think this is the question, because we have put in a proposal, 
we have asked the Chair to see how we are going to move forward on this proposal . Certainly if 
there is no right of Members to submit their documents or proposal s in this Council, and no 
discussion takes place, then I don't know, I think this is what we want to hear.  
6.26 Chair  
105.  Thank you for yo ur contributions. If I recall correctly, and again I am showing my age here , 
this W document is one that has been set before the TNC, and though I want to keep an open 
mind about the possibility of elements that can be discussed here, I don't want to preju dge that . 
Delegations are always free to bring up issues that they feel are relevant to our discussions in the 
regular TRIPS Council, and I would encourage you and all other delegations to feel free to bring up 
topics that you feel are appropriate. For tod ay on this side, there have been many expressions of 
willingness to continue discussions, I want to encourage you to do that . I want then also to say 
that the Council should take note of all the statements that we have made today, that we should 
agree to r evert to these matters at our next meeting, and I will, in presuming my role as elder 
statesman, try to chat with the TRIPS Chair, whoever that may be, and update him/her on the 
situation with whatever insight I might be able to provide for the future.  
AGENDA ITEM 7: NON -VIOLATION AND SITUAT ION COMPLAINTS  
7.1 Brazil  
106.  We welcome the addition of the Kyrgyz Republic to the list of co -sponsors of document 
IP/C/W/385/R ev.1. As provi ded in that document , concessions under the TRIPS A greement cannot 
be characterized as "market access " under GATT or GATS. The TRIPS Agreement, unlike other 
WTO agreements, is a sui -generis agreement designed to establish minimum standards of 
intellectual property protection. Complaints regarding measures pertaining to market access 
should be filed under relevant provisions of the GATT and the GATS; applying the non -violation 
remedy to the TRIPS Agreement is unnecessary to address these cases.  
107.  For cases in which a Member believes  that the obligations of the  TRIPS Agreement are not 
being properly fulfilled by another Party, Article 64 unambiguously establishes a dispute settlement 
mechanism which was invoked and duly used in cases before the dispute settlement body. Claims 
that the availability of non-violati on and situation complaints  (NVSC s) would prevent Members 
from evading their TRIPS obligations are not supported by evidence.  
108.  NVSC s can also threaten the use of flexibilities by Members, in violation of Articles 1, 7 and 8 
of the TRIPS Agreement. They c ould jeopardize the use of exceptions and limitations for the 
development of laws to protect public health  and affect the delicate balance of rights and 
obligations reached by the Agreement.  
109.  Furthermore, the fact that no consensus on the matter was reached during the negotiations 
of the Uruguay Round underlines that the negotiating parties were not convinced these types of 
complaints would contribute to the attainment of the goals of the TRIPS Agreement. The 
continuous renewal of the moratorium since 1999 sh ows that Members remain unconvinced of any 
benefit that could be brought by the application of non-violation and situation complaints . In short, 
the application of NVSC s to intellectual property disputes would generate systemic imbalances and 
reduce the le gal certainty of multilateral IP law.  
110.  Consequently, we propose that the TRIPS Council recommend to the Ministerial Conference 
scheduled to be held in Buenos Aires that complaints of the type provided for under sub -
paragraphs 1(b) and 1(c) of Article XXIII of GATT 1994 shall not apply to the settlement of 
disputes under the TRIPS Agreement.  IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 19 - 
 
  7.2 China  
111.  In 2015, the Nairobi Ministerial Conference decided to further extend the moratorium of the 
application of non -violation and situat ion complains under TRIPS Agreement, however, till now, the 
divergence between members is still continues . China thanks the Chair and Secretariat for their 
efforts, and hopes that members could participate in the discussion constructively.  
112.  China reaffirms the position that non -violation and situation complains are not applicable 
under the TRIPS Agreement, which has been elaborated in document IP/C/W/385/Rev.1 proposed 
by 16  members including China. China welcomes the discussion on this issue in accordance w ith 
the decision and mandate given by the Nairobi Ministerial Conference.  
7.3 Chinese Taipei  
113.  The issue of non-violation and situation complains  has been debated in the TRIPS Council for 
many years now. I wish to unders core the following points:  
 Document IP/C/W/349 was prepared by the Secretariat and is a very useful document in 
order to better understand the history and the current state of discussion on  this matter.  
 Since 2013, the United States of America, Peru, Brazi l and other members have 
submitted proposals such as IP/C/W/385 , IP/C/W/ 599 and IP/C/W/ 607 in order to 
facilitate detailed discussion on this issue among members, particularly with respect to 
the modalities applicable in the TRIPS Agreement context.  
114.  I wish to request the Secretariat to update and further develop the document IP/C/W/349 in 
order to make it more detailed and to reflect current reality.  
7.4 Bangladesh on behalf of the LDC Group   
115.  Thank  you Mr Chairman. Like all the developing countries and LDCs, we would like to 
express our concerns regarding the possible adverse fall outs  of these complaints. We consider 
them to be unnecessary and evitable. We understand that the TRIPS Agreement provid es a 
minimum level of protection of IP and much of the flexibility rest s with the domestic laws of 
members. Drawing any simple parallelism in terms of non -violation and situation complaints with 
other WTO Agreements would be wrong, as TRIPS Agreement does not deal with market access 
and concessions . In addition, based on the nature and scope of protection of the TRIPS 
Agreement, the level of protection under domestic legal systems and practices is different from 
member to member. An introduction of such complaints would therefore result in much legal 
uncertainty to the entire system. So we do not support the application of this type of complaints 
under the TRIPS Agreement.  
7.5 Argentina  
116.  In Argentina's view, non -violation and situation complaints do not apply to the TRIPS 
Agreement, as explained in document IP/C/W/385/Rev.1, of which my country is a co -sponsor 
together with a large number of other Members.  In light of the foregoing, we consider that the 
forthcoming Ministerial Conference should adopt the decision proposed in document IP/C/W/607.  
7.6 Switzerland  
117.  Mr. Chair, I will follow your call and abstain from repeating well -known positions. Let me just 
reiterate that while Switzerland believ es that the DSU provides sufficient guidance for the 
application of NVNI in the TRIPS context, my de legation confirms our openness to examine and 
discuss any modalities ' proposals other Members may wish to table in this respect. Also, my 
delegation is open  to the proposal of the preceding Counci l Chair that the Secretariat produce a 
factual document on scope and modalities for NVNI complaints in the WTO to assist the Council 's 
further discussion under this agenda item.  IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 20 - 
 
  7.7 Russian Federation  
118.  The Russian Federation is of the view that the non -violation and situation complaints should 
not be applicable to the TRIPS Agreement . In order not to reiterate our position we would like to 
ask that the previous intervention sho uld be reflected in the minutes of this Council.  (See previous 
IP/C/M/83/Add.1 para 246).  
The Russian Federation, once again, would like to reiterate its position that non -violation 
and situation complaints should not be applicable to the TRIPS Agreement. As it was 
mentioned earlier by numerous delegations there are several grounds that justify such 
approach of non -applicability of non -violation and situation complaints in the context of 
intellectual property. The TRIPS Agreement, unlike other WTO Agreement s, is not designed 
to protect market access or the balance of tariff concessions, but rather to establish 
standards of IP protection, which, if abused, may even undermine market access. The 
application of non -violation complaints under the TRIPS Agreement could upset the delicate 
balance of rights and obligations in this Agreement, and could also limit the use of the 
flexibilities outlined in the Agreement to secure objectives relating to public health and other 
issues of public interest. Our position, as t he position of the majority of WTO Members, was 
clearly pointed out in document IP/C/W/385/Rev.1. Like other delegations, we think this 
document should serve as a basis for discussions on this issue. Our delegation welcomes any 
constructive discussion on t he issue and welcomes delegations to share any new views.  
 
7.8 Egypt  
119.  The position of Egypt is well -known with regards to this agenda item. We continue to believe 
that complaints of the type identified in Article XXIII.1 (b) and  (c) of GATT 1994 are not applicable 
to the TRIPS Agreement. We also believe that the best solution to this issue is that the document 
number IP/C/W/607 should be the basis of our future negotiations in this regard.  
7.9 India  
120.  My delegation would like to thank the delegation of Kyrgyz Republic for joining as co -sponsor 
of document IP/C/W/385/Rev.1.  
121.  India's position on the issue of non -violation complaints under the TRIPS Agreement remains 
unchanged. It is worth noting that, i n the run -up to the Ministerial Conference in Nairobi, there 
was a great confluence of interest on making such complaints inapplicable to TRIPS.  
122.  We are not convinced by the reasons provided by a couple of Members of their place in the 
TRIPS context. While th e question whether the TRIPS Agreement is a market access agreement 
may or may not be relevant for their applicability, it is clear that the drafters did not unequivocally 
wish to apply NVCs to TRIPS. Article 64.1 of the TRIPS Agreement establishes that GA TT 
Article  XXIII applies to the TRIPS Agreement except as otherwise provided in Articles 64.2 
and 64.3. Notwithstanding the expiry of the time -period under Article 64.2, non -violation and 
situation complaints only apply to the TRIPS Agreement in accordance  with the procedure 
established under Article 64.3. Complying with this procedure, the importance of which Ministers 
reaffirmed through their adoption of the Decision on Implementation -Related Issues and Concerns, 
should be a matter of priority for the TRI PS Council. The Decision directed the TRIPS Council to 
"continue its examination of the scope and modalities for complaints of the types provided for 
under subparagraphs 1(b) and 1(c) of Article XXIII of GATT 1994 and make recommendations to 
the Fifth Sess ion of the Ministerial Conference. " It also reflected the agree ment that, in the 
meantime, members will not initiate such complaints under the TRIPS Agreement. Thus, the 
assertion that the expiry of the time -period under Article 64.2 makes non -violation an d situation 
complaints automatically applicable to the TRIPS Agreement is, in our view, incorrect.  
123.  It is important to recognize that the TRIPS Agreement is a unique, sui generis agreement 
and is distinct from the GATT and GATS, contrary to the assertion m ade in the US communication. 
In the GATT/WTO legal framework, the establishment of the non -violation procedure aims 
primarily to prevent the tariff concessions or specific commitments on trade in services from being 
adversely distorted by the additional tr ade measures taken. With the gradual evolution of 
comprehensive trade agreements addressing a wide range of issues, it does not make any logical IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 21 - 
 
  sense to extend the same concern of circumvention/dilution of trade obligations in the context of 
agreements su ch as the TRIPS Agreement. When it comes to the GATT and the GATS as market 
access agreements, the non -violation complaint is an additional tool with which to balance the 
rights and obligations concerning market access in the GATT and GATS respectively. 
Fundamentally differing from the GATT and the GATS, the TRIPS Agreement is not "about 
reciprocal market access rights of governments ". While IPRs might facilitate trade and investment, 
the obligations under the TRIPS Agreement cannot be characterized as mark et access concessions.  
124.  Serious concerns remain on the debilitating impact non -violation complaints in TRIPS can 
have on the regulatory policy space of members, on TRIPS flexibilities as well as increasing the 
complexity in interpreting the TRIPS provisions . It can not only have a chilling effect on Members ' 
exercise of their IP regimes but could also severely restrain the ability of Members to achieve other 
public policy objectives.  
125.  The absence of non -violation complaints in the TRIPS context does not in an y manner 
threaten or dilute the enforceability of TRIPS -related rights and obligations. On the contrary, the 
application of non -violation complaints in the TRIPS context could potentially present issues 
relating to rights of intellectual property right holders versus the legitimate exercise of regulatory 
policy choice by governments. Introducing non -violation and situation complaints into the TRIPS 
Agreement is unnecessary and inconsistent with the interests of the WTO members. Any benefits 
arising from the  Agreement can be adequately protected by applying the text of the Agreement in 
accordance with accepted principles of international law, and without introducing the legally 
uncertain notion of non -violation and situation complaints.  
126.  We note that there is  a moratorium on the applicability of such complaints until the next 
Ministerial Conference and we look forward to work with like -minded Members in making non -
violation complaints inapplicable to TRIPS. We also wish to reiterate that until there is a conse nsus 
on the scope and modalities of the applicability of NVC s to TRIPS, NVC s will not apply to the TRIPS 
Agreement.  
127.  We do not support updating of the  Secretariat's  factual note on non -violation complaints as 
suggested by the delegation of United States. W e would agree to that only if Ecuador' s proposal of 
an updat e of three factual notes on the Triplets is agreed.  
7.10 United States  
128.  For the reasons we have detailed in our previous interventions under this agenda item, w e 
continue to believe that the drafters of the TRIPS Agreement envisioned that NVNI complaints 
should be available.  
129.  We also take this opportunity to confirm that while the moratorium on NVNI disputes under 
the TRIPS Agreement was extended in December 2015  for only an additional two years, the United 
States continues to maintain its long -held and firm position that NVNI disputes should be 
applicable to the TRIPS Agreement, that they are fully consistent with the TRIPS Agreement and 
that the application of s uch disputes in this context was the intent of the drafters of the TRIPS 
Agreement.  
130.  We believe that while valid questions have arisen, they are fully and adequately answered by 
the text of the TRIPS Agreement itself and further clarified through GATT and W TO adjudication, 
as we have enumerated in our communication to the TRIPS Council, which was circulated to 
Members as IP/C/W/599, as well as in our recent interventions.  
131.  The United States has provided detailed and extensive analysis in each of our statement s 
under this item over the past several years and I would not propose to repeat now. We have 
explained the legal basis for such claims in the GATT and TRIPS Agreement texts, the panel and 
Appellate Body jurisprudence involving NVNI disputes, the extensive safeguards that exist to 
protect Members rights and obligations under the TRIPS Agreement, and concrete descriptions 
regarding how such disputes would work in practice.  
132.  As Switzerland indicated, we are open to discuss bilaterally, especially in the lead up  to the 
Buenos Aires Ministerial.  IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 22 - 
 
  7.11 Nigeria on behalf of the Africa Group  
133.  I am not going to re-state our position , since that is the guidance you gave us. We have 
listened to two sides: whether  it should apply or whether it is not going to apply - and I don't see 
it being helpful to the whole process. I think we have two issues  here: one is a question of a 
proposal in order to move the process forward. And there is a text on the table from those  who 
believe  that NVCs are not going to apply. Maybe I could suggest for the two delegations, who 
suggest that NVCs w ould apply  and let the Panel and Appellate Body mechanism rule on this issue , 
to also make a proposal from their side. This  might help the Chair in organising consultations to 
see how we could move forward. In the interim , since we are heading for MC11, I suggest we start 
discussing what to do with the moratorium . I believe  that extend ing it until the time when we are 
able to resolve this iss ue would go a long way in facilitating the discussions . Every Ministerial we 
get a moratorium , and then at the end of one year, by the time you move into the second year, 
we are preparing another discussion on moratorium. So I think we should make it more 
permanent, not completely permanent , but pending until the time when we are able to agree or 
resolve this issue . I would encourage the two delegations at least to come up with a proposal so 
that we can look at two proposals  on this matter . 
AGENDA ITEM 8:  REVIEW OF THE IMPLEM ENTATION OF THE TRIP S AGREEMENT UNDER 
ARTICLE  71.1 
No statements were made under this agenda item.  
 
AGENDA ITEM 9: REVIEW OF THE APPLIC ATION OF THE PROVISI ONS OF THE SECTION 
ON GEOGRAPHICAL INDI CATIONS UNDER ARTICL E 24.2  
9.1 El Salvador   
134.  In November last year m y delegation submitted responses to the list of question on the 
application of geographical indications. We are grateful to the Secretariat for having circulated the 
document IP/C/W/17/Add.34. We ar e also grateful for having giving us the opportunity to give a 
brief intervention relating to this notification. In El Salvador the protection of geographical 
indications is regulated by the law on trademarks and other distinctive signs, and this fully 
respects our commitments that we have taken on various treaties . Except for a so -called famous 
geographical indication , a registration is required in order to benefit from protection and the 
competent authority for granting this is the Intellectual Property R egistry of the National Registry 
Centre. Geographical indication holders may opt for one of two systems of protection which co -
exist in accordance with legislation. One can choose the trademark protection system, or the sui 
generis  protection system. Under  trademark protection one can request registration as an 
individual mark, as a collective mark or as a certification mark. The period of protection in this 
case is of 10 years and this period can be re newed indefinitely for  periods of  10 years. The sui 
generis protection system includes two different types: geographical indications and 
denominations of origin . Geographical indications have a somewhat wider scope compared to 
denominations of origin, both with regard to the sign which is registered, as well a s the link to the 
product which is identified by that geographical origin.  
135.  Sui generis  protection cannot be applied to services , and the protection period is undefined, 
but lasts as long as the conditions required for the original granting of the registra tion persist . 
These protection regimes are applicable to all types of products, no matter whether  these are 
wines, spirits, agricultural  products or any othe r kind of products such textiles, manufactured 
goods in wood, earth ware  or glass, to give a few ex amples. Protection systems are alternative or 
accumulative, and that means that at the discretion of the holder one can request only one type of 
registration , or request registration as a mark and as a geographical indication or denomination of 
origin, whether this be done simultaneously or consecutively , as long as in each case the 
formalities that are required are complied with for each type of mark.  
136.  The registration process for both systems of protection is initiated at the request of the 
holder. In the case of using both systems, if the protection of the mark lapses because there has 
not been a renewal, then sui generis  protection will persist . In the case of f oreign geographical 
indications , this is governed by the legislation of the country of origin a nd the procedure includes 
publication at the request of the requesting party as well as an opposition phase and a fee.  IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 23 - 
 
  137.  Finally the holder of a geographical indication, no matter what system of protection they 
have opted for, will enjoy the right of exclus ivity of use and will have defensive tools enabling 
them to enforce this and they will have the ability to enter into administrative proceedings for 
other distinctive signs as well as to initiate legal proceedings for any infringement, or any unfair 
compet ition.  
9.2 Switzerland  
138.  Switzerland would like to commend El Salvador for submitting its responses to the checklist 
of questions and thank the delegate from El Salvador for the informative summary presentation of 
its answe rs and presentation of the national regime of El Salvador for the protection and 
enforcement of GI rights. My delegation welcomes your call, Mr. Chair, to Members who have not 
yet submitted their own responses to the checklist of questions to do so at thei r earliest 
convenience.  
139.  Further, my delegation would like to inform the Council that Switzerland is currently 
preparing an update to its responses to the Checklist of questions. Switzerland submitted its first 
set of responses in 1999 in Addendum 13 to do cument IP/C/W/117.  
140.  Since then, a fair number of changes have occurred in Switzerland’s national and 
international regime for the protection of geographical indications. While we have notified relevant 
amendments in our national legislation in compliance w ith our obligations under Article 63 of the 
TRIPS Agreement, we believe it worthwhile to reflect those changes also in our responses to the 
checklist of questions. This for the sake of transparency and to facilitate WTO Members’ review 
under Article 24.2 a nd better understanding of how Switzerland applies the provisions on the 
protection of geographical indications under Section 3 of the TRIPS Agreement in its national legal 
framework.  
141.  When the WTO and the TRIPS Agreement entered into force in 1995, geogra phical 
indications were a relatively new field of intellectual property  for a number of WTO Members . This 
has changed over the last 20 years. In this period, geographical indications have seen dynamic 
developments at the national level of many Members and from all levels of development. Some of 
those have only introduced geographical indications as an IPR in their legislation on the occasion of 
their adherence to TRIPS Agreement, to better exploit the benefits of GIs for their economies. As 
is the case with  many newly introduced laws and systems, they require regular review and 
overhaul to extend and fully reap the said benefits.  
142.  Switzerland believes, therefore, that it is high time that the Council resumes its substantive 
discussion under the built -in revi ew of Art. 24.2 and that Members share their experiences for the 
mutual benefit of all WTO Members  
143.  Up-to-date responses to the checklist of questions from WTO Members provide a wealth of 
information and insights for our discussion here in the Council. For these reasons , we encourage 
all Members to submit their responses to the Checklist or update their earlier responses to reflect 
important development s that may have taken place in their national regime since the time of their 
earlier submission s of respons es.  
AGENDA ITEM 10:  FOLLOW -UP TO THE FOURTEENTH  ANNUAL REVIEW UNDER 
PARAGRAPH 2 OF THE D ECISION ON THE IMPLE MENTATION OF ARTICLE  66.2 OF THE 
TRIPS AGREEMENT  
10.1 Bangladesh on behalf of the LDC Group  
144.  We would like to thank the Members who have submitted their reports last year. W e see that 
more and more Members are using the format suggested by the LDCs. For the LDCs technology 
and innovation are extremely important factors and sincere use of the  provisions of Article 66.2 
will meet urgent needs in the essential areas of life and development. As we all have adopted the 
SDGs and we have now the amendment of the TRIPS Agreement based on the Paragraph 6 
system , we encourage the development partners t o put into use the necessary incentives to their 
enterprises and institutes so that the equal transfer of technology may take place and the LDCs IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 24 - 
 
  can have viable technological base to achieve the SDGs and the opportunity provide d by the 
recent amendment of the TRIPS Agreement.  
AGENDA ITEM 11 : TECHNICAL COOPERATIO N AND CAPACITY -BUILDING  
11.1 Secretariat  
145.  Brazil had suggested at  the TRIPS Council meeting on 30 January "that the next session of 
the TRIPS Council inc ludes a presentation by the Secretariat on the notification system currently in 
place", as part of the suggested activities to raise awareness and address lack of knowledge, 
especially in procurement agencies.  To address this proposal, the Secretariat has prepared a brief 
presentation on notifications that are required in order to use the Para graph 6 System3. We have 
also made available hard copies of the Guide to Notifications which is based on the material that 
can be accessed on the WTO's dedicated webpa ge. To further simplify the submission of 
notifications, Members seeking to notify under the System can soon also opt to use the eTRIPS 
online submission webtool once it is finalized and operational.  
146.  The purpose of this presentation is to familiarize deleg ations with that material, including 
model forms for each of the three notifications that can be downloaded from the webpage.  
Obviously, the material has been prepared by the Secretariat on its own responsibility in order to 
assist Members who are consider ing using the System. The clear link with capacity building also 
explains the coverage under the item on technical cooperation activities at this meeting of the 
TRIPS Council.  
147.  We also wanted to introduce the webpage, because it is often very easy to say that 'all of 
this is available on our webpage' . We thought  that, in order  to introduce the item, we briefly run 
you through what is available on our webpage dedicated to issues related to TRIPS and public 
health.  
148.  As you see the gateway page on TRIPS and pub lic health p rovides a brief general overview 
of matters related to TRIPS and public health , but cur rently focuses on the implementation and 
use of the Para graph 6 System . The Secretariat is working on expanding the webpage to cover 
other relevant issues at  the crossroad between IPRs and public health.  
149.  The first entry in the notifications  box links to a webpage that recalls the context and legal 
basis for notifications by both importing and exporting Members and outlines the key elements of 
such notification s. In order to respond to the requirement on the WTO Secretariat to make 
available publicly the notifications by the importing and exporting Members (fn. 5 and 9 of the 
Annex to the amended TRIPS Agreement), this webpage also provides direct access to thes e 
notifications.  By way of illustration, reference is made to the page addressing specifically importing 
Members and the link to documents online where specific notifications can be accessed.  
150.  On Slide 5 we have a second entry in the notifications box  that links to the Guide to 
Notifications. This Guide is available online. A print out version of the Guide has also been made 
available for delegations in the back of the room.  
151.  Slide 6 on "How to notify " outlines formal requirements to submit a notification to the WTO.  
It briefly addresses the question of who signs the notification, i.e. any authorized government 
official . It also clarifies that there is no need to get approval by any WTO body, which is a common 
misunderstanding when I present on these issues, a nd that notifications are to  be sent to the 
TRIPS Council through the Secretariat. In  addition to communication by e -mail, fax and post, in  
the future we will also add the e -TRIPS online tool which we will soon make available.  
152.  These notification s are circ ulated in document series IP/N/8/.. (importing Member's intention 
to use) , IP/N/9/.. (importing Member's specific needs) and IP/N/10/.. (exporting Member's grant 
of compulsory licence  and conditions attached to it)  and are available on our documents online  
webpage.  
                                                
