RESTRICTED  
  
IP/C/M/75/Add.1  
 
16 April 2014  
(14-2336)  Page: 1/73  
Council for Trade-Related Aspects of 
Intellectual Property Rights   
  
MINUTES OF MEETING 
HELD IN THE CENTRE WILLIAM RAPPARD ON 25-26 FEBRUARY 2014 
Interim Chairperson: Ambassador Dacio Castillo (Honduras) 
Addendum 
The present document contains the statements made during the Council for TRIPS meeting held on 
25-26 February 2014.  
_______________ 
 
Subjects discussed 
INDEX OF THE STATEMENTS MADE AT THE MEETING OF THE COUNCIL FOR 
TRIPS 25-26 FEBRUARY 2014 .......................................................................................... 2
 
AGENDA ITEM 1: NOTIFICATIONS UNDE R PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT .................. 4  
AGENDA ITEM 3: REVIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 27.3(B) ............................... 7  
AGENDA ITEM 4: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TRIPS AGREEMENT AND THE 
CONVENTION ON BIOLOG ICAL DIVE RSITY ...................................................................... 7  
AGENDA ITEM 5:PROTECTION OF TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND FOLKLORE ................ 7  
AGENDA ITEM 6: NON-VIOLATION AND SITUATION COMPLAINTS ................................. 18  
AGENDA ITEM 9: FOLLOW-UP TO THE ELEVENTH ANNUAL REVIEW UNDER 
PARAGRAPH 2 OF THE DECISION ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 66.2 
OF THE TRIPS AGREEMENT ............................................................................................ 28  
AGENDA ITEM 10: TECHNICAL COOPER ATION AND CAPACI TY-BUILDING ..................... 29  
AGENDA ITEM 11: CONTRIBUTION OF IN TELLECTUAL PROPERTY TO FACILITATE 
THE TRANSFER OF ENVIRONMENTALLY  RATIONAL TECHNOLOGY .................................. 36  
AGENDA ITEM 12: IP AND INNOVA TION: UNIVERSITY TECHNOLOGY 
PARTNERSHI PS .............................................................................................................. 53  
AGENDA ITEM 13: CONCERNS WITH RESPECT TO MEASURES RELATED TO PLAIN 
PACKAGING OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS AN D THEIR COMPATIBILITY WITH THE 
TRIPS AGREEMENT ......................................................................................................... 68  
 IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 2 - 
 
  INDEX OF THE STATEMENTS MADE AT THE MEETING OF THE COUNCIL FOR TRIPS 
25-26 FEBRUARY 2014* 
Angola on behalf of the LDC Group  
Article 66.2, 28 
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK, 7, 17 
Argentina  
Non-violation, 26 
Australia  
Tobacco plain packaging, 71 Transfer of environmental technology, 49 
University technology partnerships, 55 
Bangladesh  
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK, 11 Non-violation, 26 
University technology partnerships, 66 
Benin  
Transfer of environmental technology, 51 
Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK, 14 Non-violation, 20, 28 
Brazil  
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK, 9 Non-violation, 19, 27 Transfer of environmental technology, 49 
University technology partnerships, 63 
Canada  
Non-violation, 22 
Tobacco plain packaging, 72 
University technology partnerships, 56 
Chairman  
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK, 17, 18 
Non-violation, 27, 28 
Transfer of environmental technology, 52 
Chile  
Article 66.2, 29 
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK, 11 Transfer of environmental technology, 38 
China  
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK, 9 Non-violation, 20 Transfer of environmental technology, 48 
Chinese Taipei  
University technology partnerships, 63 
Colombia  
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK, 15 
Notifications, 4 
Cuba  
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK, 13, 18 
Non-violation, 21, 28 Tobaccco plain packaging, 68 Transfer of environmental technology, 38 
Dominican Republic  
Tobacco plain packaging, 69 
Ecuador  
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK, 10 
Non-violation, 24 Transfer of environmental technology, 36, 
49, 51, 52 
Egypt  
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK, 14 
 El Salvador  
Transfer of environmental technology, 39 
University technology partnerships, 65 
European Union  
Non-violation, 25 
Technical cooperation, 34 
Transfer of environmental technology, 39 University technology partnerships, 59 
Guatemala  
University technology partnerships, 64 
Honduras  
Tobacco plain packaging, 69 
Hong Kong, China  
University technology partnerships, 58 
India  
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK, 7, 17 
Non-violation, 23, 28 Transfer of environmental technology, 42 
University technology partnerships, 57, 67 
Indonesia  
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK, 8 Tobacco plain packaging, 71 
Japan  
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK, 16, 18 Non-violation, 24 
Transfer of environmental technology, 42 
University technology partnerships, 61 
Korea  
Non-violation, 27 
Mexico  
Non-violation, 26 
New Zealand  
Tobacco plain packaging, 71 
University technology partnerships, 62 
Nicaragua  
Tobacco plain packaging, 70 
Nigeria  
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK, 17 Tobacco plain packaging, 72 
Nigeria on behalf of the African Group  
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK, 16 Non-violation, 27 
Pakistan  
Non-violation, 24 
Peru 
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK, 12 
Non-violation, 26 
Plurinational State of Bolivia  
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK, 10 
Secretariat  
Transfer of environmental technology, 52 
South Africa  
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK, 12 
non-violation, 21 Notifications, 4 
Transfer of environmental technology, 48 
   IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 3 - 
 
  Switzerland  
Non-violation, 24 Notifications, 4 Tobacco plain packaging, 73 
Transfer of environmental technology, 43 
University technology partnerships, 65 
Togo  
Technical cooperation, 29 
Ukraine  
Tobacco plain packaging, 70 
 
 United States  
Biotech, Biodiversity, TK, 15, 17 Non-violation, 18, 28 Transfer of environmental technology, 44, 
51, 52 
University technology partnerships, 53, 66 
Uruguay  
Tobacco plain packaging, 72 
WTO Secretariat  
Notifications, 5 
Zimbabwe  
Tobacco plain packaging, 70 
  
 
  
 
   
 
  
 
  
 
   
 
  
 
  
 
   
 
  
 
  
 
   
 
  
 
  
 
____________________ 
* A record of statements as delivered.  Some statements have been lightly edited as appropriate to ensure the 
consistency of presentation. IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 4 - 
 
   
AGENDA ITEM 1: NOTIFICATIONS UNDER PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT 
1.1 Switzerland  
 
1.  Switzerland would like to introduce the contents  and background of our notification update with 
regard to the Checklist of Issues on Enforcemen t. Through its decision of 21 November 1995, the 
TRIPS Council agreed on a checklist of question s and issues for Members to provide responses 
regarding their national enforcement laws and practices, as well as on the status of national 
implementation of the provisions on enforcement as contained in Part III of the TRIPS Agreement.  
2.  Switzerland submitted its first response to that Checklist in submission IP/N/6/CHE/1 on 
16 October 1997. Since then, the IP enforcemen t system in Switzerland has undergone a 
considerable number of changes, necessitating a revi ew of our original response. Accordingly, with 
the present submission contained in document IP /N/6/CHE/2, Switzerland submits an updated and 
revised version of its responses to the Checklist of Enforcement, reflecting the state of laws and 
regulations in force in Switzerland as of 1 January 2014.  
3.  My delegation does not intend to take time from the Council's tight agenda to present all the 
changes that have occurred in Swiss enforcement law and practices over the last 17 years. Rather, 
we would like to limit our information to two key novelties: on 1 January 2011 the Federal Laws on 
Civil and Criminal Procedures came into force, superseding the 26 cantonal procedural codes applicable until then to civil and criminal judicial proceedings. This step considerably facilitates the enforcement of IP rights for all stakeholders.  
4.  Further, in 2012, the Federal Patent Court started to operate as the court of first instance for 
all actions concerning patents in Switzerland, dr awing this competence from the Cantons, whose 
courts were previously vested with this task. Owing to the technical complexity of patent disputes, 
which require considerable expertise to be handled efficiently and effectively, the institution of a 
Swiss Federal Patent Court of First Instance means faster and more effective settlements and enforcement of patent disputes in Switzerland.  
5.  For any further amendments and informatio n on changes in Swiss enforcement laws and 
practices, I refer interested Members to our updated submission in IP/N/6/CHE/2. 
6.  We encourage other Members, who at their national level have also undergone important 
changes in their enforcement laws and practices since their first submissions to the Checklist, to 
consider updating that information. For the Council and the WTO, such updated information 
represents an extremely useful body of informatio n pertaining to an important part of the TRIPS 
Agreement. Members will thus contribute to  transparency, a key commitment Members had 
agreed to when establishing the WTO for the sake of promoting a regulatory environment that 
fosters global trade for the benefit of its Members.  
1.2 Colombia  
 
7.  Colombia is pleased to indicate that it will shortly notify the following laws:  
 Law 1648 of 2013 establishing measures to enforce IPRs; 
 
 Law 1519 of 2012 adopting the Convention Relating to the Distribution 
of Programme-Carrying Signals Transmitted by  Satellite (Brussels, 21/05/1974). Colombia 
deposited the instrument of accession on 20 December 2013; for entry into force 
on 20 March 2014. 
 1.3 South Africa  
 
8 .   W e  w o u l d  l i k e  t o  p r o v i d e  a n  u p d a t e  o f  t h e  B i l l  t h a t  S o u t h  A f r i c a  a s s e n t e d  t o  o n  9 December 2013. Our President has signed the In tellectual Property Laws Amendment Act 2013, 
the purpose of which is to provide for the recognition and protection of certain manifestations of 
indigenous knowledge as a species of IP. To this end, it amends certain laws so as to provide for 
the protection of relevant manifestations of indigenous knowledge as a species of IP, namely: IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 5 - 
 
   the Performance Protection Act, 1967, to prov ide for the recognition and protection of 
performances of traditional works; 
 the Copyright Act of 1978, to provide for th e recognition and protection of indigenous 
works, to provide for the establishment of a National Council in respect of indigenous 
people, to provide for national databases for the recording of indigenous knowledge, and 
to provide for the recording of indigenous wo rks, and to provide for the establishment of 
a National Trust fund for indigenous knowledge; 
 the Trade Marks Act of 1993, to provide for the recognition of indigenous terms and 
expressions and for the registration of such  terms and expressions as trademarks, to 
create for this purpose a further part of the Trade Marks Register, to provide for the recording of indigenous terms and expressions, and to provide for further protection of 
geographical indications; and 
 the Designs Act of 1993, to provide for the re cognition and registration of indigenous 
designs, to create for this purpose a further part of the Designs Register. 
9.  It also introduces statutory provisions to provide for the establishment of a National Council in 
respect of indigenous knowledge, a national database for the recording of indigenous knowledge and a national trust and trust fund for the purpose of indigenous knowledge. 
1.4 WTO Secretariat  
 10.  This update follows the request from the Council in November 2012 for the Secretariat to inform it at its future meetings on enhancements to the Secretariat's services improving the 
transparency, timeliness, completeness and user-fri endliness of the notification system; this builds 
on the work earlier reviewed by the Council from March 2009 under the agenda item on "Letter from the Chair of the General Council Concerning Ways to Improve the Timeliness and 
Completeness of Notifications and Other Information Flows". Document IP/C/W/543 of 22 October 
2009 continues to serve as the information base for this process, reporting on the state-of-play of notifications at that time and suggesting how to  make the system more timely and complete. 
Regular reports to the Council since then have been supplemented by more informal workshops 
and consultation sessions with Members. 
11.  The broad outlines set out in that document remain the guidelines for our work, but it is 
taking more concrete form now as we move from a review of the administrative procedures to 
looking for specific IT solutions to update the sy stem generally. Hence the work continues to take 
an integrated approach to managing the sizeable amount of information associated with notification and reporting processes under the remit of this Council: 
 Improving data capture for the wide range of notifications and reports this Council 
administers;  
 modernizing how we manage these diverse data sets as information within the 
Secretariat, so as to expedite processing and reduce the burden on the documentation 
system generally; and  
 improving and extending the information services provided to Members, principally, and 
other stakeholders who seek to access WTO information, through forms of presentation 
and dissemination that are better adapted to the practical needs of users.  
12.  The general approach remains as reported before: firstly, to remain entirely within the 
existing framework of notification and reporting standards set out in the TRIPS Agreement and the 
subsequent decisions of this Council; the focus th erefore is to update and streamline the existing 
arrangements from a practical point of view, rather than to alter or add to the established framework. Secondly, the focus is to enhance the completeness, timeliness and practical 
accessibility of information provided, while easing the administrative burden for notifying and 
reporting Members. Thirdly, we have sought to deliver resource savings where possible in areas where documentation costs have been high, while  improving the quality and range of services 
provided, in other words not seeking a trade-off between reduced costs and improved services but IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 6 - 
 
  rather a positive sum where improved management of the data can also lead to some savings. We 
have reported before that the TRIPS Council is ac tually a major user of the documentation services 
of the Secretariat overall.  
13.  On data capture, the main efforts comprise:  
 Fully digitizing the entire backlog of notified material, particularly converting a large 
quantity of legal texts (well over 2,000 substantial legal texts remain in image form), so that these are available in text searchable form with basic metadata to enable searching 
and improved online access;  
 maintaining the very successful WIPO-WTO Common Portal launched in 2010 as an 
optional avenue for Members to notify legal texts for either or both organizations and this has certainly improved the flow of up-to-date submissions; and  
 developing similar, optional, online notify ing and reporting tools for a wider range of 
TRIPS-related notifications, which would enable simpler input by Members and help capture data notified in a more workable and consistent format, rather than the highly 
diverse and often incompatible formats that have been used in the past. 
14.  This process has identified some suggestio ns for improving the usefulness of the notified 
materials. This is now a very large body of material. We are approaching 5,000 distinct legal texts, 
as well as many other notifications such as the enforcement checklist and other materials.  
15.  In the course of their notifications, some  Members have provided a brief description of a 
notified law, for example briefly describing the purpose, background and key features of an amendment to an existing IP law. In some cases, as we have just heard from the delegations of 
Switzerland, Colombia and South Africa, Members have also made a brief introduction to the 
Council outlining the main changes or additional material in the laws as notified. This kind of additional information facilitates the understanding of the notified materials, which can be difficult 
to grasp from a review only of the actual legal text of the law or amendment as furnished.  
16.  This supplementary explanatory information is helpful as for the most part we have effectively 
reached the end of the first phase of notificati ons under the TRIPS Agreement, whereby a Member 
makes a comprehensive notification of a wide range of basic IP laws. For many Members this 
material now dates back nearly two decades, an d for many other Members well over a decade.  
17.  At this time, notifications tend to be more  in a steady state pattern of regular reviews and 
updates of existing laws. The statistics confirm this. There was a lull in notification activity in the 
mid-2000s, after that first wave of major initial notifications. This has picked up recently as 
Members notify a diverse range of post-TRIPS amendments and updates to their core IP legislation. Since the last full review of notifications we reported to the Council in 2009, nearly 600 
new notifications have been received. These largel y refer to updates and amendments such as the 
three that Switzerland, Colombia and South Africa have just mentioned.  
18.  For the most part, notifications no longer focus on the initial basic reviews of laws but 
increasingly on amendments and updates corr esponding to domestic reforms and domestic 
reviews. Therefore, especially for this kind of information, brief explanatory information is helpful in understanding the significance of a particular revision or update of the law that has been notified. Where Members elect to provide this information, we will aim to make it more accessible 
when Members consult the notifications online.  
19.  More generally, between this session of the Council and the next session, we will be 
consulting with Members on a prototype of an optional notification tool to facilitate data capture 
generally in such a way that streamlines operations for Members. 
20.  The second area of work concerns our internal operations – we are overhauling our internal 
procedures so that they take the form of an up-to-date data management system, reducing the 
need for manual processing and easing pressure on  the documentation system overall, so that the 
range of reports and official documents required can be produced more rapidly and with less cost IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 7 - 
 
  to the Secretariat. This approach has already enabled us to provide Council minutes more rapidly 
and with improved indexing and navigation tools to facilitate their use. 
21.  The final area of work concerns how to present notified materials and reports on the WTO 
website in a way that is more accessible and useful. Again we will be consulting with Members on 
possible approaches to improving the website and other ways of disseminating data and 
documentation, so that the information service provided in the area of TRIPS corresponds most effectively and more accurately with the practica l needs of delegates and other Member officials, 
including capital-based officials. We propose to undertake this consultation through informal 
workshops and other informal feedback sessions open to any interested delegation, but equally we are available at any time to discuss with delegations in any other format that is convenient for them, in the hope that by the time the Council meets again in June we will have something more 
concrete to report on. 
AGENDA ITEM 3: REVIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 27.3(B) AGENDA ITEM 4: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TRIPS AGREEMENT AND THE 
CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY 
AGENDA ITEM 5:PROTECTION OF TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND FOLKLORE 5.1 Angola on behalf of the LDC Group  
 
22.  The LDC Group does not support the use of li fe forms from plants and animals and patenting 
of them. The Group calls for a review of this Ar ticle, in order to protect developing and least 
developed countries against the harmful effects of this provision on key sectors affecting their 
means of subsistence, that is agriculture, heal th, food and climate change. This would also be 
useful in promoting food security and preserving the integrity of rural and local communities. Patenting of life forms at the multilateral level should be prohibited.  
23.  On the relationship between the TRIPS Agr eement and the CBD, our Group feels that States 
have the right and the duty to protect their trad itional knowledge and genetic resources. It is 
necessary, therefore, that the TRIPS Agreement be modified with a view to requiring that patent 
applicants for biological material provide information on source and the country of origin of 
biological resources and the traditional knowledge used in the invention. 
24.  Furthermore, patent applicants must also provide proof of prior consent and benefit sharing 
with authorities and/or the relevant persons of the relevant national origin. This obligation of 
information which is also consistent with the principle of transparency in the multilateral trading 
system will assist in reducing the number of patents erroneously granted or through biopiracy. The LDCs believe that traditional knowledge must be given legal recognition and protection of it would 
make a significant contribution towards the attainment of development objectives. 
5.2 India  
 
25.  I am taking the floor to make an intervention  on the three agenda items that are of critical 
importance to developing countries. My delegation would also like to take this opportunity to thank the Secretariat for providing a factual briefing on this issue at very short notice.  
26.  We have been extensively discussing these agenda items for more than a decade. The 
disclosure of origin obligation which has been su ggested by a large number of developing countries 
through several submissions, with the latest textual proposal TN/C/W/59 dated April 2011, are important contributions to address the issues und er this agenda item. It would also address a 
major concern of developing countries regarding the "biopiracy" of biological resources and 
traditional knowledge (TK). Unfortunately despite the complaints and pleas by developing countries affected by these practices, the misa ppropriation continues unabated as no preventive 
measures have been taken by countries that most benefit from them, while the TRIPS Agreement 
has no rules to prevent such occurrences. IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 8 - 
 
  27.  The adoption of such an obligation may constitute the first step in the development of a 
regime aimed at avoiding the monopolization of bi ological materials and related TK. The disclosure 
of origin may fulfil three main functions relevant for the operation of the patent system: 
 It would improve the substantive examination of patent applications involving such 
materials and knowledge. The provision of that information may, in effect, facilitate the 
determination of prior art by providing useful information to the examiner. In some cases, it may simplify searching the databases on TK currently being established. The 
information supplied would help to identify possible cases of misappropriation of 
biological materials and facilitate actions to challenge the validity of wrongly granted patents. 
 It will also improve the determination of inventorship by the patent office or courts.  
 The disclosure of origin may, in some cases, facilitate or permit the actual execution of 
the invention, such as where a biological material is endemic to a specific location. 
28.  In addition to these possible functions within  the patent law, if the information is provided 
with a proof of access and benefit sharing (ABS) and prior informed consent (PIC), it would bring 
in cohesiveness between the TRIPS Agreement and th e principles and obligations of the CBD, as 
well as the "Bonn Guidelines on Access to Geneti c Resources and Fair and Equitable Sharing of the 
Benefits Arising Out of Their Utilization" (Bonn Guidelines). 
29.  The biodiverse countries are victims of misappropriation of their genetic resources, TK and 
folklore. The objective of the proposal W59 is to bring in further transparency in the patent examination process and to capture the developments in the past including the Nagoya Protocol. It 
would in fact bring in further certainty to the patents granted in these fields. The opponents of this 
proposal suggest contracts and databases. But such an approach can address the issue only 
partially. Thus, despite the establishment of a Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL) by 
India to overcome language and format barriers,  the results are limited because the database 
covers only the documented TK related to the In dian system of medicine. The vast knowledge in 
the field of Indian medicine that is not documented has not been reflected in this library. Thus 
improving prior art searches through the TKDL is only one part of the solution. The TRIPS 
Agreement continues to ignore the numerous IPR-related obligations in the CBD which are of interest to the developing countries. This contradiction not only obstructs the proper implementation of the CBD, but also causes  an imbalance in the TRIPS Agreement. The 
relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and th e CBD is a critical implementation issue for 
developing countries and a positive outcome on this issue would be an important deliverable for developing countries.  
30.  There have been substantial discussions over the issue of formally inviting the CBD 
Secretariat for a briefing on the Nagoya protocol. It is unfortunate that WTO Members are deprived 
of its briefing on account of a Member's objectio ns for an unknown reason. We therefore reiterate 
our demand for a formal briefing by the CBD Secretariat in the interest of the large majority of 
developing countries and urge the Member blocking consensus to revise its position. 
31.  Let me therefore conclude by saying that th e discussions on this issue need to be intensified 
since it is an important Doha deliverable for deve loping countries. A constructive engagement from 
all Members would indeed help in addressing this long pending issue of key importance to the 
developing countries. 
5.3 Indonesia  
 
32.  Indonesia would like to express its appreciation to the Secretariat for organizing a factual briefing on the issue of the relationship be tween the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD yesterday 
afternoon, especially since it was prepared at such a short notice. The briefing was indeed 
illuminating and it helped refresh our understanding on the issue.  
33.  To ensure that this issue keeps gaining sufficient attention as it deserves in this Council, 
Indonesia would like to once again reiterate its position on this item. My delegation believes that 
this agenda item is highly important and that al l Members of this Council should take concrete IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 9 - 
 
  action that these two agreements can be implem ented in a mutually supportive manner that does 
not run counter to their objectives. 
34.  Indonesia, as a proponent of document W59, remains consistent with its view on the urgency 
of a mandatory disclosure requirement to be included in the TRIPS Agreement. As we have 
maintained also in other forums such as in the WIPO Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual 
Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IGC), my delegation considers that the inclusion of a mandatory disclosure requirement in patent applications will 
contribute to preventing misappropriation of genetic resources and associated traditional 
knowledge, as well as improving transparency in the utilization of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge. 
35.  Indonesia underlines that genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge should be 
utilized in an appropriate manner that ensures fair and equitable benefit sharing through mutually 
agreed terms in accordance with the objectives of the UN CBD and Nagoya Protocol. In our view, 
fair and equitable benefit sharing can only be achieved through the inclusion of a mandatory 
disclosure requirement in the IP regime. Thus, this IP regime will be in line with its core objectives 
as stipulated in Article 7 of the TRIPS Agreement. 
5.4 Brazil  
 
36.  We had a productive briefing session on the relation between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD yesterday afternoon. Even though this subject is by no means new in this Council, it's always good to refresh our memory about what is at stak e here. We were reminded, for instance, that the 
requirement that countries disclose information on the use of genetic resources, which is at the 
very heart of this matter, was already on the agenda of the WTO back in 1999. The world has 
changed a lot since then, with a new protocol on the biological diversity, but we have not managed 
to update the TRIPS Agreement to adapt it to the new international framework. We associate 
ourselves with the proposals enshrined in document IP/C/W/59. 
37.  National initiatives to regulate this sector are important, but they do not mean much when in 
other countries, individuals and companies can use these resources without respecting the 
principles enshrined in the CBD, such as prior informed consent and access and benefit sharing.  
38.  Although this matter is of great importance to megadiverse countries like Brazil, at the end of 
the day the advance of the negotiations is impo rtant to all Members that are interested in 
strengthening the IP system. Making sure that patents that involve misappropriation of resources 
cannot be granted - or kept –would be effective in  showing that the system works for all countries, 
regardless of their level of development. 
39.  Finally, it is important to emphasize that, in the proposed mechanism, to preclude the 
misappropriation of genetic resources and associ ated traditional knowledge, the patent offices 
would be nothing more than a check-point to collect and transmit information. Therefore, it would 
not, in any way, represent an unnecessary burden for national IP systems. 
5.5 China  
 40.  China joins other delegations in thanking the Secretariat for its briefing on TRIPS/CBD 
yesterday.  
41.  Before taking up the three traditional agenda items of this Council, I would like to say a few 
words on the new topics proposed. It is China's view that any discussion on new topics shall not 
cause any diversion or dilution of the incumbent issues, especially one as important as TRIPS/CBD.  
42.  It is well recognized that TRIPS/CBD has been an important outstanding issue in the TRIPS 
Council. In order to ensure that the TRIPS Agreement, the CBD and the Nagoya Protocol operate in 
a mutually supportive manner, the majority of Members support amending the TRIPS Agreement 
to introduce a mandatory disclosure requirement of the origin of genetic resources and/or traditional knowledge into patent applications. Such disclosure proposals can be found in documents TN/C/W/52 and TN/C/W/59. These docu ments could improve transparency and help 
prevent misappropriation and erroneous patents gran ted due to the lack of information by patent IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 10 - 
 
  examiners. At the same time, China does not think it would be burdensome for the patent 
applicant to provide the information concerning prior informed consent and access and benefit sharing, especially considering the legitimate objective pursued by the system. The contractual 
arrangements or database solution proposed by some Members is not sufficient for the protection 
of genetic resources.  
43.  China welcomes the ongoing discussions and developments in the negotiations at the WIPO 
IGC; however, this does not prevent Members from seeking solutions here within the WTO. In 
accordance with the mandate given by Ministers instructing the Council to examine, inter alia , the 
relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD, Members shall work effectively in order 
to resolve the matter. We would like to encourag e the Director-General to renew his consultations 
with Members of the WTO as mandated by the Hong  Kong Ministerial Declaration on TRIPS/CBD.  
44.  Once again, China would like to support inviting the CBD Secretariat to make presentations on 
the Nagoya Protocol at the TRIPS Council, from a different perspective than that of WTO Members. Such a presentation will help to improve Member s' understanding of the protection of genetic 
resources, and contribute to the cooperation between WTO and other international organizations.  
45.  We also believe that it woul d be helpful if WIPO, as an observ er of the TRIPS Council, could be 
invited to introduce the recent development of  the ongoing work undertaken by the IGC.  
46.  The suggestion by the delegation of Ecua dor to update the three summary notes by the 
Secretariat under these items is also a helpful idea. The update could help Members to have a full, clear and better understanding of the current situation, and could facilitate further discussion on these issues. If I am not wrong, the Council requested the Secretariat to update the summary note 
on non-violation and situation complaints in 2012, and we see no reason why the Council should 
not request the Secretariat to undertake similar work on these three issues. As expressed by many Members in the recent informal consultations by the Chair on non-violation complaints, any effort 
which is helpful to share information and enhance dialogue regarding the regular items under 
TRIPS Council should be supported by Members.  
5.6 Ecuador   
 
47.  My delegation's position is well known inasmu ch as we share the view that there is a need to 
review and revise Article 27.3(b), and we therefore fully support the statements made in this Council by Bolivia and other Members which consider that patents for all life forms or parts thereof 
should be prohibited. Anything that endangers or negatively affects the life forms of peoples or 
cultures cannot be considered a tradable good that may be the subject of inventions and thus patentable. 
48.  At the meeting held in October 2013, Ecuador expressed its opinion on the relationship 
between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD. Today, we reiterate the need for multilateral legal instruments to improve the use of genetic resources, associated traditional knowledge and 
traditional cultural expressions, and to give th em effective and adequate protection. There is a 
need to establish legal mechanisms to allow disclosure of the source of origin, prior informed consent, access and equitable benefit-sharing. 
49.  We have faith in the consultations being undertaken by the Chairman under a mandate from 
this Council to enable the CBD Secretariat to provide information on the outcome of the Nagoya 
negotiations on the establishment of a Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources. We consider, however, that new elements are needed to facilitate his task. Yesterday, we took part in the 
information session given by this Council's Secretariat and we note that Ecuador's proposal that 
the Secretariat should prepare a compilation of  the discussions and proposals over the past 
eight years has taken on increasing importance. We urge all Members which do not share this idea 
to review their position because it would help to permit progress to be made on this issue. 
5.7 Plurinational State of Bolivia  
 50.  The provisions of TRIPS say that Article 27.3( b) should have been reviewed four years after 
the entry into force of the WTO Agreement, and paragraph 19 of the Doha Declaration instructed 
the Council to examine other new developments raised by Members pursuant to TRIPS Article 71. IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 11 - 
 
