RESTRICTED  
  
IP/C/M/82  
 
23 June 2016  
(16-3414)  Page: 1/14  
Council for Trade-Related Aspects of 
Intellectual Property rights   
 
MINUTES OF MEETING 
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD ON 7-8 JUNE 2016 
Chairperson: Ambassador Mero (United Republic of Tanzania)  
The present document contains the record of the Council for TRIPS meetings held on 
7-8 June 2016. The statements made during the meeting will be circulated in an addendum to the 
present document.  
_______________ 
 
 Subjects discussed  
1   NOTIFICATIONS UNDER PROV ISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT ........................................ 3
 
2   REVIEWS OF NATIONAL IM PLEMENTING LEGISLATION .............................................. 4  
2.1   Follow-up to review already undertaken .............................  .......................................... 4  
2.2   Arrangements for the review of the national implementing legislation of the 
Republic of Seychelles and Kazakhstan .....................................  .......................................... 4  
3   REVIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 27.3(B) ..................................................... 5  
4   RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TRIPS AGREEMENT AND THE CONVENTION ON 
BIOLOGICAL DI VERSITY .................................................................................................. 5  
5   PROTECTION OF TRADITIONA L KNOWLEDGE AND FOLKLORE ..................................... 5  
6   NON-VIOLATION AND SITUATION COMPLAINTS ......................................................... 6  
7   REVIEW OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TRIPS AGREEMENT UNDER 
ARTICLE 71.1 .................................................................................................................. . 8 
8   REVIEW OF THE APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION ON 
GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATION S UNDER ARTI CLE 24.2 ...................................................... 8  
9   TECHNICAL COOPERATION AND CAPACITY-B UILDING ............................................... 9  
10   IP AND INNOVATION: SUSTAINABLE RESOURCE AND LOW EMISSION 
TECHNOLOGY ST RATEGIES .............................................................................................. 9  
11   WORK PROGRAMME ON ELECTRONIC CO MMERCE ................................................... 10  
12   INFORMATION ON RELEVANT DEVE LOPMENTS ELSEWHERE IN THE WTO ............... 11  
12.1   Protocol Amending  the TRIPS Agreement ................................................................... 11 
12.2   Issues related to Intellectual Pr operty Rights in Tr ade Policy Reviews ............................. 12 
13   OBSERVER STATUS FOR INTERNATIONAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL 
ORGANIZATI ONS ........................................................................................................... 12  IP/C/M/82 
 
- 2 - 
 
  14   OTHER BU SINESS .................................................................................................... 13  
14.1   Invitations to  ad hoc ob servers ................................................................................. 13 
14.2   Contribution of Intellectual Property to  Facilitate the Transfer of Environmentally 
Rational Te chnology ......................................................................................................... 13 
14.3   14th Annual Review under Paragraph 2 of the Decision on the "Implementation of 
Article 66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement" ................................................................................. 14 
 IP/C/M/82 
 
- 3 - 
 
  1  NOTIFICATIONS UNDER PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT 
1.1.  The Chairman said that, since its meeting in March 2016, the Council had received a number 
of updates to earlier notifications of laws an d regulations notified under Article 63.2 of the 
Agreement: 
 The European Union had notified a recast of its Trademark Directive, as well as 
amendments to its Trademark Regulation; 
 Shortly after the Council's last meeting on 1 March, Fiji had notified its Patents Act and 
the Trademarks Act, as well the Copyright Tribunal Rules of Procedure and the Copyright 
Prescribed Countries Regulation. This complemented the series of legislative measures that had been notified prior to the Council's last meeting and that had been introduced by the then Chairman at that meeting; 
 Mexico had notified a series of legislative measures in the field of geographical 
indications and copyright and related rights. These included amendments to the General 
Declaration on Protection of the Appellation of Origin "Mezcal", amendments to the 
Federal Law on Copyright and amendments to certain provisions on telecommunications 
and broadcasting; and 
 Japan had notified its Patent Act, Design Act and Trademark Act, as well as related 
enforcement ordinances in each of these areas. 
1.2.  In addition, the Council had also received a comprehensive set of notifications from 
two newly acceded Members: 
 The Republic of Seychelles had notified it s Copyright Act 2014, the Industrial Property 
Act and Regulations 2014, the Customs Management Act 2011 and related Regulations, 
as well as the Penal Code 1955 and its 2012 Amendment Act;  
 Kazakhstan had notified three main laws on copyright and related rights, on trademarks, 
service marks and appellations of origin of goods, and on patents, as well as a 
comprehensive set of other legislative measures.  
1.3.  The Chair suggested that these notifications be ta ken up as part of the review of the national 
implementing legislation of the Seychelles and Kazakhstan respectively. 
1.4.  Finally, since the circulation of the revised draf t agenda on 26 May, the delegation of Canada 
had notified legislative measures that amend th e Copyright Act and the Plants Breeders' Rights 
Act, as well as an Order Amending Schedule 1 to the Patent Act 2014. 
1.5.  These notifications of laws and regulations were available in the IP/N/1- series of documents, 
and the actual texts of laws in sub-series of documents in electronic form on the Documents Online database. 
1.6.  The Chairman noted that the Republic of Seychelles had also notified its initial responses to 
the Checklist of Issues on Enforcement. No other initial responses or updates to earlier responses had been submitted since the Council's last meeting. He encouraged delegations that were yet to 
do so to submit their initial responses to the Checklist. He also invited other delegations that had 
submitted responses in the past, some of them dating back almost two decades to 1997, to consider updating the information provided, as appropriate, bearing in mind that the Checklist had been established by the Council as an elem ent of Members' notification obligations. 
1.7.  As regards notifications of contact points under Article 69 for the exchange of information and 
cooperation on trade in infringing goods, since the Council's meeting in March, the Seychelles had notified a contact point under Article 69 for the first time. The information on the Members' 
transparency toolkit page had been updated accordingly. 
1.8.  The Chair particularly encouraged any delegation that had notified a new or revised 
legislative measure, or a new or updated response to the Enforcement Checklist to briefly inform IP/C/M/82 
 
