RESTRICTED  
  
IP/C/M/83  
 
2 December 2016  
(16-6636) Page: 1/10 
Council for Trade -Related Aspects of  
Intellectual Property R ights   
 
MINUTES OF MEETING  
HELD IN THE CENTRE W ILLIAM RAPPARD ON 8-9 NOVEMBER 2016 
Chairperson : Ambassador Mero (United Republic of Tanzania )  
The present document contains the record of the Council for TRIPS meeting held on 
8-9 November  2016. The statements made during the meeting will be circulated in an addendum 
to the present document.  
 
_______________  
 
 
Subjects discussed  
1  NOTIFICATIONS UNDER PROVISIONS OF THE AG REEMENT  ................................ .........  2 
2  REVIEWS OF NATIONAL IMPLEMENTING LEGISLA TION  ................................ ...............  2 
3  REVIEW OF THE PROVIS IONS OF ARTICLE 27.3 (B) ................................ ......................  3 
4  RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN  THE TRIPS AGREEMENT AND THE CONVENTION O N 
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY  ................................ ................................ ................................ .. 3 
5  PROTECTION OF TRADIT IONAL KNOWLEDGE AND FOLKLORE  ................................ ...... 3 
6  REVIEW UNDER PARAGRA PH 8 OF THE DECISION  ON THE IMPLEMENTATIO N 
OF PARAGRAPH 6 OF TH E DOHA DECLARATION O N THE TRIPS AGREEMEN T AND 
PUBLIC HEALTH  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...............  4 
7  NON-VIOLATION AND S ITUATION COMPLAINTS  ................................ ..........................  5 
8  REVIEW OF THE IMPLEM ENTATION OF THE TRIP S AGREEMENT UNDER 
ARTICLE 71.1  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................  6 
9  REVIEW OF THE APPLIC ATION O F THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION ON 
GEOGRAPHICAL INDICAT IONS UNDER ARTICLE 2 4.2 ................................ ......................  6 
10  FOURTEENTH ANNUAL RE VIEW UNDER PARAGRAPH  2 OF THE DECISION ON  
THE IMPLEMENTATION O F ARTICLE 66.2 OF TH E TRI PS AGREEMENT  ..............................  6 
11  TECHNICAL COOPERATIO N AND CAPACITY -BUILDING ................................ ...............  7 
12  INTELLECTUAL PROPERT Y AND INNOVATION: RE GINAL INNOVATION 
MODELS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........................  8 
13  THE UNITED NATIONS S ECRETARY -GENERAL'S HIGH -LEVEL PANEL REPORT 
ON ACCESS TO MEDICIN ES ................................ ................................ ..............................  8 
14  INFORMATION ON RELEV ANT D EVELOPMENTS ELSEWHER E IN THE WTO  ..................  9 
15  OBSERVER STATUS FOR INTERNATIONAL INTERG OVERNMENTAL 
ORGANIZATIONS  ................................ ................................ ................................ .............  9 
16  ANNUAL REPORT  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 10 
17  OTHER BUSINESS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 10 IP/C/M/ 83 
 