  However, this was never done. In February 201 0 and subsequently, Bolivia proposed such a 
review in order to amend or clarify Article 27.3(b) so as to prohibit any possibility of patenting plants, animals, microforms and all forms of life, and to protect the rights of farmers, genetic resources, knowledge and traditional practices in developing countries.  
51.  The patentability of plants, animals and microorganisms raises a series of issues at various 
levels to my country, which are ethical, economic and cultural amongst others. There are many who regard life as sacred, which should not be regarded as merely a traded good. But also in 
commercial terms, Article 27.3(b) not only encourages biopiracy but also a monopoly position, 
which has had a severe impact in our countries resulting from undue use of genetic resources by corporations in developed countries. Given this, and that the arguments that we put forward in 
2010 and 2011, we believe that the TRIPS Council should review Article 27.3(b).   
5.8 Bangladesh  
 52.  At the outset we align ourselves with the statement made by Angola on behalf of the LDC 
Group. I take this opportunity to thank the Secret ariat for a very comprehensive briefing yesterday 
on these same issues. All the proponents of the different proposals who attended the briefing expressed their utmost satisfaction yesterday. We think that we would equally benefit if the CBD 
Secretariat could brief us in the same way. As far as our existing domestic laws on patents are 
concerned and also on moral and ethical grounds, we do not support patenting life forms such as plants and animals. We consider that resources of nature such as plants and animals should 
belong to the whole of mankind and should not be  appropriated by any individual or corporate 
body. 
53.  We further believe that genetic resources an d associated traditional knowledge are integral 
parts of the sovereign rights of States or indigenous people. Just like the protection of any other 
sovereign interests of States, genetic resources and traditional knowledge and folklore must also 
be safeguarded from any form of misappropriation wh ich denies the very benefit to its own rightful 
owners and holders. The most effective way to ensure against misappropriation is the 
implementation of a disclosure mechanism with the introduction of prior informed consent on 
mutually acceptable terms. 
54.  TRIPS/CBD harmonization has been a critical implementation issue for all. This is important 
for the developing countries, especially LDCs, to ensure health, food security and livelihood of local 
communities. Both the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD with its Nagoya Protocol uphold the 
promotion of innovation for the development of the people and their socio-economic environment in all countries, irrespective of the level of development and these two instruments are thus 
complementary to each other.  
55.  The CBD has particularly provided for the establishment of legitimate rights for genetic 
resources and it is only normal that patent applicants should disclose the source of the invention if 
they access and use a particular genetic resource of which they are not the rightful owner. That 
disclosure requirement is also consistent with the transparency principle that we are trying to strengthen in the multilateral trading system and will help reduce the number of erroneous patents and biopiracy. A disclosure mechanism will also ensure access to benefit sharing for the rightful 
owners of the resources. We hope that the ma ndate provided for in Article 19 of the Doha 
Declaration and reinforced in subsequent Ministerial Declarations will be implemented in an early and constructive manner. 
5.9 Chile  
 56.  We consider it important that proposals for work under this agenda item should take into 
account that these are issues under discussion in other forums, such as WIPO IGC. That said, we 
welcome the holding of sessions in which Members share their views and occasional briefings to keep everyone up to date on the work  being done in other relevant forums. IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 12 - 
 
  5.10 Peru  
 57.  The 2001 Doha Ministerial Declaration instructed the TRIPS Council, in pursuing its work programme, to examine, inter alia , the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD, 
and the protection of traditional knowledge and folklore. We should ask ourselves whether this is 
what we are actually doing in this Council. 
58.  The relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD is one of the priority issues for 
Peru in the Doha Round negotiations. In this statement Peru wishes to emphasize the significance 
of the issue and highlight two aspects that appear to us to be of the utmost importance for the 
Council to understand the scale of the problem and the reasons for our expectations in this regard. 
59.  The first is that this issue is closely linked to development and that is because its main 
proponents are the developing countries, since we are the ones that suffer most from biopiracy 
and misappropriation of our biological and genetic resources. My delegation has illustrated the point with concrete examples which can be found in contributions to this Council, namely 
documents IP/C/W/458 and IP/C/W/447. 
60.  If the obligation to disclose origin existed today, it would be much simpler for countries like 
Peru to issue an "early warning" of potential cases of biopiracy, which in many instances stems 
from patents that have been wrongly granted, chiefly in the developed countries. Secondly, it 
would enable our countries to meet the obligations deriving from the CBD. The IP system should help in this respect. Thirdly, it would facilitate the provision of evidence of prior informed consent and access to and distribution of benefits, which would of course allow a community possessing a 
form of traditional knowledge associated with a genetic resource, for example, to receive part of 
the financial proceeds arising from the patent. Lastly, a disclosure of origin requirement would obviate the need for developing countries such as Peru to spend vast amounts of money on 
identifying possible cases of biopiracy and to spend even more on lengthy and costly legal 
proceedings to ensure that wrongly granted patents are overturned. 
61.  This leads us to our second comment and to the explanation of why our country endorses 
the proposal in document TN/C/W/59. Since there is no binding international standard in this area, 
in 2004 Peru established a National Anti-Biopira cy Commission for the protection of access 
to Peruvian biological diversity and the collectiv e knowledge of indigenous peoples and for tracing 
any instances of patents already granted that use Peruvian genetic resources without any clear 
mention of their Peruvian origin. 
62.  Disclosure merely adds security and certainty to the system but would in fact make it possible 
to ensure that the developing countries can invest in the development of new products 
and substances. 
63.  The post-Bali mandate conferred on the Trade Negotiations Committee is clear, that is, to 
prepare a clearly defined work programme on the remaining Doha Development Agenda issues 
by December 2014, in particular development-relate d issues and issues concerning developing and 
least developed countries such as Peru. The Council's discussions should resume without delay. 
64.  Lastly, echoing China's statement, my delegation would like the WIPO Secretariat to be 
invited to present a report on the state of the negotiations that recently took place in the context 
of the WIPO IGC meeting on 7 February 2014. 
5.11 South Africa  
65.  South Africa would like to associate itself with the statements made by Angola, Brazil , China 
and India as well as other like-minded countries, and further supports the inclusion of the W59 
proposal in the TRIPS Agreement.  
66.  South Africa believes that there is a fundamen tal conflict between the spirit and the objectives 
of the CBD and the TRIPS Agreement. We believe th at there are three areas of conflict that are 
identifiable based on the objectives of the two Ag reements. Firstly, Article 3 of the CBD provides 
that States have sovereign rights over their biological resources and the TRIPS Agreement overlooks States' sovereignty as it recognizes private IPRs over biological resources. Secondly, the IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 13 - 
 
  CBD provides States with an opportunity to demand benefit sharing from the commercial use of 
biological resources and the TRIPS Agreement negates that legal authority. Thirdly, the CBD is aimed at reducing cases of biopiracy by requiring prior informed consent, whereas TRIPS does not. 
This means that patent applications can be submitted regarding biological resources or knowledge 
of a certain local community in any country. This is because TRIPS recognizes rights on the basis 
of novelty which does not take into account traditional knowledge and cultural practices. South Africa also believes that there is a need to avoid erroneous application of patents for inventions 
that involve the use of genetic resources and related traditional knowledge. There is also a need to 
secure compliance with national access and benefit sharing regimes.  
67.  Having stated the above, it is therefore clear that the application of the TRIPS Agreement may 
threaten the preservation of biological resources and traditional knowledge. The noted conflicts are 
what the CBD and Article 16.5 advise against. It is stated that IP must not conflict with a 
sustainable use of biodiversity. What could aid in reconciling the two agreements is a proper legal 
review of both agreements with the aim of making amendments, where necessary, to ensure 
mutually supportive application.  
68.  South Africa believes that under the current re view of Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPS Agreement, 
amendments can be made to incorporate the CBD objectives under the TRIPS Agreement, in order 
to preserve biodiversity, prevent biopiracy and incl ude the protection of local community rights in 
accordance with the spirit and purpose of the CBD. 
5.12 Cuba  
 
69.  Cuba regrets to hear, once again, that there is no consensus on having an exchange with the 
CBD Secretariat, which we have been requesting for many years, nor is it accepted that the 
WTO Secretariat update the notes on these issues . Cuba therefore fully supports Ecuador's request 
regarding this matter. 
70.  It should also be noted that the examinatio n of the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement 
and the CBD, and the protection of traditional knowledge and folklore, are negotiating issues 
expressly mandated under paragraph 19 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration. These are 
outstanding implementation issues. 
71.  We would like to point out in particular that the discussions on the TRIPS-CBD relationship are 
being misinterpreted, as this is not about reaching a consensus in order to address an issue that is 
already mandated. 
72.  In this regard, Cuba officially requests that the work on these issues be intensified in the 
follow-up to Bali in order to find solutions. We need to establish open consultations based on the 
proposals in documents IP/C/W/474 and WT/GC/W/590 from 2006 and 2008, respectively, and on 
other proposals that may be considered provided they satisfy the demands of the developing countries. 
73.  It is understood that misappropriation of genetic resources and traditional knowledge is 
unacceptable. However, a serious effort has not been made to establish a compulsory disclosure requirement for all Members that is mandated under a binding international instrument and not through the simple adoption of domestic legislation. 
74.  The introduction of a mandatory requirement on disclosure of origin can make a significant 
contribution to protecting resources against misuse and misappropriation and can help attain the objectives of the CBD, particularly those relating to requirements on biological resources and 
traditional knowledge. Furthermore, the proposed  disclosure requirement would make the patent 
system more efficient and our hope is that it will  also further the achievement of social objectives, 
which include disclosing inventions in a sufficiently clear and complete manner. 
75.  Cuba reiterates that this would be the only  effective way in which to make concrete progress 
on these issues. Moreover, we believe that any ou tcome achieved in other forums, such as WIPO, 
with respect to misappropriation of genetic resources and traditional knowledge will be 
complementary and not exclude the need to amend the TRIPS Agreement. IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 14 - 
 
  76.  With respect to Article 27.3(b) of the TRIP S Agreement, Cuba supports the statements made 
by Bolivia and Ecuador and recognizes the importance of taking into account the requests of both Members on this matter. 
5.13 Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  
 
77.  We would like to support Bolivia as to the need for a revision of Article 27.3(b). As our constitutional standards also prohibit patenting of any life form, a revision of this Article is 
consistent with the content of its last subparagraph which establishes that the provisions of this 
subparagraph shall be reviewed four years after the date of entry into force of the WTO Agreement. Therefore we can infer that our Co uncil is not respecting the mandate in the 
Agreement and the provisions we think should be amended. 
5.14 Egypt  
 78.  The delegation of Egypt would like to support and endorse the statements made by the 
delegations of Angola, India, China, Brazil, Bangladesh and South Africa as well as other 
statements calling for amending the TRIPS Agre ement to include the principle of mandatory 
disclosure on the origin and source of genetic resources and traditional knowledge. As has been 
stated, adopting the principle of mandatory disclosure would ensure the healthy and effective 
functioning of the international patent system, as well as enhance transparency and prevent 
unfortunate and illegal acts of misappropriation and biopiracy. 
79.  We would like also to join previous statements thanking the Secretariat for their presentation 
yesterday and express the hope that one day the TRIPS Council will listen to the CBD briefing on 
the Nagoya Protocol as well as calling upon the WTO Director-General to resume his consultations aiming to advance this issue in accordance with the Hong Kong and Doha mandate. 
80.  The protection of biological resources, traditional knowledge and folklore presents an 
important developmental issue for Egypt with implications for the preservation and development of national Egyptian natural and cultural heritage. In view of the importance of this issue, we 
continue to support engagement in full negotiations on the relationship between the TRIPS 
Agreement and the CBD, which is a critical part of  the implementation-related issues and concerns 
as contained in the Doha Work Programme. We remain steadfast in urging other Members to engage in this issue of prime importance to de veloping countries, as part of the hoped for 
developmental gains of the Doha Development Agenda. 
81.  Technical discussions on this issue have been ongoing for almost a decade so far. During this 
period, several submissions have been made with the aim of clarifying the issues so that an 
effective and consistent framework can be established to enable WTO Members to meet their 
obligations under both the TRIPS and the CBD. The essence of our efforts is that the TRIPS Agreement should be amended in order to provid e that Members shall require an applicant for a 
patent relating to biological materials or associated traditional knowledge to disclose the source 
and country of origin of the biological resource and the associated traditional knowledge used in the invention. Furthermore, the applicant shall also  provide evidence of prior informed consent and 
evidence of fair and equitable benefit sharing under the relevant national regime. As was stated 
previously, we wish to reaffirm the position that there is a solid case supported by a majority of 
the Membership for commencing text-based negotiations as presented in the proposal of the Disclosure Group IP/C/W/474. 
82.  Egypt continues to encourage the engagement of the Director-General in his mandated 
consultative process on the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD. We look forward to his continuing this consultation towards a possible outcome, and we specifically request 
that all Members engage constructively therein,  and stress once again the important development 
concerns on some of the issues discussed. 
83.  We continue to urge that the outcome of the negotiations on TRIPS/CBD should lead to the 
mandatory requirement for patent applicants to disclose the origin of biological material and 
traditional knowledge used in their inventions, evidence of prior informed consent and benefit 
sharing arrangements with the country of origin and the relevant communities. IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 15 - 
 
  5.15 Colombia  
 84.  Colombia has repeatedly stated its view that the protection and sustainable use of genetic resources, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions is only really possible through 
the introduction of international rules and obligations to guarantee adherence to the principals 
and objectives assumed under the UN CBD and the Nagoya Protocol on Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Be nefits Arising from their Utilization. The only 
way of achieving a genuinely inclusive IP system is to find solutions that can benefit all Members, 
solutions that include these issues of particular importance to the developing countries and LDCs. 
85.  The Doha Declaration states that the work in the Council should also look at the relationship 
between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD. And yet, 13 years later we have seen no progress. 
We now have an opportunity to breathe new life into the negotiations with the incentive provided 
by the outcomes of MC9, and in that context, Colo mbia would like to see this issue become part of 
our post-Bali work programme. We urge the Council at long last to ensure that this interest, which 
is shared by the majority of Members, is at long last taken on board, and to steer us towards a 
satisfactory conclusion to this pending issue. 
5.16 United States  
 
86.  Regarding items 3, 4 and 5, we found yesterday's Secretariat briefing to be helpful and once again thank the Secretariat for its work on distilling this issue and summarizing WTO Members' views.  
87.  Today's discussion confirms the finding of yesterday's briefing that, while Members share 
several common objectives, including with resp ect to erroneously granted patents, we have 
travelled for a long time without coming closer together. We believe this is due in part to the fact 
that we are all travelling down several pathwa ys at the same time, and at varying speeds.  
88.  For example, it is difficult to proceed in the WTO given that the Nagoya Protocol has not yet 
entered into force. We note that many of the sp onsors of the most recent WTO proposal on this 
issue – TN/C/W/59 – have not acceded to that Protocol, and many have not even signed it.  
89.  In fact, of those intervening in support of th is issue today, only three of the 15 have signed 
and acceded. The great majority have not acceded, and seven WTO Members have not even signed the Nagoya Protocol. If as one delegate su ggested the goal is to bring the Nagoya Protocol 
into the TRIPS Agreement, we would be interested  in learning more about the issues individual 
countries are facing in their national implementation efforts. In our view, understanding these challenges is a critical condition precedent for discussion here in the TRIPS Council. 
90.  Likewise we take note of the inherent tension between those Members intervening under 
item 3 on Article 27.3(b) of the TRIPS Agreement regarding prohibiting patents in certain areas, 
and those intervening under items 4 and 5 on th e relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and 
the CBD, who are seeking to use the patent system to do this very thing. 
91.  As for the statement that life forms such as plants and animals should belong to the whole of 
mankind, this position is inconsistent with the position that States have sovereignty over plants and animals and can exercise exclusive rights and insist upon prior informed consent and mutually 
agreed terms for others to use those plants and animals. Why is it that a country can have a 
perpetual right to insist upon benefit sharing under the CBD, but an inventor of a new plant cannot be given a 20-year term for the plant they invented? 
92.  Beyond the CBD and its implementation by its parties, considerable work is underway in 
WIPO, and we cannot prejudice here those expert discussions in the IGC on issues relating to genetic resources, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions. 
93.  We continue to believe that WTO Members are in the best position to represent their positions 
on those negotiations. So, for example, I can re port that the United States has submitted a 
proposal in the WIPO IGC negotiations on the de finition of the key concept of misappropriation. IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 16 - 
 
  94.  According to this definition, "misappropri ation" is the use of genetic resources and/or 
associated traditional knowledge of another where the genetic resource/traditional knowledge has been acquired by the user from the GRTK ho lder through improper means or a breach of 
confidence and which results in a violation of national law in the provider country. Use of GRTK 
that has been acquired by lawful means such as reading publications, purchase, independent 
discovery, reverse engineering, and inadvertent discl osure resulting from the GRTK holder's failure 
to take reasonable protective measures is not misappropriation.  
95.  The United States looks forward to continui ng to engage in the WIPO negotiations and to 
hearing relevant reports of those negotiations from other WTO Members. 
96.  Regarding the request for a statement from the CBD Secretariat, we again welcome 
yesterday's briefing from the WTO Secretariat. We found it informative and continue to look 
forward to hearing from Members themselves on this issue with greater precision, including with 
respect to the questions we have asked. As we have previously explained, we believe Members are in the best position to present their views on this matter. For this reason, we do not support the 
CBD Secretariat providing an intervention at this time, as we have previously explained. 
97.  Regarding the request to update documents, we are puzzled by this request in light of 
yesterday's Secretariat briefing. We were impresse d by the comprehensive nature of that briefing, 
and would also be impressed if delegates have already reviewed all of those materials less than 
24 hours later and have concluded that the materials are incomplete. We therefore do not support the request with respect to these three documents.  
98.  Finally, there appears to be some confusio n about the review of Article 27.3 of the TRIPS 
Agreement and of the relationship between the CBD and the TRIPS Agreement. To clarify, this is 
that review, which we have been reviewing for at least a decade. 
5.17 Nigeria on behalf of the African Group  
 
99.  The position of the African Group is well kn own on this subject - we still believe that there 
should be mandatory disclosure of genetic resource s and/or associated traditional knowledge that 
is involved in a patent. We would like to convey our thanks to the Secretariat for yesterday's 
briefing and believe that there is a need at least for intensifying this work, because this subject has been under discussion for the past 13 years. Of course, substantial progress has been made 
by Members clarifying and developing a better unders tanding of this issue. As is evident, the W52 
proposal is a testimony to convergence on the issue of the disclosure requirement. The African 
Group shares the view that the CBD Secretariat should be invited to the Council to brief Members on its activities as we believe that it has a bearing on the work of this Committee.  
100.  There is the issue of whether Members of this Council that are calling for the disclosure 
requirement have acceded to the Nagoya Protocol or not. However, this issue is not new, because if you look at the TRIPS Agreement, there are ag reements that were incorporated. Some were not 
even an agreement, some were under negotiation and yet they are incorporated into the TRIPS 
Agreement. The TRIPS Council should at least arrive at a conclusion that ensures that there is mandatory disclosure. So we ask the Chair to transmit our request to the Director-General that he resume his work on this issue. 
5.18 Japan  
 101.  Japan would like to express its appreciation to the Secretariat for organizing a briefing 
session on the issue yesterday, which will form a helpful factual base for further discussions. 
102.  At the outset, this delegation would like to note that Japan has attached great importance to 
these agenda items and shares the view with other Members that effective measures should be 
taken against misappropriation of genetic resources, traditional knowledge and folklore.  
103.  This delegation believes that, in order to achieve sustainable use of genetic resources, it is 
crucial to seek appropriate ways to deal with these longstanding issues, taking into account the role of the IP system, which is to encourage innovation and creation. Thus, we should find a 
solution which does not have an advers e effect on innovation and creation. IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 17 - 
 
  104.  In this connection, we still do not see any need for amending the TRIPS Agreement to 
address these issues, because we do not believe that doing so would be the most effective way to address the concerns raised by other Members. This delegation is of the view that the TRIPS Council should continue its work elaborating on these issues in a pragmatic manner, in order to 
find common ground on these fundamental issues. 
105.  Additionally, this delegation would like to draw Members' attention to developments at the 
WIPO IGC, which, we believe, is the most appropriate forum for having technical discussions on 
these issues. This month, meaningful discussions were held at the WIPO IGC 26th session that was 
dedicated to genetic resources. Japan actively participated in that session and also put forward additional proposals, together with Canada, Korea and the United States, regarding the database, which aims to assist patent examiners to conduct more efficient prior art searches and, as a result, 
prevent erroneous grant of patents.  
106.  Again, with much conviction, this delegation supports appropriate measures against the 
misappropriation of genetic resources, traditional knowledge and folklore. Therefore, this 
delegation will continue to take part in this discussion in a constructive spirit. 
5.19 Chairman  
 
107.  I welcome delegations' high degree of participation. After what we have heard around the 
room I do not think we are very far from reaching some type of an agreement I would like to ask you to show your creative spirit and willingness to move forward. On this basis, I would like to suggest the following: that the Council request the Chair to continue consulting on the suggestions 
that the CBD Secretariat be invited to brief the Council on the outcome of the Nagoya meeting, 
and that the Secretariat be requested to update the three factual notes that summarize the points delegations have made in the Council's past discu ssions on these three agenda items. As to the 
proposal that the WIPO Secretariat brief the Council on the on-going work of the WIPO IGC, as an 
observer in the Council, the WIPO Secretariat could request the floor whenever it deems necessary. In addition, if the Council so agrees, I will transmit to the Director-General the request, 
which has been made by some delegations, regarding the elements of implementation. 
5.20 United States  
 108.  I wanted to just confirm that the United Stat es is not in a position to support a decision by 
this Council with respect to referring a request to the Director-General on this issue.  
5.21 Nigeria  
 
109.  There is a ministerial mandate under the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration that mandates 
the Director-General to consult on these two outstanding implementation issues, i.e. the TRIPS/CBD and the extension of geographical indications to products other than wines and spirits. 
We are surprised by the previous intervention regarding the intensification of the negotiations on 
this particular issue by the Director-General. A clarification would be very important on it. 
5.22 India  
 
110.  We are also surprised by the intervention made by one delegation regarding the 
intensification of the negotiations on this particular issue by the Director-General. Nigeria mentioned that the Hong Kong mandate is very clear. So I think a clarification would be very 
important on this issue. 
5.23 Angola on behalf of the LDC Group  
 
111.  The LDC Group is also taken by surprise by  the position taken by one Member and we would 
like to better understand it. IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 18 - 
 
  5.24 Cuba  
 112.  In support of Nigeria, India, Angola and Br azil, Cuba reiterates that there seems to be a 
misunderstanding, as we are not asking for a consensus to undertake work on the TRIPS/CDB 
issue, for which a negotiating mandate was established in 2001. 
5.25 Japan  
113.  I would like to echo the comments expressed by the United States. The regular session of 
the TRIPS Council and the DG consultative process on the implementation issues deal with the 
same subject but, at the same time, both discussions originate from different mandates agreed by the Ministers. So, in that sense, it is illogica l to agree on something about the implementation 
issues at this regular session of the Council, which should limit itself to its own mandate on this 
issue.  
5.26 Chairman  
114.  As regards the two implementation issues, in light of the discussion, I intend to merely 
inform the Director-General of the Council's discussion on the Director-General's consultative 
process on TRIPS implementation issues as mandated by the Hong Kong Ministerial Conference. On other matters, I reiterate my earlier suggestions. 
AGENDA ITEM 6: NON-VIOLATION AND SITUATION COMPLAINTS 
6.1 United States  
 115.  Mr Chairman, we thank you for your summary of the consultations that have been held so 
far and we also take up your call for concrete proposals and we are working intensively on that 
issue and hope to have some suggestions today. 
116.  As delegates know, WTO Ministers agreed at  the end of last year in Bali to extend the 
moratorium on non-violation and situation complaints (NVNI) disputes in the context of the TRIPS 
Agreement. Of course, our decision to join that consensus was without prejudice to our continued position that non-violation and situation complaints are fully appropriate in the context of the 
TRIPS Agreement. For one of the most recent statements of our position, we refer Members to 
paragraphs 6.3-6.7 and 6.17-6.20 of the minutes of the March meeting of this Council (document IP/C/M/72).  
117.  As delegates also recall, the United States has been conducting a series of bilateral 
discussion on this issue, both in advance of the Bali Ministerial and thereafter. We are pleased that 
so many Members have indicated a commitment to intensified discussions on NVNI this year. 
118.  In fact, we think yesterday's Secretariat briefing was a very good start and we again thank 
the Secretariat for their very hard work. That said, there is clearly more work to do. Some 
Members have identified concerns with NVNI disputes under the TRIPS Agreement. These include whether the TRIPS Agreement is a market access agreement, what impact NVNI disputes would 
have on TRIPS Agreement rights and obligations, and questions regarding possible hypothetical 
NVNI disputes. The Secretariat has been extremely helpful in further summarizing the various views on this issue. For example, its 2002 Summary Note, which has been updated on several occasions, lays out a host of issues that have been raised over the years, which yesterday's 
briefing further updated. 
119.  While we continue to debate these issues, however, little progress has been made on the 
mandate of Article 64 of the TRIPS Agreement. While the TRIPS Council did examine, during its 
meetings in 1999, scope and modality issues – with  papers circulated by Canada and the United 
States – the Council, however, reached no conclusions and made no recommendations. In our view, this lack of progress has less to do with  the views expressed by Members than with the 
structure of the moratorium itself. We believe that the challenge faced by the TRIPS Council is 
systemic rather substantive.  IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 19 - 
 
  120.  As a threshold matter, we believe that the moratorium as it is presently constituted is not 
working. All Members are situated in the same difficult position. That is, to examine TRIPS 
Agreement provisions in the abstract, without the benefit of specific tangible facts. We are all left to imagine hypothetical scenarios, invent possible consequences and speculate about how a WTO 
panel or Appellate Body might interpret Article 64 of the TRIPS Agreement, particularly in light of 
past panel and Appellate Body decisions on NVNI disputes under the GATT. 
121.  Yet, WTO Members are expressly prohibited under WTO rules from deciding for themselves 
that a measure is inconsistent with a provision of a WTO covered agreement or that the measure 
is a non-violation nullification or impairment. As Article 23 of the WTO Dispute Settlement Understanding provides: 
"Members shall: (a) not make a determination to the effect that a violation has 
occurred, that benefits have been nullified or impaired or that the attainment of any 
objective of the covered agreements has been impeded, except through recourse to 
dispute settlement in accordance with the rules and procedures of [the Dispute 
Settlement Understanding]." 
122.  So, it is not surprising that we have all struggled to interpret Article 64 of the TRIPS 
Agreement. This is what WTO panels and the Appellate Body do on the basis of specific facts in 
individual disputes. As the WTO rules make clear, it is the job of the dispute settlement process, 
and not of Members, to clarify existing provisions of the covered agreements. 
123.  At the same time, the WTO rules are unambiguous about what the dispute settlement process cannot do. Panels and the Appellate Body cannot create or modify Members' rights and 
obligations, including their flexibilities. The WTO adjudicative bodies are explicitly prohibited from doing so under the Dispute Settlement Understa nding. Article 3.2 of the Dispute Settlement 
Understanding is clear. Panels and the Appellate Body are bound by Article 3.2, which expressly 
states that "Recommendations and rulings of the Dispute Settlement Body cannot add or diminish 
the rights and obligations provided in the covered agreements". Likewise, Article 3.5 of the Dispute 
Settlement Understanding provides that all solutions to matters formally raised under the 
consultation and dispute settlement provisions of  the covered agreements, including arbitration 
awards, have to be consistent with those agreements and should not nullify or impair benefits accruing to any Member under those agreements nor impede the attainment of any objective under those agreements. So, while panels and the Appe llate Body are in the best position to clarify 
the NVNI provisions of the TRIPS Agreement, they cannot – as some Members have worried – add 
to or diminish the rights and obligations under  the WTO covered agreements, including the TRIPS 
Agreement. 
124.  Therefore, instead of the current zero sum game in which the TRIPS Council finds itself on 
NVNI, we propose an alternative approach to examine in greater detail over the coming year a way to accommodate the different views Members themselves have expressed. We believe there is 
a way to restructure the current moratorium to address the concerns raised by Members and to 
identify a more satisfactory mechanism to answer the questions we all have. We are working on this intensively in capital and look forward to engaging in more detailed discussions with delegations in the near term. 
6.2 Brazil  
 125.  The debate on the applicability of non-viol ation complaints to the TRIPS Agreement has been 
part of this Council's agenda for many years. In order to revisit this item once again, at the outset, 
my delegation would like to recall the importance of addressing the concerns raised by Members for more than a decade now, in document IP/C/W/385. These concerns refer, among others, to 
seven issues related to the applicability of non-violation and situation complaints to the TRIPS 
Agreement.  
126.  The first issue refers to the fact that the TRIPS Agreement, unlike other WTO Agreements, is 
a sui generis  agreement which is not designed to protect market access or the balance of tariff 
concessions, but rather to establish standards of IP protection, which, if abused, may even 
undermine market access. IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 20 - 
 