3 Document RD/IP/15  IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 25 - 
 
  153.  Slide 7 on "What to notify " lists three types of notifications required under the System.  The 
first is by the importing Member  or Member s, that is the general notification of the intention to use 
the System . Least developed countries do not have to notify this intention. The second notification 
by the importing Member is about its specific needs – what are the pharmaceuticals that are 
needed and how much of these medicines are needed, we will get back to this when we get to the 
model form. And the  third is by the exporting Member that has to notify the grant of the 
compulsory licence and the conditions attached to it.   
154.  In order to simplify the task of those who envisage to use this System, we have made 
available  already for some time, model notifi cations for  these  types of notifications (Slide 8). We 
are operating at this stage on a dual legal basis , i.e. t hose that have accepted the TRIPS 
Amendment and that are therefore operating on the basis of Article 31bis of the amended TRIPS 
Agreement  and th e Annex and the Appendix to the Annex ; and  those that are yet to accept the 
TRIPS Amendment and that continue to operate on the basis of the 2003 waiver Decision.   
155.  This why we have now two sets of model notifications online which are otherwise in 
substance  identical except for the legal basis , depending whether you operate on the basis of 
Article 31bis of course the legal basis would be different from those operating on the basis of the 
waiver Decision.  
156.   For illustrative purposes, the rest of this presenta tion will only refer to notifications that are 
made pursuant to Article 31bis of the amended TRIPS Agreement, it being understood that the 
same explanations would equally apply to notifications made under the 2003 waiver Decision.  
157.  Slide 9 on "First notific ation of importing Member's intention to use the System " summarizes 
the requirements for this notification . As you can see from the model notification, what is actually 
required is one sentence that signals a Member's  intention to use the System.  There is some 
optional language I will come to, but nothing more that needs to be notified as part of this first 
notification.  
158.  Least developed countries do not need to make this notification, and developed countries 
are, by definition, excluded from making this no tification, because they have committed not to use 
this System as importers.  
159.  When to make the notification? It can be made at any time, either together with the details 
regarding the needed medicines (see second notification) or prior to such notification.  There is no 
given time when this notification has to be made, it has to be notified once only, so once you have 
used the System for the first time there is no need to notify again the intention to use it.  
160.  It is important to note that the notification does not commit a Member to the actual use of 
the System.  Making this notification does  not mean that you have to follow up and also submit a 
specific notification about your needs in the pharmaceutical sector.  
161.  What needs to be notified? The optional language  goes back to a provision in Para.1(b) of 
the Annex to the amended TRIPS Agreement which says that "a Member may notify at any time 
that it will use the System in whole or in a limited way, for example in the case of a national 
emergency or other circumsta nces of extreme urgency or in cases of public non -commercial use ". 
162.  For Members who wish to make use of the System in such a limited way, we have suggested 
this optional language to provide assistance in case needed. I should also n ote that the Chairman's 
statement read out before the adoption of the Protocol in December 2005 noted several Members' 
confirmation to use the System only in circumstances of extreme urgency.  
163.  Here, a question for consideration: why has no such notification been made to date?  That is 
a question to be asked when it comes to the functioning of the System.  
164.  Slide 10 deals with the s econd notification of  the importing Member's specific needs 
(products, other details) . Here again I would like to underline that the model forum for this 
notification  can be downloaded from our webpages  and is easily filled in, provided the importing 
Member is in a position to identify (i) exactly what and how much is needed to treat patients and IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 26 - 
 
  (ii) any existing p atents for the needed medicines . If these pre requisites are given, it should be 
easy to fill in the notification.  
165.  Why is there a need to make  this notification? From our perspective , this notification has an 
important and so far largely underutilized signalling function by which other Members and th e 
public are informed about the concrete needs of an importing Member. As such, it can thus be 
used as a practical procurement tool to trigger the interest of potential suppliers, almost 
equivalent to a call for tenders . There is ultimately no obligation t o procure the medicines under 
the System if other sources of supply can later be identified that can, for example, produce the 
products off patent or at an affordable price. This could reinforce consideration of the mere use of 
this notification as a procu rement tool to flag a country's needs.  
166.  Who is obliged to make this notification? Notifications must be made by developing countries 
and LDCs that wish to import products under the System;  it can be made by a regional 
organization on behalf of and with the consent of RTA members under the RTA mechanism (see 
fn 4 to the Annex  of the TRIPS Agreement ). Also, nothing prevents other Members from making 
joint notifications. This is supporting the objective of harnessing economies of scale and makes 
production unde r the System economically more viable for generic companies . Note that no 
(further) notification is required in case of imports from another RTA Member that is either 
manufacturing the needed products or imports them from third country suppliers.  
167.  What need s to be notified?  The n ames and expected quantities of the needed medicines;  
but not , for example, the name of the potential supplier . It is actually preferable for a government 
not to do so, as this could limit potential competition among generic compani es regarding the  
prices that could be offered for the needed medicines. So , it is  important to note  that there is  no 
need to notify the name of the supplier, nor any time -frame for the supply and use of the imported 
medicines.  None of this is mandatory for  the importing country that notifies its needs.  
168.  Next, a Member that wishes to import medicines needs to notify that it has established  that 
there are  insufficient  or no manufacturing capacities in its territory  (see Appendix to the Annex), 
and how this has  been established  (see Chairman's statement read out prior t o the adoption of the 
Protocol). This does not apply to least developed countries which are automatically assumed as not 
having sufficient manufacturing capacities.  
169.  The model notification also su ggests some optional language. I f there is no patent in  force in 
the importing country, there is no obligation to notify anything  in this regard. H owever, the very 
absence of patents in the importing country may be a useful piece of information for those w ho are 
intending to use the System, and hence the suggestion of optional language to also include this  
information  in the notification.  
170.  Otherwise what needs to be notified when there are patents in force is the grant or the 
intention to grant a compulsory  licence . In the case of least developed countries, as the example 
of Rwanda had shown in the past, it is also sufficient to refer to the extended transition period in 
the pharmaceutical sector instead of mentioning any grant or intention of granting compu lsory 
licences.  
171.  Again , this notification raises  a question for consideration to which we are yet to receive  an 
answer. Why are such notifications not used more regularly by Members to flag their needs and 
thus to prepare the grounds for the actual proc urement of the needed medicines, knowing that 
there is no obligation to run through the System to its end if you find different sources of supply.  
172.  The third and last notification concerns the  exporting Member's compulsory licence  and 
conditions attached to it . Again this s hould be easy to fill in for the exporting country.  The S urvey  
of WTO Members' implementing legislation  which the Chair has mentioned in his introduction  
shows that  legislation which has been put in place by WTO Members so far  addresses  these 
conditions  in a flexible manner, such as  the quantities covered by the compulsory licences  and its 
duration. This includes , for example in some implementing laws, the possibility to augment 
authorized quantities through a simplified and accelerated procedu re, or to r enew the initial period 
of the compulsory licence  or to review the duration by means of a simplified procedure.  IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 27 - 
 
  173.  Why is this notification  needed ? It is basically the response to the second notification by the 
importing country, so it is triggered  by that importing country's notification of specific needs . Who 
is going to make this notification? Any exporting Member, for every compulsory licence that is 
used exclusively for production and export of medicines to an eligible importing Member.  
174.  Please  note that there is no such notif ication required again in the context of regional trade 
agreements, so where that quali fies under the RTA mechanism, in case of exports from an RTA 
Member to other RTA M embers under the regional mechanism . Also, there is no  notification 
required when we operate under standard compulsory licence, in other words, when the 
predominant part of the production is used for the supply of the domestic market of the country 
that is also the host of the manufacturing  company .  
175.  When to notify this third notification? Prior to the export , that is important, otherwise there 
is no specific rule in here.  
176.  What to notify? This is addressed by the set of bullet points in the model form  which are  
required pursuant to Para.2(c) of the Annex  to the TRIPS Agreement . Provided that these details 
are covered by the compulsory  licence , this requirement could also be met by attaching a copy of 
the compulsory licence to the cover letter.  
177.  Other information, such as the number of the patent(s) covered by t he compulsory licences , 
can be included on an optional basis. This would help to clarify the exact scope of the compulsory 
licences  granted  by the exporting country.  
178.  Finally , there is also a need to notify a link t o the webpage where the licensee posts 
information regarding the quantities supplied to each destination under the System and the 
distinguishing features applied to the products. This can either be a webpage set up by the 
licensee (see the example  of Apotex, which exported under compulsory licence  from Canada to 
Rwanda ) or a dedicated page on the WTO website (see fn.7 to the Annex).  
179.  The next slide is a summary of the r esources which are available on the WTO webpage . On 
the final slide , and this is not related to notifications, I would like  to give you the link to the 
document the Chair mentioned before, i.e. the Survey of WTO Members ' implementing legislation, 
which is available online as well . Almost exclusively in table format , it provides  an overview  of how 
the key features of this System have be en implemented in domestic law.  
11.2 Brazil   
180.  First of all I would like to thank the Secretariat for the very comprehensive presentation 
clarifying important aspects necessary to the operationalisation of Article 31 bis. This is the first 
session following the meeting held in January regarding the entry into force of the Protocol . On 
that occasion, Brazil suggest ed three areas which the Organization could assist Members with 
activities and technical assistance related to the Protocol. In our view, the WTO and Members 
should work together towards full implementation, fulfilling expectations of society and 
stakeholders regarding the benefits of the multilateral trading system. We are confiden t that the 
expertise of the Organ ization would prove valuable to that task.  
181.  Regarding the Protocol itself, I would like to draw attention to the necessity of the extension 
or elimination of the deadline for acceptance of the Protocol currently limited to December 2017. 
The next session o f this Council could initiate a discussion of the matter, in order to recommend a 
decision to the Ministerial Conference.  
AGENDA ITEM 12: THE UNITED NATIONS S ECRETARY -GENERAL 'S HIGH LEVEL PANEL 
REPORT ON ACCESS TO MEDICINES  
12.1 India  
182.  At the outset, I would like to thank the delegations of Brazil, China and South Africa who are 
also co -sponsors of this agenda item.  In November 2015, the United Nations Secretary -General 
Ban Ki -moon convened a High -Level Panel (HL P) on Access to Medicines with an objective "to 
review and assess proposals and recommend solutions for remedying the policy incoherence IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 28 - 
 
  between the justifiable rights of inventors, international human rights law, trade rules and public 
health in the conte xt of health technologies. " The United Nations Secretary -General’s High -Level 
Panel on Access to Medicines released its Final Report on 14 September 2016.  
183.  The HLP Report referred to Sustainable Development Goal 3: "Ensure healthy lives and 
promote well -being for all at all ages " and reiterated that the State obligations include duties not 
only to respect, but to protect and fulfil the right to health.  
184.  The HLP Report highlighted that neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) continue to receive 
inadequate funding  for R&D and access to health technologies, despite more than a billion people 
living with one or more NTD. The HLP Report also recognized that the costs of health technologies 
are rising globally and are being felt by individuals and by public and private  insurance schemes in 
both wealthy and resource -constrained countries alike. In this context, it is pertinent to mention 
that recently, the President of a developed Member stated that pharmaceutical companies are 
"getting away with murder " in what they cha rge the government for medicines. To address this 
issue, the Panel Report recommended that governments should require manufacturers and 
distributors of health technologies to disclose to drug regulatory and procurement authorities 
information pertaining to  : (1) the costs of R&D, production, marketing and distribution of health 
technology being procured or given marketing approval with each expense category separated; 
and (2) any public funding received in the development of the health technology, including  tax 
credits, subsidies and grants.  
185.  On innovation, the HLP Report stated that IPRs are "one policy tool among many for 
encouraging innovation and technological research and development ". The Panel Report 
emphasized that limiting access to academic discove ries can obstruct follow -on innovation and 
force taxpayers to pay twice for the benefits of publicity -funded research. The Panel Report 
advocated for strong, enforceable policies on data sharing and data access should be a condition 
for public grants. The Panel Report also underscored that public funding agencies should strongly 
encourage patenting and licensing practices that benefit public health, including use of non -
exclusive licences, the donation of intellectual property rights, participation in publi c sector patent 
pools and other mechanisms that maximise innovation while promoting access. The Panel Report 
recommended that open access models of innovation can also lower entry hurdles and accelerate 
the pace of development of health technologies, inclu ding those needed to combat emerging 
infectious diseases.  
186.  In furtherance of the Objectives and Principles of TRIPS enshrined in Articles 7 and 8, a 
number of flexibilities have become an integral part of the TRIPS framework. These flexibilities 
have been clarified and enhanced by the 2001 Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health . It 
confirmed  that WTO Members have the flexibility to interpret and implement the TRIPS provisions 
in a manner supportive of their right to protect public health.  
187.  The HLP Report recommended that WTO Members must make full use of the flexibilities in 
the TRIPS Agreement as confirmed by the Doha Declaration to promote access to health 
technologies when necessary. The following are s ome key recommendations of the Report, 
especiall y on TRIPS flexibilities and TRIPS -plus provisions:  
a. WTO Members should make full use of the policy space available in Article 27 of the 
TRIPS Agreement by adopting and applying rigorous definitions of invention and 
patentability that curtail the evergreen ing to ensure that patents are  only awarded when 
genuine innovation has occurred.  
b. The use of compulsory licensing must be based on the provisions found in the Doha 
Declaration and the grounds for the issuance of compulsory licences are  left to the 
discreti on of governments.  
c. WTO Members should revise the Paragraph 6 decision in order to find a solution that 
enables a swift and expedient export of pharmaceutical products produced under 
compulsory license.  
d. Governments and the private sector must refrain from explicit or implicit threats, tactics 
or strategies that undermine the right of WTO Members to use TRIPS flexibilities.  IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 29 - 
 
  e. Governments engaged in bilateral and regional trade and investment treaties should 
ensure that these agreements do not include provisio ns that interfere with their 
obligations to fulfil the right to health.  
188.  At the side -event held today during the lunchbreak, we have also heard from the Co-Chair 
Ms. Ruth Dreifuss, former President of Switzerland,  and other experts regarding proper 
impleme ntation of the recommendations of the HLP Report for remedying the policy incoherence 
between the justifiable rights of inventors, international human rights law, trade rules and public 
health in the context of health technologies.  
189.  At the last TRIPS Counci l meeting many Members stated that the HLP Report was still under 
consideration in their capitals. I would like to urge those Members to provide their comments on 
the HLP Report . At the subsequent sessions of the TRIPS Council, India would like to co -spons or 
with like -minded Members sub -agenda items under the main agenda item "the United Nations 
Secretary -General’s High Level Panel Report on Access to Medicines ". Some sub -agenda items on 
which Members could share their experiences include specific recommend ations of the HLP Report 
on patentability criteria, compulsory licenses, TRIPS -plus provisions in RTAs, etc.  
12.2 Bangladesh on behalf of the LDC Group   
190.  We just had a very good ex change during the last meeting  on the Report and we are very 
happy to discuss the Report now. We consider that the Report of the High Level Panel is a 
significant and important step which has been long overdue, we admit that. Though we are now 
experiencing  the highest level of scientific and technological development, this development is not 
even for everybody. For some this has even widened the existing divide. So it is a pity, that in 
spite of all these developments, we are yet to move forward to ensure t he fundamental human 
right that is the right to health. LDCs have suffered most in the case of inequality, prejudice and 
unfairness  in the multilateral system, and the issue of health was no different. Here the Report is 
very important for the LDCs , as obs ervations and recommendations of the Report will be very 
useful for every country which considers the issue of access to medicines to be important.  
191.  The beauty of this Report is that it does not only deal with the existing  multilateral 
agreements, rules an d negotiations. It also sheds light on the current practices in international 
trade and commerce which in many cases may be contrary to the agreed international rules. The 
way the Report has been prepared, it cannot be said that the observations and recomm endations 
are at variance with the current global IP regime. It calls for small rationalisation of IP regimes and 
its implementation, it examined all the possible causes for hindrances to access to medicines 
starting from policy making then the provisions of IP regime, profit motifs of the producers, 
determination of their cost of medicine and its development, strict provisions of some RTAs, 
transparency of the marketing of drugs, rewarding private funding and requirement of public 
funding for research and development. All these aspects were evaluated and considered when the 
public examined the issue of access to medicine s. So it is not purely  an IP issue, but many of the 
problems could be seen originating from or resulting ultimately into IP issues. We do n ot see the 
Report as an end in itself, as further discussion would clearly add to our comprehension and may 
make the recommendations even better.  
192.  Instead of just being critical about the Report we would be better off if we try to benefit from 
the useful e lements of the Report, thus we may continue discussing the Report in the TRIPS 
Council in the future, for everybody's gain, as the Report has been prepared for the benefit of all in 
all countries, irrespective of the level of development.  
12.3 Brazil  
193.  As we all know, on 19 November 2015, the United Nations Secretary General Ban Ki -moon 
announced the creation of the High -Level Panel on Innovation and Access to Health Technologies. 
Responding to this invitation, tw o chairs were designated to the Panel, namely, Ms. Ruth Dreifuss, 
from Switzerland, and Mr Festus Mogae, from Botswana.  
194.  The Report  of the UN Secretary -General's High -Level Panel was produced after extensive 
consultations. It builds on previous work in the field of health and has undergone a transparent, 
broad consultation process. Its expert advisory group comprised representatives from IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 30 - 
 
  governments and international organizations, as well as industry and civil society, promoting a 
comprehensive evaluation o f the various aspects involved in this debate.  
195.  The document contains assessments and recommendations covering various aspects of 
access to medicines, an issue that must be examined from multiple perspectives. The complex 
interplay between the protection o f intellectual property and the imperative of ensuring access to 
life-saving medicines is not a new issue. In the WTO, it dates back to at least 2001, when the 
Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health was adopted by unanimous Decision; the Panel on 
the case "Canada – Pharmaceutical Patents ", circulated in 2000, also addressed the topic. More 
recently, the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, unanimously adopted by all WTO 
Members’ heads of state, also included the right to health as one of its priority, under Goal 
number  3.  
196.  The High -Level Panel was established to consider additional ways of providing incentives for 
both innovation and access. It is not a matter here of seeking the full endorsement of the Report 
itself, but of reviewing those in dividual recommendations related to the activities of the TRIPS 
Council. The inputs contained in the Report could provide further guidance for the discussion by 
WTO Members.  
197.  The High Level Panel states that WTO Members should make full use of the policy sp ace 
available in Article 27 of the TRIPS Agreement by adopting and applying rigorous definitions of 
invention and patentability that curtail the evergreening, thereby ensuring that only genuine 
innovations be awarded with patent rights.  
198.  The document furth er recommends the judicious use of the flexibilities contained in the 
TRIPS Agreement in order to ensure access to health technologies. In this regard, allow me to 
recall that exceptions and limitations to IP rights are intrinsic elements of the law of eve ry 
Member. They are vital for striking a balance between the rights granted and the interests of 
society at large.  
199.  The Report  also highlights that governments and private sector must refrain from explicit or 
implicit threats, tactics or strategies that un dermine the right of WTO Members to use TRIPS 
flexibilities. Those types of strategies are against the spirit of the Doha Declaration and the TRIPS 
Agreement, in particular Articles 7 and 8. Nevertheless, this is something that has been observed 
in past ye ars when WTO Members, including Brazil, initiated the procedures relevant for issuing a 
compulsory license in order to address urgent health needs.  
200.  Another TRIPS -related issue addressed by the Report  is the recent entry into force of the 
Protocol of Amend ment to the TRIPS Agreement. It demonstrates the need to have mechanisms 
that allow at the same time the adequate remuneration to intellectual property rights holders and 
the rights of governments to adopt measures necessary to protect public health, in li ne with the 
provisions of Article 8 of the TRIPS Agreement.  
201.  Brazil has a strong commitment to the improvement of public health and has been very 
active on guaranteeing access to medicines. In 2001, we were an active participant in the 
negotiations that res ulted in the Doha Ministerial Declaration on TRIPs and Public Health.  
202.  Brazil believed then, as it believes now, that respect for intellectual property and efforts to 
ensure quality public health and access to medicines for all are not mutually exclusive. In our view, 
a balanced intellectual property system, with built -in flexibilities , as well as complementary policies 
and incentives, is the best way to promote innovation in all fields of technology, including the 
health sciences.  
203.  We encourage all WTO Memb ers to join us in discussing the recommendations of the High 
Level Panel, as well as to share any other ideas that would bring us closer to our common goal of 
ensuring the highest health standards to the highest number of people.  
204.  Lastly, we would like to support continuing the discussion of the High Level Panel Report in 
the next session of the Council.  IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 31 - 
 