- 4 - 
 
  the Council about the key points of the notified amendment or information provided. This had 
almost become a well-established tradition, as many delegations had followed this practice at recent sessions of the Council. It had provided valuable insight into the notifications provided and had assisted in promoting awareness and transparency. 
1.9.  The representatives of Japan, the European Union, Canada and Mexico introduced their 
respective measures. Benin, Brazil, India, South Africa, China and Indonesia also took the floor. 
1.10.  The Chairman urged those Members whose initial notifications of laws and regulations 
remained incomplete to submit the outstanding material without delay. Equally, he urged other 
Members to fulfil their obligation under the TRIPS Agreement to notify any subsequent amendments of their laws and regulations without delay after their entry into force. 
1.11.  He especially encouraged Members to notify changes made to their laws and/or regulations 
to implement the Decision on TRIPS and public health. At least 52 WTO Members, including many 
of the world's major exporters of medicines, ha d adopted implementing legislation that allows 
them to use the Paragraph 6 System as exporters and/or importers. That said, only 19 Members, 
including the European Union, had formally notified such measures to the TRIPS Council. 
Completing the notification of all relevant laws and regulations could assist Members in preparing for the potential use of the System. It would also help the Secretariat in its efforts to provide 
informed technical support to Members in this area. 
1.12.  The representative of the Secretariat provided the Council with a further update on its work 
to improve the user-friendliness and cost-effectiveness of the notification system. 
1.13.  The representative of Chinese Taipei took the floor. 
1.14.  The Council took note of the statements made. 
2  REVIEWS OF NATIONAL IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION 
2.1   Follow-up to review already undertaken 
2.1.  The Chairman said that, as regards the reviews of national implementing legislation that had 
been initiated at the Council's meetings since April 2001, the review of Saint Kitts and Nevis 
remained on the Council's agenda. As reported at the Council's meeting in March, the delegation of 
Saint Kitts and Nevis had been urged to provide the outstanding material as soon as possible, so 
as to allow the Council to also complete the follow-up to this review. 
2.2.  Given that there had been no developments since then, he suggested that the Secretariat be 
requested once more to contact the delegation of Saint Kitts and Nevis with a view to exploring the 
support that might be needed in order to complete the review process.  
2.3.  The Council so agreed. 
2.2  Arrangements for the review of the nati onal implementing legislation of the 
Republic of Seychelles and Kazakhstan  
2.4.  The Chairman recalled that the Republic of Se ychelles had become a new Member of the WTO 
on 26 April 2015. It had agreed to apply the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement as of that date, 
without recourse to any transitional periods. Kazakhstan had also become a new Member of the 
WTO on 30 November 2015. It had agreed to apply the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement as of the date of its accession to the WTO, including pr ovisions regarding enforcement, without recourse 
to any transitional periods. 
2.5.  In both cases, the Council had agreed to re vert to the arrangements for the review of 
national implementing legislation once it had received the initial notification of legislative measures taken to implement the TRIPS Agreement by th e Republic of Seychelles and Kazakhstan 
respectively. IP/C/M/82 
 
- 5 - 
 
  2.6.  As he had already mentioned under item 1, the Chairman noted that both the Seychelles and 
Kazakhstan had made their initial notifications of their TRIPS implementing laws and regulations. A complete list of the measures notified was includ ed on the agenda of the present meeting. They 
had also been made available to Members in the document series IP/N/1. 
2.7.  In scheduling the reviews of the implementing legislation of the Seychelles and Kazakhstan, 
enough time should be reserved for other Members to prepare questions for these two newly acceded Members. It was also necessary to ensure that the Republic of Seychelles and Kazakhstan 
had sufficient time to prepare their responses. Accordingly, the Chairman suggested that both 
reviews be scheduled for the Council's first meeting in 2017. 
2.8.  In accordance with the standard procedures for such reviews, he proposed that the Council 
set the following target dates for the submission of questions and answers in these reviews: 
 questions should normally be submitted to the Republic of Seychelles and Kazakhstan, 
with a copy to the Secretariat, ten weeks be fore the meeting in which the reviews would 
take place; assuming that the Council's first meeting next year would be scheduled in 
late February, he suggested a target date of 15 December 2016;  
 responses to questions posed within that deadline should normally be submitted four 
weeks before the meeting; accordingly, he suggested a target date of 31 January 2017. 
2.9.  The Council so agreed.  
3  REVIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 27.3(B) 
4  RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TRIPS AGREEMENT AND THE CONVENTION ON 
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY 
5  PROTECTION OF TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND FOLKLORE  
5.1.  The Chairman noted that the Council had continued its substantive exchange of views under 
these agenda items at its last meeting, including the suggested inclusion of a mandatory disclosure 
requirement in TRIPS, as well as the patentability of life forms. Members' views had remained, 
however, divided so that no progress could be made. 
5.2.  Nor had it been possible at that meeting to make any progress with respect to two procedural 
questions that related to these items and that had been discussed for some years in the TRIPS 
Council. These included the suggestion, first made at the Council's meeting in November 2012, that the Secretariat update the three factual no tes on the Council's previous discussions on the 
TRIPS and CBD and related items, initially prepared in 2002 and updated in 2006. It also 
concerned the request that the CBD Secretariat be invited to brief the Council on the 
Nagoya Protocol to the CBD that had first been proposed at the Council's meeting in October 2010. At the Council's meeting in March, the then Chai rman therefore had again encouraged delegations 
to continue direct talks among themselves to find a way forward regarding these two pending 
suggestions.  
5.3.  The Chairman noted that since the Council's last meeting, and including at the meeting with a 
small group of delegations that he had convened on 2 June, no new developments with respect to 
the above suggestions had been reported to him. Nor had any responses or updates to initial responses to the Illustrative List of Questions on Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPS Agreement been 
provided by Members, or relevant mechanisms to protect genetic resources and traditional 
knowledge been reported or notified. In spite of  the importance attached to the Article 27.3(b) 
review, which had been on the agenda of the TRIPS Council since 1998, the last response or update on the questions had been submitted in 2003, or about 13 years ago, and material had 
been received from fewer than one in six Members.  
5.4.  He therefore again reminded delegations of the mandatory nature of the review under 
Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPS Agreement, as well as  the need to respond or update responses to the 
Illustrative List of Questions on Article 27.3(b) . While the development of a more user-friendly 
interface for TRIPS documentation, described by the Secretariat under item 1, would facilitate IP/C/M/82 
 