  127.  A second concern is that non-violation and situation complaints are unnecessary to protect 
any balance of rights and obligations inherent in the TRIPS Agreement, as these are reflected in the Agreement's principal obligations and flexibiliti es, and the Agreement explicitly states in its 
first Article that WTO Members are not obliged to implement more extensive protection. 
128.  A third concern refers to non-violation and situation complaints being unnecessary to protect 
market-access commitments embodied in the GATT or GATS, or any other notion of a balance of concessions struck in the Uruguay Round, as these are adequately protected by those Agreements 
and other Annex 1 Agreements. 
129.  A fourth concern refers to a systemic concern. Members pointed out that non-violation and 
situation complaints could introduce incoherence among WTO agreements by allowing something which a WTO Member has agreed to accept in one part of the single undertaking (e.g. the GATT or 
the GATS) to be challenged on the basis that it could nullify or impair benefits in another area 
(e.g. TRIPS). 
130.  The fifth concern refers to the fact that non-violation and situation complaints could upset 
the delicate balance of rights and obligations ex pressed in Article 8 of the TRIPS Agreement by 
elevating private rights over the interests of the users of IP – both within and between countries – 
and over other important public policy considerations in a manner inconsistent with Article 3.2 of 
the Dispute Settlement Understanding. 
131.  A sixth concern refers to the possibility of undermining national regulatory authority and 
infringing sovereign rights by exposing to challenge any measure that affects IP and that could not have been foreseen at the time of the Uruguay Round. 
132.  The seventh concern is on the limitation on the use of the flexibilities inherent in the TRIPS 
Agreement to secure objectives relating to public  health, nutrition, the transfer of technology and 
other issues of public interest in sectors of vital importance to socio-economic and technological 
development. 
133.  In the same light as many other countries, Brazil understands that the rights and obligations 
in the TRIPS Agreement are best performed through good faith application of its provisions, in 
accordance with established principles of international law recognized by the Appellate Body, and 
do not require recourse to the legally imprecise notion of non-violation and situation complaints. 
134.  Having said that, Brazil would like to stress its commitment to discussing a definitive solution 
to non-violation and situation complaints.  
135.  While Members are not capable of finding a de finitive solution to the subject, we understand 
that the provisions on Article 64.3 do not provide a basis for their automatic application, absent agreement of Member States on scope and modalities.  
6.3 Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  
 136.  My country would like to thank the Secretariat for the informal briefing session yesterday, 
which once again enabled us to say that Venezuela is part of the group of Members that had 
requested the Secretariat to circulate document IP/C/385 of 30/10/2002 establishing the reasons why we consider that it is not possible to apply under TRIPS these types of cases. We believe that an end should be put to the extensions that have happened in relation to each of the Ministerials 
and to close on the Council agenda this particular item, having given clear examples showing the 
scope and the modalities of these types of complaints as established in Article 64 3 of TRIPS. However creative we may wish to be, the rules are not based on hypothetical cases, but rather on 
the basis of reality to resolve specific situations that can give rise to disputes.  
6.4 China  
 
137.  China would like to welcome the Decision at the Ninth Ministerial Conference regarding 
further extending the moratorium to the next Mi nisterial meeting in 2015. In our view, as "non-
violation and situation complaints" is a regular item at each meeting of the TRIPS Council, we believe Members should continue to discuss this issue at the Council's regular meetings. China IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 21 - 
 
  would like to engage in the discussion of this issue in accordance with the mandate and the 
Ministers' instructions. 
138.  China would also like to recall that, as the Chair noted in 2003, there are four logically 
possible options for action by the Council on this issue, including banning non-violation complaints 
in the TRIPS Agreement completely and extending the moratorium. Most Members favour banning 
non-violation complaints completely, or extending the moratorium. In particular, around 14 developing country Members submitted document IP/C/W/385 in October 2002, and gave details 
of the systemic concerns and reasons why there should be no application of non-violation and 
situation complaints to the TRIPS Agreement. Wh en the Council continues its examination of the 
issue, we should bear these options in mind and take them fully into account.  
139.  China's position on this issue is well known. Non-violation has an exceptional character which 
is mainly intended and applied to protect benefits of negotiated tariff concessions. Even under 
GATS, the scope of application of non-violation has been reduced and Article XXIII:3 limits it to benefits accruing from specific commitments undertaken by Members. The TRIPS Agreement is 
quite different from GATT and GATS in its nature and structure. It is a sui generis  agreement 
which is not designed to protect the outcome of ma rket access or the balance of tariff concessions, 
but rather to protect IP holders by establishing  minimum standards of IP protection among WTO 
members. In addition, TRIPS does not include a general exception clause to protect measures 
designed to achieve important national policy goals such as public health and the protection of the 
environment. The application of non-violation complaints under the Agreement could upset the delicate balance of rights and obligations in the TRIPS Agreement, and could also limit the use of 
the flexibilities outlined in the Agreement to secure  objectives relating to public health and other 
issues of public interest. Thus, we believe that the application of non-violation and situation complaints under the TRIPS Agreement is highly inappropriate.  
6.5 South Africa  
 140.  South Africa as a Member of the WTO is fully committed to upholding its obligations and 
commitments as set out in the different WTO laws and regulations with specific reference to the 
TRIPS Agreement. The purpose and aim of Article 23 is to ensure compliance with GATT rules and principles by providing Members with an opportunity to make representation should the situation provided for in subparagraphs 1(a) and I(b) arise.  This is different from the TRIPS Agreement. The 
TRIPS Agreement is a sui generis  agreement. It is not aimed at promoting market access or 
harmonizing the standards of Members with regard to protection and enforcement of IP rights. It is there to provide the minimum standards for the pr otection and enforcement of IPRs. The insertion 
of Article 23.1(a) and 1(b) of the GATT 1994 under the TRIPS Agreement will undermine the 
sovereign rights of the respective Member States in as far as putting into place the laws that will protect IPRs within their borders are concerned. The insertion will furthermore restrict the 
flexibilities provided to the Member States and defeat the balance that had been maintained under 
the TRIPS Agreement.  
141.  South Africa recognizes the need for the protection and enforcement of IPRs. However, we 
believe that the insertion of non-violation and situation complaints will not be practical under the 
TRIPS Agreement. 
6.6 Cuba  
 
142.  Cuba's position on this issue is known and has not changed. We wish to reiterate that Cuba 
does not see the relevance of these types of complaints to intellectual property. As co-sponsors of document IP/C/W/385, we believe that any attempted discussion should be based on this 
proposal, which reflects the positions of a large number of Members and the concerns that have 
led to renewal of the moratorium for years. 
143.  We would also like to propose that the discussion not be limited to ending the moratorium, 
but also focus on issues such as the difficulties that would arise from the application of these 
complaints in the field of IP, possible imbalances between the interests of the rights holders and 
public policy considerations, limitations when a ccommodating the flexibilities in the Agreement, 
and practical problems in establishing these types of complaint. All of the above would have to be 
pondered in any proposal that is submitted on possible work to be done. IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 22 - 
 
  144.  Moreover, Cuba draws attention to the fact that  it will be very difficult to move forwards on 
this issue if we do not jointly pay equal attention to work on other issues of particular concern to a number of Members, such as the anal ysis of the TRIPS-CBD relationship. 
6.7 Canada  
 
145.  Canada is consistently seeking to maintain the right balance in the IP regime – a balance between the interests of rights holders and those of society in general, and between the certainty 
of IPRs, and the flexibility needed to promote the public interest. 
146.  That view is echoed in our perspective on  the issue of the application of non-violation 
complaints to the TRIPS Agreement, and it is in line with that same view that Canada will continue to approach our discussions on the matter; Canada would assess any outcome of those discussions 
based on its ability to contribute to help maintain that balance. 
147.  Canada continues to believe that the issue of non-violation complaints in the context of the 
TRIPS Agreement is underpinned by the following considerations, among others: 
 First, we should recognize the unique nature of the TRIPS Agreement which, contrary to 
other WTO Agreements, does not address market access – or at least not directly – and rather provides a normative framework that does not depend on tariff concessions on 
which the GATT's non-violation complaints mechanism is at least partly predicated; 
 second, how the key concept of "benefit", as found in Article XXIII of the GATT, would be 
defined in relation with the TRIPS Agreement, remains to be determined, but Canada believes that owing to the very nature of IPRs, the "benefit" conferred by the TRIPS 
Agreement is the ability of third parties to acquire, maintain and enforce IPRs, and 
cannot automatically extent to the exploitation of those rights without compromising the balance on which the IP system must absolutely rest; 
 third, still on the issue of "benefits", Canada continues to believe that a definition of the 
term "benefit" that would be based on the WT O's relatively limited experience to date, 
and thus on market access considerations, and on a purported "right" to the exploitation 
of IPRs as a "benefit", could seriously limit the ability of Members to adopt and 
implement, among other things, regulatory me asures for the promotion of public health 
such as regarding the safety of food, drugs or consumer products, with which the IP system does not concern itself – the GATT, and, as applicable, the SPS Agreement and 
the TBT Agreement, already provide an adequate and proven framework for the 
resolution of disputes that would pertain to those measures, such that the marginal utility of any TRIPS-specific non-violation to address issues that could have a tenuous link with 
IP remains to be demonstrated; 
 finally, for this time at least, Canada would underscore that if, for example, Member X 
could hypothetically file a non-violation complaint because it considers that a measure 
implemented by Member Y nullifies a benefit under the TRIPS Agreement, that same 
Member Y could very well allege – as another non-violation complaint – that a 
strengthening of Member X's IP regime, such as the extension of a term of protection, 
could also nullify a benefit that Member Y expected when the TRIPS Agreement was 
negotiated, which could not only lead do a global zero-sum game that would bring us 
back to square one, and that could compromise the balance on which the TRIPS Agreement rests. 
148.  Canada invites Members to refer to Canada's previous communications on the issue, namely 
IP/C/W/127 (1999), IP/C/W/191 (2000) and IP/C/W /249 (2001), in which we have addressed in 
more detail the issues I have just discussed, as well as other issues. 
149.  We still have numerous issues to clarify. Canada suggests, without prejudice, to continue our 
discussion of the scope, the definition and the modalities of any TRIPS-specific non-violation complaints system, in order to determine the suitability and effectiveness of any such system, assess how it could contribute to maintain the balance on which the TRIPS Agreement and the IP 
system rest, and avoid any duplication with the WTO's existing dispute settlement mechanisms.  IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 23 - 
 
  6.8 India  
 150.  At the outset, let me thank the WTO Secretariat for their factual and comprehensive briefing on the applicability of non-violation and situation complaints to the TRIPS Agreement. In fact, after 
listening to the briefing and to the interventions made by the delegations of the United States and 
Switzerland under this agenda item, our concerns on this issue remain unaddressed and we are convinced that such complains should be banned completely. Despite highlighting the systemic and 
specific concerns through the communication IP/C/W/385 dated 2002, it is regretted that the 
proponents have not made any attempt to address the issues raised in our communication. As regards future work on this issue, and as suggested by China, since it is already reflected on the agenda item of every Council meeting, it woul d be useful to discuss the issue in the formal 
meetings of the Council. 
151.  For my delegation, the application of non-violation and situation complaints to the TRIPS 
Agreement raise fundamental concerns. Such complaints would not only introduce incoherence 
between the WTO Agreements but would upset the carefully established balance of rights and 
obligations in the TRIPS Agreement by elevating th e private rights over the interests of the IP 
users - both within and between the countries. We also believe that the application of non-
violation complaints to any general, non-negotiated obligations such as in the TRIPS Agreement, 
may have the effect of creating new non-negoti ated responsibilities. Unlike tariff bindings, 
obligations under TRIPS cannot be revised as between individual parties. Consequently, the non-violation remedy may allow the Member claiming non-violation to expose the impairing 
Member to the threat of retaliatory actions equivalent to those of violation complaints. Again, the 
creation of unnegotiated obligations is inconsistent with Article 3.2 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSB), which provides that the ru lings of the DSB must not add or diminish the 
rights and obligations provided in the covered agreements.  
152.  We are concerned that the application of non-violation complaints would not only threaten to 
undermine regulatory authority. but would infrin ge sovereign rights. Thus, Members' rights to 
introduce new and vital socio-economic, health, environmental and cultural measures, including 
the measures on the basis of the Doha Declaration on Public Health, would be severely curtailed and would undermine the enjoyment of WTO Member s' sovereign right to develop new laws to 
protect public interest. Any measure under Article 8 would thus encourage unilateral pressure and 
speculative claims to force countries to raise protection beyond minimum requirements or to 
refrain from using TRIPS-consistent measures such  as compulsory licences to ensure access to 
medicines or guarantee access to some technology. Unfortunately, non-violation complaints will 
make it harder for Members to rely on the agreed text of the TRIPS Agreement. 
153.  Further extending the scope of non-violation complaints is unnecessary to protect the 
balance of rights and obligations inherent in the TRIPS Agreement, the market access 
commitments in other agreements or any other balance inherent in the Uruguay Round package. 
Thus unlike GATT and GATS, since the TRIPS Ag reement does not involve an exchange of 
concessions, we fail to understand how non-violation complaints would apply to minimum regulatory standards that protect private rights.  
154.  There is also a great deal of uncertainty as to the nature of benefits that would be addressed 
through this remedy. The benefits to Members ha ve been mentioned in the Preamble, Objectives 
and Principles of the Agreement and include: 
 Measures and procedures to enforce IPRs so that they do not become barriers to 
legitimate trade; 
 promotion of technological innovation and transfer and dissemination of technology; 
 mutual advantage of producers and users of technological knowledge; 
 socio-economic welfare and so on. Any relevant benefit must accrue to the Member and 
not to private entities. Article 23 of GATT and Article 26 of the DSU are applicable to Members and should not be conflated with the benefits to a private right holder.  
155.  Finally, there is insufficient guidance including in Article 26 of the DSU and in GATT dispute 
practice for panels and Appellate Body to apply such  complaints in the context of TRIPS. With just 
three non-violation complaints being adopted in th e entire history of GATT, there is very little IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 24 - 
 
  guidance on this issue. Thus, when a Panel or an Appellate Body is requested to make a ruling on 
a legal measure that may have impaired benefits accruing under TRIPS, they would be facing a 
normative void which cannot be filled by judicial flat. 
156.  Let me conclude by saying that the proponents need to seriously reflect over the concerns 
expressed in communication IP/C/W/385 of 2002 , and in the interest of the stability and certainty 
of the multilateral system they should join the consensus in banning non-violation and situation complaints completely so that we put an end to the cycle of extending moratoriums.  
6.9 Ecuador  
 157.  We welcome the information session given by the Secretariat yesterday, which described the current status regarding this issue. Ecuador's position is well known inasmuch as complaints in the 
absence of violations and other situations raise fundamental concerns which make their application 
unnecessary. Ecuador, like other countries, drew  attention to these concerns in document 
IP/C/W/385 of 30 October 2002. As can be seen, over 12 years have gone by and the issue is still 
being discussed without any justification being given for the need for such a provision in the 
TRIPS Agreement so it is our view that this Coun cil should decide to remove the issue from the 
agenda definitively. 
6.10 Pakistan  
 158.  I would first like to express appreciation for the Secretariat's detailed briefing on the issue yesterday. As one of the sponsors of the October 2002 submission, Pakistan associates itself with 
the similar interventions made by Brazil, Venezuela, China, South Africa, Cuba, India and Ecuador 
today. We maintain that the application of non-violation and situation complaints is unnecessary under the TRIPS regime and it be determined inapplicable to the TRIPS Agreement.  
6.11 Japan  
 159.  Japan would like to associate itself with other Members that welcome and support the 
Council's willingness to conduct more intensified discussions on this issue.  
160.  "Non-violation and situation complaints" has b een a longstanding agenda item of this Council 
meetings, and a number of Members have contributed to discussions by expressing and sharing their views on this issue with other Members. Th is delegation would like to express its sincere 
gratitude to the dedicated contributions made by such Members and to the Secretariat's significant 
efforts to summarize their various views in document IP/C/W/349/Rev.2 and other documents and also to organize a briefing session yesterday morning.  
161.  Japan is of the view that clarity and pred ictability should be ensu red with respect to the 
application of non-violation and situation remedies to the TRIPS Agreement, even if non-violation and situation complaints are determined available thereunder. From this point of view, our 
discussion should be aimed at clarifying and exam ining the scope and modalities of non-violation 
and situation complaints in the area of TRIPS. This could include making factual analyses on specific and concrete circumstances where non-violation and situation complaints should be available or even necessary. 
162.  This delegation, again, would like to express its appreciation to the Members' commitment to 
addressing this issue and, finally, reiterate its willingness to contribute to discussions on this issue in a constructive and dedicated manner at this Council. 
6.12 Switzerland  
 163.  Let me first thank the Secretariat for having organized the briefing yesterday refreshing our 
minds on the subject matter. The purpose of non-violation complaints is to help establish an 
environment that encourages Members to comply wi th the spirit of an agreement and to carry out 
their obligations in good faith. Their application under the TRIPS Agreement provides a method of recourse in the event of a dispute over an ex pected benefit. Without them, any Member that 
perceives that an expected benefit is being denied, may decide to unilaterally retaliate in kind , 
meaning in a non-violating manner. This would run counter to the purpose of the DSU. The IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 25 - 
 
  inclusion of a non-violation complaint remedy thus provides systemic relief and the necessary legal 
certainty in these situations, while also protec ting the letter of the Agreement – flexibilities 
included, and with it the balance of rights and obligations that Members agreed to in the Uruguay Round.  
164.  The original five-year moratorium is now entering its twentieth year. The purpose of the 
moratorium, as stated in TRIPS Article 64.3, was for Members to have the time to discuss the scope and special modalities, if found necessary, for the TRIPS context.  
165.  In Switzerland's view, the GATT provides appropriate guidance on the applicability and use of 
non-violation complaints. This guidance, coupled with the additional guidance provided by panels and the Appellate Body in past cases, provides us  with an appropriate set of scope and modalities 
applicable to non-violation complaints also under the TRIPS Agreement.  
166.  TRIPS Article 64.1 makes GATT Articles XXII and XXIII applicable to the TRIPS Agreement, 
"as elaborated and applied by the Dispute Se ttlement Understanding". GATT Article XXIII:1(b) 
establishes the elements necessary to bring a non-violation complaint before a panel. These 
elements are (a) the application of a measure; (b) a benefit accruing under the relevant 
agreement; and (c) the nullification or impairment  of the benefit due to the application of the 
measure. 
167.  In addition to the guidance provided by the GATT, there has been additional guidance by 
past panels, as listed in the January 1999 Note by the Secretariat entitled, Non-Violation 
Complaints and the TRIPS Agreement . This guidance points to three conditions that must be met 
for a non-violation case. These are (a) that a measure attributable to the respondent party 
government exists; (b) that the measure could not reasonably have been expected by the 
complaining party at the time that it negotiated a commitment with the respondent party; and (c) that the measure adversely upsets the expected relationship established by the commitment in 
question. 
168.  If other delegations are of the opinion that this set of scope and modalities needs to be 
complemented with additional guidance for the application of non-violation complaints in the TRIPS 
context, it is the view of my delegation that the onus is on them to come forward and make a 
proposal for such additional modalities.  
169.  A number of delegations in their interventions today referred to their concern as to the 
potential impact of the application of non-violation complaints on their rights and obligations under 
TRIPS and more particularly the flexibilities contai ned in the Agreement. Let me be clear on this 
important point: It is our firm view that a non-violation complaint cannot be brought against another Member for utilizing a flexibility foreseen  in the TRIPS Agreement. One of the necessary 
conditions that the complaining party must demonstrate is that the offending measure could not 
have been foreseen. That a Member may make use of a flexibility provided in the TRIPS Agreement is, just as any other right under the TRIPS Agreement, foreseeable by other Members. 
After all, they were written into the Agreement, ag reed by all Members and, as far as pertaining to 
public health, also confirmed in the Doha Ministerial Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health of 14 November 2001. 
170.  My delegation listened with interest to the ea rlier intervention of the US delegation that they 
intend to introduce new ideas at a next TRIPS Council  meeting of how to look afresh at this agenda 
item of the Council. My delegation stands ready to participate in a constructive manner in further discussion of this agenda item.  
6.13 European Union  
 171.  For many years, three times a year, we have come here and argued this point and repeated 
that we were not convinced about the merits of applying the regime of GATT non-violation 
complaints into TRIPS. We have also challenged the proponents to come forward with arguments and explanations on why this could be useful and for all these years we saw a debate that was repeating itself and that was not progressing. Today,  we take note of the willingness by the United 
S t a t e s  t o  m o v e  t h i s  d e b a t e  f o r w a r d ,  n a m e l y  b y  a d d r e s s i n g  s o m e  o f  t h e  c o n c e r n s  b y  o t h e r  
Members. My delegation welcomes this initiative and stands ready to engage in this debate. We go IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 26 - 
 
  into it with a constructive spirit, and we look forward to continuing the discussion in the next two 
years. This is of course without prejudice to our final position on the matter, but we certainly welcome this progress. 
6.14 Bangladesh  
 
172.  I take this opportunity to thank the Secretar iat for the very useful briefing yesterday. The 
delegation of Bangladesh believes that legal grounds for non-violation and situation complaints 
under TRIPS are very weak. Probably that is wh y all the Membership unanimously has extended 
the moratorium several times. As far as the history and statistics are concerned, we find very few instances where non-violation disputes were br ought before the WTO with even fewer successes 
for this type of cases. Developing countries and es pecially LDCs are particularly concerned as they 
enjoy different kinds of privileges under TRIPS and any one of them could be subject to non-
violation complaints quite unnecessarily. The TRIPS Agreement should not be considered like other market access agreements. So we consider that the application of non-violation and situation 
complaints under TRIPS will not be reasonable and prudent. 
6.15 Argentina  
 
173.  As one of the co-sponsors of document IP/C/W/385, Argentina wishes to reiterate that it 
shares the views expressed in the document. Non- violation and situation complaints are inherent 
to agreements where there is an exchange of concessions and where the parties reciprocally 
assume obligations which are directly linked to market access. In that context, concessions agreed 
to in the case of the GATT 1994 can be nullified or impaired by non-tariff measures. 
174.  The TRIPS Agreement is not a market access agreement but contains rules and disciplines. 
Therefore, there can be no nullification of a benefit if there is no violation or infringement 
of an agreed rule. The possibility of a non-violation or situation complaint would give rise to 
uncertainty as to the legality of governmental measures which a Member might legitimately adopt. It would also open up the possibility of such me asures, even when they were legal and legitimate, 
being called into question by other Members. 
175.  Furthermore, non-violation or situation complaints would upset the balance of rights 
and obligations which exist under the TRIPS Agreement. 
176.  In short, Argentina considers that complaints concerning nullification and impairment of the 
type identified in Article XXIII:1(b) and (c) of the GATT 1994 are inapplicable to the TRIPS 
Agreement. 
6.16 Mexico  
 
177.  We thank the Secretariat for the briefing of 24 February on non-violation and situation 
complaints, which has been of great help to us. Our experience in the bilateral field is that very 
few of the free trade agreements signed by Mexico  envisage non-violation and situation complaints 
in the area of IP. Most of these agreements, in pa rticular the most recent, do not provide for such 
complaints. We hope that efforts will continue to determine, where appropriate, the scope and procedures relating to this type of complaint in the framework of the TRIPS Agreement. 
6.17 Peru  
 178.  Peru's position, as reflected in document IP/C/W/385, remains unchanged. Extending the 
non-violation remedy - and with it the right to challenge measures that are otherwise consistent 
with WTO obligations - threatens to: 
(a) Introduce inconsistency among the WTO Agreements by allowing what has been agreed 
under the TRIPS Agreement to be challenged on  the basis that it could nullify or impair 
benefits; 
(b) upset the delicate balance of rights and obligations contained in the TRIPS Agreement by 
putting private rights above the interests of IPR users; IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 27 - 
 
  (c) limit the use of the flexibilities inherent in the TRIPS Agreement, the purpose of which is to 
secure objectives relating to public health, the transfer of technology and other issues of public interest in sectors of vital importance to socio-economic and technological development. 
179.  Mr Chairman, you referred in your statement to a permanent solution. In my delegation's 
view, this was because at the next Ministerial Conference non-violation and situation complaints would be determined to be inapplicable to the TRIPS Agreement. 
6.18 Korea  
 180.  We would like to begin by extending our appreciation to the Secretariat for the briefing yesterday. With regard to this important issue, we took the floor to briefly note that non-violation 
and situation complaints are inconsistent with the basic purpose and scope of TRIPS. We believe 
that in principle non-violation and situations comp laints were designed and applied to agreements 
related to market access commitments. Therefore we believe it is now appropriate to apply 
non-violation and situation complaints in the delicate context of the TRIPS Agreement.  
6.19 Nigeria on behalf of the African Group  
 
181.  The position of the African Group has not chan ged on this issue. I have listened to various 
interventions this morning and a Member's assertion that non-violation complaints are fully appropriate in the context of the TRIPS Agreement,  and there is also the assertion that the TRIPS 
Agreement is not a market access agreement, rather it is a minimum standards agreement. This 
issue is about the delicate balance established in  the TRIPS Agreement and that concerns about 
limiting the use of flexibilities that are contained in  it. That brings me to the report of the Chair in 
2003, where he identified four possibilities, which remain the same. We have not moved. 
Proposals have been made, including IP/C/W/385. Those who believe that additional rules on 
scope and modalities beyond those already contained in the DSU are unnecessary have presented their proposals and I think clearly we are not making any progress except that of course we have 
to welcome the statement by the United States that  they are working on suggestions that we need 
to look at. There might be a need for some modi fication, revision or update. I would like to 
encourage the Chair to talk to all those delegations that have submitted their proposals earlier on this issue to work towards reviewing these proposals or updating them in order to ascertain 
whether we could make progress.  
6.20 Chairman  
 
182.  In light of the discussion, I would like to su ggest that the Council request the incoming Chair 
to consult on how to move forward the Council's work on the examination of modalities for TRIPS non-violation complaints. 
6.21 Brazil  
 183.  I would just like to associate the position of Brazil with that expressed by China regarding that we would continue discussions under this agenda item at the next formal session. In this 
sense, we would not need consultations. 
6.22 Nigeria on behalf of the African Group  
 
184.  There is a need for some clarity because Brazil's intervention was not in line with what the 
Chair suggested. If my understanding is correct, the representative of Brazil is saying that this 
issue should only be discussed in this Council an d that there should not be any consultations.  
6.23 Chairman  
 185.  I believe that the proposal that I had made to you was also a suggestion that Nigeria had made, that consultations be held on this matter. IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 28 - 
 
  6.24 India  
 186.  I support Brazil. Since this item will be on the agenda of the Council's next session, I do not 
understand the purpose of holding consultations.  
6.25 United States  
 187.  I think the idea that there is maybe a delegation or more who is opposing consultations by 
the future Chair seems somewhat out of line with what Ministers decided in Bali. I think we had a 
fairly broad consensus again by Ministers in Bali to continue work on this issue and it seems strange now to suggest that we cannot proceed. 
6.26 Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela  
 
