RESTRICTED  WORLD TRADE  
ORGANIZATION  IP/C/M/50 
16 May 2006 
 (06-2371) 
Council for Trade-Related Aspects 
of Intellectual Property Rights  
 
 
 
MINUTES OF MEETING 
 
Held in the Centre William Rappard on 14-15 March 2006 
 
Chairman:  Ambassador Choi Hyuck (Korea) 
  
 The present document contains the record of  the discussion which took place during the 
TRIPS Council meeting held on 14-15 March 2006. 
 
 Subjects discussed
         P a g e  n o s .  
 
A. NOTIFICATIONS UNDER PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT .........................................................2  
B. FOLLOW -UP TO REVIEWS OF NATIONAL IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION ALREADY 
UNDERTAKEN ..............................................................................................................................2  
C. REVIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 27.3  (B) .....................................................................3  
D. RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TRIPS  AGREEMENT AND THE CONVENTION ON 
BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY .............................................................................................................3  
E. PROTECTION OF TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND FOLKLORE ...................................................3  
F. NON-VIOLATION AND SITUATION COMPLAINTS .......................................................................19  
G. SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT PROPOSALS REFERRED TO THE COUNCIL ..............19  
H. REVIEW OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TRIPS  AGREEMENT UNDER ARTICLE 71.1..................19  
I. REVIEW OF THE APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION ON 
GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 24.2 ...............................................................19  
J. FOLLOW -UP TO THE THIRD ANNUAL REVIEW UNDER PARAGRAPH 2 OF THE DECISION 
ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 66.2  OF THE TRIPS  AGREEMENT ...............................21  
K. TECHNICAL COOPERATION AND CAPACITY -BUILDING ............................................................21  
L. ENFORCEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS – COMMUNICATION FROM THE 
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES ........................................................................................................21  
M. INFORMATION ON RELEVANT DEVELOPMENTS ELSEWHERE IN THE WTO ..............................29  
N. OBSERVER STATUS FOR INTERNATIONAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS ...............30  
O. OTHER BUSINESS ......................................................................................................................30  
P. ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON ..............................................................................................30  
 
 IP/C/M/50 
Page 2  
 
  A. N
OTIFICATIONS UNDER PROVISIONS OF THE AGREEMENT  
1. The Chairman  informed the Council that, since its meeting in October 2005, the Council had 
received a number of supplements and updates to earlie r notifications of laws and regulations notified 
under Article 63.2 of the Agreement.  The Former  Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia had notified its 
revised Law on Industrial Property;  Malaysia had notified its Protection of New Plant Varieties Act 
2004;  the Czech Republic had notified amendments to its copyright legisl ation;  and Hong Kong, 
China had notified amendments to its Registered D esigns Ordinance, Trademarks Ordinance, Patents 
Ordinance and Layout-Designs of Integrated Circu its Regulation.  These notifications were being 
circulated in the IP/N/1/- series of documents.  He urged those Members whose initial notifications 
remained incomplete to submit the outstanding mate rial without delay, a nd reminded other Members 
of their obligation to notify any subsequent amendm ents of their laws and regulations without delay 
after their entry into force. 
2. As regards notifications of contact points under Article 69, he said that, since the Council's 
meeting in October, updates to contact points not ified earlier had been received from Armenia, 
Barbados, China, Ecuador, the European Communities,  Greece, Jordan, Kenya, Latvia and Nicaragua.  
These notifications were being circulated in addend a to document IP/N/3/Rev.9/Add.1 and 2.  A total 
of 121 Members had notified contact points under Article 69. 
3. The Council took note  of the information provided. 
B. FOLLOW -UP TO REVIEWS OF NATIONAL IMPLEMENTING LEGISLATION ALREADY 
UNDERTAKEN  
4. Turning to the follow-up to the 11 reviews that  had been initiated at the Council's meetings 
since April 2001 but which still remained on the Council's agenda, the Chairman  recalled that, at its 
last meeting, he had informed the Council th at the Republic of Congo and Qatar had provided 
responses to outstanding question posed to them.  Since then, these responses ha d been circulated in 
documents IP/Q/COG/1/Add.1 and IP/Q/QAT/1/Add.1, respectively.  He suggested that the regular 
review of the legislation of the Republic of C ongo and Qatar be deleted from the agenda, it being 
understood that any delegation could revert to an y matter stemming from the review at any time. 
5. The Council so agreed . 
6. The Chairman  noted that the remaining eight Members with outstanding questions were 
Cuba;  Fiji;  Grenada;  Mauritius;  Saint Kitts and Nevis;  Saint Vincen t and the Grenadines;  
Suriname;  and Swaziland. 
7. He said that a number of questions had also been raised with regard to the implementing 
legislation of certain Members whose reviews had already been deleted from the Council's agenda on 
the understanding that any delegation should feel fr ee to revert to any matter stemming from the 
review at any time.  These Members were Dominica, Gabon, Ghana and Guyana. 
8. He urged the delegations con cerned to provide the outstanding material as soon as possible, 
so as to allow the Council to comp lete the follow-up to these review s, and asked the Secretariat to 
contact them.  He suggested that the Council re vert to this matter at its next meeting. 
9. The Council took note  of the information provid ed by the Chair and agreed  to proceed as 
suggested by the Chair.  IP/C/M/50 
 Page 3 
 
 
  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  
10. The Chairman  suggested that Members continue to di scuss the three agenda items together as 
had been the practice at the TRIPS Council's past me etings.  He recalled that , in paragraph 44 of the 
Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration, Ministers ha d taken note of the work undertaken by the 
TRIPS Council pursuant to paragraph 19 of the Doha  Ministerial Declaration and agreed that this 
work shall continue on the basis of paragraph 19 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration and the progress 
made in the TRIPS Council to date.  The General Coun cil shall report on its work in this regard to the 
next Session of the Ministerial Conference.  He had held consultations on how the TRIPS Council 
should organize its future work in the light of the Ho ng Kong Ministerial Declaration, in particular its 
paragraph 44 on "Doha pa ragraph 19".  He suggested that Members come back to that issue after their 
substantive discussion. 
11. Turning to the substantive discussion, he reca lled that two new documents had been presented 
to the Council's October meeting, one from Peru containing a case study on the camu-camu fruit 
(IP/C/W/458);  and another from India, on behalf of  Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia, Cuba and Pakistan, 
(IP/C/W/459), containing technical observations on an earlier US submission, (IP/C/W/449).  The 
Council had received two new communications, one from the United States (IP/C/W/469) and another 
from Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, India, Sri Lanka a nd Thailand (advance copy of IP/C/W/470).   
12. He recalled that, in August 2002, as requested by  the Council, the Secretariat had circulated 
three summary notes of issues raised and points made on these three agenda items in documents 
IP/C/W/369, 368 and 370, respectively.  At its meeting in September 2002 , the TRIPS Council had 
requested the Secretariat to periodically update th ese three summary notes, not after every meeting, 
but when significant new material would have b een presented.  After initially circulating updated 
versions of these three notes as JOB documents to Members for comments, the Secretariat had 
circulated revisions of the three notes in docum ents IP/C/W/368/Rev.1 and Corr.1, 369/Rev.1 and 
370/Rev.1. 
13. Introducing document IP/C/W/469, the representative of the United States  said that the 
exchange of views among Members had helped to  focus discussions on the crucial question of 
whether the various proposals made in the TRIP S Council could adequately address the concerns 
raised in meeting the objectives that were widely shared in the Council.  In building upon the fact-
based discussion, she said that Me mbers had closely considered the arguments made in the Council 
and, in particular, in documents IP/C/W/434, IP/C/W/443, IP/C/W/449 and IP/C/W/459.  This consideration continued to lead  her delegation to the conclusi on that new patent disclosure 
requirements were not an appropriate solution to meet  the concerns raised.  In order to achieve the 
objectives of prior informed consent and equitable be nefit sharing, national laws outside the patent 
system that directly and effectively regulated condu ct were critical.  She said that the co-sponsors of 
document IP/C/W/459 had acknowledged that a nationa l-based access and benefit-sharing regime was 
necessary for the proper implementation of benefit-sharing aspects of the system.  Her delegation had long observed that concerns about misappropriation arose more broadly than in the context of 
products under patent protection.  Paragraph 18  of document IP/C/W/459 also acknowledged that 
misappropriation might or might not include patent protection and that instances of other non-patent 
forms of commercialization were dealt with under nati onal access and benefit-sharing regimes.  It was 
unclear from the arguments of the demandeurs  why national access and benefit-sharing systems were 
insufficient with respect to misappropriation that w as followed by the filing of a patent application, 
while apparently being sufficient to handle all ot her forms of misappropriation which potentially had IP/C/M/50 
Page 4  
 
  even greater commercial consequences.  As previ ously proposed, it seemed that a more appropriate 
solution for any kind of misappropriation would be to strengthen national regi mes outside the patent 
systems in order to address all instances of co mmercialization of misappropr iated resources and/or 
traditional knowledge that needed to be addr essed, regardless of whether these instances involved 
patenting or not.  In order to better resolve this issue, she said that the Council should continue its 
consideration of national experi ences regarding access and benefit-sharing systems and identify 
perceived problems or gaps with these existing systems, and proceed to discuss how these problems could be addressed. 
14. She said that in document IP/C/W/469 her dele gation had questioned the major premise of 
Peru's submission in document IP/C/W/458 that pate nt applications incorporated genetic resources 
and traditional knowledge obtained illega lly, irregularly or questionably, to say the least.  The fact-
based discussion in the Council had noted that many of the resources cited by Peru and other Members were commercially available, grown in many countries throughout the world and exported 
and sold as raw materials for direct consumption or industrial processing, with a view to obtaining immediate economic benefits.  The threshold questio n was whether these exports were subject to the 
national access and benefit-sharing regimes in place in Peru or other Members.  If not, it was likely 
that the inventions cited had used starting materials that had been obtained by legitimate means, e.g., 
through commercial channels.  Additionally, a curs ory review of several of the patents listed in 
documents IP/C/W/458 and IP/C/W/459 revealed that the inventors of several of these patents had 
disclosed the source and/or origin of the genetic res ource related to the invention.  Given that many of 
the issued patents involving genetic resources cited by Peru and others did disclose source and/or 
origin of the biological material, it was clear that  the proposed new disclosure requirements, in and of 
themselves, would not attain the purported goals.   
15. Rather than advocate burdensome remedies that would not address underlying problems, 
Members should enquire into how existing access a nd benefit-sharing systems would deal with 
genetic resources exported as raw material for di rect consumption or industrial processing, or 
otherwise traded as commodities.  New disclosur e requirements would not address large volumes of 
resources that might be exported from countries, appa rently exempt or unregulated by national access 
and benefit-sharing systems that, after travelling through the normal channels of commerce, might 
eventually be used as starting materials for resea rch and/or innovation.  Th e proposed new disclosure 
requirements did not address these past perceived instances of misappropriation.  In the absence of evidence to support the assertion that these new propo sed disclosure requirements would achieve their 
intended outcomes, it was all the more problematic for Members to consider such requirements in 
light of the disincentives they were likely to have on innovation.  She said that the patent system was a critical incentive mechanism for promoting the research and development of new inventions of 
legally obtained or accessed material.  This was wh at ultimately resulted in new inventions that 
enhanced living conditions, including life-saving medi cines, higher crop yields, and better treatments 
for diseases.  All Members had a stake in encouraging, not discouraging, this process. 
16. Responding to Canada's questi on about which authorities in the United States would be 
involved in monitoring an international contract-b ased access and benefit-sharing regime and whether 
these authorities would be national or international in nature and, if the latter, whose jurisdiction they 
would operate under, she said that national authoriti es would be responsible.  The most effective way 
to ensure the commonly shared obj ectives of ensuring prior informed  consent and equitable benefit 
sharing was tailored national laws outside the patent system that directly and effectively regulated the 
relevant conduct upon access to the genetic resource.  However, she stressed that the proposal for 
national laws and systems did not imply that intern ational norms had no relevance, nor that the US 
proposals were not international in character.  In ternational guidelines, such as the Bonn Guidelines 
on Access to Genetic Resources and Fair and Equitabl e Sharing of the Benefits Arising out of their 
Utilization, as well as guidance from bodies such  as the WIPO Intergovernmental Committee on 
Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditi onal Knowledge and Folklo re (IGC) would also  IP/C/M/50 
 Page 5 
 
