RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  IP/C/M/56 
21 May 2008 
 
 (08-2374) 
Council for Trade-Related Aspects 
of Intellectual Property Rights  
 
 
 
MINUTES OF MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard on 13 March 2008  
 
Chairman:  Ambassador Yonov Agah (Nigeria) 
  
 The present document contains the record of the discussion which took place during the 
TRIPS Council meeting held on 13 March 2008. 
 
Subjects discussed
 Page nos.  
  
A.
 NOTIFICATIONS UNDER PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT .........................................................2  
B. REVIEWS OF NATIONAL IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION ..............................................................2  
C. REVIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 27.3  (B) .....................................................................6  
D. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TRIPS  AGREEMENT AND THE CONVENTION ON 
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY .............................................................................................................6  
E. PROTECTION OF TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND FOLKLORE ...................................................6  
F. NON-VIOLATION AND SITUATION COMPLAINTS .......................................................................15  
G. REVIEW OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TRIPS  AGREEMENT UNDER ARTICLE 71.1..................15  
H. REVIEW OF THE APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION ON 
GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 24.2 ...............................................................15  
I. FOLLOW -UP TO THE FIFTH ANNUAL REVIEW UNDER PARAGRAPH 2 OF THE DECISION 
ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 66.2  OF THE TRIPS  AGREEMENT ...............................15  
J. TECHNICAL COOPERATION AND CAPACITY -BUILDING ............................................................17  
K. INFORMATION ON RELEVANT DEVELOPMENTS ELSEWHERE IN THE WTO ..............................19  
L. OBSERVER STATUS FOR INTERNATIONAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS ...............20  
M. OTHER BUSINESS ......................................................................................................................21  
N. ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON ..............................................................................................21  
 
 IP/C/M/56 
Page 2  
 
  A. N
OTIFICATIONS UNDER PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT  
1. The Chairman  informed the Council that, since its meeting in October 2007, Viet Nam had 
made its initial notification of its laws and regul ations and had pr ovided responses to the Checklist of 
Issues on Enforcement.  In addition, the Council had received a number of supplements and updates 
to earlier notifications of laws and regulations notif ied under Article 63.2 of the Agreement.  Canada 
had notified an Act respecting the protection of  marks related to the Olympic Games and the 
Paralympic Games and on relate d matters;  Mauritius had provide d a complete update of its 
notification of laws and regulations;  Tunisi a had notified a Law on appellations of origin, 
geographical indications and indications of the prove nance of handicraft products;  Hong Kong, China 
had notified a Patents (amendment) Ordinance 2007;   Armenia had notified a new Law on Copyright 
and Related Rights, a new Law on Patents, and am endments to the Law on Trademarks, Service 
Marks and Appellations of Origin;  Moldova had notifi ed a consolidated text of its Penal Code;  and 
the Czech Republic had notified a consolidated vers ion of its Copyright Act and a related decree.  
These notifications were being circulated in the IP/N/1/- series of documents. 
2. He urged those Members whose initial notifi cations remained incomplete to submit the 
outstanding material without delay and reminded other Members of their obligation to notify any 
subsequent amendments of their laws  and regulations without delay after their entry into force.  In this 
context, he reminded those Members who had made an y changes to their laws and/or regulations to 
implement the decision on TRIPS and public health and who had not yet notified such changes to the 
Council to do so. 
3. The Council took note  of the information provided.  
B. REVIEWS OF NATIONAL IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION  
(i) Review of legislation of Viet Nam 
4. The Chairman  recalled that, at its meeting in February  2007, the Council had agreed to review 
the legislation of Viet Nam, a newly acceded Member, at the present meeting.  Viet Nam's notification of its TRIPS laws and regulations, dated 21 January 2008, had been circulated in 
document IP/N/1/VNM/1, and the texts of the notified laws in the relevant law series of documents.  
Its responses to the Checklist of Issues on Enforc ement had just been circulated in document 
IP/N/6/VNM/1.  At its meeting in June 2007, th e Council had agreed on the arrangements for this 
review, including target dates for the submission of questions and answers for the review.  The Council had made adjustments to these dates at its meeting in October 2007.  Given that Viet Nam's 
notification had been made available to Members only  after the said dates, he said that his intention 
was to keep this review on the agenda of the ne xt meeting so as to allow those Members who might 
need more time to study the notification to pose que stions after the present meeting if they would so 
wish. 
5. The representative of Viet Nam
 said that, in early 1995 when it had applied for membership 
in the WTO, Viet Nam's intellectual property protection system functioned mainly on the basis of 
"sub-law" documents and was not TRIPS compliant.  Desiring to quickly integrate into the 
international community and to pave the way for foreign investments, Viet Nam had developed an 
IPRs Action Plan whose overall objective had been to  make the Vietnamese IP system fully compliant 
with the TRIPS Agreement.  Under the Action Pl an, the preparation of legislation had been 
considered as the most important task.  An initial important step in implementing the Action Plan had 
been the promulgation of the Civil Code (1995), with Part VI addressing intellectual property and 
technology transfer.  However, the Civil Code 1995 had not expressly provided for the protection of 
trade secrets, geographical indications, trade names, unfair competition, plant varieties, and layout-designs of integrated circuits.  Instead, it had me ntioned them as "other subject matters" and had  IP/C/M/56 
 Page 3 
 
 
  authorized the Government to stipulate in detail th e concept of those "other subject matters" and how 
they would be protected. 
6. Accordingly, from 1996 to 2003, the Government had promulgated a number of Government 
Decrees providing for the protection of inventions, utility solutions, industrial designs, trademarks, 
appellations of origin, trade secrets, trade indicati ons, new varieties of plants, copyright and related 
rights, layout-design of integrated circuits and the right to prevent unfair competition.  These Decrees 
also contained provisions on violations in the field of  industrial property and in the field of culture and 
information.  Thus, by 2003, the intellectual property system of Viet Nam had basically met the TRIPS Agreement requirements of "adequacy".  In  order to fully comply with the substantive 
standards of the TRIPS Agreement and further promote the creative activities and enhance the 
competitiveness of the economy, the XI National Asse mbly had decided to continue improving the 
legislative framework for the activities in this field.   
7. On 14 June 2005, the National Assembly had approved the new Civil Code.  Its Part VI on 
intellectual property consisted of 18 Articles providing for the most basic civil aspects of the intellectual property rights.  On 29 November 2005, the National Assembly had enacted the 
Intellectual Property Law composed of six Parts, 18 Chapters and 222 Articles.  This was a full and 
comprehensive law on intellectual property rights, including provisions concerning copyright and 
related rights, industrial property rights, protection of plant varieties and enforcement thereof.  This 
document, together with the Civil Code 2005, formed  a complete and consistent system of law on IP 
replacing almost all previous regulations. 
8. This event had been important for Viet Nam' s process of acceding to the WTO.  Right from 
the drafting period, the IP Law had drawn the attention of many WTO Members.  In fact, the IP Law 
had overcome several shortcomings of the previous  legal system that Viet Nam's international 
partners had pointed out during the accession process.  Following the enactment of the IP Law, the Vietnamese Government had promulgated a series of Government Decrees giving detailed guidance 
on implementation of the IP Law.  At the end of 2006 (before accession to WTO), Viet Nam had 
achieved an adequate, synchronous a nd comprehensive system of legislation on intellectual property.  
The main instruments of this system included the following: 
(i) The basic law:  The 2005 Civil Code (Part VI) and the 2005 Intellectual Property 
Law; 
(ii) Regarding the protection (establishment) of intellectual property rights:  
Government Decrees No. 100, 103 and 104 of 2006 providing for detailed 
regulations regarding the protection of copyright and related rights, industrial 
property rights and plant varieties; 
(iii) Regarding enforcement of intellectual property rights:  Government Decree 
No. 105/2006, which was generally applicable, had provided detailed provisions and guidelines regarding the protection of intellectual property rights and State 
management of intellectual property.  Especially, the Decree included provisions on 
determination of acts constituting infrin gement, determination of nature and 
seriousness of infringement, determinat ion of loss and damage, etc.  Civil 
enforcement was guaranteed by the Civil Procedure Code  and criminal enforcement 
by the Criminal Code and Criminal Pro cedure Code.  Administrative enforcement 
was guaranteed by the Ordi nance on Handling administrative violations, and 
Government Decrees No. 56/2006, No. 106/ 2006 and No. 57/2005 determining the 
acts of administrative violations, mode, level of monetary fines, authority and procedures for handling administrative vi olations in the field of culture and 
information (including copyright and related rights), industrial property and plant IP/C/M/56 
Page 4  
 
  varieties.  Border measures were guarant eed by the IP Law and Customs Law, and 
they were specifically stipulated by Decr ee No. 154/2005 on customs procedure and 
customs supervision. 
9. Viet Nam had also been active in participating in numerous international treaties in the field 
of intellectual property.  At the time of its accession to WTO, Viet Nam was a party to the 
following plurilateral treaties: 
(i) Regarding copyright:  The Geneva Convention for the protection of Producers of 
Phonogram against Unauthorized Duplication of their Phonogram (entered into force on 6 July 2005); the Brussels Convention Relating to the Distribution of Programme-Carrying Signals Transmitted by Satellite (entered into force on 
12 January 2006); 
 (ii) Regarding industrial property rights:  The Paris Convention for the Protection of 
Industrial Property (since 1949); the Pate nt Cooperation Treaty (since 1993);  the 
Protocol relating to the Madrid Agreement c oncerning the international registration of 
marks (entered into force on 11 July 2006); 
 