188.  Unfortunately, what is good for some is also good for others. Previously we thought that Ministers had also given a mandate in the case of the CBD and consultations should be held on 
that. The United States said that they could not ag ree with such consultations. In view of the fact 
that everything is so radicalized, Venezuela wishes to reiterate its position that consultations are not necessary. This issue should be considered  a s  c a n c e l l e d .  I t  h a s  b e e n  o n  a  p e r m a n e n t  
moratorium for 12 years. This has been going consta ntly at our Ministerial Conferences. It should 
be concluded without any further continuation as there has been no change in positions in the past 12 years. 
6.27 Cuba  
 
189.  Cuba agrees that this matter should be addressed only during the Council's regular sessions.  
6.28 Chairman  
 
190.  I thank delegations. In view of the fact that there is no consensus with regard to requesting that the incoming Chair hold consultations, I suggest that the Council takes note of the statements 
made and revert to this matter at its next meeting. 
AGENDA ITEM 9: FOLLOW-UP TO THE ELEVENTH ANNUAL REVIEW UNDER PARAGRAPH 2 
OF THE DECISION ON THE IMPLEMENTA TION OF ARTICLE 66.2 OF THE TRIPS 
AGREEMENT 
9.1 Angola on behalf of the LDC Group  
 191.  Technology and innovation are undoubtedly a key factor in responding to the urgent needs 
of human life, be it in the area of health, food security or other essential areas of life. Technology 
also plays a key role in economic developmen t. The LDCs cannot guarantee their economic 
development unless the existing technological gap is resolved. This, should it remain, would 
continue the marginalisation of LDCs in the global economy.  
192.  Members will recall that for more than a deca de ago, a decision was adopted by the Ministers 
on this matter. The implementation of that decision, in order to allow for the creation of a solid and viable technological base in the LDCs is still quite limited. Perhaps the time has come for 
Members to become involved in a review of the transfer of technology and to seek a framework 
that will take account of the situation as it exists in the field. We have always said that the report on the implementation of obligations is not satisfactory, and for that reason we have requested the 
formal adoption of a standardised form fo r the presentation of future reports.  
193.  To that end, we submitted in 2011 a propos al on the improvement of reports (IP/C/W/561). 
If accepted, it will enable Members to follo w the improvement in the programme. We would 
encourage Members to implement Article 66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement, which requests Members 
to provide incentives to promote transfer of technology to LDC Members. Before I conclude, I would like to thank all of the Members who have met their obligations during the review and encourage them to provide further improvements. IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 29 - 
 
  9.2 Chile  
 194.  It is common knowledge that the mandate under Article 66.2 is to seek to ensure that one of the specific objectives of IPRs, agreed to by Me mbers in the TRIPS Agreement, is implemented in 
such a way that LDCs actually benefit from concrete actions to transfer and disseminate 
technology. 
195.  In this context, Chile believes that it woul d be useful to review and improve the mechanism 
for monitoring compliance with this mandate. More precise rules could thus be established when 
preparing and analysing the annual implementation reports, which would contain specific information on the concrete initiatives implemented by the developed countries so that their enterprises and institutions promote and encourag e the transfer of technology - indicating, for 
example, the concrete activity or action planne d by the government concerned and the specific 
objectives sought at the planning stage, the benefits expected, and the results achieved when there is available information on the measures carried out. The purpose would be to evaluate the 
suitability and effectiveness of the activities report ed, so that they can be duplicated or regarded 
as successful examples of the implementation of the Article 66.2 mandate by other Members 
subject to its requirements. 
196.  We also believe that developing countries that voluntarily promote measures to boost 
and encourage the transfer of technology to LDCs  could share their experiences, which would not 
be limited to the incentives provided for their enterprises but would also encompass government institutions that actually transfer technology to other countries, on the understanding that this will 
facilitate or serve as an example or source of inspiration for those required to meet the obligations 
under this mandate. 
AGENDA ITEM 10: TECHNICAL COOPERATION AND CAPACITY-BUILDING 
10.1 Togo  
 197.  The document under discussion is the fruit of a WTO workshop held in Lomé on 21 and 
22 May 2013 in cooperation with the Togolese Government and as part of its biennial 
Technical Assistance Plan. The purpose of the work shop was to provide Togolese professionals with 
advisory support in identifying their priority needs to be communicated to the TRIPS Council. 
198.  The document was prepared pursuant to paragraph 2 of the Decision of 29 November 2005 
(IP/C/40) calling upon LDC Members, including Togo, to provide as much information as possible 
to the Council, preferably by 1 January 2008, on their individual priority needs for technical and financial cooperation in order to assist them in taking steps necessary to implement the 
TRIPS Agreement. 
199.  Togo prepared the mentioned document in response to that request. The document is 
divided into two parts. The first part takes st ock of the legislative and regulatory framework 
governing the intellectual property system in Togo , while the second part sets out Togo's priority 
needs for technical and financial cooperation in connection with the implementation of the TRIPS Agreement. 
I. Overview Of The Legislative, Instit utional And Regulatory Framework Of The 
Intellectual Property System 
 - Legislative and regulatory framework 
 
200.  The legislative and regulatory framework in force in Togo is based on national, regional 
and international instruments, most notably the 1999 Bangui Agreement and OAPI regulations 
and administrative instructions. These instruments are consistent with the Paris Convention for the 
Protection of Industrial Property of 20 March 1883, the Berne Convention for the Protection 
of Literary and Artistic Works of 1886, the Conven tion Establishing the World Intellectual Property 
Organization, the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization and, 
in particular, the TRIPS Agreement. IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 30 - 
 
  - Institutional framework 
 201.  The administration of IPRs is essentially entrusted to three bodies: 
 the National Institute for Industrial Property and Technology (INPIT), established under 
Law No. 2001-015 of 29 November 2001, which is responsible for industrial property 
issues; 
 the Togolese Copyright Bureau (BUTODRA), established under Article 73 of Law 
No. 91-12 of 10 June 1991 on the protection of  copyright, folklore and related rights, 
which is responsible for copyright issues; and 
 the National Intellectual Property Council (CNPI), established under Decree 
No. 2001-131/PR of 22 May 2001, which is an advisory body that supports the actions 
of INPIT and BUTODRA. 
- Creativity, innovation and technology transfer in Togo 
 
202.  The ingenuity of endogenous creative capacity  increasingly permits the use of local resources 
to develop inventions that meet relevant needs. 
203.  Despite these creative efforts by individuals and by the public sector, which plays a dominant 
role in research initiatives, the country's industrial sector remains under developed, mainly due to 
the absence of appropriate R&D facilities. As a result, most of the technologies used in the country are imported and the transfer of technology is extremely limited. 
204.  It should be noted that in recent years, there have been a number of IP developments in 
Togo. 
- Recent intellectual property developments in Togo  
 
205.  IP has evolved recently, in particular with the revision of the Bangui Agreement, the creation 
of the Technology and Innovation Support Centre and the preparation of the Intellectual Property 
System Development Plan (PDSPI). 
- Revision of the current Bangui Agreement 
 206.  The Bangui Agreement of 24 February 1999 entered into force on 28 February 2002. 
Its implementation has brought to light certain shortcomings, including the poorly regulated issue 
of IPR exhaustion, the absence of regulations on  technology transfer and the means by which 
States can enjoy this transfer, and the absence of provisions enabling Member States to benefit from the flexibilities provided by international texts. 
207.  To resolve these shortcomings, the Africa n Intellectual Property Organization (OAPI) 
and its Member States, including Togo, began revising the Agreement in 2011 with a view to: 
 adjusting the measures contained in domestic provisions so as to ensure they do not 
stand in the way of the flexibilities offered by the multilateral system, such as those 
relating to access to medicines and technological development, which are provided for most notably in the Doha Declaration, the WTO Decision of 30 August 2003 and the Protocol Amending the TRIPS Agreement; 
 reducing distortions and impediments to international trade, taking into account the need 
to promote the effective and adequate protection of IPRs; 
 simplifying procedures for issuing titles in relation to the Patent Law Treaty 
and the Singapore Treaty on the Law of Trademarks; and 
 integrating special requirements related to border measures, as well as provisions against 
anti-competitive practices that hinder the transfer and dissemination of technology. 
- Creation of the Technology and Innova tion Support Centre (CATI) in Togo 
 208.  CATI was established following a recommendation made by WIPO which, in the framework of its technical assistance programme, organized a national workshop on the promotion IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 31 - 
 
  of innovation in Lomé on 4 May 2011 in cooperation with the Togolese government. 
The convention establishing CATI was signed by Togo and WIPO on 3 October 2011. 
209.  CATI's role is: 
 to enable users to benefit effectively from the increased access provided by Internet 
search facilities (in particular through the use of search tools such as key words, 
truncation and classification, etc.) and to provid e them with direct personal (face to face) 
assistance in this task; 
 to strengthen the local technological base (by making the most of local know-how) 
and develop technology transfer, e.g. by st udying the possibility of licensing, joint 
ventures, etc.; and 
 to help local users create, protect, retain and manage their IPRs. 
- Preparation of the Intellectual Property System Development Plan (PDSPI) in Togo 
 210.  The PDSPI, which Togo is devising thanks to technical and financial support provided by 
WIPO, demonstrates the Togolese government's desire to turn its intellectual property (IP) system 
into a powerful development tool. The Plan forms part of Togo's vision for 2030, which is to ensure the country's status as an emerging economy. Togo's Strategy for Accelerated Growth 
and Employment Promotion (SCAPE) for 2013-2017 also  plays an important role in this vision. 
211.  The PDSPI's main objective is to promote th e protection and effective use of the IP system 
in Togo's economic, social and cultural development activities. Accordingly, it has been conceived with a view to ensuring the use of the IP system  to improve the competitive position of Togolese 
products and services on national, regional and international markets, and to promote, 
disseminate and optimize research results. 
212.  Action within the framework of the implem entation of the PDSPI is aimed, among other 
things, at: 
 enhancing capacity and technical facilities in respect of IP administration; 
 making economic operators, scientists, researchers, artists, creators and officials more 
aware of the use of the IP system; 
 enhancing the technical capacities of SMEs and SMIs through the improved use of the 
IP system; 
 promoting innovation and the optimization of research results; 
 promoting IP training in universities, colleges and vocational training centres; 
 enhancing the capacities of farmers and craftsmen in respect of the strategic use of IP; 
and 
 taking measures to combat the piracy of literary and artistic works and copyright 
infringement. 
What about Togo's priority needs? 
 
II. Togo's Priority Needs For Technica l And Financial Cooperation Within The 
Framework Of The Implementation Of The Trips Agreement 
 
213.  These needs rest on three essential strategic objectives which require a certain number of 
actions, namely: 
 modernization and strengthening of the capaciti es of services responsible for intellectual 
property administration; 
 promotion of the strategic use of intellectual property for development purposes 
by fostering innovation, research, creativity and the transfer of technology; 
 action to combat intellectual property right violations. IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 32 - 
 
  - Modernization and strengthening of the capacities of services responsible for intellectual property 
administration  214.  IP administration must keep pace with the changes taking place internationally, including 
the development of technology to meet IP user n eeds. This also applies to LDCs like Togo when 
it comes to implementing the TRIPS Agreement. 
215.  The aim of modernizing IP administration is to reinforce the respective roles of INPIT, CATI 
and BUTODRA so that they can contribute, through their actions, to the development of the 
economic, social, scientific and technological situation in Togo and meet the expectations of IP system users. Such modernization may therefore help to enhance their role as IP service providers, including by raising the awareness of the population and economic operators. 
216.  Accordingly, to improve its IP administration, Togo has identified the following priority 
needs: 
 creation of a national committee responsible for the implementation of the TRIPS 
Agreement; 
 development of this committee's capacities with a view to enabling Togo's active 
participation in future international meetings concerning the TRIPS Agreement, action 
against counterfeiting and new issues such as the protection of traditional knowledge and 
genetic resources; 
 provision of IT materials and equipment for INPIT, CATI and BUTODRA, i.e. PCs 
and laptops, reproduction and computer graphics equipment (printers, scanners, 
photocopiers, video projectors, etc.) and computer network equipment 
(servers, switches, routers, etc.); 
 installation of a local area network (LAN) with Internet access at INPIT; 
 digitization of archives at both institutions; 
 IP capacity building for st aff at both institutions; 
 construction of open air infrastructure to promote folk dancing near cultural sites; and 
 creation of and provision of equipment for a traditional knowledge museum that will 
promote handicrafts and tourism. 
- Promotion of the strategic use of intellectual property for development purposes by fostering 
innovation, research, creativity and the transfer of technology 
 
217.  The IP system is a powerful growth engine for enterprises, whether industrial, agricultural 
or artisanal. This is why research centres and enterprises are encouraged to build their 
IP capacities and create their own IP management structures. In this light, information, awareness 
raising and the promotion of IP research result s constitute basic tools for the implementation 
of the TRIPS Agreement. However, the efforts made thus far have not yielded any convincing 
results. In fact, information and awareness raising via radio, television and the press only reaches 
a very small part of the target population. It would therefore be necessary to contact the relevant groups or associations of operators and research centres directly. 
218.  Moreover, a considerable effort needs to be made to develop appropriate technologies 
adapted to local specificities, capacities and conditions. Such technologies must first and foremost 
target the critical sectors of the local economy, in  particular agrifood production, the processing of 
local products, and the conservation and improvem ent of resources such as water, forests and 
energy. 
219.  As regards the handicrafts sector, the surrounding environment (institutions to contact, 
financial partners, suppliers of raw materials, media, etc.) needs to be  better understood and 
strengthened so as to ensure that marketing and distribution take place through formal channels. 
In response to these problems, the following actions are envisaged: 
 training for SMEs/SMIs on the protection and strategic use of information contained 
in patent documents (e.g. OAPI servic es, online research, patent scope); IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 33 - 
 
   creation and training of IP focal points in SME/SMI support structures; 
 strengthening and optimization of technological development assistance structures 
and mechanisms; 
 identification of the key technologies requiring priority (energy, climate change, etc.) and 
organization of groups tasked with acquiring command of these technologies; 
 provision of IP support to regional ch ambers of trades, chambers of commerce 
and industry and chambers of agriculture wi th a view to encouraging them to promote 
innovation and creativity and speed up the registration of patents with OAPI; 
 capacity building for staff at the arbitration and mediation centre of the Chamber 
of Commerce and Industry of Togo (CCIT) in re spect of both national and international IP 
procedures; 
 improvement of information and awareness ra ising for micro, small and medium-sized 
enterprises (MSMEs) in the area of IP; 
 capacity building for craftsmen; 
 promotion of invention and optimization of inventions via the creation of a project 
to support inventors and innovative SMEs/SMIs in the development of their inventions/innovations and in the technical and commercial aspects thereof; 
 launch of awareness raising campaigns led by IP experts and regular information 
bulletins. Awareness raising activities will be undertaken in cooperation with the national media, OAPI, WIPO, and other interested parties; 
 preparation and implementation of the project "Intellectual Property and Design Creation 
for Business Development in Togo", as proposed in document CDIP/11/7 of 10 April 2013 
by the Permanent Mission of the Republic of  Korea at the 11th session of the Committee 
on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP) held on 13-17 May 2013 in Geneva, 
Switzerland; 
 support to assist research centres and universities in the publication and dissemination of 
the results of technological research; 
 improvement of access to national and international databases; 
 capacity building for researchers in the area of technology transfer; 
 upgrading of laboratories and research centres; and 
 operational capacity building for the government department in charge of handicrafts. 
- Action to combat intellectual property right violations  
 220.  Despite being a matter of concern for all IP system actors, no coherent actions or activities 
have yet been organized to combat piracy and counterfeiting. Activities in this area suffer from a 
lack of synergy on the part of all the key players concerned. 
221.  With regard to counterfeiting, the implementation of effective right enforcement strategies 
and measures to combat violations ensures that such rights are more effectively safeguarded. 
Measures taken to combat violations are increasing thanks to collaboration between customs, law enforcement and industrial property services. Howe ver, these achievements must be consolidated 
and even improved. The absence of effective action  erodes investors' confidence in the national 
economy and reduces the opportunities that local creators and innovators have to effectively 
exploit their rights. 
222.  Regarding the creation of literary and artistic works, creative industries (music, 
performances, films, television and radio broadcasts , visual arts, advertising, designs, publishing, 
etc.) are becoming increasingly important in society and national economies. They foster creativity, help promote cultural identity and are a source of job creation and economic growth in 
general. 
223.  Much effort needs to be made by developing countries and LDCs, including Togo, to offer 
incentives that attract investment towards these industries for growth purposes. A shortfall often noted in Africa, and Togo in particular, is the lack of statistical data for quantifying the impact that IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 34 - 
 
  these industries have on national economies and for assessing their ability to foster social, cultural 
and economic growth. 
224.  Since 2003, WIPO has been implementing proj ects in various parts of the world to assess 
the economic contribution made by creative indu stries. It has published the Guide on Surveying 
the Economic Contribution of the Copyright-Based Industries, which has served as a starting point 
for studies on this subject in a number of countries, notably Canada, Singapore, Finland and the United States. 
225.  WIPO is currently supporting studies of this type in many countries. Togo's needs in this area 
include the following: 
 a study on the contribution that copyright and cultural industries make to the Togolese 
national economy; 
 training sessions for the staff of bodies responsible for enforcing rights, in particular 
the judiciary (magistrates, bailiffs, lawyers), police, customs and the gendarmerie; 
 equipment enabling customs services to detect counterfeit and pirated products; 
 training programmes on collection, distribution, the drafting of contracts, and the use 
of appropriate software fo r collective management; 
 creation of a national programme for the implementation of a levy on private copying and 
reprographic reproduction; and 
 annual organization of information and awareness raising activities or campaigns on the 
adverse effects of piracy and the need for action at national level involving all the actors in the copyright and related rights sector in Togo. 
226.  Incidentally, I remind you that annexed to this document is an analytical table of the 
activities developed in response to Togo's needs, and the main bodies concerned. 
227.  Finally, I wanted to note that the needs ex pressed within the context of this document are 
not exhaustive, and other needs cannot be overlooked if Togo is to be given proper assistance in 
making IP a real tool for economic, social and cultural development. In this light, it falls to my country to take account of the needs thus identified when it next updates its Diagnostic Trade 
Integration Study (DTIS) and Action Matrix, so that funding can be obtained through broader 
initiatives for LDC support. 
228.  These initiatives include, in particular, Aid for Trade and the Enhanced Integrated Framework 
(EIF), which afford opportunities to strengthen an d coordinate efforts made to meet the individual 
priority needs identified by LDCs in the TRIPS area. 
229.  Togo has thus identified the immediate needs and priorities for which it seeks technical 
and financial assistance with a view to implementing  the TRIPS Agreement. It is with keen interest 
that Togo awaits such aid as the multilateral institutions and WTO Members might provide 
for implementing the actions identified. 
10.2 European Union  
 
230.  I would like to call your attention to the EU's efforts to improve global accessibility of medicines through technical cooperation. Findings of a study by DSW EU (a German development and advocacy organisation) and Policy Cures Lo ndon (2012) showed that Europe plays an 
important role in the development of medicines for new poverty-related and neglected diseases. 
Funding from the EU includes funding from bo th the European Commission (EC) and Member 
States. This funding has increased over the recent years and has been essential to bringing new 
products to the market. The EU contributes almost a quarter (22%) of public R&D investment 
worldwide for the development of new poverty-related and neglected disease pharmaceutical products and 15% of the total global investment (public and private), with an average of 
€341 million a year. Three quarters of the fundin g (76%) goes to the development of medicines 
for HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. The EU funds a wide range of organisations to conduct 
poverty-related and neglected diseases R&D (i.e. academic organisations, national research institutes, industry, Product Development Partnerships (PDP), and also to unique mechanisms such IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 35 - 
 
  as the European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP)). European funding 
for poverty-related and neglected diseases treatment has contributed to the creation of 43 new products that are already improving health and productivity in developing countries while reducing healthcare costs and helping to alleviate poverty. 
231.  The Commission has been funding health research which addresses not only specifically the 
access to medicines problem in the developing countries, but also broader health system problems and health research capacity building. 
232.  Most of the funding comes from the special EU research and innovation programmes for 
global health. The last research programme was called FP7 (Framework Programme 7). The International Cooperation pillar had a budget of €6.1 billion.  
233.  Since the beginning of 2014, the eighth programme for innovation and research has 
commenced and is called Horizon 2020 (2014-2020). It has a total budget of €70,200 million and 
foresees €7,400 million in its pillar on "Health, Demographic Change and Wellbeing". During the first two years of Horizon 2020, the EU will invest some €1,200 million in this challenge. The 
objective of the actions in this domain is to support research in order to provide a scientific base 
for international cooperation with partner countries to improve their health service delivery, including aspects of accessibility, effectiveness, effi ciency and quality of care and user friendliness. 
The mandate also covers public health concepts and interventions beyond health services through 
cross-sectorial and multidisciplinary research approaches. These actions on particular priorities, such as health systems, health policy, maternal and child care, reproductive health and neglected communicable diseases, aim to reinforce the research and cooperative capacities of candidate, 
neighbourhood, developing and emerging countries.  
234.  Let me briefly introduce you some of our projects under the last Framework Programme for 
Research 7 (2007-2013) and some of the new pr ojects which are in the pipeline under the new 
Horizon 2020 programme (2014-2020) for research and innovation.  
235.  A first project is the Accessing Medicines in Africa and South Asia (AMASA).  It ran from 2010 
to 2013 and had a budget of approximately €3million. The main aim of the project was to map 
patterns of production, distribution, supply and consumption of medicines within seven health care 
areas – i.e. HIV/AIDS, malaria, reproductive he alth, tuberculosis (TB), mental health, pain 
management and diabetes. A second programme is the Access to Pharmaceuticals (ATP).  The 
project was in place from 2009 until 2013 and had a budget of approximately €1.8 million.  The 
Access to Pharmaceuticals project addressed three ways of accomplishing equitable access to 
pharmaceuticals. The first is how academic licensing practices under socially responsible stewardship can ensure that future drugs that have resulted from inventive activity in academia 
will be available at low cost with improved access in the future. Secondly, the project investigated 
how existing public-private or product-developm ent partnerships are addressing the issue of 
altruistic development of drugs for relatively neglected populations with unmet health needs and 
the lessons they have for future drug developm ent. Lastly, it addressed the current state and 
future improvements in compulsory licensing legislative instruments to enable access through generic manufacture of patented drugs.  A  t h i r d  p r o g r a m m e  u n d e r  F P  7  w a s  t h e  Monitoring 
Medicines  project which also ran from 2009-2013 with a total budget of €2 million. This project 
aimed at strengthening what is known about medi cines, sharing that knowledge and putting that 
knowledge to use, to reduce patient deaths and adverse effects due to medicines. Specifically, the project supports building patient safety networks.  
236.  Under the Horizon 2020 programme, there are also new programmes in the pipeline. There 
will be a specific programme for  Rare Diseases . The programme  aims at maximising scarce 
resources and coordinating research efforts. There will be transnational cooperation and 
coordination to pool resources and avoid duplic ation of efforts, while also developing common 
standards and research priorities will be essential. Two other programmes are on Vaccine 
development for poverty-related and neglected infectious disease.  There will be one specific 
programme for HIV/AIDS  and another one for  tuberculosis.  Vaccines offer a safe and cost-effective 
way to protect large populations against infectious diseases, or at least to mitigate the clinical 
course of these diseases. Furthermore, they may in combination with other treatment modalities contribute to an eradicative cure for HIV and tuberculosis. Many poverty-related and neglected 
infectious diseases however continue to escape  attempts to develop effective vaccines against 
them. Disappointing results of recent clinical trials pointed to bottlenecks in identifying viable IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 36 - 
 
  candidate vaccines, which if unaddressed will continue to present significant risks of failure at 
relatively late stages of the development process. The specific challenge for these programmes will therefore be to shift the "risk cu rve" in order to better select successful vaccine candidates (and 
discard those with a higher risk of failure) at an  earlier stage of the vaccine development process, 
for preventive as well as therapeutic vaccines.  
237.  In addition to the above projects, the EU  is also co-funding with its Member States the 
European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP) . The EDCTP aims to 
accelerate the development of new or improved drugs, vaccines, microbicides and diagnostics 
against HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria, with a focus on phase II and III clinical trials in sub-Saharan Africa. The basis of EDCTP is "partnership". It currently unites 14 participating EU Member States plus Norway and Switzerland with sub-Saharan African countries. The partnership ensures 
synergy and optimal use of resources, and creates a win-win situation for all parties involved. 
In 2014 the EDCTP II programme under Horizon 2020 commenced. 
238.  Next to the programmes on medicines development the EU also funds programmes which 
aim to strengthen health systems and health research capacity. We have the Consortium for 
Health Policy and Systems Analysis in Africa  (2011-2015), which aims to extend sustainable 
African capacity to produce and use high quality he alth policy and systems research. There is also 
the Poverty related diseases college . This project aims to reorganize and educate young African 
and European scientists to perform research, on poverty related and neglected diseases that is relevant to development. A third programme is the REDMAL programme, which intends to develop 
a malaria transmission blocking vaccine (2010-2014), with partners from Tanzania and India. And 
a last example is the More Medicines for Tuberculosis project , with partners from South Africa and 
India.  
239.  These are only a few examples of the type  of supporting research programmes funded by 
the Commission for facilitating access to medicines in developing countries. 
A G E N D A  I T E M  1 1 :  C O N T R I B U T I O N  O F  I N T E LLECTUAL PROPERTY TO FACILITATE THE 
TRANSFER OF ENVIRONMENTALLY  RATIONAL TECHNOLOGY 
11.1 Ecuador  
 240.  Ecuador would like to thank the Members of this Council for dealing with this issue, which it requested to be included in the agenda for two essential reasons: firstly, because it is a very 
timely and important issue for all Members and, secondly, because no Member of this Council has 
spoken out against the idea that it is necessary to deal with the harmful effects of climate change, in other words, it is an issue that affects the international community as a whole. What we do not 
agree with is the way in which it is dealt with. 
241.  I should like to refer to various concerns raised by some delegations at the Council's meeting 
in October 2013. Concerning the questions posed by Switzerland, asking for Ecuador's views 
regarding paragraph 4 of the communication of March 2013 submitted to this Council, more 
specifically requesting Ecuador to elaborate on its concern about lack of information and to indicate specific cases in which the existing tools and procedures of the IP system, as also provided in the TRIPS Agreement, have actually posed a problem. It should be pointed out with regard to the 
paragraph mentioned by Switzerland in its questi on (paragraph 299 of document IP/C/M/73/Add.1 
entitled "Minutes of Meeting" held in June 2013), that Ecuador gave further details in the 
"Justification" part of its proposal, based on the statements made in relevant forums, so this is the 
general view expressed in some discussions. Th e lack of information that might represent a 
barrier, however, cannot be explained in terms of the disclosure or non-disclosure of the 
information in the patent, but rather the information summarized in the patent application does 
not permit effective transfer of technology. Put another way, it is clear that patent applications do 
not include the information needed to work the invention after its validity has expired and a licence been granted, making it difficult for developing countries to have access. 
242.  Switzerland also asked what Ecuador meant by  excessive protection, a view also set out in 
paragraph 4 of Ecuador's proposal. In this regard, excessive protection means a mechanism for 
protection that approaches the limit of failure to comply with the objective contained in Article 7 of the Agreement, which indicates that the right prot ected is the contribution to the promotion of IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 37 - 
 
  technological innovation and the transfer and dissemination of technology, to the mutual 
advantage of producers and users of technological knowledge and in a manner conducive to social and economic welfare, and to a balance of rights  and obligations. To give some examples, in the 
case of environmentally sound technological pr oducts, the more excessive the protection the 
higher the price and production costs for small, medium-sized and large producers, generating 
incremental costs for the end products, meaning that they are no longer viable. 
243.  Another example of excessive protection is when each process for obtaining the end product 
using a particular type of technology is patented and necessitates large-scale investment so it 
becomes a barrier when comparing the cost of the investment needed to develop the product. 
244.  This is why Ecuador stresses that mechanisms are required to facilitate the transfer of 
ecologically rational technology, including agreement on international cooperation for the transfer 
of know-how to help to prevent the worst effects caused by climate change and to make the 
technology more accessible to developing countries. 
245.  Lastly, the Swiss delegation was not clear what was meant by "inappropriate enforcement". 
In Ecuador's view, inappropriate enforcement mean s the fact that the patent system is applied 
without respecting the objectives that promote IPRs set out in paragraph 7 of the TRIPS Agreement and in its Preamble, which states "Recognizing the underlying public policy objectives 
of national systems for the protection of intellectual property, including developmental and 
technological objectives." 
246.  The above represents Ecuador's reaction in response to the questions posed by the 
Swiss delegation referring, as we have seen, to the "Justification" section in paragraph 4 
of Ecuador's document, a section whose objective was to explain the overall background so that, 
by means of serious studies, Members could have a clear picture of the situation of the transfer 
and use of green technologies, above all in developing countries. 
247.  At the Council's previous meeting, several countries such as the United States and the 
representative of the European Union referred to va rious studies which, in their view, showed that 
transfer of technology to developing countries had occurred in connection with the issue before us, 
based on the important role played by patents as a tool for generating innovation. We have, 
however, reviewed a large number of these studies and those by other authors such as Levin and Boldrine, who in Chapter 8 of the study "Against Intellectual Monopoly" assert that the patent system and monopolies are not the be st way of promoting innovation. 
248.  Even though reference has been made to various studies, there has been no mention, for 
example, of the number of clean energy licences gr anted to developing countries or references to 
cases in which there has been transfer of technology, or to which Latin American or African 
producers this type of technology has been tran sferred. We therefore ask these delegations to 
furnish figures and statistical data backing up their statements. 
249.  Authors such as Joseph Stiglitz and Becker state that the incentives afforded by the patent 
system are not enough. 
250.  In the statements made by the delegates of the United States, Switzerland, the European 
Union and other countries, Ecuador was requested to submit studies or further documents in support of the proposal submitted for the Council's consideration. In this regard, I may point out 
that the proposal submitted by Ecuador on 1 March 2013 contains various textual references, 
many of them concerning authors supporting Ecuador's proposal. 
251.  Matthew Littleton, mentioned in the Ecuadorian proposal, considers "Despite numerous 
international commitments to promote transfer of climate-change related technologies to 
developing countries, such transfers are not occurring at a sufficient rate to aid these nations in mitigating and adapting to the effects of climate change", a quotation from the article 
"The TRIPS Agreement and Transfer of Climate- Change Related Technologies to Developing 
Countries", published in Volume 33 of the Review "A United Nations Sustainable Development". This article, which I invite you to read, also covers the options for improving the transfer of technology by making use of the existing flexibilities on TRIPS and by implementing government 
and private policies. IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 38 - 
 