 
  be instrumental in providing guidance for national systems around the world.  A national contract-
based system could be adequately enforced through the use of effec tive mechanisms relative to cross-
boundary disputes, should they arise, such as choice of forum, choice of law, or international arbitration provisions that were in wide use in commercial transactions. 
17. In response to Canada's question about the imp act of new patent disclosure requirements on 
the international patent system, she said that such requirements would complicate an already 
overburdened patent system, in particular when comb ined with the sanctions that had been proposed.  
For example, the revocation of granted patents or the prevention of an otherwise deserving invention 
from patent grant could have significant negative effects on the patent system and would serve to 
undermine the goal of benefit sharing.  Her delegation was not aware of any proposal where possible 
sanctions for wrongful or non-disclosure were put in to place outside the patent system as all proposals 
envisioned sanctions involving at least the preven tion of the grant of a patent for an otherwise 
deserving invention, or the revocation of granted pa tents.  Even assuming a situation involving all 
sanctions outside the patent system, she said that a new disclosure requirement would still be problematic for a number of reasons.  In additi on to setting a negative precedent of linking the 
regulation of misconduct to the patent system - so mething for which the patent system was never 
intended - a new patent disclosure requirement c ould not address the objectives that it purported to 
fulfil, i.e. ensuring appropriate access and equitabl e benefit sharing and preventing mistakenly granted 
patents.  New disclosure requireme nts might create legal uncertainty in patents related to genetic 
resources if patents could be challenged on this basi s.  Additionally, given the prevalence of genetic 
resources for which the country of origin was itself unknown or uncertain, these disclosure 
requirements created a burden and un certainty on patent applicants  in determining what impact 
disclosure requirements might ultimately have on th e invention they believe d they had developed. 
18. She recalled that the demandeurs  had clarified, in paragraph 6 of document IP/C/W/459, that 
the disclosure requirement was primarily aimed at preventing the grant of so-called "bad" or mistakenly granted patents.  The question then became whether the pr oposed disclosure of source and 
country of origin could be justified under this pr imary aim.  Due to the tenuous relationship of the 
source and/or country of origin to issues relating to  prior art and inventorship, it was not likely that 
new disclosure requirements would provide any helpful "hints" to patent examiners as argued by the 
proponents.  The problems cited in Peru's paper included limited information in the English language 
in certain patent databases, problems in finding pr ior art because the available information was not 
"systematized" and difficulties in finding documents regarding particular oral customs.  The 
United States had been working to improve the qua lity of patent examination and to ensure that 
challenges regarding prior art were addressed.  Am ong other examples, her delegation fully supported 
efforts to compile organized databases and to ensure that prior art related to  traditional knowledge was 
better integrated into the international patent system .  Furthermore, the definition of prior art differed 
around the world, such that what might be consider ed an "erroneously issued patent" by some was 
perfectly valid in other jurisdictions.  She said th at her delegation continued to study the examples 
cited by other delegations, but a fi rst review failed to show how the proposed disclosure requirements 
regarding source and/or country of origin would addr ess the concerns raised.  As discussed at the last 
meeting of the Council, the facts of the turmeric cas e showed that the country of origin had indeed 
been identified in that patent application yet, as would commonly be the case, this information had 
had little relevance to the matters of patentabilit y at hand.  Despite the premise being as yet 
unsupported, her delegation was st udying other cited examples to de termine whether disclosure of 
source and/or origin would be effective in preventing mistakenly granted patents.   
19. 
With respect to the relationship of genetic resources and/or traditional knowledge to the 
invention, she said that the arguments of the proponents of the new disclosure requirements seemed to imply that all biological resources automatically contained an economic and intellectual contribution 
worthy of protection.  If this were true, the most appropriate system of protection, regardless of any 
eventual patenting or commercialization, should be a national contract-based access and benefit-IP/C/M/50 
Page 6  
 
  sharing system that permitted monitoring of th e biological resource upon access.  Instead, she said 
that the proponents argued in favour of new patent  disclosure requirements that would have little, if 
any, effect in actually protecting this purporte d economic and intellectual contribution of the 
biological resource.  The co-sponsors of documen t IP/C/W/459 appeared to assume that what was 
known about a genetic resource prior to research and development was what led the inventor to the 
patented invention.  Such was not the case in many,  if not most, circumstances.  Many inventions 
were the culmination of numerous researchers seeking a solution to a problem, or the result of an unexpected finding while seeking information on an unr elated experiment.  For example, it had taken 
more than 30 years to develop the anti-cancer medi cation Taxol, which had been originally isolated 
from the Pacific Yew in Washington State in the Un ited States.  This had cost the US Government 
more than US$ 32 million and Bristol-Myers Squi bb (BMS) more than US$ 320 million in ramp-up 
costs and investment.  Total drug investment for BMS purportedly had approached nearly 
US$1 billion.  This invent ion had been developed as a result of a US National Cancer Institute Mass-
Screening Programme of more than 100,000 plant ex tracts and 16,000 animal extracts for evidence of 
the anti-cancer activity.  Taxol had been the only ex tract that had showed promise and resulted in a 
commercialized drug from this Programme.  The researchers isolating the Pacific Yew extract had had 
no previous knowledge of anti-cancer activity.  Sh e said that document IP/C/W/459 overlooked the 
real and often costly efforts undertaken to de velop a biological resource into a commercially 
successful product, and the risks involved in undert aking such research and development.  Many 
medicines that were developed from plant and anim al extracts were a result of arduous research 
efforts, unexpected research results or trial-and-erro r experimentation.  She said that the patent system 
was designed as an incentive for innovators to unde rtake such intensive and expensive research and 
development by awarding an exclusive right to excl ude others from using the invention for a limited 
time.  Members should be wary of potentially up setting this system by introducing new patent 
disclosure requirements.   
20. She further said that the case of Merck Sharp and Dohme (Merck) and the National Institute 
of Biodiversity of Costa Rica (INBio) was an exampl e of the benefits of a national access and benefit-
sharing system where, as was often the case, the economic potential of a biological resource was 
unknown and might not be realized through research and development.  The contract entered into 
between the user and the provider had resulted in drama tic benefits for parties in that case.  Under this 
agreement, INBio, a government created non-prof it scientific organization, had provided 10,000 
samples of plants, animals and soil to Merck with  exclusive rights to research these samples for two 
years and with retention rights for any resulting patents.  In exchange, Merck had paid INBio 
US$ 1 million up front and provided the institute  with training and laboratory equipment.  
Additionally, Merck had agreed to pay royalties for any drugs developed from the biological samples.  
The agreement between Merck and INBio had been  successful enough for the parties to extend the 
agreement at least two more times.  It had been reported that the resources screened by Merck had not 
been commercialized to date and had not led to an y patentable inventions, as was typically the case, 
and yet this arrangement had transferred significant benefits to INBio.  The Merck/INBio agreement 
had also been touted as a very effec tive access and benefit-sharing mechanism. 
21. In conclusion, she said that Members' disc ussions had helped to identify common ground 
among them.  It had also been confirmed that Memb ers agreed that national contract-based access and 
benefit-sharing systems were essential elements of a ny solution.  Members also appeared to share the 
concern about how to improve prior art search mech anisms for patent offices around the world with 
the objective of preventing mistakenly granted pate nts.  A detailed analysis of individual cases and 
experiences continued to lead to the conclusion that the newly proposed disclosure requirements 
would not achieve the shared objectives of Member s.  The most recent fact-based discussions had 
raised a number of issues regarding genetic resources  traded as commodities;  the relationship of these 
goods to national access and benefit-sharing regimes in place; as well as the relationship of such 
goods to starting materials that might be used for research or innovative purposes.  Analysis of these  IP/C/M/50 
 Page 7 
 
 
  issues could have a bearing on perceptions of misappropriation and perceived solutions to the 
concerns raised, and work in the TRIPS Council should continue along these lines.   
22. Introducing document IP/C/W/470, the representative of India  said that it was a written reply 
to the questions posed by Switzerland in document IP/C/W/446.  He said that his delegation had 
worked since March 2004 to clarify both the policy objectives behind the disclosure proposal as well 
as the technical-level solutions required to operatio nalize the proposal.  Members had to come to a 
commonality of views on the scope of the disclosur e proposal, the definitions to be used and the 
language to be drafted to insert it into the TRIPS Ag reement.  He said that technical work would be 
useful for completing the examination of the rela tionship between the CBD and the TRIPS Agreement 
and to discharge the TRIPS Council's mandate under paragraph 19 of the Doha Ministerial 
Declaration and paragraph 44 of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration. 
23. Responding to the US assertion with respect to th e turmeric case that the patent applicant had 
disclosed India as the country of origin, but that th is information had been irrelevant to patentability, 
and that the applicant had been under a requirement to disclose information material to patentability 
subject to a severe penalty of non-en forcement of patent claims in the United States, he said that the 
prior art indicated in the patent application had ev en referred to the traditional use of turmeric for 
healing wounds but the applicant claimed to have in vented an alternative therapy.  The prior art, as 
available on the date of filing, had, however, not been fully revealed by the applicant, nor did the 
USPTO try to find it out.  The inventors had claime d to have studied the wound-healing properties of 
turmeric to provide a simple and economical solution to the problem of chronic ulcers.  They had also 
claimed that they were the first to use turmeric topically and orally as a single agent modality for 
wound healing.  However, they had not given in formation which indicated inventiveness as their 
claimed invention was the same as what had been al ready known in the traditional societies.  If they 
had disclosed the full traditional knowledge associated  with turmeric, they could not have made such 
a claim.  At the time of the patent challenge India had provided to the USPTO the traditional knowledge relating to turmeric, including the prior ar t available on the claimed invention, resulting in 
the rejection of all the claims.  Thus, failure to fully disclose the traditional knowledge associated with 
turmeric was the reason for the grant of the bad pa tent.  An obligation to fully disclose the country 
and source of origin of the biological or genetic material and associated traditional knowledge would 
thus help in avoiding misappropr iation and biopiracy.  The turmeric  case substantiated the proponents' 
case rather than contradicting it.  The fact that a ll the claims had been rejected after the traditional 
knowledge and the prior art had been made availabl e in the opposition proceedings showed that it was 
the lack of a disclosure requirement that had resulted in a bad patent.   
24. He did not agree with the US statement that India had chosen the re-examination route rather 
than asserting inequitable conduct based on information that might have been hidden by the applicants, and said that the US patent system onl y gave one option to get the determination made: 
seeking a re-examination.  However, if there had been full disclosure of both the material and the 
associated traditional knowledge by the applicants, th e cost and time incurred by India in getting the 
patent revoked could have  been avoided.   
25. He said that the proponents of the disclosure proposal had emphasized that sustainable 
utilization of biological resources necessitated intern ational efforts in line with the objectives of the 
CBD.  While it was important for nations to impl ement the provisions of the CBD through national 
regimes, it was not enough and had to be supplem ented by international recognition and support of 
these national efforts, including a mandatory disclos ure requirement in all patent regimes.  Such 
international recognition was also necessary in orde r to ensure that traditi onal communities continued 
to be motivated and engaged in conservation effort s.  The value of conservation could not be assessed 
in monetary terms alone as the maintenance of traditional lifestyles and traditional systems of medicines were at stake.   IP/C/M/50 
Page 8  
 