- 2 - 
 
  1  NOTIFICATIONS UNDER PROVISIONS OF THE AG REEMENT  
1.  The Chairman  invited the Secretariat to provide an update on the notifications that the Co uncil 
had received since its meeting  in June 2016.  
2.  The representative of the Secretariat  provided the update accordingly.  
3.  The Chairman  encourage d the delegation s that had  notified new or revised legislative 
measure s, or new or updated response s to the en forcement checklist to briefly inform the Council 
about the nature of the  notified amendment or update. This had been standard practice  at recent 
sessions of the Council . It provided valuable insight into the notifications and helped promote 
awareness and transparency.  
4.  The representatives of Canada , Ecuador , Mexico  and the Former Yugoslav Republic of  
Macedonia  took the floor.  
5.  The Chairman  recalled that, at the Council's meeting  in June 2016, the Secretariat had updated 
delegations on the development of the  e-TRIPS online platform for filing and consulting 
notifications. He invite d the Secretariat to update the Council on the project.  
6.  The representative of the Secretariat  provided the update accordingly.  
7.  The representative of the Republic of Moldova  took t he floor.  
8.  The Chairman  noted that notification s to the Council w ere not keeping up with the actual 
development of laws and re gulations relating  to the TRIPS Agreement. He recalled that Article 63.2 
was not a  one-off requirement, but oblig ed Members to noti fy any new or am ended law s. He 
therefore u rged those Members concerned to complete any outstanding initial notifications and to 
keep up to date with notif ications on subsequent amendments. He particularly encouraged 
Members to notify changes made to their laws or regulations to implement the Decision on TRIPS 
and Public Health. Apart from being a specific TRIPS obligation, th is would help the Council in its 
review of the operation of the Agreement.  
9.  The Council took note  of the notifications and the stateme nts made.  
2  REVIEWS OF NATIONAL IMPLEMENTING LEGISLA TION  
2.1  Follow -up to reviews already undertaken  
10.  The Chairman  said that, among the reviews that had already been initiated, the review of 
Saint Kitts and Nevis remained on the agenda. A s agreed at the Council' s meeting in June  2016, 
the Secretariat ha d explored with the delegation the support needed to complete the review. A 
national workshop had been held on 25 to 27 October 2016 at the request of the Government of 
Saint Kitts and Nevis to facilitate the prepa ration of responses to outstanding questions, as well as 
notifications to the TRIPS Council. At the workshop, Saint Kitts and Nevis had indicated their 
intention to submit the responses to outstanding questions by the end of 2016 and to conclude the 
review  at the Council's first meeting in 2017.  
11.  As a follow -up to the workshop, Saint Kitts and Nevis had n otified the following legislative 
measures to the Council for TRIPS: Patents Act of 2002; Marks, Collective Marks and Tradenames 
Act of 2002; Protection of  Layout -Designs (Topographies) of Integrated Circuits Act of 2009; and 
Copyright Act of 2002. It had also notified its contact point under Article 69. These notifications of 
laws and regulations were available in the IP/N/1 - series of documents.   
12.  The Counc il took note  of these notifications .  
2.2  Arrangements for the review of the national implementing  legislation of the 
Republic of Seychelles and Kazakhstan  
13.  The Chairman  recalled that both the Republic of Seychelles and Kazakhstan ha d notified their 
respective  legislative measures implementing the TRIPS Agreement to the Council for TRIPS. On IP/C/M/ 83 
 
- 3 - 
 
  this basis, the Council had agreed at its meeting in June 2016 that Members who intend to submit 
questions to the Republic of Seychelles or Kazakhstan should do so by 15 De cember 2016 with a 
copy to the Secretariat. It had also agreed that responses to questions posed should b e submitted 
by 31 January 2017.  
14.  The Council agreed  to revert to th is matter at its next meeting.  
2.3  Review of two other Members' implementing legislation  
15.  The Chairman  said that , since the circulation of the revised draft agenda, the United States 
and the European Union had informed the Secretariat of their intention to introduce recent 
legislation regarding the protection of trad e secrets under this agenda  item. The E uropean Union 
had recently notified the Directive on the Protection of Undisclosed Know -How and Business 
Information (Trade Secrets) Against Their Unlawful Acquisition, Use and Disclosure; and the United 
States was in the process of notifying i ts Defend Trade Secrets Act 2016. Both measures would be 
circulated shortly in the IP/N/1 -series of documents.  
16.  The representatives of the United States , the European Union , Chinese Taipei , Japan , Canada  
and New Zeal and took the floor.  
17.  The Council took not e of the statements made.  
3  REVIEW OF THE PROVIS IONS OF ARTICLE 27.3 (b) 
4  RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN  THE TRIPS AGREEMENT AND THE CONVENTION O N 
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY  
5  PROTECTION OF TRADIT IONAL KNOWLEDGE AND FOLKLORE  
18.  The Chairman  said that, at its meeting in June 2016,  the Council had exchanged views in both 
informal and formal modes. The discussions had covered substantive issues, such as the 
suggested inclusion of a mandatory disclosure requirement in TRIPS, as well as the patentability of 
life forms. Discussions had also covered two pending procedural proposals – whether the CBD 
Secretariat should be invited to debrief the Council on the Nagoya Protocol, and whether the WTO 
Secretariat should update the three factual notes that were prepared a nd last updated ten years  
ago. Since Members had remained divided both on the substantive and procedural issues, no 
progress could be made. The Council had asked the Chairman to con tinue consultations. Despite 
his consultations, he had  no new developments, no ideas for resolving t hese questions, or shifts in 
delegates' positions  to report . This appli ed both to the substantive and the procedural proposals.  
19.  Equally, the Council had not received any new  responses or updates to the Illustrative List of 
Questions on Article 27.3(b), and  no notifications or reports of domestic mechanisms to protect 
genetic resources and traditional knowledge. Despite the importance attached to the 
Article  27.3(b) review, which ha d been on the Council's agenda since 1998, the last response or 
update on the  questions had been submitted in 2003, and material ha d been received from fewer 
than one in six Members. He therefore remind ed Members that the Article 27.3(b) review was an 
integral part of the TRIPS Agreement. The information provided to the Council did not cover the 
important developments that many WTO Members ha d seen in this area over the last decade.  
20.  The procedural questions concerning the briefing  by the CBD  Secretariat and upda ting the 
Secretariat notes had  been debated on the formal record of the  Council for 12 and 17 successive 
meetings respectively without any resolution. The successive minutes of these meetings record ed 
in detail the positions put forward in these debates. These minutes sh owed no substantive signs of 
evolution towards an outcom e, suggesting that returning to these issues each time was an 
unproductive use of the Council 's time.  Therefore, as far as these two purely procedural matters 
were concerned, he urged delegations to consider how the Council  could resolve these issues, 
rather than consuming scarce Council time repeating well -known positions on procedural 
questions.  
21.  At the small group meeting held on 1st November, he had  suggested that the Council  put 
aside these procedural proposals for the time being,  and return to them whe n there we re IP/C/M/ 83 
 