- 6 - 
 
  future contributions, the fact that only a limi ted number of Members had provided responses to 
this list to date did not adequately cover the important developments that many WTO Members had seen in this area over the last decade.  
5.5.  He also pointed to the fact that the two procedural suggestions had been debated on the 
formal record of the Council for 11 and 16 successive meetings respectively without any 
resolution. Therefore, at the informal meeting that  had been held the previous week, he had again 
encouraged delegations to engage in bilateral talks in order to explore ways that would allow us to 
close off the matter one way or the other.  
5.6.  Some delegations present at the informal meeting had reiterated the critical importance that 
the triplets represent for developing countries. Among other things, it had been suggested that the proposed amendment to the TRIPS Agreement in TN /C/W/59 be taken as the basis for discussions 
in the TRIPS Council. An interest had also been expressed for the DG to resume his consultations. 
Another delegation had considered that WIPO was the most appropriate forum to discuss these issues.  
5.7.  Following a suggestion by the Chairman, the Council continued its session in informal mode. 
When the Council resumed its formal session, he provided a brief summary of the discussions held in informal mode. He reported that the Council had continued its discussion on the substantive 
issues, including the patentability of life forms and the introduction of a mandatory disclosure 
requirement in TRIPS. Delegations had also continued to examine the 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 fact ual notes that had been prepared and updated by 
the Secretariat ten years ago. While delegation s had constructively engaged in the discussion, 
positions had, however, not evolved, neither as regards the substantive matters nor with respect to the procedural suggestions. A number of Me mbers had reiterated the suggestion that the 
proposed amendment to the TRIPS Agreement circul ated in document TN/C/W/59 be considered in 
this Council. Some Members had also called for a workshop to be organized to initiate a fruitful discussion in the WTO. None of these suggestions had found unanimous support by delegations. 
5.8.   The representatives of Brazil, the Plurinational State of Bolivia, India, Peru, Bangladesh, 
Indonesia, Ecuador, Egypt, Cuba, China, Colombia, Canada, Japan, the Republic of Korea, the 
United States and Switzerland took the floor. 
5.9.  The Chairman welcomed the fact that delegations were thinking about how to make best use 
of the TRIPS Council, in particular how to carry forward some of the issues. He noted that there 
had been the suggestion from the floor for him to continue his consultations with delegations. He therefore suggested that the Council so agree. 
5.10.  The Council took note of the Chairman's summary  of the discussion held in informal mode 
and the statements made and so agreed. 
6  NON-VIOLATION AND SITUATION COMPLAINTS  
6.1.  The Chairman recalled that Ministers at MC10 had renewed their instruction to the TRIPS 
Council "to continue its examination of the scope and modalities" for non-violation and situation 
complaints and to make recommendations to MC11. This was also in line with the original mandate in Article 64.3 of the TRIPS Agreement. As on past occasions and for the seventh time in a row, 
Ministers had also agreed to prolong the moratorium on such complaints under the TRIPS 
Agreement.  
6.2.  He assumed that delegations would agree with him that since the Council had begun 
discussing the application of such complaints to the TRIPS Agreement in the late 1990s the 
situation had been effectively blocked. Recent discussions had essentially served to repeat positions that argued either for or against the application of non-violation and situation complaints 
to the TRIPS Agreement, while not addressing the question of scope and modalities for which 
Ministers had repeatedly requested the Council to prepare recommendations and which was in line with the requirements of the TRIPS Agreement itself in Article 64.3. IP/C/M/82 
 