  252.  These are the responses to the concerns raised at the previous meeting. We are willing to 
respond as far as possible to new concerns that may be raised because we consider that further studies are needed and could be included in our proposals. We are therefore open to receiving further information on the basis of which Ecuador is ready to prepare a revised document. It is 
important to address the possibility for the Secretar iat of this Council to provide new elements to 
be included in the document, which we offer to prepare for the Council's consideration at its next meeting. 
11.2 Cuba  
 253.  Cuba thanks Ecuador for its contribution and supports continuing the debate on document IP/C/W/585. Since 1992, the United Nations Fr amework Convention on Climate Change has 
undertaken, on behalf of the developed countries, to take all practicable steps to promote, 
facilitate and finance the transfer of environmentally sound technologies (ESTs) and know-how. 
254.  It is known that IPRs can be an obstacle to accessing these technologies, thus seriously 
undermining the balance that must exist between the interests of intellectual property rights 
holders and public policy interests. It is worth noting that Article 7 of the TRIPS Agreement (Objectives) states that the protection and enforc ement of IPRs should contribute to the promotion 
of technological innovation and to the transfer and dissemination of technology. Therefore, all 
Members should be committed to the full realization of these objectives, which seek to rectify the imbalance that is inherent in the traditional system of IP protection. It would be helpful if the Members that do not agree to discuss Ecuador's proposal could provide the Council with examples 
of how IPRs have facilitated the transfer of these ESTs to the developing countries. 
255.  As regards patented ESTs, the developing countries need to make use of all the flexibilities 
available in the TRIPS Agreement, without restrictions. One particularly advisable option would be 
to use compulsory licensing. We believe that comp ulsory licensing cannot be an exceptional policy 
in the event of a country facing a health emergency.Other flexibilities related to access to ESTs might be the exhaustion regime which allows for parallel imports, exclusions from patentability 
and exceptions to rights conferred. 
256.  We should stress that there are other aspects of the current patent system that are 
hindering access to these technologies, such as the increase in applications for and rights conferred by patents, the proliferation of applicat ions for and granting of low-quality patents, and 
the expansion and strengthening of enforcement measures. This is compounded by problems 
stemming from insufficient descriptions of inventions, which often prevent a person skilled in the art from being able to carry out an invention, since the description is not sufficiently clear or 
complete. 
257.  With respect to accessing ESTs in the public domain, it should be remembered that the 
developing countries and the least developed countries lack the skills, the know-how and the 
financial resources to make use of these technologies. Technical skills and investment are 
necessary to make use of ESTs in the public  domain. There are also problems due to the 
abundance of and access to information in the pub lic domain, an issue that has been addressed by 
the WIPO Committee on Development and Intellect ual Property in light of its importance. 
258.  In short, these are particularly relevant issues which Cuba believes should be further 
discussed. It would therefore be very helpful if th e WTO Secretariat could contribute to and expand 
on the document submitted by Ecuador. 
11.3 Chile  
 259.  Chile thanks Ecuador once again for taking the initiative of including this topic in the 
Council's agenda for discussion, because climate change is one of the greatest challenges that 
Members are currently facing. 
260.  We agree that it is appropriate to make use of the flexibilities provided in the TRIPS 
Agreement so that countries adopt the measures needed to address this problem, which, as 
everyone knows, is on a global scale. Although we consider this topic to be highly relevant, we are IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 39 - 
 
  nonetheless of the view that the proposal submitted could potentially undermine incentives for 
innovation. 
261.  As a practical example, we would like to mention the case of the Medicines Patent Pool 
(MPP), a non-profit organization backed by the Un ited Nations, which is public-health driven and 
geared towards the promotion of effective access to medicines. 
262.  The MPP uses a business model that seeks to reduce the price  of HIV medicines while 
facilitating the development of better HIV medicines in the developing countries. Licence 
agreements have been signed under the MPP mechanism for a variety of treatments, and a 
database on the status of patents has also been launched in order to facilitate access to information on what HIV medicines are patented, and where. 
263.  It is necessary to be the patent holder or to be in possession of the appropriate licence in 
order to market, distribute or produce a patented medicinal product. The licence is a contract 
whereby the IP right holder, in this case the patent holder, grants certain property rights to the licensee so that the latter may, in this partic ular instance, produce, market and distribute 
a medicinal product. It is well known that one of the key problems that arises in the case 
of HIV medicines is that they are excessively costly for the countries which need them most (usually in the southern hemisphere) and which generally lack the technological capabilities 
to produce them. Through its licensing and sub-licen sing system the MPP is providing a solution to 
the problem by means of voluntary licences negotiated directly with the companies holding the patents. 
264.  In this connection, we believe that the compulsory licencing system for a specific industry, 
namely the environmental industry, could prove detr imental in terms of the investment needed to 
develop new and better environmental technologies. We therefore consider it important to explore 
other alternatives offered by the IPRs system under which it is possible, as in the case of the MPP, 
to promote and facilitate the granting of voluntary licences. Lastly, we think it would be useful to 
examine initiatives such as WIPO GREEN, a programme which is being developed by WIPO. 
11.4 El Salvador  
 
265.  With respect to the proposal by Ecuador we feel that the purpose is to make a contribution to the discussion of these matters in the Council, particularly because the technology and its transfer is a fundamental part of dealing with climate change and ameliorating the negative effects 
thereof. Our delegation therefore feels that we shou ld continue to explore the existing flexibilities 
in the TRIPS Agreement in relation to sound environmental technologies as proposed by Ecuador. For that reason we appreciate the contribution, we value it and we will look at it quite carefully in 
the hope that the enriched version of the propos al promised by Ecuador will also be helpful. 
11.5 European Union  
 
266.  The European Union welcomes this debate in the framework of the TRIPS Council. Last time 
we talked about studies, today I would like to pr esent a concrete example of successful technology 
transfer in the area of clean technologies. 
267.  The European Business and Technology Cent re, India (EBTC) is a programme co-funded by 
the European Union and coordinated by Eurocham bres (association of chambers of commerce in 
the EU). It was set up in 2008 and is located in New Delhi, Mumbai, Kolkata and Bengaluru. 
268.  The EBTC's Flagship Missions are in the fo ur sectors of Energy, Environment, Biotech and 
Transport. The objective of the EBTC is to assist  European companies and researchers to facilitate 
the transfer of clean technology solutions to the Indian market. It fosters business to business and businesss to government activities and provides market intelligence. 
269.  In its five years existence, the EBTC has brought 334 delegates from 24 EU Member States 
with 26 missions to India. However, several market  barriers when transferring technology to India 
deter European providers. Some of these include varying technical standards; lack of access to 
finance; cross-cultural business issues; detailed market intelligence; securing pilots and IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 40 - 
 
  establishing demonstration projects, and most importantly, adapting technologies to suit the 
Indian specific requirement.  
270.  According to the Director of the EBTC, " It is imperative that EU and India take stronger 
strides in removing barriers to clean techno logy collaborations. EBTC has been providing 
customised services that aid in breaking down so me of these barriers by reinforcing itself as an 
organisation that enables European businesses and researchers to interact seamlessly with Indian counterparts as well as keeping policy makers informed of challenges faced in such collaborations. 
The fruits of EBTC's efforts can be seen in the fact that 23 cooperation agreements have been 
facilitated between companies, in a number of cleant ech areas, including those of energy efficiency 
software, floating solar platforms and real-time water quality monitoring. Interest in mutually 
beneficial technology and solutions continues to gather pace, and EBTC expects to see the still 
nascent cleantech sector growing at a promising pace ."  
271.  In 2013, the EBTC became the lead coordinato r of the Enterprise Europe Network India – the 
largest technology platform opening doors which connect SME's in India and Europe. 
272.  The EBTC has a "Cleantech database" which Indian companies or researchers can access to 
discover technology or innovation which can complete their business requirements. Hundreds of new technology profiles are added every week. The EBTC also has a Cleantech incubator which 
offers individual workstations in the EBTC's office premises. 
273.  The EBTC also set up a European Technology Experience Centre (in September 2013) which 
supports sustained knowledge exchange between EU and India to facilitate collaboration in 
Technology, Science, Research, Innovation and Business. The Centre brings together companies 
and researchers from the EU and India to generate new business opportunities and technology 
transfer. Indian businesses, local government repr esentatives, policy makers and experts can also 
attend the training and capacity building programs on offer and interact with EU experts. The 
Centre allows for technologies to be demonstrated through various means including the use of 
computer demonstrations, audio-visuals, live pres entation, case study demonstrations. The Centre 
can also be used to organise or carry out capacity building activities. 
274.  The EBTC also hosts a Research to Innovation to Business (RIB) initiative which aims to 
facilitate the process of converting EU research projects into innovative and sustainable business, 
by promoting links and creating networks between EU and Indian research, business, institutions 
and entrepreneurs.  
275.  The EBTC Water partnership . Over the past 3 decades, the EU has restored the quality of 
European waters by significantly reducing the poll ution from its urban, industrial and agricultural 
sectors. The knowledge and technological expertise that has enabled this restoration can be 
adapted and replicated in the Indian context. EB TC has become a strategic partner of the India 
Water Development Programme and helps to support the deployment of EU technology and expertise in IWDP's pioneering projects. 
276.  I would like to mention some concrete examples:  
 Aqua Q  – an early warning system that detects bacteria and parasites in water. A 
collaboration between a Swedish company and an Indian Partner in Kolkata started in July 2013 and launched a new product on the Indian market. The device is specifically designed 
for the local conditions. An already existing Indian production line was adapted and local 
software was integrated into the project. Aq ua Q worked with local people who understand 
the local conditions and needs. 
 
 Tranquil Aquabion  - Every year, damage caused by limescale and corrosion in pipe lines 
used in potable, industrial, and waste water, applications, results in a large cost for buildings 
and industries. Within the Green Building sector this results in concerns over sustainability 
and high recurring costs. For nearly 25 year s, the ION AQUABION group from Dusseldorf 
(Germany) has been engaged in the field of en vironmentally friendly, chemical free, water 
treatment, with more than 100,000 systems im plemented globally, and is now entering the 
Indian market with their innovative solution. 
 IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 41 - 
 
  277.  A Memorandum of Understanding  In February 2013, a Memorandum of Understanding 
(MoU), was signed between Ciel et Terre from Fr ance with Klystron Electronics Pvt. Ltd from 
Kolkata, and facilitated by the European Busine ss and Technology Centre (EBTC). The technology 
involved is floating solar PV. Floating solar PV is a unique solution to address the combined issue of 
energy, water conservation and land availability. Th e Hydrelio system patented by Ciel & Terre is a 
reliable and eco-friendly way to save valuable land and convert a water area into a profitable large scale solar power plant (from 1 to 50 MW). Water aeration technology can also be fitted with the 
structure to enable purification of the water. Critical success factors for such a project include 
building a local supply chain, attaining an appr opriate Power Purchase Agreement (PPA), power 
plant investors and operators. All of which are possible given the abundance of resources and potential in the region.  
278.  Mr. Ghosh (Executive Director, Klystron Elec tronics Pvt. Ltd,) emphasized that, "as the name 
suggests, floating solar technology does not require land for its installation, the Eastern as well as North-Eastern region needs energy and has an abun dance of water bodies. With the availability of 
floating solar, the region can contribute to th e compensation of energy requirement to certain 
extent, especially in the rural areas. Support will be required from all stakeholders for the diffusion 
of such a useful technology."  
279.  A recent proposal for collaborative research . Saint-Gobain Research India Ltd. (SGRI), an 
R&D centre of Saint Gobain based in Chennai, in collaboration with the Indo-French Centre For The Promotion Of Advanced Research (Cefipra), an autonomous body for bilateral cooperation in Science and Technology between France and India under its innovation program on "Sustainable 
habitat for hot and/ or humid climates", launched a joint call for proposals in November 2013. 
Proposals were invited from the Indian and Fren ch scientists/researchers of Indian and French 
research institutions for research proposed to be done in collaboration with SGRI.  
280.  Topics: 
 Improvement of Energy Performance of Commerc ial and Residential Buildings in Tropical 
Climates.  
 Measurement, Analysis and Mitigation Strategies for Indoor Air Quality in Air Conditioned 
Buildings in Tropical Climates.  
 Day Lighting in Hot-Humid Climates, with ways to Optimize Illumination along with Optical 
and Thermal Comfort.  
 Cool Roof Technology for Hot-Humid Climates, with Performance Comparison of Various 
Solutions.  
 Comparison of Conventional versus Altern ative Building Wall Options in terms of 
Performance and Multi-comfort.  
 Frugal Finishing Solutions for Quick, Standardized and Durable Construction.  
The web address is: http://ebtc.eu/etec.html  and I would invite you to consult the website which 
sets out in detail all the on-going projects and activities. 
 281.  I would like to add that, for technology transfer to happen, there has to be a local enabling environment to receive that technology. In the case of Ecuador, that sponsors this agenda point, 
the fact that Ecuador has probably the highest tariffs in the world for the registration and 
maintenance of patents will not encourage transfer of technology to their country. As we understand it, their tariff stands at €113,OOO for registration and 20 years maintenance, as 
compared to the EU which stands at €30,000 now and with the advent of the Unitary patent will 
reduce to €4,750. 
282.  We consider this issue as particularly sensitive since the high fees in Ecuador seem to apply 
mostly to foreign applicants. I would say that these are examples that do not facilitate the transfer 
of any technology, be it clean or not. IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 42 - 
 
  11.6 India  
 283.  We thank the delegation of Ecuador for including this agenda item. I would also like to thank the delegation of the EU for highlighting their efforts in India through European Business and 
technology Centre. Since I am not aware of this initiative, I would not like to comment on this. 
284.  It is high time that the role of Intellec tual Property is addressed in a constructive and 
balanced manner to address the issue of greenhouse gas emissions and climate change adaptation 
and mitigation efforts. Since any effort in this direction is dependent on the diffusion of 
environmentally sound technologies to the developing countries, it is essential that barriers in accessing these technologies are suitably addressed. Currently, a significant portion of R&D relevant to climate change is in the hands of a few private companies. According to WIPO 215,000 
"clean energy" patents were filed between 2000 an d 2008 worldwide. While this data may be little 
outdated and taking into account that at least 20% more patents have been added since 2008, it is very clear that the environmentally rational technology is controlled by private monopolies 
through patents and other IPRs. Further in the six energy technologies (wind, solar, photovoltaic, 
concentrated solar power, biomass-to-electricity, cleaner coal and carbon capture) it is observed that the US, Japan and Germany are clear leaders in energy innovations. India, China or Brazil do 
not have any organisations amongst the top posi tions in this field. Any diffusion of these 
technologies would thus be controlled by these few OECD companies. In a scenario dominated by a business approach to a planetary problem, IPRs are likely to play a key role in determining access to technologies and the cost of using them. 
285.  Climate change mitigation and adaptation requires not only a massive effort to develop 
suitable technologies, but mechanisms to make them readily available. Through the technology transfer unless there is a transfer of skills and know -how to use, operate, maintain as well as to 
understand the technology hardware so that fu rther independent innovation is possible by 
recipient, there would not be any real diffusion of  technology at affordable cost. The technology 
transfer could be termed successful only when the recipient enterprises develop expertise to 
develop technology through imitation or reverse engineering to adapt to the local conditions and 
eventually design and manufacture original produc ts. While the owners of technology believe that 
a free market approach would address all the i ssues, including diffusion into the developing 
countries, it is a fact that the owners will never transfer their technology willingly for the fear of 
creating competitors. Further it has been observed  that even when there has been some sort of 
technology transfer, it has normally happened through second or third tier companies and that too at an exorbitant price and with several strings attached. It is not possible that any efficient 
technology at affordable prices can ever be transferred through a market based approach.  
286.  Since a global problem can never be addressed comprehensively through a commercial 
approach, a pro-active role of public policy at national and international level would be critical. It is 
in this regard we support the approach proposed by Ecuador to facilitate the transfer of 
environmentally rational technology and support the proposal from Ecuador for further discussion on this subject at the next meeting of the Council. 
11.7 Japan  
 
287.  This delegation welcomes the opportunity to discuss the topic of contribution of IP at this Council, in terms of how it facilitates the transfer of environmentally rational technology.  
288.  First of all, this delegation would like to  emphasize that the existing IP system does not 
constitute a barrier to technology transfer. Rather, this delegation firmly believes that the current international frameworks that have been set up to handle IPRs can provide a solid and stable 
foundation for technology transfer. In the field of environmentally rational technology, this 
delegation would like to note that the WIPO has successfully put this idea into practice through an industry-driven initiative, WIPO GREEN, in which Japanese industry has been playing a leading role. 
289.  The WIPO officially launched WIPO GREEN in November 2013 after a pilot phase. This 
initiative is designed to accelerate both innovation and diffusion of green technologies. WIPO GREEN matches owners of new green technologies with individuals or companies seeking to 
commercialize green technology. Given that around 1,000 technologies were uploaded onto the 
database during its pilot phase, WIPO GREEN is expected to further facilitate technology transfer IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 43 - 
 
  and consequently support the efforts of countries in addressing climate change. This delegation 
believes that it is important to create an environment that is conducive to self-efforts being made by industry to address global environmental i ssues. From this perspective, Japan has been 
supporting this initiative.  
290.  Furthermore, this delegation would like to make a brief remark regarding Japan's initiative 
created to address global warming issues. It is called "Actions for Cool Earth" or ACE for short. ACE specifies various action plans to be taken, through which the utilization and dissemination of 
Japan's advanced environmental and energy-related technologies is intended to be promoted. 
Among others, particular note should be taken of the following two action plans in terms of technology transfer. Firstly, Japan properly understands the needs of other countries, and 
develops and adapts low carbon technologies to satisfy the needs, aiming to make these 
technologies available in these countries. Secondly, Japan provides support for projects that are 
involved in transferring low-carbon technologies from Japan to other countries. This delegation is convinced that these actions will bear fruit in the future in the form of a more environmentally 
improved world. 
291.  On the other hand, some developing countries have expressed their concerns that 
environmentally sound/rationale technologies are not sufficiently being transferred to their 
countries. By the same token, believing that technology transfer is actually being discouraged by 
the IP system, Ecuador proposes initiatives in its document (IP/C/W/585), which would undermine the current IP system.  
292.  In addressing the concerns expressed by so me developing countries, this delegation feels 
that, on the contrary, the IP system can provide an important basis for promoting and encouraging 
technology transfer, and that there are various other factors such as technological capabilities or infrastructure that might also affect the chance of technology transfer. This delegation is of the 
view that the initiatives proposed by Ecuador would end up lowering incentives for innovation and 
thus lead to fewer opportunities for technology tr ansfer. Therefore, we need to carefully consider 
appropriate ways and means for implementing technology transfer by conducting a detailed 
analysis of the situation in each country. 
11.8 Switzerland  
 293.  Switzerland would like to thank Ecuador for its comments on the questions Switzerland had 
posed to it at past TRIPS Council meetings. We  will examine these comments and get back to 
them at the Council meeting in June, if necessary. For today, and in support of earlier interventions today by other delegations such as Japan, my delegation would like to make and 
reaffirm a number of points explaining why Switzerland is convinced that effective national and 
international IP regimes are prerequisites for the transfer of environmentally safe technologies 
whether to developed or developing countries. 
294.  IPRs strengthen the functioning of thriving  markets for renewable energy technology, thus 
playing a key supporting role in the fight against climate change. IPRs are fundamental for all 
parties involved in the process of transfer and dissemination of such technologies: 
295.  The transfer of state-of-the-art "green" technologies can only take place in a safe legal 
environment, where the transferor can be confident that his invention is protected in the recipient 
country, once transferred. Hence, a well-functioning and reliable regulatory framework, including effective protection and enforcement of IPRs, is one vital component of an "enabling environment" 
which creates transparency, predictability and legal certainty. This in turn provides investors, 
inventors, licensors and licensees of ESTs with the confidence they need in order to engage in know-how, financial and technological transfer. IPRs manage the respective contractual 
relationship between the transferor of the techno logy and the transferee by establishing the legal 
rights and obligations of the parties, thus putting their relationship on a firm basis and making it 
accountable. 
296.  The IP system also fulfils an information f unction in that inventors, under the obligation of 
Article 29 of the TRIPS Agreement, as a corollary of its patent application, the patent applicant 
needs to disclose the invention in a sufficiently clear and complete manner. Through this disclosure requirement, the patent system fosters the diffu sion of technology and tech knowledge for the IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 44 - 
 
  benefit of the public at large and, more specifically, of interested parties seeking innovative 
technology that they wish to license in. The rece nt "UNEP/EPO Report on Patents and Clean Energy 
Technologies in Africa" of 2013 unequivocally co nfirmed this principle on p.11 with regard to 
patents by noting that "[t]he information function of patents, therefore, constitutes a vital 
mechanism for dissemination of clean energy technologies, also supporting further research and 
development in the area." 
297.  The information function of IPRs, especially that of patents, allows to bring together the 
different stakeholders and potential partners to exploit and build on innovative EST. Powerful 
search tools are at the disposal of the interested public, such as "EPO's Espacenet public database" with some 88 million published patent documents, "EPO's Patent Translate", the "Green Growth Knowledge Platform" and the "WIPO Green database" launched last November 2013, to name but 
a few. These databases enable interested parties to gather and identify the information about the 
technology they wish to procure. 
298.  It would be misleading to assert that the presence of an IP system or patent protection on 
their own were the panacea to make the transfer of ESTs happen. A mix of factors need to be 
present for this to actually happen in practice. The Summary Report of July 1 2013 of the 6th meeting of the Technology Executive Comm ittee (TEC) of the United Nations Framework 
Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) refers on p. 7 to a number of such other key ingredients 
that are needed for technological development and transfer of that technology, e.g. appropriate 
economic and financial incentives, a reliable legal and regulatory framework also beyond IP protection, absence of technical barriers, organisational and institutional capacity as well as 
required human skills in a particular field of technology to name but a few. Having said this, IP 
protection is certainly part of the solution.  
299.  Put to the test, claims that due to patent s ESTs and their manufacturing are prevalent in 
developed countries only seem largely unfounded by what we find in real life. On the contrary, a 
distinctive trend can be observed over the last five to 10 years of major clean tech transfer from developed countries to key developing countries such as Brazil, China, India and others, evidence 
of a major global diffusion and deployment of cl ean technologies. Developing countries like China 
and India have been able to build up very comp etitive innovative green technology sectors over 
the last 10 years themselves.
1 
300.  Finally, as concerns the aspect of better affordability and enhanced access to innovative 
ESTs, my delegation would like to highlight that in January 2014, a promising initiative was 
launched in Davos, Switzerland, by a group of 14 WTO-Members with the aim to liberalising and facilitating global free trade in environmental goods and promote their dissemination. The Group, 
which is open to any WTO-Member State, is de termined to eliminate tariffs on environmental 
goods that are crucial in the combat against climate change and environmental degradation. It is building its work on a list of 54 environmental goods such as wind turbines and solar panels; a list 
which has been elaborated by the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) group. The Group 
surrounding this "Trade in Environmental Goods" initiative eventually seeks the conclusion of an environmental goods agreement on the basis of the Most-Favoured-Nation-Principle that would further strengthen the multilateral trading system for the benefit of all WTO-Members, including 
developing countries. For this to happen, a critical mass of WTO-Members should agree to join this 
initiative. We therefore invite any WTO Member to take part in this cooperation initiative which seeks to promote trade in - and thus the transfer  of - green technology, bringing us one step 
closer to the transition to a green economy. 
11.9 United States  
 
301.  We also thank Ecuador for sponsoring this agenda item and welcome this opportunity to 
discuss the important and positive relationship be tween IPRs and climate change adaptation and 
mitigation efforts. We take up today Ecuador's call this afternoon to identify national and international efforts to promote green technology transfer. 
                                               
1 See John H. Barton, Intellectual Property and Acce ss to Clean Energy Technologies in Developing 
Countries (2007), International Centre for Trade and Su stainable Development, Issue paper no. 2, p. XI.  IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 45 - 
 