- 4 - 
 
  indications of progress towards resolution. This suggestion d id not concern the substantive debate 
on the triplet issues, which must remain on the agenda for each session of the Council. He 
suggested t hat it was unproductive to have formal exc hanges on these two purely procedural 
questions if there were no changes in  positions. However, Members  had been reluctant to take this 
step at this stage. Equally, there had been  no support for a proposal by India, seconded by Nigeria 
on behalf of the Afr ican Group, Egypt, China and Ecuador, for the CBD Secretariat to debrief the 
Council in informal mode.  
22.  The Chairman  summarized for the record the main points of the discussion held in informal 
mode. The Council had  continued its discussion in informal mode  of the substantive issues that 
had been raised by delegations, including the patentability of life forms and the introduction of a 
mandatory disclosure requirement in the TRIPS Agreement . Delegations had also continued to 
examine two pending proposals of procedural nature, i.e., the possibility of inviting the CBD 
Secretariat to debrief the Council on the Nagoya Protocol and the update of the three factual notes 
that had been prepared and updated by the Secretariat ten years ago. While delegations had 
constructively engaged in the discussion, positions had evolved  neither as regards the substantive 
matters nor with respect to the procedural suggestions.  In particular, the proposal that the CBD 
Secretariat brief the Council in informal mode and the WTO Secre tariat update its factual notes 
had not found unanimous support.  
23.  The representatives of Ecuador , India, Egypt , the Plurinational State of Bolivia , Brazil , China , 
Canada , Colombia , Switzerland , Bangladesh , Peru, Indonesia , Norway , Australia , Japan , the 
Republic of Korea , Guatemala  and the United States  took the floor.  
24.  The Council took note of the Chair's summary and the  statements made and agree d to revert 
to the  matter at its next meeting.  
6  REVIEW UNDER PARAGRA PH 8 OF THE DECISION  ON THE IMPLEMENTATIO N OF 
PARAGRAPH 6 OF THE DOH A DECLARATION ON THE  TRIPS AGREEMENT AND PUBLIC 
HEALTH  
25.  The Chairman  said that Paragraph 8 of the Decision required the Council to review the 
functioning of the System annually, with a view to ensuring its effective operation. The Counci l 
was also required to report annually on its operation to the General Council. This review was 
deemed to fulfil the requirements of Article IX:4 of the WTO Agreement.  
26.  He suggested that the Council start with an exchange of views between Members about the 
functioning of the System. He encouraged Members to engage in a constructive discussion which 
could usefully build on the records of earlier reviews which continued to provide a unique and 
valuable resource for understanding this important measure. The rev iews in 2010 and 2011 had 
taken the form of a structured debate on the basis of lists of topics for the discussion that had 
been agreed in advance. The General Council's Aide Mémoire circulated on 20 February 2015 
(WT/GC/W/696) was also a useful resource; it set out the expected benefits of the Paragraph 6 
System and provided a model instrument of acceptance.  
27.  After that discussion, the Council could then consider the report to the General Council. A 
draft cover note modelled on previous years' reports had b een circulated as JOB/IP/18.  
28.  The Chairman  updated the Council on the status of acceptances of the Protocol Amending the 
TRIPS Amendment (WT/L/641). The current period for accepting the Protocol ran until 
31 December 2017. Fifteen instruments of acceptance had been deposited in 2016, including 
instruments from Papua New Guinea, Peru, and Belize since the Council's meeting in June 2016. 
All Members that had notified their acceptance were listed in the cover note of the draft report 
prepared by the WTO Secreta riat, as well as the dedicated WTO webpage that was regularly 
updated. Only five more instruments of acceptance were needed to trigger entry into force.  
29.  He strongly encouraged those Members who were yet to complete their acceptance 
procedures to do as soo n as possible. His call upon these Members echoed the multiple efforts 
Director -General Azevêdo and his predecessors had made since 2015 to secure the entry into force 
of the Protocol. The Director -General in his contacts regularly emphasized that this was  not only a 
priority for the WTO, but represented a concrete contribution that WTO Members could make to IP/C/M/ 83 
 