  26. Turning to some studies which had been used to justify the biological industry's apprehension 
about disclosure requirements, such as the study con ducted by the Pacific Research Institute (PRI), he 
said that the study was based on the author's own calculations, with no explanation of the methodology.  He questioned whether the biotechno logy industry believed that it would lose up to 
US$ 144 billion due to the disclosure requirement s and whether it understood that the disclosure 
requirement merely sought evidence of prior inform ed consent and benefit sharing that was already 
obligatory under national access and benefit-sharing syst ems.  He cited an Indian report in favour of 
the disclosure requirements entitled "Corporate Hij ack of Biodiversity - How WTO-TRIPS Rules 
Promote Corporate Hijack of People's Biodiversity and Knowledge" as a response to the PRI study.   
27. The representative of Japan
 said that document IP/C/W/458 referred to 17 patent applications 
that had been first filed with the Japan Patent O ffice (JPO).  Upon examination of these applications, 
his delegation had concluded that no patents had been granted without fulfilling the requirements of 
novelty and inventive step.  As of February 2006 , three of these applications had already been 
refused;  one application had been withdrawn;  four  applications had been requested for examination; 
one application was under examinati on,  and one application had been granted.  In Japan, a patent 
applicant must make a request for examination with in the prescribed time-limit from the filing date.  
He further informed the Council that one patent ha d been granted after the applicant had amended the 
scope of the claims and appealed against a previous  rejection order by the JPO.  He said that his 
explanation was without prejudice to the judgments of  patent examiners, appeal examiners, or judges 
in Japan, and to the rights of applicants.  He said  that the JPO had responded to several inquiries from 
the National Anti-Biopiracy Commission of Peru abou t information with regard to the patentability of 
these applications.   
28. With reference to paragraphs 23 and 24 of  document IP/C/W/458, he pointed out that 
Members were not obliged to publish applications in languages other than the prescribed language 
under their legislation.  Nevertheless, realizing th e importance of transparency, Japan had taken the 
initiative to make available on the Internet patent  information originally published in Japanese in 
English, through a machine translation function.   
29. He said that the mandatory requirement to disclose the source of genetic resources in patent 
applications would not provide any information relating to novelty or  inventive step and thus would 
not help in preventing erroneous patents.  He ag reed with Peru's sugges tion of improving prior art 
search systems in order to prevent inappropriate patent  grants.  He said that in examining one of the 
applications listed in document IP /C/W/458, a patent examiner had obtained prior art from outside the 
Japanese internal database.  The scope of prior art search was limited due to different search systems 
and languages as well as time constraints.  To prev ent improperly granted patents it was essential to 
establish a system which allowed users, including pate nt offices, to easily access useful information.  
Such activities as the establishment of comprehensiv e databases was being, and should be, carried out 
in WIPO's IGC. 
30. The representative of Switzerland  recalled that Canada had requ ested more information on the 
Swiss proposal contained in document IP/C/W/400/Re v.1 on the establishment of a list of government 
agencies competent to receive information on the declaration of source of genetic resources and 
traditional knowledge in patent app lications.  He said that a transparency measure of disclosing the 
source could be strengthened by establishing such a lis t of government agencies.  States interested in 
participating would simply designate the competen t government agency and indicate this agency to 
the administrator of the list.  For easy reference, th is list should be made acce ssible on the Internet.  
Patent offices receiving patent a pplications containing such declaration could inform the competent 
government agency that the respec tive State was declared as the source.  This information could be 
provided in a standardized letter sent to the comp etent government agency.  The proposed list and 
provided information would prevent States from havi ng to monitor all patent  applications submitted 
worldwide to find out whether they were declared as source.  For example, if the Swiss Patent Office  IP/C/M/50 
 Page 9 
 
 
  received a patent application declaring Canada as th e source of a genetic resource it would consult the 
list of government agencies competent to receive info rmation about declarations of source.  If Canada 
had designated a competent government agency, the Swiss Patent Office would send a standardized 
letter to this government agency indicating that it had received a patent application declaring Canada 
as the source.  This information would enable the Ca nadian authorities to verify whether the inventor 
or the patent applicant had complied with a pplicable Canadian provisions on access and benefit 
sharing.  In its submission to WIPO in Ma y 2003, Switzerland had invited WIPO, in close 
collaboration with the CBD, to further explore th e idea of establishing such a list of competent 
government agencies.   
31. The representative of China  said that Members had debated the relationship between the 
TRIPS Agreement and the CBD for several years but we re yet to effectively address basic concerns of 
developing countries.  Although many developing countries possessed plenty of genetic resources and 
related traditional knowledge, due to their capacity c onstraints, most of them had not been able to 
make full use of these resources and knowledge and to  apply for patents as a means to advance their 
development process.  Although the CBD contained the principles of national sovereignty, prior 
informed consent and benefit sharing, these were not sufficient to protect the interests of developing 
countries.  Therefore, China supported the position of  many developing countries that work in the 
Council should be intensified so as to amend the TRIPS Agreement to incorporate the disclosure of 
source of genetic resources and  traditional knowledge.   Biopiracy could then be avoided or decreased 
and the legitimate interests of developing countries protected. 
32. The representative of Peru  said that his delegation intended to co-sponsor document 
IP/C/W/470 as it fully shared the explanations provi ded in the document.  He said that the discussion 
in the TRIPS Council had shown the systemic importan ce of this issue. His de legation had, in past 
Council meetings, presented the result of a series of studies based on a list of patent applications using genetic resources.  Regarding the subject of the po or quality of patents granted, he said that his 
delegation had raised this question to the United St ates and had not received a satisfactory response.  
He said that his delegation intended to raise this question again in the trade policy review of the 
United States. 
33. Referring to the US delegation's question about  the major premise of Peru's submission 
IP/C/W/458 that the cited patent applicants ha d incorporated genetic resources and traditional 
knowledge obtained illegally, irregularly or at least  under questionable circumstances, he said that 
under the existing patent system patents were err oneously granted to some inventions which used 
genetic resources even where these resources had not been obtained in accord ance with the principles 
of the CBD.  Therefore, his delegation believed that  the existing patent system was not sufficient to 
deal with the problems of biopiracy and erroneously granted patents.   
34. With respect to the question about genetic resources that could be obtained through 
commercial channels and other legitimate means, he  said that the disclosure requirements could help 
to verify where and how the genetic resources ha d been obtained.  Such measures would increase 
transparency and legal security.  If patent a pplicants obtained the genetic resource through 
commercial channels or other legitimate means, the disclosure requirements would make it possible 
for the applicants to prove it.  The disclosure requi rement would thus be beneficial to both users and 
owners of patented inventions  using genetic resources.   
35. With respect to the US concern about the disi ncentives of the disclosur e requirements, he said 
that the requirements would enable final users to kno w the origin of genetic resources.  His delegation 
did not see any disincentive to R&D activities.  He agreed with the United States that the disclosure 
requirements would not eliminate biopiracy.  However, they would ensure that the State or the community had the right over genetic resources and that non-compliance with these requirements IP/C/M/50 
Page 10  
 
  would lead to sanctions or other legal remedies.  It  would thus help developing countries to track the 
use of their genetic resources without having to review all patent applications worldwide.   
36. Turning to Japan's intervention, he said that  his delegation would examine it closely and 
would appreciate direct contact in order to have a dialogue to ensure a good exchange of information. 
37. The representative of Canada
 said that her delegation supported the mandate given to 
Members in paragraph 19 of the Doha Ministeria l Declaration and paragraph 44 of the Hong Kong 
Ministerial Declaration.  She reiterated her delega tion's interest in discussing means of addressing the 
shared developed and developing countries' concer ns about misappropriation of  genetic resources and 
traditional knowledge and achievi ng appropriate access and equitable benefit sharing.  Canada 
continued to believe that the most meaningful way to make progress was to continue with fact-based 
technical discussions of the various proposals.  To  this effect, she proposed further submissions about 
the nature and operation of Members' national access a nd benefit-sharing regimes.  She said that some 
Members, including Canada, were in the process of developing national acce ss and benefit-sharing 
regimes, while others, like Australia and Brazil, alr eady had such systems in place.  Members in both 
groups should be encouraged to provide more deta iled information about their national experiences in 
setting up and maintaining these systems.  She info rmed the Council that the Canadian Government 
was currently working on this issue with its prov inces, territories and various interested parties, 
including aboriginal peoples in Canada.   
38. Canada shared Peru's concerns about preven ting misappropriation of genetic resources, and 
noted that there appeared to be some commona lity between Peru's concerns about accessing and 
collecting information regarding the use of genetic resources in international patent applications and 
the views of many other developed countries, incl uding the United States, Australia and Canada, in 
this area.  Recent preliminary work in Ca nada suggested that efforts to improve the 
comprehensiveness, functionality and ease of accessi bility of prior art databases which contained 
specific information about a genetic resource a nd/or traditional knowledge could be useful. 
39. The representative of Sri Lanka  said that the process that had started with the checklist of 
issues contained in document IP/C/W/420 had been fu lly developed.  He emphasized the necessity of 
intensifying work, as mandated by paragraph 44 of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration, to fulfil 
the Doha mandate.  He said that the mandate c ould be effectively fulfilled through a text-based 
approach so that the deadline set in Hong Kong could be met and an appropriate recommendation 
could be made to the General Council by  July 2006 for appropriate action. 
40. The representative of Korea  said that, while recognizing the importance of preventing 
biopiracy and misappropriation of genetic resources,  his delegation was of the view that a national 
contract-based system was the best way to a ddress these problems.  Introducing the disclosure 
requirements into the TRIPS Agreement as a conditi on for granting patents was not an appropriate 
solution.  Rather, such disclosure requirements mi ght impose undue burdens on both patent applicants 
and patent authorities, and result in a negative impact both on technology developers and providing 
countries.  He said his delegation was particularly concerned about the implication of the denial or 
revocation of patents on the ground of non-compliance with the disclosure requirements.  Focusing 
the discussion on national access and benefit-sharing systems was the right way to identify problems 
and reduce gaps in Members' understanding of this issu e.   In conclusion, he said that his delegation 
looked forward to continuing constructive discussions  on this issue not only in the TRIPS Council but 
also in other forums, including WIPO. 
41. The representative of Pakistan  supported the statement made by Peru and the views expressed 
in document IP/C/W/470.  He said that his delegation was convinced that the disclosure of the source and country of origin of genetic resources and related traditional knowle dge would help to ensure that 
the criteria of patentability were strictly met.  IP/C/M/50 
 Page 11 
 