  302.  As delegations will recall, in June of last year, the United States provided a review of a 
significant body of economic research and other data that demonstrated that green technology 
innovation is happening in both developing and developed countries, that voluntary technology 
transfer is occurring, and that IPR plays a significant and catalytic role in promoting such 
innovation and transfer. For the delegation that suggested today that voluntary technology 
transfer is not happening, we would refer that dele gation to our intervention in June which refutes 
that assertion. Chile, the EU, Japan and Switze rland's interventions today further demonstrate, 
with facts, that voluntary technology transfer is occurring. 
303.  Despite the wealth of data confirming these findings, some delegations may still say that IPR 
protection and enforcement is not the only answ er to the green technology question. And we 
agree, that despite the positive contributions of IPR to innovation and technology transfer, many 
non-IPR barriers continue to stand in the way of innovation and technology transfer.  
304.  As we discussed at the last meeting of this Council in October, there are numerous non-IPR 
obstacles standing in the way of our joint goal of promoting innovative solutions to our shared 
climate imperative. 
305.  In the context of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change, 31 developing and 
least-developed countries submitted Technology N eeds Assessments, designed to identify priority 
climate-related needs as well as barriers, to th e transfer of climate adaptation and mitigation 
technologies. As Switzerland noted, the UNFCCC Technology Executive Committee Synthesis report confirmed that very few of those TNAs even mentioned IPRs. And when IPR was mentioned 
in a few select cases, IPR was not identified among the priority issues to be addressed. In fact, the 
UNFCCC Technology Executive Committee Synthe sis report was itself silent on IPR. 
306.  Instead, the 31 TNAs enumerated a series of financial and non-financial barriers to green 
technology transfer, including: 
 Lack of or inadequate access to financial resources;  
 The existence of inappropriate financial incentives and disincentives; 
 High transaction costs; 
 Insufficient legal and regulatory frameworks; 
 Rent-seeking behavior and fraud; and 
 Market barriers 
307.  Of the nearly 20 barriers identified in the Technology Executive Committee synthesis report, 
IPR did not make the list. We would welcome Ecuador's views on why it did not identify IPR as a 
barrier, and focused on these non-IPR barriers. 
308.  We agree with Ecuador that it is these non- IPR barriers that are the true villains. They are 
the enemies of innovation and the adversaries of di ffusion that stand in the way of progress, that 
deny our research potential, and that thwart the promise of tomorrow's green technology solutions. 
309.  Just last week, I was talking to the University of Botswana about their technology transfer 
efforts, and they confirmed in stark term s the lesson of the UNFCCC Technology Needs 
Assessments. The number one challenge the University identified was lack of financing. To respond 
to this challenge, the University is implementing its research strategy laying out a pathway to 
becoming a research-intensive university by 2021. And the Government of Botswana responded as 
well by having revised its IP law in 2010 and creating the Botswana Innovation Hub to attract foreign innovative companies to its market. The Hub is designed not only to mobilize mutually 
beneficial investment partnerships, but to transl ate university research into goods and services 
that benefit the consumers of Botswana.  
310.  Botswana is not alone – neither in the challenges it faces, nor in the global interest in 
responding. In fact, we have found a tremendous number of diverse mechanisms that rely on IPR 
solutions to address environmental needs. These mechanisms target both financial and non-financial barriers to green technology innovati on and transfer, and offer the opportunity to IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 46 - 
 
  overcome several of the barriers identified in those Technology Needs Assessments. Today, we 
wanted to highlight a few of those mechanisms. 
311.  Travelling from Botswana to the United States, we will focus on another university-based 
mechanism that includes a vibrant climate change  component. The US Association of University 
Technology Manages or AUTM, for example, is a nonprofit organization with an international 
membership of more than 3,000 technology manage rs from more than 300 universities, research 
institutions, teaching hospitals, as well as businesses and government organizations.  
312.  AUTM's technology managers represent their institutions and are primarily responsible for: 
 Identifying new technologies; 
 Protecting technologies through patents and copyrights; and  
 Forming development and commercialization st rategies such as marketing and licensing 
to existing private sector companies or creating new startup companies based on the 
technology 
313.  AUTM operates several cutting-edge programs  that match university research with green and 
other technology needs. For instance, AUTM's Better World Project promotes public understanding 
of the benefits of academic research and technology transfer around the world, and provides a searchable technology database. 
314.  While on the Better World Project website, I found numerous climate-related technologies, 
including the Carbon Explorer developed at the Lawrence Berkeley Lab in California, which is a robotic ocean float that measures carbon concentrations in the ocean. For the first time, this Explorer gives researchers the ability to continuously track the biological processes of oceanic 
carbon cycles, and has been sent to some of th e most remote and extreme ocean environments in 
the world, gathering data that previously had not been generated. 
315.  Likewise, AUTM's Global Technology Portal provides a gateway to university technologies 
available for licensing worldwide. This interactive database not only allows users to freely search 
by technology area, it also identifies university research capabilities, technologies for licensing and university partnership needs for specific innovative issues, including climate change-related 
solutions. AUTM also produces a series of annual licensing surveys that provide quantitative data 
and real-world examples about licensing activities at U.S. and Canadian universities, hospitals and research institutions. 
316.  The United States government has also committed considerable resources to promoting 
green technology matchmaking, marrying US tech nology suppliers with technology demands in 
foreign markets. This includes sophisticated tools like the Department of Commerce's Environmental Solutions Exporters Portal. This Portal literally connects environmental problems 
with regulatory and commercial solutions. 
317.  The Portal contains four drop-down menus on "Environmental Issue", "Regulation", 
"Solution" and "Solution Provider". In other word s, this Toolkit provides a single window for 
overcoming several of the technology transfer barriers identified in the UNFCCC Technology Needs 
Assessments. 
318.  For example, when I clicked on Arsenic Remediation in Drinking Water under "Issue", I could 
immediately access the Arsenic Rule of the Environmental Protection Agency's Safe Drinking Water 
Act, which provides a model approach to specific legal and regulatory framework needs.  
319.  At the same time, with one click I accessed U.S. government economic analysis on this 
issue, studies on remediation technologies and costs, analytical methods for rule determinations, 
and arsenic occurrence in public drinking water. IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 47 - 
 
  320.  Finally, I could view and access information on 24 U.S. "Solution Providers" that have 
experience and technological expertise in arsenic remediation in drinking water. With no shortage of environmental problems to solve, the Environmental Solutions Exporters Portal tailors solutions in an efficient and multidimensional fashion. 
321.  Moving from the United States to just up  the street here in Geneva, WIPO has developed 
several innovative platforms to match member states' needs with IP-related resources. These include the WIPO Development Matchmaking Da tabase and WIPO GREEN. The WIPO DMD, for 
example, provides an extensive searchable data base comprised of technology offers, needs and 
funding sources, and also an option to express in terest in either the kind of assistance a WIPO 
member state needs or the resources that a partner can offer. 
322.  As for WIPO GREEN, it is an interactive marketplace that promotes innovation and diffusion 
of green technologies by connecting service providers with those seeking innovative solutions. The 
WIPO GREEN Network consists of partners, service providers and funding sources. Its partners include, among many others, AUTM, which we refe rred to earlier, Brazil's FORTEC network of 
Brazilian technology transfer offices, South Africa's Innovation Hub, and India's Villgro Innovation 
Foundation, which is a social enterprise incubator. 
323.  I also wanted to briefly mention a regional initiative under the Asia Development Bank 
funded by the UNFCCC Global En vironment Facility. The ADB has recently issued a call for 
proposals for a pilot project to establish a low carbon technologies marketplace operator. This 
innovative project, which is scheduled to commence in May 2014, would rely on an assisted broker model to bring providers and recipients together to  facilitate low carbon technology transfer. In 
speaking with the ADB representative about the pilot project, he expressed optimism for the 
project, and underscored the objective that it be self-sustaining. And in that discussion, he stressed that one of the key barriers to sustainability is rent seeking, including local content 
requirements. 
324.  Before concluding our little tour of exis ting green technology innovation and transfer 
mechanisms, we wanted to return to the UNFCCC and the importance of our IPR discussions here 
in the WTO TRIPS Council. 
325.  In this Council, our mandate is to discuss IPR issues, whether they are related to green 
technology, innovation, university partnerships  or even to sports. The UNFCCC mandate and 
expertise is climate change. In conformity wi th that mandate, the UNFCCC has established a 
Climate Technology Centre and Network to:  
 Enhance cooperation with national, regional and international technology centres and 
relevant national institutions;  
 Facilitate international partnerships among public and private stakeholders to accelerate the 
innovation and diffusion of environmentally sound technologies to developing country Parties; and 
 Identify, disseminate and assist with developing analytical tools, policies and best practices 
for country-driven planning to support the dissemination of environmentally sound technologies. 
326.  Like the other mechanism we have identified today, the CTCN offers the promise of 
overcoming the barriers identified in the U NFCCC Technology Needs Assessments. The CTCN, 
which was formally launched in December of 2013, can do this through concrete and case-by-case problem-solving, matching technology needs with solution providers, without the distraction of 
existential and divisive debates. 
327.  So, in conclusion, we would welcome Ecuado r's views on how it has promoted technology 
transfer. Has Ecuador championed the developm ent UNFCCC Climate Technology Centre and 
Network? Has it explored AUTM's Better World Pr oject or endeavoured to identify regulatory 
solutions and proven providers on the Environmen tal Solutions Exporters Portal? We have heard 
concerns about steps in the wrong direction, such as patent fees. We also share these concerns.  IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 48 - 
 
  328.  Speaking generally, have WTO delegations pr omoted an innovation environment within their 
borders through IPR protection and enforcement, or  do financial disincentives and market barriers, 
such as local content requirements, frustrate green technology innovation and transfer? 
329.  We end our intervention where we starte d with the UNFCCC Technology Needs Assessments. 
Addressing the obstacles identified by 31 countries  in those priority needs, including by Ecuador 
itself, are the conditions precedent to innovation and the antecedents to technology transfer.  
330.  While IPR is a critical catalyst to green  technology innovation and transfer, without 
addressing these non-IPR barriers, and by not mo bilizing existing resources, such as those 
discussed in our intervention, today's green technologies and tomorrow's innovation will remain equally out of reach. 
331.  For these reasons, as well as those we have previously identified, we continue to have 
serious reservations regarding Ecuador's proposals and are not in a position to support its 
recommendations. That said, we again welcome this opportunity to discuss this critically important issue. 
11.10 China  
 332.  China welcomes the proposal of the delegation of Ecuador to discuss this issue again at the 
TRIPS Council. It is the common interests of the whole world to fight against climate change, and 
the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities has been established as the basis for closer international cooperation. Due to the developing country Members' low development level and shortage of capital and technology, the deve loped country Members should support them and 
enhance the international cooperation in fighting against climate change.  
333.  IPRs, among all other financial or non-financial elements, are an important element 
concerning the development and utilization of the environmentally rational technologies. Article 7 
of the TRIPS Agreement provides that the protection  and enforcement of IPRs should contribute to 
the promotion of technological innovation and to the transfer and dissemination of the technology. 
Article 8 also provides that appropriate measures may be needed to prevent the abuse of IPRs by 
right holders or the resort to practices which adversely affect the international transfer of 
technology. Thus, IPRs should contribute to, but not become a barrier to, the transfer and dissemination of environmentally rational technologies.  
334.  Nothing in the TRIPS Agreement prevents its ex isting general flexibilities from its application 
to the environmentally rational technologies. We hope the discussions on this matter could further 
identify the problems and find the most appropriate solution for effectively promoting and facilitating developing country Members' access to the environmentally rational technologies, and 
provide a better environment and policy space for the transfer and dissemination of 
environmentally rational technologies from developed countries to developing country Members. 
11.11 South Africa  
 
335.  South Africa would like to support Ecuador on this important issue. South Africa believes that the objective of IPRs should be to both promote innovation and facilitate the diffusion of technology, balancing legitimate interest in a socially beneficial manner. Article 7 of the TRIPS 
Agreement reflects the search for a balanced approach to IPR in the societal interest. The IPR 
regime is expected to contribute not only to the promotion of technological innovation but also to the transfer and dissemination of technology in a way that benefits all stakeholders and that 
respects a balance of rights and obligations. 
336.   In addition Article 8 recognizes Members' rights to adopt TRIPS-consistent measures to 
protect inter alia not only public health and nutrition, but also the public interest in sectors of vital 
importance to their social economic and technological development. This provision also recognises 
that Members may need to take appropriate measur es provided that they are consistent with the 
TRIPS Agreement to prevent the abuse of IPRs by right holders or the resort to practices which unreasonably restrain trade or adversely affect the international transfer of technology. IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 49 - 
 
  11.12 Australia  
 337.  Australia is supportive of the work of WIPO and WTO to promote green technology innovation transfers. The WTO has facilitated discussion on IP and green technology through 
sponsoring workshops and various forums for discussion. In WIPO the Global Challenges Divisions 
provides information on climate change mitigation and adaptation as well as platforms for the development, transfer and diffusion of techno logical solutions. WIPO has hosted several 
conferences on IP and the transfer of environmen tal rational technology in recent years. As 
illustrated by country presentations at the two previous TRIPS Council meetings, there is substantial evidence of green technology innovation including in developing countries that voluntary technology transfer is occurring.  
338.  Australia considers that IP protection is necessary to continue this trend, which rewards 
research and development initiatives and encourages initial investment in green technology. Australia remains willing to work with Members on concrete practical suggestions which could 
contribute to the dissemination of green technologies without distorting the IP system. We would 
be open to further discussions on the role of IP in voluntary licensing of technologies associated with adaptation to, and mitigation of climate change, with a particular focus on the needs of the 
most vulnerable developing countries.  
339.  Australia is also committed to making environmental goods more accessible to developing 
countries. Australia has joined Switzerland and twelve other WTO Members recently in committing to prepare for negotiations to liberalise trade in environmental goods. Eliminating tariffs on 
environmental goods will lower the costs of these goods and make them more accessible, 
particularly for those developing countries participating. Members may also wish to Australia's intervention at the previous TRIPS Council meeting which provided a more detailed outline of our 
position on these issues. 
11.13 Brazil  
 
340.  I would like to thank Ecuador for raising, once again, the important issue of climate change 
and technology transfer. Brazil welcomes the debate and would like to present some considerations on the relationship between climate change and TRIPS Agreement. 
341.  TRIPS Agreement is a result of negotiations that have struck a delicate balance between 
stimulus to innovation and promotion of public interest in sectors of vital importance to 
socioeconomic and technological development of Me mbers. One principle of the Agreement is that 
IP contributes, not only to technological innovation, but also to technology transfer and technology 
dissemination, to the mutual advantage of producers and users of knowledge in a way conducive 
to social and economic welfare; 
342.  In this sense, the use of TRIPS flexibiliti es is pivotal to ensure that these objectives, 
socioeconomic and technological development, will be reached. Taking into account the big 
number of questions raised by some members on the subject, Brazil could go along with the proposal of Ecuador of updating their proposal with support from the Secretariat.  
11.14 Ecuador  
 
343.  We welcome the examples cited by several delegations and we undertake to review the information mentioned, although it is necessary to verify which initiatives deal with the transfer of 
technology protected by IPRs or technologies th at are not necessarily protected but are in the 
public domain, the latter not being relevant to our examination. 
344.  Notwithstanding the foregoing, we should like  to make the following remarks without fear of 
being mistaken. Before the Doha Declaration and before the main TRIPS guidelines regarding the 
balance that should exist between private interests derived from the patent system and public interest in peoples' access to health and medicines, there were isolated private initiatives intended to mitigate this lack of access without this signifying the absence of any problems or international 
determination set out in legal instruments necessary in order to be able to understand, determine 
and apply the flexibilities in this regard as now perceived and addressed at the international level. IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 50 - 
 
  345.  Although the initiatives mentioned by some delegations exist, this does not mean that we 
have an international picture that promotes proper dissemination of environmentally sound technologies (EST) and, in the texts referred to in the footnotes to Ecuador's proposals, the encouragement given for the transfer of environmentally rational technologies of benefit to the 
community, closely linked to IPRs, is insufficient and this is why we consider it necessary to pursue 
this discussion on the basis of a revised proposal that incorporates new elements, as well as those that may be put forward by the Secretariat. 
346.  What is not in doubt is that this issue is also one of public interest so all Members should 
share responsibility for adapting the TRIPS Agreement and domestic IP legislation with a view to achieving results similar to those obtained in the case of public health. This is why we need firm, measurable and verifiable commitments to ensure the transfer of EST and to set aside the rhetoric 
of the past and transform this commitment into reality that helps us to think of the future. 
347.  Ecuador wishes to thank other Members for participating in consideration of the proposal on 
the "Contribution of intellectual property to fac ilitate the transfer of environmentally rational 
technology", addressed at the Council's meetings in June and October 2013, which permitted a 
frank exchange of views and yielded contributions on a matter of extreme importance for the fight 
against climate change. 
348.  Ecuador remains convinced of the need for access to EST by developing countries as one of 
the principal tools for achieving better adaptation and/or mitigation of the effects of climate change. Such access would permit the construction of models that contribute to sustainable development because the ones that exist toda y do not allow full utilization of EST. 
349.  The comments, suggestions and recommendations made at previous meetings of this Council 
have underlined the urgent need to continue discussing this issue in order to reach a consensus that allows full utilization of EST by developing and least developed countries. 
350.  This is the framework within which the WTO and WIPO Secretariats can play a key role in 
providing new elements in response to the appe al from Members. In the discussions that took 
place, not one single Member spoke out against the latent concern at the harmful effects of 
climate change. Positions differ as to the way in which the problem should be tackled. 
351.  As became evident from the discussion on this issue, Ecuador, together with other countries, 
considers that developed countries control the use of  EST so there is vast gap in comparison with 
developing countries. It is therefore necessary to transfer this technology so that developing 
countries can effectively engage in the fight against climate change. In addition, developed 
countries consider that innovation is the way to combat the harmful effects of climate change and that IPRs and patents in particular are the catalyst for such innovation. 
352.  In the light of these positions, it is paramount to embark upon a constructive discussion 
analysing new studies and elements that can help Members of this Council to elucidate this problem as effectively as possible and what we all agree on is that it affects the international 
community as a whole. Ecuador therefore deems it necessary to incorporate into its proposal new 
elements that may be put forward by the WTO an d WIPO Secretariats in implementation of the 
cooperation agreement between the two organization s, together with the studies and work already 
undertaken or to be undertaken by other organizations relating to intellectual property and 
mechanisms for mitigating the effects of climate change. 
353.  The views expressed by Members in this Counc il will also be relevant to the task to be 
undertaken by Ecuador as it is of interest to reinforce the notion and relevance of the fact that the 
fight against climate change has to include the cooperation provided by the industrialized world to 
developing countries. Such cooperation basically implies effective facilitation in order to have broad access to EST. 
354.  Taking into account the foregoing, Ecuador requests all the Members of this Council to agree 
that the WTO Secretariat should undertake a study of the new elements which could provide ideas and enrich the debate on the tran sfer of EST to combat the harmful effects of climate change, a 
task that involves both developing and developed countries. IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 51 - 
 
  11.15 Benin  
 355.  This agenda item is as important as the othe rs we have taken up during this session. I would 
like to underline the importance of the contribution of IP to the promotion of transfer of technology 
and innovation, and of the link to environmental issues, particularly climate change. For that 
reason, my delegation, following others who have spoken previously, would like to strongly recommend that the scientific community and researchers in the business world undertake and 
promote cooperation so as to seek useful approa ches for the well-being and the health of the 
mankind as well as the balance and promotion of  sustainable development. The examples that 
have been shared with us on this and other occasions should be disseminated. For this reason, the proposal that was submitted by the delegation of Ecuador is a useful basis on which we can work.  
356.  We would also like to indicate that the food for thought and the suggestions for possible 
solutions could be part of an effort to bring about mitigation adaptation in climate change, a beneficial partnership should be established and we would recommend, like other delegations, in 
particular Ecuador, that the Council continue to take up this item and that the WTO Secretariat, 
together with WIPO and the UNDP, work on pulli ng together the practices and experiences here 
and there in the international world, so that possible solutions and prospects can be gathered 
together in a compendium, so that in the near future this can help us to deal on a sustainable 
basis with this situation. 
11.16 United States  
 
357.  We would welcome an opportunity to discuss this important issue again if Ecuador decides to 
put it on the agenda. This is the third meeting where we have had this discussion, and we look forward to the fourth. However, I do not think we are in the position yet for the Secretariat to be 
reporting or reaching out to other organizations on this issue. Clearly, if WIPO has some views on 
it, as an observer they are within their mandate to respond. But we cannot support the preparation of a study at this time, or at least we would need to further consider what would be 
the scope of such Secretariat work, what would be the parameters. We are hearing this proposal 
for the first time and will need to go back home and to consider, so I think we are going to need further time to consider and are not in a position to support that suggestion today. 
11.17 Ecuador  
 
358.  Ecuador would like to thank all of the Members for the very high level at which we have dealt 
with this topic. It is a topic, as has been said, that affects the entire international community and it 
is our hope that the US delegation will consult with their capital on the relevance of requesting the 
WTO and WIPO Secretariats, along with others, as referred to by the delegate of Benin, to submit new studies that will help to stimulate further study. We want to bring in new information that will 
enable us to take correct decisions moving in the correct direction in order to counteract negative 
effects of climate change. I would request that this item be placed on the agenda of the next meeting, so that there would be no need for Ecuador to send in documentation in order to request the inclusion of this item on that agenda. 
11.18 United States  
 359.  As a point of order, I think that what Ecuador is suggesting is suspending the rules of 
procedure and we cannot support that at this time without further consideration. Delegations may 
submit a request for an item. I am not quite sure why this is a special item, as some of the Members have said today. This is an agenda item, important as it is, like any other. 
11.19 Ecuador  
 360.  This is really a question for the Secretariat. Ecuador has always respected all of the procedures and rules, but would like to have a clarification as to whether the subjects which are 
being discussed by the Council have been the subject of a specific request by particular countries 
to be included on the agenda? IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 52 - 
 
  11.20 Secretariat  
 361.  The rules of procedure for meetings of the General Council, which in this respect also apply to the TRIPS Council, provide that "its shall be open to any Member to suggest items for inclusion 
in the proposed agenda up to, and not including, the day on which the notice of the meeting is to 
be issued", and that "requests for items to be placed on the agenda of forthcoming meetings shall be communicated to the Secretariat in writing, together with accompanying documentation to be 
issued in connection with that item". So this is  the normal procedure when a delegation wants to 
put any additional items on the proposed agenda. Our practice has been that if the same delegation or some other delegation wants to revert to such a matter at a subsequent meeting, then it submits a new request. As you are aware, there are a number of themes to which the 
Council has returned several times, not necessarily at the request of the same delegation, but also 
by another delegation, or sometimes by groups of delegations. Of course the Council can take a decision by consensus to revert to such a matter at its next meeting. However, the normal and 
non-controversial procedure is, where a delegation wants to continue the discussion of such an 
item, that it submits a written request after whic h the item will be included on the proposed 
agenda. 
11.21 Chairman  
 362.  May I ask whether the Council, pursuant to Ecuador's suggestion, is willing to agree to have this item on the agenda of its next meeting. If not, Ecuador has every right to once again request 
it in writing. 
11.22 United States  
 
363.  We need to fully consider the implications of this issue and would prefer to review this issue 
back in capital. We are perfectly happy to return to this agenda item if Ecuador submits a written 
request through the normal procedures. 
11.23 Ecuador  
 364.  We regret that a single Member of the Council is unable to join the consensus. I do not really understand it because, in various statements that have been made by the same Member, they 
have led us to believe that it is a matter of interest to them and we are very grateful for all of the 
examples that have been cited. We simply do not understand why taking up the same item at the next Council meeting is a problem. We have proposed the preparation of new studies and indicated 
that we will submit a revised version of our proposal on this topic. So we would urge the US 
delegate to agree that this item could be on the agenda for the next meeting, as happened in October at the last Council in which the United States was in agreement to deal with this item. 
There have been so many Members who have said that it is a topic of interest to them and 
therefore we would ask for the indulgence of the Unit ed States in enabling us to consider this item. 
11.24 Chairman  
 
365.  I suggest that the Council take note of the statements made. Since delegations may exercise 
their rights under the provisions in a rational way, there is no need to have a discussion in the Council on the interpretation of the rules. So I would invite any interested delegation to submit a 
written request for the inclusion of any item of interest to them. 
11.25 Ecuador  
 
366.  Ecuador would already like to indicate that it will put a request to the Secretariat at the 
appropriate time in order to continue consideration of this item. IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 53 - 
 
  AGENDA ITEM 12: IP AND INNOVATION: UNIVERSITY TECHNOLO GY PARTNERSHIPS 
12.1 United States  
 367.  The United States sponsored this agenda item in order to continue our conversation of the 
positive role of IP in the innovation lifecycle, including for consumers and for economic 
development, as part of the enabling environment for technology transfer.  
368.  Universities around the world are engines for innovation and technology transfer. And if they 
are not today, they can be tomorrow, with the right policy framework. Universities are often 
responsible for the basic research that gives rise to the next big idea that can change peoples' lives for the better. Universities are therefore often the first step in this innovation lifecycle, but 
too often the big idea does not make it to the mark etplace. The promise of innovation that is first 
conceived by professors and researchers in university laboratories frequently goes unrealized. 
369.  Just as IPRs protection and enforcement is crucial to protecting consumers and the 
investments that are made in research and development, IPR is also a critical factor in the forming 
the university technology partnerships that translate basic research into goods and services for 
consumers, that deliver the social benefits of innovation. 
370.  IPRs facilitate the commercialization of innovations, by enabling the innovators to attract 
investors. With a patent, plant variety protection or a design right, the information has become a 
tradable commodity, a product that can be licensed or sold. 
371.  Technology partnerships leverage technolo gy transfer by provid ing universities with 
additional resources to find solutions to pr oblems, manufacturing knowledge, knowledge of 
adaptations required for marketing to comply with local laws and regulations. In short, technology 
partnerships allow research begun in a univers ity setting to advance to a commercial setting. 
Universities, therefore, are not only laboratories of ideas, but also incubators for start-ups and 
spin-offs. 
372.  Universities benefit from such partnerships in that they may derive revenue from the 
transaction, as well as providing an educational and financial opportunity for their professors and 
researchers to further develop technologies in businesses of different sizes. The partners of 
universities: other universities, government entities, and the private sector, benefit in that they may be able to reach a market faster with innovative technology from the university.  
373.  Furthermore, university research is also impo rtant to the private sector in that the private 
sector does not always have the resources to invest in research and development, and 
partnerships can give them access to the new technologies. 
374.  The Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation or WARF, for instance, exemplifies the university 
technology transfer model, by advancing scientifi c research at the University of Wisconsin in 
Madison by patenting technologies from the university and licensing the inventions to companies capable of developing them to benefit humankind. Proceeds from the activities are invested in an 
endowment that supports research at the Universi ty of Wisconsin in Madison and the Morgridge 
Institute for Research. WARF was founded in the United States in 1925, by a group that recognized the importance of IP to facilitate the development and commercialization of inventions. 
375.  In the 1920s many people, especially children, suffered from the bone disease rickets. Harry 
Steenbock was a professor at the University of Wi sconsin-Madison, and discovered that irradiating 
food with ultraviolet light enriched its vitamin D content. Using his own money he filed a patent application. 
376.  And Professor Steenbock's patent was recognized for its tremendous value. He was 
approached by a company and was offered $900,000 dollars (about $10 million today) for his technology. He did not immediately accept this o ffer. While there are many models of university 
technology transfer, Professor Steenbock's tale tells the story of university technology transfer 
generally. He turned back to his universi ty and offered to donate his invention. IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 54 - 
 
  377.  But the University turned him down. The State Attorney General said that it had no authority 
to spend money on a faculty member's IP. Yet, Professor Steenbock was creative and he did not give up. He and nine University of Wisconsin alumni founded the first technology transfer office in the United States – WARF. Mr. Steenbock's pa tent was granted to WARF, WARF licensed the 
patent to the company, and by the time the pate nt expired, children were drinking milk with 
vitamin D, and WARF had received more than $14 million dollars. He had also created a model of technology transfer that continues not only in Wisconsin, but around the world. 
378.  In 2005, WARF was recognized with the U.S. National Medal of Technology. The citation for 
the medal stated that it recognized the "support of  the entire cycle of innovation, from research to 
invention to investment" provided by WARF and th at "WARF pioneered the transfer of university 
ideas to U.S. business to improve the human condit ion, benefit the U.S. economy and fund further 
scientific inquiry." And today, WARF handles all of the technology licensing for the University of 
Wisconsin and is a leader in it field. WARF epitomizes the model of university innovation and technology transfer, which principally consists of mobilizing university research resources and IP 
assets in order to develop partnerships to drive innovation to the marketplace and to catalyze 
further research. 
379.  Universities can excel at basic research. Their professors and researchers often reside at the 
cutting edge of technology in laboratories that permit  us to peer into the future, even if only for an 
instant. 
380.  Universities do not, however, typically excel at commercialization, nor should they. That 
said, university technology transfer offices, like WARF, serve as the critical bridge from professors 
to pharmacy shelves, from laboratories to th e low-carbon marketplace. Basic research often 
remains the primary university priority, and by harn essing IP, technology transfer offices generate 
much-needed capital to re-invest in further basic research. Where public sector funding can be 
scarce and grants can be highly-competitive to secure, the IP-revenue generated from university 
technology partnerships is critical to the sustainability of continued university research. 
Important University Technology Partnerships 
 
381.  So, you may ask – "what have university technology partnerships actually brought us?" The list is long, too long to attempt to even begin to recite today. On promising list is available at: www.onlineuniversities.com/blog/2012/08/100-impo rtant-innovations-that-came-from-university-
research/   
382.  Several highlights include: 
 Fluoride toothpaste.  Fluoride toothpaste wasn't invented at a university, but it was perfected 
there. While fluoride had been an ingredient in toothpaste since 1890, it was not until Dr. 
Joseph Muhler at Indiana University headed up a Procter & Gamble project that the FDA-approved version we know today was concocted. 
  
 The seat belt.  The first modern three-point seatbelt that is found in most vehicles today was 
developed by Roger Griswold and Hugh DeHaven at the Aviation Safety and Research Facility at Cornell University in New York and was the result of intensive crash injury 
research. The device would later be perfected by Nils Bohlin at Volvo. Other seatbelt 
research would be conducted at the University  of Minnesota by James "Crash" Ryan in 1963, 
further pushing forward the science of safety. 
  