 (iii) Regarding plant varieties:  The UPOV Convention (entered into force on 
24 December 2006). 
 10. Following its accession, Viet Nam w as continuing to un ceasingly make efforts to bring its 
intellectual property system to full compliance w ith international standards, and to strictly 
implement its accession commitments.  Particularly, wi th regard to its commitments to issue legal 
instruments mandating that governmen t agencies only use legitimate co mputer software and that all 
cable television purveyors only provide fully licensed products to their customers.  The Prime Minister had issued Instruction No. 04/2007/CT-TTg on 22 February 2007 on strengthening copyright protection for computer programs and the Viet Nam Multimedia Corporation (VTC) had 
negotiated with television programme suppliers fo r providing licensed progra mmes to customers in 
order to ensure that television copyright and related rights would not be infringed. 
11. Regarding the commitment on issuing a circular  to clarify that all willful and commercial 
scale trademark counterfeiting and copyright piracy  were subject to criminal prosecution, on 
29 February 2008, the Supreme Court, Supreme People's Prosecutor, Ministry of Public Security and Ministry of Justice had signed Joint Circular No. 01/2008/TTLT-TANDTC-VKSNDTC-BCA-
BTP of the Supreme Court, the Supreme People's Prosecutor, Ministry of  Public Security and 
Ministry of Justice gi ving guidance on criminal prosecuti on of certain intellectual property 
infringement acts.  The issuance of this Joint Circular would make Viet Nam's legislation on intellectual property fully compliant with TRIPS requirements, marking the full implementation of 
Viet Nam's commitments at  its accession to the WTO. 
12. Apart from making great efforts to implement its commitments, Viet Nam was also actively 
elaborating and issuing many other legal documents in order to improve its mechanisms for IP protection.  On 14 February 2007, the Ministry of Science and Technology had issued Circular 
No. 01/2007/TT-BKHCN providing guidelin es for the implementation of Decree 
No. 103/2006/ND-CP to complete procedures for establishing industrial property rights.  On 1 March 2007, Viet Nam had officially become party to the International Convention for the 
Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations (Rome 
Convention).  On 25 February 2008, the Ministry  of Science and Technology had issued Circular 
No. 01/2008/TT-BKHCN giving guidelines for granting , revoking certificates of industrial property 
appraiser, and certificates of organizations fulfilling conditions  for practicing industrial property 
appraisal service.  IP/C/M/56 
 Page 5 
 
 
  13. Presently, competent agencies were urgently co mpleting the following documents to fulfill 
the mechanisms of intellectual property rights  enforcement:  two Government decrees on the 
handling of administrative violations in the fiel d of copyright and related rights and on management 
of programmed optical disks;  a joint circular of the Supreme People's Court and related Ministries giving guidance on handling civil cases related to in tellectual property infringement/disputes;  and a 
joint circular of the Ministry of Culture, Sports a nd Tourism, the Ministry of Finance and the Ministry 
of Plan and Investment giving guidance on securing financial support for purchasing copyright, collecting and distributing royalties when using a wo rk, a performance, a recording, or a broadcasting 
programme. 
14. In conclusion, he said that Viet Nam had unceasingly supplemented and improved its 
legislation on intellectual property protection, and that the development of the IP system, which was 
not limited to the binding contents, continue d.  These efforts proved Viet Nam's will and 
determination to build and operate an effective syst em for the protection of intellectual property in 
order to facilitate the development of its economy. 
15. Having only recently received Viet Nam's notification, the representative of the United States
 
said that he planned to submit written questions to it according to the schedule to be determined by 
the Council.  He recognized and congratulated Vi et Nam on the considerable progress it had made 
over these last few years in the area of intellectual property rights as part of Viet Nam's efforts to join the WTO.  Viet Nam had significantly overhauled its  IPR legal framework in an attempt to meet the 
modern standards for IPR protection and enforcement.  In addition to its efforts at legislative reform, 
it was his understanding that Viet Nam continued its work in this area through public awareness 
programmes, increased enforcement actions agai nst counterfeit and pira ted goods, and closer 
coordination among its relevant agencies.  He comm ended Viet Nam for the considerable progress in 
all of these areas. He had taken particular interest in the development of a circular to provide for 
criminal procedures and remedies for wilful tr ademark counterfeiting and copyright piracy on a 
commercial scale and would be interested in examini ng the final version.  He also looked forward to 
continuing bilateral engagement with Viet Nam on th is circular should there be remaining questions 
following the review. 
16. The representative of Switzerland
 said that his delegation was still studying the notification 
and hoped to submit its comments and questions to  Viet Nam as soon as possible.  Switzerland and 
Viet Nam had built up a strong partnership in th is area over recent years through a bilateral 
cooperation agreement in the field of intellectua l property.  The first phase had been successfully 
completed in 2007, the purpose of which had been to provide support for preparing the legislative 
framework set forth in international treaties on IPRs , including the TRIPS Agreement.  This fruitful 
collaboration had now been extended for anot her two years and the emphasis would be on 
implementation and enforcement.  In this collabor ation, Switzerland had always been impressed with 
the commitment and dedication that Viet Nam had s hown to put in place a TRIPS compatible national 
regime as well as with the awareness in the country of the important role that IPRs and their effective 
enforcement played for a thriving economy, such as the one in Viet Nam, and of the contribution of 
intellectual property to nurturing sustainable grow th of innovative industries and thus to economic 
development as a whole.  The present review of im plementing national legislation was another piece 
of the puzzle, and Switzerland was committed to partic ipate actively and constructively in it, in order 
to make it helpful and beneficial both for Viet Nam and the rest of the membership. 
17. The representative of Chinese Taipei  said that, as a recently-acceded Member, Chinese Taipei 
knew how difficult it was to implement the commitments made during the accession process.  Therefore, he complimented Viet Nam for the enor mous amount of work that had enabled it to present 
such a comprehensive set of IPR legislation.  Give n that his delegation had only recently received the 
notification, it might pose questions to Viet Nam at a later stage. IP/C/M/56 
Page 6  
 
  18. The representative of the European Communities
, welcoming Viet Nam's efforts and progress 
in implementing TRIPS provisions, said that contin uing the review at the Council's next meeting 
would enable his delegation to examine Viet Nam' s national implementing legislation in detail and 
submit questions to it. 
19. The representative of Australia , welcoming Viet Nam's efforts in the area of intellectual 
property, said that Australia and Viet Nam con tinued to have a strong record of cooperation on 
intellectual property, including through APEC and bilaterally be tween the IP offices of the two 
countries.  She said her delegation was still reviewi ng the notification and might have questions for 
the Council's next session. 
20. The representative of Japan  expressed his appreciation of Viet Nam's strong commitment to 
the implementation of the TRIPS Agreement and said th at he wished to come back to the review at 
the Council's next meeting. 
21. The Chairman  proposed that Members that might wish to pose written questions to Viet Nam 
after the meeting should do so by the end of Apr il so as to give Viet Nam enough time to prepare its 
replies before the Council's meeting in June.  
22. The Council took note  of the statements made and agreed  to proceed as proposed by the 
Chair. 
(ii) Follow-up to reviews already undertaken 
23. The Chairman  said that, with regard to the reviews of national implementing legislation that 
had been initiated at the Council's meetings si nce April 2001, six reviews still remained on the 
Council's agenda.  These reviews concerned Cuba;  F iji;  Grenada;  Saint Kitts and Nevis;  Saint 
Vincent and the Grenadines;  and Suriname. 
24. Furthermore, a number of questions had been  raised with regard to the implementing 
legislation of certain other Members whose revi ews had already been deleted from the Council's 
agenda on the understanding that any delegation should feel free to revert to any matter stemming 
from the review at any time.  These Members were Dominica, Gabon, Ghana and Guyana. 
25. He urged delegations c oncerned to provide outstanding material as soon as possible, so as to 
allow the Council to complete the follow-up to these reviews. 
26. The Council took note  of the information provided and agreed  to revert to the matter at its 
next meeting. 
C. REVIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 27.3  (B) 
D. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TRIPS  AGREEMENT AND THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL 
DIVERSITY  
E. PROTECTION OF TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND FOLKLORE  
27. The Chairman  recalled that, at its meeting in March 2006, the Council had agreed to maintain 
its present method of work on these matters, and to  keep this method under review to assess whether 
any change might prove appropriate in the light of developments.  Accordingly, he suggested that the 
Council continue its past practice of discussing these three items together on the basis of the 
contributions by Members.  He informed the C ouncil that, since its meeting in October 2007, the 
Dominican Republic and the African, Caribbean and Pacific Group of States (the ACP Group) had  IP/C/M/56 
 Page 7 
 