 
  42. The representative of Australia  said that a large amount of work had been generated on this 
issue in recent times, not only in the TRIPS Council but in other bodies, particularly in WIPO.  She reiterated her delegation's view that there was no conflict between the TR IPS Agreement and the 
CBD and that the two agreements could be impl emented in a mutually supportive manner.  Her 
delegation had found the fact-based di scussions over the past year particularly useful in understanding 
the issues and other Members' concerns. 
43. As a country that was rich in biodiversity w ith a burgeoning biotechnology industry and large 
agricultural and environmental research sectors, she said that Australia had an interest in ensuring 
legal access to those resources and equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the use of those resources.  However, her delegation had difficu lty understanding the relationship between the 
problems that Members had identified and the solu tions that they had proposed.  Her delegation 
shared the view expressed by the United States and Ca nada that there would be value in having the 
Council consider national experien ces regarding access and benefit-sharing systems in order to 
identify the perceived problems or gaps within these systems and then to proceed to discuss how these 
problems could be addressed.  She said that to design a solution before having a full understanding of 
the nature of the problem risked a solution that would not only fail to address any problems identified 
but could have unintende d adverse consequences. 
44. She agreed with the views of Brazil, India and others in document IP/C/W/459 that it was 
better for the patent system to prevent the issue of bad patents in the first place rather than imposing 
the burden of revocation proceedings on third parties.   However, it remained unclear to her delegation 
from examples provided by the demandeurs  how the disclosure requirement would in fact prevent the 
grant of bad patents.   In fact, the existing syst em, combined with other developments and proposals, 
might provide a more effective way in preventing erroneous patents as it would provide information 
relevant to the core criteria of novelty and inven tive step.  For example, WIPO had recently improved 
the patent examination tools that examiners use.   The International Patent Classification System 
included, as of 1 January 2006, a new category of classification to encompass subject-matter related to 
traditional medicine, which would assist patent examin ers to conduct more targeted searches of patent 
documentation.  Another WIPO-initiated measure was a change to the Patent Cooperation Treaty 
minimum documentation to include traditional knowledge  and non-patent literature  to be consulted by 
international search authorities when pe rforming a PCT international search.   
45. She said that Australia would be reluctant to ma ke changes to its patent system and to the 
TRIPS Agreement, particularly if these were unlikel y to overcome the problems they were intended to 
address and might, in fact, undermine the objectives such  as benefit sharing that they were meant to 
facilitate and introduce uncertainty into the pa tent system, thus providing a disincentive for 
technological innovation. 
46. The representative of Brazil
 said that the main goal of the group of countries which had 
proposed the disclosure requirements was to collaborat e closely with the Direct or-General to enable 
the fulfilment of the mandate set out by Minist ers in Hong Kong and in Doha.  In Hong Kong, 
Ministers had decided to review progress and to take  "any appropriate action" no later than 31 July 
2006 on the relationship between the TRIPS Agre ement and the CBD.  The Hong Kong Ministerial 
Declaration recognized the progress achieved in the de bate on the disclosure of origin, prior informed 
consent and benefit sharing in patent applications.  Significant critical mass had been attained on the 
issue of the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD as demons trated by the number of documents circulated 
on this issue in recent years as well as by the numbe r and depth of the questions raised therein. 
47. He said that the current patent system was unable to prevent biopiracy and misappropriation 
of genetic resources and traditional knowledge.  The group of countries had given numerous examples 
of erroneously granted patents whose commercial exploitation ran counter to the objectives of the 
CBD, as well as of unenforceability of national-leve l access, prior informed consent and benefit-IP/C/M/50 
Page 12  
 
  sharing regimes.  He gave two examples of patents which were based on Brazilian biological 
resources:  patents granted over substances extracted from the Kambo  frog ( Phillomedusa bicolor ) of 
the Brazilian Amazon forest, and a patented drug ag ainst hypertension that was based on a substance 
extracted from the Jararaca  snake, also found in the Brazilian rainforest.  Authorities in Brazil 
estimated that about US$ 40 billion was lost per year on account of biopiracy.   
48. He said that the inclusion of a disclosure provision in the TRIPS Agreement would improve 
the patent system and would be a critical tool  for biodiversity-rich countries in tracking patent 
applications that were based on biological res ources and associated traditional knowledge, enabling 
challenges to erroneous patents in a less burdens ome manner.  In the absence of the disclosure 
requirements, the aggrieved countries only had the option of challenging the patent based on their 
efforts to collect evidence of prio r art or access without prior inform ed consent or benefit sharing.  
This did not suggest that action outside the WTO might not complement action within.  He further 
said that developing countries had neither the cap acity nor the financial resources to go through the 
thousands of patents using biological material and associated traditional knowledge and to take the 
costly steps in multiple jurisdictions to revoke the patents.  By addressing this problem at its root, the 
disclosure requirement would discourage applicants  seeking erroneous patents and contribute to 
preventing the reward of a patent for knowledg e or information misappropriated from another 
country.  National legislations alone were inade quate to prevent the misappropriation of genetic 
resources and associated traditional knowledge unl ess accompanied by an internationally agreed 
disclosure provision in the TRIPS Agreement.   
49. Furthermore, he said that the introduction of a disclosure provision into the TRIPS Agreement 
would bring many advantages.  It would be an additional reason why patent applicants would be 
encouraged to comply with national laws on acce ss and benefit sharing.  The onus on the patent 
applicant was limited to providing information a nd evidence known to him, making the administrative 
and cost burdens on him minimal.  The burden on patent offices would be even less.  It would 
increase the capacity of patent offices in examini ng patent applications that dealt with biological 
resources and associated traditional knowledge. It w ould serve as a critical tool for biodiversity-rich 
countries in tracking down applications.  Biodive rsity was found in abundance in developing 
countries, while the technological capability for its exploitation was largely concentrated in 
industrialized developed countries.  The disclosur e requirements would help to establish a level 
playing field, whereby all would benefit from the exploitation and sustainable use of biodiversity and associated traditional knowledge.  There would be implications for the WIPO Patent Co-operation 
Treaty and Patent Law Treaty.  However, chang es elsewhere without the proposed change to the 
TRIPS Agreement would not be sufficient to address either the mandate or the problem as a disclosure obligation for WTO Members could no t be established through non-WTO instruments. 
50. In conclusion, he said that in complying with  Members' mandates give n under paragraphs 12 
and 19 of the Doha Ministerial Declaration and taking into account the development dimension as 
instructed by Ministers, Members must move on to a new stage by negotiating how a provision could 
be introduced into the TRIPS Agreement.  His de legation looked forward to having a text-based 
negotiation by April 2006.   
51. The representative of Norway
 said that the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD could and should 
be implemented in a mutually supportive manner.  However, his delegation was convinced that the 
introduction of a requirement to disclose the source of genetic resources in patent applications would 
enhance the interaction between the two treaties.   A compulsory disclosure requirement would 
improve the basis for assessing whether the patentabilit y criteria had been fulfilled, in particular with 
respect to novelty and inventive step.  Such a requirement would also facilitate achieving the CBD 
objectives of prior informed consent and benefit shar ing by improving transparency with respect to 
the origin of genetic resources.  IP/C/M/50 
 Page 13 
 
 
  52. He said that the issue of whether or not the present patent system contained adequate 
safeguards to avoid erroneous pate nts largely depended on the application of the patent criteria in 
national law and the effectiveness of remedies availa ble to address wrongful patents.  Nevertheless, 
introducing a disclosure requirement could contribute to  improving the basis for applying the criteria.  
It would not replace the ongoing WIPO work on the Substantive Patent Law Treaty, which intended 
to harmonize the application of the criteria for patentability. 
53. In conclusion, he said that hi s delegation supported text-based consultations to introduce a 
disclosure requirement in the TRIPS Agreement.  The mandatory disclosure requirement could be 
introduced in Article 29 and could include an oblig ation for applicants to submit information on the 
country of origin of genetic resources, or if not known, the source of the material.  The disclosure 
requirement could also include any information on traditional knowledge on which the invention was 
based, irrespective of whether connected to genetic resources or not. 
54. The representative of the Philippines  said that his delegation had been aware of the unfair or 
inequitable exploitation of biolog ical and genetic resources or trad itional knowledge.  Therefore, his 
delegation supported the proponents of  the disclosure requirements, which could provide the basis for 
a multilateral solution to the problem of biopiracy.  He believed that a multilateral solution would go a 
long way in effectively protecting, guaranteeing a nd recognizing both the right of the countries of 
origin of biological and genetic resources and the right of the local and indigenous communities who 
possessed the knowledge associated with these resources a nd, at the same time, were the custodians of 
these resources.  He said that there was a need to  balance important policy considerations with the 
need to address unfair and inequitable explo itation of biological a nd genetic resources.  
55. He said that national based schemes, such as c ontractual arrangements, had not proven to be 
adequate in ensuring benefit sharing.  Thus, a requi rement for patent applicants to disclose evidence 
of benefit sharing and prior informed consent was an alternative to national access and benefit-sharing 
schemes.   Concerns and problems associated with the disclosure requirements could be addressed in informal meetings and in technical consultations.  In view of the mandate given by Ministers in 
Hong Kong, his delegation agreed with India that th e best way to proceed would be to constructively 
craft and refine an effective disclosure proposal.  He believed that the suggested international 
framework contained in the proponents' proposal shoul d be pursued in parallel in various forums to 
attain an effective international protection.  
56. The representative of New Zealand
 said that his delegation was encouraged to see more 
factual examples included in Members' discussion and new submissions.  The use of real patent 
examples provided Members with an opportunity to explore the issues more deeply.  The complexity 
of this issue required Members to conduct a careful  and thorough examination and then map out the 
size and the nature of the problem.  With reference to the Peruvian submission, he said that the key 
issue was whether misappropriation had occurred.  In  order to examine this issue it was necessary to 
see how national access and benefit-sharing laws were  operating in practice and whether they dealt 
with the kind of cases being raised in the Council in order to identify perceived problems or gaps 
within these systems.  Without this, it would not be  possible to know whether the intellectual property 
system should have a role and what kind of role it should be.  While open to considering a range of 
possible solutions to this problem, he said that the solutions should be pr oportionate and appropriate 
to the problem at hand.  He said that, although no t a matter of priority, it was important that the 
discussion on key definitions was closely connected with  the definitions that had already been in use 
in international agreements so that the debate in  the Council would be cons istent with the debate 
taking place in other international forums.  Memb ers' immediate focus should be to identify the 
problems through examining national laws on access and benefit sharing. 
57. The representative of Ecuador  endorsed the document submitted by India and supported 
Peru's statement.  She said that it was important to embark upon the negotiation phase and to clarify IP/C/M/50 
Page 14  
 
  certain issues and concepts.  Implementation was of  particular interest to developing countries and 
part of the single undertaking.   
58. The representative of the European Communities
 recalled that the European Communities had 
submitted a substantial communication to the Council  in 2002 laying down their views on the various 
issues under discussion, including the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD, as 
well as the possible introduction of a disclosure requ irement in patent applications.  His delegation 
had also taken an active part in the debate in the meetings of the Council.  He said that the flexibility 
of the TRIPS Agreement and the availability of ot her international instru ments, such as the CBD, 
allowed Members to address these issues in a satisfactory manner.  His delegation saw no conflict between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD and cons idered that both agreements could and should 
be implemented in a mutually supportive manner.   
59. In 2002, the European Communities had agreed  to examine the possible introduction of a 
system, such as a disclosure requirement, with regard to the origin of the genetic resource used in an 
invention.  Such a system would allow Members to  keep track, at the global level, of all patent 
applications with respect to genetic resources for which they had granted access.  His delegation saw 
merit in such a system that would ensure transp arency and would allow the authorities of countries 
granting access to their resources to keep track of patent applications based on the use of these 
resources.  Although the introduction of a new pate nt disclosure requirement would not in itself 
achieve the objectives of the CBD, it could contribute, among other elements, to a solution, in particular in order to help to ve rify whether contractual arrangements had been respected.  He stressed 
that any introduction of a disclosure requirement  should not affect the balance of rights and 
obligations set out in the TRIPS Agreement.  Such a disclosure requirement should not affect the right 
of WTO Members to create a favourable environm ent for R&D activities in the biotechnology area.  
The patent system should continue to be a hi ghly effective tool for stimulating innovation, 
technological progress and economic development. 
60. He said that his delegation had put forward more precise ideas on the disclosure requirement 
in its proposal to WIPO in 2005.  It considered that  a binding requirement of disclosure of country of 
origin or source should be introduced and that this requirement should apply to all patent applications 
in a universal manner.  If the information provi ded was incorrect or incomplete,  effective, 
proportionate and deterring sanctions  should be envisaged, but outside the field of patent law.  It 
should be left to individual countries to determine the character and the level of these sanctions in 
accordance with domestic legal practices and in the r espect of the general principles of law.  His 
delegation could not accept the proposal that non-complia nce could or should lead to the revocation of 
patents. 
61. The representative of Chinese Taipei
 said that as some key technical questions had not yet 
been fully clarified, it was difficult for Members to properly evaluate costs and benefits related to the 
disclosure proposal.  For example, it had not yet been clarified as to whether patent applications must 
disclose all sources of genetic resources and traditi onal knowledge when the resources were available 
from multiple sources.  Some Me mbers maintained that both the ex situ  source and the country of 
origin must be disclosed, while others held different  views.  It was also not clear how the benefits 
would be shared if genetic resources were obtained from ex situ  sources or multiple sources. 
62. The representative of India  responded to Canada's five  questions on the disclosure 
requirement asked at the Council's meeting in Octobe r.  Regarding the question on practical means by 
which the proponents of the disclosure requirements envisioned the prior informed consent of local 
and indigenous communities being sought and received by patent applicants, he said that these means 
would depend upon nationa l regimes and that the CBD provided reasonable flexibility for this.  In 
India, patent applicants would need to approach  the National Biodiversity Authority set up under the 
Biodiversity Act of India.  The authority also act ed on behalf of the Indian local and indigenous  IP/C/M/50 
 Page 15 
 