  12.4 South Africa  
205.  South Africa is one of the co -sponsors of this agenda item, and I think in the last m eeting we 
were quite encouraged by the number of delegations that took the floor and either indicated 
support for discussion of the topic, or indicated that they would revert to the next meeting to 
report  back on feedback that they were awaiting from their  capitals. It is rather disappointing to 
see that not many flags are up, but nonetheless I think in contextualising the topic that we have 
put on the table, we should not be paralysed by the fact that we refer to the United Nations High 
Level Panel on Acce ss to Medicine s. It frames a universal issue of access and equitability, it frames 
an issue of capacity, it also definitely impacts on the types of discussions that we have in this 
house. Given the fact that the Protocol has now come into effect, I believe  that this discussion 
gives us an opportunity to put many of the issues on the table in respect of the efficacy  of the 
System, in respect of many of the criticisms that have been expressed in respect of how the 
System specifically has been used.  
206.  Now of co urse, what we endeavour to do is to essentially create a platform to discuss a 
roundtable of many sub -issues as India has indicated, and this is also very closely linked to many 
of the other things that are happening in the Council. We had a short discussi on this morning on 
Article 71.1, so practically from an implementation point of view, and from an assessment point of 
view, it is important for us to start talking about issues in this Council. The fact that things have 
been on the table for a long time  and we get the standard responses we get in every meeting 
should be taken on and we believe that in revitalising  our discussions in this Council we need to be 
able to discuss matters , even if they are difficult , in a constructive way and as a result of that we 
believe that further discussion of this particular topic is important . The context that we put in 
respect of this does not limit the discussion merely to some of the recommendations that have 
been made by the High Level Panel, but we necessarily may hav e to be more holistic and look at 
many of the other issues that we have not been able to discuss or where we have not be en able to 
focus upon. Given this, we are happy to hear the views of other Members and we are also happy 
to support Brazil's proposal th at we could continue this topic at the next meeting.  
12.5 China   
207.  On 23 January 2017, the amend ed TRIPS Agreement entered into force . This is the very first 
amendment to WTO laws since the establishment of the WTO. China appreciates and welcomes it. 
China has always attached great attention to the issue of  TRIPS and public health  and believes 
that this amendment is helpful to secure a pathway to access to affordable medicines in the 
countries  that lack medicine pr oduction capacity, and to overcome the public health difficulties in 
these countries.  
208.  Domestically, China has been using compulsory licensing, parallel imports and the Bolar 
exception which is permissible under TRIPS and the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and P ublic Health 
to promote access to medicines and secure public health. China 's Patent Law and implementation 
regulation have specific provision s on compulsory licensing, which ha ve been improved with the 
later amendments. In 2012, combining the related prov isions, China issued the new detailed rules 
for compulsory licensing for easy operation.  
209.  The UN Secretary -General 's High Level Panel Report on Access to Medicines gives various 
recommendations on promoting innovation, strengthening access to medicine s, securing public 
health, which are of great value to the discussion on public health in  the WTO. China notes  that 
Members might have different views on the content and proposals in this Report , but still hopes 
that with this opportunity, Members could exchange  views and experience s on how to take full 
advantage of  the flexibilit ies in the  TRIPS Agreement, and effectively address the public health 
issues . 
12.6 Indonesia  
210.  Indonesia welcomes this agenda item and full y supports the ensuing discussion on IP laws 
and public health to take place in this Council. As a country with a population of 250 million 
people, the Indonesian Government sees the issue as a high priority and continues to work on 
policies that would hel p enhance pharmaceutical production, capacity to fulfil the need for 
affordable medicines and help technologies. IP protection is , indeed , an essential component for IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 32 - 
 
  fostering research and innovation needed in developing pharmaceutical products. However , for 
those product s to effectively serve their purpose a balance must be maintained between the rights 
of IP holders and the right s of people to have access to affordable medicines.  
211.  In line with the TRIPS Agreement and the flexibilities contained therein, t he Indonesian 
Government has enacted a number of policies and regulations to support the strengthening of 
Indonesia's capacity to provide medicine s to its people. While providing protection to right  holders, 
Indonesia is also attempting to provide more opp ortunities and to drive and facilitate research and 
innovation important for the development of pharmaceutical products. We believe that fostering 
innovation itself is equally important as providing IP protection and that the two concepts go hand -
in-hand i nstead of subsequently. Indonesia supports that this agenda item be maintained for the 
next meeting of the TRIPS Council, especially with regard to the discussion on patent protection 
and the possible conflict with the right to health and how it relates to  issue of encouraging new 
inventions and patent applications.  
212.  We would also support a discussion that addresses the issue of compulsory licensing and 
how it can be made effective, especially now that the Protocol amending  the TRIPS Agreement is 
in effect.  We are of the view that this discussion is important in order for us to serve better the 
legitimate rights of individual Members to adopt and implement flexibilities in the TRIPS 
Agreement and to enable every Member to draft and adopt national regulations  that are effective.  
12.7 Nigeria, on behalf of the Africa n Group  
213.  I did not hav e the intention to take the floor, but I am challenged by South Africa. I think it 
is clear when th is Report  came out, we were puzzled thinking about  what really is going to be 
discussed in this Report . With the intervention by Brazil, things are becoming clearer. At least 
those issues or recommendations relating to the TRIP S Agreement  can be discussed . We welcome , 
of course , the Report  by High Level Panel and agree that those recommendations relating to the 
TRIPS Agreement be discussed in the TRIPS Council, in particular regarding the patentability 
criteria, that is the patent subject matter because it is good to share experience on that and what 
it entails. Th is concerns th e issue of novelty, inventive steps, industrial application and disclosure 
of the patent. So we believe that the discussion would allow Members to appreciate each other's 
national law  on these issues. Also , it would be good if we can look at the  relevant provisions in  
bilateral agreements.  
12.8 Egypt  
214.  We would like to thank Brazil, India, China and South Africa for proposing this item on the  
agenda of our meeting today. As raised by the four countries, the Report of the UN Secretary 
General High Level Panel on Access to Medicines contains very important recommendations for 
both developing and least developed countries. Therefore, we urge the TRIPS Council to start 
studying the way to implement these recommendations, especially the one regarding the proposed 
cooperation between UNCTAD, UNDP, WTO, WIPO and other relevant organizations in order to 
support government s to apply public health patent ability criteria.  
12.9 United States  
215.   Let me begin by reiterating that the United States is absolutely committed to working on 
and identifying practical ways to increase access to safe, effective, and a ffordable medicines 
around the world, and to support policies that drive development of new medicines. As we have 
made clear in our past statements and interventions on the United Nations Secretary -General’s 
High-Level Panel on Access to Medicines, "the na rrowly  focused mandate of the Panel was flawed " 
and led to outcomes that fail to "adequately address this complex issue. The result includes 
conclusions that further this narrow perspective, raising fundamental questions regarding the 
legitimacy of those c onclusions. "   
216.  When this topic was discussed at the November 2016 TRIPS Council, there was lack of 
consensus and widely divergent views over the Report  amongst WTO Members .  Outside of the 
TRIPS Council, there has been no dearth of events held, articles wr itten, and a wide variety of 
views and positions expressed. Similarly, parties have not found common ground  on any of these 
issues . We further note that the Panel itself was unable to come to consensus on its key IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 33 - 
 
  recommendations, with two of the panellists  — the two who had the most extensive experience in 
managing R&D portfolios  — warning that the Report’s recommendations could result in serious 
negative unintended consequences for research and development.  
217.  These concerns have also been expressed by a larg e group of stakeholders, including from 
the research -based biopharmaceutical industry, patients, research universities, and inventors.  
218.  We have, of course, listened to the interventions today, and do note that the Panel's work 
has been concluded. However , we have heard a wide range of proposals today . Before we end this 
discussion we would like to seek clarity as to what is being proposed. There has been at least 
three different pieces of proposals that have been voiced, and I think that we would definitely like 
to discuss that before we end this agenda item.  
12.10   Japan  
219.  The delegation of Japan shares the view that access to medicines is an important issue. From 
our experience, we have found that various factors,  besides intellectual property, have a strong 
correlation with this issue.  
220.  We believe that financial incentives for the development of new drugs promote R&D and 
bring benefits to people around the world. Therefore, the appropriate protection of intellectua l 
property rights plays a critical role in providing incentives to find innovative tools to save millions 
of lives in the world as has been the case. Although discussions on the issue of access to 
medicines have been conducted at several organizations of t he United Nations including the World 
Health Organization (WHO), it seems that the results of these discussions have not been 
sufficiently reflected in the High Level Panel Report. For example, the joint report made by the 
WHO, WIPO, and WTO in 2013 report ed that "the WHO framework for access to medicines 
recognizes that lack of access to medical technologies is rarely due to a single isolated factor and 
thus includes rational selection and use of medicines ". 
221.  Japan shares the view of the importance of deali ng with the issue of access to medicines for 
orphan diseases, neglected tropical diseases, and other diseases lacking market incentives as 
raised in the Report . However, the scope of the Report  is rather limited, focusing only on "policy 
incoherencies betw een the justifiable rights of inventors, international human rights law, trade 
rules and public health in the context of health technologies ". We believe that access to medicines 
is affected by a variety of other factors such as health systems governance, the quality and 
quantity of human resources for health, access to medical facilities, and supply systems of 
medicines in the country. Furthermore, Japan would like to point out that the recommendation of 
this Report  neither reflects the opinions of, nor ha s been endorsed by, UN Members working to 
solve the issue by supporting global health.  
222.  While this delegation does not intend an in -depth substantive discussion, we believe that this 
issue could be dealt with more effectively by taking a more comprehensive  approach towards the 
multiple factors already discovered in the existing work, rather than focusing on the narrow issues 
considered in the High Level Panel Report.  
12.11   Canada  
223.  The Government of Canada consid ers access to medicines to be a key priority in our ongoing 
efforts to promote global health and prosperity, and welcomes the attention that the Report of the 
UN Secretary General’s High -Level Panel on Access to Medicines has drawn to this important issue.  
224.  The Government of Canada continues to review the detailed Report of the High -Level Panel 
and its various recommendations. For Canada, these recommendations touch upon a variety of 
complex domestic policies, laws, and regulations, not only in respect of IP , but also areas such as 
pricing, public funding for research and development, governance, accountability, and 
transparency, and which fall under the responsibility of a variety of Federal Government 
departments and agencies.  
225.  While there are a number of re commendations that are not in line with our current practice, 
there are also other recommendations that may be consistent with the Government of Canada’s IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 34 - 
 
  approach to the promotion of access to medicines and which we continue to reflect upon. The 
Government  of Canada will therefore require further time to consider the Report’s 
recommendations in more detail. At the same time, Canada is pleased to participate in discussions 
on this issue today.  
226.  Canada recognizes that improving access to medicines needs to be achieved through the 
promotion of health equity, stronger health systems, and universal health coverage. Indeed, 
Canada’s international development priorities and significant investments in strengthening health 
systems and the health and rights of women an d children are contributing to improved access in 
this regard.  
227.  Canada is a global leader in supporting partnerships such as the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, 
Tuberculosis and Malaria; the Global Drug Facility; and Gavi, The Vaccine Alliance, which 
strengthens  health systems and provides targeted programming to increase access to medicines 
and vaccines. In September 2016, Canada hosted the Fifth Replenishment Conference of the 
Global Fund, and pledged CAD $804 million (or roughly USD $613 million) for 2017 to 2 019. 
Canada is also the sixth largest donor to Gavi, having pledged CAD $520 million (or USD $396 
million) for the 2016 -2020 period.  
228.  Once again, Canada is pleased to be part of the discussion on this important issue, and to 
have the opportunity to share o ur own experiences on the promotion of access to medicines. Along 
these lines, Canada looks forward to learning mo re about the views of other Members as they 
continue to reflect on the various recommendations made in the Report of the High -Level Panel.  
12.12  Korea, Republic of  
229.  Korea is open -minded to any discussion for promoting innovation and public health which are 
essential elements for sustainable development. So Korea once again welcomes  the en try into 
force of the  TRIPS Amendment which is a significant achievement for the WTO and public health.  
230.  Regarding the proposal, Korea is still reviewing the elements raised in the High Level Report 
and at this Council meeting. At this stage, Korea believes  that our work should focus on the 
implementation of  the TRIPS Amendment while encouraging the Members which have not yet 
ratified the Protocol to do so.  
12.13  Norway  
231.  Norway attaches great importance to tackli ng global health challenges, including providing 
access to affordable medicines for all. There are various and complex reasons behind the problem 
that many people around the world, especially in least developed and low-income countries, do not 
have access to the medicines and vaccines they need. This access depends, among other factors, 
on regulatory frameworks, prices, procurement systems, systems for distribution of medicines to 
the clinics, and the presence of qualified health personnel. This complexity requires a balanced 
discussion.  
232.  The UNSG’s High -Level Panel Report focuses mainly on intellectual property rights, which is 
only one of several elements that influence the prices of medicines and vaccines. Moreover, it 
seems to us that the Report does not  give a fully representative picture regarding the role of 
patents and related intellectual property rights in providing access to medicines. The Report  seems 
to focus too narrowly on negative aspects. However, the system is also contributing to bringing 
new medicines to the market.  
233.  A narrow focus on negative aspects of the system is not conducive. We need in our view to 
take a broader perspective – which includes other important elements that influence access to 
medicines, and I mentioned some of them at t he beginning of my intervention. Norway supports 
several international initiatives which work to improve these challenges – for instance: UNITAID, 
Medicines Patent Pool, and WAMBO.org within The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and 
Malaria.  
234.  As for t he continued discussion on the interface between IPR s and health here in the WTO, it 
is Norway’s opinion that it would be more fruitful to take as point of departure the joint study by IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 35 - 
 
  the WTO, the WHO and WIPO from 2013: Promoting Access to Medical Techno logies and 
Innovation: Intersections between public health, intellectual property and trade . 
12.14  European Union  
235.  In the interest of time, and since our statement is actually the same as in the last TR IPS 
Council, I would simply like to refer to it . It can also be downloaded free of any copyright issues 
from our EU delegation website, and at the request of Members we can also make it available to 
the Secretariat for circulation.  
12.15  Switzerland  
236.  My delegation  also refers to its intervention on this ad hoc agenda item at the last TRIPS 
Council meeting. Let me recall today just two points: the access to medicines discussion is an 
important one. Switzerl and has been fully supportive, committed and actively participating in all 
mandated work that this Council has done on IP and access to medicines in the WTO and TRIPS 
context . I refer , in particular , to the negotiations leading to the Para graph  6 System an d its 
introduction into the TRIPS Agreement through Article 31 bis. Obviously, Switzerland’s commitment 
applies similarly to the relevant work on access to medicines at the WHO, which Switzerland 
considers to be  the core competent international organization  for access to medicines issues, and it 
also extends to  WIPO, when IP aspects have been primarily concerned.  
237.  Concerning the HLP Report on Access to Medicines , we recall  that it was not mandated by 
WTO Members or commissioned by UN Member States . The Report  has no formal status in this 
Organization. Other reports on IP and access to medicines have been commissioned and published 
by dedicated panels and groups over the years. The TRIPS Council did not consider  these reports 
or their recommendations  and conclu sions as instructing the Council's  discussion.  
12.16  Australia  
238.  Australia welcomes the opportunity to discuss issues relating to access to medicines and 
health technologies for developing and least develope d countries.  The challenges faced by least 
developed countries in tackling disease and illness are vast and ongoing  and access to medicines 
and health technologies is critical to helping to address those challenges.  
239.  Australia’s commitment to access to medi cines at home and abroad is reflected by its 
positive contributio ns in this area. These include Australia’s AUD$30 million funding to support 
Product Development Partnerships , in particular  partnerships which are in the later stages of 
product development and that have prospects of bringing new diagnostic tests and drugs to 
market to address tuberculosis and malaria; Australia’s award in 2016 of a further AUD$2 million 
in funding for the Tropical Disease Research Regional Collaboration Initiative; and Austr alia’s 
support of the WIPO Re:Search Project, which promotes research and development to address 
neglected tropical diseases, malaria and tuberculosis in developing and least developed countries.  
240.  Underlying many of these contributions, and critical to impr oving health outcomes, is health 
and medical research and innovation and a key part of this is having in place effective and 
balanced intellectual property systems.  Australia notes existing TRIPS flexibilities and welcomes, in 
particular, the recent entry into force of the TRIPS Protocol. Australia supports utilisation of TRIPS 
flexibilities to the extent possible and we are open to hearing Members’ experiences of utilising the 
TRIPS flexibilities.  
241.  More broadly, Australia’s view is that IP is only one facto r of many that can affect access to 
medicines  and a narrow focus on intellectual property can only be of limited value where it does 
not take into account the interplay of many other factors.  As the High Level Panel acknowledges, 
there are a range of facto rs that can affect access to medicines, including under -resourced 
healthcare systems, workers and education, and regulatory barriers and insurance issues.  In this 
regard, we note the cooperative efforts between the WTO, WIPO and the WHO, including their 
trilateral report on Promoting Access to Medical Technologies and Innovation.  IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 36 - 
 
  242.  In Australia' s view, the response to the access to medicines issue requires a holistic 
approach cognisant of all relevant issues – not just intellectual property.  We look forward t o 
hearing other Members ' views on this agenda item.  
12.17  Chinese Taipei  
243.  Public health problems afflict many developing and least  developed countries. We would like 
to highlight the need for the TRIPS  Agreement to be part of the wider national and international 
action to address these problems. We would also  like to  emphasize that the TRIPS Agreement does 
not and should not prevent Members from taking measures to protect public health and, in 
particula r, to promote access to medicines for all.  
244.  My delegation supports the Paragraph 6 System and attaches great importance to improving 
access to medicines, particularly in low -income countries.  
12.18  Chile  
245.  Access to medicines is a very important issue for our delegation. We note that the High Level 
Panel Report, regardless of its legal quality or validity, contains valuable elements for discussion 
within the WTO framework. Our delegation therefore stands ready to a ddress and discuss the 
elements of the Report in an open and non -binding manner, with, for instance, WTO  Members 
sharing their experiences of these elements.  
12.19  Brazil  
246.  I would like to quickly respond to som e aspects raised by delegations on this agenda item. 
The first one is that IP is one of many factors affecting access to medicines.  As we have mentioned 
in our statement we do not dispute this fact, however, this is the Council for TRIPS. Under its 
mandate , it is intellectual property and that is why we should discuss , in our view, the IP -related 
aspects of the R eport.  
247.  Another  point mentions the other documents and reports circulated on the matter and the 
lack of discussion in this Council. Brazil would ve ry much welcome delegations  to propose 
discussion of those reports. However , that is not what we have seen  during  the last years. The last 
aspect I would like to raise is the lack of consensus and divergent views on the Report. In our view 
this underlines the complexity of the issue and the need to further continue the discussion on the 
matter.  
12.20  WHO  Secretariat  
248.  We very much welcome the opportunity to continue the discussions on the High  Level Panel 
Report. Since the last discussions, WHO Member States seized the opportunity to discuss the HLP 
Report at the WHO Executive Board meeting in January. The Executive Board also decided that the 
HLP Report should be discussed again by the World Health Asse mbly in May 2017.  
249.  We will not repeat our statement on the different recommendations of the High -Level Panel 
Report, but would like to refer to our statement as reproduced in the minutes of the last meeting. 
We would like to seize the opportunity to welcom e, in particular , the call of the Panel Report for 
more transparency on prices. One of the High  Level Panel recommendations to WHO is to set up a 
global pricing database. This recommendation ties very well with activities  already ongoing at 
WHO. Indeed , the WHO Global Price Reporting Mechanism provide s pricing and procurement data 
for HIV; TB and malaria treatment and has recently been expanded to include the new hepatitis C 
treatments.  
250.  WHO has set up a comprehensive web platform that provides information o n vaccine 
product, price and procurement data with the goal of increasing price transparency and informing 
decisions around vaccine introduction and implementation . 
251.  In the framework of our new initiative on Fair Pricing, we are assessing the production cos ts 
of essential medicines. This will allow procurement agencies to better evaluate their performance IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 37 - 
 
  and will contribute to the overall objective of transparency. The Fair Pricing Forum will be 
co-hosted by WHO and the Government of the Netherlands on 10 -11 May in the Netherlands.  
252.  One of the main themes of the HLP is the call for more policy coherence. As a response to 
this call, WHO took the initiative in December 2016 to call for an "all agency meeting " with UNDP, 
UNAIDS, UNCTAD, WTO, WIPO; High Commissi oner for Human Rights and UNITAID to discuss the 
different  activities and plan for the future, including how to best follow up on the HLP Report.  
253.  Access to medicines is a complex issue. The WHO Secretariat commits to pursue its efforts to 
ensure access fo r all to needed medicines, including through providing assistance to its Member 
States on using all possible means to achieve access to essential medicines. Without this, there 
shall be no Universal Health Coverage.  
12.21 Chair   
254.  Now that we are coming back to the discussion of the various statements that we have 
heard, obviously we have divergent opinions; some delegations feel that it would be useful to have 
greater discussion on this issue, others feel that more  time is needed. Various delegations would 
like to revert to the issue, but we do have a request from the United States to clarify  some of the 
proposals and suggestions that have been made .  
12.22 South Africa  
255.  In terms of the agenda item, as one of the co -sponsors, we had requested a continuation of 
discussion , given  the fact that many delegations had indicated that they were still in contact with 
their capitals and would revert at the next meeting, so we e xpected that such delegations would 
have come back during this meeting. Also given the fact that this is an ad hoc item, an item which 
has been described in respect of the procedural rules, the question arises whether or not, it would 
be clear that a furth er continuation would be appropriate. Given your comments, and also some of 
the other comments, we have two possibilities: should such delegations still wish to revert back to 
this particular item, we could inscribe a continuation of discussion of this top ic on the agenda of 
our next meeting. I f this is not the case, of course , the other option, as India had indicated, would 
be that proponents  of this item use the High Level Panel Report as an appropriate peg to highlight 
many of the issues that are relevan t to the TRIPS Council ; many delegations  have also indicated  
that some of the recommendations are specifically directed at the work that we deliberate on.  
256.  Given this fact, if there is no continuation of this particular topic, I think it would be 
incumbent  on the proponents for the next meeting, once again, to place an item on the agenda 
that proposes to look at aspects of access to medicines and of course this proposal would be 
elucidated and described within an appropriate context, perhaps with another do cument outlining 
some of the topics that we would like to discuss, and to cover not only the next meeting, but the 
following meeting. I think those are the two possibilities, and we would be happy to hear what 
other Members think of this.  
12.23 United Stat es  
257.  It is really up to the proponents of the item to determine which way they would like to 
proceed. Our only perspective that we can offer is that we follow the agreed -upon rules of 
procedure which detai ls how ad hoc items are to be placed on the agenda . Like for many Members 
who have inscribed items, there is usually a process before the notification is sent out by the 
Secretariat of providing a paper and providing the details about the proposal for disc ussion, to 
allow all interested delegations to prepare back in capital . So our view is that if this is to be placed 
on the agenda again, then we follow the rules of procedure, and there be again more detail about 
what is proposed to be discussed.  
12.24  European Union  
258.  Just to say that we support the United States on that topic.  IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 38 - 
 