Technology Transfer Partnership Resources  
383.  But, the university technology transfer offices that helped advance these breakthroughs do 
not exist in isolation and cannot survive without the proper regulatory framework. Conversely, 
situated in an innovative environment, university technology partnerships can flourish. 
384.  The United States has identified key aspects of an innovative environment in past 
interventions under this agenda item. But, if you are looking for a second opinion, WIPO has also 
opined on this issue. IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 55 - 
 
  385.  In 2003, WIPO commissioned, with funds from the Japan Funds in Trust, a series of studies 
on University Technology Transfer Partnerships in China, India, Japan, Philippines, the Republic of 
Korea, Singapore and Thailand. We would be very  interested in an update of these national 
experiences. 
386.  In addition, the study resulted in a document, " Developing Frameworks To Facilitate 
University-Industry Technology Transf er A Checklist Of Possible Actions ." While I will not read it to 
you now, I will highlight key for technology transfer to occur including: 
 An efficient IP system.  
 University has the right to own and manage IP Rs and transfer technology to industry for 
commercialization. 
 Clear and transparent policy on IP ownership by  public universities or when there is public 
funding component.  
 Development of human resources skilled in technology transfer activities. 
 Requirements to inventions resulting from public funding be commercialized. 
 Safeguarding the public interest.  
 Programs to support the establishment of technology transfer offices.  
 A grace period so that publication of research results prior to filing a patent application does 
not compromise their patentability. 
 Framework for the establishment of spin-off companies. 
 Seed funding for spin-offs and start-ups.  
 
387.  With that, we look forward to hearing from  other Members today regarding their university 
technology transfer programs and national policies to stimulate and diffuse university innovation. 
12.2 Australia   
 
388.  We would like to thank the US for proposing this item for the agenda. Australian universities are renowned for the depth and diversity of the research and development opportunities they 
provide and the quality output they produce, leading to advances in medical and scientific 
research, new technological innovation and improvements in economic productivity. Australian universities are highly globalised and actively persue international partnerships with the objective of encouraging innovation and the development of ne w IP output through joint projects, and this is 
illustrated by growing institution-to-institution links including through a significant increase in new 
memorandums of understanding, particularly across Asia.  
389.  The Australian government is committed to fostering international research collaboration, 
including through funding for strategic research funds currently in place with India and China. 
Under this model, governments make a co-investment in the fund to foster strategic research and collaboration of mutual benefit. Funding is directly towards the establishment of joint research 
centres, group missions and research knowledg e exchange. The Australian government has 
encouraged greater industry collaboration to ensure that research output meets the current and future needs of industry, including through the es tablishment of Cooperative Research Councils or 
CRCs, which foster end-user driven research partnerships involving researchers, industries, 
communities and governments. There are currently 40 active CRCs operating in the fields of 
agriculture, forestry and fishing, manufacturing and services. Over the life of the CRC programme, 
non-government commitment to CRC research has equated to over three times the amount of 
government seed funding.  
390.  Australia has also targeted IP innovation through the industry innovation precincts which 
bring together value chains by partnering with stakeholders across industry. Researchers work 
with business to develop new innovations, increasing the productivity, efficiency and 
competitiveness of businesses across their indu stry. Two new precincts were opened in 2013, 
focusing on the food and beverage industry and the manufacturing sector. IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 56 - 
 
  12.3 Canada  
 391.  Universities lie at the forefront of innovative thinking and provide an environment that encourages research and development. The qualit y and quantity of academic publishing from 
universities greatly contributes to the dissemination of information around the world. Apart from 
this large availability of information, universities provide much value to encouraging innovation through their technology partnerships. Part of this equation is to address effective IP management 
to encourage and reward successful outcomes.  
392.  Effective IP management is a key componen t of successful academic-business collaboration. 
Many post-secondary institutions are working to better tailor IP agreements to the needs of different sectors to ensure that the research, ideas and knowledge generated by faculty, students, 
and graduates are more easily accessible to businesses. National associations including the 
Alliance for Commercialization of Canadian Technologies and the Association of University Technology Managers have developed standardized  IP templates and other tools to enhance the 
practice of knowledge transfer. The use of these templates can help to streamline the negotiation 
process so that collaborative research activities between post-secondary institutions and businesses are more effective.  
393.  One project example that Canadian universities  are involved in that help promote technology 
transfer and assistance is the University Partne rships in Cooperation and Development Program. 
This program supports partnerships between Ca nadian universities and higher education 
organizations in Latin America, Africa, Asia, the Middle East and Eastern Europe. The purpose of 
this program is to strengthen the capacities of higher education institutions in developing countries 
in a wide range of areas contributing to poverty reduction. Part of this program provides direct training to learners who then go on to train others and strengthens educational programs in a wide 
range of sectors. In particular, outcomes seen fr om this program led to improvements in building 
expertise to sustainably manage natural resources and increasing skills in more efficient technologies such as drip irrigation. 
394.  Another example of successful technology partnerships can be found in the Canada/Germany 
bilateral relationship. For over 40 years, the Canada-Germany Science and Technology Cooperation Agreement has fostered bilateral cooperation around the themes of research, 
discovery and innovation. As part of this process, efforts have been made to bring together 
executives from top universities and research councils to strengthen academic and commercial 
cooperation. This illustrates the importance of seeking out international partnerships between universities which help lead to complementary pairings between universities and researchers. 
These outcomes will foster greater innovation an d improving the quality of life for all parties. 
395.  The creation of these technology partnerships leads to a greater understanding and 
dissemination of technical information and knowledg e on which a product, process, or service is 
based, along with the transfer of skills and know-how, all of which combine to help stimulate 
further innovation. Furthermore, IPRs can provide additional incentives by potentially rewarding inventors and authors for their creations that lead to commercialization in the marketplace.  
396.  We underscore the fact that patents have an important role to play in the dissemination of 
technology. Apart from financial gains for businesses, patent disclosures help contribute to the 
wider knowledge base surrounding inventions, leading to further innovations in this area.  
397.  We can all continue to build upon these ideas to simplify the transfer, management and 
commercialization of academic research and provide greater certainty to business 
partners. Universities can be encouraged to work collaboratively on common tools and best practices to address the many complexities at the interface of academic research and 
industry. Canada's International Education Strategy aims to increase the number, breadth and 
depth of active collaborations between Canadian and foreign postsecondary institutions and research centres. Deeper links between research institutes and the attraction of researchers will 
help strengthen innovation and competitiveness—keys to success in today's highly competitive, 
knowledge-based economy. IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 57 - 
 
  12.4 India  
 398.  We are again surprised by the inclusion of an agenda item on "IP and Innovation: University Technology Partnerships" at the behest of one de veloped country. We hope that it remains a stand 
alone item. We have seen similar agenda items in the past meetings of the TRIPS Council where 
the developed countries tried to highlight the fact that IP was good because it would propel development. The developing countries on the other hand maintained that there was no evidence 
to prove that strong IP could deliver on development or innovation. In fact IP is only one of the 
several factors required for development. It is rather unfortunate that rather than addressing the long pending agenda items of this Council which are of interest to the developing countries, few Members are attempting to convert the TR IPS Council into a debating forum.  
399.  The framers of the TRIPS Agreement had a very clear view that there was no direct 
relationship between IP and development. They  therefore framed the Agreement by providing 
flexibilities and left it to the national legislations to define the path of innovation on the basis of 
their particular socio economic needs. While de veloped countries have tried to create private 
monopolies over minor or incremental innovations, the developing countries can define their own patent threshold on the basis of their socio ec onomic development. Thus in order to provide 
affordable access to medicines, educational material or any other tools for socio economic 
development, it is essential that the minor innovations do not get patented. Rather than fostering development, the monopoly rights through patents could in fact block invention /innovation and development in the developing countries. It is impo rtant to note that higher number of patents do 
not mean real innovation.  
400.  The proponent of this agenda item would like us to believe that IP would not only lead to 
innovation but by following the US model in their universities, we could convert our national 
universities into centres of growth and technolo gy transfer. While the model has been severely 
criticised even in the US, the proponents would li ke the governments to forget about the resources 
that they have invested in the Universities, provid ed these institutions demonstrate their output in 
the form of the number of patents that they have registered or the number of licensing 
agreements with the commercial entities. The over -emphasis on IP may thus deviate the focus of 
the universities from basic research and teaching to that of meeting the commercial needs of the industry. We therefore fail to understand the model where the government spends money but 
does not have any role in deciding the priorities for the universities. Thus, in an IP centric model, 
even if the government would have a priority for research in neglected diseases like Malaria or Typhoid to meet the needs of its large populati on, the universities may prefer to work on the 
diseases that could provide them better returns.  
401.  The model proposed by the US assumes that IP can facilitate innovation and transfer of 
technology. It may be relevant to a very few countries that have abundant resources and IP to 
protect. But the model cannot be extrapolated to other countries having very limited resources. In 
the developing countries, where the governments have limited funds even to attract the best brains to their universities or to develop their basic infrastructure, by defining the output of a university through a narrow focus on the number of registered patents, we suspect that the 
universities could become commercial enterprises by deviating from their objective of teaching and 
basic research. They would thus end up spending their limited resources on patent litigations and 
looking for opportunities to collaborate with industry.  
402.  Finally, we must not ignore the fact that most of the economic contribution of public sector 
research institutions has historically occurred without patents—through dissemination of knowledge, publications, presentations at conferen ces, and training of students. Throughout the 
20th century, the universities were the most powerful vehicles for the diffusion of basic and 
applied research by ensuring that their research remained in the public domain and the industry 
and other public sector researchers could use it . By creating exclusive rights over the output of research we suspect that it would result in over commercialisation of universities and may lead to 
issues of corruption, conflicts of interest etc. 
403.  It it is very important that we do not lose sight of the history of innovation. The developed 
countries have reached this level of development not through high IP standards but through a 
flexible approach. If there were patent monopolies even hundred years before, we would not have 
seen the current revolutions in varied fields like telecom, pharmaceuticals, engineering, IT etc. It 
therefore reminds me of the famous quote from Bill Gates where he said if people had taken out IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 58 - 
 
  patent monopolies when the web was still in its infancy, the IT industry would be at a complete 
standstill even today. 
404.  India strongly believes that innovation should happen in the universities. But creating 
monopolies through IPRs is not a solution. The Open Source Drug Discovery (OSDD) pioneered by 
the Centre for Scientific and Industrial Research is one such effort to provide innovative health 
products to the developing world at an affordable cost. The idea is to provide a global platform 
where the best minds can collaborate & collectively endeavour to solve the complex problems 
associated with discovering novel therapies for neglected tropical diseases like Tuberculosis, 
Malaria, Leishmaniasis etc. In fact the idea for Open Source Drug Discovery is inspired by the 
success of open Source models in Information Technology (For e.g., Web Technology, The Linux 
Operating System) and Biotechnology (For e.g., Human Genome Sequencing) sectors. OSDD 
collaboratively aggregates the biological, genetic and chemical information available to scientists in 
order to use it to hasten the discovery of drugs. Similar models could be replicated in other fields 
like environmental technologies and goods where IPRs create barriers in accessing them at an 
affordable cost.  
12.5 Hong Kong, China  
 
405.  Hong Kong, China would like to thank the United States for placing this item on the agenda. 
We welcome the opportunity to share with other Members our experience in university technology partnerships in the context of knowledge transfer. 
406.  In Hong Kong, we think that knowledge, including technology and expertise, generated in 
universities should not only stay there. Partnerships and collaboration between academia and 
business and the community will bring a synergy that can benefit society as a whole in multiple ways. Knowledge from academic research can improve our health, enhance efficiency and cost-
effectiveness of business operations, enrich our cu ltural lives, kindle entrepreneurship and open 
the doors to countless possibilities. In return, feedback from society can inform improvements and inspire new ideas for research and teaching. 
407.  In Hong Kong, knowledge transfer is no t only about science and technology. It also 
encompasses other disciplines such as healthcare, social sciences, arts and humanities, engineering and the environment. In our view, knowledge transfer is one of the three core 
functions of a university – a natural extension of research and teaching. The universities in Hong 
Kong are great supporters of knowledge transfer and have set up dedicated teams to promote it. 
Financial support, entrepreneurship education and assistance in marketing and outreach are provided to academic staff as well as students. 
408.  The Hong Kong government is also suppo rtive of knowledge transfer. Since 2009-10, we 
have dedicated HK$50 million (about US$6.4 million) per year to subsidise the universities to expand and step up their knowledge transfer activities. Funding is also available from the 
Innovation and Technology Fund to enhance the universities' capability in technology transfer and 
commercialisation of R&D outcome. 
409.  Although knowledge transfer is a relatively new concept in Hong Kong, our universities have 
in recent years made considerable progress in different areas. Below I would like to share with you 
a few examples. 
410.  A biologist at the City University of Hong Kong found that fish can be turned into reliable 
safety inspectors. After some genetic modification, the liver of a type of fish, medaka, can turn 
into fluorescent green when exposed to oestro gen. The more polluted the environment is, the 
brighter the green will be. This technology can provide a low-cost, reliable and fast safeguard against polluted and unsafe products including food and cosmetics. A City University graduate has 
now commercialised this technology and exported it to a number of countries. 
411.  At the Hong Kong Polytechnic University, some engineering professors believed and proved 
that optic fibres are not just for telecommunications. They found that optic fibres can also be used to record important parameters of mega-structures such as temperature and vibrations of trains, 
TV towers and buildings to ensure their safe operation. Optic fibres provide a reliable, durable and 
cost-effective means to detect abnormalities such as cracks and overheating. This technology is IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 59 - 
 
  currently used largely in Hong Kong's metro and railways and a number of express rail links and 
bridges in the mainland of China.  
412.  Hong Kong has used sea water for flushing for more than 50 years. The advantage is that 
precious drinking water can be saved, but the processing of the resulting sewage is financially and 
environmentally costly. An engineering professor at the Hong Kong University of Science and 
Technology found that a bacterium can be incubate d by the large amount of sulphates in sea water 
for processing waste water. Compared with the tr aditional method, this process can reduce 90% of 
sludge, 30% of greenhouse gas emission, and 50% of the cost. This technology has now been 
exported to the mainland of China and Cuba , where water shortage has become a growing 
concern. 
413.  Now we move to education and the arts. Cantonese opera has been staged in southern 
China for more than a thousand years and is an integral part of Hong Kong's cultural heritage. It is 
taught in the schools of Hong Kong as part of the music education and a means of preservation and promotion. The Hong Kong Institute of Educat ion, in partnership with Cantonese opera actors 
and schools, provides systematic training for te achers. The training programme is very well-
received and is a vivid illustration of how knowle dge can be passed from academia to society. 
414.  As can be seen from the above, knowledge transfer has brought considerable tangible and 
intangible benefits to Hong Kong and beyond. Th e higher education sector in Hong Kong will 
continue to step up their knowledge transfer acti vities, hopefully with even greater support from 
business and the community. Hong Kong, China looks forward to more opportunities to learn from and exchange views with other Members 
12.6 European Union  
 415.  The EU is happy to contribute once more to the important debates that have been taking 
place in the TRIPS Council on different aspects of "IPR and Innovation". Let me stress that we do 
not share a previous intervention that appeared to portray the past debates under this agenda point as opposing developed and developing countries. Such perspective entirely overlooks the 
numerous, valuable and constructive contributions that both developing and developed countries 
have made in the last couple of years under this agenda point highlighting and exemplifying how IP is one of the instruments for innovation. 
416.  The EU has supported partnerships among universities all over the world for many years. A 
lot of this cooperation has technology as one of its core elements and linked to this, the 
phenomenon of knowledge transfer. The import ance of improving Knowledge Transfer (KT) 
between public research institutions and extending this also to third parties is identified as one of 
the key areas for action by the European Commission. 
417.  In the Communication on the Innovation Union from 2010, other concrete actions are 
announced to facilitate effective collaborative rese arch and KT including developing a set of model 
consortium agreements and trans-national collaboration. In 2011, in the field of higher education, 
the Commission set out key policy issues to promote innovation in higher education through more interactive learning environments and strengthened KT infrastructure and encouraging partnerships and cooperation as a core activity through reward structures, incentives for 
multidisciplinary and cross-organisation cooperation and the reduction of regulatory and 
administrative barriers to partnerships between institutions and other public and private actors. 
418.  I can give you some examples, which reflect a small portion of what is happening on the 
ground: 
- The EU ASEAN university partnerships  which started back in 2000. The objective of the 
programme is to enhance cooperation between higher education institutions in the two 
regions, to promote regional integration wi thin ASEAN countries, and to strengthen the 
mutual awareness of European and Asian cultural perspectives. The programme promotes, amongst others, collaborative studies and research programmes and solidarity among scientists and scholars and scientific and scholarly knowledge and information dissemination. 
 IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 60 - 
 
  - Under Horizon 2020, the European Framework programme or Research and Innovation, 
emphasis has also been put on developing European Research Infrastructures  (ESFRI), 
which integrate and open up national research facilities, including e-infrastructures. The networks of research infrastructures across Europe strengthen its human capital base by 
providing world-class training for a new ge neration of researchers and engineers and 
promoting interdisciplinary collaboration. 
 
419.  These infrastructures are necessary to avoi d duplication of efforts, to coordinate and 
rationalise the use of facilities pool resources so that the Union can also acquire and operate research infrastructures at world level. The goal is to encourage research infrastructures to act as early adopters of technology, to promote R&D partnerships with industry, to facilitate industrial 
use of research infrastructures and to stimulate the creation of innovation clusters. This activity 
will also support training and/or exchange s of staff managing and operating research 
infrastructures. 
420.  These research infrastructures also support international partnerships and cooperation 
activities. 
- Under the umbrella framework of the so-called "Marie Curie Actions" (which also form part 
of the Horizon 2020 Programme mentioned above), a specific programme is destined for 
international cooperation: the International Re search Staff Exchange Scheme (IRSES). It 
helps research organisations (such as universities and research centres) to set up or strengthen long-term cooperation with others, through a coordinated exchange programme 
for their staff. All areas of research are co vered, except those under the EURATOM Treaty. 
 - The European Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) also has an international 
cooperation section. One of its prime actions is to develop Knowledge and Innovation 
Communities (KICs) which are made up of higher education institutions, research organisations and other stakeholders in the innovation process. A KIC connects excellence-
driven innovation hubs with a results oriented approach to attain the Horizon 2020 
objectives. KICs are comprised of collaborators from different cultures and backgrounds which challenge traditional collaborative models and thus create new value chains. The EIT is funding KICs through a contribution of €2.7 billion from Horizon 2020. 
 
421.  Individual EU Member States also have extensive bilateral research cooperation agreements with third countries. For example: 
- the United Kingdom, via its Science and Innovation Network (29 missions in 24 countries) 
and Joint Commissions. The Joint Commission with India, for example, amounts to joint funding commitments of £70 million for 7 new research agreements. One of the 
7 agreements is aimed at cooperative research on chronic non-communicable diseases such 
as diabetes, cardiovascular disease and chronic respiratory diseases. The UK also operates RCUK, a key facilitator for research cooperation agreements which promotes closer research relationships between Indian and British researchers and helps with the exploitation of 
jointly funded research results. A flagship UK-India program of collaboration has been the 
UK-India Education and Research Initiative (UKIERI). It has committed almost £25 million to support around 500 partnerships. A central component is the mobility of undergraduate and 
graduate students and collaborative research projects between the two countries. 
 - Spain carries out a lot of science and innovation cooperation via its two main government 
organisations: the Ministry of Science an d Innovation and the Consejo Superior de 
Investigaciones Cientificas. Spain has cooperation with developed, emerging and developing countries. For historical reasons, the target of most of the cooperation is carried out with Latina America and North Africa. The Agreements  are primarily for the exchange of research 
personnel but also include joint research and workshops, etc.  
 
IP generated  from collaborative  research 
 
422.  The results of research and innovation are, mo re often than not, protected by IP in order to 
reimburse costs related to the research and develo pment carried out. Of course, the owners of the 
IP are then responsible for the level of licensing they accord to third parties and the future sharing IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 61 - 
 
  of benefits if an innovation becomes a product sold on the commercial market. The IP portfolio is 
beneficial to all parties and thus also a good development tool for developing countries. 
423.  In general, collaborative research agreements are governed by four principles:  
- the parties will mutually notify each other th e IP generated and will undertake to protect the 
IP within a period of time 
- the parties will exploit effectively the IP generated - the parties will not exercise any discriminatory treatment 
- the parties will protect confidential information. 
 
424.  Participants must jointly develop a Technology Management plan with reference to the IP, publications and the use of the IP created during th e joint research. Usually, the IP will be jointly 
owned.  
425.  The European Commission has produced European Research Area Guidelines on IP 
Management in international research collaboration agreements between European and 
non European Partners. http://ec.europa.eu/research/innova tion-union/index_en.cfm?pg=other-
studies  
12.7 Japan  
 
426.  This delegation would like to express its deep gratitude to the US for the efforts in proposing the "IP and Innovation -university technology partnership" as an agenda item of this Council meeting. Japan appreciates this opportunity and wi shes to share its view and experiences in this 
field with other Members. 
427.  At the outset, Japan would like Members to be aware that it is highly beneficial for all 
Members to deepen their understanding on how the IP system is actually linked to innovation, in 
the context of university-technology partnerships. From this point of view, we will make an 
intervention. 
428.  This delegation recognizes that a great number of valuable technologies are being developed 
at universities, and many of them could form the bases for innovation. Based on the idea that 
innovation can be promoted by effectively utiliz ing these technologies, various efforts have been 
made to facilitate the commercialization of technologies developed at universities in Japan. 
429.  First of all, this delegation would like to share with Members one case based on our own 
experience. It is a case in which a university-launched venture company successfully started 
business operations by obtaining a patent for the technology that it developed jointly with a university, and then effectively util ized this patent in its business. 
430.  This venture company successfully developed products featured with  micro actuators, as 
typified by micro plastic gear. The notable point of  this story is that the company succeeded based 
on combining moulding technology and tribology, which had been researched and developed at a 
local university, with high-precision processing technology, which was specific to and typical of the 
company's region. 
431.  Although an executive of this company had originally worked at a manufacturing plant of a 
leading manufacturer, he lost his job due to the sudden closure of the plant. However, having 
obtained assistance from an association that promotes industry-university cooperation, he finally 
succeeded in developing "micro gear", as already stated, by utilizing the moulding technology and tribology that originated from the local university researched and developed. 
432.  After establishing a venture company, he obtained a patent for the technology of micro 
plastic reduction gears that he had developed jointly with the university. He then strategically marketed this technology, highlighting the technology itself as a competitive product. Today, this 
technology is being used in various products in notable fields; for instance, in autofocus 
mechanisms on single-lens reflex cameras in the optical equipment field, and in micropipettes in IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 62 - 
 
  the medical equipment field. Thus, this universi ty-developed technology has significantly been 
contributing to developing innovation. 
433.  This delegation hopes that Members will see, based on this exemplar case, the following 
three points. 
434.  First, this venture company focused on the capa bility and importance of this 
university-developed technology and sought ways to connect the technology to its business. Technology of this kind contributed to not only expanding the business of his company but also 
providing an incentive to the university that assisted him to further conduct R&D activities. 
435.  Second, this venture company utilized its pa tent effectively. The company obtained patent 
rights not only for the core technologies developed jointly with the university but also for applied technologies too. By doing so, the company gained bargaining advantages in negotiations it 
conducted with other companies, which led to smooth and efficient commercialization of the 
university-developed technology. 
436.  Third, this venture company was established with the support of the Government of Japan. It 
was regarded by a regional consortium as a business in which R&D activities should be furthered. 
The Government of Japan has actively worked on promoting commercialization of university-developed technologies, by way of, for example, launching projects that support industry-
university collaborations and enacting laws that support the activities of TLOs, or Transfer 
Licensing Organizations, which assist in transferri ng university-developed technologies to industry. 
437.  This delegation lastly would like to emphasiz e, once again, that finding an effective way to 
link university-developed technology to busi ness is indispensable in terms of facilitating 
innovation. In line with this, it also should be noted that IP such as patents plays a crucial role in 
transferring technology from universities to comp anies. It should be well worthy for Members to 
deepen their understanding on the "linkage" needed between IP and business activities, and reflect 
such "linkage" into their own policies, through sharing cases in which IP was successfully utilized 
or their efforts to facilitate such utilization. This delegation welcomes further discussions on these issues at this Council and also would like to continue to make active contributions by sharing our 
views and experiences that we hope  are useful to other Members. 
12.8 New Zealand  
 438.  The question of how to successfully commercialise ideas developed within universities is a 
live one for New Zealand as we seek to increa se the contribution of higher education to 
New Zealand's economic growth. My comments today will focus on one particular facet of this issue. 
439.  New Zealand is a small player (an estima ted 1.7%) in a growing international higher 
education market.  
440.  In 2011, the New Zealand Government set a goal of doubling the economic value of New 
Zealand's international education services by 2025. Education New Zealand plays an important 
role in assisting the Government to achieve this objective: it markets New Zealand's education industry overseas and it has been tasked with  growing the economic value of New Zealand's 
international education industry to achieve the Government's 2025 target. 
441.  In achieving this goal, Education New Zealand does not rely only on seeking to attract more 
students to New Zealand, but also on increasing the revenue from international education services. Some of the ways this can be achieved is through supporting participants in the education sector 
to enter into joint ventures – and we have heard a lot of examples of this in other Members' 
statements, but also through the commercialisation of IP held by providers and agencies in the 
sector for sale internationally. 
442.  Education New Zealand is working with organisations in the New Zealand education sector, 
including universities, to explore the capacity of institutions to commercialise their institutional IP. IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 63 - 
 
  443.  Commercialisation of IP is just one area of Education New Zealand's interest in the topic of 
university technology partnerships. Obviously commercialising research is another important factor, as other Members have discussed today. The discussion today in the Council will provide useful food for thought as this policy work continues.  
12.9 Chinese Taipei  
 444.  At previous meetings, we have discussed the benefits that the IP system can bring to the 
local economy, and we shared our experiences of supporting industrial innovation, assisting in the 
creation of small and medium-sized enterprise s, and so on. Now, we turn to discuss the 
partnership between universities and industries on research and development. 
445.  We can all agree on the significance of the academia as origin of creation and innovation. 
However, without the bridge that brings academia  and industries together, there would probably 
be no benefit at all to society, the economy or the community. Therefore, in the pursuit of industrial development and economic growth, in our experience it is essential that some form of 
close cooperative partnership is established between academia and industries. 
446.  Many of our trade and economic policies, as well as programmes, have been based on a 
realization of the importance of establishing this close cooperation. We have actively encouraged 
our industries and academic institutions to work together in a technical alliance. Within the 
framework of this alliance, the industries ca n provide the resources for innovation and the 
academics develop the technologies to meet the de fined industrial needs. Up to now, two such 
alliances have been established.  
447.  Also, from 2009 to 2011, a 3-year partnership programme was set up between universities 
and regional industries, in which some 20 univers ities devoted their entire research capacity to 
regional development. 753 cases of technolo gy transfer were successfully completed. 
448.  Persuading industries and the academia to work together is a "win-win" policy. The whole 
economy benefits as a direct result of their cooperation. 
12.10 Brazil  
 
449.  Brazil would like to thank the US delegation  for proposing this agenda item and welcome the 
debate on IP and Innovation: University technology partnerships.  
450.  At the outset, it is important to highlight that patents are far from being the single element 
driving innovation. It is only one in a larger mix of different tools that promote innovation. The 
Global Innovation Index, for example, refers  to the importance of linkages and the right 
infrastructure for innovation, to the fact that collaboration, the flow of ideas among different 
innovation players, and access to knowledg e as important ingredients of innovation. 
451.  My first comment is that any in-depth discussion on this topic must be based on the 
realization that the granting of exclusive IPRs can only be justified to correct a potential failure in 
the markets of technology and knowledge. 
452.  That correction of situations of market failure entails costs for society. By establishing 
monopolies, however provisional they may be, protection of IP can impair market efficiencies in allocating production factors and resources. To compensate for the possible costs of misallocation, 
the IP system demands, in return for the granting of exclusive or monopolistic IPRs, full disclosure 
of the know-how of the protected invention in such a way that society as a whole may benefit from it and build upon it.  
453.  Regarding the efforts to balance rights in some international models of university technology 
partnerships, one example that can be mentioned is the march-in rights mechanism. This mechanism is applied in cases where a public funded invention has not been adequately developed 
or applied to inventions within a reasonable time required by the government allowing for non-
exclusive licensing.  IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 64 - 
 