 
  communities.  Details of the application procedur es could be obtained on the website of the Indian 
Ministry of Environment and Forests at www.moef.n ic.in.  As to the question of whether Members 
saw a need to have the declarations of prior inform ed consent and benefit sharing verified, and if so, 
by whom, he said that these declarations would at some  point need to be verified.  In India, it would 
be the National Biodiversity Author ity which would do so.  It was not necessary for patent offices to 
undertake such a verification at the time of receipt of the evidence of prior informed consent during 
the application process.  Regarding the question of th e legal effect of wrongful or non-disclosure, he 
said that it could be partial transfer of patent ri ghts.  If prior informed consent and benefit-sharing 
agreements included provisions on partial transfer of patent rights, the terms of such agreements 
should be followed.  The appropriate party to recei ve such rights, under the Indian system, would be 
the National Biodiversity Authority.  The transfer of benefits downstream to the local and indigenous 
communities would be the responsibility of the Na tional Biodiversity Authority.  Regarding the 
question of whether this recipient of the right would be the source or the country of origin named in the application or someone else, he said that it w ould be the source from where the genetic resource or 
knowledge had been obtained.  If the country of orig in was known, the source would be the same as 
the country of origin.  With respect to a wide qu estion of whether any analysis had been undertaken 
on how the proposed disclosure requirements would im pact upon Members' existing obligations in the 
TRIPS Agreement, he asked which specific TRIPS ob ligation Canada referred to.  He also said that 
the answer would depend upon what specific provisions  would be inserted in the TRIPS Agreement.   
63. Commenting on Korea's intervention, he said that his delegation had in past meetings 
responded to issues raised in general but asked th e delegation of Korea to specify the unnecessary and 
undue burdens on patent offices and applicants, and the impact on technological development, that it 
was referring to in order to give more specific responses.   
64. In response to the question raised by Australia  on the link between revocation of patents and 
benefit sharing, he referred the delegation of Aust ralia to document IP/C/W/438, which contained the 
argument about how disclosure linked with revo cation for non-compliance would provide an 
incentive to patent applicants to disclose the correct source and origin and to obtain better patents.   
He also referred that delegation to the turmeric case to see how disclosure could prevent bad patents. 
65. In response to the question raised by Chinese Ta ipei, he said that in cases of multiple sources, 
patent applicants would be required to disclose th e source from where the material had been obtained, 
and similarly, the benefit would be shared based  on the national regimes under which benefit-sharing 
arrangements had been agreed. 
66. Referring to the demand for the sharing of national experiences and for more fact-based or 
patent-based examples, he said that developing countr ies did not have resources to challenge all bad 
patents or to revoke all of them through costly pa tent opposition procedures in order to provide further 
examples to the Council.  He requested Members to go into specifics of what components of the 
disclosure proposal were found to be burdensome and what required more specificity in order to work 
towards a text-based discussion from April 2006 onwards. 
67. The representative of the United States
 said, with respect to the turmeric case, that it was prior 
art that had resulted in the cancellation of the claims  of the turmeric patent, not disclosure of source 
and origin.  Disclosure of country of origin was made by the patent applicant, but it did not lead the examiner to the relevant prior art.  Thus, it was clear that the disclosure requirements would not have 
prevented the issuance of the turmeric patent.  Th e cancellation of the claims had been done through a 
relatively rapid and cost-efficien t re-examination procedure.   
68. In response to Peru's initial comments on the US submission, she disagreed that the patent 
system should be used as a mechanism to prove  one's innocence in legally obtaining genetic 
resources, which were often readily available in the channels of commerce.  Such inappropriate IP/C/M/50 
Page 16  
 
  burdens on innovators would clearly stifle the pur pose of the patent system, to promote innovation, 
and seemed to serve only to punish the innocent without  any concrete benefit.  If exemptions existed 
in access and benefit-sharing regimes, it was unreasonable to assume that persons using the resources had obtained them illegally.  
69. She said that, in light of the wide divergence of  views, it was premature to engage in a text-
based discussion as suggested by some delegations , and that no negotiation was warranted on this 
issue at this time.  Her delegation was of the view  that the further discussion of threshold issues and 
continuing with a fact-based discussion based on national experiences were necessary in order to 
reduce differences among Members and to be in a pos ition to determine "any appropriate action" by 
July 2006. 
70. The representative of Peru
 said that, more than a year ago, a number of delegations had 
indicated that they were interested in learning a bout specific cases of biopiracy, and the problems of 
the current patent system, and how the disclosure requirements could help solve these problems.  Although his delegation had made efforts to present sp ecific cases, such as th e camu-camu case, some 
Members had asked for more cases without responding to the problems identified.  With respect to the 
call to discuss national experiences of access and benefit-sharing system, he said that it was not 
appropriate to discuss this issue in the TRIPS C ouncil as it was being discussed in the CBD and had 
nothing to do with the issues under discussion in the Council.  The proposal of a disclosure requirement established the link between the patent system and prior informed consent and benefit 
sharing.  It was understandable for Members not pa rties to the CBD to want to discuss national access 
and benefit-sharing systems, but this was not a re ason for all the other Members to be obliged to 
discuss this issue.  What ought to be discussed was the deficiencies within the patent system that 
needed to be remedied in order to meet the obligations under the CBD.  He understood the US industry's concern over the disclosure requirements, but believed that they would not be burdensome 
or costly for the industry.     
71. He said that Members had made great efforts to comply with the provisions of the CBD and 
had incorporated them into their national legislati on.  The patent system should play a complementary 
role in this regard because patents granted m onopoly rights to the holders without ensuring that 
benefits arising out of the patent would be shared with those who were at the origin of the genetic 
resources and traditional knowledge.  He further sai d that the CBD recognized Members' sovereign 
rights over their genetic resources and made obligator y the sharing of benefits arising out of the 
exploitation of genetic resources with the providing country.   
72. Referring to the example of Costa Rica given by the United States, he said that the 
Costa Rican law had a legal obligation to disclose th e country of origin, even though the sharing of 
benefits had been voluntary in the example given.   Such a voluntary arrangement was not always 
possible and there were many case s where access to genetic resources was illegal and no benefits had 
been shared.   
73. Responding to the US statement that no additional burden should be imposed on what were 
prima facie  innocent parties, he said that legal principl e followed would be that the patent owner was 
innocent until proven guilty and that no additional bu rden of proof of innocence was being imposed.   
74. The representative of India
 said that he fully supported Peru's statement.  Responding to the 
last US statement on the turmeric patent, he said that it was difficult for Members to know what prior 
art was known to applicants.  The disclosure requi rements would ensure that all the information 
pertaining to the starting-point for the inventiveness w ould be made available to patent examiners, and 
that would be beneficial in an ab initio  sound examination of patents.  With regard to the US re-
examination procedure, he said that it was neither  cost efficient nor rapid from the perspective of 
developing countries or that of local and indigeno us communities.  It would take expenditure of  IP/C/M/50 
 Page 17 
 
 
  hundreds of thousands of dollars on lawyers in the Un ited States to revoke a patent which should not 
have been granted in the first place.  He further said that prevention was better than cure, and if the 
disclosure requirements were implemented, after cons idering all the technical details, it would be able 
to prevent the costs of getting patents revoked.  He called on Members to give specific examples of 
why the disclosure requirements were not an ad equate solution to achie ve the shared common 
objective of sustainable use of biological resources, including access and equitable benefit sharing and 
avoidance of bad patents.   
75. He disputed the US point that it was the perception of the proponents that what was known 
about genetic resources prior to the R&D was what le d inventors to patented inventions and that such 
was not the case in many circumst ances.  He said that what was known about genetic resources was 
an input into the further R&D activities, and existing knowledge, included traditional knowledge, was 
only a starting-point.  He asked the United States de legation for information on how much of the cost 
of Taxol had been contributed by the US Government  and the BMS respectively;  who had the patent;  
who were the assignees of the patent;  and what w as the arrangement to share the commercialization 
of this patent.    
76. The representative of Brazil  said that his delegation fully asso ciated with Peru and India.  
Brazil agreed with the concepts and principles cont ained in document IP/C/W/470, particularly with 
the reference to the need for disclosure requirement s to ensure a mutually supportive implementation 
of the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD;  the importa nce of compliance with prior informed consent 
and benefit sharing with a view to ensuring effec tive implementation of the CBD;  and the idea that 
disclosure requirements would not constitute a burde nsome remedy in any way.  He said that the 
patent applicant would be limited to providing information and evidence known to him, so the 
administrative and cost burden on him would be mini mal and even less burdensome on patent offices.  
He also agreed on the need for sanctions to prevent misappropriation of genetic resources and 
traditional knowledge, such as invalidation or revocati on of patents or the full or partial transfer of 
rights to the invention. 
77. Responding to document IP/C/W/469, he said that national access and benefit-sharing 
regimes, contract-based systems or databases rela ted to traditional knowledge  and genetic resources 
were unable to prevent, by themselves, the issu ance of erroneous and bad patents as well as the 
misappropriation of genetic resour ces and traditional knowledge.  It was difficult, particularly for 
developing countries, to rectify mistakenly grante d patents by means of post-grant opposition or re-
examination practices within the present patent sy stem.  The problem of erroneous patents and 
misappropriation of genetic resources and traditiona l knowledge needed to be effectively addressed 
by the inclusion of a disclosure provision in the TRIPS Agreement.  He agreed that many inventions based on biological resources were a result of independent discovery, but a great number of inventions were directly derived from previous kn owledge of the properties of biological resources 
held by indigenous communities. 
78. In response to the question posed by India to clarify the provision in the TRIPS Agreement, 
the representative of Canada
 said that her delegation would be interested in hearing more from India 
and other Members about their analysis of the possible impact of wrongful or non-disclosure on the TRIPS Agreement as a whole, or on specific provisions , as appropriate.  She noted that, in previous 
Members' submissions, both Articles 27 and 29 of the TRIPS Agreement had been mentioned as 
being relevant.  Perhaps the impact
 on these Articles could be a useful starting-point.   
79. In response to some delegations' suggestion of text-based negotiations, she said that the 
mandate given in paragraph 39 of  the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration was to "intensify" the 
existing consultative process on the TRIPS Agreemen t and the CBD, which should not be interpreted 
as an indication that Members had agreed or conced ed to the need for text-based negotiation on this 
issue.  Rather, the fact that paragraph 39 said th at the General Council was to review and take any IP/C/M/50 
Page 18  
 