  12.25  Chair   
259.  The Council takes notes of the comments that have been made . It would  not be appropriate 
for me  to decide what Members want to do with respect to the continuation of this discussion that 
we have been looking at today. I do understand that there are various options. Last time the 
Council agreed to include the ad hoc item on t oday's agenda. South Africa has mentioned a couple 
of options, and in order not to take on board the prerogatives of Members, I would like to suggest 
to the sponsors, the proponents that they may have some suggestion on how we should move 
forward in the fu ture, on the future agenda . If not, all I can do is to say that we will have to 
discuss this to see how we can proceed. This could be included as an ad hoc issue on a future 
agenda, if that is what Members want.  
12.26  Switzerland  
260.  We have understood from the discussion today that a number of delegations have raised 
questions with regard to the Report being the basis for the Council discussions. We have also 
heard various proposals what could be discussed i n the future under an ad hoc agenda item, and I 
believe that it would therefore be the most straightforward way if proponents wish to table an ad 
hoc agenda item at the futu re Council meeting again, they are obviously free to do so . But we 
suggest that thi s be done according to the normal procedures for an ad hoc agenda item, and not 
by a Council decision today.  
12.27 South Africa  
261.  Having heard all the relevant opinions and in the interest of time and effi ciency, I think the 
proponents will in due course circulate a new communication on the scope of the discussion that 
we would like to enter into, and so from that perspective we believe that a continuation of this 
topic may not be entirely necessary.  
AGEND A ITEM 13: WORK PROGRAMME ON EL ECTRONIC COMMERCE  
13.1 Brazil  
262.  Thank you for introducing this item requested by Brazil. I think you gave a very good 
historical background on the issue of the work programme , which is why we are asking for this 
agenda item . We have two co-sponsored documents : The first , on copyright , is co-sponsored by 
Argentina and the second is co -sponsored by Argentina, Paraguay and Brazil. The two topics have 
been identified under the dedicated d iscussion of the General Council as topics related to the issue 
of e-commerce , and both documents here are being submitted to the TRIPS Council in order to 
give the opportunity to Members to get acquainted with the message we want to convey and to 
give us the opportunity to clarify and to answer questions. We are going to present both 
documents, and will be more than happy to respond to questions or requests for clarifications. I 
will ask my colleague to introduce the document on copyright and I will myself  introduce the 
second one  afterwards .  
263.  Thank you for this opportunity to present our document on electronic commerce and 
copyright. It responds to the invitation of the work programme on electronic commerce to examine 
and debate trade -related issues of glo bal e -commerce. We wish to launch a comprehensive 
discussion of copyright management in the digital environment and we invite delegations to 
express their views on this important subject.  
264.  Recent advances in technology have enabled the creation of business  models based on the 
use of copyrighted works in digital platforms. Unlike the physical environment, access to such 
works is gained without transfer of ownership or possession of the work by the final user. Those 
innovative business models create new forms  of rights management, generating opportunities and 
challenges for all participants in the creative process. The success of these new models was 
underlined in 2015, when the digital market surpassed sales of physical formats and became the 
primary source o f revenue for recorded music.  
265.  Legitimate concerns are being raised at national and international level regarding the 
remuneration of copyrighted works. Digital platforms affirm that most of their revenue is being IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 39 - 
 
  distributed as royalties, but authors and p erformers complain about lack of remuneration. 
Likewise, producers and the cultural industry highlight a "value gap " in the amount due for the 
rights.   
266.  The modern music business involves a huge number of micro -transactions, in which 
stakeholders receive f ractions of the revenue generated. New technologies would normally be 
associated to more transparency, but actually we are seeing the opposite: opaque contractual 
frameworks create an obstacle for the due diligence of creators and artists when considering the 
commercialization of their work.  
267.  Brazil argues that a first possible decision on copyright management for fair payments could 
stress the importance of transparency in the remuneration of copyright and related works in the 
digital environment. This woul d allow creators and artists to properly understand the payments 
and accounts they receive.  
268.  Copyright laws recognize certain limitations on economic rights of protected works. Those 
limitations have the character of public interest, in that they strike a b alance between the interest 
of rightholders and the users of such works. For this reason, they are present in the legislation s of 
all Member s. 
269.  In the business model of digital platforms, technological protection measures  (TPMs)  are 
widely used, offering an  almost absolute control of digital intellectual goods. However, TPMs in the 
physical environment were already considered an obstacle to the exercise of some legitimate uses 
defined as limitations or exceptions to copyright by national legislations. This i s magnified in the 
digital environment and may halt even the simplest operations, such as the interoperability and 
portability of digital goods.  
270.  There is a growing concern that obligations related to the inviolability of TPMs might exclude 
the possibility  of enjoying exceptions and limitations in the digital environment. These technologies 
are essential for the normal exploitation of the work in e -trade and its circumvention could be 
understood as a breach of international obligations (step 2 of the three step test). Therefore, the 
second collective initiative suggested in our document to improve management of copyright in the 
digital environment is to clearly assert that exceptions and limitations available in physical formats 
should also be available in t he digital environment.  
271.  Finally, the last aspect of the document relates to the territoriality of copyright. The digital 
environment is borderless by its nature while the copyright system is based on national laws. 
These different characteristics make more  challenging the task of implementing the shared 
objective of protecting authors, performers and other copyright holders in the digital environment. 
Payments to digital platforms, for instance, can be made through international credit cards, 
bypassing the law in the country of access to the creative content.  
272.  It is thus suggested that Members reaffirm the territoriality of copyright as a principle of the 
international trading system, making their national copyright legislation applicable to trade 
relations where content is accessed from within their national borders.  
273.  The three areas highlighted should be considered building blocks of a sound business 
environment for the international trade of intellectual goods. They should continue to be explored 
in order to find common understanding among Members and to provide the General Council with 
the information necessary to consider the way forward on the matter.  
274.  Let me now turn to document  JOB/IP/20 , co-sponsored by Argentina, Paraguay and Brazil. It 
is based on th e resolution adopted by MERCOSUR in 2006, which  means that this text has been 
negotiated among developing countries . This is a proposal on how a technical issue can be handled 
from a trade -related perspective. Although technical , this issue is of great imp ortance not only to 
e-commerce , but to the digital economy in general, because electronic signatures  ensure the 
digital identity of whoever is using the Internet or doing electronic transactions. Needless to say, in 
order to have legal ly valid effects,  the certainty of the recipient  on the other side of the internet 
that this is the person it is claiming to be, is very important in the digital environment. The 
insurance of the digital identity of a person therefore has cross -cutting utility.  IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 40 - 
 
  275.  One common and  very important application of this digital identity is in e -government 
solutions. For instance, if we take the communication from India suggesting a trade facilitation 
agreement for services, in one of the sections, Paragraph 10.3 of the proposal, there i s the 
suggestion of electronic application of documents. If that submission of electronic documents is 
backed by a digital identity, via an advanced electronic certificate, this would increase certainty of 
the system and would make it more reliable, both t o the government and to the users. I do not 
intend to go through to the paragraphs or the articles of the proposal, but I am more than happy 
to clarify any questions that Members might have in this regard .  
13.2 Argentina  
276.  Argentina is grateful to Brazil for including this item in the agenda as it provides an 
opportunity to continue discussions on this important issue.  Progress in technology and 
communications makes electronic commerce increasingly important fo r all countries. Argentina is 
not immune to this phenomenon. Our country attaches great importance to this issue, having 
played an active role, in MERCOSUR in particular, in putting forward proposals and measures to 
promote the development of electronic co mmerce in the region.  
277.  Document JOB/IP/19 identifies three areas of possible convergence concerning copyright in a 
digital environment: transparency of payment for copyright and related rights; balance of rights 
and obligations; and territoriality of copyri ght. Argentina shares the views expressed by Brazil in 
this document and has asked to be included as a co -sponsor.  
278.  Document JOB/IP/20, co -sponsored by Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay, introduces a 
pertinent question in relation to the discussions on the wor k programme on electronic commerce, 
namely electronic signatures.  Argentina was one of the first countries in the region to adopt 
national standards on electronic signatures and protection of personal data.  Digital signatures are 
governed by Law No.  25.506 , approved and enacted in 2001. The Law determines various 
concepts, differentiating between digital signatures and electronic signatures.  A digital signature is 
comparable to a handwritten signature as a result of the use of digital certificates, which co ntain 
data identifying the owner of the signature. Digital certificates, issued by registered certifiers 
authorized for this purpose, enable a third party to establish the authenticity of a signatory and 
detect any alterations to electronic documents signe d digitally.  By circulating Resolution GMC 
37/06, which deals with the question of digital signatures within MERCOSUR, we hope to 
contribute towards the discussions on this issue.  
279.  Lastly, we should like to emphasize that, being a member of the Group of Fri ends for 
E-Commerce for Development, Argentina is ready to make a constructive contribution in order to 
move ahead on this issue.  
13.3 Paraguay   
280.  Paraguay welcomes the contribution on electronic commerce and cop yright (JOB/IP/19), 
which describes three areas of possible convergence in the WTO as regards existing links between 
electronic commerce and copyright.  As stated in the aforementioned document, new technologies 
continue to transform business models and cop yright management, for right -holders, 
businessmen, users and regulatory bodies.  Paraguay therefore supports the idea of making this 
system more transparent through the voluntary notification of national and regional legislation, 
regulations or systems rela ting to the management of copyright in the digital environment.  
281.  Moving on to the communication on electronic signatures (JOB/IP/20), the delegation of 
Paraguay endorses and supports Brazil's statements, this being a matter of interest identified by 
various  WTO Members.  
282.  For instance, document JOB/IP/21, entitled "Trade Policy, the WTO, and the Digital 
Economy ", refers to the recognition of e -signatures and authentication in its "Regulatory 
Frameworks " box. The recognition of e -signatures could serve as a tra de facilitation tool, as it 
seeks to ensure the authenticity, integrity and privacy of online cross -border transactions and 
communications, thereby providing greater security and predictability for users.  Notifying this 
Council of similar regulations will facilitate comparisons and discussion regarding the use of IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 41 - 
 
  e-signatures, and we therefore encourage further analysis of this issue on the basis of 
contributions from other Members.  
283.  Lastly, another interesting aspect of document JOB/IP/21, which Paraguay co -sponsors, is 
the idea of increasing dialogue with other international bodies engaged in work on the digital 
economy. Within the framework of the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce, and given its 
importance in the discussion in this Council, we consider  it important to listen to any initiatives and 
comments from the WIPO Secretariat in respect of the digital economy and existing links between 
intellectual property and electronic commerce, both in terms of international agreements and 
cooperation  projects . 
13.4 Bangladesh on behalf of the LDC Group   
284.  I thank all the proponents for their very informative submissions which draw our attention to 
the fact that E-commerce  will soon be a k ey factor in our lives. Better preparation will enable us to 
better benefit form e-commerce  in the future. Global e-commerce is still a fledging issue and the 
participation of LDCs is rather limited because of capacity constraints. However, while we chart our 
route for a future negotiation based on the proposals and information submitted by the 
proponents, LDCs would like to recall that universally agreed special and differential treatment for 
LDCs must be applied, especially in the case of technological pr otection measures that have been 
mentioned by Brazil. We also support the application of national copyright legislation if the content 
is accessed within the national borders, as mentioned in one of the documents.  
13.5 Switzerland  
 
285.  We have studied the national and regional experiences and practices contained in the 
different submissions with great interest. We consider each of the topics treated as relevant in the 
context of international trade, and thank t he delegations and co -sponsors for their 
communications.  
286.  I am going to comment in particular on the three Communications on E-Commerce and 
Copyright (JOB/IP/19), E-Commerce and Electronic Signature s (JOB/IP/20) , as well as on 
E-Commerce and Development (JO B/IP/22).  
287.  On E-Commerce and Copyright: We recall that the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright 
and Related Rights (SCCR) has already taken up specific questions related to copyright, the 
applicable law and the lex fori. Obviously, duplication of the discus sion in the WIPO, vis -à-vis more 
trade -related aspects here in the WTO, needs to be avoided. It has become clear that the topics 
addressed in JOB/IP/19 are quite complex and broad, considering the wide array of different 
national approaches  and conflict -of-law regimes. From a regional perspective, for Switzerland and 
most European countries the Lugano or the Brussels Convention on the jurisdiction and 
enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters of 1988  apply in this context. We will 
follow the discussions in the WIPO and also here in this Council closely and with interest.  
288.  On E-commerce and Electronic S ignature s: Switzerland has a new federal law on certification 
services in electronic signatures and other digital certificates that has come into  force this year, 
on 1 January 2017. The new law assigns, under certain conditions, equal status to the electronic 
signature and a handwritten signature. To promote digital trade in Switzerland, the legislator 
allows Certification Service Providers to  be recognized by an accredited federal government 
agency. The Certification Service Providers verify electronic data and issue digital certificates. 
There are a number of other aspects to our national regime and some may be relevant in the 
wider IP context. Ou r delegation is interested to hear about other regimes, and about how they 
may interlink with aspects of intellectual property and the work of the TRIPS Council.  
289.  It is also with particular interest that we have studied communication JOB/IP/22 on 
E-Commerce  and D evelopment, which outlines the potential that e -commerce may offer for MSMEs 
in middle and low -income countries. In the past, the TRIPS Council in its discussion on IP and 
Innovation already touched on a number of aspects which have been raised in th e present 
communication, e.g. the potential that mobile apps bear , and the opportunity which e -commerce 
tools presents for small business operators to more easily enter the market at low cost.  IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 42 - 
 
  290.  Switzerland agrees that the topic of e -commerce is relevant for  MSMEs in particular. The 
WTO and the TRIPS Council should take into account this interest of MSMEs. It is noteworthy that 
MSMEs are the backbone of any economy, also of the Swiss economy.  Our delegation stands ready 
to enter into more substantive discussi on and to further explore related aspects at the intersection 
of IP and digital trade. Aspects which the TRIPS Council deems to be important and which lie 
within its mandate.  
13.6 United States  
291.  The United  States is encouraged by the energy WTO Members have devoted to the Work 
Programme on Electronic Commerce  in advance of MC11 . We also note that there is a wealth of 
work going on regarding this very important issue in other institutions, indeed as the dele gation of 
Switzerland just noted, at WIPO, for example.   
292.  The United States places a strong importance on e -commerce issues and on ensuring that 
e-commerce and digital trade realize their promise as an engine of economic growth while fully 
respecting intel lectual property rights. Intellectual property, including copyrights, patents, 
trademarks, and trade secrets, have contributed to vibrant marketplaces of ideas, creative 
content, and the delivery of a diverse range of products. With the explosive growth of  the Internet, 
there are more global opportunities and challenges for providing legitimate content to users 
through electronic and physical means.  
293.   The United States supports the work of the E -Commerce Work Programme to identify 
possible new approaches to  these issues while consulting closely with this Council to ensure that 
our consensus views are taken into account.  
294.  With respect to two of the papers that were presented for this meeting, we would like to 
make two brief remarks. First, with respect to the  delegation of Brazil's E -commerce and copyright 
proposal, we sincerely appreciate the communication that was prepared by the delegation of Brazil 
to share their views and put forward suggestions relating to e -commerce and copyright. We 
continue to study t he paper and some of the concepts noted, and may revert back to the 
delegation inter -sessionally to request clarification on certain concepts contained in the proposal.  
295.  With respect to the Communication from Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay on Electronic 
Signature s, we also welcome the information shared with this Council on electronic signature 
issues and very much appreciate the input. While we take note of the important role electronic 
signatures already plays in facilitating trade and commerce on the inte rnet, we recognize that our 
colleagues in other WTO bodies may well be best suited to consider the issues raised in this paper. 
The general approach of the United States is to accept the legal validity of electronic signatures, 
provided that both partie s to a transaction have mutually agreed upon its acceptability. With 
respect to IP, I would like to share that the US Patent and Trademark Office has for ten years 
accepted electronic signatures.  The United States is happy to share further details on this issue 
inter-sessionally for any delegation that is  interested.  
13.7  Norway  
296.  Norway would like to thank the delegations for the Communications they have submitted. 
The delegation of Norway would like to state that we should aim to find elements of commonality 
in the proposals, elements of importance for both trade in goods and services, for e -commerce to 
work to the benefit of all, especially developing countries and LDCs.  
297.  We should also seek to find areas where WT O rules and guidelines can make a difference, a 
difference in the sense that it pushes Members to put in place the necessary domestic rules that 
will help enhance each Member’s capacity for international trade through e -commerce. If we can 
agree on just a few such elements in the coming year, this would be real progress.  
13.8 European Union  
298.  The EU considers e -commerce as one of the important topics of future WTO work. This is the 
area where achieving pro gress could benefit the membership at large, and provide tangible results 
for our economies and citizens, both in developed countries as well as in developing countries. The IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 43 - 
 
  digital economy has developed remarkably in the past decades, our trade practices have evolved 
accordingly to capture those developments, but only limited progress has been achieved in the 
WTO. The major gaps in the multilateral rulebook have been acknowledged by many in the post -
Nairobi discussions, with Members indicating their intere st and readiness to look into this issue in 
the WTO context more thoroughly than in the past. This interest has been demonstrated by 
numerous submissions in the context of the E -Commerce Work Programme last year.  
299.  To facilitate the discussions on the poten tial WTO work in this area, the EU and other co -
sponsors of the communication JOB/IP/21 attempted mapping trade policy -related issues that 
impact e -commerce. This communication was originally submitted in the context of the E -
Commerce Work Programme in Jul y 2016. However, since a number of Members considered it 
useful to have technical discussions on e -commerce in regular committees we have submitted our 
communication to the GC, CTS, CTG and CTD. We consider it also useful in the TRIPS Council 
context.  
300.  Turning to the substance of our submission, it includes a list of elements of trade policy that 
are relevant for e -commerce including the rule making, liberalization commitments as well as 
facilitation measures. The development dimension cuts across the entir e list of issues. As indicated 
in the paper, the submission does not present an exhaustive list of issues, it is not a negotiating 
proposal, and is without prejudice to what elements the co -sponsors would seek to pursue.  
301.  This paper is meant to be a starti ng point of a conversation. For the sake of discussion we 
have tentatively grouped all the elements we have identified around four clusters:  
a. All that pertains to rules that enhance transparency and promote the confidence of 
consumers, i.e. consumer protect ion, privacy, spam etc., or that facilitate trade by 
ensuring that regulatory barriers are addressed, such as for electronic payments or 
access to the internet.  
b. Open markets, which covers liberalization measures, both in the form of bindings for 
goods and  services, and of measures addressing trade barriers in relation to data flow, 
localisation requirements or source code.  
c. Initiatives facilitating the development of e -commerce beyond rules and liberalization 
measures; e.g. many initiatives contribute to e nhancing e -commerce, regulatory 
cooperation, customs facilitation measures or technical assistance.  
d. Enhanced transparency at the WTO where we have identified a series of ideas on how 
the WTO can continue to play an important role in enhancing transparency  of Members' 
policies that relate to e -commerce.  
302.  Against this backdrop, the co -sponsors invite WTO Members to consider a series of 
questions, notably with respect to this mapping exercise, and to come forward with more ideas as 
well as comments and questio ns in order to continue a focused technical work. We particularly 
invite Members to reflect if there are additional e -commerce -related elements of trade policy which 
should be included in the mapping, and on what elements would Members wish to have focused  
technical discussions in the Council for Trade -Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights.  
303.  Many will agree that e -commerce is an area where the WTO could demonstrate its continued 
relevance in the modern economy and we suggest that WTO Members activ ely engage in defining 
the longer term priorities and potential short term deliverables to be considered for negotiations in 
the respective negotiating bodies.  
13.9 Singapore  
304.  We are introducing document JOB/I P/22 on behalf of 13 developing country Members: 
Colombia, Costa Rica, Hong Kong, Israel, Malaysia, Mexico, Nigeria, Qatar, Singapore, Brunei, 
Seychelles, Pakistan and Turkey.  
305.  This paper was first circulated at the Dedicated Discussion last July, and has now been 
re-circulated at the TRIPS Council, CTD, CTS, and CTG. Our motivation in tabling this paper IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 44 - 
 
  remains the same – to help spur further discussion and reflection on e -commerce, especially on 
the nexus between development and e -commerce. In this regard , we had sought to identify a few 
potential areas of interest relevant to developing countries in the e -commerce space.  
306.  E-commerce has opened up opportunities for businesses, especially MSMEs, and allowed 
them to reduce their cost of doing business and to  reach beyond their own backyards. This has 
happened not just in the developed countries, but also in developing countries. That said, the 
conduct of e -commerce in developing countries has certain unique characteristics. For instance, 
cash-on-delivery is s till prevalent in the conduct of e -commerce in many developing countries. 
Connectivity and access to reliable communication networks have posed particular challenges, but 
have also provided innovative opportunities for businesses.  
307.  We therefore urge member s to use the opportunity of the re -circulation of this paper to 
engage substantively at the technical level, to share on areas/elements of interests, as well as the 
challenges they face in leveraging e -commerce. Enhanced information and experience sharing will 
help us all better understand and identify where the WTO can help us achieve our trade policy 
objectives in e -commerce.  
308.  The co -sponsors of this paper stand ready to work with other interested delegations to take 
forward work in this area.  
13.10  Chine se Taipei  
309.  My delegation joins others in thanking all the proponents for the proposals on the Work 
Programme on Electronic Commerce. Today, we have some comments on Brazil's proposal, 
JOB/IP/19.  
310.  We consi der that "value gap " occurs when a platform operator makes profit by using works 
of a right holder via  a certain business model, but refuses to pay royalties that are generally the 
result of  negotiation.  We look forward to more discussions among Members on how to deal with 
the tension  between value gap and safe harbo ur. 
311.  Regarding copyright remuneration in the digital environment, we also consider that more 
efforts are needed to establish a fair remuneration mechanism to be in line with the principle of 
free market. We still have some comments on the balance of rights and obligation s, and 
territoriality of copyright in regard to this proposal.  
312.  We look forward to exchanging point s of view with Brazil and other proponents on the 
proposals.  We will continue ou r engagement with you and fellow -Members on all aspects of this 
most important topic of  e-commerce, and endeavor to contribute as constructively as possible.  
13.11  Canada  
313.  Canada remains encouraged by the positi ve discussion and exchange of national experiences 
on IP and e -commerce issues under this item. On that note, Canada would like to thank Brazil for 
circulating its communication on "E-commerce and Copyright " (JOB/IP/19), and for sharing its own 
national ex periences on a number of emerging copyright issues in the digital environment. Canada 
would also like to thank the co -sponsors of the papers on "Electronic Signatures " (JOB/IP/20) and 
"E-Commerce and Development " (JOB/IP/22), which serve to highlight the b road range of 
issues  addressed by electronic commerce and digital trade.  
314.  As co -sponsors of our re -circulated General Council paper on "Trade Policy, the WTO and the 
Digital Economy " (JOB/IP/21 ), Canada aligns itself with the EU intervention. As expressed b y the 
EU, we are mindful of the views expressed by a number of delegations that e -commerce 
discussions should be managed  in a bottom -up fashion with relevant bodies taking up specific 
topics, and we have re -circulated our paper accordingly to stimulate sub stantive discussion in 
those bodies. Canada remains of the view that the TRIPS Council can usefully contribute to the 
objectives of the 1998 WTO Work Programme on Electronic Commerce, by way of sharing national 
experiences and practices on IP and e -commerc e, with a view to informing and enriching Members ' 
policy development. To be clear, and further to some of the interventions made by Members in 
recent meetings of the TRIPS Council, Canada remains of the view that sharing national IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 45 - 
 
  experiences and practices  on IP and e -commerce would be undertaken on a non -prejudicial basis 
and in a non -negotiating manner. Along these lines, Canada also remains mindful that discussions 
on issues such as copyright in the digital environment are underway in other international  
institutional fora elsewhere,  such as the WIPO Standing Committee on Copyright and Related 
Rights.  
315.  Members will recall that the Nairobi Ministerial Decision of 19 December 2015 decided to 
continue the Work Programme "based on the existing mandate and guid elines and on the basis of 
proposals submitted by Members in the relevant WTO bodies as set out in paragraphs 2 to 5 of the 
Work Programme " (WT/MIN(15)/42). With respect to IP, the Work Programme tasks the TRIPS 
Council with "examin[ing] and report[ing] on : protection and enforcement of copyright and related 
rights; protection and enforcement of trademarks; [and] new technologies and access to 
technology ". Canada 's view remains that these topics remain sufficiently broad to foster discussion 
across a range of IP and e -commerce issues, drawing from Members ' national experiences and 
practices in these areas.  
316.  Canada remains open to the views of other Members as to how discussions on e -commerce 
and IP might be structured, with a view to fulfilling the Ministeria l guidance on this issue. We 
would like to thank Members once again for their constructive interventions on this issue so far, 
and look forward to hearing views on e -commerce and IP topics for consideration in future 
sessions of the TRIPS Council.  
13.12  Moldova, Republic of   
317.  The Moldovan delegation would like to join the proposal and the Communication JOB/IP/21 
regarding the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce, co -sponsored by Canada, Chile, 
Colom bia, Côte d'Ivoire, the European Union, the Republic of Korea, Mexico, Montenegro, 
Paraguay, Singapore and Turkey. The Republic of Moldova further looks forward to explore in more 
detail the proposals presented by the Brazilian delegation, Argentina and Pa raguay in JOB/IP/19 
and JOB/IP/20, and also by the delegation of Singapore on behalf of co -sponsors of document 
JOB/IP/22. The Republic of Moldova shares the view of the communication presented by the 
European Union on behalf of all co -sponsors of document  JOB/IP/21, as well as of the majority of 
Members considering that electronic commerce is essential in our digital era of human 
development. E -commerce and investment are the main priorities for the Moldovan Government, 
and we do believe that the WTO has a  role to play to help leverage the digital economy for 
inclusive economic growth and encourage closer economic integration among participating 
Members.  
318.  In the case of the Republic of Moldova, the current developments in this field, as well as the 
creation  of e-government centre with the assistance and support the certain Member states of the 
European Union, especially Estonia, helped us to achieve a much more open government and data 
of public interest by means of capitalisation of the value of information  and technologies and 
advanced competitiveness policy. All these actions have led to the improvement of trading 
services, the national agenda being focused on the line of ensuring digitalisations of all public 
services until 2020. Efforts of the Moldovan a uthorities will be continuing as well in the direction of 
capitalising the opportunities with a view to create market stake holders platform approach to 
internet governance processes by ensuring the meaningful and accountable participation of all 
stakehold ers, including governments, the private sector, SMEs, civil society, the technical 
community, the academic community and users, taking into consideration the Trade Facilitation 
Agreement provisions.  
319.  Many Eastern European countries are known for their IT s pecialists. In this sense, I am 
pleased to note that Moldova has the sixth fastest Internet speed in the world by download data 
capacity. Regarding the proposal made in the Communication JOB/IP/21, by the European Union 
and the Member s co-sponsoring this Communication, we would like to answer certain questions 
raised by the authors of this Communication and to offer some additional ideas and elements for 
the trade policy and guidelines for an interactive debate under electronic services in the WTO 
committee s. We look forward and we would like to engage in a constructive and technical 
discussion under electronic services supply for businesses, as solutions for e -commerce buyers in 
general and particularly in the framework of the implementation of the Trade Fa cilitation 
Agreement. A list of electronic services should be included into this communication, in order to 
share national expertise and the regulation regarding electronic services. In this context, I would IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 46 - 
 
