Staff Working Paper ERSD -2014 -14                                             Date:  23 September  2014 
 
 
 
 
World Trade Organization  
Economic Research and Statistics Division  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
INTELLECTUAL PROPERT Y PROVISIONS IN 
REGIONAL  TRADE AGREEMENTS : REVISION AND UPDATE   
 
 
 
 
Raymundo Valdés and Maegan McCann  
 
WTO  
 
Manuscript date: 24 June  2014 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Disclaimer :  This is a working paper, and hence it represents research in progress. This paper 
contains  the opinions of the author s, and is the product of prof essional research. It is not meant to 
represent the position or opinions of the WTO or its Members, nor the official position of any staff 
members.  Any errors are the fault of the author s. Copies of working papers can be requested from the 
divisional secr etariat by writing to: Economic Research and Statistics Division, World Trade 
Organization, Rue de Lausanne 154, CH  1211  Geneva  21, Switzerland. Please request papers by 
number and title.   
  
 INTELLECTUAL PROPERT Y PROVISIONS  
IN REGIONAL  TRADE AGREEMENTS : REVISION AND UPDATE  
 
by Raymundo Valdés  and Maegan McCann1 
ABSTRACT  
This is a revision and update of "Intellectual Property Provisions in Regional Trade Agreements" by 
Valdés and Runyowa (2012).  This paper  adjusts  the methodology applied to assess the intellectual 
property (IP) provisions contained  in regional trade agreements (RTAs) and the aggregation of such 
provisions into groups ;  it also updates the RTAs  surveyed , from 194 in November 2010  to 245 in 
February  2014.  New information contained in this re vision relates to three IP -related investment and 
non-violation provisions in RTAs.  The methodological  revision s and new information  result in 
changes to the assessment of the IP content of  certain RTAs  while the update reveals a growing a nd 
increasingly complex network  of RTAs  with IP content .  This revision also provides new insights into 
possible improvements to the  methodological toolkit for analysing IP in RTAs.  
The paper assembles detailed information about the IP provisions contained in active RTA s notified 
to the WTO .  The goal was to expand beyond the more commonly studied RTA s, to review  the full 
array of agreements notified to the WTO  and thus to enable consideration of the implications of this 
diverse range o f norm -setting activity  for the multi lateral system .  Mapping of the IP content in RTA s 
involving parties from all regions and levels of development is necessary to better understand cross -
cutting trends in RTA s, and how all the parts of the international IP framework influence each other.  
The methodology followed involved surveying each RTA  in the sample to determine whether it made 
reference to any of 32 different IP -related provisions .  Two of the three IP-related provisions new to 
this revision and update are investment -related IP provisi ons, while the other  concerns dispute 
settlement for non-violation  claims .  The relevant provisions are discussed in detail and summary 
statistics used to identify patterns over time and by continent, level of economic development and 
selected traders.  T he number of IP provisions  in each RTA  is then used to classify agreements 
according to their level of IP content.   
The first significant  identified  trend is the acceleration in the conclusion of RTA s with IP provisions 
after the creation of the WTO  and t he entry into force of the WTO TRIPS Agreement .  A significant  
proportion of those RTA s contain some type of IP provision , but the number and type of those 
provisions vary widely across agreements.  A majority  of the RTA s surveyed  include general IP 
provis ions, while a  smaller proportion contains explicit provisions  on specific fields of IP law, such as  
geographical indications, patents , trademarks and copyright.  The inclusion of  even more detailed 
provisions elaborating on specific areas of IP law  is less  common.  As a result, the actual IP content of 
RTA s differs greatly across the sample, with slightly less than half  of these agreements found to have 
substantive IP standards  that can be classified as moderate or high .   
The RTA s containing  a high level o f IP provisions are characterized by a hub -and-spoke architecture 
in which the wording and structure of IP provisions converged around the RTA s of specific countries 
or blocs.  The largest systems are grouped around the EFTA, the European Union  and the Uni ted 
States.  The hub -and-spoke architecture seems to have encouraged the convergence of domestic IP 
regimes  among the respective RTA signatories .  The mechanics of this potentially crucial process and 
its economic implications require further investigation .   
Keywords :  Regional Trade Agreements, Intellectual Property Rights, WTO, TRIPS  
JEL Classifications : F13, F15, F53, O 34 
                                                      
1 Mr. Valdés is a Counsellor and Ms. McCann is a former intern in the Intellectual Property Division, 
WTO Secretariat.  Many tha nks are due  to Antony Taubman for his support in producing this work.  All views 
expressed are those of the author s and cannot be attributed to the WTO Secretariat or WTO Members.   2 TABLE OF CONTENTS  
 
 
A. INTRODUCTION ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................  3 
B. AGREEMENT ON TRADE -RELATED ASPECTS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS  ..................  4 
C. INDIVIDUAL IP PROVISIONS CONTAINED  IN RTA S ................................ ................................ ...... 5 
 1. Methodology  ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................  5 
 2. IP provisions of any type included in RTAs  ................................ ................................ ....... 6 
 3. Particular categories of IP provisions cont ained in RTAs  ................................ .................  10 
  (a) General IP provisions in RTAs  ................................ ................................ ....................  10 
  (b) Provisions related to specific IPR categories  ................................ ...............................  21 
  (c) Provisions of special interest to public health and the pharmaceuticals sector  ............  28 
D. AGGREGATING THE INDIV IDUAL PROVISIONS :  THE OVERALL IP CON TENT OF RTA S ..............  32 
 1. Methodology  ................................ ................................ ................................ .....................  32 
 2. RTAs by level of IP content  ................................ ................................ ..............................  34 
E. THE ARCHITECTURE OF RTA S CONTAINING IP PROVISIONS  ................................ .....................  36 
F. POSSIBLE IMPLICATIONS  ................................ ................................ ................................ ...........  39 
 1. Impact for domestic regulation  ................................ ................................ ..........................  39 
 2. Economic aspects  ................................ ................................ ................................ ..............  40 
G. ANNEXES  I - VI ................................ ................................ ................................ ......................  42 
 
   
3 
 A. INTRODUCTION  
1. Non-discrimination, as embodied in the mos t-favoured -nation (MFN) principle  established by 
Article 1 of GATT, Article 2 of GATS and Article 4 of the TRIPS  Agreement , is one of the 
cornerstone principles  of the multilateral trading system.   A Member departs from this principle when 
it enters into a regional  trade agreement ( RTA) granting more favourable trade conditions to its fellow  
signatories than it does to other parties.2  
2. WTO Members are permitted to depart from the MFN principle under specific conditions . 
These are  spelled out in paragraphs 4 to 10 of Article XXIV of GATT (as clarified in the 
Understanding on the Interpretation of Article XXIV of the GATT 1994) providing for the formation 
and operation of customs unions and free -trade areas covering trade in goods;  Article V of GATS 
governing t he conclusion of economic integration agreements (EIAs) in the area of trade in services;  
and the  Decision on Differential and More Favourable Treatment Reciprocity and Fuller Participation 
of Developing Countries  (Enabling Clause ), which provid es the legal basis for preferential agreements 
between  developing countries.  No equivalent derogation from the MFN principle is available under 
the TRIPS  Agreement . 
3. Using the scope  available  under  WTO rules to depart from the MFN principle, WTO 
Members have actively  engaged in the formation of RTA s.  As a result , one of the most  prominent 
feature s of international trade policy in recent years has been the rapid increase in the number of those 
agreements .  As of 31 January 2014 , some 583 notifications of RTAs had been  received by the 
GATT/WTO . Of these, 377 were  in force .3  Of the 583 notifications , 411 RTA s were notified under 
the GATT, 133 under the GATS and 3 9 under the Enabling Clause.4  All WTO Members are party to 
at least one RTA .  The WTO TRIPS Agreement has no r equirement to notify relevant bilateral and 
regional agreements that set IP standards for their signatories, but many of those notified under other 
WTO Agreements have IP provisions, or provisions that indirectly touch on IP, such as system for 
bilateral d ispute settlement.  
4. This paper  is based on 245 RTA s notified to the WTO and in force by February  2014 
(counting only physical agreements, each of which may have resulted in  more than one of the 
notification s counted  in the previous paragraph) .  This represen ts a considerable expansion of  the 
number of RTAs surve yed compared with the 194 agreements included in the paper by Valdés and 
Runyowa (2012) .   
5. Compared with the extensive literature on regionalism, relatively few comprehensive  analys es 
have been carried  out on the actual intellectual property (IP) content of RTA s involving parties from 
across the WTO members hip.5  Moreover, many of those analyses have focused on RTA s comprising 
parties with narrow geogr aphical and economic profiles.  This paper  seeks to m ake a contribution 
towards closing this gap by conducting a comprehensive mapping of the IP content in a larger number 
of RTA s involving parties from all regions and across di fferent levels of development.  The paper  also 
                                                      
2 This paper uses the term RTA to follow the usage in WTO's database on trade agreemen ts under 
Article XXIV of GATT, Article V of GATS or the Enabling Clause.  Note, however, that in practice an "RTA" 
need not define a geographical region as such, and a number of relevant agreements are bilateral trade deals 
between geographically distant c ountries.  The terms free trade agreement (FTA) and preferential trade 
agreement (PTA) have narrower definitions than RTA within the WTO system but in practice both are often 
used interchangeably with the term RTA.  
3 Counting goods, services and accession  notifications separately . The number of actual agreements is 
smaller, as more than one notification can refer to the same RTA.  
4 For further details see http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/region_e/region_e.htm . 
5 Recent exception s include Baccini (2011 ) and Fink (2011).   4 aims to complement the coverage of other RTA -related issues contained in the 2011 World Trade 
Report (WTO 2011a).6   
6. The paper is organized as follows.   Section B  contains a brief description of WTO’s 
Agreement on Trade -Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights  (TRIPS Agreement) .  Secti on C 
explains the methodology used to identify the IP provisions contained in RTA s, and provides a 
detailed description  of each category , including the three new investment -related  and non -violation  
categories .  Section D develops a classification of RTA s according to their level of IP content.  
Section E investigates the architecture of RTA s containing IP provisions, and Section F discusses  
some possible regulatory and economic implications of such architecture . 
B. THE AGREEMENT ON TRADE -RELATED ASPECTS OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS  
7. The TRIPS  Agreement  was negotiated during the 1986 -94 Uruguay Round  of trade 
negotiations .  That Agreement was the first to introduce  extensive IP rules into the multilateral trade 
law system.  
8. Intellectual property rights  (IPRs)  refer to the exclusive right s that allow creators to prevent 
others from using their inventions, designs , distinctive marks  or other creations without their 
permission .  The TRIPS Agreement covers the following specific types of IP:  
 copyright and related rig hts; 
 trademarks;  
 geographical indications;  
 industrial designs;  
 patents;  
 layout -designs (topographies) of integrated circuits;  and 
 undisclosed information.   
 
9. The TRIPS Agreement also contains provisions on the control of anti -competitive practices in 
contr actual licences , and it incorporates standards on suppression of unfair competition from the 
WIPO -administered Paris Convention on the Protection of Industrial Property  (Paris Convention) . 
10. The Uruguay Round established n ew internati onally -agreed trade rule s for IPRs  in order  to 
provide minimum standards of I P protection,  and to provide for the systematic settlement of IP-related 
disputes .  The TRIPS Agreement seeks to strike  a balance between the long term benefits  resulting 
from increased creation and inve ntion,  and the societal costs that may arise  from the exclusive private 
rights defined  by IPRs .  Under the TRIPS  Agreement , governments are allowed to address these  
potential pitfalls  through various exclusions from the subject matter of protection (such a s an 
exclusion of morally unacceptable technologies from patent protection) and exceptions and limitations 
on exclusive rights (for example, research exceptions to patent rights) . 
11. The TRIPS Agreement is structured in five parts which cover : 
 general provisi ons and  basic principles of IP in the WTO system, including those 
incorporated  into the TRIPS Agreement from other  international agreements ; 
 standards concerning the availability, scope and u se of I PRs; 
 the enforcement of IPRs; 
 the acquisition and maintenance of IPRs  and related inter -partes  procedures ; 
 settlement  of IP disputes  between WTO Members;  
 transitional a rrangements during the period when the Agreement  was introduced ;  and  
 institutional arrangements , which include the delineation of the TRIPS Council ’s duties,  as 
well as  provisions on international cooperation , review and amendment . 
                                                      
6 The World Trade Report is WTO’s flagship publication on trade policy trends .  
5 
  
12. In addition to the MFN  obligation, another important principle of the TRIPS Agreement is the  
national treatment obligation that require s each Member to treat non-nationals  no less favourably that 
it treats its own nationals .  National treatment is also a key principle found in other IP agreements 
outside the WTO  system .  The TRIPS Agreement also sets an important objective for the IP system : 
the protection  of IP should also contribute to technical innovation and the transfer of technology , and 
to broader social benefit . 
13. The TRI PS Agreement sets the minimum benchmark  for IP protection in the territories  of 
WTO Members.  The Agreement incorporates some of the  main international agreements of the 
World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) that already existed before the WTO wa s created .  
These include  the Paris Convention and the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and 
Artistic Works (copyright).  However, the TRIPS Agreement covers additional  areas  of IP and  
introduces higher standards of protection than provided under the two WIPO  treaties . 
14. A key feature of t he TRIPS Agreement  is its provisions on enforcement and administration of 
IPRs, areas of regulation that had not been extensively covered in earlier multilateral agreements. The 
TRIPS  Agreement  requires WTO Mem bers to ensure that IPRs can be effectively enforced under their 
laws, and that the penalties punish and deter violations.  The procedures must be fair and equitable ; 
not unnecessarily time -consuming, complicated or costly ; and  shall be applied in a manner  that avoids 
the creat ion of  barriers to legitimate trade .  They shall  offer the possibility of asking courts to review 
an administrative decision or of appeal ing a lower court’s ruling.   The TRIPS Agreement requires that 
commercial scale  trademark counter feiting and copyright piracy be treated as criminal offences.  It 
also provides that  rights owners shall  have  the assistance of customs authorities to prevent imports of 
counterfeit and pirated goods , subject to safeguards for legitimate traders . 
C. INDIVIDUA L IP PROVISIONS CONTAINED  IN RTAS 
1. Methodology  
15. The primary source of information for this paper was the WTO's database on RTA s.7  This 
database contains  official information notified by  Members through the  WTO's notification system.  
The notification obliga tions for RTA s are conta ined in the GATT, the GATS, the Enabling Clause  and 
the Transparency Mechanism for RTAs .  No equivalent  notification obligations exist under the TRIPS  
Agreement .  
16. The WTO's database on RTA s maintained by the WTO Secretariat provides  comprehensive 
information on individual agreements.  The database is, however,  incomplete since only about two-
thirds of the RTA s in force have been notified to the GATT/WTO.   As of February 2014, the database 
identified 245 agreements in force  (counting as one  goods , services and enlargement notifications ).  
This group constitute s the sample for the analysis offered in this paper.  Annex I provides basic 
information about those 245 RTA s.  A constraint on this database is that – due to the basis of the 
notification requirements for RTAs falling under the GATT and GATS, and not the TRIPS  
Agreement  itself – bilateral or regional agreements that deal with IP in particular, with co -operation 
on IP administration, or with specific areas of IP protection (such as  geographical indications) are not 
notified through this system.8 
                                                      
7 The database is publicly accessible at http://rtais.wto.org/UI/PublicMaintainRTAHome.aspx.  
8 In this connection, the Council for TRIPS decided in 2010  to en courage Members to notify  their 
bilateral agreements related to the protection of geographical indications (WTO 2010) ; these agreements are 
noteworthy as they require specific protection of geographical indications that goes beyond the wider standard -
setting of the TRIPS Agreement.  Following that decision, a  number of WTO Members have updated the 
Council for TRIPS  on their relevant bilateral agreements , for example the agreement between the Russian 
Federation and Switzerland (WTO 2013 ) and Australia and Ma laysia (WTO 2012b).   6 17. The specific IP provisions in each of the RTA s in the sample were established by examining  
the text of each agreement for references to a particular variable or topic of interest.  Examples 
include the presence of provisions on patents, reaffirmations of the TRIPS Agreement , compulsory 
licensing  of patents or provisions of special interest  to the public health and pharmaceuticals sector 
(on the latter, see section C(3)(c) below) .  The map  of provisions  was drawn almost exclusively  from  
the text s of the RTA s.  Based on the examination of these texts, each variable or topic was coded with 
a tick () if it was directly mentioned in the text or left blank  where no such reference could be found.  
See Baccini  et el.  (2011) for a recent survey of similar approaches to coding the provisions contained 
in RTA s.  
18. It is important to note that  actual national laws and their effect should be distinguished from 
the provisions of RTAs, which for many countries  are not automatically enforceable  under domestic 
law.  Further , consistency with the TRIPS Agreement is a matter for the implemented national 
legislation so there is no basis for determining the conformity or otherwise of distinct international 
trade agre ements separately entered into by WTO Members ; moreover , given the complexity and 
sensitivity of interpreting legal texts, no attempt was made to establish whether the  obligations 
matched , contradicted  or exceeded  those in  the TRIPS Agreement.  Neither wa s an assessment made 
of the substantive validity or legal enforceability of the RTA 's provisions , except  to some measure  in 
the case of the European Union .   
19. Some RTAs involving the European Union contain provisions in the form of loosely 
formulated treaty  language referring to IP protection standards in a general sense (e.g., "Parties shall 
grant and ensure adequate and effective protection of IPRs  in accordance with the highest 
international standards").9  Such agreements were categorized as lacking disti nct, substantive 
provisions on the protection of IPRs because the language was general in character and could not be 
construed in terms of specific obligations to protect IP to a certain, defined standard .  If instead it was 
assumed that the same language required parties to provide a level of protection similar to the 
prevailing standard in the European Union, then the aggregate number of IP provisions in the RTAs 
involving the European Union would have increased significantly.  
20. For the Andean Community, th e European Union  and EFTA members , the mapping  reflects 
regional laws and regulations enacted after the original RTA s came into force  or treaties incorporated 
by reference into the RTA .  In the case of the Andean Community, the mapping  reflects the 
require ment in  the Cartagena Agreement establishing the Community  that a common  Andean  IP 
regime  be established .10  In the case of the European Union  and EU FTAs , the mapping reflects EU 
law (regulations, directives, decisions and treaties incorporated therein, su ch as the Convention on the 
Grant of European Patents ( European Patent Convention , EPC )) to the extent EU law is incorporated 
in the RTA .  In the case of EFTA  FTAs , the mapping reflects  IP provisions contained in the EFTA 
Convention, its Protocols, the Eur opean Economic Area Agreement (EEA) and the EPC to the extent 
they are incorporated into the FTA.  
2. IP provisions of any type included in RTA s 
21. Following the methodology described above, out of the initial 245 RTA s, 174 were classified 
as containing  some typ e of IP provision.  In general , for the purpose of this study , language in an RTA 
was classified as an IP provision if it touched on  the regulation of intellectual property.  The 174  
RTA s classified as containing some type of IP provision are identified as  Group 1 in Chart 1 .  This 
group results from the aggregation of three other s:  Group 2 that includes RTAs containing general IP 
                                                      
9 The RTAs in this situation includ e the agreements between, on the one hand, the European Union 
and, on the other hand, Algeria, Cameroon, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco or Tunisia.  
10 Article 52 of the Cartagena Agreement req uires that "Before December 31, 1970, the Commission, 
shall at the General Secretariat’s proposal, approve and submit to the Member Countries for their consideration 
a common regime on the treatment of foreign capital and, among others, about trademarks, p atents, licenses, and 
royalties.  The Member Countries s hall take the necessary measures to put this regime into effect within six 
months following its approval by the Commission."   
7 
 provisions, Group 3 incorporating RTAs that make references to specific IPR types, and Group 4 
comprising RTAs that contain pha rmaceutical provisions.11 
Chart 1. Groups of RTA s by IP content.  
 
 
Source: Annexes I to IV  
 
22. Chart 2 plots all 245 RTAs as well as the subset of those identified as containing IP 
provisions by date of entry into force.  The chart confirms that the pace of a doption of RTAs has 
accelerated over time.  
Chart 2. RTA s by date of entry into force.  
 