- 5 - 
 
  global efforts to strengthen the legal framework for access to medicines. Providing the necessary 
legal certainty for the export of much needed medicin es through the permanent incorporation of 
the Paragraph 6 System into the TRIPS Agreement would, in particular, also respond to many calls 
for its timely implementation and entry into force that emanated from the multilateral system, 
including most recentl y the Political Declaration on HIV and AIDS that had been adopted by the 
UN General Assembly in June 2016.  
30.  He invited the WTO Secretariat to update the Council on the Paragraph 6 System, including on 
capacity building and on the process of acceptance.  
31.  The representative of the Secretariat  took the floor.  
32.  The representatives of India, Brazil , Canada , Bangladesh , South Africa , the European Union , 
Australia , Japan , Chinese Taipei , Switzerland , the United States  and Panama  took the floor.  
33.  The Council took no te of the statements made.  
34.  Turning to the Council's report to the General Council, the Chairman  said that the Secretariat 
had prepared a draft cover note for the report which was modelled on previous years' reports and 
had been circulated as JOB/IP/18. It contained factual information on the implementation and use 
of the System, and the status of acceptances of the amendment Protocol. As for past reports, an 
extract from the Council's minutes on this agenda item might be attached to the cover note.  
35.  The Chairman proposed that the Council agree on the cover note to the report contained in 
JOB/IP/ 18 and also that the Council minutes containing the record of the discussion be attached to 
it. 
36.  The Council so agreed . 
7  NON-VIOLATION AND SITUAT ION COMPLAINTS  
37.  The Chairman said that, at MC10, Ministers had directed the 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 to make recommendation s to 
MC11 in 2017 . This instruction mirrored the original mandate in Article 64.3  of the TRIPS 
Agreement . The Council had discussed this matter in March and June 2016 based in part on a 
communication from the United States on "Non -Violation Complaints under the TRIP S Agreement" 
(IP/C/W/599); as well as a revised and updated version of "Non -Violation and Situation 
Nullification or Impairment Under the TRIPS Agreement" (IP/C/W/385/Rev.1) and a draft decision 
on non -violation and situation complaints for consideration a t the forthcoming Ministerial 
Conference (IP/C/W/607), both sponsored by several Members.  
38.  In June 2016, he had remarked that the Council's work had been effectively blocked since the 
first discussions in the late 1990s. Recent discussions had mostly served  to repeat well -known 
positions. The Council heard less on the question of scope and modalities, the specific aspect 
instructed by Ministers.  He had consulted with Members in line with the Council's request in 
June 2016. These consultations had produced no  new thinking or shifts in d elegations' positions, 
and so he  had no indication so far of how the Council  could work towards fulfilling the Ministers' 
instructions in the remaining 12 months, and to prepare recommendations for MC11. There ha d 
been no consen sus support for the idea, floated earlier, that he or the Secretariat put together a 
non-paper on possible elements of scope and modalities. At present, Members  remain ed divided as 
to whether non -violation and situation complaints should apply to the TRIPS  Agreement and 
whether there was a need to establish scope and modalities at all.  
39.  The Chairman remind ed delegations  that the initial deadline for accomplishing this task  had 
been 1999 and that concrete proposals how to prepare the requested recommendations  were yet 
to be tabled, after nearly 18 years of debate in the Council for TRIPS . If delegations wish ed to 
break the current cycle of extending the non -violation moratorium from one Ministerial Conference 
to the next, concrete suggestions  would be needed i n order to  allow the Council to intensify its 
work on the examination of scope and modalities for non -violation and situation complaints.  IP/C/M/ 83 
 