- 7 - 
 
  6.3.  A number of delegations had, however, more recently signalled their readiness to engage in 
constructive discussions. There also seemed to be  an emerging view shared by many delegations 
that the application of non-violation and situation complaints should not and did not undermine existing TRIPS flexibilities. 
6.4.  Following up on the request that had been made to him by the Council in March, he had 
consulted with key delegations on this matter, including at an informal meeting that had been held the previous week at which he had explored an idea for a possible way forward as a first step 
towards a more focused discussion.  
6.5.  Solely in pursuance of the Ministerial instruction and the mandate in Article 64.3 of the TRIPS 
Agreement, he had suggested that some elements  describing possible scope and modalities be put 
together that could in principle frame the application of non-violation and situation complaints in 
the area of TRIPS, but expressly without prejud ice to the position of any Member. Such an 
exercise could be informed by past discussions in the TRIPS Council. It could also draw on other WTO agreements and related jurisprudence, as well as on existing bilateral and regional trade 
agreements. These elements could be informally  shared with delegations in the form of a 
non-paper in order to inform Members' discu ssion at the Council's meeting in November. 
6.6.  At the informal meeting that had been held on 2 June, delegations had engaged in a useful 
exchange of views on his suggestion, and, more broadly, on how the Council could best ensure a 
meaningful debate that would ultimately fulfil the Ministers' instructions to examine the matter in the coming 18 months, and prepare recommendations to the next Ministerial Conference. 
6.7.  On the positive side, most, if not all, delegations had confirmed their willingness to engage in 
constructive discussions. Positions had remained, however, divided as to whether non-violation 
and situation complaints should apply to TRIPS and whether there was a need to establish scope and modalities at all. One delegation had objected to the idea that elements for scope and 
modalities be put together by him or by the Secret ariat, considering that such proposals should be 
made by Members, as this was a Member-driven process. Another delegation had proposed an update of the Secretariat summary note of the points raised in substantive discussions so far that 
had last been updated in 2012 (IP/C/W/349/Rev.2). 
6.8.  He recalled once more that the initial deadlin e for accomplishing this task was 1999 and that 
there were still no concrete proposals on the table as to how the Council might prepare the recommendations. Just keeping the item on the agenda had not yielded any solution over the past 
17 years. This should be of particular concern to delegations. He therefore encouraged delegations 
to come forward with concrete suggestions or ideas on how the Council could best engage in intensified work on the examination of the scope and modalities for non-violation complaints with a 
view to finding a way out of the current cycle of extending the non-violation moratorium from one 
Ministerial Conference to the next. 
6.9.  As suggested by the Chairman, the Council continued its session in informal mode. When the 
Council resumed its formal session, he provided a brief summary of the main points raised during 
the discussion in informal mode. He reported th at delegations had engaged in an informative 
exchange of views about the application of non-violation and situation complaints to the TRIPS Agreement, as well as the scope and modalities related to such complaints. While delegations were 
recognizing the mandate given to the TRIPS Council by  Ministers, i.e. that it had been instructed 
once again to continue the examination of scope and modalities that should apply to non-violation and situation complaints and to make recommendations to the next Ministerial Conference, there 
had been no progress regarding the question whether such complaints should apply to TRIPS, 
whether there was even a need to establish scope  and modalities and the elements that would 
form part of scope and modalities. 
6.10.  An important point of divergence related to the question whose task it should be to propose 
possible elements for scope and modalities. One vi ew that had been expressed in the informal 
discussion was that these would not be needed for non-violation and situation complaints to apply, as the WTO agreements and jurisprudence provided sufficient guidance. According to another 
view, the discussion on scope and modalities was obsolete if such complaints were declared 
inapplicable to TRIPS. IP/C/M/82 
 
- 8 - 
 
  6.11.  His initial proposal to put together elements for scope and modalities in the form of a 
non-paper that could serve as the basis for future discussions among Members had aimed at overcoming this blockage. However, it had not been supported by all Members in the informal 
discussion, as some delegations had considered that the process should remain entirely 
Member-driven. 
6.12.  The representatives of the United States, Peru, Japan, the Plurinational State of Bolivia, 
Switzerland, Brazil, China, India, Canada, Ecua dor, Indonesia, South Africa, Bangladesh, Cuba, 
Argentina, Russian Federation, Chinese Taipei, the Republic of Korea, Egypt, Colombia, Nigeria, on 
behalf of the African Group, the Euro pean Union and India took the floor. 
6.13.  The Chairman suggested that the Council request him to continue his consultations with 
delegations prior to the next meeting. 
6.14.  The Council took note of the Chairman's summary  of the discussion held in informal mode 
and the statements made and so agreed. 
7  REVIEW OF THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TRIPS AGREEMENT UNDER ARTICLE 71.1 
7.1.  The Chairman recalled that Article 71.1 of the TRIPS Agreement required the Council 
periodically to review the Agreement, having regard to the experience gained in its 
implementation.  
7.2.  Despite the wealth of information that could be shared under this agenda item and the 
unique opportunity to discuss, in particular, ne w developments of which there had been plenty 
since the entry into force of the TRIPS Agreemen t, the Council had not discharged this obligation. 
This could not be because of limited experience with TRIPS implementation, nor because there had 
been limited new developments over the past 14 years since the initial Article 71.1 review was 
due. Since it was incumbent on the Council to undertake this review every two years, it seemed appropriate to look actively at how to progress this obligation. The preferred option would be for 
delegations to consult upon, to develop and to propose possible avenues for this review, although 
alternative approaches would also be possible.  
7.3.  At the informal meeting that he had conven ed the previous week, he had encouraged 
delegations to consider how to take forward this mandated review. He had also suggested that this 
could be most usefully dealt with in informal conversation that he might have with delegations in order to develop concrete ideas that could be presented to the Council at its meeting in November. Delegations had, however, not reacted to this pr oposal at the informal meeting held during the 
previous week.  
7.4.  The Council agreed to revert to the matter at its next meeting. 
8  REVIEW OF THE APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION ON 
GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 24.2 
8.1.  The Chairman recalled that Article 24.2 provided that the Council shall keep under review the 
application of the provisions of the GI Section of the Agreement. The principal tool used to 
coordinate the review process was a Checklist of Questions contained in document IP/C/13 and 
Add.1. However, only 49 Members out of 162 had undertaken this valuable exercise to date. The latest set of responses had been submitted in 2010. A number of past responses were likely to be out of date since they dated back over a decade at a time of considerable development in this 
area. The development of a more user-friendly interface for TRIPS documentation, described 
earlier by the Secretariat under agenda item 1, would facilitate future contributions under this process as well. In addition, at its meeting in March 2010, the Council had agreed to encourage 
Members to share information on and notify to the Council bilateral agreements related to the 
protection of geographical indications, which they had entered into.  
8.2.  As the question of GI protection remained of continuing interest, he invited those delegations 
that had not yet provided responses to the Checkl ist of Questions to consider doing so and those 
who had already done so to consider updating the information as appropriate. In line with the Council's recommendation made in March 2010, he  encouraged the Members that were party to IP/C/M/82 
 