 
 
Source: Annex I.  
                                                      
11 All RTAs in Group 4 are also part of Group 3.  Most RTAs in Group 3 also belong to Group 2, 
except for four RTAs that are in Group 3 but not in Group 2 , namely Canada -Chile , Canada -Costa Rica , 
MERCOSUR  and Peru -Mexico . 
01020304050607080
Before 1995 1995-1999 2000-2004 2005-2009 After 2009
Contain IP provisions No IP provisions 8 23. Of the 174 RTA containing IP provisions, only 16 entered into force before 1995, starting 
with the EC Treaty in 1958.12  In contrast, 158 notified RT As containing IP provisions have entered 
into force since the establishment of WTO in 1995.13  Chart  2 shows that before 2000, when the 
TRIP S Agreement  became applicable to d eveloping countries and (under certain conditions) transition 
economies , only a min ority  of the RTAs entering  into force  contained IP provisions.   In contrast, most 
of the RTAs that have entered into force from 2000  contain some type of IP provision.  
24. Table 1 presents key summary statistics for the RTAs containing IP provisions.  The stat istics 
show that the proportion of new RTAs that include IP provisions increased from less than 40% before 
2000 to 80% or more after that year.  Just over 90% of the RTAs that have entered into force since 
2010 contained IP provisions, although this period  may not be fully representative as some RTAs that 
have recently entered into force may not yet have been notified to the WTO.  
25. The types of economic integration implicit in RTAs can vary substantially, from partial scope 
agreements (PSA), to free trade agr eements (FTAs), customs unions and EIAs.14  Of the 174 RTAs 
containing IP provisions , 60 are FTAs, while a further 102 involve the higher degree of integration 
implicit in the combination of an FTA and an EIA.  In earlier years, a few RTAs containing IP 
provisions took the form of a customs union.  However, this form of close economic integration 
seems to have lost attractiveness.  No new customs unions have been notified to the WTO since 2005, 
which may reflect a degree of disillusionment with customs union s, many of which have fallen short 
of their stated objectives in practice as documented for the Western Hemisphere in Valdés (2010).  
26. Closely related to the above patterns, 107 of the 174 RTAs containing IP provisions covered 
trade in both goods and service s, which is a considerably higher proportion than for RTAs in 
general.15 
27. Table 1 also shows the RTAs containing IP provisions by continent. The table indicates 
considerable diversity within and across continents.  The Americas are the  leader in terms of purely 
intra-regional RTAs, accounting for 36 of all agreements containing IP provisions.  Europe  occupied 
the second place , closely followed by Asia where many  intra-regional RTAs have been established in 
recent years.  By contrast, the number of intra -Afric an RTAs  is very modest  (4).  
28. Almost 60% of the RTAs containing IP provisions are intra -regional, and the rest include 
trading partners in more than one continent.  Europe plays  a leading role  in this respect but  both Asia 
and the Americas have also become significant participants in this type of agreement.   
29. Table 1  also indicates t he level of participation in RTAs containing IP provisions by the 
parties’ level of development.  Some 68 of these RTAs involve developing or transition econom ies.16  
Most RTAs co ntaining IP provisions include  at least one developing country or transition -economy 
signatory .  Just 5 RTAs included only developed econom ies (considering the European Union as a 
single unit).  LDC parties were signatory to 14 RTAs  containing IP provision s.   
                                                      
12 Formally, the Treaty of Rome establishing the European Economic Community.  
13 The recent increase in RTAs wit h pharma -related provisions would be even more apparent if the 
agreements establishing the EEC, EFTA and the Andean Communi ty were excluded from the count as initially 
they did not contain significant pharma -related provisions as such but rather establishe d the legal frameworks 
within which such provisions were subsequently introduced.  
14 This terminology corresponds to that us ed in WTO's database on RTAs.  PSAs typically involve the 
elimination of import tariffs in only a few sectors.  FTAs entail the elimi nation of import tariffs in most sectors 
but FTA members retain independent trade policies.  Customs unions build on FTAs b y requiring participants to 
harmonize their external trade policy, including establishing a common external tariff.  EIAs involve the  
liberalization of trade in services.   
15 The EEA is the one RTA notified as an EIA only, and also as covering trade in ser vices alone.  
16 The following were classified as transition economies:  Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, 
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Repu blic, Moldova, Russian Federation, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine and 
Uzbekistan.   
9 
 Table 1.  Number of RTA s containing any type of IP provisions  
 
 Before 
1995  1995 -
1999  2000 -
2004  2005 -
2009  After 
2009  Total  
Type:        
Customs Union (CU)  3 1 1 0 0 5 
Economic Integration Agreement (EIA)  1 0 0 0 0 1 
Free Trade Agreement (FTA)  6 6 15 19 14 60 
Partial Scope Agreement (PSA)  1 0 0 0 0 1 
CU and EIA       3 0 0 0 1 4 
FTA and EIA  2 3 21 45 31 102 
PSA and EIA  0 0 0 1 0 1 
Coverage:        
Goods  10 7 16 19 14 66 
Services  1 0 0 0 0 1 
Goods and Services  5 3 21 46 32 107 
Continent:        
Americas  4 3 7 12 10 36 
Americas - Asia 1 1 5 13 7 27 
Americas - Europe  0 0 4 1 5 10 
Europe  5 1 7 8 7 28 
Europe - Africa  0 2 3 9 2 16 
Europe - Asia 3 3 5 5 4 20 
Asia 1 0 5 16 10 32 
Africa or Africa - Americas  2 0 1 1 1 5 
Type of economy:        
Developed only  3 0 0 2 0 5 
Developing or Transition  2 3 14 30 19 68 
Developing or Transition - Developed  6 7 22 30 22 87 
Developing or Transition - Developed - LDC  0 0 0 2 2 4 
Developing or Transition - LDC  5 0 1 1 3 10 
       
RTA containing IP provis ions 16 10 37 65 46 174 
       
Memorandum items:        
RTAs not containing IP provision  24 23 9 11 4 71 
All RTAs  40 33 46 76 50 245 
 
Source: Annexes I and II.  
 
30. The sizeable participation of developing countries in RTAs with IP provisions is expected 
since these countries constitute the majority of WTO Members.  However, this high level of 
participation is still notable given the common assumption that developing countries do not have 
positive IP interests to progress in trade negotiations.   
31. The partic ipation of LDCs in RTA s with IP provisions is also somewhat unexpected since 
these countries have successfully argued for  their (transitional ) exclusion  from implementing most  of 
the substantive obligations  of the TRIPS  Agreement .  W hether LDCs are exclude d from IP  10 obligations under RTA s that include  IP provisions , or whether LDCs enjoy  more generous 
implementation periods,  was not investigated ; it would be worth looking into these questions as part 
of further refinements to the methodology of this paper .  
3. Particular c ategories  of IP provisions contained in RTA s 
32. IP provisions in RTA s vary widely  in terms of  nature,  scope and depth.  The following 
sections describe  the different types of provisions contained in RTA s, which are classified  in three 
groups :  (a) "general IP provisions ", (b) provisions related  to specific types of IP and (c) provisions of 
special interest for public health  and the pharmaceutical  sector.   Annex es II, III and IV  show the 
particular provisions included in each of those  three differe nt groups of IP provisions.  
33. The next three  sections follow the binary coding methodology explained above, i.e., an 
examination of the text of each RTA , and the  attribut ion of  a tick () if an IP category or  topic is 
explicitly mentioned in  the text , or a blank  where no such reference is present .  The ticks  attributed to 
each provision  contained  in a particular  RTA  are indicated  in Annexes II, III and IV.  The information 
in those  three  annexes constitutes  the foundation for the  rest of the  analytical work in  this paper.  
34. It should be noted that in addition to the IP provisions contained in the main text of RTAs, IP -
related requirement s are also contained in side letters  to some  agreement s.  These letters cover IP -
related areas such as public health, pharmaceutical products , enforcement  or traditional knowledge .  
The subject matter of side letters is included in this paper to the extent that these letters generally 
elaborate on issues ment ioned in the agreement  itself.  
(a) General IP provisions in RTA s 
35. Chart 3 illustrates the incidence of general IP provisions  with resp ect to the  174 RTA s in the 
sample .  The chart  shows that the incidence of general IP provision s in those agreements varie s 
wide ly.  Some 76 % of the  agreements  in the sample  (i.e., 132 agreements) contain statements of 
commitment to IP protection  or provisions on assistance, cooperation or coordination , while just over 
11% (19 agreements) incorporat e provisions on non-violation com plaints .   
36. Table 2 contains summary statistics on the group of RTAs illustrated in Chart 3.  The table 
presents data by period, continent, type of economy and selected WTO Member or group of 
Members.  Each IP provision identified in Chart 3 corresponds to one column in the table.  The values 
shown in each column correspond to the percentage of RTAs falling in a particular category (i.e., a 
particular row).  For example, the value of “ 63” at the intersection of the column on "General 
statement of commitment to IP protection" and the row (category) labelled "Before 1995", means that 
63% of the RTAs entering into force before 1995 contained provisions related to a commitment to IP 
protection.  
37. The last column of Table 2 shows the actual number of RTAs containin g IP provisions per 
category.17  For instance, that column shows that 16 RTAs entered into force before 1995.  
38. Each of the ten types of general IP provisions included in Chart 2 and Table 2 are discussed in 
detail in the following sub -sections.  
  
                                                      
17 As a particular RTA falls within only one category, RTAs in all categories under a given heading add 
up to 174.  The exception to this is the categorization by WTO Membe r or group, since a RTA includes multiple 
WTO Members.   
11 
 Chart 3. Agreements containing general IP provisions , percentage.  
 
 
 
Source: Table 2.  
 
(i) Commitment to IP Protection  
39. The question of whether a RTA affirms a commitment to IP protection was explored to assess 
the general attitudes that parties have towards the issue in  the context of their preferential relationship.  
This provides a snapshot of how the range of approaches adopted by parties determines the nature and 
assertiveness of IP enforcement regimes that prevail across their territories . 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80
Statement of commitment to IP
protection
TRIPS reaffirmation
References to
WIPO treaties
National Treatment
or MFN provisions
Assistance, co-operation
or coordination
Enforcement procedures
Border measures
Exhaustion
(parallel imports)
Non-violation
complaints
IP defined as investment
Percentage of RTAs that include IP provisions 12 Table 2. RTA s containing general IP provisions, % of agreements in each category  (row)  
 
 
Statement of commitment to IP 
protection  
TRIPS reaffirmation  
References to WIPO treaties  
National Treatment  
or MFN provisions  
Assistance, co -operation or 
coordination  
Enforcement procedures  
Border measures  
Exhaustion (parallel imports)  
Non-violation complaints  
IP defined as investment  
Memorandum: number of RTAs in 
category  
By period of entry into force:             
Before 1995  63 19 44 56 88 63 44 38 6 0 16 
1995 - 1999  80 30 50 30 70 70 40 10 10 0 10 
2000 - 2004  73 54 59 38 68 49 38 14 11 32 37 
2005 - 2009  77 66 40 40 71 57 49 12 12 52 65 
After 2009  80 83 59 46 89 63 57 13 11 46 46 
By continent:             
Americas  44 47 33 39 39 50 47 3 22 64 36 
Americas - Asia 67 70 48 41 59 59 59 15 30 59 27 
Americas - Europe  100 90 90 60 100 90 70 30 0 0 10 
Europe  96 61 61 68 93 57 57 36 0 4 28 
Europe - Africa  94 56 50 38 100 50 19 6 0 0 16 
Europe - Asia 90 55 70 40 95 70 40 20 0 10 20 
Asia 78 75 41 25 91 56 47 6 6 72 32 
Africa or Africa - Amer icas 60 20 20 20 60 40 20 20 20 40 5 
By type of economy:             
Developed only  100 60 100 100 100 100 100 80 20 40 5 
Developing or Transition  59 54 23 25 59 36 33 3 4 46 69 
Developing or Transition - 
Developed  87 70 70 55 86 77 62 23 17 33 87 
Deve loping or Transition - 
Developed - LDC  75 50 25 50 100 50 25 0 0 25 4 
Developing or Transition - LDC  80 50 40 10 90 20 0 0 0 30 10 
By selected WTO Member:             
Chile  55 45 35 25 50 40 35 10 15 55 20 
EFTA members  100 80 88 92 100 100 88 32 0 12 25 
European Union  89 50 79 32 100 71 43 39 0 0 28 
Japan  100 69 54 54 100 69 69 0 0 62 13 
Mexico  80 30 70 60 80 70 50 0 30 10 10 
Turkey  95 58 26 37 95 26 16 5 0 0 19 
United States  93 57 93 100 50 93 93 21 93 71 14 
            
All RTAs with IP provision s 76 61 50 42 76 58 48 15 11 39 174 
 
Sourc e: Calculations based on Annex I.  
13 
 40. There is significant diversity in how the parties express their attitudes, objectives and 
expectations with respect to protecting IP.  In some cases, RTAs include single sentence s affirming 
their commitment to protecting IP in general.18  A significant number of RTAs provide more detailed 
provisions elaborating on why effective protection is an important goal.19  Of these, some expressly 
provide that parties may exceed the standards  of the TRIPS Agreement.20  In other cases, a statement 
to commit to cooperation on intellectual property issues counted as an expression of commitment to 
IP protection.21  Elaboration on commitments to IP protection in some RTAs is expressed outside the 
main text, through Annexes obliging compliance or eventual accession to specific IP treaties.22  
41. In some cases, an explicit commitment is briefly stated and followed by the parties' express 
intention to elaborate on their IP protection regime at a later stage following the conclusion of the 
agreement.23  Another interesting feature is reflected in RTAs that adopt a  relatively "detached"  stance 
with respect to IP protection.24  The language used in the relevant provisions reflects the parties' mere 
intention to co mply with their existing international legal obligations, rather than a proactive 
recognition that effective IP protection is central to their interests or relationship.  
42. Some RTAs express recognition of the  importance of protecting  IP, but stop short of an  
express commitment to provide for protection of IPRs.25  This group includes RTAs that only 
acknowledge IP as a factor that they must account fo r within the RTA relationship.  
43. Table 2 shows that about  three -fourths  of RTAs containing IP provisions include 
commitments to protect IP generally.  The frequency with which such commitments have been 
                                                      
18 For example, a  single bullet point in Part III of the Common Economic Zone Agreement provides 
simply for the, " pursuance of a uniform policy of pr otecting intellectual property rights."  
19 See Part 6 : Chapter 17 of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) .  Article 10. 2.1 of the 
Trans -Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership RTA states that: "The Parties recognise the importance of 
intellectual property in promoting economic and social developmen t, particularly in the new digital economy, 
technological innovation and trade."  In Article 10.2.3, sub-articles (a) - (c) it elaborates on how IP protection 
seeks to facilitate international trade and development, prov ide certainty to rights holders and users, and to 
promote the enforcement of IP rights.  
20 NAFTA , Article 1702: "A Party may implement in its domestic law more extensive protection of 
intellectual property rights than is requi red under this Agreement, provided that such protection is not 
inconsistent with this Agreement."   This wording is identical to that of Article 16.2 of the  Korea , Republic of  - 
Chile  RTA, which is between entirely different parties.  
21 Ukraine - Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , Article 28.1: “The Contracting Parties  confirm 
their willingness to cooperate in the area of issues related to the trade -related intellectual property rights, and, if 
necessary, to apply measures provided for in Annex I C to the Marrakech Agreement establishing the WTO, as 
well as other multil ateral agreements on issues concerning intellectual property protection, to which both 
Contacting Parties are parties; this list is included in Annex II.”  
22 US - Australia  has Annexes and sides letters co ncerning areas ranging from pharmaceuticals to blood  
plasma, phonograms, whiskey, and ISP liability.  See also Annex 2 of the EU - Lebanon  RTA . 
23 Faroe Island – Norway , Article 17.1 provides that " The Contracting Parties shall co -operate with the 
aim of g radually improving the non -discriminatory protection of intellectual property rights, including measures 
for the grant and enforcement of such rights. Rules between the Contracting Parties concerning the protection of 
intellectual property rights shall be elaborated. These rules shall ensure a level of prote ction similar to that 
prevailing in the member states of the European Communities and in the member states of the European Free 
Trade Association."  
24 Ukraine - Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , Article 28.1: "The Contracting Parties confirm 
their will ingness to cooperate in the area of issues related to the trade -related intellectual property rights, and, if 
necessary, to apply measures provided for in Annex I C to the Marrakech Agreement establishin g the WTO, as 
well as other multilateral agreements o n issues concerning intellectual property protection, to which both 
Contacting Parties are parties; this list is included in Annex II."   See also Article 19.1 of the Ukraine - Moldova  
RTA.  
25Pakistan – Malaysia , Article 104.1 states that:  "The Parties reco gnise the importance of intellectual 
property in promoting economic and social development, particularly in the new digital economy, technological 
innovation and trade."   14 included in RTAs has remain relatively steady  over time.  The table shows strong variations by 
continent , with all RTAs between the Americas and Europe containing com mitments to IP protection .  
In general, such commitments are more common in RTAs involving Europe than in other  agreements.  
This type of commitment is  also more frequent  in RTAs involving developed economies, and less 
usual  in RTAs including only developi ng countries.   
44. Commitments to IP protection vary across  the RTAs signed by countries with a high number  
of RTAs in force.  As shown at the end of Table 2, WTO Members identified as particularly active in 
RTAs include both developed economies (EFTA members , the European Union, Japan and the United 
States) and developing countries (Chile, Mexico and Turkey).  Chile and Turkey have  more RTAs 
with IP provisions than Japan or the United States, reflecting in part the larger number of RTAs that 
those three count ries have individually signed.  
(ii) TRIPS Agreement Reaffirmation  
45. The TRIPS Agreement reaffirmation  criterion is a narrower conception of the general 
commitment to IP protection.   It may take the form of a phrase mandating compliance with , or 
application of,  the TRIPS Agreement  itself, requiring the application of TRIPS Agreement standards 
in the bilateral context .26  It may also take the form of a reaffirmation of the parties’ rights and 
obligations under the TRIPS Agreement.27  This criterion deserves independen t investigation for two 
reasons.  First, though compliance with the TRIPS Agreement is compulsory for all WTO Members, 
overt reaffirmation could be regarded as a strong indicator that the parties actively embrace their 
rights and obligations under the Agre ement.  It may be seen as an acceptance of TRIPS Agreement 
provisions, including substantive standards and public polic y safeguards and flexibilities, and thus 
recognition that it may serve as a kind of benchmark for a balanced and comprehensive IP system.   
46. Further, even some of the RTA s that affirm the TRIPS Agreement may, arguably, diverge 
from this Agreement.  This group mainly include s RTA s that express the intention to exceed TRIPS  
Agreement  standards.  Though the TRIPS Agreement  does allow Members to go beyond the TRIPS  
Agreement  standards of IP protection,  certain WTO Members have highlighted the systemic 
implications of what they have termed TRIPS -plus initiatives, which "could disturb the fine balance 
of rights and obligations that had been provided  in the TRIPS Agreement and could negate decisions 
like the Doha Declaration on Public Health" (WTO 2012 a).  
47. The second reason for investigating the presence of  TRIPS Agreement reaffirmations in 
RTA s is that the accession of some non -WTO Members to the TRI PS Agreement is mandated in 
RTA s.  Such accessions are often scheduled to occur by a particular date.  This situation raises some 
interesting and potentially problematic legal issues since accession to the TRIPS Agreement alone is 
not possible without acce ssion to the WTO.  For example, in the case of the EU - Algeria  RTA  
Algeria was required to have acceded to the TRIPS Agreement by 2009  (and not merely adopt TRIPS  
Agreement  standards) .28  As Algeria is not a WTO Member, the legal effect and significance of such 
accession mandates is doubtful.  
                                                      
26 New Zealand – Singapore , Article 57 provides that  "The Parties agree that the WTO Ag reement on 
Trade -Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights shall govern and apply to all intellectual property issues 
arising from this Agreement ."  See also Article 15.1 of Turkey - Palestinian Authority.   
27 Australia – Chile , Article 17.3: “The Par ties reaffirm their existing rights and obligations with 
respect to each other under the TRIPS Agreement and any other multilateral intellectual property agreements to 
which both are party. ” 
28 EU - Algeria , Annex 6 on In tellectual Property: " Before the end  of the fourth year from the entry into 
force of this Agreement, Algeria and the European Communities and/or their Member States shall, to the extent 
they have not yet done so, accede to, and ensure an adequate and effec tive implementation of the obligatio ns 
arising from, the following multilateral conventions…. Agreement on Trade -Related Aspects of Intellectual 
Property Rights (Marrakech, 15 April 1994), taking into consideration the transitional period provided for 
deve loping countries in Article 65 of th at Agreement ."  
15 
 48. Further, in cases where RTA s require  non-WTO Members to comply with the TRIPS 
Agreement, it is uncertain whether such compliance is restricted to the text of the Agreement or the 
accompanying body of TRIPS Agreement and WTO jurisprudence.  It is also uncertain if or to what 
extent  a reaffirmation of the TRIPS Agreement in an RTA would require the RTA dispute settlement 
mechanism to take into account a WTO panel or Appellate Body report involving interpretation  of the 
TRIPS Agreement.  
49. Table 2 shows that TRIPS Agreement reaffirmation s appear in 61% of all RTA s containing IP 
provisions , with the frequency of inclusion of those reaffirmation s steadily increas ing over time .  
Strong variations across continents  are identifiabl e, with TRIPS reaffirmations  appearing less 
frequently than general statements of commitment to IP protection , particularly in the case of Europe .  
TRIPS Agreement reaffirmations are particularly frequent in RTA s involving developed and 
developing /transiti on countries.  EFTA members have  incorporated such reaffirmations in 80% of 
their RTA s; in contrast,  Mexico has included them in less than one -third of its own agreements.  
(iii) References to WIPO Treaties  
50. The purpose of analysing references to the WIPO treatie s and the UPOV Convention  is to 
determine the importance that RTA  parties place on these agreements.29  Affirmation would increase 
the probability that the RTA  parties' IP laws and policies would be in line with a significant part of the 
extensive WIPO fram ework.  Affirmatory references to WIPO treaties provide WTO (and WIPO) 
Members a significant degree of predictability in terms of how any given RTA  could alter, depart 
from or re -conceptualise the common understanding of the international IP framework.  
51. An additional effect of mandated compliance with certain WIPO treaties is the facilitation of 
a more harmonized global IP regime.  This would occur primarily through the extension of the WIPO 
system into the national laws of  RTA s parties regardless of whethe r they are members of WIPO or 
not. 
52. References to WIPO treaties  may take the form of  a reaffirmation of obligations under 
enumerated WIPO treaties.  The wording of the reaffirmation differs slightly between the two 
affirmatory provisions.30  Another group of  RTA s mandate s compliance with  the provisions of  certain 
WIPO treaties  without requiring  accession  to the agreements themselves .31  Other  treaties  go a step 
further and actually mandate the eventual accession of some parties.32  A third manifestation of such  
                                                      
29 Detailed information on the 24 treaties administered by WIPO may be found at 
http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ . Information on the UPOV Convention  is avail able at 
http://www.upov.int/overvie w/en/.  
30 For example, Article 46.3  of the EU – South Africa  RTA states that: “ The Community and its 
Member States co nfirm the importance they attach to the obligations  arising from the:…” The provision then 
lists the Madrid Convention, the Rome Convention and the Patent Cooperation treaty. Article 46.5 then says, 
“The Parties confirm the importance they attach to the fo llowing instruments :…” The provision then lists 
various WIPO conventions and treaties.  
Article 46.3 affirms the importance of obligations a rising from one set of WIPO and UPOV treaties 
while Article 46.5 affirms the importance of other WIPO “instruments .”  The meaning and significance of the 
phrase “obligations arising from” and the word “instruments” is unclear.  
31 NAFTA  Article 1701.2 : “To p rovide adequate and effective protection and enforcement of 
intellectual prope rty rights, each Party shall, at a minimum, give effect to this Chapter and to the substantive 
provisions of: …”  followed by a list of WIPO conventions.  
32 EU – Morocco  Annex 7, A rticle 1: “ By the end of the fourth year after the entry into force of the 
Agreement, Morocco shall accede to the following multilateral conventions on the protection of intellectual, 
industrial and commercial property: … ", followed by a list of WIPO conv entions and treaties.  See also Annex 
XII, Article 2.2 of the EFTA – Chile  RTA.    16 references provide s a “soft ” mandate that encourag es parties to make the ir “best efforts” to join WIPO 
treaties they are not already party to.33  
53. To avoid interpretation of the text of an RTA, u nless explicit reference was made to a 
particular WIPO treaty or to WIPO treaties generally, a general reaffirmation of obli gations under 
international IP agreements "in effect between the parties" was not co unted as a reference to WIPO 
treaties  for the purpose of this study.  
54. Table 2 shows that references to WIPO tre aties appear in just half of all  RTA s that include IP 
provisions , with no particular  trend  over time .  Such references are more frequent in inter -regional 
RTAs that include Asia  or Europe .  All RTAs between developed countries make references to WIPO 
treaties but the same is true for just under one -quarter  of RTAs involving only develop ing/transition  
countri es.  Similarly, almost all of the U nited States RTAs include references to WIPO treaties while 
the percentages for RTAs involving Chile or Turkey are mu ch lower .  
(iv) MFN or National Treatment for IP protection  
55. The rationale for including  MFN and national treatment provisions  specific to the protection 
of IP in this study  is to determine whether the RTA s supplement the corresponding standards of the 
TRIP S Agreement.  Some RTA s provide the TRIPS Agreement as the substantive benchmark for the 
application of MFN and national treatment standards.34  Consequently, the corresponding standards of 
the Berne and Paris Conventions constitute a part of this benchmark as p rovided for by Article 1 of 
the TRIPS Agreement.  
56. Certain MFN provisions are narrower in scope.  Some mandate parties to provide for 
treatment no less favourable than they grant to their partners in other RTAs.35 
57. Some  national treatment and MFN requirements  have largely been phrased in the context of 
investment protection.36  Absent the existence of an obligation for the RTA parties to provide MFN 
treatment or national treatment with respect to the protection of intellectual property, an RTA 
containing nationa l treatment or MFN requirements for investment s was not counted as containing 
MFN or national treatment for IP protection.  
58. Around 42% of RTA s containing IP provisions address the MFN and /or national treatment 
principle in some capacity.  The coverage of MF N and national treatment has varied relatively little  
over time .  Only a minority of RTA s in the Americas or Asia  include MFN and national treatment 
provisions  while just over two -thirds of the RTAs in Europe include such provisions .  However, there 
are st rong differences in Europe, with EFTA members including  MFN and national treatment 
provisions  in most of their RTAs while the European  Union includes them in less than one -third of its 
agreements.  All RTAs between developed countries include MFN and natio nal treatment provisions  
but this is the case for only one-quarter  of RTAs  exclusively  including developing countries.  
                                                      