 
  been added to the list of co-sponsors of the discl osure proposal circulated as document IP/C/W/474 
(issued with the joint symbols WT/GC/W/564/Rev. 2 and TN/C/W/41/Rev.2).  Addenda 7 and 8 to 
that document had been issued to this effect. 
28. The representative of India  said that the relationship betw een the TRIPS Agreement and the 
CBD was a critical implementation-related issue fo r developing countries and that, according to the 
Doha mandate, negotiations on outst anding implementation-related issu es should be an integral part 
of the work programme.  The objectives of th e disclosure proposal contained in document 
IP/C/W/474, of which India was one of the key propon ents, were shared by all Members.  There was a 
general agreement among Members on preventing bi opiracy and erroneously granted patents and 
enhancing mutual supportiveness between the TR IPS Agreement and the CBD.  The disclosure 
proposal sought to meet these objectives through an  amendment to the TRIPS Agreement to introduce 
a mandatory disclosure requirement, prior informed consent and access and benefit sharing in patent 
applications.  The disclosure requirement would make the patent system more transparent and 
credible.  The requirement called for legal conseque nces of non-compliance in order to be effective.  
The failure of the TRIPS Agreement to extend protection to genetic resources and traditional 
knowledge, which developing country Members enjoyed in abundance, was one of the factors leading 
to an imbalance in the TRIPS Agreement and in th e multilateral trading system as a whole.  This was 
because under the TRIPS Agreement countries had no obligation to examine whether there was 
misappropriation of genetic resource s and traditional knowledge in patent  applications.  He said that 
misappropriation of genetic resources and traditiona l knowledge or biopiracy were issues with an 
international dimension and therefore needed in ternational obligations to be addressed in a 
satisfactory manner.  While national access and be nefit-sharing systems and databases on genetic 
resources could help to prevent biopiracy to some ex tent, they were far from being adequate to solve 
the problem.  Two submissions made by Peru highlighted some of the main problems faced by megadiverse countries, such as transboundary use of genetic resources, biopiracy and erroneously 
granted patents.  Without ade quate and effective protection of  genetic resources and traditional 
knowledge at the international level,  the problem would continue.   
29. He said that the Doha Round was a development round and its results would not be complete 
if it fell short of correcting the a bove-mentioned imbalance.  For India, an outcome on this issue was 
an essential element of any development package th at emerged from the Round.  He said that, in 
addition to the extensive technical work in the TRIPS Council, the Director-General had undertaken 
dedicated consultations in informal settings th rough his friends, includi ng recently by Deputy 
Director-General Rufus Yerxa.  The growing supp ort base for the disclosure proposal, including the 
co-sponsors of the African Group, the LDC Group and the ACP Group had taken the co-sponsors to 
the majority membership mark.  These were suffici ent indications that text-based negotiations on the 
basis of document IP/C/W/474 must begin soon.  In this context, the proponents of the disclosure proposal had already submitted a text proposal for the inclusion in horizontal modalities decision.  
The work in the TRIPS Council should complement the work in the negotiating process.  He finally 
expressed his delegation's appreciation for some de veloped countries' proposals which came close to 
the disclosure proposal, and indicated that his de legation would remain committed to engaging in 
constructive discussions with other Members on this issue.  
30. The representative of Brazil
 supported the statement made by India.  He highlighted the 
importance of the growing support base for the prop osal for an amendment to the TRIPS Agreement 
to include a mandatory requirement for the disclosur e of origin of genetic resources and/or associated 
traditional knowledge that were the objects of patent applications.  He said that the recent addition of 
the Dominican Republic and the ACP Group to the list of co-sponsors of the disclosure proposal had 
brought the support base for the proposal to slightly over half of the WTO membership.  He said that the co-sponsors had submitted a text proposal for the modalities discussion, and hoped that all 
Members would consider using it as a basis for deliber ations when they came to defining the scope of 
the horizontal modalities exercise. IP/C/M/56 
Page 8  
 
  31. The representative of Uganda, speaking on behalf of the LDC Group in the WTO
, said that 
the LDC Group remained ready to engage constructiv ely in negotiations with a view to achieving a 
successful conclusion of the Doha Round.  He r ecalled that, at the TRIPS Council's meeting of 
October 2007, the LDC Group had joined the co-sponsors of the disclosure proposal contained in document IP/C/W/474, which called for an ame ndment to the TRIPS Agreement to introduce a 
mandatory disclosure requirement of the source a nd origin of biological resources and associated 
traditional knowledge and prior informed con sent to address misappropriation and erroneously 
granted patents and to enhance development aspects a nd benefits that could accrue to all Members.  
He said that the LDC Group supported the statemen ts made by India and Brazil that text-based 
negotiations on this proposal shoul d be undertaken in Special Sessions of the TRIPS Council, and as 
an integral part of the Single Undertaking. 
32. The representative of Cuba
 supported the statements made by India, Brazil, and Uganda.  She 
said that as a co-sponsor of document IP/C/W/474,  which was enjoying significant and increasing 
support, her delegation urged other Members to redouble their efforts to ensure the objectives of the 
CBD not be undermined because of the lack of suffi cient legal means which might at least impede, if 
not prevent, misappropriation of genetic res ources and associated traditional knowledge through 
patent applications.  She said that, as indicated by megadiverse Members, national systems for access to genetic resources and traditiona l knowledge were not sufficient to prevent unauthorized use of 
genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge a nd erroneously granted patents.  She said that 
just as the TRIPS Agreement was once considered a necessary multilateral means in the fight against 
piracy and counterfeiting, the amendment proposal was now a necessary multilateral means to prevent 
biopiracy. 
33. The representative of Peru
 supported the statements made by  the previous delegations that 
had described the situation of discussions in the C ouncil and negotiations in the Doha Round.  He said 
that his delegation had submitted a number of tec hnical communications to explain the problem of 
biopiracy and how the disclosure proposal could help to resolve the problem.  He said that more than 
70 countries now supported the disclosure proposal, including, most recently, the Dominican Republic 
and the ACP Group.  He said that no other prop osal had received such broad support from WTO 
Members in the negotiations of the Doha Round.  He also noted that Norway and Switzerland had 
made positive contributions to the discussion in the Council.  He said that while some Members might 
wish to revise the proposal, it should be  the basis for a successful conclusion. 
34. The representative of Ecuador  supported the statements made by India, Brazil and other 
Members speaking before her.  She said that this  issue was of importance to a growing number of 
developing countries.  She reiterated that a lthough there were some rules on biopiracy and 
erroneously granted patents, such as Decision 391 of the Andean Community of Nations, it was 
important to have multilateral disciplines in the fiel d of trade to control biopiracy and erroneously 
granted patents because the existing rules were not sufficient.  She said that a large number of 
developing country Members, around 77 to date, had co-sponsored the disclosure proposal, which 
indicated that there was a significant mass in the WTO to promote concrete results on this issue.  She 
therefore reaffirmed her delegation's co-sponsorship of the disclosure proposal for an amendment to 
the TRIPS Agreement and support for the prompt in itiation of text-based negotiations on this subject 
in the context of the implementation aspect of the Doha Round, given that this issue was an essential 
part of the development dimension of the Doha Round.  IP/C/M/56 
 Page 9 
 