- 6 - 
 
  40.  He summarize d for the record the main points of the discussion that Members had made in 
informal mode, noting that Mem bers had a constructive exchange of views on whether a non -
paper should be prepared, but could not reach agreement.  
41.  The representatives of the United States , Ecuador , Colombia , Switzerland , Egypt , India, 
Bangladesh , China , Argentina , the Russian Federatio n, Brazil , Japan , Peru, South Africa , 
Chinese  Taipei , the Republic of Korea , Canada , the Plurinational State of Bolivia  and Pakistan  took 
the floor.  
42.  The Council took n ote of the Chair man's summary and the  statements made .  
8  REVIEW OF THE IMPLEM ENTATION OF THE TRIPS AGREEMENT UNDER ARTICLE 71.1  
43.  The Chairman  recalled that, at its meeting in June 2016, the Council had been required to 
undertake this review every two years, and had invited Members to look actively at how to 
progress this obligation. Given the w ide range of experiences gained in the implementation of 
TRIPS since 1995, there was clearly wealth of information that could be shared under this agenda 
item. The required review offered a unique opportunity to discuss the plentiful new developments 
in the field of intellectual property since the Agreement had entered into force over twenty years 
ago.  
44.  As required by Article 71.1, the Council had initiated the first review in 1999. This provision 
also required that a new review be initiated every two years . The Council had, however, not 
completed its initial review, and therefore had also not initiated any subsequent review.  
45.  At the informal meeting held on 1st November, he had encouraged delegations to consider 
how to take this re view forward. However, ther e were  no suggestions or proposals from Members 
so far. He therefore invited Members to make any comments, and possibly also to suggest any 
topics to be taken up under this item.  
46.  The Council agreed  to revert to the matter at its next meeting.  
9  REVIEW OF THE  APPLICATION OF THE P ROVISIONS OF THE SEC TION ON 
GEOGRAPHICAL INDICAT IONS UNDER ARTICLE 2 4.2 
47.  The Chairman  said that Article 24.2 required the Council to keep under review the application 
of the TRIPS GI provisions. The principal tool used for the review wa s the Checklist of Questions 
(document IP/C/13 and IP/C/13/ Add.1). So far, only 49 Members out of 164 had completed this 
checklist, and many past responses were likely to be out of date, since they dated back over a 
decade. The most recent set of responses  received dated back to 2010. He said that GI protection 
remained of continuing interest and remained a point of discussion, and was apparently an active 
area of legal and policy development in some countries. He therefore urged those Members that 
had not yet provided responses to the Checklist of Questions to consider doing so. He encouraged 
the other Members to consider the scope for updates to their past responses. In line with the 
Council's recommendation made in March 2010, he also invited Members to s hare information on 
bilateral agreements related to the protection of GIs they were party to.  
48.  The Council agreed  to revert to the matter at its next meeting.  
10  FOURTEENTH ANNUAL RE VIEW UNDER PARAGRAPH  2 OF THE DECISION ON  THE 
IMPLEMENTATION OF AR TICLE 66.2 O F THE TRIPS AGREEMEN T 
49.  The Chairman  said that, under a Council decision of February 2003, developed country 
Members were to submit annual reports on actions taken or planned in pursuance of their 
commitments under Article 66.2. They were to provide new deta iled reports every third year and 
updates in the intervening years. The fifth set of detailed annual reports under this procedure had 
been presented to the Council in October 2015. In June 2016, the Council had requested 
developed country Members to update  their annual reports in time for the present meeting, and 
the Secretar iat had circulated a reminder.  IP/C/M/ 83 
 