33 Nicaragua – Chinese Taipei Article 17.03(3): “The Parties confirm that if either of them that is not a 
party to one or more of the multilateral treaties listed in Article 17 .01, it commits itself to put f orth its best 
efforts to seek to join those treaties in due time.”  See also Japan – Indonesia  Article 106.6 , which encourages 
accession using the words, “Each Party shall endeavor to become a party if it is not a party, to t he following 
international agreem ents in accordance with its necessary procedures .”  
34 EFTA Treaty  Articles 19.2 and 19.3;  Egypt – Turkey , Article 24.2 and 24.3.  
35 An example of such an agreement which limits the scope of its MFN mandate is the EU - Serbi a 
RTA. Article 40.2 of this agreement provides that: "… in respect of the recognition and protection of intellectual, 
industrial and commercial property, treatment no less favourable than that granted by them to any third country 
under bilateral Agreements. " 
36 Japan – Mexico , Article 73.2.   
17 
 59. Section F.1 below contains a further discussion of MFN and national treatment in the context 
of RTA s including IP provisions.   It is note d there that the application of IP commitments would be 
on an MFN basis regardless of whether the RTA specifically states so.  
(v) Statements on Assistance, Cooperation or  Coordination  regarding  IP 
60. Statements on assistance, cooperation or coordination are  one o f the two most common form s 
of IP provisions in the RTAs surveyed, with just over three -quarters of them containing such 
provisions.  Some provisions promote technical assistance for the primary benefit of the developing 
country parties.  These include pro gram mes that fund or facilitate technology transfer, IP education 
and legal assistance.37  Other RTA s contained "mutual benefit" provisions that could be interpreted as 
providing balanced benefit s to all parties.38  Another group of RTA s is distinguishable b y the parties' 
narrow focus on one or several areas of IP .39 
61. Coordination and capacity building efforts often include the establishment of bodies to 
facilitate these goals.  Of the RTA s between developed and developing parties, some focus solely on 
improvin g the ability of the latter to better protect IP rights.  Another group focuses on assistance that 
is meant to benefit developing parties.  The RTA s in which the United States  is a party tend to provide 
comprehensive packages encompassing all these approac hes.  
62. Table 2 shows  that RTA s containing statements on technical assistance, cooperation or 
coordination are common in all continents except the Americas.  These provisions are also  found 
amongst agreements involving developed countries alone as well as th ose including  
developing /transitions  countries or LDCs.  All the RTAs  maintained by EFTA members, the 
European Union and Japan  contain statements on technical assistance, cooperation or coordination but 
only half of US RTAs contain these provisions.  
(vi) IP Enforcement Procedures   
63. Enforcement provisions can reflect parties’ perceptions that they have a positive interest in 
the effective protection of  IP rights  in their trading partners , recognition of the need for cooperation 
on enforcement called for under the  TRIPS  Agreement  and a concern that IP enforcement does not 
create a barrier to legitimate trade and is balanced and consistent with principles of natural justice .   
64. The RTA s that contain  enforcement provisions range  from those with detailed and strict  
provisions  on one end  to those that merely  requir e the parties to provide for enforcement frameworks 
in their national laws  or to cooperate on IP enforcement .  For example, some  RTA s provide for 
criminal sanctions that expressly mandate  imprisonment  to be avai lable as a sanction  for some forms 
of infringement .40  Other  RTA s also provide for criminal remedies , but do not specifically provide  
                                                      
37 ASEAN - Australia - New Zealand , Article 9.1 : "The Parties acknowledge the significant differences 
in capacity between some Parties in the area of intellectual property. Mindful of this, where a Party’s 
implementation o f this Chapter is inhibited by capacity constraints, each other Party shall, as appropriate, and 
upon request, end eavour to provide co -operation to that Party to assist in the implementation of this Chapter."  
See also Article 166 of the China - New Zealan d RTA and Article 58.3(a) of the EU - Cameroon  RTA.  
38 For example, Article 15.1.16 of the Dominican Republic - Central America - United States Free 
Trade Agreement (CAFTA -DR) RTA provides for "coordination, training, specialization courses, and exchange 
of information between the intellectual property offices and other institutions of the Parties ."  It also calls for the 
enhancement of "knowledge, development, and implementa tion of the electronic systems used for the 
management of intellectual property."   
39 Article 1508(b) of Canada - Peru provides only for co -operation in e -commerce or Article 17D of 
China - Hong Kong, China  which provides for cooperation in the area of traditional Chinese medicine.  
40 US – Australia , Article 1 7.11. 27(a): “In cases of wilfu l trademark counterfeiting or copyright piracy 
on a commercial scale, each Party shall provide: (a) penalties that include imprisonment and monetary fines  18 imprisonment  as an option .41  A third category  of RTA s merely provide s for cooperation in the area of 
enforcement without elaborating  on the types of sanctions that must be available  within the laws of 
each party .42  A typical approach is the inclusion of a brief statement obliging parties to "provide in 
their respective laws for the enforcement of intellectual property rights c onsistent with the TRIPS 
Agreement."43  
65. On the other  hand, RTA s involving the United States  stand out by  their level of detail and 
enforcement  mechanisms .  They require extensive protection of IP Rs in a variety of ways.44  The 
Australia - Chile  agreement mir rors the structure and language  on IP enforcement in general  of those 
in which the United States  is a party  (both Australia and Chile are separately parties to bilateral 
agreements with the United States) . 
66. Another approach to incorporating enforcement proc edures in some RTAs is by reference to 
other treaties .  For example, enforcement procedures in some of the EFTA agreements are provided 
by explicit reference to Article 41 – 61 of the TRIPS Agreement .45  Other RTA s also provide for 
enforcement procedures by  implicit incorporation of the TRIPS  Agreement  enforcement provisions as 
well as those of other multilateral IP treaties.46 
67. Overall,  58% of all RTA s containing IP provisions include references to enforcement 
procedures, as indicated in Table 2.  The table a lso shows that a high proportion of inter-regional 
RTA s involving Europe , and RTAs that comprise developed countries, include s enforcement 
procedures.   All of the EFTA agreements and  slightly more than  90% of RTA s involving the United 
States refer to enfor cement procedures .  Less expected , 70% of the RTA s involving Mexico, a 
developing country, also include enforcement  procedures, while only a minority  of RTAs involving 
Chile or Turkey include such procedures . 
(vii) IP Border Measures  
68. An IP border measure provisi on is identified as an obligation to undertake action related to 
the treatment of IP at a party’s border.  This includes an obligation  to cooperate, exchange 
information, or to form committees on border or customs procedures for IP.47  Notably , RTA language  
                                                                                                                                                                     
sufficiently high to provide a deterrent to infringement consistent wit h a policy of removing the mon etary 
incentive of the infringer.”  See also Japan – Indonesia , Article 120; Japan – Philippines , Article 129.3.  
41 Article 125.3 of the Japan – Switzerland  is an example: “ Each Party shall provide for, where 
permitted by its l aws and regulations, stricter  or separate penalties to offences listed in subparagraphs 1(a), 1(b) 
and 1(d) committed in connection with corporate activities or on a commercial scale.”  
42 Malaysia – Pakistan , Article 48: “ The customs authorities shall, whe rever possible, cooperate and  
exchange information in their enforcement against importation and exportation of goods suspected of infringing 
intellectual property rights.”  See also Singapore – Australia  Article 5; Thailand – New Zealand , Article 12.4.  
43 Korea, Republic of  – India , Article 12.4.  
44 Several examples are worth noting.  Article 15.10.3 of the US – Oman RTA provides that "The 
Parties understand that a decision that a Party makes on the distribution of enforcement resources shall not 
excuse that Party from complying with thi s Chapter."  Another example is Article 15.10.7 on the amount of 
damages available under civil judicial proceedings.  Article 15.10.29 also provides extensive procedures 
regulating Internet service providers who, among other obligations, are required to co operate with copyright 
owners and play an anti -piracy role.  
45 For example, Annex XII, Article 5 of the EFTA - Turkey  RTA: "The States Parties to this Agreement 
shall provide for enforcement provisions under their national laws of the same level as that pro vided in the 
TRIPS Agreement, in p articular Articles 41 to 61 ." 
46 See EFTA - SACU  Article 26.2 which provides " The Parties shall grant and ensure adequate, 
effective and non -discriminatory protection of intellectual property rights, and provide for measure s for the 
enforcement of such righ ts against infringement thereof, counterfeiting and piracy, in accordance with the 
provisions of this Article and the obligations set out in the international agreements to which they are parties."  
47 ASEAN - Australi a - New Zealand , Article 9.6 provides that:  "Parties shall co -operate on border 
measures with a view to eliminating trade which infringes intellectual property rights. Parties who are members 
of the WTO shall also cooperate with each other to support the effect ive implementation of the requirements 
relating to border measures set out in Articles 51 to 60 of the TRIPS Agreement."   
19 
 that simply permits the  parties to take measures relating to the protection of IP does not constitute an 
IP border measure provision  for the purpose of this study .48 
69. Consistent with the pattern reflected under the enforcement procedures section, RTA s 
invol ving the United States  also have the most extensive provisions relating to border measures.  For 
instance, the US – Australia  RTA  provides extensive coverage on border measures for which both 
sides are compelled to enact appropriate legislation.49   
70. A notab le feature of many of the RTA s involving the United States  is that most require the 
parties to provide for ex officio  action by customs authorities in the absence of a formal complaint by 
a rights holder.50  Article 58 of the TRIPS Agreement allows, but doe s not mandate , Members to 
provide for ex officio  action.   Therefore, the decision to provide for such action is a clear indicator that 
the parties to RTA s involving the United States  intend to provide a high and proactive level of IP 
protection through rig orous border measures.  
71. In general, provisions concerning the application of border measures  to IP are not common in 
RTAs.  Table 2 show s that references to such measures appear in just only half  of all RTA s that 
include IP provisions.  Their incidence, how ever, has increased over time,  with border measures 
appearing in 57% of the RTAs that entered into force after 2009 .  Those measures appear in all the  
RTAs including developed countries alone, and in 62% of the RTAs between developed and 
developing/transit ions economies .  More than 90% of RTA s involving the United States contain 
references to border measures , as do some 88% of EFTA's RTAs and 69% of  Japan 's agreements .  
(viii) Exhaustion of IPRs  
72. The term "exhaustion " refers to the principle that a n IPR owner’s exc lusive right to control 
the distribution of a protected item lapses after the first act of distribution.  In general, i t is accepted 
that IPRs are exhausted within the jurisdiction where the first sale takes place , but whether IPRs are  
exhausted when the f irst sale takes place outside the jurisdiction in question  depends on a country 's 
exhaustion regime .   
73. Under a n ational exhaustion regime, an IP rightholder’s distribution rights are exhausted once 
it puts its good s embodying its IPR on the market in that country, but are not exhausted with regard to 
goods placed on the market in another country.   Accordingly right holders can control the import ation  
of goods embodying its IPR  first sold on markets  outside the market in which it first placed the good.   
Parallel imports , goods embodying a rightholder's IPR imported without consent of the rightholder, 
may be barred from entering the market of the country of importation.51 
74. On the other hand , under  an international exhaustion regime , the right holder's  distributio n 
right is exhausted upon the first act of distribution regardless of where the first act of  distribution took 
place and thus , parallel imp orts are legal.   
                                                      
48 An example of such language can be found in Armenia - Moldova , Article 11 : "This Agreement shall 
not impede the right of any of the C ontracting Parties t o take generally accepted in the international practice 
measures which it considers necessary for protecting its vital interests or which are undoubtedly necessary for 
compliance with international agreements to whic h it is or intends t o become a party , if these measures relate to 
… protection of industrial and intellectual property.”   For similar language see Kyrgyz Republic - Ukraine RTA , 
Article 9.  
49 US – Australia , Articles 17.11.19 - 17.11.25.  
50 US – Australia , Article 17.11.22.  See also US – Bahrain , Article 14.10.23; US – Jordan , Article 
4.26; US –Singapore , Article 16.9.19.  
51 Parallel imports are not counterfeit or pirated goods but genuine original products sold in foreign 
countries with the authorization of the right holder.   20 75. Certain  RTAs provide for an alternative regime of  regional exhaustion . Under a regional 
exhaustion regime, the rightholder’s IPRs are exhausted upon the first act of distribution within the 
territory of any party of the RTA in question.  The European Union provides a n example of regional 
exhaustion.  
76. The TRIPS Agreement gives  Members freedom  to determine  their exhaustion regime .  Article 
6 provides that for the purposes of dispute settlement under the TRIPS Agreement, nothing in the 
Agreement may be used to address the issue of the exhaustion, provided that a Member complies with 
its national and MFN trea tment obligations.  The 2001 Ministerial Declaration on the TRIPS 
Agreement and Public Health  clarified Article 6 , confirming that  the TRIPS Agreement  leave s each 
Member free to establish its own regime for exhaustion . 
77. Like the TRIPS Agreement, most RTAs i nvolve no  substantive  commitments on the 
exhaustion of IPRs.  Indeed, references to  exhaustion are  one of the least common of all general IP 
provisions, appearing in  only 15% of the RTAs that include IP provisions .  However, provisions on 
exhaustion are in cluded in 38% of RTAs predating 1995 and, more remarkably, 80% of RTAs 
including only developed  countries.  Among the selected traders listed in Table 2, provisions on 
exhaustion do not appear  in the RTAs involving Japan or Mexico but are included in about  one-third 
or more of the RTAs involving EFTA members or the European Union and one -fifth of US RTAs .  
RTA s involving the European Union tend to leave signatories free to choose the exhaustion regime, 
while RTAs including the United States narrow down the choice of exhaustion regime .52 
(ix) Non-Violation Complaints  
78. Although trade disputes generally involve allegations that a party to a trade agreement  acted 
inconsistently with an obligation or commitment in the agreement , under some RTAs the dispute 
settlement me chanism applies where a party considers a benefit it reasonably expected under the RTA 
is nullified or impaired due to a party’s measure that is not inconsistent with the RTA.    
79. Under WTO rules, non-violation complaints are possible for goods and services .  The TRIPS 
Agreement provides that non -violation complaints shall not apply to TRIPS Agreement disputes for  
five years from 1 January 1995, the date of entry into force of the WTO Agreement .  This 
“moratorium” has since been repeatedly extended and it is  still in force .53  Some Members consider 
that non-violation cases should be allowed under the TRIPS Agreement , while others  would like to 
see the moratorium made permanent.  
80. Only 11% of the RTAs that include  IP provisions contain condition s related to  non-violation 
complaints  in the IP area.  RTAs with non -violation provisions are rare in all continents and types of 
economy but 93% of the RTAs  maintained by the United States include such provisions .  US RTAs  
typically contain  a statement that the dispute se ttlement mechanism of the RTA applies to benefits a 
party reasonably expected to accrue under the RTA chapter on IPRs.54 
(x) IP-related Investment  Provisions  
81. RTA provisions on IP are not exclusively found in the  RTA chapter or article designated to 
IP.  Provisi ons regulating the treatment of IP are found outside of the IP chapter , in the RTA's chapter 
                                                      
52 For example, Article 10.4 of EU – Korea, Republic of  RTA provides that "The Parties shall be free to 
establish their own regime for the exhaustion of intellectual property rights", while Article 17.9.4 of the US – 
Australia  RTA provides that "Each Party s hall provide that the exclusive right of the patent owner to prevent 
importation of a patented product, or a product that res ults from a patented process, without the consent of the 
patent owner shall not be limited by the sale or distribution of that prod uct outside its territory, at least where the 
patentee has placed restrictions on importation by contract or other means."  
53 The Bali Ministerial Decision of 7 December 2013 on TRIPS Non -Violation and Situation 
Complaints extended the moratorium to 2015 (W T/Min(13)/31 and WT/L/906).  
54 US – Bahrain RTA , Article 19.2.   
21 
 on investment , in almost 40% of the RTAs identified as including IP provisions in Table 2 .  WTO 
2011a identified investment as a polic y area commonly included in R TAs.55  Trade and investment 
literature asserts that  IP ownership is one element that provides a competitive advantage  to 
multinational firms in international markets and therefore, RTAs that provide for the protect ion of IP 
investments encourage  FDI inflow .56   
82. One reason for mapping RTAs with IP -related investment provisions is to shed light on 
structure of the relationship between IP protection and investment protection in the context of RTAs.57  
Similar to RTAs containing IP provisions, RTAs containing inv estment provisions are generally part 
of a deep integration process.   One general observation  is that whether IP provisions and IP -related 
investment provisions appeared together in the text of an RTA  largely depended upon the identity of 
the parties to th e RTA.  Thus, most of the RTAs involving Chile, Japan  or the United States  contain ed 
IP-related investment , while this was the case for none or only a small minority of the other selected 
traders listed in Table 2 . 
83. The IP-related investment  provision inclu ded in this revision and update  relates to  RTAs that 
incorporate  IP within the definition of "investment ."  The inclusion of IP within th e definition of 
investment shows the importance parties to an RTA place on the protection of intangible commercial 
assets and on encouraging investment in IP-intensive industries.   RTAs including IP within the 
definition of investment adopt  one of two approaches.  One approach is the use of the overarching 
term “intellectual property rights ” as part of an illustrative list  of forms an investment may take.58  
Another approach lists the categories of intellectual property encompassed within the term 
“intellectual property” included within the definition of investment.59   
84. Table 2 shows that  including  IP within the definition of  investment  in a RTA appears to be a 
relatively recent development, with none of the agreements  that entered into force before 2000  
including such a definition .  Provisions defining  IP as investment are relatively common in RTAs 
involving partners in the A mericas or Asia which reflects in part the frequen cy of those provisions in 
RTAs  signed by  Chile, Japan or the United States.  In contrast , IP as investment provision are never or 
rarely included in RTAs signed by EFTA members, the European Union or Mexico . 
(b) Provisions  related to specific IPR categories  
85. In addition to the general IP provisions discussed in the previous section, RTA s may also 
contain more detailed references to  specific categories of IP law.  This study took into consideration  
the following 1 1 categories:  copyright and related rights ;  trademarks ;  geographical indications ;  
industrial designs ;  patents ;  undisclosed information ;  layout designs of integrated circuits ;  new plant 
varieties ;  traditional knowledge or genetic resources  (TK-GR);   encrypted program -carrying satellite 
signals ;  and domain names . 
                                                      
55 2011 World Trade Report (WTO 2011a), p . 128. 
56 2011 World Trade Report (WTO 2011a), p . 137. 
57 The provisions of bilateral investment treaties (BITs), the number of which has increased drastica lly 
over the past 20 years, between WTO Members were not analysed in this study.  
58 Chapter 10, Article 10.1 of the Korea, Republic of – India  RTA provides: “investment  means every 
kind of asset that an investor owns or controls, directly or indirectly, and  that has the characteristics of an 
investment, such as the commitment of capital or other resources, the expectation of gains or profits or the 
assumption of risk; (a) Forms that an investment may take include, but are not limited to:  … (vi) intellectual 
property rights”.  
59 Chapter 11, Article 135 of the China – New Zealand RTA states: “i nvestment  means every kind of 
asset invested,  directly or indirectly, by the investors of a Party in the territory of the other Party including, but 
not limited to, the fo llowing: … (d) intellectual property rights, in  particular, copyrights, patents and industrial 
designs, trade -marks, trade -names, technical processes, trade and business secrets, know -how and good -will”.   22 86. For the purpose of this study, provisions related to specific IPR categories are l anguage on a 
party’s obligation, including reaffirmations or observations of a party’s existing obligations , and 
language mandating a party to accede to, or otherwise apply, the disciplines of an international IP 
treaty specific to the respective IPR category.  Out of the 174 RTA s containing IP provisions, 116 
were found to also contain provisions related to one or more of those specific IPR categories .  These 
RTA s are repr esented as Group 3 in Chart 1 and individually listed in Annex III.  
87. The incidence of provisions related to specific IPR types is plotted in Chart 4.  Of the 11 
different types identified in th at chart, eight are mentioned in the TRIPS Agreement.60  In general, the 
incidence of specific IPR categories is lower than that of the general IP provisions examined in the 
previous section.  
Chart 4. Agreements containing references to specific IPRs, perce ntage  
 
 
 
Source: Table 3.  
 