 
  35. In addition, she said that there were a number of errors in the minutes of the TRIPS Council's 
meeting of October 2007 (document IP/C/M/55), esp ecially in paragraph 107 which did not reflect 
properly her delegation's statement.   She requested the Secretariat to make corrections according to 
the statement she had provided.1 
36. The Chairman  said that an adequate reflection of her delegation's statement would be made by 
the Secretariat. 
37. The representative of China  welcomed the discussion on these three regular agenda items in 
the Council.  He said that, as a co-sponsor of document WT/GC/W/564/Rev.2,  his delegation believed 
that a mandatory disclosure requirement would be  the best way to protect genetic resources and 
traditional knowledge.  He said that with the r ecent co-sponsorship of the Dominican Republic, the 
African Group, the LDC Group and the ACP Group, the number of co-sponsors of the joint proposal 
exceeded half of the WTO membership.  He also  highlighted the strong support for the mandatory 
disclosure proposal in the Maseru Declaration made by the LDC Ministerial Meeting.   He therefore urged that text-based negotiations on the relations hip between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD be 
undertaken in Special Sessions of the TRIPS Counc il immediately as an integral part of the Single 
Undertaking. 
38. The representative of Japan
 said that his delegation's position on the issue of the relationship 
between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD remain ed unchanged.  He said that the problem of 
bio-piracy involved two issues:  erroneously gran ted patents and compliance with the CBD objectives 
of benefit sharing and prior informed consent, a nd that Members should consider which issue needed 
to be addressed within the frame work of intellectual property and which addressed comprehensively, 
including through measures outside the framework of intellectual property systems.  It was the view 
of his delegation that the issue of compliance with  the CBD should be addressed in a holistic way and 
with due care and caution in orde r to secure a proper balance to encourage innovation while not 
negatively impacting it.  He said that his delega tion was not convinced by the argument that the 
disclosure requirement was an effective measure to address this issue because it seemed to monitor or 
trace the origin of genetic resources from which inve ntion was made.  However neither its role as a  
detailed monitoring mechanism nor its effectiveness had yet been made clear. He further indicated 
that not all inventions from genetic resources were covered by pa tent applications as some might be 
protected as trade secrets and other might fall into the public domain.  
39. Regarding the issue of erroneously granted pate nts, he said that his delegation had made a 
proposal for one-click searchable database systems fo r Members' consideration.  The proposal had 
been submitted to the WIPO Intergovernmenta l Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic 
Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IGC) where his delegation expected to have in-depth 
discussions with technical and legal experts.  Re garding some Members' concern over the possible 
inappropriate exposure of informa tion through the database systems, he said that this concern was 
worth reflecting upon further.  He reiterated that databases would be used for the purpose of patent 
examination and accessible only to authorized pate nt offices and patent examiners who would be 
bound by confidentiality.  The registration in the databases would be voluntary in nature and the 
information would be collected by national author ities who should know the customary laws of their 
indigenous communities and other sensitive matters.   Therefore, the security of the database system 
would be adequately addressed.  He further said that  the content of the databases was supposed to be 
publicly known genetic resources.  However it mi ght include, upon request, genetic resources which 
were not yet publicly available.  In that case, technical measures could be devised in order to 
distinguish between these two categories of genetic resources and to enable patent examiners to deal 
with them distinctively.  He indicated that th e content in the databases might not necessarily be 
"evidence" that such content was publicly known, an d that investigation of other related information 
                                                      
1 See document IP/C/M/55/Corr.2, issued on 16 April 2008. IP/C/M/56 
Page 10  
 
  might be needed.  The investigation might need  collaboration with other appropriate authorities 
holding genetic resources in these databases.  In any case, databases would be an  initial tool to help 
prevent erroneously granted patents.  He further sa id that the databases could also be devised to 
monitor patent applications which concerned so me genetic resources at issue and to accumulate 
information about related patent applications in the databases. 
40. Responding to the question of standardization of the databases raised by Switzerland, he said 
that the question involved the format of the datab ases and the software used.  The one-click databases 
would be distributive as the databases located in ea ch participating country would be interlinked to 
each other so that all of them would be searchabl e as a whole.  There would be flexibility in the 
format of databases and the software used in  each national database as long as some interface 
software could enable the databases to communicate with each other.  Coordination of the format and 
software among the databases would enhance the utility  of these databases.  He hoped that this issue 
could be elaborated in future discussions.  Re garding the question of whether Japan's proposal 
covered databases other than those established at the national level, such as regional or local 
databases, he said that his delegation was open to this  issue and that it was worth further consideration 
taking into account the entity responsible for mana ging and maintaining the databases, security and 
other issues. 
41. The representative of Pakistan
 said that, as a co-sponsor of the disclosure proposal, her 
delegation wanted to add its voice to those representi ng nearly half of the membership.  She indicated 
that notwithstanding the reservations that some Members had on the method for dealing with the issue of biopiracy, it would be patently unfair if due wei ght was not given to this issue both in the TRIPS 
Council and in the negotiations ahead with a breakthrough.   
42. The representative of Norway
 said that the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD could and should 
be implemented in a mutually supportive manner, and that the interaction between the two treaties 
would be greatly enhanced by introducing an obl igation in the TRIPS Agreement to disclose the 
origin of genetic resources and traditional knowledge in patent app lications.  His delegation would 
support the effort to bring this issue forward.   
43. He then responded to several follow-up questi ons raised by Chinese Taipei at the TRIPS 
Council's meeting of October 2007.  Regarding the qu estion of the legal effects on patent applications 
or granted patents if a third party protested agai nst the disclosed information, he said that the 
Norwegian proposal did not aim to resolve all issu es related to access and benefit sharing for genetic 
resources.  In general, the proposal would not be  a guarantee against wrong information or criminal 
activities in this field.  The purpose of the proposal  was simply to facilitate the compliance with the 
CBD through making it easy to verify whether ge netic resources or traditional knowledge had been 
collected or exploited in accordan ce with national rules on prior inform ed consent.  Accordingly, if 
the protest was submitted after the patent had been granted, the validity of the patent would not be 
affected by the protest.  If the applicant had provi ded inaccurate information in bad faith, this might 
lead to sanctions outside the patent system.  He further said that the Norwegian proposal did not aim 
to resolve disputes related to benefit sharing or  the accuracy of information that such sharing 
arrangements were based upon, and that all these issu es should be addressed in national legislation.  
Turning to the question of a protest submitted dur ing the patent examination, he referred to 
paragraph 4(c) of document IP/C/W/474 and said that  if the applicant was unable or refused to give 
information despite having had an opportunity to do so, the application should not be allowed to 
proceed.  He further said that the situation referred to in the question of Chinese Taipei seemed to be 
related to formal requirements in the examinati on process, and that the protest would trigger the 
opportunity for the patent applicant to comment on the protest and to provide further information.  He 
said that section 4 of document IP/C/W/473 provided useful information on the legal effects of non-
compliance with the disclosure obligation.    IP/C/M/56 
 Page 11 
 
 
  44. The representative of Uganda  said that his delegation supported the statement made by 
Uganda on behalf of the LDC Group and endorsed th e statements made by India and Brazil that text-
based negotiations should be undertaken in Special  Sessions of the TRIPS Council on an amendment 
to the TRIPS Agreement establishing an obligation for Members to require patent applicants to 
disclose the origin of biological resources and/or  associated traditional knowledge, including prior 
informed  consent and access and benefit sharing. 
45. The representative of Thailand  said that a majority of Members from developing countries 
had co-sponsored the proposal for an amendment of Article 29 bis to the TRIPS Agreement 
concerning a mandatory requirement for the disclosur e of origin of biological resources used in 
inventions.  Without adequate a nd effective protection of genetic resources and traditional knowledge 
at the international level, he said that the pr oblem of misappropriation of genetic resources and 
traditional knowledge would continue, and therefore it should be included as part of the outcome of 
the Doha Development Round.  He said that the application of the disclosure proposal would be 
limited to patent rights and would not be expanded to the other intellectual property rights.  Members 
had a sovereign right to grant th eir consent before their genetic resources and traditional knowledge 
were used in patent applications.  Accordingly, it was preferable that Members should start text-based 
negotiations. 
46. The representative of the United States  said that the TRIPS Council had provided a forum for 
continued engagement in a useful and construc tive exchange of views on these issues based on 
sharing of national experiences and the posing and re sponding to questions among Members.  He said 
that the manner of working that had been pursued in the Council should continue to be the basis for 
the Council's work on these issues.  His delegation acknowledged that some Members had advocated 
commencing negotiations on the basis of a proposed te xt to amend the TRIPS Agreement and that this 
was the subject of a recent proposal in the Trade Negotiations Committee (TNC).   He said that his 
delegation's position on this question remained uncha nged.  It did not support an amendment to the 
TRIPS Agreement as a means of addressing the concerns of the demandeurs  and did not think that the 
amendment would be the most effective way of ad dressing those concerns.  However, his delegation 
remained firmly committed to work and examinat ion on these issues, drawing from the conclusions 
thus far and building on them, as appropriate, in or der to find the most effective means of achieving 
the shared objectives that  had been identified. 
47. The representative of Korea  said that there had been little progress on this issue since the last 
TRIPS Council.  His delegation had not heard any c onvincing arguments that there existed a conflict 
between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD nor th at there was a necessity to amend the TRIPS 
Agreement in order to address the CBD objectives.  Regarding the relationship between the TRIPS 
Agreement and the CBD, his delegation remained of the view that the disclosure proposal was not an 
appropriate solution to address the problem.  He expressed his delegation's concern that introducing a 
new requirement was likely to hamper the stabi lity of the existing patent system without clear 
benefits.  Regarding the protection of traditiona l knowledge and folklore, he said that Members 
needed further fact-based discu ssions as there was no consensus on the definition and scope of 
traditional knowledge and folklore without which it seemed difficult to start text-based discussions.  
The ongoing discussions in WIPO on this issue were e xpected to be a good reference.  He therefore 
suggested that the Council wait for the outcome from WIPO in order to have meaningful discussions 
in the WTO.  
48. The representative of Australia  reiterated that his delegation re mained unconvinced that there 
was necessarily a conflict between the TRIPS Agreem ent and the CBD and continued to believe that 
the two agreements could be implemented in a mu tually supportive manner.  His delegation also 
remained unconvinced of the need for text-b ased negotiations on amendments to the TRIPS 
Agreement.  As a country with a megabiodiverse mass and unique indigenous culture, Australia was 
well aware of the importance of the issues surr ounding access to biological resources and traditional IP/C/M/56 
Page 12  
 