- 7 - 
 
  50.  The Council had received updates to the annual reports from Japan, Australia, Switzerland, 
Norway, Canada, the United States and New Zealand, cir culated i n document IP/C/W/616 and 
addenda. The report submitted by the European Union and individual member States, namely 
Austria, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden and the 
United Kingdom, had been made available as a room  document on  documents online and would  
also be circulated as an addendum to document IP/C/W/616.  
51.  Paragraph 2 of the Council's Decision on the Implementation of Article 66.2 of the TRIPS 
Agreement explained that the annual review meetings provide d Members with an opportunity to 
pose questions in relation to the information submitted and request additional information; discuss 
the effectiveness of the incentives provided in promoting and encouraging technology transfer to 
least developed country Members in o rder to enable them to create a sound and viable 
technological base; and consider any points relating to the operation of the reporting procedure 
established by the Decision.  
52.  Since s ome of the information had been received only very recently, and most of i t was 
availabl e only in its original language, the Chairman said that he  intended to give Members an 
opportunity to make further comments on this information at the  Council's  next meeting.  
53.  At the request by LDC Members, the Secretariat had organized a workshop on transfer of 
technology under Article 66.2 back -to-back with the Council's end -of-year meeting. The ninth in 
the series of annual workshops had been held on 7 November 2016, bringing together LDC and 
developed country experts to discuss this matter  at a very practical level, building on the earlier 
workshops. The Chairman  said that he  had personally taken part in and welcomed the constructive 
exchange of views that was useful to both LDC and developed country delegations. I n order to 
record the ques tions posed to reporting developed country Members o n the occasion of the 
previous w orkshop held on 19 October 2015, a compilation of these questions ha d been circulated 
to delegations.  
54.  The representatives of the European Union , Australia , the United State s, Switzerland , Japan , 
New Zealand , Benin on behalf of the LDC Group  and India took the floor.  
55.  The representative of the Secretariat  took the floor.  
56.  The Council took note of the statements made and agree d to revert to the matter at its next 
meeting .  
11  TECHNICAL COOPERATION A ND CAPACITY -BUILDING  
57.  The Chairman  recalled that , at its meeting in June  2016, the Council had agreed  to hold its 
annual review of technical cooperation at this meeting. In preparation for this annual review, 
developed country Members had been once more requested to update information on their 
technical and financial cooperation activities relevant to the implementation of the TRIPS 
Agreement in time for this meeting. Other Members who also ma de available technical cooperation 
had been encouraged to share information on these activities. The Secretariat  had issued on 
7 July 2016 an Airgram (WTO/AIR/ IP/9) reminding Members of this request. In addition, 
intergovernmental organizations observers to the Council as well as the WTO Secretariat had also 
been invited to provide information.  
58.  To date, the Council had  received information from the following developed country Members:  
Japan, Australia, Switzerland, Norway, Canada, the United States and New Zealand, circulated in 
document IP/C/W/ 617 and addenda. The report submitted by the European Union and individual 
member States, namely Austria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, 
Germany, Latvia, Portugal, Romania, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom , had been made 
available  as a room document on documents online and w ould also be circulated as an  addendum 
to document IP/C/W/617 . The Council had  also received information on relevant technical 
cooperation activities from Mexico, circulated in document IP/C/W/615.  
59.  Updated infor mation had been submitted by  the following intergovernmental organizations:  
the FAO, UNCTAD,  the OECD, the GCC, WHO, ARIPO, WCO and WIPO , circulated in document 
IP/C/W/ 614 a nd addenda.  In addition, a report from UPOV had been received shortly before the IP/C/M/ 83 
 