88. Chart 4 shows strong variations in the incidence of the different types of specific IPRs 
examined in this section.  Geographical indications, copyrights , trademarks , patents  and new plant 
varieties are the most commonly cited IP R categories , which appear in about 40% or more of the 
RTAs that include IP provisions .  The next most commonly referenced categories are industrial 
designs and undisclosed information, followed by TK -GR and then  the other three  specific IPRs 
mentioned above. 
89. Table 3 contains summary statistics for the specific IPR types illustrated in Chart 4.  The table 
has the same structure and follows the same methodology as Table 2.  The values in the table 
                                                      
60 The eight categories are patents, copyright and re lated rights, trademarks, undisclosed information, 
industrial designs, geographical indications, layout designs of integrated circuits and new plant varieties . 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Copyright and
Related Rights
Trademarks
Geographical Indications
Industrial Designs
Patents
Undisclosed Information
Layout Designs of
Integrated Circuits
New Plant Varieties
Traditional knowledge or genetic
resources
Encrypted Program-Carrying
Satellite Signals
Domain Names
Percentage of RTAs that include IP provisions 
23 
 correspond to the percentage of RTAs falling in a particular category.  The actual number of RTAs 
per category is the same as those shown in the last column of Table 2.  The eleven types of specific 
IPRs included in Chart 4 and Table 3 are discussed in the following sub -sections.  
(i) Copyright and Related Rights  
90. Literar y and artistic works such as books, musical compositions, paintings, sculptures, 
computer programs and films are protected by copyright.  Generally, the minimum period of 
protection is 50 years after the death of the author.  Copyright and related rights, sometimes referred 
to as “neighbouring” rights, protect the rights of performers (e.g. actors, singers and musicians), 
producers of phonograms (sound recordings) and broadcasting organizations.  The main social 
purpose of protection of copyright and relate d rights is to encourage and reward creative work. 61  
91. Table 3 shows that almost half of the RTAs under examination contain disciplines on 
copyrights (counting also RTAs  that refer  to relevant  WIPO treaties).   There  is no distinct pattern over 
time.  By con tinent, on the other hand, RTAs involving the Americas  or Europe  tend to have a greater 
incidence of references to copyrights than agreements involving other continents.  This probably 
reflects the  inclusion of copyright provisions in the RTAs involving th e United States or EFTA 
members , the two traders  which tend to include copyright provisions in their RTAs more often than 
others .  
(ii) Trademarks including Service Marks 
92. A trademark is any sign that individualizes the goods of a given enterprise and distinguis hes 
them from the goods of its competitors.  Such signs, in particular words including personal names, 
letters, numerals, figurative elements, combinations of colours as well as any combination of such 
signs, are generally eligible for registration as trad emarks.  Other marks that may constitute 
trademarks depending on the national jurisdiction include olfactory marks, sound marks and three 
dimensional marks.    
93. The pattern of trademark provisions in the RTAs under study is remarkably similar to that 
identif ied for copyright  provisions .  Annex 3 also confirms the similarity of patterns  between RTAs 
with trademarks and copyrights provisions.  
(iii) Geographical Indications  
94. A geographical indication (GI) is a sign used on goods that have a specific geographical 
origin  and possess qualities, reputation or characteristics that are essentially attributable to that place 
of origin.  Most commonly, a GI includes the name of the place of origin of the goods.  Agricultural 
products typically have qualities that derive from th eir place of production, such as climate and soil. 
GIs may be used for a wide variety of products, whether natural, agricultural or manufactured.  One 
example of a GI is "Darjeeling ", applied to  tea from that region of India.  
 
95. As shown in Table 3, just ove r half of the RTAs contain provisions on GIs (counting also 
RTAs that make reference to related WIPO treaties ).  The inclusion of GIs in RTAs increased after 
2009.  Geographical indications are more prevalent in RTAs involving countries in the Americas tha n 
countries in other continents.  
                                                      
61 For further i nformation  on this and other types of IPRs see  
http://www.wipo.int/export/sites/ www/about -ip/en/iprm/pdf/ch2.pdf .  24 Table 3. RTAs containing references to specific IPRs, % of agreements in each category  
 
 
Copyright and Related Rights  
Trademarks  
Geographical Indications  
Industrial Designs  
Patents  
Undisclosed Information  
Layout Designs of Integrated Circuits  
New Plant Varieties  
Traditional knowledge or genetic 
resources  
Encrypted Program -Carrying Satellite 
Signals  
Domain Names  
Memorandum: number of RTAs  
By period of entry into force:              
Before 1995  50 50 50 50 50 44 44 44 31 25 19 16 
1995 - 1999  50 50 50 30 40 30 10 40 0 30 0 10 
2000 - 2004  51 49 49 30 51 24 11 41 5 11 11 37 
2005 - 2009  38 42 43 26 42 25 5 37 22 17 26 65 
After 2009  50 52 72 35 41 33 7 39 43 15 9 46 
By continent:              
Americas  36 36 64 11 28 28 6 31 22 28 14 36 
Americas - Asia 44 44 85 15 41 15 0 33 30 22 26 27 
Americas - Europe  90 90 90 90 90 50 10 80 50 0 10 10 
Europe  61 61 57 61 61 54 36 57 29 36 29 28 
Europe - Africa  44 38 25 25 44 19 6 44 0 0 0 16 
Europe - Asia 60 60 45 45 55 35 15 40 5 5 5 20 
Asia 25 34 19 22 31 16 0 22 31 3 16 32 
Africa or Africa - Americas  40 40 40 20 40 20 20 40 20 20 20 5 
By type of economy:              
Developed only  100 100 100 100 100 80 40 80 40 60 80 5 
Developing or Transition  17 16 41 7 12 6 1 12 17 7 1 69 
Deve loping or Transition - 
Developed  70 74 66 51 72 47 16 63 26 24 26 87 
Developing or Transition - 
Developed - LDC  25 25 25 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 0 4 
Developing or Transition - LDC  10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 30 0 0 10 
By selected WTO Member:              
Chile  30 40 90 10 30 10 0 25 10 15 10 20 
EFTA members  92 92 92 92 92 84 36 80 16 8 12 25 
European Union  75 71 50 57 75 36 25 68 39 32 29 28 
Japan  54 69 54 54 77 54 0 54 15 0 38 13 
Mexico  70 70 90 50 60 50 20 50 0 50 0 10 
Turkey  16 16 21 11 11 11 5 11 0 5 0 19 
United States  93 93 93 21 93 64 7 93 21 86 79 14 
             
All RTAs with IP provisions  46 47 53 32 44 29 10 39 24 17 16 174 
 
Source: Calculations based on Annex III 
   
25 
 96. Geographical indications are included all the RTAs involving only developed economie s 
although they are also important for some developing countries.  Thus, the frequency of inclusion of 
GIs in Chile's and Mexico's RTAs is almost as high as that in EFTA's or U.S. RTAs.  On the other 
hand, the European Union's low score is surprising but p robably related to the considerations 
mentioned below in relation to patents  and the European Union's practice of protecting geographical 
indications through specific bilateral agreements . 
(iv) Industrial Designs  
97. Industrial design protection is provided for the  aesthetic or other  non-functional features of 
industrial  products, and does not extend to any functional features of the object to which it is applied.  
Generally, novelty, originality and  visual appeal  are the essential criteria for industrial design 
protection,  but these criteria can differ from one country to another.  Industrial designs increase an 
object's marketability by rendering it attractive or appealing, which then enhances its commercial 
value.   
98. Table 3 shows that 32% of the RTAs under conside ration include provisions on industrial 
designs.  There are no obvious patterns by period  or continent , although RTAs involving Europe  tend 
to cover industrial designs  more often than other agreements.  References to industrial designs  appear 
much more fre quently in RTAs involving only developed countries , and are also common in RTAs 
involving EFTA members .  In contrast, Chile's or Turkey's  RTAs seldom cover industrial designs.  
(v) Patents  
99. A patent is a document issued by a government office , or a regional offi ce acting for several 
countries, which describes an invention and confers a  range of exclusive  rights.  These include the 
exclusive right s to the manufacture, use, sale, offering for sale and importation of the invention.  The 
patent regime is concerned wi th protecting inventions in fields of technology, which include both 
products and innovative processes.  The protection conferred by the patent is time -limited (generally 
to 20 years).  
100. Table 3 shows that 44% of the 174 RTAs under consideration contain expl icit references to 
patents  (counting also agreements  that make reference to related WIPO treaties ).  There is no clear 
pattern over time  but clear differences by continent emerge :  90% of RTAs between the Americas and 
Europe includ e references to patents, and more than half  of RTAs involving Europe only or Europe  
and Asia also contain  such provisions.  The percentage is lower elsewhere.  
101. The above patterns are reflected in the fact that patents are mostly included in RTAs 
involving developed countries, with over 90% of the RTAs signed by the United States  or EFTA  
members , and about three -quarters  of the European Union's or  Japan's agreements containing patent 
provisions.   
(vi) Undisclosed Information, including Trade Secrets.  
102. Undisclosed information, also known a s trade secrets, is confidential information not 
general ly known among, or not readily accessible to , other persons apart from those in lawful control 
of the information .  Undisclosed information is kept secret because it has commercial value that 
would be  eroded if disclosed to others.  Such information remains legally protected provided the 
person lawfully in control of it takes reasonable steps to keep it secret.  Unlike other forms of IP 
protection, undisclosed information  is not protected by a speciall y conferred right.  They are protected 
without registration or any procedural formalities.   
103. The subject matter of undisclosed information is usually broadly defined to include sales 
methods, consumer profiles, advertising strategies, list s of suppliers an d clients and manufacturing  26 processes.  Unfair practices with respect to undisclosed information  include industrial or commercial 
espionage, breach of contract and breach of confidence.  An example of undisclosed information is 
the recipe for Coca Cola.   In the context of this paper references to undisclosed information also 
include  provisions that provide for test data protection,  a specific form of protection that is 
distinguished in the TRIPS Agreement (A rticle 39.3) and is provided in many countries by separate 
legal mechanisms other than the general protection afforded to undisclosed information or trade 
secrets.  
104. Table 3 indicates that 29% of the agreements under consideration in this section  include 
provisions on undisclosed information.  There are no obvious patterns by period  although , like for 
patents,  RTA s involving Europe  tend to cover undisclosed information more often than other 
agreements .  References to undisclosed information also appear much more frequently  in RTA s 
involving developed countri es.  The highest occurrence  of this IPR category is found in RTA s 
involving EFTA members , with 84% of these  agreements  containing references to undisclosed 
information .  In contrast, Chile's or Turkey's RTAs seldom make reference to undisclosed 
information . 
(vii) Layout -Designs (topographies) of  Integrated Circuits  
105. An integrated circuit (IC) is an electronic circuit with its elements integrated into some 
medium, thus creating a single functional unit.62  Integrated circuits are utilized in a large range of 
product s, including articles of everyday use, such as watches, television sets, automobiles and data 
processing equipment.  
106. The TRIPS Agreement contains provisions that require WTO Member to protect the layout -
designs  of IC in accordance with provisions of the Tre aty on Intellectual  Property in Respect of 
Integrated Circuits (IPIC Treaty) and with additional provisions of the TRIPS Agreement.  The IPIC 
Treaty was negotiated under the auspices of WIPO but has never entered into force due to an 
insufficient number of  ratifications .  Thus, i t is only  through their incorporation into the TRIPS 
Agreeme nt that a number  of provisions from the IPIC Treaty are binding on WTO  Members.  
107. Table 3 shows that references to IC topographies in RTA s are the least common of the eleven 
specific IPRs under consideration.  According to the table,  those references are included in only 10% 
of the 174 RTA s containing IP provisions .  References to IC topographies are also different from 
other specific IPRs in that their inclusion , although not frequent , is more common in RTA s that 
entered into force before 1995.  While  still the exception, references to IC topographies are more 
frequently found in RTA s involving Europe an parties .  Consistent with this  observation , references to 
IC topographies appear less infrequently  in RTA s involving EFTA members  or the European Union . 
(viii) New Plant Varieties   
108. WTO Members that do not provide patent protection for new plant varieties are required to 
protect plant varieties through a system created especially  for th is purpose ( sui generis  system).  
Members also have the option of using a combination of patents and a sui generis  system.  The main 
sui generis  system for the pro tection of plant varieties at the  international level is contained in the 
convention establis hing the International Union for the Protection of New Plant Varieties (the UPOV  
Convention).   This Convention  is administered by the Geneva -based Union internationale pour la 
protection des obtentions végétales .63   
109. Table 3 shows that close to 40% of RTAs with IP provisions include  references to new plant 
varieties.  They are more  common in RTA s involving  European countries or  developed economies.  
                                                      
62 The terms "integrated circuit", "semiconductor" and "silicon chip" are used synonymou sly. 
63 International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants of December 2, 1961, as 
Revised at Geneva on November 10, 1972, on October 23, 1978, and on March 19, 1991  
(the “ UPOV Convention ”), available at  http://www.upov.int/en/publicatio ns/conventions/1991/act1991.htm .   
27 
 However, the highest  number  of references to new plant varieties is found in US RTAs, often  by 
reference to the UPOV Convention .64  
(ix) Traditional Knowledge  or Genetic Resources  
110. Traditional knowledge  and genetic resources (TK-GR) are not covered in the TRIPS 
Agreement .  However, these subjects  are evolving and controversial areas of the international IP 
debate.  It is both interesting and important to determine how these issues are being dealt with in the 
parallel system of proliferating RTA s given the lack of agreement on these subjects  in the WTO 
context, and the  continuing  work of WIPO's Intergovernmental Committee to conclude international 
instruments in this area .  Though TK-GR relate to distinct subject matter, they are included in the 
same category for the purposes of this paper because legislative and policy debates tend to cover them 
together.  
111. According to Tabl e 3, almost  one-quarter  of the RTA s under consideration incorporate 
references to TK-GR.  The frequency of inclusion of such references has increased since 1995 , and 
became more common in the RTA s entering into force since 2010.  Their incidence is also re latively 
significant in RTA s involving developed economies  reflecting the  abov e-average  inclusion of  TK-GR 
provisions in RTAs involving the Eu ropean Union .65  On the other hand,  some of the most extensive 
provisions on TK -GR are found in RTAs involving deve loping countries .66   
(x) Encrypted Programme -Carrying Satellite Signals  
112. "Encrypted program -carrying satellite signal" means "…a program -carrying satellite signal 
that is transmitted in a form whereby the aural or visual characteristics, or both, are modified o r 
altered for the purpose of preventing the unauthorized reception , by persons without the authorized 
equipment that is designed to eliminate the effects of such modification or alternation, of a program 
carried in that signal ."67  Parties to WIPO's  Brussel s Convention are required to take measures to 
prevent the unauthorized distribution on or from their territories of any programme -carrying signal 
transmitted by satellite.68 
113. As shown in Table 3, references to encrypted programme -carrying satellite signals are 
included  in only some  17% of the agreements under consideration.  There is no clear patter n over time  
but references to encrypted programme -carrying satellite signals are less uncommon in RTA s 
involving the Americas  or Europe .  Consistent with this, som e 86% of RTA s involving the United 
States include such references, while the equivalent proportions for Mexico  and the European Union 
are 50% and 32% .  The incidence of provisions on encrypted programme -carrying satellite signals  is 
much lower for other tr aders listed in Table 3.  
                                                      
64 For example, Article 4 of th e US - Jordan  RTA provides that each Party shall, at a minimum, give 
effect to Articles 1 through 22 of the UPOV Convention.  
65 For example, Article 10.40 of the EU – Korea , Republic of  RTA pr ovides that "Subject to their 
legislation, the Parties shall respec t, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous 
and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of 
biolo gical diversity and promote their wider application with the involv ement and approval of the holders of 
such knowledge, innovations and practices and encourage the equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the 
utilisation of such knowledge, innovation s and practices."   
66 For example, Section H of the Nicaragua - Chinese Taipei  RTA has separate provisions dealing with 
each TK -GR areas.  The Panama - Chinese Taipei  RTA also provides the same extensive provisions.  
67 NAFTA , Article 1721.2.  
68 The Brussels Convention Relating to the Distribution of Programme -Carrying Signals  Transmitted 
by Satellite (1974) has 35 contracting parties.    28 (xi) Domain Names  
114. Unlike other IP rights, the registration of domain names is global  rather than territorial  in 
scope.  Access to the websites that correspond to their URLs are uninhibited by national borders.  
Further, the successful registration of a domain name in one part of the world precludes the 
registration of that domain name in every other pa rt of the world .  The registration of domain names is 
not managed  by national IP authorities but generally by organizations  accredited by  the Internet 
Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).  As a non -state entity, much of ICANN's 
responsibilities and activities are neither based in, nor driven by the legislation of any country.   
115. Table 3 shows that the proportion of RTA s contai ning a reference  to domain name  
management  is low ( 16%).  References to domain names are more common in RTA s involving 
developed economies.  The United States is an outlier, with almost 80% of its RTA s containing 
references to domain names.  Japan follow s far behind.  
(c) Provisions of special interest to public  health  and the pharmaceuticals sector  
(i) Introduction  
116. As a general observation regarding the analysis of IP provisions in  RTAs , two broad 
analytical avenues may be pursued:   the first  approach , outlined abo ve, work s towards a 
comprehensive  overview of broad trends and developments across geographical boundaries  and over 
time;  the second approach is to look at the significance of provisions for specific areas of public 
policy that are linked with the IP syst em.  The second approach is of interest because  a number of  
RTAs contain provisions that directly bear  on particular policy issues , reflecting the interplay between 
IP law and related areas of public policy .  This section therefore explores the potential applicability  of 
the general review methodology described  above to some more detailed provisions  in order to identify 
patter ns that could help inform policy discussions in the public  health and pharmaceuticals sector .   
117. The public  health and pharmaceuticals  sector  is of multilateral interest because  of the Doha 
Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health and the on -going discussion within the 
Council for TRIPS on the Paragraph 6 System .69  The sector is also of interest in the context of the 
joint st udy by the WHO, WIPO and WTO Secretariats on public health, IP and trade  and related 
policy discussions, notably the work of the World Health Organization through its Global Strategy 
and Plan of Action .70  The WHO, WIPO and WTO Secretariats study found  that a number of RTAs 
provided for more extensive protection for patents and test data, as well as higher enforcement 
standards, which affected trade in pharmaceuticals and could have an impact on prices for medical 
technologies.  The study  also found that  many RTAs formed “families” grouped around “hubs” , and 
that reasons of principle and practicality had led to a “ratcheting -up” effect on IP standards (see also 
section  F below).  
118. Although some insights may be derived from an initial application of this method ology, the 
relevance, utility and clarity of its application to this particular policy field could profit from  further 
development , for e xample  to take account of the fact that  while the majority of the detailed  IP 
provisions examined  in this section are relevant to  public health and pharmaceuticals , such provisions 
are typically not exclusive to this sector , and may have relevance to a wide range of other areas . 
119. Hereafter , for convenience a selection of provisions relevant to public health and the 
pharmace utical sector  is referred to as "pharma -related provisions" for shor t, although the above 
                                                      
69 See WTO documents WT/MIN(01)/DEC/2, 20 November 2001 and WT/L/540 and Corr.1, 1 
September 2003.  
70 The study "Promoting Acc ess to Medical Technologies and Innovation: intersections between public 
health, intellectual property and trade" is available at http://www.wto.org/english/res_e/publications_e/who -
wipo -wto_2013_e.htm .  
29 
 caveat, that these  provisions need not be considered as exclusively concerned with this one sector, 
should be noted  carefully .   
(ii) Particular pharma -related  provisions  in RTAs 
120. As with other IPRs analysed  in this study, pharma -related provisions were investigated on the 
basis of whether or not the texts of the RTA s referenced  specific sub -criteria  of this subject area.  The 
sub-criteria were selected because of their conn ection to the flexibilities available under the TRIPS  
Agreement .  They cover policy areas of particular interest access to the public health and 
pharmaceutical sector, including patent linkage, compulsory licensing, the patenting of life forms, 
regulatory approval and others.  The list of the 11 criteria is presented in Box 1, which also provides 
examples taken from specific RTA s.  
Box 1.  Examples of pharma -related provisions in RTAs  
 
i. Patentability criteria or patent subject matter  – Article 130.1 of the Japan - Thailand  RTA  provides that patents 
be made available for any inventions in all fields of technology provided that they are new, involve an inventive 
step and are capable of industrial application.  
ii. Patentability of new uses – Article 21 of Decision 4 86 by the Andean Community  provides  that products or 
processes that are already patented may not form the subject matter of a new patent owing to the fact of having a 
use different from that originally provided for in the first patent.  
iii. Patenting of life fo rms – Article 15.9.2 of the US – Morocco RTA  provides  that patents be made available for 
inventions of plants and animals.  
iv. Patent linkage – Article  18.9.5  of the Korea, Republic of – US RTA  provides  that the marketing approval process 
for pharmaceuticals i nclude measures to prevent third parties from marketing a patented product during the term 
of that patent without the consent of the patent owner.  
v. Exceptions or exclusions to exclusive rights – Article 17.20 of the Australia - Chile  RTA  provides  that a par ty 
may permit limited exceptions to the exclusive rights conferred by a patent , provided that such exceptions do not 
unreasonably conflict with a normal exploitation of the patent and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate 
interests of the patent own er, taking account of the legitimate interests of third parties.  
vi. Data protection  – Article 3  of Annex XIII t o the EFTA – Korea , Republic of  RTA requires  the Parties to prevent 
applicants for marketing approval for pharmaceuticals products from relying on u ndisclosed test data submitted 
for marketing approval by a first applicant "for an adequate number of years", to be determined by the relevant 
regulations of the Parties.  Any Party may instead allow applicants to rely on such data if the first applicant i s 
adequately compensated.  
vii. Minimum period of data protection  – Article 1711.6 of the NAFTA  requires  that, normally, no person other than 
the person  submitting test data may, without permission, rely on such data in support of an application for 
product appr oval during a period of not less than five years after approval is granted to the person that produced 
the data.  
viii. Term extensions of patent protection – Article 2(b) in Annex XIII of the EFTA – Korea , Republic of  RTA 
requires parties to provide in their nat ional laws  a compensatory term of protection for pharmaceuticals of up to 
five years for curtailment of the patent term as a result of the marketing approval process.  
ix. Compulsory licensing – Article 1709.10 of the NAFTA  setting out conditions for the granti ng of compulsory 
licences, including requirements that such licences be non -exclusive and non -assignable, be predominantly to 
supply the domestic market, efforts be made to obtain authorization from the right holder and this be paid 
adequate remuneration, and do not authorize the use of the subject matter of a patent to permit the exploitation of 
another patent except as a remedy for violation of domestic competition laws.  
x. Compulsory licensing on investment – Article 10.12.6 of the Korea, Republic of – India RTA provides that the 
Article containing a general prohibition on the nationalization or expropriation of investments of an investor of 
the other Party is inapplicable to the issuance of compulsory licenses granted in relation to IPRs to the extent 
such grant is consistent with the TRIPS Agreement.  
xi. Safeguarding a trademark's function – Article 15. 2.3 of the US – Oman  RTA  requires  that measures mandating 
the use of common names, including requirements on size, placement or style of use of the trademark, d o not 
impair the use or effectiveness of trademarks.  
   30 121. As indicated in Chart 1, 94  RTAs were found to contain at least one of the pharma -related 
provisions mentioned in Box 1.  The frequency with which those provisions are included in RTAs is 
illustrated in Chart 5.  Th is chart shows, in general, the inclusion of pharma -related provisions in 
RTAs is not common , even in those agreements that otherwise contain other types of IP provisions.   
122. As illustrated  in Chart 5, there are wide variations in the inclusi on of the different sub -
categories of pharma -related provisions.  The provision most frequently included in RTAs relates to 
patentability criteria and compulsory licensing on investment , with about 30% of the 174  agreements 
in the sample.  The other two sub-categories that are more often included are those relating to 
exceptions to exclusive rights  and to data protection provisions .   
Chart 5. Agreements containing pharma -related provisions , percentage  
 
 
 
Source: Table 4.  
 