- 9 - 
 
  bilateral agreements related to the protection of GIs and had not yet shared such information with 
the Council to do so. 
8.3.  The Council agreed to revert to the matter at its next meeting. 
9  TECHNICAL COOPERATION AND CAPACITY-BUILDING  
9.1.  The Chairman recalled that the Council had traditionally undertaken its annual review of 
technical cooperation at its end of year meeting. Therefore, he suggested that the Council hold its 
annual review at its meeting scheduled for 8-9 November.  
9.2.  He suggested that the Council once more invite developed country Members to supply 
information on their activities pursuant to Arti cle 67 of the TRIPS Agreement. Other Members who 
also make available technical cooperation were encouraged to share information on these activities if they so wished. He also suggested that once  more the Council invite those intergovernmental 
organizations that had observer status in the Council to provide information on their activities of 
relevance and that the WTO Secretariat might also be instructed to report on its activities. He proposed that the Council request that this information be made available by 14 October 2016 in 
order to allow its timely circulation before the meeting. 
9.3.  Given the extensive documentation that had been provided on this topic, and the benefits of 
a streamlined approach to its management, reporting Members were encouraged to review the 
possible approaches that had in the past been su ggested in the Council. The Secretariat was able 
to provide informal support and background in this regard on request to interested delegations. 
9.4.  The Council so agreed. 
10  IP AND INNOVATION: SUSTAINABLE RESOURCE AND LOW EMISSION TECHNOLOGY 
STRATEGIES 
10.1.  The Chairman noted that this item had initia lly been put on the agenda at the written 
request by the delegations of the European Union,  Japan, Switzerland and the United States; since 
the circulation of the initial proposed agenda, it  had been co-sponsored by the delegations of 
Canada, Singapore and Chinese Taipei. 
10.2.  The representatives of Japan, the European Union, the United States, Chinese Taipei, 
Canada, Switzerland, India, Australia, Bangladesh, Ch ina, and the Republic of Korea took the floor.  
10.3.  The Chairman noted that this was the latest  in a series of ad hoc agenda items on 
Intellectual Property and Innovation that had been added to TRIPS Council meetings since 
late 2012 upon request by various co-sponsors. These discussions had proven to be a valuable 
source of information and different views, as th ey touched on one of the recurring key issues, 
i.e. the role of IP protection in government policies to promote innovative activities. 
10.4.  At the informal meeting that he had held th e previous week, he had therefore shared a 
couple of ideas on how to make best use of this discussion. These were ideas of a general 
character that could, of course, equally apply to any other ad hoc agenda item that delegations might request to be added to the agenda in the fu ture. They were guided by what he believed was 
the Council's collective interest in consulting on and preparing for items more thoroughly that 
Members were choosing to add to the agenda; they were not meant to imply at all that such ad hoc agenda items should be turned into regular agenda items. 
10.5.  First, he took up an observation that had been made by some delegations at the informal 
meeting, i.e. that sponsors of ad hoc agenda items, such as the item on IP and Innovation at this 
meeting, should circulate a communication in ad vance of the meeting in order to engage other 
Members in an informed discussion. Indeed, and without considering this as an obligation, it would 
seem appropriate to encourage the sponsors of ad hoc agenda items to circulate a brief submission 
in writing sufficiently in advance of the meeting that provided background information regarding the subject matter concerned. This would seem to be a good way to enable delegations to prepare 
for a meaningful discussion of such items. IP/C/M/82 
 