  appropriate action on the progress made on implementa tion-related issues by 31 July 2006, including 
on the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD, demonstrat ed that all options remained still open and 
available. 
80. Referring to the Peruvian statement on the competence of the Council to examine national 
experiences of access and benefit sharing, the representative of Australia
 said that, given Members' 
mandate to discuss the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD, some 
cross-pollination of discussions would take place.  It was necessary for Members to understand what 
national regimes did and what the gaps were, which would help to address the uncertainty that would 
flow from a disclosure requirement.  For example, what if a country didn't have an access and benefit-sharing regime, or what if there was a dispute a bout who should be asked for their prior informed 
consent?  She said that Australia had access and bene fit-sharing legislation in relation to the use of 
genetic resources and had experience domestically w ith some of the disputes that could arise where 
different communities were claiming the right to use certain resources. 
81. The representative of South Africa
 said that his delegation had experience with the US 
revocation system in the context of the revocation of a wrongfully registered trademark, namely 
"Rooibos".  The procedure had been so expensive that producers in South Africa had almost been 
prepared to give up.  The South African Government  had been unable to assist them.  Eventually, they 
were assisted by one of the provincial governme nts and the trademark had been successfully 
expunged.  He therefore supported India's point that the revocation system was not cost-efficient for developing countries. 
82. He further said that despite the fact that his delegation had not been active in the 
TRIPS Council, other national departments had been  quite active in this area.  South Africa had 
adopted a policy on traditional knowledge, which cal led for the implementation of the CBD through 
the Biodiversity Act.  As the Act was sufficient to  prevent biopiracy, the policy also called for the 
amendment of the Patent Act to introduce the disc losure requirements.  He said that in order to 
prevent biopiracy from taking place, the disclosure requirements should be included in a multilateral 
agreement, and therefore his delegation suppor ted an amendment to the TRIPS Agreement. 
83. The representative of India
 responded to Canada by repeati ng that he wanted to know which 
specific provisions of the TRIPS Agreement needed to be addressed.  With respect to the impact on 
Article 29 of the Agreement, he said that the di sclosure requirements would be a minimum standard 
for patent applicants.  The impact would depend u pon the scope of the disclosure requirements.  The 
impact on Article 27 would be manifold as it would impact on information material to patentability 
under paragraph 1 of Article 27 and on the various  issues relating to patenting of life-forms under 
paragraph 3 of that Article. 
84. Turning to the Canadian comment on text-based negotiations, he said that, while all options 
remained open with regard to "any  appropriate action", no action was not appropriate after eight years 
of discussions in the Council.  This work was part of the single undertaking and negotiations.  The 
range of possible actions had to be discussed.  Ther efore, his delegation proposed to move towards a 
text-based negotiation that would determine what w ould be the eventual appropriate action to be 
proposed to the General Council for adoption by July of 2006. 
85. Turning to the question of how the TRIPS Counc il should organize its work in the light of 
paragraph 44 of the Hong Kong Mini sterial Declaration, the Chair  said that, in the light of the 
consultations he had held on the matter, his sense  was that delegations considered that the ongoing 
process was fruitful and useful in elucidating the i ssues, including in regard to the study of national 
experience.  Therefore, he suggested that the Counc il agree to maintain its present method of work on 
these matters at this stage, and to keep this me thod under review to assess whether any change might 
prove appropriate in the light of developments.    IP/C/M/50 
 Page 19 
 
 
  86. The Council took note  of the statements made under these three agenda items and so agreed .   
F. NON-VIOLATION AND SITUATION COMPLAINTS  
87. 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 its next Session.  It was agreed  that, in the meantime, Members would not initiate 
such complaints under the TRIPS Agreement. 
88. He said that he had held c onsultations on how the Council s hould organize its work pursuant 
to the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration.  In the light of these consultations, he suggested that the 
Council agree to keep this item on the agenda as a regular item so as to allow Members who had new 
thinking to share it, and also enable the Council to consider improved ways of organizing its work on 
this matter. 
89. The Council so agreed . 
G. SPECIAL AND DIFFERENTIAL TREATMENT PROPOSALS REFERRED TO THE COUNCIL  
90. The Chairman  recalled that, in paragraph 37 of th e Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration, 
Ministers had expressed their concern about the lack of progress on the Category II special and 
differential treatment proposals th at had been referred to other WTO bodies and negotiating groups, 
and had instructed these bodies to complete the consideration of these proposals expeditiously and 
report periodically to the General Council, with th e objective of ensuring that clear recommendations 
for a decision be made no later than December 2006.  They had also instructed  the Special Session of 
the Committee on Trade and Development to continue to  coordinate its efforts with these bodies, so as 
to ensure that this work was completed on time. 
91. He said that, on 6 March 2006, he had received a letter from Ambassador Burhan Gafoor, the 
Chair of the CTD Special Session, asking him to provide Ambassador Gafoor with the latest information on progress made and the present status of wo rk, so as to enable the latter to report to the 
meeting of the Special Session of the CTD on 20 March 2006.   
92. Furthermore, the Chairman said that he had he ld consultations on these proposals referred to 
the Council and suggested that, in the light of these consultations, the Council authorize him to report to the General Council that the situation remained as  reported in July 2005 in document IP/C/36, that 
the TRIPS Council reiterated its recommendation, and that no further action was otherwise needed. 
93. The Council so agreed
. 
H. REVIEW OF IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TRIPS  AGREEMENT UNDER ARTICLE 71.1 
94. No statements were made  under this agenda item. 
95. The Council agreed  to revert to the matter at its next meeting. 
I. REVIEW OF THE APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION ON GEOGRAPHICAL 
INDICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 24.2 
96. The Chairman  recalled that Article 24.2 provided th at the Council should keep under review 
the application of the provisions of the GI Section of the Agreement. IP/C/M/50 
Page 20  
 
  97. The representative of the European Communities
 said that his delegation attached great 
importance to this review.  He believed that a mo re focused and structured way should be found to 
continue to work on it.  In prev ious discussions, several ideas had b een floated on how to carry this 
work forward, including his delegation's suggestion for an options paper.  He was open to examining 
any proposal on how to structure future work.  Firs t, one should concentrate on the relevant mandate, 
which was to examine the application of TRIPS provisions on geographical indications and not on 
implementing legislation.  A substantial exercise had already been carried out with regard to national 
implementing legislation, which shoul d not be replicated under this item.  Secondly, one should take 
advantage to the maximum extent possible of the work done so far, in particular of the replies to the 
checklist of questions and the Secretariat's summa ry paper (IP/C/W/253/Rev.1).  The summary paper 
already contained many of the elements menti oned by delegations, such as how Members applied 
their obligations and a list of practical examples of GI protection. 
98. Any agenda for future work could, for exampl e, be based on the different sections of the 
summary paper:  overview of the means of protecti on available, definition, criteria for recognition, 
etc.  Such an approach would allow Members to  comment on the summary paper, and also provide 
any necessary updates.  It would be helpful to dr aw general lessons from Members' replies to the 
checklist in a structured manner, making sure that  the approach was of a general nature and not 
focused on the way Members had implemented their specific obligations on geographical indications.  
He requested the Chair to indicate how he woul d intend to pursue this matter in the future. 
99. The representative of Switzerland , associating his delegation with the EC statement, said that 
he attached great importance to a structured and fo cused review under this agenda item.  He asked the 
Chair to draw his successor's attention to the EC re quest.  He recalled that the Council had started its 
work under this agenda item some time ago and st ructured its discussion according to the headings of 
the Secretariat's updated summary paper on the info rmation provided by Members in response to the 
checklist of questions.   
100. The representative of the United States  expressed concern with the EC proposals, and recalled 
that, during the past discussions under this item, her delegation had indicated that it believed the 
Council should follow the proposal originally made  by Australia to "walk through" the provisions on 
geographical indications, paragraph by  paragraph.  Her delegation was interested in participating in 
any consultations that might take place under this item. 
101. The representative of Australia  said that, while her delegation had an interest in Section 3 of 
the TRIPS Agreement, it had some concerns with the EC proposal in relation to an options paper.  Her 
delegation was open to participating in any informal consultations that the Chair might hold on how to 
address this issue in a structured and focused manne r.  It would have no problem with the idea of 
building on the work already done, but it did not believe that focusing solely on the Checklist of Issues document was appropriate at this stage.  
102. The representative of India
 said that his delegation had activel y participated in the beginning 
of the work on this item some years ago and that it was interested in participating in any consultations 
on how to proceed on the work  in the future meetings. 
103. The representative of Argentina  questioned the utility of the EC proposal, since few Members 
had responded to the Checklist of Issues.  She be lieved that a more practical, comprehensive and 
representative approach had been proposed by Au stralia, which could assist Members to better 
understand the GI Section of the Agreement. 
104. The Chairman  suggested that the incoming Chair hold consultations on how the Council 
should organize its future work on this item.  IP/C/M/50 
 Page 21 
 
 
  105. The Council took note  of the statements made and so agreed . 
J. FOLLOW -UP TO THE THIRD ANNUAL REVIEW UNDER PARAGRAPH 2 OF THE DECISION ON THE 
IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 66.2  OF THE TRIPS  AGREEMENT  
106. The Chairman  recalled that, at its meeting in Oct ober 2005, the Council had taken up its third 
annual review of developed country  Members' reports on their implem entation of Article 66.2 of the 
TRIPS Agreement.  In concluding that item, he had indicated that he would provide delegations with 
an opportunity at the present meeting to make furt her comments on the inform ation submitted for that 
meeting that they might not yet have been able to study.  Since that meeting, the Council had received 
an additional report from Australia (advance copy of IP/C/W/452/Add.7). 
107. The Council took note  of the information provided. 
K. TECHNICAL COOPERATION AND CAPACITY -BUILDING  
(i) Annual review of technical cooperation activities 
108. The Chairman  recalled that, at its meeting in Oc tober 2005, the Council had taken up its 
annual review of technical cooperation.  Gi ven that some information from Members and 
intergovernmental organizations had been made av ailable only a short time before the review, he 
offered Members a further opportunity to make comments on that material. 
(ii) Notification of contact points  for technical cooperation on TRIPS 
109. The Chairman  recalled that, since 1996, developed country Members had notified to the 
Council their contact points for technical cooperation on TRIPS.  Since the Council's last meeting, the 
European Communities had provided an update of th e information concerning its contact points for 
technical cooperation (IP/N/7/Rev.2/Add.7). 
110. The Council took note  of the information provided. 
L. ENFORCEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS – COMMUNICATION FROM THE 
EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES  
111. The Chairman  recalled that, at its last two meetings, the Council had discussed a 
communication from the European Communities on "E nforcement of Intellectual Property Rights" 
(IP/C/W/448).  Since then, the European Communities had submitted another paper on the topic 
(IP/C/W/468) and, just prior to the meeting, a communication on border enforcement (advance copy of IP/C/W/471).   
112. The representative of the European Communities
 recalled that his delegation had suggested 
that each of the specific enforcemen t mechanisms described in the different sections of Part III of the 
TRIPS Agreement should be discussed in detail in sub sequent meetings of the Council.  In order to 
understand where the main problems, difficulties a nd shortcomings were, such discussion should be 
pursued according to the following three steps:  firs t, the identification of difficulties in implementing 
the relevant TRIPS provisions, such as those of a le gal, technical or logistic al nature;  second, the 
examination of appropriate mechanisms to addr ess the identified difficulties, such as technical 
cooperation, cooperation from right  holders, human resources, financial resources, administrative 
obstacles;  and third, the search for a coordinated response at the TRIPS level through various tools, 
including the promotion of best practices.  In vi ew of its relevance and effectiveness in the fight 
against the transnational circulation of goods infringi ng IP rights, his delegation believed that the first 
item to be discussed should be border measures.  Indeed, customs' primary role in stopping the IP/C/M/50 
Page 22  
 