123. Table 4 contains summary statisti cs for each of the 11 pharma -related provisions.  The table 
has the same structure and follows the same methodology as Tables 2 and 3.  Hence, all the values in 
Table 4 refer to the percentage of RTAs falling in a particular category.  The number of RTAs p er row 
is the same as that shown in the last column s of Table s 2 and 3 . 
124. Table 4 shows that the proportion of RTAs containing pharma -related provisions slightly 
dipped in the five years after the TRIPS Agreement entered into force.  However, no other patter ns 
over time are evident.  RTAs containing pharma -related provisions are common for agreements 
involving only developed economies  and, to a much lesser extent,  for agreements between developed 
and developing /transitions economies .  However, RTAs involving other combinations of economies 
seldom contain such provisions.  0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Patentability criteria or patent subject
matter
Patentability of new use.
Patenting of life forms
Patent linkage
Exceptions or exclusions to exclusive rights
Data protection provisions (incl. min.
protection periods)
...  of which minimum period of data
protection
Term extensions of
patent protection
Compulsory licensing
of patents
Compulsory licensing on investment
Safeguarding of a
trademark's function
Percentage of RTAs that include IP provisions 
31 
 Table 4. RTA s containing pharma -related provisions , % of agreements in each category  
 
 Patentability criteria or patent subject 
matter  
Patentability of new use.  
Patenting of life forms  
Patent linkage  
Exceptions or exclusions to exclusive 
rights  
Data protection provisions (incl. min. 
protection periods)  
...  of which min . period of protection  
Term extensions of patent protection  
Compulsory licensing of patents  
Compulsory licensing on investment  
Safeguarding of a trademark's function  
Memorandum: number of RTAs  
By period of entry into force:              
Before 1995  50 44 50 0 50 31 25 44 44 6 6 16 
1995 - 1999  20 10 20 0 20 20 20 10 20 20 10 10 
2000 - 2004  30 16 19 8 24 16 11 19 22 19 8 37 
2005 - 2009  31 15 23 9 23 28 20 18 11 37 9 65 
After 2009  30 13 20 7 26 28 28 26 2 39 7 46 
By continent:              
Americas  22 6 17 14 19 22 19 19 8 61 22 36 
Americas - Asia 33 15 7 22 30 22 19 22 11 56 15 27 
Americas - Europe  40 20 40 0 40 50 40 40 20 0 0 10 
Europe  57 50 57 0 57 46 46 50 39 0 0 28 
Europe - Africa  19 13 13 0 13 13 13 13 13 0 0 16 
Europe - Asia 40 25 35 0 35 25 20 25 20 0 5 20 
Asia 19 0 9 0 3 13 0 0 0 44 0 32 
Africa or Africa - Americas  20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 0 20 20 5 
By type of economy:              
Developed only  100 80 80 20 100 80 80 100 60 20 20 5 
Developing or Transition  4 1 1 0 3 3 1 1 3 38 3 69 
Developing or Transition - 
Developed  54 29 41 13 45 44 36 38 23 25 13 87 
Developing or Transition - 
Developed - LDC  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 25 0 4 
Developing or Transition - LDC  0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 0 10 
By selected WTO Member:              
Chile  15 5 10 5 15 10 10 10 5 35 10 20 
EFTA members  92 68 88 0 88 64 56 68 48 0 0 25 
European Union  32 25 29 0 29 36 36 32 29 0 4 28 
Japan  54 0 31 0 8 38 8 8 0 15 0 13 
Mexico  30 10 20 0 20 30 20 10 30 40 30 10 
Turkey  11 5 11 0 11 5 5 5 11 0 0 19 
United States  93 43 57 86 93 93 86 93 29 79 79 14 
             
All RTAs with IP provisions  32 17 24 7 26 25 21 22 14 30 8 174 
 
Source: Calculations  based  on Annex IV. 
  32 125. Table 4 shows a tendency for a higher proportion of RTAs involving the Americas  or Europe  
to include pharma -related provisions.  RTAs involving the United States and EFTA members  are 
primarily responsible for these trends .  Indeed, the  great majority of US RTAs incorporate pharma -
related provisions, many of which include several of the 11 provisions identified in  this study.  While 
far behind the United States  and EFTA members , the European Union and Mexico also contribute 
significantly  to the prevalence of pharma -related provisions in RTAs involving parties from the 
Americas  or Europe .  Although  pharma -related provisions are relatively significant in RTAs involving 
the European Union, this average masks wide differences across individua l RTAs.   
126. A more detailed analysis of RTAs signed by the United States is due given their extensive 
treatment of  pharma -related provisions.  As shown in Annex IV, 13 of the  14 agreements  involving 
the United States contain pharma -related provisions  (all ex cept for the US – Israel  RTA).  The 13 
RTAs include provisions on patentability criteria and  patent subject matter , patent exceptions or 
exclusions, data protection  and patent term extensions.  Twelve of those RTA s also cover patent 
linkage and minimum per iods of data exclusivity.  In all, 10 RTAs cover at least 8 of the 11 pharma -
related provisions under consideration.  As a consequence, many of the RTAs involving the United 
States contain provisions that can result in longer than normal periods of market exclus ivity.71   
127. While the RTAs signed by other WTO Members fall behind those maintained by the United 
States in terms of coverage and depth, as previously noted, the RTAs involving EFTA members and, 
to a lesser extent, the European Union also contain signi ficant pharma -related provisions  (see also 
section on patents above).  Although considerably behind, the RTAs involving Japan or Mexico also 
have some significant pharma -related provisions.  
D. AGGREGATING THE INDIV IDUAL PROVISIONS :  THE OVERALL IP CONTENT OF RTA S 
128. We conclude with a general set of observations on the findings from this study and on the 
methodology used :  as a working paper, one function of the present study is to promote consideration 
of suitable methodologies for the categorization, filtering and analysis of IP provisions in RTAs, both 
for general, systemic analysis, and for specific insights on certain policy issues.  The need for a 
continuing methodological discussion is apparent from the diversity of IP provisions, both in their 
substantive subject matter, and in the institutional and legal manner in which they are applied.  
129. As discussed in the previous sections, of the 245 RTA s considered in this study, 174 were 
found to contain IP provisions of some type or another.  However, some of the re ferences to IP were 
cursory and did not provide for any subs tantive rights or obligations.  Hence, it was  considered  
important to distinguish  between RTA s that merely mention  IP from those that contain provisions that 
could actually qualify or elaborate on  the relationship between  the parties.  
130. The next sections present the methodology implemented to make that distinction .  Following 
the structure of previous sections, separate measures of IP content were estimated  for general  IP 
provisions , for specific IP categories and for pharma -related provisions .  These three measures were 
then consolidated in a global score representing the overall level of IP content of individual RTA s.  
1. Methodology  
131. The level of IP content of each of the 174 RTA s under consideration w as established by 
counting the number of different IP-related provisions identified in the  agreement s.  Thus, the content 
of "general " IP provisions was measured by counting the general provisions in each RTA  as recorded 
in Annex II .  Likewise , the level o f specific and pharma -related provisions in each RTA  corresponded 
to the tally of the related provisions recorded in Annexes III and IV.  This methodology reflects the 
                                                      
71 A specific example of a provision t hat extends mark et exclusivity is Article 15.9.6(a) of the CAFTA 
– DR RTA.  This sub -section provides for patent term extension where the issuance of a patent has been 
delayed.  Article 15.9.6(b) of the same RTA also provides for patent ter m extension to compensate patent  
owners for the unreasonable curtailment of the effective patent term.   
33 
 nature of the information resulting from the binary coding methodology followed in previ ous sections.  
A more  elaborated approach to estimating the IP content of RTAs would require a richer dataset than 
the one compiled for this paper.  
132. As discussed in earlier sections, 10 different types of general IP provisions were defined, as 
were 11 speci fic IPR provisions and 11 pharma -related provisions .  Hence, the highest possible score  
for an individual RTA  was 10 in regard s to general IP provisions, 11 for provisions of specific IPR 
categories  and 11 for provisions relating to pharmaceutical s.  To fa cilitate the presentation, those 
tallies were all normalized to 100.72  The three resulting scores for each of the RTA s containing IP 
provisions are shown in Annex V.  
133. A score for overall IP content was computed by combining the scores for the three groups o f 
IP provisions previously mentioned.  The overall score was estimated as the weighted average of the 
partial scores for those three groups.  The following asymmetric weights were given to general, 
specific and pharma -related provisions, respectively:  60% , 30% and 10%.  These values were chosen 
to give greater importance to general IP provisions and a lower but still significant weight to specific 
provisions.  Pharma -related provisions were given the lowest weight because they mostly represent an 
elaborati on on provisions already included under specific provisions, with 9 of the 11 pharma -related 
provisions relating to patents alone.  
134. The above weights might  overstate  the overall IP content of RTA s since they give greater 
importance to general IP provisions,  which are the most frequent and have the highest  score of the 
three types of provisions included in the study.  However, the weights used were  considered 
appropriate ly conservative in the absence of a deeper analysis of the substance of IP provisions in 
RTAs.  The resulting scores for the overall IP content of individual  RTA s are indicated in Annex V.  
135. For comparison purposes, the overall sc ore was also estimated using a proportional  weighting 
scheme that defines the weights as the ratio of the number of ge neral, specific or pharma -related 
provisions  to the maximum possible number of provisions ( 32).  This scheme thus assign ed the 
following weights to general, specific and pharma -related provisions, respectively:  10/32, 11/32 and 
11/32.  The resulting score s for the overall IP content of individual RTAs calculated using these 
weights are shown in Annex VI.  The proportional weighting scheme gives a much greater weight to 
the score of pharma -related provisions compared with their weight in Annex V.  This and t he fact that 
the pharmaceutical score is in general much lower than the scores for general or specific provisions 
mean that the overall scores in Annex  VI are lower than  those  in Annex  V.   
136. As a final step, based on the score of overall IP content, the 174 RTA s containing IP 
provisions were classified in three categories:  RTA s containing a high level of  IP provisions, RTA s 
with a moderate level of IP provisions and RTA s with negligible  IP provisions.  Agreements scoring 
60 points  or more  were included in t he first group, while those having 20 or more but less than  60 
points were classified in the second group.  RTA s with less than 20 points were classified as 
containing negligible IP provisions.  These thresholds were selected to favour the classification o f 
RTA s in the  moderate and high IP content categories, and may thus overstate the number of 
agreements in these two categories .   
137. Annex V shows the classification of RTA s in each of the three categories defined in the 
previous paragraph  when using asymmetr ic weights (10%, 30% and 60%)  to calculate their overall IP 
content.  Note that there is an implicit fourth category of agreements:  RTA s containing no IP 
provisions of any type, i.e., those not included among the 174 RTA s in the other three categories but  
part of the original group of 245 agreements.    
                                                      
72 A linear relationship was used to convert the ranges of 0 -10 and  0-11 to a scale of 0 -100.  This means 
that in the case of general provisions the inclusion of one particular provision  in a RTA adds 10 points to the 
score, while in the case of specific or pharma -related provisions each additional pro vision contributes 9.1 points.    34 138. The following sections are based on the overall scores  obtained using asymmetric weight s, as 
shown  in Annex V, which were deemed more representative than those  derived using a proportional 
weighting scheme  (Annex VI).   This is mainly because p roportional weighting i ntroduces a strong 
bias in favour of patents reflecting the  high importance  that these are given as part of pharma -related 
provisions.  This  also implicit ly plays down the role of other forms of IP. 
2. RTA s by level of IP content  
139. The data in Annex V were used to categorise RTA s according to their content of IP 
provisions and by period, continent and their parties’ level of development.  The resulting landscape is 
summarized in Table 5.  The following p aragraphs describe this landscape with a particular emphasis 
on RTA s containing  moderate or high IP content.  Naturally, o ther RTA s containing  negligible IP 
content , and those  without any  IP content at all, are of much less interest  in the context of this paper . 
140. Table 5 shows that 11 5 (47%) of the 245 RTAs in the original sample contain high or 
moderate levels of IP content.  Of those, 5 4 RTAs (2 2% of the total) are classified as having high 
levels of IP content , and 61 RTAs (about 25% of the total) as havi ng moderate levels of IP content.    
141. Table 5 also shows that the  proportion of RTAs with high or moderate  level s of IP content 
tends to increase with time, from less than one -quarter in earlier years to more than two-thirds after 
2009 .  
142. Additionally, Table 5 shows that the IP content of RTAs varies widely across continents.  
Almost 60%  of the 54 RTAs with high IP content involve countries in Europe .  In contrast, Africa is 
by some margin the continent with the lowest proportion of RTAs with moderate or high levels of IP 
content.  
143. Of the 94 RTAs  involving both developed and developing /transition economies, just under 
half contain high IP content  and almost 30%  contain moderate levels.  This makes RTAs combining 
developing and developed countries the agreements with the highest proportion of high or moderate 
IP content.  Half  of the RTAs involving only developed economies have high levels of IP content.  
Excluding agreements involving developed economies, developing, transition and least -developed 
countries tend to conclude RTAs with at most  moderate IP content  at most.  
144. The bottom of Table 5 contains statistics for selected WTO Members that are particularly 
active in concluding RTAs.  It shows that the distribution of RTAs with moderate and high levels of 
IP cont ent varies considerably across the economies listed.  Thus, while 86% of the 1 4 RTAs signed 
by the United States contain high levels of IP content, the equivalent share for Turkey is only 10%.   
145. A modest difference in IP content between the several RTAs in volving the European Union 
on the one hand and EFTA members on the other was anticipated in view of the close institutional 
links between the two trading groups, notably through the EEA.  However, according to Table 5 the 
proportion of RTAs involving the E uropean Union and classified as having high levels of IP content 
is significantly  lower than for EFTA members, with just under  one-third of the European Union's 3 4 
RTAs so classified as compared to 71% of the 32 RTAs entered into by  EFTA members.   
   
35 
 Table  5. Number of RTA s by level of IP content  
 
 High 
content  Moderate 
content  Negligible 
content  No IP 
content  Any 
content 
level  
By period:       
Before 1995  7 2 7 24 40 
1995 - 1999  2 3 5 23 33 
2000 - 2004  9 15 13 9 48 
2005 - 2009  20 23 22 11 76 
After 200 9 16 18 12 4 50 
By continent:       
Americas  9 10 17 3 39 
Americas - Asia 7 12 8 3 30 
Americas - Europe  6 4 0 1 11 
Europe  16 3 9 43 73 
Europe - Africa  3 7 6 0 16 
Europe - Asia 7 6 7 1 21 
Asia 5 18 9 16 48 
Africa, Africa -Americas or Africa -Asia 1 1 3 4 9 
By economy t ype:      
Developed only  5 0 0 5 10 
Developing or Transition  4 27 37 45 113 
Developing or Transition - Developed  45 27 15 7 94 
Developing or Transition - Developed - LDC  0 2 2 1 5 
Developing or Transition - LDC  0 5 5 13 23 
By selec ted WTO Member or group:       
Chile  3 8 9 2 22 
EFTA members  22 2 1 6 32 
European Union  11 11 6 6 34 
Japan  5 6 2 0 13 
Mexico  4 3 3 1 11 
Turkey  2 4 13 0 20 
United States  12 1 1 0 14 
      
All RTAs  54 61 59 71 245 
 
Source: Calculations based  on Anne x V. 
 
   36 146. Annex V shows that the above is the result of the average IP content for all of the European 
Union's RTAs concealing a wide gap between two types of agreements:  those involving the European 
Union 's trading partners in Europe  and certain others,  and those involving partners further afield.73  
Thus, the EEA Agreement between the European Union and EFTA members requires that the latter 
provide the same level of protection provided under EU law.74  The IP regime of countries such as 
Turkey is also expect ed to convergence with that of the European Union.75   
147. On the other hand, it is far from clear to what extent the legal language  of the so called Euro -
Mediterranean Agreements, such as the RTA s between the European Union and Algeria or Tunisia, 
require the convergence of the relevant national IP regimes.76  As observed before, it is an open 
question whether such language is  enforceable and, thus, of practical significance.77   
148. Valdes and Tavengwa (2012 ) noted that  Mexico was  the country  with the highest propor tion 
of RTA s containing  high levels of IP content after the United States .  This largely resulted from  the 
high scores of the NAFTA and Mexico's RTA s with individual countries in Central America.  The 
situation changed after the RTAs between Mexico and ind ividual countries in Central America  were 
replaced by a single Mexico -Central America  RTA in 2012.   The replacement of five RTAs by only 
one agreement has resulted in  the proportion of Mexico's RTAs with high IP  content falling  from 60% 
to 36% .  Although m uch reduced, this proportion  is still comparable to that of the European Union or 
Japan and considerably higher than that of other developing countries.  
149. The fall in the proportion of Mexico's RTAs with high IP content  is an arithmetic result  that 
does not necessarily reflect a reduction in the number of bilateral IP-related commitments between 
Mexico and its partners in Central America.  This result point s to the possible  future need to use  
alternative meth odologies to estimate the IP content of RTAs  if the  consolidation of regional blocs 
were to become a significan t trend.   
E. THE ARCHITECTURE OF RTA S CONTAINING IP PROVISIONS  
150. RTA s containing IP provisions are characterized by a distinct hub -and-spoke architecture.  
The largest systems are grouped around the E uropean Union , EFTA  and the United States .  However,  
Chile, Japan  and Mexico constitute other centres of gravity.  This architecture probably emerged in 
large part from the frequent use of template approaches to the negotiat ion of  RTA s.  This has 
generated  a tendency for IP provisions to be replicated in RTA s linked to a common hub.  As a result, 
several important characteristics of those provisions arise from the identity of the central entity.  
151.  Chart s 6 and 7 present graphic overview s of RTA s containing  a high level of  IP provisions.  
Chart 6 depicts the links among such RTA s in force in 2000 .  Chart 7 shows the links for RTAs 
containing high IP content in force in 2014.  Neither chart  provid es a comprehensive map ping of all 
                                                      
73 As shown in Annex V, in addition to countries in Europe, the EU has entered into RTAs containing 
high IP  content with  Central America ; Colombia ; Korea and Peru.  
74 Article 1.2 of Protocol 28 states that "Without prejudice to the provisions of this Protocol and of 
Annex XVII, the Contracting Parties shall upon the entry into force of the Agreement adjust thei r legislation on 
intellectual property so as to make it compatibl e with the principles of free circulation of goods and services and 
with the level of protection of intellectual property attained in Community law, including the level of 
enforcement of those  rights."  
75 Article 31 of the EU - Turkey  RTA states that "The P arties recognize that the Customs Union can 
functi on properly only if equivalent levels of effective protection of  intellectual property rights are provided in 
both constituent parts of the customs Union."  
76 Those texts typically use wording such as  in Article 30 of the EU - Lebanon  RTA:  "the Parties shall 
ensure a dequate and effective protection of intellectual, industrial and commercial property rights in conformity 
with the highest international standards, including effective means of enforcing such rig hts." 
77 As noted, the RTAs in this ambiguous situation inclu de the agreements between, on the one hand, 
the European Union and, on the other hand, Algeria, Cameroon, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco or 
Tunisia.   The issue of the enforceability of so me of the European Union's RTAs  is raised  in th e foreword to 
Horn (2007) , which observes that those agreements "are marred by considerable legal inflation."   
37 
 agreements  with IP content beca use such a  complete picture in 2014 would undoubtedly  resemble 
Bhagwati's  proverbial spaghetti bowl!  
152. As illustrated in Chart 6, in 2000 only a handful of RTAs containing a high level of IP 
provisions were in force.  These included essentially two pivots:  Mexico and the EU -EFTA twin hub.  
The EU -EFTA hub had only a couple of  spokes while  Mexico  was linked to four trading partners .  
The five members of the Andean Community represented  a separate group with its own 
comprehensive common IP regime.  Chart 7 shows that the number of hubs and the density of links 
among RTAs containing a high level of IP provisions increased considerably between 2000 and 2014. 
153. Chart 7 highlights some important features of the RTAs containing IP provisions currently in 
force.  Thus,  the Chart's far right identifies the links between the members of EFTA and the European 
Union hubs, which together make up a system of "deep integration", which is both extensive and 
tightly knitted  together .  This may have arisen from the successive repl ication of the European 
Union's IP regime through the provisions of the relevant RTAs.  As illustrated, with one exception, all 
the countries in Europe with which the European Union maintains RTAs with high IP content also 
have RTAs containing high IP cont ent with EFTA members.78  However, differences do arise between 
the spokes linked to the European Union or to EFTA, with a few  countries tied to the European Union 
through RTAs with high IP content but not to EFTA, or tied to EFTA but not to the European Un ion.  
In particular , EFTA has more RTAs with high IP content linking its members to non -European 
countries.79 
154. The left side of Chart 7 suggests the existence of another large hub formed around the United 
States.  However, the IP provisions of this system wo uld be less tightly knitted than those in Europe, 
reflecting the fact that RTAs in the Americas do not usually involve deep integration processes.80  As 
noted, Canada, Mexico and the United States are linked through the NAFTA .  In addition, as noted, 
Mexico  has one RTA with high IP content with Central American countries while another  RTA links 
the United States to the same Central American countries plus the Dominican Republic.  The IP 
regimes of Andean Community members are connected through comprehensive Andean IP statutes.  
155. Chart 7 also shows the links drawing together, directly or indirectly, the hubs in the Americas 
and Europe.  The chart shows, for example, that Chile and Mexico are directly connected to EFTA 
and the United States through RTAs with high  IP content.  Colombia, Peru, Korea, Morocco and 
Singapore  also maintain RTAs with high IP content directly linking them to EFTA and the United 
States.  In turn, Colombia, Korea, Panama and Peru also have RTAs with high IP content  linking them 
to both the European Union and the United States.  Five countries in Central America have separate 
RTAs with high IP content that simultaneously link them to the European Union, Mexico and the 
United States.  
                                                      
78 The exception is Bosnia and Herzegovina, which has a RTA with the EU but not with EFTA 
members.  However, Bosnia and Herzegovina signed a RTA with EFTA members in June 2013.  
79 Switzerland and Japan , on the one hand, and Norway and the Faroe Islands, on the other hand,  
maintain RTA s with high IP content which do not involve other EFTA members.  
80 See Va ldés (2010).   38 Chart 6.  Network of RTA s with high  IP content , 2000   
 
Source: Based on  Annex V . 
 