- 8 - 
 
  meeting and would also be made available as an addendum to document IP/C/W/614. Updated 
information on the WTO Secretariat's own technical cooperation activities in the TRIPS area was 
available i n document IP/C/W/ 618. 
60.  The Chairman said that th ese reports pro vided very valuable information both as regards 
details of specific activities, but also the broader policy considerations that were guiding capacity 
building activities of individual Members and Observers.  Much of this resource remain ed largely 
untapped w hich m ight be due to the amount of information provided and the way in which this 
was done. In order to promote awareness and t ransparency, the Secretariat had  repeatedly 
suggested that the information about specific activities be reported in table format.  It had  provided 
regular updates with respect to its work aimed at identifying ways of facilitating the submission, 
processing and circulation of information on technical assistance.  
61.  The representatives of Australia , Mexico , the United States  and Colombia  took the floor.  
62.  The representative of the Secretariat  took the floor.  
63.  The representatives of ARIPO , the GCC, WHO and UNCTAD  took the floor.  
64.  Since some of the information had been received only very recently, and most of it was 
availabl e only in its orig inal language, the Chairman  said that he would provide Members an 
opportunity at the next meeting to make furt her comments on the information . 
65.  The Council took note of the statements made and agree d to revert to the matter at its next 
meeting.  
12  INTELLECTUAL  PROPERTY AND INNOVAT ION: REGI ONAL INNOVATION MODEL S 
66.  The Chairman  said that Australia, the European Union, Japan, Switzerland, Chinese Taipei and 
the United States  had requested that this item be added to the agenda .  
67.  The representatives of the European Un ion, Australia , Switzerland , Japan , the United States , 
Chinese Taipei , Canada , the Republic of Korea , Mexico , El Salvador , Dominic an Republic , South 
Africa , Uruguay , India, Thailand on behalf of ASEAN , Peru, the Russian Federation , Brazil , Egypt , 
Chile, Guatemala , Colombia  and ARIPO  took the floor.  
68.  The representative of ARIPO  took the floor.  
69.  The Council took note  of the statements made.  
13  THE UNITED NATIONS S ECRETARY -GENERAL'S HIGH -LEVEL PANEL REPORT O N 
ACCESS TO MEDICINES  
70.  The Chairman  said that Brazil, Chin a, India and South Africa ha d requested  that this item be 
added to the agenda. They ha d submitted a commu nication that briefly introduced the item, 
circulated in document IP/C/W/619.  
71.  The representatives of India, Brazil , South Africa , China , Ecuador , Egypt , Indonesia , 
Bangladesh , the Russia n Federation , the United States , Canada , the European Union , Chile, 
Australia , Switzerland , Japan , the Republic of Korea , the Plurinational State of Bolivia  and Norway 
took the floor.  
72.  The representatives of the Holy See, WHO, UNCTA D, and UNAIDS  took the floor.  
73.  The representative of the Secretariat  took the floor.  
74.  The Council took note  of the statements made  and agreed  to take the  matter up as an ad hoc 
agenda item at its next meeting . IP/C/M/ 83 
 
- 9 - 
 
  14  INFORMATION ON RELEV ANT DEVELOPMENT S ELSEWHERE IN THE W TO 
14.1  Accessions  
75.  The Chairman  inform ed the Council of two recent accessions to the WTO. Liberia had 
deposited its Instrument of Acceptance on 14 June 2016 and had become the 163rd Member of the 
WTO on 14 July  2016. Afghanistan had deposite d its Instrument of Acceptance on 29 June 2016 
and acceded to the WTO on 29 July  2016. 
76.  According to the respective Working Party Report s, Liberia had  committed to apply fully the 
TRIPS Agreement from the date of its accession to the WTO without recourse to  any transitional 
period  (WT/ACC/LBR/23, para. 308 ). Afghanistan ha d committed to apply fully the TRIPS 
Agreement no later than 1  January  2019 and to make available TRIPS legislation in draft and 
promulgated form to this Council for circulation to interest ed Members  (WT/ACC/AFG/36, 
paras.  253 and 255 ). 
14.2  Intellectual Property Rights in Trade Policy Reviews  
77.  The Chairman  recalled that the WTO Secretariat had provided the Council with an initial 
overview of the wide range  of IPR -related issues that had been  intensively considered by Members 
in the context of trade policy reviews and which constitute d an important information resource 
regarding matters of direct relevance for the TRIPS Agreement and for the  Council.   
78.  The representative of the Secretariat  provide d the Council with a more detailed overview of 
issues raised with respect to the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights in 
individual WTO  Members' trade policy reviews.  
79.  The Council took note  of the statements made.  
15  OBSERVER STATUS FOR INTERNATIONAL INTERGOVE RNMENTAL ORGANIZATIO NS 
80.  The Chairman  recall ed that  there remain ed 13 pending requests for observer status in the 
TRIPS Council by other intergovernmental o rganizations. The updated list wa s contained in 
document IP/C/W/52/Rev.13. At the Council's meetings  in March and June  2016, and in line with 
positions taken at earlier meetings, a number of interested delegations had reiterated their 
support for granting permanent observer status to the South Centre, the CBD Secretariat and the 
Interna tional Vaccine Institute. Other delegations had signalled that they could agree to grant 
permanent observer status to the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization  (ARIPO) , the 
African Intellectual Property Organization  (OAPI) , the Cooperation Co uncil of the Arab States of the 
Gulf (GCC) , and the European Free Trade Association (EFTA) . These four organisations currently 
enjoy ed an ad hoc  observer status on a meeting -to-meeting basis. He noted that ARIPO and the 
GCC were represented by high level o fficials at t he meeting.  
81.  While there had been positive signals at the meeting in June 2016 indicating that the issues 
could be resolved through consultations among delegations, it had finally been not possible to 
make progress on the se pending requests.  Members had undertaken to  further consult with their 
respective capitals. The Council had agreed to  revert to this matter at t his meeting under the 
agenda item on "Observer Status"  and had asked the Chairman to continue his consultations on 
the pending reque sts for observer status with a view to reaching an agreement at this meeting.  
82.  The Chairman  said that he  had therefore  taken up the matter at the informal meeting  on 
1 November . He had invited  Members once more to refrain from linking requests for observer 
status . These should be assessed on their own merits, in particular the competence and interes t 
that the requesting entity had  in matters dealt with by the TRIPS Council . However, no progress 
had been signalled at th at meeting.   
83.  To facilitate the considera tion of the pending requests, he inform ed Members t hat, since the 
Council's  meeting in June  2016, the Secretariat ha d made available on the Members' website the 
information provided by all 13 international intergovernmental organizations that ha d requested  
observer status. The information covered  the nature of their respective work and the reasons for 
their interest in observer status. This should help  Members  better understand each request . IP/C/M/ 83 
 