- 10 - 
 
  10.6.  Second, at the informal meeting that had been  held the previous week, he had also drawn 
delegations' attention to the fact that past discussions had been held on a "one-off" basis. This had made it difficult for many delegations to actively engage in them, in particular in the absence of prior documentation and an opportunity to comment at a subsequent meeting. In order to provide 
the framework for a more robust exchange of view s, the Council might therefore wish to consider 
the possibility of providing delegations an opport unity to comment on any statements made during 
a discussion of such an item still at the Council' s subsequent meeting. This would, among other 
things, allow delegations to comment more subs tantively on the issues addressed by the co-
sponsors in the initial round of discussions. 
10.7.  Finally, at the informal meeting on 2 June, he had mentioned the possibility for the TRIPS 
Council to request the Secretariat to compile this information in a background note prepared under 
its own responsibility as one of the options that co uld also be explored to take the dialogue on IP 
and Innovation a step further so that best use could be made of the information exchanged. 
10.8.  He acknowledged that there were sensitivities among delegations about the distinction 
between regular agenda items, and one-off agenda  items that require agreement for inclusion on 
the agenda each time. That distinction would remain  clearly in place. The suggestion solely related 
to more systematic and consultative preparation for these agenda items, in the interests of more 
productive discussions for the benefit of all delegations. 
10.9.  The representatives of the European Union, Sout h Africa, India, Bangladesh and Brazil took 
the floor. 
10.10.  The Council took note of the statements made. 
11  WORK PROGRAMME ON ELECTRONIC COMMERCE 
11.1.  The Chairman said that, since the circulation of the initial proposed agenda, the delegation 
of Canada had asked for this item to be added to the agenda. It had also submitted a 
communication that briefly introduced the matte r. The communication had been circulated in 
document IP/C/W/613. 
11.2.  Before passing the floor to the delegation of Canada to introduce the proposed agenda item, 
he provided the Council with some background regarding past discussions on e-commerce in the 
WTO and the TRIPS Council, as well as the most recent mandate adopted by Ministers at MC10. The Second WTO Ministerial Conference held in May 1998 had adopted a Declaration on Global Electronic Commerce, which had launched a comprehensive work programme to examine all trade-
related issues relating to global electronic commerce. 
11.3.  Subsequently, e-commerce had regularly featured on the agenda of each TRIPS Council 
meeting from 1998 to June 2003, and the Council had produced three reports to the General 
Council, which had reflected the view among Members that continued further study was needed 
given the novelty and complexity of the intellectual property issues arising in connection with electronic commerce. Members had also noted the related work of WIPO (IP/C/18, IP/C/20 and 
IP/C/29). 
11.4.  In response to a request by the TRIPS Council in December 1998, the Secretariat had also 
prepared a factual background note and addendum  that examined the provisions of the TRIPS 
Agreement relevant to the Work Programme on El ectronic Commerce and relevant activities in 
other intergovernmental organizations (IP/C/W/128 and Addendum 1).  
11.5.  Since the Cancún Ministerial Conference in 2003, however, no Member had made any 
written submissions to the TRIPS Council or otherwise sought to continue discussions on 
e-commerce in the Council. 
11.6.  At their most recent session in Nairobi in December 2015, Ministers had decided to 
"continue the work under the Work Programme base d on the existing mandate and guidelines and 
on the basis of proposals submitted by Members in the relevant WTO bodies". They also had 
instructed the General Council to hold periodic  reviews "based on the reports that may be IP/C/M/82 
 
- 11 - 
 
  submitted by the WTO bodies entrusted with th e implementation of the Work Programme and 
report to the next session of the Ministerial Conference". 
11.7.  Ambassador Alfredo Suescum of Panama had also been asked to continue to chair the 
e-commerce talks in his capacity as "a friend of the General Council Chair" in order to facilitate 
Members' understanding of the linkages between the various elements of the Work Programme. 
11.8.  The representatives of Canada, Switzerland, the United States, Chinese Taipei, India, Brazil, 
the European Union, South Africa, the Republic of Korea, China and Bangladesh took the floor. 
11.9.  The Chairman noted that, as demonstrated by Canada's initiative and the interesting 
exchange of views at this meeting, there clearl y seemed to be a continuing interest of WTO 
Members in issues related to the interface between intellectual property and e-commerce. While not specifically under the heading of "e-commerc e", the TRIPS Council, for example, had continued 
to discuss, under various agenda items, issues that were relevant in this regard. In addition, the 
strong interest of Members in this matter was re flected by the wide range of questions concerning 
IP in the digital environment that had been raised  on the occasion of recent Trade Policy Reviews 
of a number of WTO Members. And it was also su pported by the fact that many Regional Trade 
Agreements that had been notified to the WTO included provisions that dealt with pertinent 
questions, such as the interface between trademar ks and domain names, the liability of internet 
service providers, and the protecti on of copyright on the Internet. 
11.10.  He encouraged Members to consider how they wished to take up issues related to 
e-commerce in the TRIPS Council in the future, taking due account of the significance of the interface between IP and trade in the digital en vironment, the many important developments at 
national level, as well as the interest that WTO Members were taking in issues related to 
e-commerce more generally. An in-depth debate could constitute a sound basis for the Council to report to the General Council. It would thus be an opportunity for delegations to contribute to the 
periodic review that the General Council had been requested to hold, as well as to provide input for 
the General Council report to the next Ministerial Conference. Such a discussion would not have a norm-setting quality nor would it aim at negotiations of any sort. It would be an opportunity to 
create a clearer, more inclusive factual picture of the current state of affairs as the foundation for 
informed dialogue between Members. 
11.11.  The Council took note of the statements made. 
12  INFORMATION ON RELEVANT DEVELOPMENTS ELSEWHERE IN THE WTO 
12.1  Protocol Amending the TRIPS Agreement 
12.1.  The Chairman recalled that, Ministers at the Tenth Ministerial Conference in Nairobi last 
December, had commended Members who had already accepted the TRIPS amendment and had 
looked forward to additional acceptances. Sinc e the beginning of 2015, considerable momentum 
had built up regarding the acceptance of the TRIP S amendment. In particular, since the Council's 
last meeting in March, seven more Members had deposited their instruments of acceptance with 
the Director-General of the WTO: Nepal on 11 Marc h, Tanzania on 14 March, Ukraine on 16 March, 
Qatar on 6 April, Samoa on 22 April, Saint Lucia on 2 May 2016, and Tajikistan on 23 May. This amounted to a total of 11 acceptances during the first five months of the current year. 
12.2.  He once again encouraged delegations that were yet to accept the TRIPS amendment to 
take the necessary steps so that the domestic procedures could be completed as soon as possible. 
Entry into force of the amendment would give this compulsory licensing mechanism the same 
status as all other public health-related flexibilities under the TRIPS Agreement. It would provide a 
permanent legal pathway that strengthens the System's future potential to facilitate export of 
medicines that are needed by patients in deve loping countries. It would also respond to 
widespread calls within the UN, including from the UN Economic and Social Council and the 
UN General Assembly, to complete the process of  acceptance. This year, Members were closer 
than ever before to securing the Protocol's entry into force. For this to happen, only seven more 
acceptances of the Protocol were needed. IP/C/M/82 
 