  knowledge, but these were complex issues and interna tional discussions were still progressing in other 
forums, including in WIPO.  He said that the C ouncil should further consider the extensive work 
being undertaken in WIPO on these issues before moving to negotiations.  He agreed that the 
equitable sharing of benefits from the use of genetic resources and tr aditional knowledge was 
important.  However, his delegation was still uncerta in about the efficacy of a TRIPS amendment as a 
mechanism for ensuring compliance with national access and benefit-sharing and prior informed 
consent regimes as national patent disclosure requ irements had only been introduced recently and 
only in a small number of countries, making their effec tiveness difficult to gauge at this point in time.  
His delegation would be interested in le arning more about national experiences.   
49. He said that his delegation remained concer ned about the implications of a mandatory 
disclosure requirement for the integrity of the patent system:  its impact on users, on the 
administrative capacity of patent offices and, in pa rticular, the potential impact of remedies for false 
disclosure or non-disclosure that would involve di scontinuance of patent applications or the 
invalidation of patents, the administrative and technical cost of patent offices to assess compliance with foreign access and benefit-sharing and prior inform ed consent regimes if this was an element of a 
disclosure requirement, and additional costs to users during the patent application process.  He 
reiterated that Australia would prefer to consider the efficacy and design of possible patent disclosure 
requirements in relationship to genetic resources and traditional knowledge in  more detail before 
commencing discussions of proposals for amendment to  the TRIPS Agreement.  He also encouraged 
further explanation of the use of databases as a means of improving information provided to patent 
offices as put forward by Japan. 
50. The representative of New Zealand
 said that his delegation shared the objectives of the 
disclosure group that genetic resources and traditi onal knowledge should not be misappropriated and 
that appropriate mechanisms should provide for equita ble access and benefit sharing.  He said that his 
delegation was not sure whether a mandatory discl osure requirement would achieve these objectives, 
and that this issue required further considerati on.  He noted the case studies in the Council had 
focused on the problem of misappropriation and that th ey had been least persuasive about whether the 
mandatory disclosure requirement would solve the probl em.  He also noted that there were a variety 
of potential tools to address this problem, such as Japan's database proposal, and said that other 
options should not be foreclosed too early.  He said that it was important to remember that the  disclosure proposal was principally about the use of genetic resources and traditional knowledge and 
patents, which was a subset of a much broader issue.   As work on the broader issue continued in other 
forums, such as the CBD and WIPO, his delegation di d not want to see the work to be prejudged or 
compromised in any way. 
51. He said that the disclosure proposal, which asked  to open up and amend a carefully balanced 
WTO agreement, was ambitious.  Amendment to th e WTO agreements could not be done lightly or 
without a persuasive demonstration of benefit.  There had been considerable reluctance expressed by 
many of the proponents of the disclosure proposal to the opening up of the WTO agreements in other 
contexts, such as the Agreement on Technical Barrier s to Trade (TBT Agreement) in the context of 
non-technical barriers to trade and elements in the negotiations of non-agricultural market access.    
Turning to the references to the growing support base for the disclosure proposal, he said that his 
delegation acknowledged that a subs tantial and important section of the WTO membership was co-
sponsoring the proposal, but Members had to note th at majority support was not determinative in a 
consensus-based organization.  Finally, he said that his delegation understood the importance placed 
by the proponents on this issue in the context of the negotiations of the D oha Development Agenda 
and therefore it had given and would continue to  give this proposal serious consideration. 
52. The representative of the European Communities
 said that his delegation had addressed 
biodiversity-related issues, in particular misappr opriation of genetic resources and biopiracy, in an 
open and constructive way from the beginning and th at it would continue to  be committed to this  IP/C/M/56 
 Page 13 
 
 
  process in line with the Doha mandate.  It was the view of his delegation that the flexibility of the 
TRIPS Agreement and the availability of the CBD enabled Members to address these issues in a 
satisfactory manner in most cases.  His delegation therefore did not see any conflict between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD.  As pointed out by Norway and Australia, the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD should be implemented and interpreted in a mutually supportive way.  Nevertheless, when 
necessary, his delegation was prepared to look into concrete solutions to problems raised and to 
consider limited adjustments of intellectual propert y systems in order to ensure a more effective 
interplay between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD.   
53. He recalled that, in 2002, his delegation had submitted a communication (IP/C/W/383) in 
which it had agreed to examine and discuss the possi ble introduction of a system, such as a disclosure 
requirement.  Such a system would ensure tran sparency and allow the authorities of Members 
granting access to their genetic resources to keep trac k of patent applications based on the use of these 
resources at the global level.  Such a requireme nt should be mandatory and should apply to all 
international, regional and national pa tent applications at the earliest possible stage.  Nevertheless, he 
said that the introduction of a new patent disclos ure requirement would not achieve in itself the 
objectives of the CBD but, provided it was calibrated in an appropriate manner, it could contribute to 
a solution, in particular to help to check whethe r contractual arrangements had been respected.  Other 
tools, such as database systems to improve patent  search facilities as proposed by Japan, could also 
contribute to a solution.  He said that, as a key point  for his delegation, the introduction of a disclosure 
requirement should allow the patent system to c ontinue to be a highly effective instrument for 
stimulating innovation, technological progress and economic development.  The possible introduction 
of a disclosure requirement should not be burdensome to the patent system.  A patent office should 
not be required to verify the conditions under whic h the genetic resource had been obtained and the 
patent applicant should provide the information that  he knew without additional research required on 
his part.  Therefore, his delegation could support onl y the disclosure of origin or source of genetic 
resources in patent applications, and not the discl osure of evidence of prior informed consent and 
benefit sharing. 
54. He said that there could also be a requiremen t on patent applicants to declare the specific 
source of traditional knowledge associated with gene tic resources if the applicant was aware that the 
invention was directly based on such traditional knowle dge.  In this context, he said that further in-
depth discussions of the concept of traditional knowledge were needed. 
55. He reiterated that a key point for his delegati on was that when the information disclosed was 
incorrect or incomplete, appropriate sanctions s hould be applied as determined by each individual 
Member but outside patent law.  In other words,  sanctions for non-compliance should not include the 
revocation or unenforceability of grante d patents.  If patent applicants failed or refused to declare the 
required information before the granting of the pate nt, despite being given the opportunity to remedy 
that omission, the patent application should not be pr ocessed further.  In conclusion, he said that his 
delegation was ready to further discuss this issue in a constructive spirit. 
56. The representative of Canada
 reaffirmed his delegation's view that the most meaningful way 
to advance the discussion on the relationship betw een the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD in the 
WTO was to engage in fact-based technical discussi ons of the various proposals made in the TRIPS 
Council and that time and considera tion should be given to a full scoping of the issue with a particular 
focus on the sharing of best practices and problems experienced.  Meanwhile he encouraged Members 
to consider other mechanisms to protect biodi versity and prevent misappropriation of genetic 
resources, such as developing broa der, globally accessible and functi onal prior art databases, using 
mutually agreed terms (MAT) in Material Transf er Agreements (MTA), licensing, codes of conduct 
and other contracts.  With respect to the propo sal for an amendment to the TRIPS Agreement to 
introduce a mandatory disclosure obligation of count ry of origin of genetic resources in patent 
applications, he said that his de legation had not been shown where there was a contradiction between IP/C/M/56 
Page 14  
 