- 10 - 
 
  84.  In line with the approach taken at the Council's meeting  in June 2 016, he  said that he would  
like to facilitate another round of frank exchange of views among Members  and suggest ed that the 
Council contin ue its session in informal mode . This  should allow Members to take a fresh look at 
many pending requests and to make p rogress.  
85.  The Chairman  summarized the informal discussion  and noted  that there had been  objection to 
each of the  pending  requests among Members. Therefore, it had not been possible to make 
progress on any of them, but Member had undertake n to further consul t with their respective 
capitals.  He suggested that the Council agree to request him to continue his consultations on the 
pending requests for observer status.  
86.  The representatives of  Nigeria  on behalf of the African Group , Brazil , the United States , India, 
Ecuador , Egypt, the Plurinational State of Bolivia , China , the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela , 
Indonesia , Bangladesh , Cuba and Pakistan  took the floor.  
87.  The Council took note  of the Chairman's summary and of the statements made and agreed  to 
revert to the matter at its next meeting.  
88.  The Chairman  said that sin ce it had not been possible to reach an agreement to grant 
permanent observer status  to ARIPO, OAPI, GCC and EFTA, he  suggest ed that the Council  invite 
these four organizations to attend its next me eting again  on an ad hoc  basis. This was in line with 
the agreement reached at the Council's meetings in June 2010 and November 2012 to grant them 
ad hoc  observer status on a meeting -by-meeting basis.  
89.  The Council so agreed. 
16  ANNUAL REPORT  
90.  The Chairman  said that t he draft Annual Report of the Council ha d been circulated in 
document JOB/IP/ 17. He suggested that the Secretariat be requested to update the draft to reflect 
the discussions at the present meeting , including the items that certain Members  had reque sted to 
be added to the agenda only recently . He suggested that t his draft be faxed to Members, who 
would have one week to comment on the up dated parts of the draft report  after circulation by the 
Secretariat . 
91.  The Council so agreed . 
17  OTHER BUSINESS  
17.1  Dates fo r the Council's meetings in 2017  
92.  The Chairman  informed the Council that the Secretariat had  tentatively scheduled the 
Council 's meetings  in 2017  for the following dates : Tuesday a nd Wednesday, 28 February and 
1 March;  Tuesday and Wednesday, 13 and 14 June;  and Tuesday and Wednesday, 31 October and 
1 November.  
93.  The representative of the United States  took the floor.  
94.  The Council took note  of the statement made  and agreed  to the dates for the first and second 
meeting and to confirm the date for its third meeti ng at its meeting in February 2017 .  
17.2  Work Programme on Electronic Commerce  
95.  The Chairman  said that Canada ha d asked the Secretariat for the possibility to make a 
statement regarding the Work Programme on Electronic Commerce  under Other Business . By way 
of background information, it ha d also submitted an addendum to its earlier communication on this 
topic, circulated in document IP/C/W/613/Add.1.  
96.  The representative of Canada , China , Chile, Australia , Japan , the Republic of Korea , Brazil , 
Chine se Taipei  and Mexico took the floor.  
97.  The Council  took note  of the statement s made.  
__________