  like to underline the importance of certain e -commerce services such as e -invoice services, single 
window system, state register of inspection which can offer a common online platform allowing 
authorised control bodies to automatize the process of planning controls and the registering of 
planned and unp lanned checks as well as publishing them on a public portal. The public 
procurement reporting services offer the possibility for the economic agents to present and report 
to the online portal. The licensing services provide the full range of specialised fu nctions to 
optimise submission and review of licence applications from the licensing chamber.  
320.  The electronic fiscal record service can strengthen the fiscal capacity. It is an electronic 
statement which offers an automated method for completing and submit ting fiscal reports, 
including the latest barcode coding technology. Many more electronic services should be taken into 
consideration for a technical discussion if we really want to have it in the WTO Committees and 
Councils. All these objectives mentioned  in the communications regarding the open markets 
require frameworks and enhanced transparency of the multilateral trading system, especially to 
identify measures and initiatives to be taken in order to facilitate the development of e -commerce. 
All of them  are first of all about services. Since we are talking about electronic services we should 
have an interactive debate at the E -commerce Committee of the Council for Trade and Services 
and of course the TRIPS Council as well.  
321.  The Republic of Moldova strong ly believes that our efforts in the WTO negotiations can 
produce a common result in the area of trade in services, e -commerce and competition of trade 
policies in the digital economy which will be stipulated in the next WTO Ministerial Declaration. E -
comme rce will always remain the fundamental pillar of services trade policies. Moldova looks 
forward to having an interactive debate and is ready to deliver concrete results for MC11.  
13.13  Mexico  
322.  As co -sponsor of t he document entitled "Trade Policy, the WTO and the Digital Economy " 
(JOB/IP/21), Mexico endorses the statements made by the European Union and Canada. We 
believe that the TRIPS Council can make a constructive contribution to the discussions on 
electronic commerce under the 1998 Work Programme on Electronic Commerce.  
323.  Sharing of Members' experience of intellectual property rights protection and enforcement 
issues in relation to electronic commerce, as proposed by Canada, could contribute positively to 
discus sions falling within the scope of the Work Programme.  
324.  Mexico is willing to participate in this dialogue with an open mind and is confident that this 
exercise will help to outline more clearly what the role of the WTO should be in spurring electronic 
commer ce and the digital economy.  
325.  Turning to the proposal "Electronic Commerce and Development " (JOB/IP/22), Mexico 
endorses Singapore's statement and highlights the potential importance of electronic commerce 
for economic development, chiefly in boosting the ex port capacity of small and medium -sized 
enterprises and in lowering the costs of doing business.  
326.  We are also prepared to work in this Council to determine how the rules protecting 
intellectual property rights can impact the growth of electronic commerce. W e encourage Members 
to exchange information on their experiences in this area in order to identify linkages in the WTO 
that can strengthen the relationship between electronic commerce and economic development.  
327.  Lastly, we welcome the Communication from Braz il and Argentina (JOB/IP/19) on Electronic 
Commerce and Copyright and the communication from Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay on 
Electronic Signatures (JOB/IP/20). We hope to contribute to discussions on these documents at 
forthcoming Council meetings.  
13.14   Australia  
328.  Australia  welcomes the discussion today on electronic commerce and the papers circulated 
for this meeting. Australia recognises the value and importance of e -commerce for trade. We also 
recognise that electronic commerce is a gateway for greater participation in the global 
marketplace, in particular for micro , and small- and medium -sized enterprises. We consider that IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 47 - 
 
  the entire WTO Membership will benefit from outcomes that enable growth in e -comme rce. We 
also recognise the fundamental importance of balanced and effective intellectual property 
frameworks. These frameworks are essential for businesses trading in the digital environment as 
they provide protection and confidence for businesses, as well  as consumers.  
329.  We have appreciated hearing more from the proponents of the papers as we continue to 
consider them. We also look forward to hearing Members ' ideas for issues to discuss on intellectual 
property and e -commerce.  
13.15  Turkey  
330.  As co -sponsor of the re -circulated General Council paper on trade policy in the WTO and the 
digital economy, JOB/IP/21, Turkey aligns itself with the EU intervention. Turkey believes that the 
TRIPS Council can usefully contrib ute to the objectives of the 1998 WTO Work Programme on 
Electronic Commerce by sharing national experiences and practices on IP and e -commerce. Turkey 
defines IP as one of the pillars of its industrialisation and development. Turkey is of the opinion 
that sharing national experiences and practices will be undertaken on a non -prejudicial basis and 
in a non -negotiating manner. Turkey is open to the views of other Members with a view to fulfilling 
the Ministerial guidance on e -commerce, we would like to thank Members once again for their 
constructive interventions on this issue and look forward to hearing views on e -commerce and IP 
topics for consideration in future sessions of the TRIPS Council.  
13.16  Colombia  
331.  As co-sponsors of the documents JOB/IP/21 and JOB/IP/22 we wish to endorse the 
statements by EU, Canada, Mexico and Singapore and others, and wish to continue substantive 
discussions on e -commerce. We also would like to highlight the importance of this topi c for our 
economy. E -commerce is seen as an opportunity for growth, particularly for SMEs. According to a 
study by the Electronic Chamber of Commerce of Colombia this area grew by 64% in 2015 and is 
expected to have a similar growth for 2016. In the same w ay there is a total of 40million USD of 
transactions exceeding more than 16million USD, approximately 4% of GDP for 2015, and 
accounted for 2.6% of GDP for 2014. I would also like to highlight the importance of IP in the 
development of e -commerce, stressin g particularly two aspects.  
332.  First of all, this trade includes services and products that are based on intellectual property 
such as informatics computer programmes, designs, music, training systems etc., and the granting 
of necessary licences thereto. For these products the value is based on production of intellectual 
property and defence against possible infringement. Here, trademark protection is very important 
with respect to development of knowledge and good reputation which are very important on the 
internet and which needs trademark protection and protection from unfair competition.  
333.  At the same time and as a second important aspect, intellectual property protects those 
electronic systems which enable online trade itself. Computer programmes, networks,  integrated 
circuits, interfaces, etc., are all elements of intellectual property which must be protected under 
intellectual property rights. I would also like to underscore how these elements are dealt with in 
the documents that are under discussion and i t is important to bear them in mind for a future 
development of programmes on electronic commerce.  
13.17  Russian Federation  
334.  We welcome Members' ambitions to share experienced and views on how to fos ter discussion 
on IP issues related to e -commerce. The Russian digital distribution market is growing every year. 
Digital content presents additional opportunities for copyright holders, but at the same time leads 
to the possible infringement of copyright and related rights due to the borderless nature of the 
Internet. We have on the table several submissions from Members and we would like to express 
our support for constructive engagement on the following suggestions as well as additional issues: 
Intellect ual property right protection especially in light of illegal practices and the formation of new 
IP markets in the Internet; copyright and related rights protection in the digital environment; 
protection of trademarks and other means of individualisation; p rotection and access to 
technologies especially during technology transfer or use of new technologies including ICT and 3D 
printers. While sharing the general interest in discussing particular IPR issues related to IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 48 - 
 
  e-commerce, we should bear in mind the cr oss-cutting nature of e -commerce and the inter -
relation that exists between goods, services, IPRs and development.  
13.18  Chile  
335.  We welcome the proposals in documents JOB/IP/19, 20, 21 and 22, which were circulate d by 
various Members. These proposals contain ideas on how to move forward in the discussions on 
electronic commerce, and, in our view, many of these ideas are similar. One of the documents we 
would like to highlight is JOB/IP/21, "Trade policy, the WTO, a nd the digital economy ", which is 
co-sponsored by Chile. This document, like those indicated by the European  Union and other 
Members, is a useful tool, as it provides a starting point for discussion in the form of a tentative, 
extensive and open -ended list  of trade policy elements that are important to electronic commerce.  
336.  At the request of one group of Members, the document has been submitted at the level of 
the Councils and the Committee on Trade and Development, where we hope it will generate 
substantive  and productive discussion on this issue, one that is vital to all WTO Members, 
regardless of their level of development.  
337.  As we stated at the last meeting, Chile notes with interest the proposal on exchanging views 
on different experiences in the area of i ntellectual property and electronic commerce.  
338.  There are a number of intellectual property issues relating to electronic commerce, and we 
realize that they are important for discussions on the digital economy. We therefore feel that the 
questions set out th erein are relevant, in particular those concerning the elements Members feel 
should be included in an exercise of this type in the area of intellectual property.  
339.  Furthermore, within the framework of this Council, Chile is interested not only in engaging 
Members in a substantive discussion on relevant issues in respect of the elements common to 
intellectual property and electronic commerce, but in exploring avenues to continue this discussion 
in the TRIPS Council.  
340.  To this end, Chile believes that a starting point for the discussions in this Council could be 
requesting the Secretariat to update document IP/C/W/128 – the factual background note 
examining the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement relevant to paragraph 4.1 of the 
Work Programme on Electronic Commerce . Since many of these issues are being examined in 
other intergovernmental organizations, the Secretariat should include in its update information on 
the relevant activities of these organizations.  
341.  We hope to work with the other delegations concerned to fi nd the best way to resume 
productive and substantive dialogue on this important matter.  
13.19  Korea, Republic of  
342.  Korea supports the discussions on e -commerce, including in this Council. E -commerce h as a 
great potential for innovation and trade expansion, which are badly needed in this time of sluggish 
growth. In this regard, Korea appreciated the efforts of Argentina, Brazil and Paraguay to share 
their thoughts and experience on specific issues relat ed to e -commerce, and Korea is pleased to 
join the initiative led by the European Union and Canada. Korea will continue to participate in this 
discussion.  
13.20  India  
343.  I would like to thank the co -sponsors of doc uments JOB/IP/19, JOB/IP/20, JOB/IP/21 and 
JOB/IP/2 2. According to the co -sponsors of the document JOB/IP/21 , "Intellectual property rights 
protection and enforcement issues are an important component of e -commerce and digital 
economy discussions, and are addressed in a number of international fora, including the World 
Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and at the WTO TRIPS Council. "  
344.  We understand that in WIPO some work has already been done with regard to resolution of 
e-commerce disputes. Accordin g to WIPO 's website, WIPO 's Arbitration and Mediation Centr e 
specializes in international dispute settlement and is well suited to solving international IP IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 49 - 
 
  problems arising in E -Commerce. The Cent re has also focused significant resources on establishing 
an operational and legal framework for the administration of disputes relating to the Internet and 
electronic commerce, including disputes arising out of the abusive registration and use of Internet 
domain names. Some Members have already stated that there s hall not be duplication of work at 
WIPO and WTO.  
345.  According to the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce , the Council for TRIPS shall 
examine and report on the intellectual property issues arising in connection with electronic 
commerce.  The issues to be e xamined shall include:   protection and enforcement of copyright 
and related rights;  protectio n and enforcement of trademarks and new technologies and  access to 
technology.  
346.  Discussions in this Council must take place in accordance with the Work P rogramme. A s the 
mandate is exploratory, I would like to request the proponents of job -documents  to clarify what 
specific intellectual  property issues they would like to discuss in this Council on an exploratory 
basis. We look forward to engaging constructively in th e discussions on e -commerce in this Council 
as per the Work Programme.  
13.21  New Zealand  
347.  New Zealand welcomes these proposals from various Members and recognises both the 
value and potential of e -commerce and trade for the entire WTO membership. New Zealand is 
especially interested in the benefits and potential for MSMEs as some Members have outlined here. 
We greatly appreciated today hearing more from the proponents on these papers, as we continue 
to consi der each of these.  
13.22  Brazil  
348.  I will be very quick, it is just a reaction to some comments regarding our proposal JOB/IP/19 
on copyright. There were at least a couple of references of avoiding duplication of work, of 
regarding work that is being carried out in other fora. We do not necessarily see this as a 
duplication, since what we are discussing here under the Work Programme is not necessarily the 
same, just as the TRIPS Agreement is not a duplication of th e Berne Convention. The fact that you 
had the Berne Convention and later the TRIPS Agreement was not seen as a duplication. Just to 
make clear the importance of this issue for us, in e-commerce it seems that we have a number of 
very sensitive issues that a t some point would have to be discussed, and I am talking about 
privacy protection, data flow, localisation, and for us it would be very difficult to approach those 
issues without having a more holistic approach to sensitive issues coming from all quarters , just to 
highlight the importance of keeping this discussion of copyright together with the other core issues 
of the e-commerce discussion.  
13.23  United States  
349.  With respect to Chile's  request regarding the upd ating of the Secretariat not e on 
E-Commerce, IP/C/W/128 , we would like some time to think about that . We prefer to work at that 
inter-sessionally , and we can of course also talk to our colleagues from Chile inter -sessionally.  
AGENDA ITEM 14:  INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND INNOVAT ION: INCLUSIVE 
INNOVATION AND MSME COLLABORATION  
14.1 Australia  
350.  Australia welcomes the opportunity to introduce the discussion on intellectual property, 
inclusive innovation and micro, small and medium sized enterprises (MSMEs). Australia 
acknowledges our fellow co -sponsors: the European Union, Switzerland, Japan,  the United States 
and Chinese Taipei.  
351.  This overarching topic recognises the positive role MSMEs play in the global ec onomy and 
the wider contributions they make to trade, growth, investment and competition; as well as social 
and economic development. As foreshadowed in document IP/C/W/622, it is proposed to consider 
three elements of this important topic, Inclusive Innov ation and MSMEs, at each of the TRIPS IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 50 - 
 
  Council Meetings to take place this year; firstly, MSME collaboration; secondly, MSME growth; and, 
thirdly, MSME trade. Australia extends an invitation to all Members to share national experiences, 
policies and practic es under each of these themes, with a focus on intellectual property and 
innovation.  
352.  Australia is pleased to introduce the first theme: Innovation and MSME Collaboration, as set 
out in document IP/C/W/625 for discussion today. Australia acknowledges that MSME collaboration 
has many benefits for developed, developing and least developed countries. Through collaboration, 
MSMEs can share information, ideas and research and can establish themselves in global value 
chains. Collaboration models can take shape in  many forms: from public -private and inter -firm 
partnerships, research and development opportunities, start up or accelerator hubs and 
entrepreneurial ventures.  
353.  Intellectual property rights play a key role in MSME collaboration. Intellectual property 
frameworks encourage creative endeavour, incentivise investment, and promote the sharing of 
ideas and knowledge. Australia has established a number of IP and innovation initiatives to 
encourage MSME collaboration. Australia will take the opportunity today to o utline some of these 
initiatives.  
354.  National Innovation and Science Agenda – Global Connections Fund:  Under the 
National Innovation and Science Agenda, Australia introduced the Global Connections Fund ( GCF) 
to support SME collaboration. As part of the GCF’ s Bridging Grants Programme, a researcher from 
the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology University (RMIT), was awarded AUD50,000 to 
collaborate with an Indian research and biotech business to develop an eco -friendly solution to 
control powdery mildew an d downy mildew, two diseases that devastate grapes in both countries. 
Both partners to this collaboration have created a framework under which intellectual property 
rights are shared. The expected outcome of the collaboration is a product that can be marke ted 
globally.  
355.  National Innovation and Science Agenda - Global Innovation Linkages:  Australia 
recently introduced the Global Innovation Linkages programme.  It provides funding to assist 
Australian researchers and businesses, including SMEs, to collaborate with global partners on 
strategically focused, leading -edge research and development projects. It will advance Australia’s 
international collaboration and encourage Australian businesses, including SMEs, to leverage 
entrepreneurial expertise found in key l ocations overseas. Collaborations are encouraged in a 
range  of economies including Brazil, United States, Singapore, Viet Nam, Israel, China, India, the 
EU and others.  
356.  National Innovation and Science Agenda – Landing Pads:  At the November 2016 
TRIPS Counci l meeting, Australia introduced the Landing Pads Program which is an initiative set up 
by the Australian Government to connect export ready Australian start -ups with access to some of 
world’s most renowned innovation and start up ecosystems in Berlin, San Francisco, Shanghai, 
Singapore and Tel Aviv. This Program has already produced some excellent results. For example, 
Event Workforce Group, a small, Australian -based technology start -up that develops apps to assist 
large businesses connect with talented sta ff members, has benefitted from the San Francisco 
Landing Pad.  Through the collaboration established through the Landing Pad, Event Workforce 
Group has been able to develop its technology and services. Agreements relating to the protection 
of intellectual  property have fostered this successful collaboration. Event Workforce Group has 
recently signed a contract to assist staff the 2018 Super Bowl in Minnesota, and the 2017 Alpine 
Skiing World Cup in Aspen.  
357.  IP Toolkit for Collaboration: IP Australia has deve loped an IP Toolkit for Collaboration, 
designed to simplify the management of IP in collaborations between researchers and businesses, 
including SMEs. It provides collaborations with checklists of key matters to consider when 
establishing a partnership and  includes template contracts, confidentiality agreements and term 
sheets, as well as guides on developing partnerships and advice on the management of IP. This 
toolkit is specifically designed to assist small and medium -sized businesses and researchers to 
develop and build effective collaborations. The Toolkit reduces the need for legal advice, freeing up 
resources to focus on building the partnership and attracting funding. A Mini IP -Toolkit is also 
available for lower value or less complex collaborations.   IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 51 - 
 
  358.  Today, I have provided some examples of Australian IP and innovation initiatives that have 
promoted MSME collaboration within Australia and abroad. We encourage other Members to join us 
in sharing national practices today and under future discussions on MSME Growth and MSME 
Trade.  
14.2 United States  
359.  The United States welcomes this opportunity to share views and experiences on the 
important issue of inclusive innovation and MSME collaboration. I would also like to express thanks 
to Australia, the European Union, Japan, Switzerland, and Chinese Taipei for co -sponsoring this 
item. 
360.  This morning we will share our experiences in fostering inclusive innovation with a focus on 
MSME and explore several di fferent ways that MSMEs contribute to the innovation ecosystem 
through collaborative efforts. In my remarks, I will describe the vibrant U.S. MSME landscape, 
demonstrate the critical role that intellectual property protection and enforcement play for MSMEs , 
highlight several U.S. policies and programmes that serve to help MSMEs make use of IPR systems 
and provide case study examples of innovative US MSMEs that depend upon US intellectual 
property policies.  
361.  I'd first like to share with you some data to pain t a picture of the US small business 
landscape derived from the latest statistics from the Small Business Administration (SBA). 
According to the SBA's data4, in 2013, there were 28.8 million small businesses in the United 
States which comprised 99.9% of al l firms and employed 48% of private sector employees. These 
small businesses also represented 97.7% of exporting firms with 33.6% of known export value.  
362.  Small businesses have played a critical role in the development of the US technology sectors. 
In 2012, there were 244,243 small employer firms in high -tech industries, representing 98.5% of 
all employer firms in these industries. The Department of Commerce's inaugural Annual Survey of 
Entrepreneurs released in 2016, which looked at the 5.4 million US firms with paid employees, 
revealed that "most firms had fewer than 10 employees (4.3 million, or 78.5 percent) "5. 
363.  In the United States, MSMEs play a critical role in driving inclusive innovation. They are 
engines for economic growth, employment and technologica l progress. This is particularly true for 
women and minority -owned businesses, where innovation has made critical contributions to 
economic empowerment, gender parity and social inclusion and equality.  
364.  I would now like to describe how intellectual property  contributes to MSME development. For 
MSMEs, IPR protection and enforcement is not a luxury, but is an existential determinant for 
whether or not the firm can survive or fail. For example, trade secrets play a critical role in the 
development of MSME innov ation and are among the primary forms of intellectual property that 
MSMEs use to protect their innovations, as smaller firms "tend to have fewer resources and limited 
expertise and capacity for managing intellectual assets using formal IPRs "6. 
365.  Patent prote ction also plays a critical role for the development of MSMEs in several notable 
ways. MSMEs, as compared to larger firms, may factor into their growth strategies, considerations 
such the marketing advantages that ensue from being able to claim patent prot ection. MSMEs also 
may use the presence of a patent to potentially boost their attractiveness to investors and increase 
their valuation7. 
366.  Prudently registering and maintaining relevant trademarks can also help ensure that the 
firms' investment in creating a distinctive brand will not be undermined by a competitor. Without 
this legal protection, an innovative MSME can miss out on the goodwill associated with a brand 
that has been made possible by an innovative creation.  
                                                
4 https://www.sba.gov/sites/default/files/advocacy/SB -FAQ-2016_WEB.pdf  
5 https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press -releases/2016/cb16 -148.html  
6 Brant, Jennifer; Lohse, Sebastian; Trade Secrets: Tools for Innovation and Collaboration ; International 
Chamber of Commerce: Innovation and Intellectual Proper ty Series, 2014; Page 10.  
7 Hughes, Alan; Mina, Andrea; The Impact of the Patent System on SMEs ; A Report to the Strategic 
Advisory Board for Intellectual Property (SABIP); Pages 27 -28. IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 52 - 
 