  454.  This essential trade-off to the patent system has another component: to be able to apply for 
it, inventions must be, according to Article 29, novel, useful and non-obvious. Not all innovations or inventions should be entitled to patent protection. This is clear enough. However, what exactly should be protected and how to translate the three conditions for patent application in Article 29 
into national legislation and regulations remains one of the most intractable and divisive issues 
whenever one discusses the current international patent system.   
455.  Against this background, the greatest challenge for public policy makers in any country is 
arguably how to design a theoretically "optimal" system that would be capable of generating 
incentives for investment in innovation while at the same time minimizes losses caused by the granting of IP rights. 
456.  Having said that, I would like to refer to  Brazilian national experience in University 
Technology Partnerships. Since the adoption of the Innovation Act in 2004, all the Brazilian 
universities and research institutes are encouraged to establish Technological Innovation Centres (the so-called NITs) with a view to manage their innovation policies. In accordance with the 
Innovation Act, the NITs are responsible for (a) safeguarding  institutional policies related to the 
fostering of creations' protection, licensing, inno vation and transfer of technology; (b) evaluating 
and classifying the results obtained from resear ch activities and projects developed by the 
institution; (c) assessing the convenience and promoting the protection of the inventions 
developed by the institution; and (d) monitoring the processing of applications and the maintenance of IPRs of the institution. 
457.  The NITs have an important role in raising awareness on how to innovate and protect 
inventions. The NITs are also responsible for managing the partnerships between the institution 
and the private sector, fostering public-private cooperation. 
458.   After 10 years, the NITs still face some challenges, but it is important to note that they are 
changing the way universities and research institutes work in Brazil. In 2012, 176 institutions 
participated in a broad research with a view to evaluate the implementation of the Innovation Act. The results were very positive: 116 institutions already completed the establishment of their NITs 
and 49 are completing the process. Before the Innovation Act, only few institutions had a structure 
similar to a NIT and they were concentrated in the most developed regions of the country. The establishment of the NITs was followed by the gr owth of investments in research and development 
in such institutions and of the patent applications submitted by them both in Brazil and abroad. In 
fact, in 2012, three of the top five spots in PCT patent applications in the Brazilian Patent office 
(INPI) were occupied by Brazilian Universities. 
12.11 Guatemala   
 
459.  We welcome the United States' proposal regarding the inclusion of agenda item 12, under which we can discuss the relevance of academia in promoting development. 
460.  Universities have recently been discovering their multifaceted potential and creativity, which 
is not confined to literary works or conceptual issu es but also involves targeted research that can 
in some way respond to countries' social or economic needs, by meeting the key objectives of innovation. 
461.  Under the triple helix model (university-industry-government), universities  play the central 
role, conducting research and development activities based on academic principles; industry  is 
a supplier whose commercial activities aim to meet  customer demands in order to generate new 
business opportunities; and governments  are responsible for the political conditions and the 
proper regulatory framework to foster environments conducive to growth. 
462.  Academic activity is therefore an essentia l component of national policy when it comes 
to framing a strategy for innovation and the transfer of technology, in that it encourages the 
efficient use of IP systems. My delegation accordingly considers that it will be most useful to continue discussing the matter in these Council meetings. IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 65 - 
 
  12.12 Switzerland  
 463.  We would like to associate ourselves with the statements made by previous delegations 
about the value of this agenda item for the pu rposes of the discussions held in this Council. 
Innovation must benefit public society. From this perspective, an invention is then useful if it 
reaches the market and consumer as a finished and marketable product. 
464.  Scientists doing active research in innovative fields of technology are, despite their genius in 
academic research, often not naturally born entr epreneurs, manufacturing experts or marketing 
specialists. So the challenge is how to bring these various talents together and eventually an invention successfully to the market. 
465.  The missing link is a matching mechanism of  good ideas and entrepreneurs that are ready to 
take the risk of investing in a new technology. 
466.  There are a number of prerequisites for closing this gap. First, we need legal certainty and a 
reliable system of justice and second, it is impo rtant to have enough transparency in order to 
enable the matching of technological inventions and the industry that is able to market this 
invention. The IP system and patents in particular play a key role in bridging this gap by bringing 
together the stakeholders and helping them to structure and manage their business relationship. 
467.  For the purpose of signalling their new idea s and inventions to potential investors and other 
venture partners, most Swiss academic research institutions own a Technology Transfer Office 
(TTO). These offices motivate researchers to protec t their inventions by patents. The university will 
be the owner of these patents. The TTO will try to find entrepreneurs to licence their invention out 
for further development of those ideas. In more recent times, it also happens that researchers 
themselves license back their inventions for a sm all license fee and build a new company in form 
of a spin off. 
468.  This practice of licensing out the results of the publicly financed research at universities 
results in a double benefit for the public interest. On the one hand, the revenue generated by the licence fees can be reinvested in additional re search at the university and thereby relieve the 
public budget, on the other hand, the spin-off enterprises generate ne w jobs and tax revenue. 
469.  In Switzerland, a considerable number of inno vative SMEs have their roots in such university 
spin offs. To name just one: Based in Zurich, Switzerland, Prionics is one of the world’s leading providers of farm animal diagnostic solutions and is a recognized centre of expertise in BSE 
(Bovine Spongiforme Encephalopathy) or mad cow disease and prion disease. Founded in 1997 as 
a spin-off from Zurich University, Prionics’ today 150 employees research and market innovative diagnostic solutions for major farm animal diseases, thereby making a major contribution to the 
protection of both animal and consumer health. 
12.13 El Salvador  
 
470.  Our delegation would like to welcome the inclusion of this agenda item, particularly as we 
consider that it goes hand-in-hand with our domestic projects that we have been promoting, such as IP and the university initiatives which is part of our 5-year development plan of the government. It is implemented in our IP office whose dissemination role has meant that it is has 
been actively working to promote and interact with universities, research centres the competent 
training bodies for human and industrial resource s, amongst others, to thus enrich technology 
poles.  
471.  We have also been promoting important projects that would promote these efforts such as 
supporting through the WIPO support we had, the technological and innovation support centres, CATIS, which have facilitated our innovators access to local information services on technology 
and other related high-quality services, helping to take advantage of this initiative, promote 
creativity and promote and manage IP issues. Thus we indicate our support for the maintenance of this agenda item as it is a good pl atform for an exchange of experience. IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 66 - 
 
  12.14 Bangladesh  
 472.  We appreciate the initiative of the United  States for the introduction of this issue and 
welcome the debate and exchange of ideas in the Council. The issue of university technology 
partnership is important for both the developed and developing countries, but maybe for different 
reasons. We agree that university technology partnerships could be an important driver of economic growth, but there are two types of  universities – government and private.  
473.  We have nothing to say about the role or f unction of private universities and they usually 
operate as private companies. That is why private universities are free to indulge in any kind of commercially beneficial research and reserve patent protection. But public universities funded by the government in developing countries like Bangladesh are different cases, because the 
government is accountable to the people for the money they spend in all the sectors which 
includes education, research and universities. So while we describe the role of university technology partnerships regarding IP and innovation , it is obvious that it will not play the same 
role in all the countries with the same effect.  
474.  The present global IP regime does not provid e a level playing field, and does not necessarily 
promote innovation and development equally in all the countries. In most of the developing 
countries and in all the LDCs the private sector does not have the capacity to invest heavily in 
research and development; it is the government an d public sector which fill the gap created by the 
absence of the private sector in research. Big educational institutions like universities and governmental organizations do the bulk of research for the benefit of the common people. 
Government-sponsored universities and the research organization in the field of higher education 
in Bangladesh had developed high-yielding tea, pa ddy and jute in the field of agriculture and all 
the peoples of Bangladesh are benefiting from this invention. Domestically prepared oral 
dehydration salt for the treatment of diarrhoea was invented in Bangladesh by a government-
sponsored disease research centre, which is now saving the lives of millions all over the world. 
475.  However, for the interest of the people, these inventions were not protected, so we agree 
with the initial statement that universities can be an important source of IP and innovation, but 
due to lack of any identifiable transfer of techno logy and due to the spirit of universal benefit, 
public universities in the developing countries should always cater to the needs of the people based on the priorities for the social deve lopment, and protecting and patenting their 
achievements for commercial interest could be counter-productive to the idea of development. 
12.15 United States  
 
476.  I want to thank all of the delegations for their interventions on this item.  I also wanted to 
respond to a few of the questions raised. 
477.  One question was whether developing countries are engaged in university technology 
transfer.  Today’s interventions by several develo ping and developed countries provide the answer. 
WIPO has also confirmed the answer to this question in the affirmative.  
478.  According to the WIPO report we referenced in our intervention:  
Indian industry has really started collaborative programs with universities. Although 
Indian success in competing in the global market has been modest in the 
manufacturing sectors, its success in the software sector is remarkable. The market share for India in the global IT service business is now 4.4 %. Major global IT 
companies have outsourced some part of their operations to India and have 
established R&D centres there as well. In dian IT engineers are working in many 
industrialized countries and contributing to the advancement of information 
technology. A few world-famous universities like Indian Institute of Technology have 
made this success possible. 
 IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 67 - 
 
  479.  Also, according to the Indian Foundation fo r Innovation and Technology Transfer, there are 
numerous Indian universities and other institutions involved in technology transfer. These include:   
 Indian Institute of Science (IISc), Bangalore  
 Aligarh Muslim University 
 All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS)  
 Banaras Hindu University (BHU)  
 Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE)  
 Bose Institute, Kolkata 
 College of Engineering & Technology, Bhub aneswar Delhi College of Engineering  
 Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University  
 Harcourt Butler Technological Institute  
 Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI)  
 Indian Association for the Cultivation of Science (IACS)  
 Indian Institute of Foreign Trade (IIFT)  
 Indian Institute of Forest Management (IIFM)  
 Indian Institute of Information Technology ( IIIT), Kolkata  
 
480.  Additionally, a question was raised re garding whether the emphasis on industrial 
relationships and entrepreneurial activities is diverting universities from their main mission of education and research, we have researched this issue and found that technology transfer is not 
new to universities, and in fact dates back to the early 1800's in Europe, and expands education 
and research opportunities rather than diverting them.   
481.  Today’s universities must seek to provide students with experience that provides them with 
the opportunity to solve real world problems. It also provides them with experience in teaming 
with industrial scientists as well as giving them an opportunity to become comfortable with the 
industrial workplace environment.  
482.  As universities involve students in rela tionships with industry or provide them with 
opportunities to start new companies, universities recognize an obligation to do so in a manner 
that preserves the students' sense of balance and perspective as to the long-term value of the university experience. 
483.  Finally, a delegation asked whether collaboration with industry invariably creates financial 
conflicts of interest for academics and will change the ratio of basic to applied research.  We note 
that this issue has also been studied and concluded that the concern is unfounded.  
484.  University faculty interacts with industry as  educators, principal investigators under research 
programs, consultants, creators of IP used by  industry and as entrepreneurs. Accordingly, 
universities' conflict of interest policies seek to ensure that the personal financial interests of faculty do not improperly affect the content,  quality or timely release of research.  
485.  Moreover, studies show that the ratio of basic research to applied research has remained 
about the same since 1980. 
12.16 India  
 
486.  India appreciates the points that have been  made by the US delegation and the mention of 
the universities in this context. In fact what we wanted to say is that it is not that we are against transfer of technology from the universities, in fact the Indian universities have done quite well 
under Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) and National Institutes of Technology (NITs) and have 
done a great job in this part. What we want to stress, like Bangladesh, is that one should not only revolve around IP as if IP were th e only tool for transfer technologies, so we have concerns only on 
that particular issue.  IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 68 - 
 
  AGENDA ITEM 13: CONCERNS WITH RESPECT TO MEASURES RELATED TO PLAIN 
PACKAGING OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS AND THEIR COMPATIBILITY WITH THE TRIPS 
AGREEMENT 
13.1 Cuba  
 
487.  It is very important for Cuba, as one of the Members that initiated proceedings under the Dispute Settlement Understanding (DSU) in Austra lia - Certain Measures Concerning Trademarks, 
Geographical Indications and Other Plain Packaging Requirements Applicable to Tobacco Products 
and Packaging, to reiterate its concern over the ne gative impact from both the regulations adopted 
by Australia and related draft legislation that could be adopted by other Members. These are sui generis  measures that will be of singular importance for the dispute settlement system and 
could set a major legal precedent, especially in the area of IP. 
488.  As a result of the Plain Packaging Act adopted by Australia in December 2012, tobacco 
products that are marketed in this country must meet a series of packaging requirements. Olive 
green, pictograms and health warnings cover 75 % of the surface of the pack, while the brand 
name may appear in an insignificant way, with specified lettering and placement, on the remaining 25%. The use of any distinctive trademark sign, guarantee seal, logo and appellation of origin is 
also prohibited. 
489.  Implementation of the Australian law involves  totally diluting the distinctive features of 
tobacco product brands. It makes it difficult for consumers to identify these products on the basis of brand preference, so that brands no longer serve to distinguish the product or service from 
another, indicate origin or identify quality. 
490.  The first country to have adopted this law is Australia, but it is known that other WTO 
Members such as Ireland, the United Kingdom and New Zealand are considering different 
regulations to implement plain packaging systems as well. This forces us to consider the possibility 
that these types of measure could be extended to  other products that are also important export 
items for many developing countries. 
491.  We recognize every country's sovereign right to apply measures to protect the health of its 
people. Our action under the DSU does not aim to question this right, but to show that plain packaging constitutes an unwarranted and unnecessary restriction on international trade under the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT Agreement), infringes the minimum protection 
afforded to trademarks and other distinctive si gns under the TRIPS Agreement, and reduces the 
value of these exports, in violation of the GATT 1994. 
492.  Moreover, we appeal to the responsibility  of all Members to analyse the socio-economic 
implications of the proposed measures, especially for the developing countries and small and 
vulnerable economies. 
493.  We would also like to reiterate our conc ern over the effects of plain packaging on the 
production of counterfeit tobacco products. Illicit trade is an immediate consequence of the 
implementation of plain packaging, which will make it increasingly feasible to sell counterfeit products that lack the quality of the original products, affecting the very consumers that this law is supposedly trying to protect. 
494.  With this statement, we wish to call for caution in light of the proliferation of draft legislation 
on plain packaging at a time when various developing countries are challenging this measure before the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB). The im portance that the Membership places on these 
proceedings should be taken into account, given the considerable number of Members that are 
participating as third parties in the disputes already under way. All this because of the measure's clear systemic implications. 
495.  In view of the above, we would urge the Members that continue promoting the introduction 
of these measures domestically to refrain from doing so until there is a clear ruling from the DSB on their legitimacy. We also respectfully urge those countries to examine and assess other, alternative measures that are consistent with the WTO rules and more effective and relevant to 
the health objectives at stake. IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 69 - 
 
  13.2 Dominican Republic  
 496.  The Dominican Republic fully shares Cuba’s concerns regarding plain packaging measures for 
tobacco products and is determined to pursue its complaint against Australia’s plain packaging 
measures.
2  The Dominican Republic has already filed its first request for establishment of a WTO 
panel but this was rejected by Australia at the Dispute Settlement Body (DSB) meeting on 17 December 2012.
3 Australia will no longer be able to block the establishment of a panel when 
the Dominican Republic files a second request to the DSB. 
497.  At a number of TRIPS Council and TBT Committee meetings, my Government has expressed 
its serious concerns regarding plain packaging of tobacco products.  It has done so with respect to Australia’s measures, as well as with regard to similar initiatives proposed by, for instance, New 
Zealand and Ireland.
4  In those communications, the Dominican Republic has explained in detail 
why plain packaging of tobacco products is incompatible with the TRIPS Agreement and the TBT Agreement. We will not repeat these arguments today. 
498.  Rather, we wish to urge governments to delay considering the adoption of plain packaging 
for tobacco products until the WTO has ruled on the challenges against Australia’s plain packaging measures.  We expect the WTO panel to find that these measures are inconsistent with WTO 
Members’ obligations under both the TRIPS Agreement and the TBT Agreement.   
499.  Plain packaging destroys the valuable differentiating role of trademarks and geographical 
indications in the marketplace, thereby making it impossible for our producers to signal their premium quality to consumers.  It does so without any credible scientific basis that requiring a 
standardized trade dress for all tobacco products will help reducing tobacco consumption. 
500.  Plain packaging also creates a dangerous pr ecedent regarding the impact of packaging on 
consumption of consumer goods.  If removing brand imagery is a legitimate measure for 
controlling consumption of tobacco products, it is, by the same logic, a legitimate measure to 
control the consumption of other products deemed harmful, such as alcoholic beverages, and processed food and drinks with high sugar, fat, or salt content.   
501.  For these reasons, the Dominic Republic respectfully urges WTO Members to await 
implementing any measures relating to plain packaging until the WTO has ruled on Australia’s plain packaging measures. 
13.3 Honduras  
 
502.  Honduras wishes to support the comments made by the delegation of Cuba. As we  have stated at previous meetings of this Council, Honduras is deeply concerned at the measure 
introduced by Australia which is under five di fferent dispute settlement proceedings and whose 
consistency with WTO rules has been challenged by  a considerable number of Members in this and 
other committees. As is known to the membership, in September 2013 the DSB established a 
panel to examine the dispute initiated by Honduras concerning the measures imposed by Australia, 
which requires plain packaging for tobacco products. Honduras fully recognises Members' rights to adopt measures to protect public health, and we do not challenge this. However this is permissible in as much as these measures have a solid scientific basis and do not affect the rules relevant in 
this Organization.  
503.  Plain packaging prescriptions are excessive in this case, constituting a technical barrier to 
trade and also affecting minimum protection for trademarks, geographical indications and 
denominations of origin which are guaranteed un der the TRIPS Agreement. In this respect, we 
would urge Members considering introducing such plain packaging measures to reconsider this decision and to await for the outcome of the complaints lodged by Ukraine, Honduras, the 
Dominican Republic, Cuba and Indonesia, as these outcomes will provide us guidelines to enable 
                                               
2 Australia — Certain Measures Concerning Tradem arks, Geographical Indications and Other Plain 
Packaging Requirements Applicable to Tobacco Products and Packaging  (DS441). 
3 WT/DS441/15; WT/DSB/M/327.  
4 IP/C/M/66; IP/C/W/565; G/TBT/W/339; G/TBT/ W/346; IP/C/M/72; G/TBT/W/355; G/TBT/M/59; 
IP/C/M/74/Add.1; G/TBT/W/366; G/TBT/W/374.  IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 70 - 
 
  compliance with public health requirements as well as requirements under the multilateral trading 
system. 
13.4 Zimbabwe  
 
504.  Our delegation appreciates the efforts being made by Australia, New Zealand and Ireland to 
protect the health of consumers, however we wo uld like to share concerns expressed by Cuba, 
Nicaragua, the Dominican Republic and others who spoke before us regarding the measures on 
tobacco products. As we have stated before, thes e measures will restrict trade and are therefore 
inconsistent with the TRIPS and TBT Agreements.  
505.  There is no scientific evidence that the measures will be effective in influencing the 
behaviour of consumers or reduce smoking amongst youths. However, this will result in illicit trade 
and will also reduce the value of the product and exports.  
506.  Zimbabwe is one of the largest producers of tobacco in Africa and there are more than 
80,000 registered tobacco growers of whom 82% ar e small scale farmers. Over 200,000 families 
and their dependants rely on tobacco farming as a source of livelihood. It is a known fact that the 
measures will result in higher poverty levels which will compound health challenges that some developing countries face. 
507.  We would like to request these Members to consider our concerns and refrain from 
implementing the measures. 
13.5 Ukraine  
 
508.  The Ukrainian delegation shares Cuba's concerns over the lack of consistency of the plain 
packaging under the TRIPS Agreement, the TBT Ag reement and the GATT. In particular, Ukraine 
considers that the measures appear to be inconsistent with the TRIPS Agreement and the Paris 
Convention among others, because the measures fail to give effect to the trademark holder's 
legitimate IPRs as protected under the TRIPS Agreement and the Paris Convention.  
509.  In addition to these concerns under the TRIPS Agreement, Ukraine considers that the 
measures appear to violate Article 2.2 of the TBT Agreement which requires that a country ensure 
that technical regulations, like these plain packaging measures, are not designed, adopted or applied as an unnecessary obstacle to trade and should thus not be more trade-restrictive than necessary to achieve the stated health objectives.  
510.  Finally, Ukraine considers that the plain pa ckaging measures fail to respect the national 
treatment requirement set out in several provisions  of the WTO Agreements by not providing equal 
competitive opportunities to imported tobacco products and to foreign trademark right holders as 
compared to like domestic tobacco products and domestic trademark right holders. 
13.6 Nicaragua  
 
511.  We support the statements by Cuba, Honduras, the Ukraine and Indonesia, countries that 
have been parties to the case on certain measures regarding trademarks and plain packaging. As exporters of tobacco and tobacco products, Nicaragua has a substantial interest in this case, and is a third party to the case, and as such, would like to reiterate its concern about the plain packaging 
requirements introduced by Australia, as well as other countries who are considering similar 
requirements.  
512.  Nicaragua supports the rights of countries to protect the health of their citizens but we 
object to the inconsistency of the measures which are not consistent with WTO, and in particular 
certain articles of the TRIPS and TBT Agreements and other international requirements. We feel that the plain packaging requirements are very far from WTO rules and from respecting IP 
requirements. We feel that the dispute settlement process will allow an independent panel of 
experts to look at the legal aspects of this in accordance with international commitments on plain packaging.  IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 71 - 
 
  513.  If a package as described would contribute to public policy in reducing tobacco use in 
Australian legislation, at the same time these measures would be harmful to the interests of small countries such as Nicaragua who are exporters of  tobacco and tobacco products and our tobacco 
exports are key in reducing poverty as well as generating income, and are in violation of the 
geographical indications of the producers. We share the Cuban concerns as expressed, on the 
proliferation of legislation on plain packaging whereas the developing countries are opposing this in the Dispute Settlement Body, supported by a significant number of Members who are 
participating in the cases' third parties.  
514.  In view of these considerations, Nicaragua,  like other delegations, urges those Members who 
are thinking about plain packaging requirements to abstain from introducing them until such time as there is a clear decision from the Dispute Settlement Body on this affair. 
13.7 Indonesia  
 515.  My delegation would like to support the statements made by previous speakers under this 
agenda item. My delegation believes that the plain packaging of tobacco product could bring 
serious implication to our domestic industry and farmers. 
516.  We, therefore, also request other Members who are in the process of introducing similar 
measures to reconsider their intention as well as to evaluate alternative measures which are 
consistent with WTO rules.  
13.8 Australia  
 
517.  Australia's tobacco plain packaging measure is a legitimate public health measure which is 
consistent with Australia's obligations under the WTO Agreement.  Australia stands ready to defend its measure in the WTO. The WTO dispute settlement proceedings brought by certain 
Members against Australia's plain packaging measure should not be invoked to justify calls for 
another Member to delay the decision to develop and implement its own legitimate tobacco control measures. As the matter is currently subject to panel proceedings, it would not be appropriate for 
us to comment further. 
13.9 New Zealand  
 518.  New Zealand would like to take this opportunity to provide you with an update on the status 
of this issue in New Zealand and some backgro und information about our legislative process. 
519.  We have previously advised Members of our Government's proposal to introduce mandatory 
plain packaging of tobacco products in New Zealan d. Legislation to implement such measures has 
been drafted. Further, the Smoke-free Environmen ts (Tobacco Plain Packaging) Amendment Bill 
was introduced to the New Zealand Parliament on 17 December 2013. On 11 February 2014, the legislation passed its first reading in our Parliament. As a consequence, was referred to a 
parliamentary select committee for further consideration. There are 121 members of the New 
Zealand Parliament. 119 members voted on whether the legislation should be read for a first time. 118 members voted in favour, an d one member voted against. 
520.  It is important to note that the tobacco plai n packaging Bill is draft legislation. In accordance 
with our domestic legislative process, and our obligations under the TBT Agreement, the New 
Zealand Government has invited submissions in respect of the legislation. The deadline for 
Members to provide us with any comments or submissions is 18 April 2014. Any comments or 
submissions that we receive will be considered by the parliamentary select committee before hat 
committee reports back to our Parliament on its views and recommendations in respect of the legislation. 
521.  Before the Bill can become law in New Zealand, it must also pass two further debates in our 
Parliament (which are called the second and third readings), and then be signed by our Governor-
General.  IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 72 - 
 
  522.  Once the Bill becomes law, it will enable regulations to be ma de that will set out the detailed 
requirements for the design and physical appearance of any packaging used or intended for use with tobacco products. The regulations will be deve loped at a later date. At an appropriate time, 
our Government will conduct further consultations in respect of the draft regulations. It is these 
regulations that will in fact implement tobacco plain packaging in New Zealand.  
523.  I don't propose to repeat the reasons that justify these measures. Any members seeking 
more information are referred to New Zealand's notification to the TBT Committee 
(G/TBT/N/NZL/62/Add.1). That notification summarises New Zealand's rationale for its tobacco 
plain packaging legislation and invites members to make submissions. 
524.  We have heard the request that we pause the legislative process and wait and see outcome 
of WTO dispute regarding Australia's measures. New Zealand's legislative and regulatory process 
allows ample opportunity for New Zealand to take into account the dispute settlement process in 
relation to Australia's plain packaging measures before finalising and implementing our plain packaging measures.  
525.  Finally, we recall that Article 3.3 of the Dispute Settlement Understanding provides that the 
prompt settlement of disputes is essential to the effective functioning of the WTO.   
13.10 Uruguay  
 
526.  Uruguay would like to endorse the comments of Australia on this matter. Uruguay wishes to restate its position regarding the legitimacy of the measures relating to the plain packaging of tobacco products, under the WTO rules and the TRIPS Agreement in particular. 
527.  Protection of public health clearly falls under the sovereign authority of States and we 
accordingly believe that every country is entitled to legislate in the public interest. This has been recognized by the WTO Membership as a whole. 
528.  In particular, we wish to emphasize that Ar ticle 20 of the TRIPS Agreement provides that the 
use of a trademark should not be "unjustifiably" encumbered by special requirements, and hence the implementation by States of measures desi gned to control tobacco consumption in their 
territories because of its devastating health, so cial, economic and environmental consequences 
cannot be considered contrary to the Agreement. 
529.  Lastly, we would recall paragraph 4 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration on the TRIPS 
Agreement and Public Health, which states that the Agreement can and should be interpreted 
and implemented in a manner supportive of WTO Members' right to protect public health. 
13.11 Nigeria  
 
530.  From the outset Nigeria supports countries that take measures to protect public health, 
because we believe that it is a legitimate right for Members of the WTO to take. But we believe that such measures should not be used to impede legitimate trade. We urge countries that are 
thinking or have taken these measures to at least refrain until the ongoing disputes where the 
issue of TRIPS Agreement, the TBT Agreement an d the GATT are being challenged are resolved.. 
13.12 Canada  
 
531.  Canada has a well-known, long-standing interest in the flexibilities provided for by the TRIPS 
Agreement, and in the interpretation of those flexib ilities. That interest is part of Canada's broader 
pursuit of balance in the IP system. It is in this  context that Canada has sought and secured third-
party participation in dispute settlement cases regarding the packaging of tobacco products. 
Indeed, those cases provide us with an opportunity  to discuss TRIPS flexibilities, and the findings 
of these panels, whatever they are, may prov ide us with important guidance. Canada looks 
forward to hearing the views of Members as part of the dispute settlement process, as well as 
sharing its own views in the TRIPS Council. We recall, to that end, our intervention from the Council's October 2013 meeting on the issue of tobacco plain packaging.  IP/C/M/75/Add.1 
 
- 73 - 
 
  13.13 Switzerland  
 532.  Switzerland would like to thank Cuba for proposing this agenda item and the various delegations for their interventions on this important matter. For our position, we refer to our 
earlier interventions in this Council which can be summarised as follows. 
533.  Switzerland is supportive of public health means, including in the area of anti-smoking. Such 
measures need to be implemented in a manner which is consistent with international obligations, 
including those arising out of the TRIP S Agreement and the Paris Convention. 
534.  It should be reiterated that measures taken must be proportionate, i.e. they need to be 
appropriate, taking into account, in a balanced manner, all relevant aspects and interests at stake. 
535.  Members are encouraged to make sure that these principles are considered in any legislative 
work, thereby ensuring compliance with the pertinent TRIPS obligations. 
__________