  international movement of fake go ods was demonstrated by the fact that customs were responsible for 
approximately 70 per cent of all seizu res of counterfeit goods globally. 
113. The purpose of the EC communication on border enforcement (advance copy of IP/C/W/471) 
was to have an exchange of experiences, for whic h the Council was an appropriate forum.  Since the 
legislative provisions were already provided under Ar ticle 51 of the Agreement, he said that it was not 
his intention to speak about any changes.  Ra ther, he wished to sound an alarm on what was 
happening on a worldwide scale in the combat ag ainst piracy and counterfeiting.  Between 1998 
and 2004, the number of counterfeit or pirated goods seized at the external EC borders had increased 
by 1,000 per cent, rising from 10 million in 1998 to  over 100 million in 2004, and the initial results 
for 2005 confirmed this systematic progression.  Even more serious than these figures was the very 
nature of the seized objects themselves.  Unfortunat ely, the globalization and internationalization of 
trade had been followed by the globalizati on and internationalization of fraud.   
114. The time when most of the pirated or count erfeit goods were luxury goods was long gone.  At 
the external EC borders, these products no longer re presented more than one per cent of all seized 
goods.  Currently, most of the seized goods were so-called "common goods", such as medicines, 
seizures of which had increased by 200%.  Apar t from medicines, the European Communities had 
seized more than 4.4 million food items.  While respect of intellectual property rights was a priority for EC customs authorities, his delegation felt that th e security of the health of the world's consumers 
was equally important. 
115. Continuing, the representative of the Europ ean Communities said that the fight against 
counterfeiting and piracy should be understood as part of a changing process.  Everything had 
changed, including the nature of the products and tactics used for fraud.  Interpol and the World 
Customs Organization had confirmed that there we re criminal gangs involved, massively exporting 
pirated and counterfeit goods.  Therefore, in orde r to have an adequate response, appropriate 
legislative tools were necessary.  The obliga tions under Article 51 only applied to counterfeit 
trademark and pirated copyright goods.  Member s were free to extend its provisions to other 
intellectual property rights.   
116. A major concern was that Article 51 only e xpressly provided for import controls.  Such 
controls were no longer enough to halt the cro ss-border flow of illegal goods.  70 per cent of the 
103 million items seized in the EC were intercepted in  transit and/or transhipment, not as imports.  In 
2004, of the 22,000 cases, 2,200 cases involved goods in  transit and transhipment, but this represented 
70 per cent of the total number of items seized.  This meant that criminal organizations had detected 
the legal gaps and become better in getting around th e TRIPS provisions.  It was necessary to use the 
same methods in combating counterfeits as in fi ghting illegal drugs, since one was faced with the 
same types of criminal organizations.  That  is why he was referring to "trafficking".  
117. To illustrate this, he showed fake anti-malarial  drugs and automobile parts which had crossed 
several borders and continents before reaching thei r destinations.  Criminal organizations were now 
using this legal gap relating to transhipment a nd transit to pass counterfeit goods around the world, 
not only to profit from these activities but also for the purpose of money laundering.  For this reason, 
his delegation was proposing tranship ment/transit controls to be the subject of discussion in the 
Council.  As further examples, he showed a counter feited football licence and a bag with the logo of 
the 2008 Beijing Olympic Games, which was seized th ree years earlier in Portugal, i.e., many years 
before the beginning of that international event. 
118. At the 2005 World Economic Forum in Davos, it had been said that the value of the annual 
trade in counterfeit products was US$ 500 billion.  He reiterated that these activities were no longer 
limited to luxury goods, but also involved products as varied as aircraft parts, medicines and chemical 
products.  There were also problems in free trad e zones, which were been used by criminal  IP/C/M/50 
 Page 23 
 
 
  organizations for their activities.  The European Co mmunities had extensive statistics on this issue.  
He concluded by saying that there was a truly globa l crisis of counterfeiting and piracy and that all 
countries were being affected.  Hence, an exchange  of views on this subject in the Council would be 
beneficial to the economies of all Member s and, above all, to their citizens. 
119. The representative of Switzerland  said that, looking at the worrying increase of counterfeiting 
and piracy revealing deficiencies in the enforcement of intellectual property rights, he shared the view 
that it was the time for and the task of the TR IPS Council to examine the problems that Members 
might face when implementing their obligations under Part III of the TRIPS Agreement.  The infringement of IPRs, counterfeiting and piracy in  particular, were ofte n looked upon as being only a 
problem affecting the luxury goods sector, concer ning expensive handbags, watches or sunglasses.  
There was no question that huge economic damage was done in this area, undermining the good 
functioning of international trade, which was at the heart of the role and activities of the WTO.  
120. But these criminal activities had consequences that  went far beyond the economic or financial 
dimension.  In this context, he referred to the worrying figures by the WHO, which in a Press Release 
from 2003 had noted that between 6% and 10% of medi cines on the world market were reported to be 
counterfeit, with estimated sales of over US$ 40 billion a year.  The Centre of Medicines in the Public 
Interest had released a new report projecting that this number, if these activities remained unanswered 
by renewed efforts of the international community , would almost double by 2010.  Counterfeit drugs 
on the market contained no active ingredients or c ontained harmful substances,  thus being dangerous 
to public health, and could, in serious cases, result in the death of thousands of people.  Counterfeit 
drugs reported to the WHO between 1999 and 2002  included fever-reducing drugs, pain relievers, 
anti-malaria, anti-asthma and anti-allergy pills and antibiotics as well as medicines against HIV/AIDS 
and tuberculosis.  In certain de veloping countries, counterfeit drug s account for 40% to 50% of the 
total of drugs available. 
121. Aside from counterfeit medicines, a variety of other counterfeit product categories caused 
risks to consumers,  such as counterfeit spare parts for aircraft or cars, machinery, toys or food and 
near-food products, putting children and adults at often lethal risk.  He  believed that this demonstrated 
that a discussion on how to better fight against counterfeiting and piracy and improve enforcement 
activities was in the interest of all WTO Members. 
122. The TRIPS Council was directly concerned by  the problem of counterfeiting and piracy: 
counterfeiting and piracy infringed intellectual propert y rights and international agreements protecting 
such rights, one of which was the TRIPS Agreem ent.  The TRIPS Agreement required Members to 
provide appropriate enforcement mechanisms to pr event and combat such infringement.  Article 68 
provided for a mechanism to help and assist Members to put in place and apply appropriate enforcement mechanisms and facilita te their workability.  According to Article III of the Marrakesh 
Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organisatio n, the WTO shall facilitate the implementation, 
administration and operation, and further the obj ectives of the Multilateral Trade Agreements under 
its auspices.  Thus, the TRIPS Council should assist Members to put in place and apply the 
enforcement mechanisms required under Part III of the TRIPS Agreement.  
123. He supported the proposal contained in the EC paper that Members discuss separately at the 
Council's subsequent meetings the specific enforc ement mechanisms set out in Part III of the 
TRIPS Agreement.  He requested the European  Communities to clarify what other specific 
enforcement mechanisms it had in mind and whether,  in fact, these would coincide with the sections 
of Part III of the Agreement.  With regard to th e EC proposal that the Secretariat should provide a 
synopsis paper of Members' contributions based  on the Checklist of Issues on Enforcement, he 
believed that this would be a useful and valuable source of information, which would be instructive 
for the discussion under the agenda item.  He also  supported the EC proposal that Members address 
the issue of border measures at the Council's next meeting.  In his view, border measures had proved IP/C/M/50 
Page 24  
 
  to be an effective tool in the fight against count erfeiting and piracy.  They allowed the detection of 
counterfeit and pirated produc ts and their seizure before they en tered their destination markets.  
Finally, he reserved his right to come back with  more detailed comments on the most recent EC paper 
on border measures. 
124. The representative of Japan
 said that his delegation reserved its right to comment on the 
recent EC paper on border measure at the Council's next  meeting.  Japan was very interested in having 
a discussion on enforcement issues at the Council.  As similar discussions had taken place in many 
forums, the Council would need to avoid possible duplication of discussions. 
125. The representative of Australia  said that, as her delegation had just received the EC paper on 
border enforcement, it was unable to make any specific comments on it at that stage.  Australia agreed 
that effective enforcement of IPRs was becoming an increasingly important issue, and acknowledged 
that enforcement was also being discussed in other forums, such as the WIPO  Advisory Committee on 
Enforcement.  Therefore, any discussion on this matter in the TRIPS Council should remain focused 
on the issues of relevance to the Council.  Australia wished to receive further details of the original 
EC proposal outlined in document IP/C/W/448, par ticularly the scope and intended impact of any 
reviews, so that it could take a more informed position in that respect. 
126. The representative of Canada  said that Canada took the probl ems of counterfeiting and piracy 
very seriously and that it would be important to coor dinate work undertaken in the different forums on 
this issue.  Her delegation would need more time to examine the material given to it at the present 
meeting and reserved its right to come back to it at a later stage. 
127. The representative of Argentina  said that, while she shared th e same preoccupation regarding 
the enforcement of IPRs and piracy and counterfe iting, she was concerned about the way in which 
some delegations were presenting this issue before  the Council.  Article 68 of the Agreement did not 
create any new overseeing power for the Council.  Members identifying problems or omissions regarding the way other Members ha d implemented their TRIPS obligations had at their disposal the 
provisions of Article 63 of the Agreement.  It seem ed to her delegation that the objective of the EC 
proposals in IP/C/W/468 was to give to the Counc il new powers which it did not have, such as a 
de facto  rule-making power.  Furthermor e, there were other bodies outside the WTO also dealing with 
the issue of enforcement.  She expressed the same concerns regarding the EC paper on border 
enforcement measures, including its implicit suggesti on to revise Article 51 of the Agreement.  She 
reiterated the proposal that she and certain other de legations had made at the Council's last meeting 
that this issue not be kept on the agenda, given th at issues relating to enforcement could be analyzed 
under the review mechanisms alre ady foreseen under the Agreement. 
128. The representative of Brazil
 said that enforcement of IPRs and combating piracy was an 
important issue that concerned all Members.  Ho wever, he reiterated his delegation's preoccupation 
with the inclusion of this topic as a permanent item on the Council's agenda.  The TRIPS Agreement 
did not contemplate a monitoring role of IPRs ap art from those already performed pursuant to the 
procedures set forth in its Article 63.1 and 2, wh ich concerned the review of national implementing 
legislation in the Council.  The acceptance of pr oposals concerning the monitoring the IPRs would be 
equivalent to conferring a new legislative or judicial competence to the Council, which was clearly against the Agreement.  Moreover, a recommendation on "best practices" in the implementation of IPR enforcement was not acceptable, since it could lead to a bad practice of labelling problematic 
countries, which was against the provision of Article 1.1 of the Agreement. 
129. The representative of India
 said that it was his recollection that, at an informal consultation 
prior to the Council's meeting in June 2005, it had b een decided that this item could be included on 
the agenda on the basis of a request from a Member .  He asked whether this request had been made 
prior to the October 2005 meeting and again prior to the present meeting, or whether the WTO had  IP/C/M/50 
 Page 25 
 
 
  taken a decision to put the item on the agenda of the Council irrespective of whether such a request 
had been made. 
130. The representative of China  wondered whether the figures referred to by the 
European Communities reflected the actual situation as it really was, and expressed his support to the 
statements made by Argentina and Brazil.  He said that the minutes of the Council's October 2005 
meeting (IP/C/M/49) showed that, apparently, th ere was no agreement on the EC proposal, including 
on referring the matter to the present session of the C ouncil.  Noting that he was not present at that 
session, he still found it strange that  the conclusion as recorded in paragraph 337 of the minutes read 
that "[t]he Council took note  of the statements made and agreed  to revert to the matter at its next 
meeting", given that by reading the previous statem ents one could simply not see such an agreement. 
131. China shared the view that IPR infringement  was a worldwide issue, and agreed that 
Members needed to intensify IPR enforcement with in the framework of existing provisions of the 
TRIPS Agreement.  In this respect, Article 1.1 of the Agreement provided that  "Members shall be free 
to determine the appropriate method of implementing the provisions of this Agreement within their 
own legal system and practice".  Enforcement meas ures should therefore be adopted mainly at the 
national level, although bilateral dialogues a nd cooperation between Members could play a 
supplemental role in this process.  Most devel oping Members had devoted enormous administrative 
and judicial resources on IPR enforcement, and their efforts were still continuing. 
132. The WIPO Advisory Committee on Enforcement,  with its mandate for the exchange of 
information, awareness raising and coordination of  technical assistance programmes, should be well 
equipped to address and discuss the issue of enforcement.  He saw no reason for the Council to 
duplicate the work done by other relevant intern ational organizations.  The EC proposals on 
enforcement went beyond the provisions of the TRI PS Agreement and the terms of reference of the 
Council. 
133. The enforcement of IPRs was not an isolated issue and could not be treated separately from 
the basic objectives and principles for the implementa tion of the Agreement as a whole.  If Members 
were going to examine the issue of enforcement, th ey should also examine all the relevant factors 
relating to it and revisit the whole of the Agreement.   The goal would be to find out whether Members 
should, "having regard to the experience gained in its implementation review it" "in the light of any 
relevant new developments which might warrant m odifications or amendment of the Agreement", as 
provided for in Article 71.1 of the Agreement, ta king into account the objectives and the principles as 
contained in its Articles 7 and 8.  On the objec tives of IPR protection and enforcement, Article 7 
and 8 of TRIPS, stipulated that "[t]he protecti on and enforcement of intellectual property rights 
should contribute to the promotion of technological innovation and to the transfer and dissemination 
of technology, to the mutual advantage of produ cers and users of technological knowledge and in a 
manner conducive to social and economic welfare, and to a balance of rights and obligations".  On the principles of IPR protection and enforcement, Ar ticle 8 provided that "[a]ppropriate measures, 
provided that they are consistent with the provisions of this Agreement, may be needed to prevent the 
abuse of intellectual property rights by right ho lders or the resort to practices which unreasonably 
restrain trade or adversely affect the international transfer of technology".   
134. Based on these principles and objectives, Members, particularly developing ones, had 
stressed, in the framework of the WIPO develo pment agenda, the importance of the relationship 
between appropriate protection of IPRs and th e economic and social development objectives of 
developing countries.  Other important factors rela ted to the Agreement should also be considered 
during the review.  They included many root cau ses of various IPR infringements and undesirable 
level of enforcement, such as the serious poverty problems of developing countries and their poorer 
educational, scientific and technological bases.  Fu rther factors included the relationship between IPR 
protection and transfer of technology to developi ng countries, the balance of treatment between IPR IP/C/M/50 
Page 26  
 