  367.  Copyright protection also plays a key  role in a large number of MSMEs, not only those 
engaged in content creation and distribution. In fact, copyrighted materials factor into MSMEs in all 
sectors by virtue of their importance in protecting websites, logos, brochures, advertisements, and 
jingles8. Copyright licensing is a critical source of revenue for many MSMEs, that helps supports 
much needed jobs and capital for further growth and investment of creativity -powered 
entrepreneurs. From application developers, to the music community, and the fi lm and TV 
industries, copyright helps fuel the MSME creative economy in developed, developing and least 
developed countries.  
368.  Recognizing both the important role that MSMEs play in the United States and the value that 
they derive from intellectual property , the United States Government has enacted policies and 
programs to promote MSME IPR protection.  
369.  Despite the relevance of one or more types of intellectual property to small businesses of all 
types and sectors, many MSMEs unfortunately lack an understandin g of how to protect their 
intangible assets or register for IPR protection, when needed, and the processes for doing so. The 
US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) and Department of Commerce International Trade 
Administration (DOC/ITA) play key roles in help ing to educate MSMEs through extensive trainings 
and educational initiatives.  
370.  For example, ITA launched the STOPfakes.gov Road Shows - an innovative IPR outreach 
initiative that has reached over 1,000 SMEs to date. For these events, ITA's Office of Intelle ctual 
Property Rights (OIPR) partners with USPTO and the US National IPR Coordination Center to 
increase SMEs' awareness of IPR issues from both perspective: law enforcement and a trade.  
371.  ITA also maintains a website that broadcasts on -demand webinars and hosts other materials 
to help MSMEs and other business protect and enforce their IPRs. STOPfakes.gov was launched to 
serve as a one -stop shop for U.S. government tools and resources on IPR. The federal agencies 
behind STOPfakes.gov have developed a number of resources to educate and assist businesses, 
particularly MSMEs, as well as consumers, government officials, and the general public.  
372.  Moreover in 2015, DOC/ITA travelled to various US cities through the Start -up Global 
Initiative to help more start -up fir ms to think globally from the earliest stages. ITA participated in 
half day educational seminars in partnership with local incubators and accelerators to educate on 
protecting intellectual property among other things.  
373.  In September 2016, the US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) launched the "E-
Commerce and Small Business Branch " to help educate small business importers on CBP 
compliance requirements. This initiative, along with CBP's longstanding priority focus on IPR 
enforcement, helps protect US MSMEs an d all firms against the harm caused by imports of 
infringing goods.  
374.  CBP also provides information on how rights holders, including MSMEs, may utilize CBP 
enforcement tools, including by providing detailed information, product training sessions, and legal 
counsel.  
375.  The USPTO has several free or reduced fee programs to assist independent inventors and 
small businesses in securing patent protection for their inventions: the Patent Pro Bono Program, 
Pro Se Assistance Program, and Certified Law School Clinic Pr ogram.  
376.  Through the Patent Pro Bono Program, the USPTO partners with non -profit organizations and 
law schools to establish regional programs throughout the country. By working with their regional 
patent pro -bono program, under -resourced independent invento rs and small businesses may 
secure free legal representation to help them file and prosecute patent applications.  
377.  PTO's Pro Se Assistance Program provides tools to assist MSMEs and others who file patent 
applications without the assistance of a registered patent attorney or agent. PTO's partnerships 
with laws schools also match law students to interested applicants —often MSMEs -- to help them 
                                                
8 World Intellectual Property Organization; How can Your SME Benefit F rom Copyright?  
http://www.wipo.int/sme/en/ip_business/copyright/copyright.htm  IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 53 - 
 
  draft and file patent and trademark applications. Finally, PTO's Global IP Academy (GIPA), which 
many in this room ma y have visited for bilateral meetings or programs in the past, also offers 
assistance tailored to MSMEs. In Fiscal Year 2015, GIPA provided training to 2,701 people 
associated with MSMEs.  
378.  The US Copyright Office also provides a variety of tools, including  FAQs, podcasts, and 
reports, to help business better understand how to register a copyright and understand their 
rights.  
379.  Before concluding this intervention, I would like describe examples from the United States of 
inclusive innovation and MSME collabora tion using examples of US MSMEs. At a macro level, an 
MSME's level of confidence in its ability to protect its intellectual property can fuel collaboration 
and spur new ideas, products, and innovation through these partnerships.  
380.  For example, if an MSME has  confidence that its trade secrets can be protected through 
trade secrets laws, it may be more willing to rely upon non -disclosure agreements, non -competes, 
and other types of contracts that give it confidence to share this valuable information with others . 
Absent such protection, a company may not be willing to share its crown jewels outside of a family 
or close associates.  
381.  With respect to patents, an MSME with patent protection may find that it increases its 
valuation in the eyes of an investor; and, is, therefore, able to attract critical early stage capital 
infusions and enter into licensing agreements to bring their new ideas to market.  
382.  Moving to the micro level, one way to understand inclusive innovation and MSME 
collaboration is by looking at the dive rse set of relationships and partnerships that comprise an 
innovation. For example, an inspired inventor or small team of researchers may envision a way to 
transform an existing, popular product of a larger company or industry by incorporating exciting 
technological innovation.  
383.  In the case of the founding team of Skydio, who originally met as graduate students at MIT, 
this has led to exciting advances in "intelligent navigation " technologies for unmanned aerial 
vehicles that provide quality cinematography and enable businesses with new ways to monitor the 
functioning of their infrastructure. The company has the goal of "making the power of flight a 
trusted and useful part of people's everyday lives "9. In this case, an enterprising set of innovators 
have ide ntified a way to improve an existing idea that is marketed by a larger global 
manufacturer.  
384.  Another exciting type of innovation stands out for providing a standalone creative solution to 
longstanding challenges. A good example of this is from the products  that have emerged from 
Ecovative Design, a growing firm that began as a collaborative class project between two 
classmates at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in New York, who discovered a novel way of 
producing biodegradable insulation using agricultural  waste.  
385.  According to a story published about their origins, the professor of an Inventor's Studio class 
they both attended saw promise in their discoveries and convinced them to take another semester 
of the class so that they could work on their idea and s tart a business. He even put them in touch 
with a patent attorney seeing early promise in the budding invention.10 In 2011, Ecovative 
announced that a group that included 3M, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and DOEN Foundation 
had invested in the company to scale Ecovative's manufacturing operations and accelerate the 
development its polymeric materials.  
386.  Today, the company produces safe and sustainable biomaterials used in a variety of ways, 
including in furniture, an engineered wood alternative, and packa ging materials using mycelium, 
which is the vegetative growth stage of fungi. Customers can even purchase Grow it Yourself 
Mushroom Material and create their own new applications of the technology. One of Ecovative's 
products, the Mushroom Packaging, has l ed to mutually -beneficial international connections. For 
                                                
9 https://www.skydio.com/blog/2016/01/ series -a/   
10 http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/05/20/form -and-fungus  IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 54 - 
 
  example, a UK precision testing equipment manufacturer uses Ecovative's packaging material as a 
way to help meet its own sustainability goals.  
387.  In conclusion, I want to underscore the important role t hat intellectual property and IPR 
protection plays in fostering MSMEs growth in the United States. The US Government has 
recognized this linkage and developed policies, programs, and materials to help address the 
unique needs that MSMEs face in fully harne ssing our IPR systems to help them protect their 
innovations, grow, and partner with others. As innovation seldom happens in isolation, the 
contributions of inventors, MSMEs, and their partnerships with established firms have played a 
critical role in coll aborative innovation.  
388.  In surveying the landscape, it has been clear that while there may be needs and challenges 
specific to MSMEs in fully utilizing the IPR systems, the protections provided are relevant to firms 
large and small. The same incentives that continue to drive the growth of large, international 
firms, are also responsible for creating the opportunities that bring MSME inventions to market.  
389.  We look forward to continuing to engage in an active dialogue to find ways to further bring 
MSMEs into th e global innovative ecosystem and look forward to hearing from other Members on 
this important topic today.  
14.3 Chinese Taipei  
390.  This delegation is pleased to join Australia, EU, Japan, Switzer land and the United States in 
co-sponsoring this Agenda item. We are very pleased to have the opportunity of sharing our own 
experiences with fellow -Members, and of being able to learn from the best practices of other 
Members at the same time.  
391.  We fully ide ntify ourselves with the observation made by the delegates of the United States 
and other co -sponsors, that IPRs help micro, small, and medium -sized enterprises (MSMEs) to 
channel the potentially boundless contributions of a wide array of innovators and cr eators in 
different economies. IPRs also enable MSMEs to spur innovation and creativity, to structure 
partnerships, and to join global value chains.  
392.  I would like to point out one of the priorities of my Government’s industrial policy is to assist 
MSMEs, wh ich account for nearly 98% of all local companies, to participate in domestic and 
international markets. To further develop a better environment for new business, we endeavour to 
build an ecosphere to provide for creation, innovation and start -ups. Thus, w e are devoted to 
implementing programmes via the entrepreneurship consultation mechanism and MSMEs 
innovation incubation.  
393.  My Government launched the Entrepreneurship Consultation Service for potential 
entrepreneurs by means of free counselling service, sin gle online portal, and international 
community linkage.  
394.  Meanwhile, the Entrepreneurship Incubation Education Programme offered education and 
training opportunities for start -up owners by organizing a series of training courses. It helps 
entrepreneurs enha nce their competence and keep abreast with new trends and information on 
business management.  
395.  Secondly, the Entrepreneurship Dream Building Plan was launched to help MSMEs which set 
up for less than 5 years. In this plan, we provide layered counselling for  start-ups, help them 
obtain professional certificates and government’s support, hold exchange and matching activities, 
and offer the entrepreneurship awards to honour outstanding creative products, technologies, 
process or services of start -ups. This plan  has successfully assisted 500 start -ups and created 
3,000 jobs last year.  
396.  Thirdly, with respect to SMEs innovation incubation, we have set up several new incubation 
centres since 1997. These centres provide office space, equipment, R&D technology, resourc es of 
fund-raising, HR development, and opportunities to involve in international business. Around 100 
incubatees from incubation centres have been listed on the stock market. My Government also IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 55 - 
 
  introduced the Entrepreneur Work Visa to attract talented ent repreneurs from all over the world. 
The entrepreneurs from overseas are eligible for residence, if they meet certain requirements  
397.  Fourthly, since 2013, the Emerging Industries Accelerator Program has been launched to 
establish international incubation coop eration platforms across Europe, America, Asia and the 
emerging market. The programme aims to facilitate global business portfolio by leading MSMEs to 
develop the local market. It also aims to encourage large enterprises’ contribution in intensified 
consul tation to help MSMEs quickly incorporate into supply chains. We expect to increase the 
survival rate of MSMEs through this "large and small cooperation " and stimulate the speed of 
innovation for the traditional companies. Now, we focus on the six major fie lds of technology, 
which are: cloud computing, Internet of Things, biotechnology, green energy, digital content and 
precision machinery.  
398.  In terms of IP, the MSMEs face many different challenges when it comes to creating, 
protecting, circulating, and applyi ng their intellectual properties. That is why the "IP SME Corner " 
of the Intellectual Property Office (TIPO) is the newest one -stop search and information platform 
that helps MSMEs to quickly access information on all the available and latest government 
resources  
399.  In conclusion, we acknowledge MSMEs demonstrate the power and importance of inclusive 
innovation. MSMEs also play an essential role in diffusing economic growth and innovation 
throughout our societies, including their contributions to innovation an d creativity, and their 
reliance on IPR protection. We believe that business start -up and incubation are the most 
important factors in the world striving for innovation and sustainable development.   
400.  We looks forward to hearing from other delegations about their existing policies in this 
regard and discussing topics which were proposed in document IP/C/W/622, which can offer the 
opportunity to demonstrate how IPRs can promote inclusive innovation through MSMEs.  
14.4 Japan  
401.  Today, the delegation of Japan will share our experiences on MSME -university collaboration 
based on IP.11 
Slide 1  
402.  There are various ways MSMEs can collaborate with other entities. Especially, MSMEs 
collaborating with universities have the potential to create new businesses and promote 
innovation. So, today, we would like to focus on IP -based Collaboration between MSMEs and 
Universities;  and talk about some of our initiatives to improve such collaboration in Japan.  
403.  The left half of the first  slide describes our 20 -year history of initiatives, starting in 1995. It 
starts with the enactment of the "Basic Law for Science and Technology ", which was designed to 
improve the collaboration between MSMEs and universities.  
404.  These initiatives were desig ned to advance and implement three key factors that promote 
collaboration, namely: "tech-transfer one -stop services " to give advice to and match researchers 
and companies; "IP management offices " to find seeds of technology and handle IP; and, funding 
such as venture capital that grows the seeds into goods and launches them into the market. The 
synergy of the three factors can promote IP -based collaboration, where technology is transferred 
in a "briefcase " called IP, in order to promote innovation.  
Slide 2  
405.  A major method of collaboration between existing MSMEs and universities includes joint 
research and sponsored research.  
406.  Of the three key factors mentioned in the previous slide, the "tech-transfer one -stop service " 
and the "IP management office " mainly c ontribute to increased access to university technology. 
The figure on the left shows the increase in the number and amount of funding for joint research 
between universities and all private companies.  
                                                
11 The representative of Japan made a PowerPoint presentation, available in Room Document RD/IP/16.  IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 56 - 
 
  407.  The figure on the right shows the number of joint rese arch projects in green, and the 
number of sponsored research projects  in red. From this figure, we can see that private 
companies, such as MSMEs favor joint research, which has increase d approximately three times 
since 2001. One explanation for this might be that joint research allows MSMEs and other 
companies to learn how to carry forward research from their experiences with universities.  
Slide 3  
408.  Another type of collaboration between MSMEs and universities is a start -up. In this slide, we 
would like to sho w you the recent developments and the current state of our university start -ups. 
The figure on the left indicates the number of new Japanese university start -ups each year. The 
figure on the right indicates the changes in the total number of Japanese start -ups in operation.  
409.  As you can see in the figures, there was a rapid increase in the number of university start -
ups around 2000. But the rate has been slowing since 2006. According to a recent survey on start -
ups, there seems to be a further need to support  MSMEs in creating business, IP, and marketing 
plans; setting up exit strategies, and also finding foreign business partners.  
Slide 4  
410.  The final slide shows our recent initiatives for further promoting collaboration between 
MSMEs and universities. In additi on to the needs found in the survey, experience has taught us 
that many start -ups face difficulties, especially at the initial start -up phase and early growth stage. 
This is sometimes called the "Valley of Death " because no product has yet been developed t o 
generate revenue, but the start -up begins running short of funding.  
411.  Thus, from both from the financial and management perspectives, we needed new venture 
capitals to complement existing ones in helping start -ups develop their technology and find 
product s that sell well in the market. Considering this situation, Japan launched the "Public -Private 
Partnership Innovation Program " in 2013. In this program, four major national universities in 
Japan were granted funds to establish and invest in venture funds t hat could offer "hands -on" 
support, especially in the early stages of the start -ups’ development. In addition to the Program, 
Japan also supports grass -root initiatives to promote MSME -university collaboration in local 
communities. We hope that these effor ts will boost new MSME -university collaborations.  
14.5 European Union  
412.  Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs) play a crucial role in: catalysing innovation and creativity; 
promoting economic growt h and development; creating and growing jobs; improving the quality 
and enjoyment of our lives; and, combating the manifold challenges we face as individuals as 
nation and as a global community.  
413.  Among this multitude of positive contributions IPRs provide a critical conduit for 
inclusiveness in local and global trade. In particular, IPRs help micro, small and medium -sized 
enterprises (MSMEs) to channel the potentially boundless contributions of a wide array of 
innovations and creators in different economic sectors and from diverse communities. IPRs also 
enable MSMEs to spur innovation and creativity to structure partnerships and to join global value 
change. The key role of intellectual property in the success of start -ups and innovative SMEs has 
been recogni sed. It allows innovative businesses to profit from the result of their creativity, 
inventiveness and R&D investments and creates an incentive for further investment in innovation.  
414.  Recent data from the EU Intellectual Property Office (EU IPO), show that b usinesses using 
IPRs perform better; and, that this is particularly true in the case of micro, small and medium -
sized enterprises. MSMEs owning IPRs have almost 32% higher revenue per employee than MSMEs 
that do not. They also expand their workforce faster  and pay higher salaries. IP is, therefore, 
essential for smart and sustainable growth. Given that knowledge -based parts of the economy in 
developing and developed countries with strong innovative performance is made up of business 
whose most valuable asse ts are intangible, innovative and creative start -ups and MSMEs need to 
be aware of the advantages of using IP and the dangers of neglecting it. To better assist MSME the 
European Commission set up the Executive Agency for Small and Medium -Sized Enterprises  which 
manages the vast majority of the EU Programmes designed for MSMEs to help them innovate and 
do research.  IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 57 - 
 
  415.  The Commission announced in 2015,  that it would come forward with EU level measures to 
support the use of IP by SMEs, in the framework of the Single Market Strategy. As delivery of that 
commitment, the Commission has put into place a package of IP support measures for start -ups 
and SMEs aiming to improve coordination and consistency in addressing sub -optimal use of IP by 
them across the EU.  
416.  This package was recently presented in a new communication utting intellectual property at 
the service of SMEs to foster innovation and growth and another communication entitled "Europe's 
Next Leaders: The Start -up and Scale -Up Initiative ". The communication shows that the European 
Commission has now a coordinated approach across EU policies to be delivered through a set of 
pragmatic measures in order to boost innovation and research with the involvement of micro, 
small and medium -sized enterprises. The new me asures include: the streamlining European IP 
Awareness Schemes for SMEs and providing a cooperation platform for EU Member States; 
developing an EU IP Mediation and Arbitration Network for SMEs; encouraging the creation of 
European -level insurance schemes for litigation and IP theft; building on a common IP valuation 
method; and, improving coordination of IP support funding schemes, including by means of a 
possible guidance to Member States and by developing monitoring methods for their impact.  
417.  Working in p artnership with all levels of government, in EU Member States, regions and 
cities and all stakeholders, including start -ups and scale -ups themselves, is necessary for the 
efficient and successful implementation of initiatives intended to help SMEs and allo w them to 
cooperate better. The EU and Member States are working on further simplifying the life of start -
ups by supporting them in the following areas: connecting them with the right partners, i.e., 
investors, business partners, universities, research cen tres etc.; assessing commercial 
opportunities, especially procurement contracts; recruiting employees with the right skills including 
from outside the EU; and, in recent years, the European Commission and EU member States have 
supported the creation of com munities to help start -ups connect with potential partners.  
418.  At EU -level, the "Europe's Next Leaders: The Start -up and Scale -Up Initiative " has emerged 
as a recognised brand for creating links between ecosystems, focusing on connecting people, 
international  outreach and providing information, a one -stop shop for start -ups. "Europe's Next 
Leaders: The Start -up and Scale -Up Initiative " also helps SMEs through in particular match -making 
between investors, corporates and entrepreneurs as well as networking of re gional decision -
makers. "Europe's Next Leaders: The Start -up and Scale -Up Initiative " objectives are to reinforce 
the links between people, businesses and associations who build and scale -up the start -up 
ecosystem, linking them also to information on IP, b ut other measures are web -investor forums, 
the accelerator assembly and the crowd -funding network. These are meant to inspire 
entrepreneurs and provide role models for others to follow. They also celebrate a new and 
innovative start -ups, help them to expan d their business and give them access to funding on the 
Horizon 2020 which is the main research and innovation framework programme of the EU.  
419.  The Web Investor s Forum brings together the investors and accelerators from all over 
Europe with a goal to foster  a more scale -up friendly ecosystem. The Web Investors Forum acts as 
an international channel of conversation for the European Investment Fund and European 
Commission with European and international investors. Specifically, the Web Investors Forum 
bridges investors to corporate development heads like the Start Up Europe Partnership  (SEP), 
European Matching Funds and the European Commission. In addition, the European Institute of 
Innovation and Technology (EIT) has set up a number of knowledge and innovation  communities 
in the thematic areas of ICT, energy, climate change, health and raw materials with 25% of public 
financing, the rest being private investments.  
420.  The European Institute of Innovation and Technology is helping on a number of fronts, for 
example : on entrepreneurship skills, mentoring, start -up accelerators and information about IP. 
The EU has also established thematic smart specialization platforms, linking up regions and 
businesses and supporting the European Structural and Investment Fund (ESIF ) for scale -ups 
promoted by regional networks and European strategic classic partnerships. Together with the 
targeted support they receive, these projects help create opportunities for scale -ups. 
421.  The European Commission has provided increased support to SM Es through the Horizon 
2020 Research and Innovation Framework Programme, either as partners in collaborative projects 
with research organizations and other firms, or as single beneficiaries. It has also boosted support 
for innovation including through more  demonstration projects, facilitated access to IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 58 - 
 
  experimentation and pilot facilities, actions on innovative procurement and reinforced financial 
instruments. As a consequence, SME participation has increased and is currently above 20% of the 
target level. F rom 2018, the Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation Framework Programme will 
adopt a fully bottom -up approach, so innovative projects that cut across sectors and technologies 
become eligible for support, making it easier for start -ups to access financial an d technical 
support, targeting market -creating breaks through innovations with a scale -up potential.  
422.  Another instrument is the European Cluster Collaboration Platform which is an online 
platform created by the European Commission providing information and  network support for 
clusters aiming to improve and increase their competitiveness through transnational and 
international cooperation. The aim of the Platform is to facilitate cluster cooperation between 
organisations and members, i.e. companies, R&D inst itutions among others, not only by providing 
relevant information, but also by organising match -making missions across the EU focused on 
specific topics. This service facility aims to: provide cluster organisations with modern tools which 
allow to make eff icient use of networking instruments; search and find potential partners and 
opportunities; develop collaboration transnationally within Europe and beyond and support the 
emergence of new value chains through cross -sectorial cooperation; access the latest quality 
information on cluster development; and, improve their performance and increase as well as their 
Members competitiveness.  
423.  To conclude, we would like to underline that transparent and predictable intellectual property 
rules assist MSMEs to engage co nfidently in international trade. Successful collaborations between 
entities often involve transfer, sharing and creation of knowledge, ideas or technology. Intellectual 
property rights provide a framework for the ownership, protection and use of ideas and  
information created through partnership in Europe and beyond.  
14.6 Switzerland  
424.  Let me thank Australia for introducing this agenda item today, and the earlier delegations 
that introduced their pre sentations. Switzerland is pleased to co -sponsor agenda item 14 and to 
co-sponsor also the two Communications on the topic, in IP/C/W/622 and IP/C/W/625. The 
purpose of document IP/C/W/622 is to take a look ahead and to suggest topics in relation to IP 
innovation and MSMEs that the Council could discuss. That should give Members more time to 
prepare to look into their own national situations and gather information. We believe that MSMEs 
are a common denominator of all WTO Members and could allow a discussio n as inclusive as 
possible.  
425.  My delegation  welcomes the opportunity for Council Members to exchange such experiences 
and views on how cooperation among companies and companies’ interaction with public agencies 
may contribute to innovation and on the role I P protection can play in facilitating such 
collaborations. My delegation will illustrate its own national experience by presenting two case 
studies of private -private and private -public collaborative innovation ventures.  
426.  "Innovation is a team sport. "  A corporate culture of cooperation is a prerequisite for a 
company to produce a sustainable innovation process. A culture of curiosity, the exchange of 
ideas, asking challenging questions, and working on answers from different angles are key for 
innovation to  happen in a company.  
427.  What is true about fostering a culture within a company is similarly true of collaboration 
between two or more separate  entities. Let me illustrate the importance of cooperation in R&D 
with two practical case examples.  
428.   The first cas e concerns an electronic system called Flokk12. The Flokk system provides new 
and interactive illumination solutions for designers and architects. It is the result of a multiple -
player R&D -project that involved a Swiss University of Applied Science and thre e different 
companies who contributed their know -how, resources, and material at varying stages of the 
project.  
                                                
12 https://iart.ch/de/ -/flokk -eine-offene -plattform -fur-interaktive -lichtlosungen .  IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 59 - 
 