- 12 - 
 
  12.3.  In this context, he recalled that the Council would have the annual review of the functioning 
of the Paragraph 6 System on the agenda of its next meeting. The discussion under this agenda 
item in November might take a more prominent pl ace than in the last couple of years as the 
2/3 threshold of acceptances by WTO Members needed for the Protocol Amending the TRIPS 
Agreement to enter into force was within reach. Beyond celebrating this historic event, it would 
also be the moment in time to turn the page and focus on how this new procurement tool could be effectively used in practice to re spond to public health needs.  
12.4.  The Chairman said that, starting immediately after this meeting, a significant amount of 
work would be required to prepare the grounds for a stimulating and forward-looking debate to 
happen, rather than hearing Members reaffirm their well-known positions regarding the functioning of the System and the need to organize an open-e nded workshop to address this question. It was 
therefore his firm intention to approach delegations bilaterally during the coming weeks in order to 
engage the delegations in a structured and in-dep th debate, as the Council had witnessed on the 
occasion of the annual reviews in 2010 and 2011. 
12.5.  As suggested at previous week's informal meet ing, such a debate could also be usefully 
facilitated by a Secretariat background note setting out the framework ahead, focusing on the issues that would merit further consideration for the System to be used as an effective 
procurement tool. At that meeting, delegations had not expressed any views. 
12.6.  The representative of the Republic of Seychelles took the floor. 
12.7.  The Council took note of the statements made. 
12.2  Issues related to Intellectual Prop erty Rights in Trade Policy Reviews 
12.8.  The Chairman invited the representative of the Secretariat to provide an initial overview of 
the wide range of IPR-related issues that were intensively considered by Members as part of 
individual trade policy reviews. It was his understanding that this was a first step to report on the 
overall patterns and general themes that are raised in another WTO body and which were of direct 
relevance for the TRIPS Agreement and for the TRIPS Council. He suggested that more detailed information could be provided by the Secretariat at future meetings.  
12.9.  The representative of the Secretariat provided th e Council with an overview of issues related 
to IPRs that were raised in various Members' trade policy reviews.  
12.10.  The Council took note of the statements made. 
13  OBSERVER STATUS FOR INTERNATIONAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS 
13.1.  The Chairman reminded delegations that there remained 13 pending requests for observer 
status in the TRIPS Council by other intergovernmental organizations. The updated list was 
contained in document IP/C/W/52/Rev.13. In the past few years, the Council had been able to 
make some progress by agreeing to grant ad ho c observer status on a meeting-by-meeting basis 
to ARIPO, OAPI, the GCC and EFTA. 
13.2.  At the Council's last meeting in March, a number of interested delegations had reiterated 
their support for granting permanent observer status to the South Centre, the CBD Secretariat and 
the International Vaccine Institute. Other delegations had signalled that they could agree to granting permanent observer status to ARIPO, OAPI, the GCC and EFTA. 
13.3.  As it had not been possible to reach agreement on any of the pending requests, he had 
been asked by the Council to hold consultations on this matter. He had therefore taken up the 
matter at the informal meeting that he had conv ened the previous week. In particular, he had 
noted that, rather than linking requests for observer status and trying to trade them off against 
each other, it would seem to make imminent sense to assess each request for observer status on 
its individual merits, in particular the competence and interest the requesting institution has in matters dealt with by the TRIPS Council. IP/C/M/82 
 