  the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD and therefore it re mained unconvinced of the need for such an 
amendment.  He then reiterated th at his delegation saw merit in further discussing Japan's submissions 
as a potential tool for patent examiners to improve  the quality of their searches involving genetic 
resources. 
57. The representative of Switzerland
 said that his delegation had studied with great interest 
Peru's national activities, procedures and bodies, and that sharing of such national experiences would 
enable the Council to have fact-based and well- informed debates on these agenda items.  He hoped 
that other Members would submit similar communicat ions on their national experiences to the TRIPS 
Council.  He said that it was useful to info rm the Council of the proposals that Members had 
submitted in other international forums, such as his delegation' s several communications on the 
proposals it had submitted to WIPO with regard to th e disclosure of the source of genetic resources 
and traditional knowledge in patent  applications, and Japan's subm ission (document IP/C/W/504) on 
its proposal for the establishment of a database for traditional knowledge.  He welcomed Japan's 
proposal for the database system as it was in line with his delegation's proposals for the establishment 
of an international gateway fo r traditional knowledge.  He said that this gateway would link 
electronically local and national databases on trad itional knowledge and facilitate access by patent 
authorities to the traditional knowledge stored in these databases when examining the novelty 
requirement for patentability in the context of pate nt applications.  This gateway would allow the 
effective integration of documentation on trad itional knowledge into the searchable prior art. 
58. The representative of Venezuela  supported the statements made by India, Brazil and other 
countries that had co-sponsored the disclosure propo sal.  He said that the disclosure proposal had 
received support from more than half of the WTO membership.  He said that those Members which 
were still reluctant to join the disclosure group or even objected to the disclosure proposal should not 
underestimate the need of the proponents.  The pr oponents had a great amount of biodiversity and had 
tried to counter a negative impact on it.  Regarding the proposal of database systems, he said that it 
was not a convincing approach and would not lead  to a positive outcome.  He concluded that the 
disclosure proposal had received broad support in WTO,  and that there should be an outcome on this 
issue in the end. 
59. The representative of Chinese Taipei  said that his delegation had actively participated in 
discussions at the TRIPS Council's meetings and va rious consultations thr ough examining different 
proposals, providing technical comments and raising questions where necessary in order to have a 
clear understanding of whether each proposal would achieve the objectives set out.  Although his delegation had received responses to some of the questions, it felt that certain areas, such as the trigger for the disclosure obligation, needed furthe r clarification.  He said that as some proposals 
would have an impact on the effectiveness and efficiency of the patent system, there was need to have 
more technical discussions on these proposals in or der to avoid unnecessary uncertainty on granted 
patents and increased burden on pate nt applicants and examiners.  Finally, he said that due to the 
magnitude and complexity of this issue, his delega tion had not yet been able to come to a conclusion 
as to whether Members should amend the TRIPS Agreement to address the issue of fair and equitable benefit sharing.   
60. The representative of Brazil
 indicated that his delegation's position on Japan's proposal of  
database systems, as reflected in paragraph 109 of  the minutes of the TRIPS Council's meeting in 
October 2007, remained unchanged.  He took note of some additional elements of clarity, particularly 
those provided by the European Communities and New Zealand. 
61. The Council took note  of the statements made under these three agenda items and agreed  to 
revert to them at its next meeting.  IP/C/M/56 
 Page 15 
 
 
  F. NON-VIOLATION AND SITUATION COMPLAINTS  
62. The Chairman  recalled that paragraph 45 of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration directed 
the TRIPS Council to continue its examination of th e scope and modalities for complaints of the types 
provided for under subparagraphs  1(b) and 1(c) of Article XXIII of GATT 1994 and make 
recommendations to the next session of the Minister ial Conference.  It was agreed that in the 
meantime, Members would not initiate such  complaints under the TRIPS Agreement. 
63. He further recalled that, at its meeting in Marc h 2006, the Council had agreed to keep the item 
on non-violation and situation complaints on the agenda as a regular item so as to allow Members 
who would have new thinking to share it, and also enable the Council to consider improved ways of 
organizing its work on this matter. 
64. The Council agreed  to revert to the matter at its next meeting. 
G. REVIEW OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TRIPS  AGREEMENT UNDER ARTICLE 71.1 
65. No statements were made  under this agenda item. 
66. The Council agreed  to revert to the matter at its next meeting. 
H. REVIEW OF THE APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION ON GEOGRAPHICAL 
INDICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 24.2 
67. The Chairman  recalled that Article 24.2 provided that the Council shall keep under review the 
application of the provisions of the GI Section of the Agreement.  He said that, at its meeting in 
February 2007, the Council had agreed that the Ch air hold further consultations in due course on how 
the Council should organize its future work on the review.  Given that he had not received any 
representations from delegations on the issue, he had not yet held such further consultations.  
However, he remained ready to hold such consultations once he would sense an active interest in 
pursuing the matter. 
68. He urged those delegations that had not yet pr ovided responses to the Checklist of Questions 
contained in document IP/C/13 and Add.1 to do so.  He  also said that those Members that had already 
provided responses could provide updates to the extent  that there had been any significant changes to 
the way they provide protection to geographical indications. 
69. The Council agreed  to revert to the matter at its next meeting. 
I. FOLLOW -UP TO THE FIFTH ANNUAL REVIEW UNDER PARAGRAPH 2 OF THE DECISION ON THE 
IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 66.2  OF THE TRIPS  AGREEMENT  
70. The Chairman  recalled that, at its last meeting, the Council had taken up its fifth annual 
review of developed country Memb ers' reports on their implementation of Article 66.2 of the TRIPS 
Agreement.  In concluding the item, he had indi cated that he would provide delegations with an 
opportunity to make further comments on the informa tion submitted for that meeting that they had not 
been able to study. 
71. At the Council's last meeting, the representativ e of Lesotho, speaking on behalf of the LDC 
Group in the WTO, had requested the WTO Secretar iat to arrange seminars and workshops for LDC 
Members to help them better unders tand the reports and enable them to participate more actively and 
substantively in the discussions on this issue.  Th e Chairman informed the Council that, since then, IP/C/M/56 
Page 16  
 
  the Secretariat had been in contact with the LDC Group on this matter, which was considering how to 
pursue the matter. 
72. The representative of Uganda, speaking on behalf of the LDC Group in the WTO
, said that 
LDCs had always been appreciative of the efforts and the initiatives made by their developed trading 
partners on the issue of technology transfer.  Howeve r, for this to happen successfully, there had to be 
a commitment by developed WTO Members to give actual incentives to enterprises and institutions in 
their countries to work directly with enterprises and institutions in LDCs in a manner that resulted in 
technology transfer. To this end, LDCs wished  to request the establishment of a monitoring 
mechanism to review and eval uate whether such incentives- had been given and had indeed resulted 
in technology transfer to LDCs.  The reason for this  was that in the past, developed country partners 
had been submitting reports for the annual reviews bu t it had been difficult for LDCs to digest them 
so as to clearly assess whether this technology transfer had taken place at all. 
73. The representative of Uganda , supporting the statement by the LDC Group, said that under 
Article 66.2 developed countries were obliged to pr ovide incentives to their enterprises in order to 
transfer technology to LDCs and that develope d countries had reported on how they had complied 
with this obligation on an annual basis.  Neverthe less, the transfer of technology remained to be 
quantified.  Therefore, the establishment of a moni toring mechanism, as had been requested by the 
LDC Group, would help in the determination of wh ether the transfer of technology had taken place. 
74. The representative of Japan  recalled that, at the Council's last meeting, there had been a 
discussion on Articles 66.2 and 67.  It was useful  to deepen the understanding of TRIPS provisions 
through this kind of discussion and expected that the issue of technology transfer would also be 
addressed in the newly created Committee on Develo pment and Intellectual Property at WIPO.   
75. The purpose of Article 66.2 was to promote and en courage transfer of technology to LDCs.  It 
was important that LDCs develop and build th eir own capacity to create a sound and viable 
technological base.  To achieve this objective, a co mprehensive variety of activities, besides the mere 
transfer of each specific technology, was valu able.  Among these activities, capacity-building for 
creating or adjusting technical or legal infrastruct ure could be seen as highly important.  Based on this 
infrastructure, technology transfer could be pr omoted or encouraged and a sound and viable 
technological base would be feasible in a sustainable manner.  Therefore, Japan had been making efforts, especially on human resource development,  by receiving trainees and dispatching experts to 
create capacity in areas such as knowledge, skills, kno w-how on licensing, management, enforcement, 
manufacture engineering, quality control, administra tion, inspection, etc.  He believed that these 
capacity-building activities would enhance the capacity of LDCs to create a sound and viable 
technological base and attract technology transfer in the long term. 
76. He said that, currently, the ratio of overseas f iling of Japan was 14 per cent.  The Japanese 
Patent Office was planning a policy to increase this ratio and to encourage companies to file more 
patent applications abroad.  Under this policy, it was expected that more Japanese inventions would 
be published and granted overseas, which would l ead to dissemination and transfer of Japanese 
technologies. 
77. The Council took note
 of the statements made.  IP/C/M/56 
 Page 17 
 