  429.  The inventor of Flokk acted as the project’s driving force. To further develop and test his 
concept, he reached out to partners in the manufactu ring sector. There, interest for his ideas 
proved to be high. A Swiss SME called iArt (45 employees) managing innovative projects for 
museums, international events, brands, architects and media artists, became the main partner for 
the further process engin eering and the launch of the product. After establishing the project’s 
major guidelines and cornerstones, as well as clarifying all IP aspects, the two parties were able to 
get support from the Federal Commission for Technology and Innovation. Furthermore,  the project 
got support and input from the Swiss SME Inventron and the international electronics 
manufacturer Philips. It was thanks to the interaction and collaborative effort between all those 
players that Flokk took many of the hurdles that need to be overcome from the stage of an idea to 
introducing an innovative product, which is commercially successful in the market.   
430.  Flokk luminaires can interact with each other, with their environment and with digital data to 
display information in the form of ligh t effects, such as patterns of clouds for example. The Flokk 
technology makes also use of an algorithm to keep luminance in the room at a constant level. If 
one luminaire is dimmed, another will shine brighter. This allows for an even and pleasant lighting . 
Flokk’s technology attracted commercial attention from an early stage of its development and 
gained a design award in Switzerland in 2016.  
431.  The initiators of the project are currently moving ahead by transforming this technology into 
serially -produced co nsumer products. An important enabler in the Flokk technology was 
intellectual property. It brought the parties together with their different backgrounds, knowledge 
and experience. It helped manage their partnership. A contractual agreement on who would ow n 
which IP rights and how future commercial benefits would be shared, contributed to the well -
functioning of the partnership, and therefore worked as an enabler for the successful project.  
432.  Our second example concerns an invention consisting of a technical  solution that increases 
precision in robotic systems. Such systems are used and are often indispensable in scientific 
laboratories or in hospitals, where precision is key. The invention is called CASCAD. This innovative 
technology allows for example to pr epare medical samples for analyses with a particularly high 
accuracy. Apart from scientific and medical applications, the technology also offers considerable 
potential in other field of technology, such as the semiconductor or the solar industry.  
433.  Like Flo kk, CASCAD is the result of collaboration between private companies and a Swiss 
University of Applied Science. The initial project -idea came from two private companies. The 
University of Applied Science contributed technical input at the later stage of the  project. 
Combining the expertise from different parties proved to be a success -story for the project. It is a 
perfect example of the potential benefits of R&D -collaboration.  
434.  Even in a political and economic environment conducive to innovation, novel  ideas and 
innovative ventures include trial and error, success and failure. In case an innovation has the 
potential for a commercial success, the innovator should early pay attention to how to protect his 
or her innovation against illegitimate free riders. In m any cases, this includes securing the relevant 
intellectual property rights in order to to secure a return on the investment made in the R&D 
process, to procure financing, reinvest in improving an existing innovation or innovate in a new 
field. If securing  intellectual property rights is neglected or attempted too late, innovators risk 
losing their competitive advantage and loss of their assets. What could have been a commercial 
success may thus turn out to be an economic failure.  
435.  Nowadays, ideas and knowl edge are no longer developed in the same place as where they 
are transformed into product innovations. The case examples presented are illustrative: in this 
respect: The Flokk illumination system was based on a researcher’s ideas which were eventually 
transformed with several players from the private sector into a commercially viable product. In the 
case of the CASCAD robotic system, the idea originated in a private company and was then 
developed and pushed towards market introduction also thanks to the inp ut from another company 
and from institutions, both private and public, proficient in basic and applied research and product 
development.  
436.  R&D cooperation can be particularly useful for SMEs to diversify risks, share R&D costs, and 
tap financial resources and specific knowledge. Additionally, SMEs can generate new revenue 
streams by licensing out their IP.  IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 60 - 
 
  437.  At the same time, SMEs often fear that their specific know -how could be misappropriated or 
be unintentionally revealed through innovation collaborations . Therefore, an early and well thought 
through IP strategy addressing these concerns and challenges becomes important to support 
innovation collaboration.  
438.  The government, providing the legal framework, has an important role to play here. With 
reliable IPR protection in place and efficient enforcement in the case of IPR infringement available, 
companies will more readily engage in innovation collaborations and thereby contribute to the 
growth and competitiveness of a national economy.  
439.   "Innovation is a team sport", as I mentioned earlier. As in any team sport, rules are needed 
so the players now what their task is in the game and how they should interact with the other 
players, what is fair and what is foul play and what they need to accomplish to become a 
successful team. In the field of collaborative innovation, intellectual property is one chapter of the 
rulebook that MSMEs should read carefully.  
14.7 India  
440.  My delegation would like to thank the delegati ons of Australia, the European Union, Japan, 
Switzerland, the United States and Chinese Taipei for tabling an agenda item on "IP and 
Innovation: Inclusive Innovation and MSME Collaboration ". The submission by Co -sponsors refers 
to "inclusive innovation ". The term is not defined. It would be important for a common 
understanding to clarify what is meant by use of this term.  
441.  In para 5 of the document (IP/C/W/622), the co -sponsors have selectively quoted from  the 
study about the Informal E conomy , Innovation a nd Intellectual Property , by de Beer, Fu & 
Wunsch -Vincent (2013 , page  39) to support their position that IP must be considered as a relevant 
aspect for innovative micro -sized enterprises. However,  the important observation by de Beer, Fu 
& Wunsch -Vincent i n their study is that formal IP -based exclusions and proprietary knowledge are 
not compatible with the knowledge diffusion and learning processes  of the informal economy which 
are based on communities, clusters and the exchange of information . 
442.   I quote fro m same page 39 of the study  
"the absence of formal appropriation and the work in clusters make up the strengths of the 
Informal Economy(IE)'s innovation system. In this view, the innovation system in the IE 
largely rests on "collective learning experience s" based on low entry barriers and free flows 
of knowledge . The dynamics among similar enterprises in collective geospatial clusters 
determine rates of innovation, economic successes and the value of the cluster. Individual 
firms or economic units are not the key determinants of innovation and efficiency.  
Appropriation efforts must also be considered in light of the social systems -- specifically 
family structures, community networks and commercial clusters -- within which the Informal 
Economy operates. Kn owledge flows are characterized by trust, reputation, reliability, social 
and cultural signalling, and the willingness to pool resources and collaborate. This facilitates 
access to information, and critically reduces transaction costs.  
 
Clearly, in this c ontext, the notion of formal appropriation of ideas can be considered alien 
and inadequate in this Informal Economy context. As one study suggests, actors believe that 
formal IP based on exclusions and proprietary knowledge is not compatible with the 
knowl edge diffusion and learning processes  of the Informal Economy which are based on 
communities, clusters and the exchange of information. "  
 
443.  The co -sponsors of the agenda item  on "IP and Innovation " have argued that  increasing 
patent monopolies would drive g reater innovation. However, the evidence does not support this 
assertion. On the contrary, the view gaining ground is that increasing patent monopolies would 
actually stifle innovation.  
444.  Joseph Stiglitz, the Nobel laureate , in his 2016 paper on "Industrial Policy, Learning, and 
Development ", questioned the benefits of IP and stated that  IPRs, especially if poorly designed, 
can impede innovation and learning.  IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 61 - 
 
  "There are significant static costs of intellectual property. It impedes the use of information 
and gives rise to monopoly power. Increasingly, the alleged dynamic benefits have come to 
be questioned. IPR, especially if poorly designed, can impede innovation and learning. 
Knowledge is the most important ingredient to production of knowledge, and IPR redu ces 
access to knowledge. Moreover, the patent system intervenes with the open system that is 
essential for the advancement of science. In addition, the patent thicket and patent trolls 
have provided further impediments to research. The patent system even d istorts the pattern 
of research, encouraging more research directed at extending market power.  
 
These adverse effects are especially significant for developing countries. Successful 
development entails closing the knowledge gap and necessitating access to knowledge. It is 
even more important in areas of health —access to life saving medicines has implications 
that go beyond the budget. "  
 
445.  Intellectual Property is only one element in a larger innovation ecosystem and IP laws alone 
do not promote technology de velopment. According to the Trilateral study by WTO, WHO and 
WIPO on "Promoting Access to Medical Technologies and Innovation: Intersections between public 
health, intellectual property and trade (2013) ", Page 126,  
"Patent law is not a stand -alone innovati on system. It is only one element of the innovation 
process, and one which can be deployed differently in diverse innovation scenarios. Patent 
law has little bearing on many other factors that lead to the successful development of 
technologies, e.g. the na ture and extent of demand, commercial advantages gained by 
marketing and ancillary services and support, commercial and technical viability of 
production processes, and compliance with regulatory requirements, including through 
effective management of clin ical trials data. "  
 
446.  India declared the decade of 2011 -2020 as the Decade of Innovation . The spirit of innovation 
has to permeate all sectors of economy from universities, business and government to people at 
all levels.  
447.  The MSME sector in India consists of 36 million units  and provides employment to over 80 
million persons. The sector, through more than 6,000 products, contributes about 8% to GDP, 
besides 45% to the total manufacturing output and 40% to the exports from the country. The 
MSME sector has t he potential to spread industrial growth across the country and can be a major 
partner in the process of inclusive growth.  
448.  To enhance awareness of MSMEs about Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs), the Government 
of India launched a scheme titled "Building A wareness on Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) " for 
the MSMEs, in August 2008. The scheme enhances awareness of MSMEs about IPRs to take 
measures for protecting their ideas and business strategies, which would also assist them in 
technology upgradation and  enhancing competitiveness.  
449.  A national innovation survey had been conducted during 2011 -12, in India, by the 
Department of Science and Technology (DST), of the Government of India. A national report 
entitled "Understanding Innovation: Indian  National Innov ation Survey " with special focus on 
MSMEs has been brought out by DST. The report is based on the analysis of sample survey of 
9001 firms, largely MSMEs, spread across 26 states and five Union Territories across various 
industrial sectors in the country.  
450.  The survey identified many barriers to innovation with regard to MSMEs. Some important 
barriers to innovation include  availability of finance and in general the cost of innovation, 
availability of skilled manpower, access to market information and availabil ity of information 
technology, infrastructure, domination of established player in the market, regulatory 
requirements etc. IPR-related issues are not found to be of any concern for the innovation 
activities of the firms.  
451.  I conclude by quoting from our Pri me Minister Narendra Modi’s statement during the launch 
of the Mission Innovation in Paris in November 2015.  IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 62 - 
 
  "Our innovation initiative should be driven by public purpose, not just market incentives, 
including on intellectual property. That also means stro ng public commitment by suppliers to 
developing countries. … Innovation must be backed by means to make it affordable and 
ensure adoption. " 
 
14.8 Colombia  
452.  We would like to thank those who have presen ted this document, which seems to establish 
the link between intellectual property and innovation and the relation with MSMEs. Colombia 
recognises intellectual property as one of the priorities for supporting the generation of companies. 
For this reason, t he National Government, in February 2012, established the Business Growth 
Management Unit which seeks to promote entrepreneurship, innovation and productivity as pillars 
for business development and competitiveness in the country. This entity also includes  among its 
lines of action, skills training for companies to use tools to protect their innovative developments 
and innovations working together with the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Tourism  and the  
Observatory for Science, Technology and Innovation.  
453.  Under the National Strategy to Promote Investment Protection, which seeks to promote a 
culture of industrial property in regions of the country where there are low levels of patent 
applications. One of the main outcomes of this Initiative was the launch o f two meetings, one in 
December 2016 and one in February 2017, seeking to provide technical and financial support for 
the registration of MSMEs to develop innovations that are patentable. These companies reached 
the necessary technical level to submit seve ral patent applications to the competent authority. This 
is a continuous effort, and we hope that we can continue to strengthen the programme given its 
positive impact on the development of these regions.  
14.9 Canada  
454.  Canada is pleased to present some of its national experiences on MSME collaboration, as part 
of the broader discussion on "Inclusive innovation and MSME collaboration ". We would like to 
thank the co -sponsors for their Communications on this  issue, as well as the delegations that have 
provided insights on their national experiences and practices so far.  
455.  One of the key challenges facing MSMEs is that innovation is constrained by the availability 
of resources for research and development (R&D).  Indeed, a key irony for small businesses is that, 
while the fastest way to boost productivity and economic growth is often innovation, the resources 
available for R&D are also tied to a firm’s size. In Canada, for instance, MSMEs make up the 
largest propo rtion of Canadian firms (and similar to the proportions reported by a few other 
delegations, this accounts for roughly 97% of domestic firms). Individually however, MSMEs 
account for proportionally less R&D spending than large businesses. Collaboration bet ween MSMEs, 
as well as with other types of firms, educational and other institutions, can therefore play a crucial 
role in supporting innovation in a competitive global economy. For MSMEs, global collaboration has 
become a competitive necessity. Indeed, as  global trade becomes increasingly organized along 
global and regional value chains, innovation is also correspondingly designed around research 
networks and clusters, enabling MSMEs to enter into cross -border research arrangements and seek 
new market acce ss opportunities.  
456.  In view of the economic constraints faced by MSMEs in innovating, growing and seeking new 
markets, the Government of Canada has undertaken a range of initiatives and programs aimed at 
facilitating their collaboration. For instance, Canada ’s Trade Commissioner Service (TCS) and the 
National Research Council Industrial Research Assistance Program (NRC -IRAP) manage several 
bilateral programs aimed at fostering collaboration between small Canadian businesses in 
partnership with foreign market players. For instance, the Trade Commissioner Service Going 
Global Innovation program supports Canadian researchers from SMEs, universities and non -
governmental research centres aiming to commercialize technology through collaborative R&D 
partnerships in f oreign markets. This program provides financial assistance to Canadian 
researchers, including for international travel, legal fees to support formalized partnerships, and 
other costs related to international collaboration.  
457.  Similarly, the Canadian Internat ional Innovation Program (CIIP), managed by the TCS and 
NRC-IRAP, is a bilateral funding program that fosters collaborative R&D projects for the IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 63 - 
 
  commercialization of research between researchers in Canada and partners in Brazil, China, India, 
and Korea, as  well as with Israel through the Canada -Israel Industrial Research and Development 
Foundation. For instance, in March 2016, the CIIP launched a request for proposals from Canadian 
SMEs and innovators in India on collaborative R&D projects. This collaborati on, undertaken in 
partnership with India’s Global Innovation Technology Alliance, will provide R&D funding in priority 
areas such as: clean and green technology; energy efficiency; affordable healthcare; information 
and communications technologies (ICTs); electronic system design and manufacturing; advanced 
manufacturing; and, water technology.  
458.  More recently, in September 2016, the NRC -IRAP and Germany’s Ministry for Economic 
Affairs and Energy signed a declaration of intent to stimulate and fund innovation -driven 
collaboration among German and Canadian SMEs. The arrangement will foster collaborative 
scientific and industrial R&D projects aimed at accelerating the development of new technologies 
with high potential for commercialization. In the fall of 2016,  a call for proposals was launched in 
which eligible SMEs may receive funding through Canada’s NRC -IRAP, as well as through 
Germany’s Central Innovation Programmes for SMEs.  
459.  Canada has also developed formal science and technology relationships and partners hips 
with established and emerging innovation networks around the world. For instance, Canada has 
developed a framework for international collaboration through science and technology (S&T) 
agreements with a number of bilateral partners, including in the As ia-Pacific, Europe, Latin 
America and the Caribbean. These S&T agreements serve as guidelines for Canadians to effectively 
work with partner countries to increase international science and technology capacity. A related 
initiative, the Canadian Technology Accelerator (CTA) provides high -growth, market -ready 
Canadian companies support to access global markets and entrepreneurship services within the 
ICT, life sciences, and clean technologies. Managed by the TCS, the CTA provides support for 
Canadian technolo gy SMEs to access global market opportunities in nine cities, including key ICT, 
life sciences, and clean technology markets in the United States.  
460.  Canada is also an associate country of EUREKA, an international network for market -driven 
industrial R&D. EUR EKA includes over 40 economies from the EU, Europe, Israel, and Korea, and 
serves as an international network to coordinate national funding sources between international 
project partners, to accelerate innovation in new technologies, products and services  for 
commercialization. Since joining EUREKA in 2012, Canada’s associate membership has provided 
close to 50 Canadian innovators, most of which are SMEs, with the opportunity to pursue projects 
with international partners with a combined value of over CAD$ 50 million (or approximately 
USD$38 million). As well, as part of this program, participants retain complete IP ownership and 
negotiate IP arrangements amongst themselves on a project -by-project basis.  
461.  With respect to collaboration among MSMEs relating to IP more specifically, the Government 
of Canada’s framework laws on IP are designed for general applicability to all businesses, while 
also being mindful of not creating barriers to MSMEs. For instance, the Canadian Intellectual 
Property Office (CIPO) provi des IP frameworks and innovation programmes that assist MSMEs to 
build and maintain collaborations. In particular, CIPO provides online guidance for businesses on 
licensing or assigning part or all of a business’ IP rights to third party collaborators or p urchasers; 
business intelligence on how to use IP data to learn about innovations in a particular field, 
including with respect to potential partnerships, competitors, and changes in market conditions; 
and financing resources for IP. CIPO is also modernizi ng its services to help businesses in Canada 
better access the Canadian IP system and leverage their IP rights for collaborative purposes, 
including through licensing and other arrangements. Furthermore, Canada’s efforts to align with 
international IP stan dards and filing systems creates an environment that facilitates global MSME 
collaboration, for instance, by harmonizing filing procedures available to businesses collaborating 
in networks across jurisdictions.  
462.  Once again, Canada would like to thank the co -sponsors for proposing this topic for 
discussion. Given the role that collaborative arrangements play in innovation, not only nationally 
but also in the form of regional research networks and international partnerships across 
jurisdictions, we remain very  interested in hearing about the experiences and practices of other 
delegations. Canada will also be pleased to continue discussions on topics of "MSME growth " and 
"MSME trade " at upcoming meetings of the TRIPS Council, and looks forward to sharing more of  its 
experiences on these issues.  IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 64 - 
 
  14.10   Argentina  
463.  Argentina thanks Australia, Chinese Taipei, the European Union, Japan, Switzerland and the 
United  States for the proposal contained in documents IP /C/W/622 and 625 on "Inclusive 
Innovation and MSME Collaboration " and for their presentations.  
464.  We view this proposal with great interest. In Argentina, as in other countries, MSMEs play a 
key role in the economy by reason of their contribution to GDP, empl oyment and economic 
development. In addition, they possess enormous innovative capacity. Intellectual property rights 
are an important aspect of innovation. Patents, trademarks, industrial designs, copyright and 
utility models are tools that can be used to  protect innovation.  
465.  Argentina's domestic production plan focuses on MSMEs and helps to protect their 
development through trademarks, industrial designs or patents. We await with interest the 
exchange of experience regarding the three aspects of innovation  cited by the co -sponsors 
(collaboration, growth and trade) and their relationship to MSMEs.  
14.11  Guatemala  
466.  We thank the delegations that have proposed this agenda item, as it underlines the 
impor tance of the link between the intellectual property system in innovative agencies  and 
enterprises.  
467.  Guatemala points out that, in its National Intellectual Property Strategy, intellectual property 
has emerged as a key tool for countries' innovation, transfe r of technology and competitiveness, 
as it has resulted in creations and knowledge that become intangible wealth -generating assets of 
commercial value. A good intellectual property system strikes a balance between the interests of 
the right holder and the general interest, encouraging creation and innovation and facilitating 
economic and social development.  
468.  Currently, the ability to compete on a global scale conditions a country's prosperity; to be 
able to compete at the international level, a country's eco nomic actors need to stand out and to do 
so they must incorporate the intangible assets aspect into their business strategies, particularly 
intellectual property.  
469.  Intellectual property does not only enhance the value of companies but also of the economy 
as a whole. In the knowledge economy in which we live, the bases of competitive advantage lie in 
the processes and characteristics that make products or services unique. Innovation is essential in 
achieving this differentiation or value added, meaning innova tion in the broad sense, not only as 
regards technology but also the product of business models, procedures, market positions or other 
elements which make something unique or different.  
470.  A broader vision of innovation can help a country to attract more reso urces. A vision which 
can be applied in the following sectors:  
(a) technological improvements;  
(b) improved processes;  
(c) different products;  
(d) new marketing approaches;  
(e) new forms of distribution;  
(f) green innovation or eco -innovation.  
 
471.  Together with the foregoing, innova tive capacity will depend on an interrelated ensemble of 
investment, business policies and allocation of resources to support innovation that is "new for the 
world ". The following are needed to achieve this:  
 promotion of all types of innovation;  IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 65 - 
 
   education to improve creativity and entrepreneurship;  
 fostering the mobility of researchers;  
 greater exploitation of the domestic market;  
 particular attention to be paid to the services sector which offers under -exploited 
opportunities, notably through synergy with the industrial sector;  
 standardization and guarantee of quality;  
 international bilateral and multilateral cooperation;  
 promotion of groups or clusters from which knowledge reaches the market more 
rapidly;  
 increased productivity;  
 attracting investment;  
 promoting research;  
 strengthening the entrepreneurial basis.  
 developing special products or services and capacities.  
472.  On this basis, as part of its 2016/2021 Economic Policy, the Government of Guatemala has 
established support for MSMEs as a strategic focus in order to enable and promote action for 
productivity, competitiveness and internationalization, determining the use of intellectual property 
systems as one of the tools to achieve this.  
14.12  Mexico  
473.  We are pleased to be able to contribute to this agenda item of the TRIPS Council. The public 
policy of the Government of Mexico considers the use of intellectual property to be a key factor in 
the development of small and medium -sized enterprises, particular ly for start -ups, whose business 
model is dependent on innovation. Intellectual property in a start -up is, therefore, a critical factor 
in protecting the company's intangible assets.  
474.  The importance of intellectual property also extends to socially -oriented  businesses, which, 
with intellectual property protection, can make profits in a shorter period of time. We will 
accordingly go on to briefly illustrate the cooperation of the Mexican Industrial Property Institute in 
the Entrepreneur Support Network (Red d e Apoyo al Emprendedor) programme, which is 
implemented by the National Entrepreneurship Institute  (INADEM), the Mexican Government 
agency specializing in small and medium -sized businesses.  
475.  Through the Entrepreneur Support Network, users have access to an Internet portal, whose 
main purpose is to ensure that anyone with a good business idea has access to the support they 
need to enter the market.  
476.  In the case of the Mexican Industrial Property Institute, cooperation via the portal involves 
offering advice an d support to entrepreneurs in obtaining intellectual property rights, as well as 
providing general information on the subject and raising awareness of its benefits.  
477.  Between July  2014 and August  2016, advice was provided to 9,823 entrepreneurs via the 
Netwo rk, which the Mexican Industrial Property Institute also used to actively participate in various 
national events, including the National Entrepreneurship Week (Semana Nacional del 
Emprendedor) and the National Entrepreneurship Award (Premio Nacional del Em prendedor), 
designed to encourage and promote innovation among entrepreneurs, particularly among micro, 
small and medium -sized businesses.  
478.  Additionally, every year the Mexican Industrial Property Institute holds the "Jornadas Expo 
Ingenio ", which are mobil e events with discussion panels, workshops and personalized advice 
aiming to bring together those who create and promote industrial property with industrial property 
users and applicants. Participants in these events include representatives of the intellec tual 
property ecosystem, entrepreneurs as well as micro, small and medium -sized enterprises.  IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 66 - 
 