 
 
Chart 7.  Network of RTAs with high IP content, 201 3  
 
Source: Based on  Annex V.  
  
 
39 
 F. POSSIBLE IMPLICATIONS   
1. Impact for domestic regulation  
156. The interconnections among hub -and-spoke systems create networks that transmit IP 
provisions a cross RTA s, and eventually from one domestic IP regime to another.  For example, the 
separate RTA s between EFTA and Jordan and EFTA and Morocco require the two Arab countries to 
provide patent protection similar to the EPC.  This echoes the provision in th e EEA Agreement 
between EFTA and the European Union, which also mandates EFTA members to comply with the 
substantive provisions of the EPC.81 
157. The impact of RTA s on domestic regulations can be substantial in part because IP provisions 
covered by the TRIPS Ag reement and contained in a particular RTA  must be applied without 
discrimination to the nationals of countries that are not parties to the RTA  in question.  While for 
trade in goods , WTO rules provide for departures from the MFN principle, for IP, Members are 
required to apply the MFN principle with only a few exceptions.82   
158. Even if WTO Members were not required to abide by the MFN principle in regard to IP, they 
would find it difficult and costly to tailor their domestic regulations to favour RTA  partners because 
IP provisions generally take the form of domestic regulations rather than measures applied at the 
border.  In this regard, Baldwin (2011) concludes that:  
"many but not all deeper provisions [in RTA s] tend to act as general liberalisations rather 
than discriminatory liberalisations because it is difficult or impossible to write rules of 
origin for them that exclude third nations. The deep reasons are the difficulties in 
establishing the nationality of modern corporations and of services as well as th e public -
good nature of the many regulatory reforms in deep [ RTA s]." 
 
159. The hub -and-spoke architecture and non -discriminatory nature of IP provisions in RTA s 
mean that membership in additional RTA s can create a process of ratchet -like steps whose effect is t o 
incrementally tighten a country's domestic IP regulations.  This ratchet -up effect is likely to feed back 
into the international arena  because  a country will want to include in future RTAs the domestic 
regulations resulting from commitments it already ma de under previous agreements  for any  number  of 
reasons :  to achieve deeper integration, to lock -in domestic reforms and to prevent policy reversal , or 
to serve political motives .  Both developed and a few developing countries thus appear to have 
engaged in  a process that "exports" their domestic regulatory regimes to trading partners.  
160.  The ratchet -like process could lead to the creation of new "international standards" of IP , 
which  although established through bilateral rather than multilateral negotiations , would result in the 
non-discriminatory treatment of RTA  members and non -members alike.  In the goods area , this type 
of treatment would tend to enhance competition and trade, and ultimately economic welfare.  
However, it is not clear to which extent  this would be true in the case of  IP given in particular the 
usual intangible nature and public -good characteristics of intellectual property .  Moreover, adherence 
to diverse treaty standards  implies the risk of regulatory confusion and implementation problems .83   
                                                      
81 Article 3.4 of Protocol 28 of the EEA Agreement:  "The EFTA States shall comply in their law with 
the substantive provisions of the  European Patent Convention of 5 October 1973 ." 
82 As observed before, Article 4 of the TRIPS Agreement contain s the MFN principle, which provides 
for only limited exceptions.  Additionally, Article 3 of the same agreement requires a WTO Member to extend 
the treatment accorded to its own nationals to the nationals of other WTO Members.  The application of the 
natio nal treatment principle implies granting MFN treatment to all nationals if a country chooses to apply a RTA 
without discriminating against its own nationals, which in practice is almost without exception the case.  
83 See Kampf (2007).   40 2. Economic aspects  
161. WTO 2011a provided an in -depth analysis of the increase in the number of RTA s.  The 
presentation in this section relies heavily on the perspectives and insights contained in that report.  
The report discusses the possible motives for RTA s, including neutralizing "beggar -thy-neighbour" 
trade policies, increasing market size, enhancing policy predictability or signalling openness to 
investors.  The report also observes that the creation of RTA s cannot be fully understood without 
consider ing the political context within which they are formed.  
162. RTA s containing IP provisions are typically part of deep integration processes.  WTO 2011a 
argues that trade openness resulting from these processes creates pressures to reconcile divergent 
national practices, and produces demands for governance and the rule of law that transcend national 
borders.  This is a particularly relevant consideration in the case of IPRs, which have remained 
essentially territorial despite the growing globalization of virtual ly all national economies.   
163. In addition, WTO 2011a notes that the international fragmentation of production imposes 
additional costs, particularly for developing countries that are part of North -South production 
networks, and that lack sophisticated regul ations.  Multilateral rules do not go far enough to manage 
the resultant tightening of economic bonds.  As a result, the expansion of international production 
networks has become a main driver for the creation of deeply integrative RTA s aimed at harmonizin g 
national policies across jurisdictions.  
164. The assessment of the economic impact of deep integration RTA s, including those containing 
IP provisions, has proved to be difficult.  For RTA s covering goods alone, the analysis reflects the 
established insight th at RTA s have both trade creation and trade diversion effects, and may increase 
or reduce the economic welfare of its members.  The fact that deep integration agreements involve not 
only the reduction of trade barriers at the border but also changes to dome stic regulations makes their 
analysis even more complex and the conclusions more tentative.  
165. A particularly difficult question concerning the economic impact of RTA s with IP provisions 
relates to the estimation of the costs and benefits of adopting common policies and regulations among 
countries at different stages of economic development.  WTO 2011a concludes that for developing 
countries , common policies with advanced economies may create benefits by allowing them to import 
regulatory systems that are “pr e-tested” and represent “best practices”, without having to pay the costs 
of developing them from scratch.   
166. With regards to disadvantages, the report observes that developing countries may be 
pressur ed into adopt ing common rules which are inappropriate fo r their level of development, or rules 
that are used to protect the vested interests  of certain groups .   
167. The difficulties of conducting an economic analysis of RTA s containing IP provisions are 
also compounded by certain  economi c features  of IP, which req uire particular  solutions regarding the 
protection of IPRs  and innovation .  In particular, the "public good" characteristics  of intellectual 
property  require adopting second -best solutions .  Moreover,  a delicate balance between the interest of 
IP owners an d users  is also required .  Providing for such balance is especially complex when 
inventors, owners and users are located in different countries.  Reflecting these difficulties, the 
economy -wide effects of including IP provisions in RTA s have seldom been qu antified, even in 
countries with well -established records of sound economic analysis.84 
                                                      
84 For example, policy -makers in Australia typically formulate trade policies through rigorous 
economic analysis undertaken by government institutions such as the Productivity Commission.  Yet 
Productivity Commission (2010) recom mended that in the future "Australia’s participati on in international 
negotiations in relation to IP laws … should be informed by a robust economic analysis of size and distribution 
of the resultant benefits and costs ."  
41 
 168. Valuable sector -specific efforts have been made to quantify the economic impact of including 
IP provisions in RTA s, particularly those affecting more directly the public  health and 
pharmaceuticals sectors.  Such studies have concluded that by increasing the standards of pharma -
related provisions , RTA s were likely to lead to higher prices and expenditures on pharmaceuticals , 
and thus, reduced access to medicines.85  These r esults were based on partial equilibrium models 
which , while making the analysis  workable , necessarily simplified the real world conditions.  In 
particular, those studies did not address the key questions of whether a RTA  was likely to increase the 
overall  welfare of a country, raise income levels or improve a government's fiscal position, which 
could  in principle  more than offset the price -increasing effects of a RTA  on medicines.   Additional  
attention could  also be given to the impact of further medical i nnovation and adaptation of existing 
technologies, as well as the effect of measures to contain prices or otherwise to promote access.   
Clearly, further empirical analysis and a consideration of all interlocking factors are required in this 
area.  
169. Likewise , the methodology followed in this paper  requires  additional  development , in 
particular  to take better advantage of the information contained in the texts of the numerous 
agreements put together as part of this study.  For example, means could  be identifie d to differentiate  
provisions in separate  RTAs that touch on the same  area of IP law  but whose na ture and depth may 
vary greatly.  Future  work could further identify the links between IP and investment provisions or 
other provisions in RTAs that aim to fra me production and trade through the use of internal rather 
than border measures .  Taking better account of measures  related to investment,  services, competition 
policy or government procurement could be of particular relevance to develop  a more comprehensi ve 
overview  of the broader system ic implications of the IP provisions contained in RTAs.  
                                                      
85 See Hernández -González and Valv erde (2009), Rathe et al (2009) and Cortes et al (200 4).  42   
G. ANNEXES  I - VI 
Annex I.  Regional  trade agreements surveyed  
 
RTA Name (a)  Coverage (b)  Type (c)  Date of entry 
into force  Inclusion of 
IP provisions  
Andean Communit y (CAN)  Goods  CU 25/05/1988  Yes 
Armenia - Kazakhstan  Goods  FTA  25/12/2001  No 
Armenia - Moldova  Goods  FTA  21/12/1995  No 
Armenia - Russian Federation  Goods  FTA  25/03/1993  No 
Armenia - Turkmenistan  Goods  FTA  07/07/1996  No 
Armenia - Ukraine  Goods  FTA  18/12/1996  No 
ASEAN - Australia - New Zealand  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/01/2010  Yes 
ASEAN - China  Goods & Services  PSA & EIA  01/01/2005  Yes 
ASEAN - India  Goods  FTA  01/01/2010  Yes 
ASEAN - Japan  Goods  FTA  01/12/2008  Yes 
ASEAN - Korea, Republic of  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/01/2010  Yes 
ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA)  Goods  FTA  28/01/1992  Yes 
Asia Pacific Trade Agreement (APTA)  Goods  PSA 17/06/1976  No 
Australia - Chile  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  06/03/2009  Yes 
Australia - New Zealand (ANZCERTA)  Goods &  Services  FTA & EIA  01/01/1983  No 
Australia - Papua New Guinea (PATCRA)  Goods  FTA  01/02/1977  No 
Brunei Darussalam - Japan  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  31/07/2008  Yes 
Canada - Chile  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  05/07/1997  Yes 
Canada - Colombia  Goods & Servi ces FTA & EIA  15/08/2011  Yes 
Canada - Costa Rica  Goods  FTA  01/11/2002  Yes 
Canada - Israel  Goods  FTA  01/01/1997  Yes 
Canada - Jordan  Goods  FTA  01/10/2012  No 
Canada - Panama  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/04/2013  Yes 
Canada - Peru Goods & Services  FTA & E IA 01/08/2009  Yes 
Caribbean Community and Common Market 
(CARICOM)  Goods & Services  CU & EIA  01/08/1973  Yes 
Central American Common Market (CACM)  Goods  CU 04/06/1961  No 
Central European Free Trade Agreement 
(CEFTA)  Goods  FTA  01/05/2007  Yes 
Chile - China  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/10/2006  Yes 
Chile - Colombia  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  08/05/2009  Yes 
Chile - Costa Rica (Chile - Central America)  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  15/02/2002  Yes 
Chile - El Salvador (Chile - Central America)  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/06/2002  Yes 
Chile - Guatemala (Chile - Central America)  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  23/03/2010  Yes 
Chile - Honduras (Chile - Central America)  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  19/07/2008  Yes 
Chile - India  Goods  PSA 17/08/2007  No 
Chile - Japan  Goods  & Services  FTA & EIA  03/09/2007  Yes 
Chile - Malaysia  Goods  FTA  25/02/2012  Yes 
Chile - Mexico  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/08/1999  Yes 
Chile - Nicaragua (Chile - Central America)  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  19/10/2012  Yes 
China - Costa Rica  Goods & Ser vices  FTA & EIA  01/08/2011  Yes 
China - Hong Kong, China  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  29/06/2003 Yes  
43 
 RTA Name (a)  Coverage (b)  Type (c)  Date of entry 
into force  Inclusion of 
IP provisions  
China - Macao, China  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  17/10/2003 Yes 
China - New Zealand  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/10/2008  Yes 
China - Singapore  Goods & Ser vices  FTA & EIA  01/01/2009  No 
Colombia - Mexico  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/01/1995  Yes 
Colombia - Northern Triangle (El Salvador, 
Guatemala, Honduras)  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  12/11/2009  Yes 
Common Economic Zone (CEZ)  Goods  FTA  20/05/2004  Yes 
Comm on Market for Eastern and Southern 
Africa (COMESA)  Goods  CU 08/12/1994  Yes 
Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS)  Goods  FTA  30/12/1994  No 
Costa Rica - Peru Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/06/2013  Yes 
Costa Rica - Singapore  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/07/2013  Yes 
Dominican Republic - Central America  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  04/10/2001  Yes 
Dominican Republic - Central America - United 
States Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA -DR) Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/03/2006  Yes 
East African Community (EAC) - good s & 
services  Goods & Services  CU & EIA  01/07/2010  Yes 
EC Treaty  Goods & Services  CU & EIA  01/01/1958  Yes 
Economic and Monetary Community of Central 
Africa (CEMAC)  Goods  CU 24/06/1999  No 
Economic Community of West African States 
(ECOWAS)  Goods  CU 24/07/1 993 Yes 
Economic Cooperation Organization (ECO)  Goods  PSA 17/02/1992  Yes 
EFTA - Albania  Goods  FTA  01/11/2010  Yes 
EFTA - Canada  Goods  FTA  01/07/2009  No 
EFTA - Chile  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/12/2004  Yes 
EFTA - Colombia  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/07/2011  Yes 
EFTA - Egypt  Goods  FTA  01/08/2007  Yes 
EFTA - FYRM  Goods  FTA  01/05/2002 Yes 
EFTA - Hong Kong, China  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/10/2012  Yes 
EFTA - Israel  Goods  FTA  01/01/1993  Yes 
EFTA - Jordan  Goods  FTA  01/09/2002  Yes 
EFTA - Korea, Repu blic of  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/09/2006  Yes 
EFTA - Lebanon  Goods  FTA  01/01/2007  Yes 
EFTA - Mexico  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/07/2001  Yes 
EFTA - Montenegro  Goods  FTA  01/09/2012  Yes 
EFTA - Morocco  Goods  FTA  01/12/1999  Yes 
EFTA - Palestinian Aut hority  Goods  FTA  01/07/1999  Yes 
EFTA - Peru Goods  FTA  01/07/2011  Yes 
EFTA - SACU  Goods  FTA  01/05/2008  Yes 
EFTA - Serbia  Goods  FTA  01/10/2010  Yes 
EFTA - Singapore  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/01/2003  Yes 
EFTA - Tunisia  Goods  FTA  01/06/2005  Yes 
EFTA - Turkey  Goods  FTA  01/04/1992  Yes 
EFTA - Ukraine  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/06/2012  Yes 
Egypt - Turkey  Goods  FTA  01/03/2007  Yes 
El Salvador - Cuba  Goods  PSA 01/08/2012  No 
EU - Albania  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/12/2006  Yes  44 RTA Name (a)  Coverage (b)  Type (c)  Date of entry 
into force  Inclusion of 
IP provisions  
EU - Algeria  Goods  FTA  01/09/2005  Yes 
EU - Andorra  Goods  CU 01/07/1991  No 
EU - Bosnia and Herzegovina  Goods  FTA  01/07/2008  Yes 
EU - Cameroon  Goods  FTA  01/10/2009  Yes 
EU - CARIFORUM States EPA  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/11/2008  Yes 
EU - Central America  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/08/2013  Yes 
EU - Chile  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/02/2003  Yes 
EU - Colombia and Peru  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/03/2013  Yes 
EU - Côte d'Ivoire  Goods  FTA  01/01/2009  Yes 
EU - Eastern and Southern Africa States Interim  
(ESASI)  EPA  Goods  FTA 14/05/2012  Yes 
EU - Egypt  Goods  FTA  01/06/2004  Yes 
EU - Faroe Islands  Goods  FTA  01/01/1997  No 
EU - FYRM  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/06/2001  Yes 
EU - Iceland  Goods  FTA  01/04/1973  No 
EU - Israel  Goods  FTA  01/06/2000  Yes 
EU - Jordan  Goods  FTA  01/05 /2002  Yes 
EU - Korea, Republic of  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/07/2011  Yes 
EU - Lebanon  Goods  FTA  01/03/2003  Yes 
EU - Mexico  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/07/2000  Yes 
EU - Montenegro  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/01/2008  Yes 
EU - Morocco  Goods  FTA  01/03/2000  Yes 
EU - Norway  Goods  FTA  01/07/1973  No 
EU - Palestinian Authority  Goods  FTA  01/07/1997  Yes 
EU - Papua New Guinea / Fiji  Goods  FTA  20/12/2009  No 
EU - San Marino  Goods  CU 01/04/2002  Yes 
EU - Serbia  Goods  FTA  01/02/2010  Yes 
EU - South Africa  Goods  FTA  01/01/2000  Yes 
EU - Switzerland - Liechtenstein  Goods  FTA  01/01/1973  No 
EU - Syria  Goods  FTA  01/07/1977  Yes 
EU - Tunisia  Goods  FTA  01/03/1998  Yes 
EU - Turkey  Goods  CU 01/01/1996  Yes 
Eurasian Economic Community (EAEC)  Goods  CU 08/10/1997  No 
European Economic Area (EEA)  Services  EIA 01/01/1994  Yes 
European Free Trade Association (EFTA)  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  03/05/1960  Yes 
Faroe Islands - Norway  Goods  FTA  01/07/1993  Yes 
Faroe Islands - Switzerland  Goods  FTA  01/03/1995  No 
Georgia - Armen ia Goods  FTA  11/11/1998  No 
Georgia - Azerbaijan  Goods  FTA  10/07/1996  No 
Georgia - Kazakhstan  Goods  FTA  16/07/1999  No 
Georgia - Russian Federation  Goods  FTA  10/05/1994  No 
Georgia - Turkmenistan  Goods  FTA  01/01/2000  No 
Georgia - Ukraine  Goods  FTA  04/06/ 1996  No 
Guatemala - Chinese Taipei  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/07/2006  Yes 
Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC)  Goods  CU 01/01/2003  No 
Honduras - El Salvador - Chinese Taipei  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/03/2008  Yes  
45 
 RTA Name (a)  Coverage (b)  Type (c)  Date of entry 
into force  Inclusion of 
IP provisions  
Hong Kong, China - New Zealand  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/01/2011  Yes 
Iceland - Faroe Islands  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/11/2006  No 
India - Afghanistan  Goods  PSA 13/05/2003  No 
India - Bhutan  Goods  FTA  29/07/2006  No 
India - Japan  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/08/2011  Yes 
India - Malay sia Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/07/2011  Yes 
India - Nepal  Goods  PSA 27/10/2009  No 
India - Singapore  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/08/2005  Yes 
India - Sri Lanka  Goods  FTA  15/12/2001  No 
Israel - Mexico  Goods  FTA  01/07/2000  Yes 
Japan - Indonesia  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/07/2008  Yes 
Japan - Malaysia  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  13/07/2006  Yes 
Japan - Mexico  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/04/2005  Yes 
Japan - Peru Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/03/2012  Yes 
Japan - Philippines  Goods & Services  FTA & EI A 11/12/2008  Yes 
Japan - Singapore  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  30/11/2002  Yes 
Japan - Switzerland  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/09/2009  Yes 
Japan - Thailand  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/11/2007  Yes 
Japan - Viet Nam  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/10/2009  Yes 
Jordan - Singapore  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  22/08/2005  Yes 
Korea, Republic of - Chile  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/04/2004  Yes 
Korea, Republic of - India  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/01/2010  Yes 
Korea, Republic of - Singapore  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  02/03/2006  Yes 
Korea, Republic of - Turkey  Goods  FTA  01/05/2013  Yes 
Korea, Republic of - US Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  15/03/2012  Yes 
Kyrgyz Republic - Armenia  Goods  FTA  27/10/1995  No 
Kyrgyz Republic - Kazakhstan  Goods  FTA  11/11/1995  No 
Kyrg yz Republic - Moldova  Goods  FTA  21/11/1996  No 
Kyrgyz Republic - Russian Federation  Goods  FTA  24/04/1993  No 
Kyrgyz Republic - Ukraine  Goods  FTA  19/01/1998  No 
Kyrgyz Republic - Uzbekistan  Goods  FTA  20/03/1998  No 
Lao People's Democratic Republic - Thailan d Goods  PSA 20/06/1991  No 
Latin American Integration Association (LAIA)  Goods  PSA 18/03/1981  No 
Malaysia - Australia  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/01/2013  Yes 
Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG)  Goods  PSA 01/01/1994  No 
MERCOSUR - India  Goods  PSA 01/06/200 9 No 
Mexico - Central America  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/09/2012  Yes 
Mexico - Uruguay  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  15/07/2004  Yes 
New Zealand - Chinese Taipei  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/12/2013  Yes 
New Zealand - Malaysia  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/08/2010  Yes 
New Zealand - Singapore  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/01/2001  Yes 
Nicaragua - Chinese Taipei  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/01/2008  Yes 
North American Free Trade Agreement 
(NAFTA)  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/01/1994  Yes 
Pacific Island C ountries Trade Agreement 
(PICTA)  Goods  FTA  13/04/2003  No  46 RTA Name (a)  Coverage (b)  Type (c)  Date of entry 
into force  Inclusion of 
IP provisions  
Pakistan - China  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/07/2007  Yes 
Pakistan - Malaysia  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/01/2008  Yes 
Pakistan - Sri Lanka  Goods  FTA  12/06/2005  No 
Panama - Chile  Goods & Servic es FTA & EIA  07/03/2008  Yes 
Panama - Costa Rica (Panama - Central 
America)  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  23/11/2008  Yes 
Panama - El Salvador (Panama - Central 
America)  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  11/04/2003  Yes 
Panama - Guatemala (Panama - Central 
America)  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  20/06/2009  Yes 
Panama - Honduras (Panama - Central America 
) Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  09/01/2009  Yes 
Panama - Nicaragua (Panama - Central 
America)  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  21/11/2009  Yes 
Panama - Peru Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/05/2012  Yes 
Panama - Singapore  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  24/07/2006  Yes 
Panama - Chinese Taipei  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/01/2004  Yes 
Pan-Arab Free Trade Area (PAFTA)  Goods  FTA  01/01/1998  No 
Peru - Chile  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/03/2 009 Yes 
Peru - China  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/03/2010  Yes 
Peru - Korea, Republic of  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/08/2011  Yes 
Peru - Mexico  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/02/2012  Yes 
Peru - Singapore  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/08/2009  Yes 
Russi an Federation - Azerbaijan  Goods  FTA  17/02/1993  No 
Russian Federation - Belarus  Goods  FTA  20/04/1993  No 
Russian Federation - Belarus - Kazakhstan  Goods  CU 03/12/1997  No 
Russian Federation - Kazakhstan  Goods  FTA  07/06/1993  No 
Russian Federation - Republ ic of Moldova  Goods  FTA  30/03/1993  No 
Russian Federation - Serbia  Goods  FTA  03/06/2006  Yes 
Russian Federation - Tajikistan  Goods  FTA  08/04/1993  No 
Russian Federation - Turkmenistan  Goods  FTA  06/04/1993  No 
Russian Federation - Uzbekistan  Goods  FTA  25/03 /1993  No 
Singapore - Australia  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  28/07/2003  Yes 
South Asian Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA)  Goods  FTA  01/01/2006  No 
South Asian Preferential Trade Arrangement 
(SAPTA)  Goods  PSA 07/12/1995  No 
South Pacific Regional Trade and Econom ic 
Cooperation Agreement (SPARTECA)  Goods  PSA 01/01/1981  No 
Southern African Customs Union (SACU)  Goods  CU 15/07/2004  No 
Southern African Development Community 
(SADC)  Goods  FTA  01/09/2000  Yes 
Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR)  Goods & Services  CU & EIA  29/11/1991  Yes 
Thailand - Australia  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/01/2005  Yes 
Thailand - New Zealand  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/07/2005  Yes 
Trans -Pacific Strategic Economic Partnership  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  28/05/2006  Yes 
Treaty on a Free Trade Area between members 
of the Commonwealth of Independent States 
(CIS)  Goods  FTA  20/09/2012  No 
Turkey - Albania  Goods  FTA  01/05/2008  Yes 
Turkey - Bosnia and Herzegovina  Goods  FTA  01/07/2003  Yes 
Turkey - Chile  Goods  FTA  01/03/2011  Yes  
47 
 RTA Name (a)  Coverage (b)  Type (c)  Date of entry 
into force  Inclusion of 
IP provisions  
Turkey - FYRM  Goods  FTA  01/09/2000  Yes 
Turkey - Georgia  Goods  FTA  01/11/2008  Yes 
Turkey - Israel  Goods  FTA  01/05/1997  Yes 
Turkey - Jordan  Goods  FTA  01/03/2011  Yes 
Turkey - Mauritius  Goods  FTA  01/06/2013  Yes 
Turkey - Montenegro  Goods  FTA  01/03/2010  Yes 
Turkey - Morocco  Goods  FTA  01/01/2006  Yes 
Turkey - Palestinian Authority  Goods  FTA  01/06/2005  Yes 
Turkey - Serbia  Goods  FTA  01/09/2010  Yes 
Turkey - Syria  Goods  FTA  01/01/2007  Yes 
Turkey - Tunisia  Goods  FTA  01/07/2005  Yes 
Ukraine - Azerbaijan  Goods  FTA  02/09/1996  No 
Ukraine - Belarus  Goods  FTA  11/11/2006  No 
Ukraine - FYRM  Goods  FTA  05/07/2001  Yes 
Ukraine - Kazakhstan  Goods  FTA  19/10/1998  No 
Ukraine - Moldova  Goods  FTA  19/05/2005  Yes 
Ukraine - Montenegro  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/01/2013  No 
Ukraine - Russian Fed eration  Goods  FTA  21/02/1994  No 
Ukraine - Tajikistan  Goods  FTA  11/07/2002  No 
Ukraine - Uzbekistan  Goods  FTA  01/01/1996  No 
Ukraine -Turkmenistan  Goods  FTA  04/11/1995  No 
US - Australia  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/01/2005  Yes 
US - Bahrain  Goods & Servi ces FTA & EIA  01/08/2006  Yes 
US - Chile  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/01/2004  Yes 
US - Colombia  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  15/05/2012  Yes 
US - Israel  Goods  FTA  19/08/1985  Yes 
US - Jordan  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  17/12/2001  Yes 
US - Morocco  Goods & S ervices  FTA & EIA  01/01/2006  Yes 
US - Oman  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/01/2009  Yes 
US - Panama  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  31/10/2012  Yes 
US - Peru Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/02/2009  Yes 
US - Singapore  Goods & Services  FTA & EIA  01/01/2004  Yes 
West African Economic and Monetary Union 
(WAEMU)  Goods  CU 01/01/2000  No 
 