 
  J. TECHNICAL COOPERATION AND CAPACITY -BUILDING  
- Follow-up to the 2007 annual review of technical cooperation 
- LDC priority needs for tec hnical and financial cooperation 
78. The Chairman  recalled that, at its last meeting, th e Council had taken up its  annual review of 
technical cooperation.  Given that some info rmation from Members and other intergovernmental 
organizations had been made available only a short time before the review, he offered delegations a 
further opportunity to make comments in this regard. 
79. He also recalled that paragraph 2 of the TRIPS Council's 2005 decision on the "Extension of 
the Transition Period under Article 66.1 for Least-D eveloped Country Members" provided that "with 
a view to facilitating targeted technical and financ ial cooperation programmes, all the least-developed 
country Members will provide to the Council for TRI PS, preferably by the 1 January 2008, as much 
information as possible on their individual priority needs for technical and financial cooperation in order to assist them taking steps necessary to impl ement the TRIPS Agreement".  At the Council's last 
meeting, Sierra Leone and Uganda had presented co mmunications identifying th eir priority needs for 
technical and financial cooperation (IP/C/W/499 and 500, respectively).  In their communications, 
Sierra Leone and Uganda had requ ested that consultations be set up with their developed country 
partners and relevant in ternational organizations on how the prio rity needs that they had identified 
could best be met.  The Chairman informed the Council that such consultations were envisaged to 
take place back-to-back with th e Council's meeting in June. 
80. The representative of Uganda, speaking on behalf of the LDC Group in the WTO
, said that 
the LDC Group supported the contents of paragraph 2 of the 2005 Decision on the Extension of the 
Transition Period under Article 66.1.  So far, only two LDCs, i.e. Uganda and Sierra Leone, had 
submitted their priority needs for technical cooperation.  At the Ministerial Meeting in Maseru, Lesotho, LDC Ministers had committed themselves to ensure that the needs assessments were carried 
out.  LDCs therefore wished to recommit themselves to comply with this requirement and to request 
flexibilities to be extended to those LDCs that had not yet presented their needs and priority 
assessments.  Furthermore, the LDC Group requested that, once the needs and priority assessments had 
been submitted, developed partners should provide the technical and financial assistance to LDCs to achieve the necessary technological base that would set the ground for compliance. 
81. The representative of Uganda
 said that Uganda had submitted its needs assessment on 
9 October 2007 (IP/C/W/500 ), as provided for in paragraph 2 of the 2005 Decision.  He recalled that, 
at the Council's last meeting, Uganda had made  preliminary remarks on the importance of the 
assessment exercise and listened to the feedback from other Members which in many ways had 
provided the way forward.  It had been realized that  Uganda needed to take a further step to package 
its priorities into bankable projects to be presente d to donors.  Uganda fully supported the assessment 
and the road map outlined by the Chairman and w ould be engaging with de velopment partners to 
implement the projects. 
82. The representative of the United States  said that his delegation appreciated the 
communications by Sierra Leone and Uganda outlini ng several key issues and proposals related to the 
development of sound and viable technological b ases in their countries.  He  agreed that for LDC 
Members eager to implement their TRIPS obligations, technical and financial assistance could be critical and that, as reflected in those communications, intellectual property rights played a strong role in development, and were an integral part of th e policies and practices that promoted the growth of 
science, technology, culture and innovation.  He  commended the efforts of these two countries to 
define their IPR-related technical  and financial assistance needs that they believed were necessary for 
them to work toward full implementation of the TRIPS Agreement at the appropriate time. IP/C/M/56 
Page 18  
 
  83. He said that the United States was committed to continually enhancing its activities relevant 
to both Articles 66.2 and 67 of the TRIPS Agreement,  and that the communications from Sierra Leone 
and Uganda would contribute to th e improvement of such efforts.  IPR-related technical assistance 
and training, trade capacity-buildi ng, development assistance and infr astructure development were all 
integral elements of the assistance efforts of th e US Government.  The goals of these efforts included 
helping developing countries create the conditions essential to develop a sound technological base;  
assisting countries in improving their administration, management and protection of IP, and encouraging the effective transfer of technology to developing countries. 
84. He said that, in its communication, Sierra Le one had indicated that it was planning to make a 
future submission to the TRIPS Council regarding its  specific needs for technology transfer.  Uganda 
had mentioned in its communication that it planne d to work with other LDCs to make further 
contributions to the Council in this respect.  He said that his delegation looked forward to reviewing 
these submissions and to engaging in further dial ogue on these issues, both in the TRIPS Council and 
bilaterally.  
85. With respect to the specific proposals contai ned in the needs assessment documents of 
Uganda and Sierra Leone, he we lcomed the detailed proposals and supported some of the ideas 
contained in them.  He looked forward to a continued engagement on these matters in the 
consultations that were envisioned in connection with the Council's ne xt meeting.  In the meantime, 
he offered some initial reactions.  His delegation sup ported the notion that further technical assistance 
programmes, whether bilaterally or through inte rnational organizations, should include regional 
frameworks and organizations such as ARIPO.  Regi onal IP offices, like ARIPO, were the way of the 
future for global cooperation in reducing resour ce burdens on patent offices and improving the quality 
of the examination process.  In fact, at the US  Global Intellectual Property Academy (GIPA), there 
was a pending training proposal to provide an IP administration programme for officials from both ARIPO and OAPI.  He looked forward to deve loping more programmes for regional offices.  
Additionally, strengthening individual IP offices was also an important tool in providing a strong and 
functioning IP regime.  The United States, for example, had developed several programmes under 
GIPA on patent and trademark administration.  Th ese programmes looked at how to run and set up IP 
offices, with discussions on resource and computerizati on issues.  He stressed the continued interest 
of his delegation in having more LDCs participate in these programmes.   
86. He said that the enforcement priorities outlined in both proposals were welcomed and shared 
by the United States.  He supported the idea that effective programmes should include:  information 
exchange regarding border enforcement, particular ly with neighbouring countries;  training right 
holder organizations, enforcement agencies and atto rneys and prosecutors;  and developing consumer 
education programmes.  GIPA programmes included  enforcement seminars for judges, prosecutors, 
customs officers, and other government officials.   Since 2000, 40 enforcement related programmes 
had been undertaken.  He looked forward to ex amining how GIPA could continue to support the 
enforcement priorities outlined in the comm unications of Uganda  and Sierra Leone. 
87. In conclusion, he said that his delegation was supportive of the efforts suggested in both 
assessments to promote innovation, human skill de velopment and building capacity for technology 
transfer in these countries.  In particular, he en couraged efforts such as improving business education 
and awareness about intellectual property for small and medium-size enterprises, since entrepreneurs 
were the innovators and income generators in the economy, and making sure they understand their IP 
rights and how IP could benefit them was critical for sustainable developmental benefits from this 
effort.  
88. The representative of the European Communities  welcomed the submissions of Uganda and 
Sierra Leone and confirmed the readiness of his dele gation to find an adequate response according to 
the roadmap proposed by the Chairman.  He recalle d that the European Communities and its member  IP/C/M/56 
 Page 19 
 