  479.  Last but not least, in the framework of international forums, particularly in the Intellectual 
Property Rights Experts Group (IPEG) of the Asia -Pacific Economic Co operation forum (APEC), the 
Mexican Industrial Property Institute has advanced initiatives in the field to support entrepreneurs 
and micro, small and medium -sized businesses.  
480.  Within the IPEG, Mexico was part of a joint initiative which also involved Korea,  Russia and 
the Philippines, in which the countries joined forces and discussed actions to assess and 
strengthen the industrial property -related capacities of SMEs.  
481.  In 2016, the IPEG approved an intellectual property project submitted by Mexico, called 
"SMEs Innovation: Capacity Building on IP Strategy ". One of the objectives is to create links 
between SMEs and the academic and scientific sector, so that entrepreneurs become focused on 
constant innovation and researchers acquire a business -oriented outlook to place their inventions 
on the market. The event will last two days in Mexico City and will take place in September  2017.  
14.13  Israel  
482.  When talking about Israel, we have to talk about innovation, te chnology and start -ups. As 
many of you probably know, Israel is a start -up nation. We refer to start -ups, because in Israel the 
term is widely used and recognized. Although the term may be broader than the term micro, small 
and medium -sized enterprises or MSMEs, we believe that the term encapsulates many of the so -
called MSMEs. Defining a start -up is more difficult than it seems, but there are a common few 
traits: solutions, innovations and lack of resources. These are traits shared by MSMEs. It is true 
that some start -ups graduate to the next level, but it is also true that the bulk of them remain as 
MSMEs.  
483.  In 1993, a Government initiative aimed to increase the number of companies using Israel 
Inventor funds. As a result of this effort, Israel's annual ven ture capital outlays rose nearly 60 -
fold, from 58 million to 3.3 billion, in the first ten years, and the growth tendency continues. The 
number of companies launched using Israeli venture funds rose from 100 to 800. Israel's 
information technology revenue rose from 1.6 billion to 12.5 billion. With a population of 8.5 
million people, Israel has over 6,000 start -ups, and attracts more venture capital per person than 
any other country in the world.  
484.  The Israeli start -up scene extends from the tech hub of Tel A viv to Jerusalem, and all the 
way to the southern district city of Beersheba. In Israel the start -up scene is a way of life and 
innovation permeates our society and culture. This is reflected in Israel's R&D expenditure as a 
percentage of the GDP which in 2014 was the highest within OECD members at 4.2% of GDP, 
while the average at OECD stands at 2.4%.  
485.  This all leads to a highly innovative country which was ranked fifth place, according to 
Bloomberg's Innovation Index in 2015. In Israel, we have had many p rogrammes and policies to 
foster this innovation environment, but one of the ones worth highlighting are those under the 
Israel Innovation Authority. The Israel Innovation Authority, formally known as the Office of the 
Chief Scientists of the Ministry of E conomy, is responsible for the country's innovation policy  and 
is an independent and impartial public entity that cooperates for the benefit of the Israeli 
innovation ecosystem and the Israeli economy as a whole. Its role is to nurture and develop Israel 
innovation resources, while creating and strengthening the infrastructure and framework needed 
to support the entire knowledge industry.  
486.  For the benefit of entrepreneurs and stakeholders in the high -tech industry, the Israeli 
Innovation Authority has set up a vast array of active innovation divisions that concentrate on 
providing optimal solutions to a variety of changing needs. One of these divisions is the Start -Up 
Division, which offers unique tools to support the early development stages of technologic al 
initiatives. These tools assist entrepreneurs in the start -up companies in developing their 
innovative technological concepts at the planning or initial R&D stages. Transforming ideas into 
reality can reach significant fundable milestones. The Start -Up Division incentive programmes are 
designed for the following target audiences: entrepreneurs with an innovative technological idea, 
and early stage start -up companies.  IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 67 - 
 
  487.  Another programme worth highlighting is known as "Tnufa Incentive Programme ", which is 
designed for fledgling entrepreneurs who are interested in formulating and validating an innovative 
technological concept and in reaching the R&D stage, where they can raise funding for further 
development and commercialisation. The main objective of this programme is to assist the project 
in building an initial prototype, intellectual protection and initial business development.  
488.  Although Israel focuses heavily on technology, non -technology and innovations can benefit 
from some of these programmes as well.  This is just a very brief description of some policies Israel 
aims at fostering innovation in MSMEs which as I mentioned before share many traits with what 
we call in Israel start -ups.  
14.14  Dominican Republic  
489.  We would like to thank the proponents for including this item on the agenda of this Council 
meeting and we would like to share with Members the experience of the Dominican Republic in the 
area of intellectual property and innovation : inclusive innovation and collaboration with SMEs.  
490.  In The National Intellectual Property Strategy of the Dominican Republic, innovation has 
been established as a priority, and it is through the National Office of Industrial Property that a 
priority plan was launched for the promotion of invention and the use of a patent database as a 
tool which does give added economic value to national production.  
491.  In the course of the last two years our country has already witnessed the changes of this 
new focus which h as led to a boosting of technological innovation. We also must highlight the 
excellent results of the first Appropriate Technology Competition which was carried out in the 
Dominican Republic in 2016, and thanks to motivation of our country, in the first tr imester of 2017 
four nations of the Central American sub -region will carry out competitions that promote 
innovation and emphasize  the role of the innovator in problem -solving and wealth creation. The 
competition is sponsored by the Korean Invention Promot ion Association (KIPA) , the Korea 
Intellectual Property Office (KIPO) and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). It is in 
this way that the Dominican Republic carried out the Appropriate Technology Competition, entitled 
"Innovative Solutions for Everyday Life ". Appropriate technology is designed with particular 
attention given to environmental, ethical, cultural, social and economic aspects of the targeted 
community. Given these considerations, appropriate technology comes from the local envir onment 
and normally requires fewer resources, it is easier to maintain such technology and is less costly 
and has a lesser impact on the environment as compared to other equivalent technologies, they do 
also generate innovate solutions and completely aimed  at resolving local problems.  
492.   One of the aims of the competition is to raise awareness of the use of patent databases and 
the importance for Dominicans to become more familiar with seeking of solutions which already 
exist and adapting them to the socio -economic reality of the country. For the promotion of the 
competition, 30 nationwide local workshops were organized, along with advertisement in the 
national media, resulting in 56 participants presenting 83 innovative projects. From those projects, 
10 were selected as finalists according to the terms established by WIPO and KIPO, and later 3 
were selected as winners. The competition was a success and it did achieve the result, that is, to 
use information of patents to generate Appropriate Technology, providi ng solutions to everyday 
problems in a community. With this type of initiative the Dominican Republic aims at fomenting 
invention in the new generations and to promote the industrial property rights system. We would 
like here to quote a few examples:  
493.  The p rogramme "Formalize Yourself " which is a legal formalization programme for 
enterprises, increased by 82% in 2015 with a total of 1,215 of trade names registrations granted 
by 15 December 2016.  
494.  In the area of innovation , The Centre for Support to Technology  and Innovation (CATI) was 
created by the National Office of Industrial Property of the Dominican Republic, on an initiative of 
WIPO with the purpose of facilitating access to information on industrial property for innovators 
and researchers, entrepreneurs , universities, SMEs in the country through information technology 
services, distinctive signs and other related high quality services. The CATI of Dominican Republic 
was set up in 2011 and since then different activities have been carried out so as to pro mote the 
use of patent information and public domain. It has the following objectives: advice to inventors, IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 68 - 
 
  researchers, students and the general public on industrial property and particularly on patents; 
search for technological information to know prior art for a given product or an invented 
procedure; advice on the presentation of applications for patents or industrial designs, forms,  
drafting of documents, fees, terms, international applications and support to meet the different 
requirement s, both on a  formal and substantial examination; approach universities and research 
centres so as to disseminate the objectives of CATI and promote the setting up of local CATI, along 
with SMEs, industries and  clusters, with the objective to promote the services of C ATI; and train 
the focal points of universities and research centres through on -line and classroom classes.  
495.  Other initiatives that we have successfully carried out in our country is the Innovator 
Summer Camp . This came as a solution to respond to the need to train innovators and motivate 
teenagers to choose STEM careers  (Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics). The 
methodology of this camp is based both on theory and practice . Over a period of 4 weeks in July, 
50 meritorious students are chosen sp ecifically with a high level of knowledge in the natural 
sciences and mathematics, from the third grade of the middle school both in public and private 
schools in the four mentioned areas. The idea is always to focus searches on the basis of patent 
databas es which then can be applied at the end of the summer as a prototype or oral project.  
496.  Training is provided to SMEs in creation of trademarks for which we have trained 153 SMEs 
at national level. Workshops have been organized on trademark and packaging so as to strengthen 
the export capacity of national MSMEs.  
497.  Finally different cycles of talks have been organized on "Industrial Property and Development 
of Fashion Trademarks " by the Dominican Republic Institute of Fashion (INMODA RD) with the 
objective to i ncrease the training culture in fashion in the country.  
14.15  Russian Federation  
498.  We would like to thank Australia, the European Union, Japan, Switzerland, the United States 
and Chinese Ta ipei for their initiative and the tabled documents. We are glad to share today the 
Russian experience relevant to fostering collaboration and innovation among MSMEs.  
499.  In order to increase MSME’s inclusion in innovation the Government of the Russian 
Federati on created a non -profit Assistance Fund for Innovation, which provides help to small 
enterprises in R&D domain. The Fund is represented in more than 70 regions of the country. Its 
main activities cover the following:  
 enhancement of inclusiveness of young p opulation in innovation activities,  
 support of start -ups, 
 support of commercialization of R&D results,  
 development of hi -tech sectors of economy.  
500.  One of the regional offices is located in the Academic City of Novosibirsk, which is a complex 
with a unique t echnological infrastructure, creating extremely favourable environment for 
innovative activities by MSMEs. Its experience of inspiring collaboration between its residents has 
been recognized as one of the most effective among all Russian technological clus ters. Academic 
City focuses its activities in four directions:  
 information technologies,  
 instrument engineering,  
 nanotechnology  
 biotechnology.  
501.  The Academic City provides special infrastructure for each of these activities. In particular, 
specialized busine ss-incubators help young companies by providing cheaper facilities, equipment 
and access to laboratories.  
502.  This project became a leader in the number of participants, created work places and volumes 
of return of its participants, among 12 technological clus ters created in Russia. Moreover, it IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 69 - 
 
  became highly commercialized with the share of state investment amounting to only 21% of all 
investments attracted to the Academic City.  
503.  International collaboration is enhanced by its membership in the European Business  and 
Innovation Centre Network, as well as in the International Association of Science Parks and Areas 
of Innovation.  
504.  We thank the Membership for their attention and hope that our short presentation has 
provided certain understanding of the Russian experie nce in creating favourable environment for 
fostering MSMEs collaboration and innovation.  
14.16  Brazil  
505.  We thank the delegations of Australia, EU, Japan, United States and Switzerland for the 
documents circulated for this session. The interrelation between intellectual property and 
innovation is a topic of interest to our delegation, since the encouragement of innovation and 
knowledge is one of the major justifications for the intellectual property syste m. The TRIPS 
Council, by addressing these issues in a coherent way, could provide valuable contributions to the 
design of effective national innovation policies.  
506.  The document IP/C/W/625 continues to be analyzed by relevant Brazilian authorities. We will 
be glad to report back to our capital the discussions held in this session. The improvement of the 
productivity and competitiveness of MSMEs is a continuous goal of the Brazilian government.  
507.  Regarding the document IP/C/W/622, while we favorably view the disc ussion contained in it, 
our understanding is that adopting a work programme would depart from the ordinary practice of 
this Council.  
14.17  New Zealand  
508.  Thank you to the co -sponsors of this item f or putting it on our agenda and also for their 
comprehensive presentations . Also thanks to those who have since taken the floor to add their 
experiences. MSMEs play an extremely important role in New Zealand's economy and New Zealand 
recognises the importa nce of promoting inclusive innovation and business collaboration and 
building capability. In the interest of information sharing we would like to briefly outline New 
Zealand's two government agencies which support innovative businesses.  
509.  The Callaghan Innov ation has a domestic focus and offers a range of services and tailored 
programmes to businesses involving innovation and IP. This includes access to experts, technology 
and product development, innovation skills, business collaborations and research and de velopment 
grants.  
510.  New Zealand Trade and Enterprise is an international business development agency whose 
purpose is to help New Zealand businesses grow internationally. It offers a range of similar 
services and tailored programmes to assist businesses to expand into new markets. It also 
promotes New Zealand to foreign businesses and investor as well as helping businesses and 
investors in innovation as well as making international connections and mutually collaboration 
across international borders.  
14.18  Bangladesh - on behalf of the LDC Group  
511.  I thank the proponents Australia, the European Union, Japan, Switzerland, the United States 
and Chinese Taipei for submitting such an important issue for discussion. I thank them for sharing 
with us their good and exciting experiences with MSMEs in their countries. It is true that micro, 
small and medium -sized enterprises are the real pivotal force for the national and global trade an d 
commerce and this could not be more factual and relevant for LDCs because as mentioned in the 
submission, we also see the importance for  employment, production of goods for daily necessities, 
agriculture, poverty reduction, empowering of women, savings, export and other social 
development. All these factors are particularly dependent on the activities of MSMEs in LDCs.  IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 70 - 
 
  512.   However, if we examine the status and investment of MSMEs in the LDCs, we see that 
establishment and securing an IP regime may or may not  play a role for their development. A 
prerequisite for the development of MSMEs in LDCs is the creation and promotion of an ambiance 
for innovation first rather than enforcement of an IP regime.  
513.  In Bangladesh, the number of MSMEs are around 1.6million. MS MEs constitute 99% of 
private industrial establishments and provide 70 -80% employment of the non -agriculture labour 
force. We have the two largest end -users in the world, one is Brac Bank and the other is Grameen 
Bank and they principally deal with employi ng the SMEs. In addition the Government also 
disperses huge amount of micro -credit for MSMEs. Our experience shows that if the MSMEs are 
provided with an enabling environment for innovation, they are better. We have seen that MSMEs 
usually use the local ge netic resources, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions 
to the advantage of their business and development.  
514.  So, if we have to protect anything, then we will have to protect the genetic resources, 
traditional knowledge and traditional c ultural expression of the different countries locally and 
globally. The agenda items 4, 5 and 6 or the IGC can also be important in this regard. This 
national and global protection will create a beneficial and supporting environment for innovation. 
Going f or protection of IP without promoting and securing these elements will be like putting the 
car before the horse. We also have to remember that the nature and orientation and the very 
differentiation of MSMEs in developing countries and LDCs are starkly dif ferent from those in 
developed countries. So, local realities in developing countries and LDCs must be considered when 
we look for ways and means for development of MSMEs . A simple combination of two different 
environments would be erroneous. I, again, tha nk all the proponents for introducing such an 
important issue to the Council.  
14.19  Nigeria - on behalf of the Africa Group  
515.  Let me thank the proponents of this agenda item and, of course  those who have shared their 
experiences . In particular, the presentation by Japan was a very good one, because at least there 
is involvement of the young ones. Because in Nigeria we say "you catch them young ", so at least 
when you start with universities it is a welcome development. This item is coming at an important 
period when the Government of Nigeria is increasing its effort to diversify Nigeria's economy. In 
this context, the Government of Nigeria has launched a nationwide project c ode named "MSME 
Clinics " to address the challenges faced by the MSMEs in Nigeria. The project will serve as a one -
stop shop to address the challenges faced by small business owners. According to the Nigerian 
National Bureau of Statistics, over 37 million M SMEs operated in Nigeria between 2010 and 2013. 
To encourage MSMEs in Nigeria to use intellectual property, there are a number of programmes 
that are on course at the moment, like the one on national awareness programme on intellectual 
property rights and technology information in patent documentation; and, also other collaborative 
efforts are under way between the Office of the National Office for Technology Acquisition and 
Promotion of Nigeria and then the Small and Medium Enterprises Development Agency o f Nigeria.  
AGENDA ITEM 15: INFO RMATION ON RELEVANT DEVELOPMENTS ELSEWHE RE IN THE 
WTO  
15.1 WTO Secretariat   
516.  Many thanks for giving the Secretariat an opportunity to provide a further update of IPR -
related issues as they have come up in the most recent Trade Policy Reviews.  
517.  Since the meeting in November, the Trade Policy Reviews of Guatemala, Solomon Islands, 
the United States and Sierra Leone have taken place. I am pleased to report that developed  
country, as well as developing  country and LDC Members have substantively contributed to the 
discussions on TRIPS -related issues during these reviews.   
518.  In particular, Members continued to engage in a constructive exchange views on a wide 
range of trade -related IP issues, including: copyrights and related rights; royalty fees for satellite 
transmissions; statutory copyright licences; trademarks; geographical indications; plant variety 
protection; patent quality; preferential patent fees; benefit sharing agr eements; data exclusivity; 
marketing approval for new drugs; protection of trade secrets; enforcement measures, online and IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 71 - 
 
  at the border; adjudication procedures; judicial review of administrative decisions; and the 
operation of Articles 66.2 and 67 of the  TRIPS Agreement. Members also touched upon the 
ratification of WIPO Treaties  including the Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works 
for Persons who are Blind, Visually Impaired, or otherwise Print Disabled ; Beijing Treaty on Audio -
visual P erformances ; and the Trademark Law Treaty ; the implementation of national IP strategies, 
as well as on Technology and Innovation Support Centres.  
AGENDA ITEM 16:  OBS ERVER STATUS FOR INT ERNATIONAL INTERGOVE RNMENTAL 
ORGANIZATIONS  
16.1  United States  
519.  Just in the interest of reiterating our long -standing position, we can agree to permanent 
observer status for ARIPO, OAPI, GCC and EFTA. As for the other pending requests, we are unable 
to support those at this time.  
16.2  Nigeria on behalf of the Africa Group  
520.  Let me start by thanking the United States for their statement, in particular for supporting 
our two regional bodies that are responsible for IP implement ation in Africa. With this statement 
perhaps if there could be consensus, of course, last time we heard an intervention from Brazil 
trying to at least justify the position that they took. The Africa Group deliberated on that and we 
are still not convinced,  because our belief is this: we know it is beyond the competence of the 
Africa Group to force consensus on the CBD Secretariat. We are members of the CBD, we will 
continue to push for CBD Secretariat's observer status whether it is ad hoc or permanent, but  at 
least for the ARIPO and OAPI who are responsible for IP in Africa, I think it is important that they 
should be allowed to come in as permanent observers in the TRIPS Council.  
16.3  India  
521.  India supports granting of permane nt observer status to three intergovernmental 
organizations - South Centre, the CBD Secretariat and the International Vaccine Institute. They 
fulfill the requisite criteria laid down by the General Council with regard to observer status.  
522.  South Centre is a n intergovernmental organization with 53 developing country Members  
coming from the three developing country regions of Africa, Asia, and Latin America and the 
Caribbean. The South Centre undertakes  research and analysis oriented on various international 
policy areas that are relevant to the protection and promotion of the development interests of 
developing countries, including on IPR issues. They have contributed to the discussions in the 
TRIPS Council like sponsoring a side -event yesterday at the WTO on the report of the High Level 
Panel Report on Access to Medicines. South Centre already has observer status in WIPO, WHO, 
CBD and many other UN bodies.  
523.  The Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) fulfills all the required parameters for observer 
ship of t he WTO. The WTO Secretariat has observer status at the CBD and regularly participates in 
the CBD meetings. So as a matter of reciprocity, the CBD Secretariat shall be granted observer 
status.  
524.  We would also like to support the request from the Internationa l Vaccine Institute (IVI) for 
observer status in the Council for TRIPS. The International Vaccine Institute, which was created 
initially as an initiative of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP), is the world’s only 
international organization dev oted exclusively to developing and introducing new and improved 
vaccines to protect the world’s poorest people, especially children in developing countries.  
525.  India requests Members opposing the three organizations to provide a valid reason for their 
stand given that all the three organizations fulfill the requisite criteria laid down by the General 
Council with regard to observer status.  
526.  On the request of Nigeria, India is in a position to support only the two African Intellectual 
Property Organizations, A RIPO and OAPI.  IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 72 - 
 
  16.4  Bangladesh on behalf of the LDC Group  
527.  I take the floor just to reiterate our position that we support the three pending requests from 
the International Vaccine Institute, S outh Centre and CBD Secretariat. We think that they would 
positively contribute to our discussion and they would add value to whatever we discuss here, 
especially South Centre is already a permanent observer in other WTO Committees and we can 
draw referenc e from them and we can see that there is nothing to fear. So again we ask all the 
Members to support their request.  
16.5  Brazil  
528.  Brazil supports the approval of the request from South Centre and CBD as permanent 
observers at  the TRIPS Council as a matter of priority. As stated by our colleague from India, 
South Centre is the intergovernmental organization of developed countries that helps them 
combine their efforts and expertise to promote the common interests in the internat ional arena. It 
has observer status in several international organizations. In the WTO, it is an observer to the 
Committee on Trade and Development, its first request for observer status in the TRIPS Council 
dates back to 1999. It would contribute to a mor e meaningful participation of developing countries 
in the TRIPS Council discussions without in any way harming the interest of other Members.  
529.  The CBD is an agreement ratified by as many as 196 parties.  It represents a dramatic step 
forward in the conserva tion of biological diversity, fostering the sustainable use and the fair and 
equitable share of benefit arising from the use of genetic resources. Unlike other permanent 
observers, the CBD is directly implicated in a number of items of the TRIPS Council's permanent 
agenda. A specific item regarding the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD is 
part of the agenda of every TRIPS Council meeting, and those discussions could greatly benefit 
from the participation of the CBD Secretariat as a perman ent observer.   
530.  Brazil reiterates its view that the decision should be taken with respect to South Centre and 
CBD as a matter of priority. We invite delegations to share their concerns regarding their observer 
status, something we have not heard up to this  moment.  
531.  Regarding the other four requests, namely ARIPO, OAPI, GCC and EFTA, we support the ad -
hoc status. We are looking for a holistic solution for the outstanding requests of all organizations.  
16.6  European Union  
532.  We can also reiterate our long -standing position. We can go along with the proposal to invite 
the Convention on Biological Diversity Secretariat on an ad -hoc basis whenever the relationship 
between the Convention on Biological Diversity and the TRIPS A greement is on the agenda of the 
TRIPS Council, given the relevance of the debate for some of the provisions of the Convention of 
Biological Diversity and Nagoya Protocol.  
533.  We also support to grant observer status to ARIPO, OAPI, the GCC and EFTA.  
16.7  S outh Africa  
534.  Our delegation would align itself with the statement made by Nigeria on behalf of the Africa 
Group. We support the call to have ARIPO and OAPI inscribed as permanent observers. 
Furthermore, in respect of So uth Centre and the CBD Secretariat, we have reiterated in the past 
that we would also support observer status of these organizations.  
16.8  Egypt  
535.  We would like to associate ourselves with the statements made by both Brazil a nd India with 
regard to granting observer status to both the CBD Secretariat and South Centre. We also support 
the requests from Nigeria regarding granting observer status to both ARIPO and OAPI.  IP/C/M/85/Add.1  
 
- 73 - 
 
  16.9  China  
536.  China support s that the CBD Secretariat and South Centre  be granted permanent observer 
status, at least on an ad hoc basis.  
16.10  Plurinational State of Bolivia  
537.  We also join India, Brazil, Bangladesh, China and oth ers who have spoken before us in order 
to support the request to grant permanent observer status in this Council to South Centre, the 
CBD Secretariat and also to the International Vaccine Institute. We support this and we hope that 
we can find a solution t o this problem.  
16.11  Cuba  
538.  Cuba would also like to support the granting of observer status to South Centre and to the 
CBD Secretariat.  
16.12  Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  
539.  We also support the statements made by India, Brazil and Cuba in terms of granting the 
South Centre observer status.  
16.13  Indonesia  
540.  Indonesia would like to reiterate its position to support South Centre and th e CBD 
Secretariat to be granted observer status.  
16.14  Nigeria on behalf of the Africa Group  
541.  Now that we have no consensus for the permanent observer status of these institutions, I 
would enc ourage the Chair between now and the next TRIPS Council to hold consultations to see if 
we could arrive at consensus.  
AGENDA ITEM 17: OTHE R BUSINESS  
No statements were made under this item.  
 
__________