Notes:  
(a) The name corresponds to the short title used in the RTA database and not to the full name used in the text of the 
respective agreement ; however , the table uses Chinese Taipei  instead of Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, 
Kinmen and Matsu  and FYRM instead of Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia , which are the names employed in the 
RTA database .  The members of the different RTAs listed in this table can be found in the RTA database.  
(b) Goods, services or both, as notified by the signatories to the agreement.  
(c) FTA - Free Trade Agreement, as defined in Paragraph 8(b) of Article XXIV of GATT 1994;  CU - Customs Union, as 
defined in Paragraph 8(a) of Article XXIV of GATT 1994;  EIA - Economic Integration Agreement, as defined in Article V 
of GATS;  and PSA - Partial Scope Agreement, which cover only certain products and are notified under paragraph 4(a) of 
the Enabling Clause.  
 
Source: Authors' estimates and WTO RTA d atabase, accessible at http://www.wto.org/rta .  48 Annex II.  General IP provisions in individual RTA s (a) 
Regional Trade Agreement  
(see Annex I)  
Statement of commitment 
to IP protection  
TRIPS reaffirmation  
References to  
WIPO treaties  
National Treatment  
or MFN provisions  
Assistance, co -operation  
or coordination  
Enforcement procedures  
Border measures  
Exhaustion  
(parallel imports)  
Non-violation  
complaints  
IP defined as investment  
Andean Community (CAN)  
ASEAN - Australia - New Zealand  
ASEAN - China  
ASEAN - India  
ASEAN - Japan  
ASEAN - Korea, Republic of  
ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA)  
Australia - Chile  
Brunei Darussalam - Japan  
Canada - Chile  
Canada - Colombia  
Canada - Costa Rica  
Canada - Israel  
Canada - Panama  
Canada - Peru 
CARICOM  
CEFTA  
Chile - China  
Chile - Colombia  
Chile - Costa Rica (Chile - CA) 
Chile - El Salvador (Chile - CA) 
Chile - Guatemala (Chile - CA) 
Chile - Honduras (Chile - CA) 
Chile - Japan  
Chile - Malaysia  
Chile - Mexico  
Chile - Nicaragua (Chile - CA) 
China - Costa Rica  
China - Hong Kong, China  
China - Macao, China  
China - New Zealand  
Colombia - Mexico  
Colombia - Northern Triangle  
Common Economic Zone (CEZ)  
COMESA  
Costa Rica - Peru 
Costa Rica - Singapore  
Dominican Republic - Central Am erica  
CAFTA -DR 
EAC - goods & services   
49 
 Regional Trade Agreement  
(see Annex I)  
Statement of commitment 
to IP protection  
TRIPS reaffirmation  
References to  
WIPO treaties  
National Treatment  
or MFN provisions  
Assistance, co -operation  
or coordination  
Enforcement procedures  
Border measures  
Exhaustion  
(parallel imports)  
Non-violation  
complaints  
IP defined as investment  
EC Treaty  
ECOWAS  
Economic Cooperation Organization 
(ECO)  
EFTA - Albania  
EFTA - Chile  
EFTA - Colombia  
EFTA - Egypt  
EFTA - FYRM  
EFTA - Hong Kong, China  
EFTA - Israel  
EFTA - Jordan  
EFTA - Korea, Republic of  
EFTA - Lebanon  
EFTA - Mexico  
EFTA - Montenegro  
EFTA - Morocco  
EFTA - Palestinian Authority  
EFTA - Peru 
EFTA - SACU  
EFTA - Serbia  
EFTA - Singapore  
EFTA - Tunisia  
EFTA - Turkey  
EFTA - Ukraine  
Egypt - Turkey  
EU - Albania  
EU - Algeria  
EU - Bosnia and Herzegovina  
EU - Cameroon  
EU - CARIFORUM States EPA  
EU - Central America  
EU - Chile  
EU - Colombia and Peru  
EU - Côte d'Ivoire  
EU - ESASI EPA  
EU - Egypt  
EU - FYRM  
EU - Israel  
EU - Jordan  
EU - Korea, Republic of   50 Regional Trade Agreement  
(see Annex I)  
Statement of commitment 
to IP protection  
TRIPS reaffirmation  
References to  
WIPO treaties  
National Treatment  
or MFN provisions  
Assistance, co -operation  
or coordination  
Enforcement procedures  
Border measures  
Exhaustion  
(parallel imports)  
Non-violation  
complaints  
IP defined as investment  
EU - Lebanon  
EU - Mexico  
EU - Montenegro  
EU - Morocco  
EU - Palestinian Authority  
EU - San Marino  
EU - Serbia  
EU - South Africa  
EU - Syria  
EU - Tunisia  
EU - Turkey  
EEA  
EFTA  
Faroe Islands - Norway  
Guatemala - Chinese Taipei  
Honduras - El Salvador - Chinese 
Taipei  
Hong Kong, China - New Zealand  
India - Japan  
India - Malaysia  
India - Singapore  
Israel - Mexico  
Japan - Indonesia  
Japan - Malaysia  
Japan - Mexico  
Japan - Peru 
Japan - Philippines  
Japan - Singapore  
Japan - Switzerland  
Japan - Thailand  
Japan - Viet Nam  
Jordan - Singapore  
Korea, Republic of - Chile  
Korea, Republic of - India  
Korea, Republic of - Singapore  
Korea, Republic of - Turkey  
Korea, Republic of - US 
Malaysia - Australia  
Mexico - Central America  
Mexico - Uruguay  
New Zealand - Chinese Taipei  
New Zealand - Malaysia   
51 
 Regional Trade Agreement  
(see Annex I)  
Statement of commitment 
to IP protection  
TRIPS reaffirmation  
References to  
WIPO treaties  
National Treatment  
or MFN provisions  
Assistance, co -operation  
or coordination  
Enforcement procedures  
Border measures  
Exhaustion  
(parallel imports)  
Non-violation  
complaints  
IP defined as investment  
New Zealand - Singapore  
Nicaragua and Chinese Taipei  
NAFTA  
Pakistan - China  
Pakistan - Malaysia  
Panama - Chile  
Panama - Costa Rica (Panama - CA) 
Panama - El Salvador (Panama - CA) 
Panama - Guatemala (Panama - CA) 
Panama - Honduras (Panama - CA )  
Panama - Nicaragua (Panama - CA) 
Panama - Peru 
Panama - Singapore  
Panama a nd Chinese Taipei  
Peru - Chile  
Peru - China  
Peru - Korea, Republic of  
Peru - Mexico  
Peru - Singapore  
Russian Federation - Serbia  
Singapore - Australia  
SADC  
MERCOSUR  
Thailand - Australia  
Thailand - New Zealand  
Trans -Pacific Strategic Economic 
Partnership  
Turkey - Albania  
Turkey - Bosnia and Herzegovina  
Turkey - Chile  
Turkey - FYRM  
Turkey - Georgia  
Turkey - Israel  
Turk ey - Jordan  
Turkey - Mauritius  
Turkey - Montenegro  
Turkey - Morocco  
Turkey - Palestinian Authority  
Turkey - Serbia  
Turkey - Syria  
Turkey - Tunisia   52 Regional Trade Agreement  
(see Annex I)  
Statement of commitment 
to IP protection  
TRIPS reaffirmation  
References to  
WIPO treaties  
National Treatment  
or MFN provisions  
Assistance, co -operation  
or coordination  
Enforcement procedures  
Border measures  
Exhaustion  
(parallel imports)  
Non-violation  
complaints  
IP defined as investment  
Ukraine - FYRM  
Ukraine - Moldova  
US - Australia  
US - Bahrain  
US - Chile  
US - Colombia  
US - Israel  
US - Jordan  
US - Morocco  
US - Oman  
US - Panama  
US - Peru 
US - Singapore  
 
(a) Only RTAs with an overall score greater than zero are listed, i.e., RTAs that include at least one IP provision.  
 
Source: Author s' estimates   
53 
 Annex III.  Specific IPRs referred to in individual RTA s (a) 
Regional Trade Agreement  
(see Annex I)  
Copyright and Relat ed Rights  
Trademarks  
Geographical Indications  
Industrial Designs  
Patents  
Undisclosed Information  
Layout Designs of Integrated 
Circuits  
New Plant Varieties  
Traditional knowledge or 
genetic resources  
Encrypted Program -Carrying 
Satellite Signals  
Domain Names  
Andean Community (CAN)  
ASEAN - Australia - New Zealand  
ASEAN - China  
ASEAN - India  
ASEAN - Japan  
ASEAN - Korea, Republic of  
ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA)  
Australia - Chile  
Brunei Darussalam - Japan  
Canada - Chile  
Canada - Colombia  
Canada - Costa Rica  
Canada - Israel  
Canada - Panama  
Canada - Peru 
CARICOM  
CEFTA  
Chile - China  
Chile - Colombia  
Chile - Costa Rica (Chile - CA) 
Chile - El Salvador (Chile - CA) 
Chile - Guatemala (Chile - CA) 
Chile - Honduras (Chile - CA) 
Chile - Japan  
Chile - Malaysia  
Chile - Mexico  
Chile - Nicaragua (Chile - CA) 
China - Costa Rica  
China - Hong Kong, China  
China - Macao, China  
China - New Zealand  
Colombia - Mexico  
Colombia - Northern Triangle  
Common Economic Zone (CEZ)  
COMESA  
Costa Rica - Peru 
Costa Rica - Singapore  
Dominican Republic - Central 
America   54 Regional Trade Agreement  
(see Annex I)  
Copyright and Relat ed Rights  
Trademarks  
Geographical Indications  
Industrial Designs  
Patents  
Undisclosed Information  
Layout Designs of Integrated 
Circuits  
New Plant Varieties  
Traditional knowledge or 
genetic resources  
Encrypted Program -Carrying 
Satellite Signals  
Domain Names  
CAFTA -DR 
EAC - goods & services  
EC Treaty  
ECOWAS  
Economic Cooperation Organization 
(ECO)  
EFTA - Albania  
EFTA - Chile  
EFTA - Colombia  
EFTA - Egypt  
EFTA - FYRM  
EFTA - Hong Kong, China  
EFTA - Israel  
EFTA - Jordan  
EFTA - Korea, Republic of  
EFTA - Lebanon  
EFTA - Mexico  
EFTA - Montenegro  
EFTA - Morocco  
EFTA - Palestinian Authority  
EFTA - Peru 
EFTA - SACU  
EFTA - Serbia  
EFTA - Singapore  
EFTA - Tunisia  
EFTA - Turkey  
EFTA - Ukraine  
Egypt - Turkey  
EU - Albania  
EU - Algeria  
EU - Bosnia and Her zegovina  
EU - Cameroon  
EU - CARIFORUM States EPA  
EU - Central America  
EU - Chile  
EU - Colombia and Peru  
EU - Côte d'Iv oire 
EU - ESASI EPA  
EU - Egypt  
EU - FYRM  
EU - Israel   
55 
 Regional Trade Agreement  
(see Annex I)  
Copyright and Relat ed Rights  
Trademarks  
Geographical Indications  
Industrial Designs  
Patents  
Undisclosed Information  
Layout Designs of Integrated 
Circuits  
New Plant Varieties  
Traditional knowledge or 
genetic resources  
Encrypted Program -Carrying 
Satellite Signals  
Domain Names  
EU - Jordan  
EU - Korea, Republic of  
EU - Lebanon  
EU - Mexico  
EU - Montenegro  
EU - Morocco  
EU - Palestinian Authority  
EU - San Marino  
EU - Serbia  
EU - South Africa  
EU - Syria  
EU - Tunisia  
EU - Turkey  
EEA  
EFTA  
Faroe Islands - Norway  
Guatemala - Chinese Taipei  
Honduras - El Salvador - Chinese 
Taipei  
Hong Kong, China - New Zealand  
India - Japan  
India - Malaysia  
India - Singa pore 
Israel - Mexico  
Japan - Indonesia  
Japan - Malaysia  
Japan - Mexico  
Japan - Peru 
Japan - Philippines  
Japan - Singapore  
Japan - Switzerland  
Japan - Thailand  
Japan - Viet Nam  
Jordan - Singapore  
Korea, Republic of - Chile  
Korea, Republic of - India  
Korea, Republic of - Singapore  
Korea, Republic of - Turkey  
Korea, Republic of - US 
Malaysia - Australia   56 Regional Trade Agreement  
(see Annex I)  
Copyright and Relat ed Rights  
Trademarks  
Geographical Indications  
Industrial Designs  
Patents  
Undisclosed Information  
Layout Designs of Integrated 
Circuits  
New Plant Varieties  
Traditional knowledge or 
genetic resources  
Encrypted Program -Carrying 
Satellite Signals  
Domain Names  
Mexico - Central America  
Mexico - Uruguay  
New Zealand - Chinese Taipei  
New Zealand - Malaysia  
New Zealand - Singapore  
Nicaragua and Chinese Ta ipei 
NAFTA  
Pakistan - China  
Pakistan - Malaysia  
Panama - Chile  
Panama - Costa Rica (Panama - CA) 
Panama - El Salvador (Panama - CA) 
Panama - Guatemala (Panama - CA) 
Panama - Honduras (Panama - CA )  
Panama - Nicaragua (Panama - CA) 
Panama - Peru 
Panama - Singa pore 
Panama and Chinese Taipei  
Peru - Chile  
Peru - China  
Peru - Korea, Republic of  
Peru - Mexico  
Peru - Singapore  
Russian Federation - Serbia  
Singapore - Australia  
SADC  
MERCOSUR  
Thailand - Australia  
Thailand - New Zealand  
Trans -Pacific Strategic Economic 
Partnership  
Turkey - Albania  
Turkey - Bosnia and Herzegovina  
Turkey - Chile  
Turkey - FYRM  
Turkey - Georgia  
Turkey - Israel  
Turkey - Jordan  
Turkey - Mauritius  
Turkey - Montenegro  
Turkey - Morocco   
57 
 Regional Trade Agreement  
(see Annex I)  
Copyright and Relat ed Rights  
Trademarks  
Geographical Indications  
Industrial Designs  
Patents  
Undisclosed Information  
Layout Designs of Integrated 
Circuits  
New Plant Varieties  
Traditional knowledge or 
genetic resources  
Encrypted Program -Carrying 
Satellite Signals  
Domain Names  
Turkey - Palestinian A uthority  
Turkey - Serbia  
Turkey - Syria  
Turkey - Tunisia  
Ukraine - FYRM  
Ukraine - Moldova  
US - Australia  
US - Bahrain  
US - Chile  
US - Colombia  
US - Israel  
US - Jordan  
US - Morocco  
US - Oman  
US - Panama  
US - Peru 
US - Singapore  
 
(a) Only RTAs with an overall score greater than zero are listed, i.e., RTAs that include at least one IP provision.  
 
Source: Author s' estimates   58 Annex IV.  Pharma -related provisions in individual RTA s (a) 
Regional Trade Agreement  
(see Annex I)  
Patentability criteria or patent subject matter  
Patentability of new use.  
Patenting of life forms  
Patent linkage  
Exceptions or exclusions to exclusive rights  
Data protection provisions (incl. min. 
protection periods)  
...  of which min . period of data protection  
Term extensions of patent protection  
Compulsory licensing of patents  
Compulsory licensing on investment  
Safeguarding of a trademark's function  
Andean Co mmunity (CAN)  
ASEAN - Australia - New Zealand  
ASEAN - China  
ASEAN - India  
ASEAN - Japan  
ASEAN - Korea, Republic of  
ASE AN Free Trade Area (AFTA)  
Australia - Chile  
Brunei Darussalam - Japan  
Canada - Chile  
Canada - Colombia  
Canada - Costa Rica  
Canada - Israel  
Canada - Panama  
Canada - Peru 
CARICOM  
CEFTA  
Chile - China  
Chile - Colombia  
Chile - Costa Rica (Chile - CA) 
Chile - El Salvador (Chile - CA) 
Chile - Guatemala (Chile - CA) 
Chile - Honduras (Chile - CA) 
Chile - Japan  
Chile - Malaysia  
Chile - Mexico  
Chile - Nicaragua (Chile - CA) 
China - Costa Rica  
China - Hong Kong, China  
China - Macao, China  
China - New Zealand  
Colombia - Mexico  
Colombia - Northern Triangle  
Common Economic Zone (CEZ)  
COMESA   
59 
 Regional Trade Agreement  
(see Annex I)  
Patentability criteria or patent subject matter  
Patentability of new use.  
Patenting of life forms  
Patent linkage  
Exceptions or exclusions to exclusive rights  
Data protection provisions (incl. min. 
protection periods)  
...  of which min . period of data protection  
Term extensions of patent protection  
Compulsory licensing of patents  
Compulsory licensing on investment  
Safeguarding of a trademark's function  
Costa Rica - Peru 
Costa Rica - Singapore  
Dominican Republic - Central 
America  
CAFTA -DR 
EAC - goods & services  
EC Treaty  
ECOWAS  
Economic Cooperation Organization 
(ECO)  
EFTA - Albania  
EFTA - Chile  
EFTA - Colombia  
EFTA - Egypt  
EFTA - FYRM  
EFTA - Hong Kong, China  
EFTA - Israel  
EFTA - Jordan  
EFTA - Korea, Republic of  
EFTA - Lebanon  
EFTA - Mexico  
EFTA - Montenegro  
EFTA - Morocco  
EFTA - Palestinian Authority  
EFTA - Peru 
EFTA - SACU  
EFTA - Serbia  
EFTA - Singapore  
EFTA - Tunisia  
EFTA - Turkey  
EFTA - Ukraine  
Egypt - Turkey  
EU - Albania  
EU - Algeria  
EU - Bosnia and Herzegovina  
EU - Cameroon  
EU - CARIFORUM States EPA   60 Regional Trade Agreement  
(see Annex I)  
Patentability criteria or patent subject matter  
Patentability of new use.  
Patenting of life forms  
Patent linkage  
Exceptions or exclusions to exclusive rights  
Data protection provisions (incl. min. 
protection periods)  
...  of which min . period of data protection  
Term extensions of patent protection  
Compulsory licensing of patents  
Compulsory licensing on investment  
Safeguarding of a trademark's function  
EU - Central America  
EU - Chile  
EU - Colombia and Peru  
EU - Côte d'Ivoire  
EU - ESASI EPA  
EU - Egypt  
EU - FYRM  
EU - Israel  
EU - Jordan  
EU - Korea, Republic of  
EU - Lebanon  
EU - Mexico  
EU - Montenegro  
EU - Morocco  
EU - Palestinian Authority  
EU - San Marino  
EU - Serbia  
EU - South Africa  
EU - Syria  
EU - Tunisia  
EU - Turkey  
EEA  
EFTA  
Faroe Islands - Norway  
Guatemala - Chinese Taipei  
Honduras - El Salvador - Chinese 
Taipei  
Hong Kong, China - New Zealand  
India - Japan  
India - Malaysia  
India - Singapore  
Israel - Mexico  
Japan - Indonesia  
Japan - Malaysia  
Japan - Mexico  
Japan - Peru 
Japan - Philippines  
Japan - Singapore   
61 
 Regional Trade Agreement  
(see Annex I)  
Patentability criteria or patent subject matter  
Patentability of new use.  
Patenting of life forms  
Patent linkage  
Exceptions or exclusions to exclusive rights  
Data protection provisions (incl. min. 
protection periods)  
...  of which min . period of data protection  
Term extensions of patent protection  
Compulsory licensing of patents  
Compulsory licensing on investment  
Safeguarding of a trademark's function  
Japan - Switzerland  
Japan - Thailand  
Japan - Viet Nam  
Jordan - Singapore  
Korea, Republic of - Chile  
Korea, Republic of - India  
Korea, Republic of - Singapore  
Korea, Republic of - Turkey  
Korea, Republic of - US 
Malaysia - Australia  
Mexico - Central America  
Mexico - Uruguay  
New Zealand - Chinese Taipei  
New Zealand - Malaysia  
New Zealand - Singapore  
Nicaragua and Chinese Taipei  
NAFTA  
Pakistan - China  
Pakistan - Malaysia  
Panama - Chile  
Panama - Costa Rica (Panama - CA) 
Panama - El Salvador (Panama - CA) 
Panama - Guatemala (Panama - CA) 
Panama - Honduras (Panama - CA )  
Panama - Nicaragua (Panama - CA) 
Panama - Peru 
Panama - Singapore  
Panama and Chinese Taipei  
Peru - Chile  
Peru - China  
Peru - Korea, Republic of  
Peru - Mexico  
Peru - Singapore  
Russian Federation - Serbia  
Singapore - Australia  
SADC   62 Regional Trade Agreement  
(see Annex I)  
Patentability criteria or patent subject matter  
Patentability of new use.  
Patenting of life forms  
Patent linkage  
Exceptions or exclusions to exclusive rights  
Data protection provisions (incl. min. 
protection periods)  
...  of which min . period of data protection  
Term extensions of patent protection  
Compulsory licensing of patents  
Compulsory licensing on investment  
Safeguarding of a trademark's function  
MERCOSUR  
Thailand - Australia  
Thailand - New Zealand  
Trans-Pacific Strategic Economic 
Partnership  
Turkey - Albania  
Turkey - Bosnia and Herzegovina  
Turkey - Chile  
Turkey - FYRM  
Turkey - Georgia  
Turkey - Israel  
Turkey - Jordan  
Turkey - Mauritius  
Turkey - Montenegro  
Turkey - Morocco  
Turkey - Palestinian Authority  
Turkey - Serbia  
Turkey - Syria  
Turkey - Tunisia  
Ukraine - FYRM  
Ukraine - Moldova  
US - Australia  
US - Bahrain  
US - Chile  
US - Colombia  
US - Israel  
US - Jordan  
US - Morocco  
US - Oman  
US - Panam a 
US - Peru 
US - Singapore  
 