 
  States were already providers of technical assistance in LDCs and that they would continue to support 
these countries in the implementation of the TRIPS Ag reement.  His delegation was available to assist 
those LDCs who had not yet submitted their needs assessm ents to identify their needs and priorities.   
89. The representative of Japan  said that his delegation had been keenly engaged in technical 
assistance.  For example, through the WIPO Fund-in-Trust, Japan had made voluntary financial 
contributions reaching CHF 2.5 million per year.  Under the FIT, Japan had received trainees and 
dispatched around 3,000 experts.  Furthermore,  his delegation planned to increase its voluntary 
contribution to WIPO by CHF 1.1million, subject to  approval.  He welcomed the submissions of 
Uganda and Sierra Leone describing their priority  needs for technical and financial cooperation. 
These contributions were helpful for planning and implementing technical assistance in an effective 
and efficient manner. 
90. The Chairman  urged other LDC Members to provide information on their individual priority 
needs for technical and financial cooperation. 
91. The Council took note  of the statements made and agreed  to revert to the matter at its next 
meeting. 
K. INFORMATION ON RELEVANT DEVELOPMENTS ELSEWHERE IN THE WTO 
92. The Chairman  said that, at its meeting of 18 December 2007, the Ge neral Council had 
approved Cape Verde's Protocol of Accessi on and adopted a Decision on the Accession of 
Cape Verde as well as the report of the Working Party on its accession (WT/ACC/CPV/30 and Add.1 and 2).   
93. At its meeting of 5-6 February 2008, the Gene ral Council had approved Ukraine's Protocol of 
Accession and adopted a Decision on the Accession of Ukraine as well as th e report of the Working 
Party on its accession (WT/ACC/UKR/152 and Add.1 and 2).  
94. In keeping with WTO provisions, Cape Verd e and Ukraine would become Members 30 days 
following the dates of their ratification of their respective Protocols of Accession. 
95. By means of a communication, dated 3 March 2008, the European Communities had 
requested consultations with China regarding me asures affecting financial information services and 
foreign financial information suppliers (IP/D/27). 
96. Turning to the Protocol Amending the TRIPS Agreement of 6 December 2005, the Chairman 
said that pursuant to the proposal agreed by the TRIPS Council at its last meeting (IP/C/45), the General Council had decided, at its meeti ng on 18 December 2007, to extend the period for 
acceptances by Members of the Protocol until 31 Decemb er 2009 or such later date as may be decided 
by the Ministerial Conference (WT/L/711). 
97. Since the TRIPS Council's meeting in Oct ober 2007, the following Members had deposited 
their instruments of acceptance:  Hong Kong, Ch ina on 27 November;  China on 28 November;  and 
the European Communities on 30 November (documents  WT/Let/606-608, respectively).  In addition, 
on 31 January, the Netherlands had accepted the Pr otocol for the Netherlands Antilles and Aruba 
(document WT/Let/611).  The Secretariat had circul ated an update to the note on the status of 
acceptances of the Protocol (IP/C/W/490/Rev.2) a nd would continue to update it periodically. 
98. The representative of China
 said that China had ratified the Protocol on 28 November 2007 
prior to the original deadline.  In ratifying the Prot ocol, it had shown its consistent commitment to the 
development objectives of the WTO and its support for developing Members' legitimate right to IP/C/M/56 
Page 20  
 
  protect public health and gain improved access to medi cines.  He said that China continued to push 
forward the process of amending its relevant domestic laws and regulations, such as the patent law, in 
order to implement the Protocol.  China had always  believed that the TRIPS Agreement was part of 
wider national and international ac tions aimed to solve the public health problems afflicting many 
developing countries, particularly LDCs.  He encour aged Members to ratify the Protocol as soon as 
possible, as well as Members who had already amended their national laws to share their experience 
with those who had technical difficulties.   
99. The Chairman
 urged delegations who had not yet accepte d the Protocol to do so as soon as 
possible.   
100. The Council took note  of the statements made. 
L. OBSERVER STATUS FOR INTERNATIONAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS  
101. The Chairman  said that there were 17 pending requests for observer status in the TRIPS 
Council, from the CBD Secretariat and 16 other inte rgovernmental organizations.  A list of these 
requests was contained in document IP/C/W/52/Rev. 11.  At its last meeting, the Council had 
requested that he continue to hold consulta tions with a view to resolving the matter. 
102. He informed the Council that he had consulted w ith those delegations who in the past had had 
some difficulty in granting observer status for the CBD Secretariat.  One of these delegations, which 
previously had had concerns about a selective approach on what it saw as an issue of a systemic nature to be addressed at the level of the General Council, had suggested that it might be possible to 
make progress if, rather than considering permanen t observer status, the model used in the Special 
Session of the Committee on Trade and Environmen t and the Negotiating Group on Trade Facilitation 
were to be considered – in the former case to invite  certain international organi zations to participate as 
ad hoc  invitees, and in the latter to invite releva nt international organi zations to attend on an ad hoc  
basis, as had been provided for in the Group's Work  Plan.  In both of these bodies, the invitations 
were issued on a meeting by meeti ng basis.  However, a nother delegation had info rmed him that it did 
not see that that approach would offer a solution.  In its view, the situation in the TRIPS Council was 
not similar to that in the negotiating groups and th ere was not a case to give special treatment to the 
CBD Secretariat, especially given the overall syst emic issue facing the General Council regarding 
observer status.  Therefore, while he had detected  some potentially helpful developments, he was not 
in a position to report that there was a br eakthrough towards consensus on this matter. 
103. Furthermore, he informed the Council that, as agreed  at its last meeting, he had sent a letter to 
the Executive Secretary of the CBD Secretariat to inform him of the status of its pending request. 
104. The representative of Brazil
 acknowledged the efforts that the Chair had put into the informal 
consultations.  There had been a significant or at least a noticeable movement on the part of some 
Members.  He recognized the effort by the delegation of Egypt to explore possible solutions to the question of the participation of the CBD Secretariat in the work of the TRIPS Council based on the current practice of the CTESS, namely to invite the CBD Secretariat as ad hoc  invitee on a meeting-
by-meeting basis.  This was an important issue, since the Council had held numerous discussions on 
issues related to the CBD and there were three agenda ite ms directly related to it.  It would be relevant 
for the CBD Secretariat to take part even as an ad hoc invitee so as to have first hand information on 
the ongoing debates.   
105. He said that he was aware of the other pendi ng requests, to which the one from the ACP 
Group had recently been added.  It was unfortuna te that the Council could not solve the issue 
concerning all the pending requests.  In his view, th e Council should continue to make efforts through 
the Chairman and his good offices in providing it an  opportunity to have informal consultations to see  IP/C/M/56 
 Page 21 
 
 
  if it were possible to consider in a positive light these requests and to enhance the participation of 
different stakeholders in the Council's wo rk, which would strengthen and benefit it. 
106. The representative of Egypt  agreed with the Chairman's assessment of the state of play.  He 
said that the Chairman had made strenuous and genu ine efforts to resolve the issue concerning the 
request from the CBD Secretariat.  His delegation had always been constructively engaged with the 
Chairman and was trying to bring ideas that might provide Members with some leeway on the matter.  
These ideas did not touch upon Egypt's principa l position regarding the matter of permanent 
observership which, as a position of the Arab countri es, was still being considered.  However, until 
the General Council provided a holistic approach to  solve the matter across the board, his delegation 
would not be able to discuss any request for a perm anent observership in the TRIPS Council.  He said 
that his delegation remained in the hands of the Chairman and his successor in any future 
consultations on this matter. 
107. The Council took note  of the statements made and agreed  to revert to this matter at its next 
meeting. 
M. OTHER BUSINESS  
108. The representative of Canada  said that his delegation wished to provide an update on the 
review of the Canadian Access to Medicines Regime (CAMR).  He recalled that the statutory review of the CAMR had been completed in May 2007, as required by the Patent Act.  On 13 December 
2007, the Minister of Industry had tabled the report on  the results of that review in Parliament, which 
was available online at http://www.camr.gc.ca.  This  report summarized the inputs from an extensive 
consultation process, which had run between 24 N ovember 2006 and May 2007, international trade 
rules, as well as the circumstances surroundi ng the September 2007 granting of the first ever 
compulsory licence under the terms of the WTO wa iver decision to the Canadian generic drug 
company, Apotex. The report concluded that not  enough time had passed and not enough evidence 
had been accumulated since the CAMR had come in to force in May 2005 to warrant making changes 
at this time.  However, future amendments remained possible should circumstances evolve.  
109. He said that Canada would continue to  support the use of the CAMR, including the 
establishment of an expert advisory committee by Ma y 2008, to review the list of medicines eligible 
for export, as well as expanding its efforts to raise awar eness of the regime in the developing world.  
As part of Canada's broader strategy to improve ac cess to medicines in the developing world, Canada 
had announced that it would provide long-term pr edictable financing for the Global Fund to Fight 
AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria with a pledge of  $450 million over the next three years.     
110. The Council took note
 of the statement made. 
N. ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON  
111. The Chairman  recalled that, at its meeting of 6 Febr uary 2008, the General Council had taken 
note of the consensus on a slate of names of chai rpersons for WTO bodies.  On the basis of the 
understanding reached, he proposed that the Counc il for TRIPS elect H.E. Ambassador Gail Marie 
Mathurin from Jamaica as its Chairperson for the coming year by acclamation. 
112. The Council so agreed . 
__________