- 13 - 
 
  13.4.  However, it had not been possible to make progress at the informal meeting on 2 June on 
any of the pending requests for observer status. As on previous occasions, the African Group proposal to grant permanent observer status to  ARIPO and OAPI had been supported by some 
delegations, while, according to Brazil, the Council should continue its current practice of granting 
ad hoc observer status on a meeting-by-meeting ba sis to these organizations, as well as to the 
GCC and EFTA. Similarly, as regards the CBD Secretariat, South Centre and the International Vaccines Institute, the United States had informed delegations that its position had not changed, 
i.e. that it could not support a decision concerni ng the grant of observer status to any of these 
institutions. 
13.5.  The Chairman therefore invited delegations to have a fresh look at the pending requests for 
observer status in order to overcome the current blockage that had prevented the Council from 
making any progress. 
13.6.  To facilitate a frank exchange of views amon g delegations, he suggested that the Council 
continue its session in informal mode. He invited delegations to share any new thinking on the 
pending requests, including as to whether, by  way of a fall back solution, granting the 
CBD Secretariat, the South Centre and the International Vaccines Institute ad hoc observer status on a meeting-by-meeting basis would constitute a viable option. 
13.7.  When the Council resumed its fo rmal session, the Chairman provided a brief summary of the 
main points raised during the discussion in informal mode. He noted that, while it was too early to reach an agreement, there had been positive signals indicating that the issues could be resolved through consultations among delegations. Delegation s were positively engaging in the discussions 
and had demonstrated some degree of flexibilit y. In particular, there had been widespread 
agreement that each of the pending requests needed to be considered on its own merits. However, there had also been objection to each of these pending requests among Members. Therefore, it 
had not yet been possible to make progress on any of them, but delegations had undertaken to 
further consult with their respective capitals. 
13.8.  The Chairman concluded by noting that pendin g requests should not be taken hostage one 
over the other. Negotiations should not be used to block progress merely for tactical reasons, but 
to address real concerns that delegations had. In order to further explore the issue, he suggested that the Council request him again to continue his consultations on the pending requests for observer status with a view to reaching an agreement at the Council's next meeting. 
13.9.  The Council so agreed. 
14  OTHER BUSINESS  
14.1  Invitations to ad hoc observers 
14.1.  The Chairman recalled that, at its meetings in June 2010 and November 2012, the Council 
had agreed to grant ad hoc observer status on a meeting-to-meeting basis to the African Regional 
Intellectual Property Organization, the African Intellectual Property Organization, the Cooperation 
Council of the Arab States of the Gulf, and the Eu ropean Free Trade Association. He suggested that 
the Council again invite ARIPO, OAPI, GCC and EFTA  to attend the Council's next formal meeting 
on an ad hoc basis. 
14.2.  The Council so agreed. 
14.2  Contribution of Intellectual Property to Fa cilitate the Transfer of Environmentally 
Rational Technology 
14.3.  The Chairman noted that, at the beginning of the meeting, the delegation of Ecuador had 
asked for an opportunity to address its proposal on the "Contribution of IP to Facilitate the 
Transfer of Environmentally Rational Technology" under this agenda item in order to inform the 
Council of the progress made. 
14.4.  The representative of Ecuador took the floor.  IP/C/M/82 
 
- 14 - 
 
  14.5.  The Council took note of the statements made. 
14.3  14th Annual Review under Paragraph 2 of th e Decision on the "Implementation of 
Article 66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement" 
14.6.  The Chairman recalled that paragraph 1 of  the Decision on the Implementation of 
Article 66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement provided that developed country Members shall submit 
annually reports on actions taken or planned in pursuance of their commitments under Article 66.2. To this end, they were requested to provide new detailed reports every third year 
and, in the intervening years, provide updates to their most recent reports. These reports had to 
be submitted prior to the last Council meeting scheduled for the year in question. Paragraph 3 of the Decision determined the information that  had to be provided in these reports. 
14.7.  Detailed annual reports under the Decision had been presented to the Council's end-of-year 
meetings in 2003, 2006, 2009, 2012, and 2015, and updates to the Council's meetings in the 
intervening years. Therefore, during the current  year, developed country Members should provide 
an update to their respective reports on actions taken or planned in pursuance of their 
commitments under Article 66.2. These reports should be provided prior to the Council's end of 
year meeting that had been scheduled for 8-9 November. As provided in paragraph 2 of the 
Decision, the Council shall review these reports at  that meeting. Accordingly, he suggested that 
developed country Members be requested to provide new detailed reports on actions they had 
taken or planned in pursuance of their commitmen ts under Article 66.2 by 14 October in order to 
allow their timely circulation and review at the Council's meeting of November. 
14.8.  The Council so agreed. 
14.9.  The Council's deliberations on past reports in this area and regular workshops convened on 
this matter had drawn attention to possible practical approaches to facilitating the submission, processing and consultation of these reports. Given the extensive documentation that had been 
provided on this topic, and the benefits of a streamlined approach to its management, reporting 
Members were encouraged to review the possibl e approaches that had been suggested. The 
Secretariat was able to provide informal support and background in this regard on request to 
interested delegations.  
14.10.  The Chairman also informed delegations that the Secretariat was preparing the ninth in a 
series of workshops on the Implementation of Arti cle 66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement. As in the past, 
the purpose was to facilitate the dialogue betw een reporting developed country Members and LDC 
delegations on the incentives for technology transfer for the benefit of least developed countries. 
According to the current planning, this workshop would take place on 7 November, i.e. the day preceding the formal TRIPS Council meeting on 8-9 November. 
14.11.  Furthermore, while LDCs were currently enjoyi ng extended transition periods, both in 
general and as regards specifically the pharmaceutical sector, a number of TRIPS provisions specific to this group of WTO Members continue to apply. This included the recognition in the 
Preamble of their special needs in order to enable them to create a sound viable technological 
base, as well as the obligation on developed country Members to provide incentives to their industry for the purpose of promoting technology transfer to LDCs. In addition, LDC Members were 
entitled to technical assistance, on mutually agreed  terms, in line with Article 67 of the Agreement. 
14.12.  Next to the aforementioned Workshop on Te chnology Transfer under Article 66.2 of the 
TRIPS Agreement, the Secretariat was therefor e looking into the possibility of holding a 
symposium on the special needs of LDCs in order to reinvigorate earlier efforts to coordinate the 
assessment of needs in individual LDCs to put in place an IP regime that is supportive of their 
domestic needs, as well as the responses to such needs where they had been identified. 
14.13.  For this initiative to be meaningful, the full support and input from the LDC Group, as well 
as its development partners was needed. In his ca pacity as the Chairman of the TRIPS Council, he 
would shortly be in touch with delegations concerned in order to facilitate the preparations for the LDC Symposium and the Workshop on Technology Transfer. 
__________