(a) Only RTAs with an overall score greater than zero are listed, i.e., RTAs that include at least one IP provision.  
 
Source: Author s' estimates   
63 
 Annex V.   IP content and categorization of individual RTA s, asymmetric weights  (a) 
  high content  
   moderate content  
   negligible  content  
 IP content score  (0 - 100):  
Regional Trade Agreement  
(see Annex I)  Pharma -
ceutical  Specific IPR 
types  General IP 
provi sions  Overall score 
(b) Overall IP 
content  
Andean Community (CAN)  64 82 50 61 
ASEAN - Australia - New Zealand  9 36 80 60 
ASEAN - China  9 9 50 34 
ASEAN - India  0 0 40 24 
ASEAN - Japan  0 0 30 18 
ASEAN - Korea, Republic of  9 0 50 31 
ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA)  0 0 30 18 
Australia - Chile  27 64 90 76 
Brunei Darussalam - Japan  0 0 50 30 
Canada - Chile  9 9 0 4 
Canada - Colombia  9 0 30 19 
Canada - Costa Rica  0 9 0 3 
Canada - Israel  0 0 10 6 
Canada - Panama  9 0 20 13 
Canada - Peru 9 9 20 16 
CARICOM  0 9 20 15 
CEFTA  0 55 40 40 
Chile - China  0 9 40 27 
Chile - Colombia  0 0 10 6 
Chile - Costa Rica (Chile - CA) 0 9 10 9 
Chile - El Salvador (Chile - CA) 0 9 10 9 
Chile - Guatemala (Chile - CA) 0 9 10 9 
Chile - Honduras (Chile - CA) 0 9 10 9 
Chile - Japan  9 36 60 48 
Chile - Malaysia  0 9 10 9 
Chile - Mexico  18 45 70 57 
Chile - Nicaragua (Chile - CA) 0 9 10 9 
China - Costa Rica  0 18 50 35 
China - Hong Kong, China  0 0 10 6 
Chin a - Macao, China  0 0 20 12 
China - New Zealand  9 9 40 28 
Colombia - Mexico  18 55 50 48 
Colombia - Northern Triangle  9 0 10 7 
Common Economic Zone (CEZ)  0 0 10 6 
COMESA  0 0 10 6 
Costa Rica - Peru 9 36 70 54 
Costa Rica - Singapore  9 18 40 30 
Dominican Republic - Central America  0 0 30 18 
CAFTA -DR 82 82 90 87 
EAC - goods & services  0 82 40 49 
EC Treaty  73 100 70 79 
ECOWAS  0 0 10 6  64  IP content score  (0 - 100):  
Regional Trade Agreement  
(see Annex I)  Pharma -
ceutical  Specific IPR 
types  General IP 
provi sions  Overall score 
(b) Overall IP 
content  
Economic Cooperation Organization 
(ECO)  0 0 50 30 
EFTA - Albania  64 64 70 67 
EFTA - Chile  73 64 80 74 
EFTA - Colombia  55 73 70 69 
EFTA - Egypt  27 64 70 64 
EFTA - FYRM  45 73 70 68 
EFTA - Hong Kong, China  45 73 70 68 
EFTA - Israel  45 64 60 60 
EFTA - Jordan  55 73 70 69 
EFTA - Korea, Republic of  64 64 70 67 
EFTA - Lebanon  64 64 80 73 
EFTA - Mexico  55 73 70 69 
EFTA - Montenegro  64 64 70 67 
EFTA - Morocco  55 73 70 69 
EFTA - Palestinian Authority  0 0 30 18 
EFTA - Peru 55 73 70 69 
EFTA - SACU  0 0 40 24 
EFTA - Serbia  64 64 70 67 
EFTA - Singapore  45 45 90 72 
EFTA - Tunisia  73 64 80 74 
EFTA - Turkey  55 73 70 69 
EFTA - Ukraine  55 64 80 73 
Egypt - Turkey  0 0 40 24 
EU - Albania  73 100 80 85 
EU - Algeria  0 36 50 41 
EU - Bosnia and Herzego vina 73 100 80 85 
EU - Cameroon  0 0 30 18 
EU - CARIFORUM States EPA  0 73 60 58 
EU - Central America  0 64 80 67 
EU - Chile  0 55 50 46 
EU - Colombia and Peru  27 73 80 73 
EU - Côte d'Ivoire  0 0 20 12 
EU - ESASI EPA  0 0 10 6 
EU - Egypt  0 36 40 35 
EU - FYRM  73 100 70 79 
EU - Israel  0 27 40 32 
EU - Jordan  9 36 30 30 
EU - Korea, Republic of  36 82 70 70 
EU - Lebanon  0 45 30 32 
EU - Mexico  0 36 40 35 
EU - Montenegro  73 100 80 85 
EU - Morocco  0 27 40 32 
EU - Palestinian Authority  0 0 30 18 
EU - San Marino  0 0 10 6 
EU - Serbia  73 100 80 85 
EU - South Africa  0 9 40 27  
65 
  IP content score  (0 - 100):  
Regional Trade Agreement  
(see Annex I)  Pharma -
ceutical  Specific IPR 
types  General IP 
provi sions  Overall score 
(b) Overall IP 
content  
EU - Syria  0 0 20 12 
EU - Tunisia  0 45 40 38 
EU - Turkey  55 73 70 69 
EEA  73 100 70 79 
EFTA  45 45 80 66 
Faroe Islands - Norway  73 100 50 67 
Guatemala - Chinese Taipei  9 18 40 30 
Honduras - El Salvador - Chinese Taipei  9 0 10 7 
Hong Kong, China - New Zealand  0 9 50 33 
India - Japan  18 27 40 34 
India - Malaysia  9 0 30 19 
India - Singapore  9 0 20 13 
Israel - Mexico  0 9 20 15 
Japan - Indonesia  18 73 80 72 
Japan - Malaysia  27 64 80 70 
Japan - Mexico  0 9 20 15 
Japan - Peru 9 55 70 59 
Japan - Philippines  0 55 60 52 
Japan - Singapore  0 9 40 27 
Japan - Switze rland  55 73 80 75 
Japan - Thailand  27 82 80 75 
Japan - Viet Nam  27 73 60 61 
Jordan - Singapore  0 0 10 6 
Korea, Republic of - Chile  9 18 60 42 
Korea, Republic of - India  9 18 70 48 
Korea, Republic of - Singapore  9 9 60 40 
Korea , Republic of - Turkey  0 27 60 44 
Korea, Republic of - US 73 73 90 83 
Malaysia - Australia  27 64 80 70 
Mexico - Central America  9 73 70 65 
Mexico - Uruguay  36 73 70 67 
New Zealand - Chinese Taipei  9 27 80 57 
New Zealand - Malays ia 9 9 60 40 
New Zealand - Singapore  0 0 20 12 
Nicaragua and Chinese Taipei  27 64 80 70 
NAFTA  82 82 70 75 
Pakistan - China  0 0 30 18 
Pakistan - Malaysia  9 0 60 37 
Panama - Chile  0 9 10 9 
Panama - Costa Rica (Panama - CA) 9 0 40 25 
Panama - El Salvador (Panama - CA) 9 0 40 25 
Panama - Guatemala (Panama - CA) 9 0 40 25 
Panama - Honduras (Panama - CA )  9 0 40 25 
Panama - Nicaragua (Panama - CA) 9 0 40 25 
Panama - Peru 9 36 80 60  66  IP content score  (0 - 100):  
Regional Trade Agreement  
(see Annex I)  Pharma -
ceutical  Specific IPR 
types  General IP 
provi sions  Overall score 
(b) Overall IP 
content  
Panama - Singapore  9 0 10 7 
Panama and Chinese Taipei  9 45 70 57 
Peru - Chile  9 9 30 22 
Peru - China  0 18 60 41 
Peru - Korea, Republic of  9 27 80 57 
Peru - Mexico  0 9 0 3 
Peru - Singapore  9 9 20 16 
Russian Federation - Serbia  0 0 10 6 
Singapore - Australia  9 36 70 54 
SADC  0 0 20 12 
MERCOSUR  0 9 0 3 
Thailand - Australia  0 0 60 36 
Thailand - New Zealand  0 27 50 38 
Trans -Pacific Strategic Economic 
Partnership  0 36 50 41 
Turkey - Albania  0 0 30 18 
Turkey - Bosnia and Herzegovina  0 0 30 18 
Turkey - Chile  0 9 30 21 
Turkey - FYRM  0 0 20 12 
Turkey - Georgia  0 0 30 18 
Turkey - Israel  0 0 20 12 
Turkey - Jordan  0 0 30 18 
Turkey - Mauritius  0 0 30 18 
Turkey - Montenegro  0 0 30 18 
Turkey - Morocco  0 0 30 18 
Turkey - Pales tinian Authority  0 0 30 18 
Turkey - Serbia  0 0 30 18 
Turkey - Syria  0 0 20 12 
Turkey - Tunisia  0 0 30 18 
Ukraine - FYRM  0 0 50 30 
Ukraine - Moldova  0 0 40 24 
US - Australia  91 82 100 94 
US - Bahrain  82 64 60 63 
US - Chile  82 73 90 84 
US - Colombia  91 82 90 88 
US - Israel  0 0 10 6 
US - Jordan  55 55 60 58 
US - Morocco  91 64 80 76 
US - Oman  91 64 70 70 
US - Panama  73 82 80 80 
US - Peru 82 73 90 84 
US - Singapore  82 73 90 84 
 
(a) Only RTAs with an overall score greater than zero are listed, i.e., RTAs that include at least one  IP provision.  
(b) Weighted average of pharmaceutical, specific and general provisions (10%, 30% and 60 % respectively).  
 
Source: Author s' estimates   
67 
 Annex VI.   IP cont ent and categorization of individual RTAs, proportional weights  
  high content  
   moderate content  
   negligible content  
Regional Trade Agreement  
(see Annex I)  Overall 
score ( b) IP 
level  Regional Trade Agreement  
(see Annex I)  Overall 
score ( b) IP 
level  
Andean Community (CAN)  65 EU - South Africa  16 
ASEAN - Australia - New Zealand  42  EU - Syria  7 
ASEAN - China  23  EU - Tunisia  28 
ASEAN - India  13  EU - Turkey  66 
ASEAN - Japan  10  EEA  81 
ASEAN - Korea, Republic of  20  EFTA  57 
ASEAN Free Trade Area (AFTA)  10  Faroe Islands - Norwa y 74 
Australia - Chile  60 Guatemala - Chinese Taipei  22 
Brunei Darussalam - Japan  17 Honduras - El Salvador - Chinese 
Taipei  6 
Canada - Chile  6  Hong Kong, China - New Zealand  20 
Canada - Colombia  13  India - Japan  28 
Canada - Costa Rica  3  India - Malaysia  13 
Canada - Israel  3  India - Singapore  10 
Canada - Panama  10  Israel - Mexico  10 
Canada - Peru 13  Japan - Indonesia  57 
CARICOM  10  Japan - Malaysia  57 
CEFTA  32  Japan - Mexico  10 
Chile - China  16  Japan - Peru 45 
Chile - Colombia  3  Japan - Philippines  38 
Chile - Costa Rica (Chile - CA) 6  Japan - Singapore  16 
Chile - El Salvador (Chile - CA) 6  Japan - Switzerland  69 
Chile - Guatemala (Chile - CA) 6  Japan - Thailand  63 
Chile - Honduras (Chile - CA) 6  Japan - Viet Nam  53 
Chile - Japan  35  Jordan - Singapore  3 
Chile - Malaysia  6  Korea, Republic of - Chile  29 
Chile - Mexico  45  Korea, Republic of - India  32 
Chile - Nicaragua (Chile - CA) 6  Korea, Repub lic of - Singapore  26 
China - Costa Rica  23  Korea, Republic of - Turkey  29 
China - Hong Kong, China  3  Korea, Republic of - US 78 
China - Macao, China  7  Malaysia - Australia  57 
China - New Zealand  19  Mexico - Central America  51 
Colombia - Mexico  41  Mexico - Uruguay  60 
Colombia - Northern Triangle  6  New Zealand - Chinese Taipei  39 
Common Economic Zone (CEZ)  3  New Zealand - Malaysia  26 
COMESA  3  New Zealand - Singapore  7 
Costa Rica - Peru 38  Nicaragua and  Chinese Taipei  57 
Costa Rica - Singapore  22  NAFTA  78 
Dominican Republic - Central 
America  10  Pakistan - China  10 
CAFTA -DR 85 Pakistan - Malaysia  23 
EAC - goods & services  41  Panama - Chile  6 
EC Treaty  81 Panama - Costa R ica (Panama - CA) 16 
ECOWAS  3  Panama - El Salvador (Panama - CA) 16  68 Regional Trade Agreement  
(see Annex I)  Overall 
score ( b) IP 
level  Regional Trade Agreement  
(see Annex I)  Overall 
score ( b) IP 
level  
Economi c Cooperation Organization  17  Panama - Guatemala (Panama - CA) 16 
EFTA - Albania  66 Panama - Honduras (Panama - CA )  16 
EFTA - Chile  72 Panama - Nicaragua (P anama - CA) 16 
EFTA - Colombia  66 Panama - Peru 42 
EFTA - Egypt  54  Panama - Singapore  6 
EFTA - FYRM  63 Panama and Chinese Taipei  42 
EFTA - Hong Kong, China  63 Peru - Chile  16 
EFTA - Israel  56  Peru - China  26 
EFTA - Jordan 66 Peru - Korea, Republic of  39 
EFTA - Korea, Republic of  66 Peru - Mexico  3 
EFTA - Lebanon  69 Peru - Singapore  13 
EFTA - Mexico  66 Russian Federation - Serbia  3 
EFTA - Montenegro  66 Singapore - Australia  38 
EFTA - Morocco  66 SADC  7 
EFTA - Palestinian Authority  10  MERCOSUR  3 
EFTA - Peru 66 Thailand - Australia  20 
EFTA - SACU  13  Thailand - New Zealand  26 
EFTA - Serbia  66 Trans -Pacific Strategic Economic 
Partnership  29 
EFTA - Singapor e 60 Turkey - Albania  10 
EFTA - Tunisia  72 Turkey - Bosnia and Herzegovina  10 
EFTA - Turkey  66 Turkey - Chile  13 
EFTA - Ukraine  66 Turkey - FYRM  7 
Egypt - Turkey  13  Turkey - Georgia  10 
EU - Albania  84 Turkey - Israel  7 
EU - Algeria  29  Turkey - Jordan  10 
EU - Bosnia and Herzegovina  84 Turkey - Mauritius  10 
EU - Cameroon  10  Turkey - Montenegro  10 
EU - CARIFORUM States EPA  44  Turkey - Morocco  10 
EU - Central America  48  Turkey - Palestinian Auth ority  10 
EU - Chile  35  Turkey - Serbia  10 
EU - Colombia and Peru  60 Turkey - Syria  7 
EU - Côte d'Ivoire  7  Turkey - Tunisia  10 
EU - ESASI EPA  3  Ukraine - FYRM  17 
EU - Egypt  25  Ukraine - Moldova  13 
EU - FYRM  81 US - Austra lia 91 
EU - Israel  22  US - Bahrain  68 
EU - Jordan  25  US - Chile  82 
EU - Korea, Republic of  63 US - Colombia  88 
EU - Lebanon  25  US - Israel  3 
EU - Mexico  25  US - Jordan  56 
EU - Montenegro  84 US - Morocco  78 
EU - Morocco  22  US - Oman  75 
EU - Palestinian Authority  10  US - Panama  78 
EU - San Marino  3  US - Peru 82 
EU - Serbia  84 US - Singapore  82 
(a) Only RTAs with an overall score greater than zero are listed, i.e., RTAs that inc lude at least one IP provision.  
(b) Weighted average of pharmaceutical, specific and general provisions (1 1/32, 11/32 and 10/32 respectively).  
Source: Authors'  estimates   
69 
 REFERENCES  
 
 
Baccini, Leonardo;  Dür, Andreas;  Elsig, Manfred;  and Milewicz, Karoli na 2011.  The Design of 
Preferential Trade Agreements:  A New Dataset in the Making, WTO Staff Working Paper ERSD -
2011 -10. 
 
Baldwin, Richard 2011.  21st Century Regionalism: Filling the gap between 21st century trade and 
20th century trade rules, Staff Wor king Paper ERSD -2011 -08, World Trade Organization.  
 
Cortes Gamba, Miguel Ernesto;  Zerda Sarmiento, Alvaro;  Sarmiento, Devis;  De La Hoz Pinzon, 
Gerardo Augusto, 2004.  Modelo Prospectivo del Impacto de la Protección a la Propiedad Intelectual 
sobre el Ac ceso a Medicamentos en Colombia, PAHO, WHO Regional Office, IFARMA Foundation, 
Bogota.  
 
Fink, Carsten 2010. “Intellectual Property Rights” in J -P Chauffour and J -C Maur (eds.) Preferential 
Trade Agreement Policies for Development: A Handbook, World Bank.  
 
Hernández -González, Greivin and Valverde, Max, 2009.  Evaluación del Impacto de las 
Disposiciones de ADPIC + en el Mercado Institucional de Medicamentos de Costa Rica, International 
Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD), Documento de Fondo N o. 26, Geneva.  
 
Horn, Henrik; Mavroidis, Petros C. and Sapir, André, 2009.  Beyond the WTO? An anatomy of EU 
and US preferential trade agreements, Bruegel.  
 
Kampf, Roger 2007.  TRIPS and FTAs: A World of Preferential or Detrimental Relations?, in Heath 
& Sanders (Editors), Intellectual Property & Free Trade Agreements.  
 
Productivity Commission 2010.  Bilateral and Regional Trade Agreements, Research Report, 
Canberra, 2010.  
 
Rathe, Magdalena; Pérez Minaya, Ramón;  Cuzco, Lesly Franco and Guzmá, Dania, 2009.  
Medicamentos y Propiedad Intelectual, Fundación Penitud/ICTSD/OPS/PNUD/SEPAS, Dominican 
Republic.  
 
Valdes, Raymundo 2010.  Lessons from the first two decades of Trade Policy Reviews in the 
Americas, Staff Working Paper ERSD -2010 -15, World Trade Organizati on. 
 
Valdes, Raymundo and Runyowa , Tavengwa 2012.  Intellectual Property Provision in Regional Trade 
Agreements , Staff Working Paper ERSD -2012 -21, World Trade Organization.  
 
WTO 2010, Council for TRIPS, Minutes of Meeting held on 2 March 2010, WTO document  
IP/C/M/62, 1 June 2010.  
 
WTO 2011a, World Trade Report 2011: The WTO and preferential trade agreements: From co -
existence to coherence, Geneva.  
 
WTO 2011 b. Australia, Trade Policy Review, Report by the Secretariat, WTO document 
WT/TPR/S/244, 1 March 2011.  
 
WTO 2012 a, Council for TRIPS, Minutes of Meeting held on 24 -25 October and 17 November 2011, 
WTO document IP/C/M/67, 15 February 2012.  
  70 WTO 2012 b, Council for TRIPS, Minutes of Meeting held on 5 June 2012 , WTO document  
IP/C/M/70, 1 October 2012 . 
 
WTO 2013 , Council for TRI PS, Minutes of Meeting held on 10 -11 October 2013,  WTO document 
IP/C/M/74/Add.1, 28 November 2013.