  protection and economical and social protection of developing countries, the rebalancing of interests 
between developed and developing countries, as refl ected in the TRIPS Agreement, the issue of 
TRIPS and public health, which had been raised  and resolved, and that of TRIPS and CBD, 
discussions on which were mandated by the Doha  and Hong Kong Ministerial Declarations. 
135. He said that, based on this analysis, he coul d only come to the conclusion that the EC 
proposal was, at least, premature.  It had not been  put forward at the right juncture.  Revisiting all 
issues related to the Agreement, including enforcem ent, would consume a lot of time and resources.  
Members were concentrating their efforts on the Doha Round and on outstanding implementation 
issues already raised.  He did not believe that Members had much time to deal with any new substantive implementation issues that might be em bodied in the Agreement and, therefore, did not 
support the EC proposal and did not agree with the arguments contained in the EC communications.  
He hoped that the European Communities woul d not open a Pandora's Box, which would be 
disastrous for the ongoing Doha R ound negotiations and other work of the Organization.  If the 
European Communities insisted on doing so, Chin a would not participate in detailed technical 
discussions and would not accep t any eventual outcome. 
136. The representative of the United States
 said that her delegation supported the EC proposal for 
a dialogue among WTO Members on the implementati on of the enforcement obligations under the 
TRIPS Agreement, and to identify solutions to  implementation deficiencies.  Approaching 
enforcement issues by focusing on each of the indivi dual sections in Part III of the Agreement would 
provide a good framework for the discussion.  She ag reed with the approach of examining, within 
each section, implementation difficulties, mechan isms to address those difficulties, and the 
coordination of a response at the TRIPS level.  Her delegation looked forward to further reviewing the 
recent EC submissions. 
137. The representative of the Philippines  said that he wished to offer just a few preliminary 
comments on the EC document IP/C/W/468 and reserve his right to come back at some later stage 
with more substantive inputs.  His delegation recogn ized that effective enforc ement was the key to the 
success of the whole gamut of international rules on the protection of IPRs, including the 
TRIPS Agreement.  It was also clear that Members should be fr ee to determine the appropriate 
method of implementing the provisions of the TRIP S Agreement within their own legal system and 
practice.  The Philippines continued to believe that  Members had been exerting, in good faith, efforts 
to comply with the provisions of the Agreement, sp ecifically, in ensuring that effective measures were 
available to permit effective action against the in fringement of IPRs.  However, Members should not 
only focus on the concerns of the different IP st akeholders but also take into account Members' 
available resources for the enforcement of IP laws in general. 
138. He reaffirmed that there was no disagreement that there would always be room for 
improvement and, as noted in paragraph 3 of doc ument IP/C/W/468, the lack of enforcement was 
being debated in various forums.  In fact, this was al so an issue that had constantly been on the agenda 
of bilateral meetings between tr ading partners.  Having said that, however, he could not follow the 
leap taken by some Members in saying that the TRIPS Council would need to provide its own contribution to improve the situation.  He continue d to have concerns about  interpreting the mandate 
under Article 68 of the Agreement to include m onitoring of enforcement in Members' domestic 
jurisdictions, in particular about the competence of the Council to deal with this particular issue.  
Having examined the EC communications and h eard the presentation by the EC customs, he 
supported Australia's request for more precision on th e proposed scope and coverage of the exercise.  
He added that perhaps the monitoring of WTO Members' compliance with their enforcement obligations could be undertaken more effectively and efficiently in more relevant organizations such 
as WIPO.    IP/C/M/50 
 Page 27 
 
 
  139. As to the presentation given by the EC custom s representative, he suggested that similar 
presentations be deferred until there was some commona lity in Members' positions on this particular 
issue.  Any such presentations would, therefore, not  be viewed as the closure to this debate.  His 
delegation was thus concerned about the characteri zation of such presentations as a launch of the 
discussion being proposed.   
140. The representative of Chile  said that his country took this issue very seriously and had made 
great efforts to strengthen enforcement, including taking measures similar to those mentioned by the 
European Communities.  However, work on this issu e was already being undertaken in other forums, 
such as WIPO, which should not be duplicated.  Wh ile appreciating the idea of information exchange, 
he was concerned that this could tu rn into finger-pointing and he did not want it to result in changes to 
the TRIPS Agreement.  Stressing that this should no t be taken as a lack of commitment, he felt that 
this was not an appropriate time or place to have such discussions.  Hence, this issue should be set 
aside until Members had completed the very impor tant task of the Doha Development Round. 
141. The representative of Peru  supported what had been said by China and Chile on efforts being 
made by countries to ensure the enforcement of the existing rules.  He said that a number of issues 
raised by the EC customs official were already being discussed at the World Customs Organization as 
well as in the WTO Negotiating Group on Trade Facilitation, which was discussing changes or 
clarifications regarding Articles V, VIII and X of GATT on the question of rules on transit and improved analysis of risk and trade flows. 
142. The representative of Venezuela
, while sharing the European Communities' concerns, felt that 
the issues it had raised did not fall within the Counc il's mandate and went beyond the concerns of the 
TRIPS Agreement.  These matters were already being reviewed by other forums and the Council 
would be engaging in duplication of efforts. 
143. The Chairman  said that he had understood that the European Communities, when submitting 
its proposal and presenting it at the last two meetings , was requesting to keep the issue on the agenda.  
Some delegations had supported c ontinued discussions, while some others had expressed reservations 
in this regard, and some had indicated that they intended to make further comments on the proposal at 
the present meeting.   
144. The representative of India  said that the Chair, when intr oducing this item at the Council's 
June 2005 meeting, had mentioned that it had been  put on the agenda based on a written request from 
the European Communities.  Since then, many delega tions had asked for the deletion of this item from 
the agenda.  For example, his delegation had asked  for the deletion of this item at the Council's 
meeting in October 2005.  This item could be put on  the Council's agenda as an item requested by a 
Member every time that the European Communities so  wished.  This was its prerogative.  But the 
Council had not decided to keep this item on the ag enda.  There was a standing practice to keep on the 
agenda those items that the Council had accepted as re gular agenda items, but this issue had not been 
accepted by Members as a regular item.  In informal  discussions, his delegation had agreed to have 
this item on the agenda on the understanding that Members cannot prevent the 
European Communities from having it on the agenda based on a written request. 
145. He requested that the item be deleted from th e agenda, and said that he would not agree to 
revert to it at the next meeting.  The Council had many important and urgent issues to finish during 
the negotiations, which were more important than  the urgency expressed by one Member.  These 
included items C, E and F, where Ministers had re quested an outcome by Ju ly.  While enforcement 
was very important, this was not the time for it.  His delegation was ready to listen to the EC 
presentations, but was not in a position to respond to, or even discuss, those presentations, during the 
negotiation round.  The European Communities had sai d that the trade in counterfeit medicines was 
worth US$ 40 billion, but another delegation ha d mentioned under the item on TRIPS and CBD that IP/C/M/50 
Page 28  
 
  the piracy of its biological resources was worth US$ 40 billion.  That agenda  item was waiting, under 
Ministers' directions, for appropriate action.  Discussion on enforcement should be deferred until the 
Council had completed the mandate th at Ministers had given to it. 
146. The representative of China
, supporting the statement by India, reiterated his understanding 
that the Council had not agreed to revert to the ma tter at the present meeting.  He could agree that any 
Member may request in writing, ten days before a m eeting, that an item be put on the agenda.  This 
was the practice of the WTO, not necessarily the ru le.  China sometimes challenged this practice, 
because it was not a rule.  As to the annex to th e advance copy of the EC communication (advance 
copy of IP/C/W/471), he requested that errors in  the nomenclature of Members' names be corrected 
before its circulation in an official document. 
147. The Chairman , responding to India and China, said that, when concluding the discussion 
under this item at the Council's October meeting, he, as the Chair, had suggested that the Council 
agree to revert to this matter at its next mee ting.  Even though during the earlier discussion some 
Members had not supported the continuation of the discussion, no-one had challenged his suggestion. 
148. The representative of India , supported by the representative of China , reiterated that he did 
not agree to revert to this item at the Council's ne xt meeting, which would be the last meeting before 
the July deadlines in many matters th at the Ministers had given Members. 
149. The representative of Brazil  said that the Council had a deadline under the Doha 
Development Agenda mandated by the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration.  He preferred that the 
Council not come back to this item, but if the Council were to do so, it should be at the request of the 
European Communities. 
150. The representative of the European Communities  thanked other delegations for their 
comments, practically all of whom had said that they recognized the seriousness of the issue.  He failed to understand those delegations  who had refused to discuss the matter, particularly when they 
themselves had highlighted their own efforts to comb at the problem.  The EC reference to Article 68 
of the Agreement as a basis for the Council's discu ssion of the matter was not in contradiction with 
Article 1.1, which allowed Members to choose the appropriate means to implement their enforcement 
obligations.  Neither did he unders tand those who had said that this was not the right time to discuss 
the matter, given that the EC customs representa tive had just mentioned the millions of fake 
medicines which endangered the lives of millions of  citizens throughout the world.  Allowing fake 
medicines to enter developing countries was not a pr o-development attitude.  Therefore, he requested 
that the matter be put on the agenda of the Council' s next meeting.  His de legation intended to discuss 
it using the structure of Part III of the Agreement.  He noted that this requ est was not only made by 
the European Communities, but also by other delegations. 
151. The Chairman
 suggested that the Council take note of  the statements made.  Regarding how 
the Council should proceed with the discussion of this topic at its next meeting, he suggested that he consult with his successor.  If necessary, an inform al consultation could be organized, bearing in mind 
the European Communities' intention to request that  the matter be put on the agenda of the next 
meeting and some indications of inte rest to continue discussions on it. 
152. The representative of India
 said that the European Commun ities had the choice of presenting 
a written request to the Secretariat to have the item in cluded in the agenda of the next meeting.  There 
could be consultations before the next meeting on whether and how this item could come back to the 
Council.  However, the Council was not in a position to decide at the present meeting that it would 
revert to it at its next meeting or that it would do so based on informal consultations.  The Council's 
decision on this agenda item at the present meeting s hould only be that the statements had been noted.  
He added that, at the last meeting, India had had a delegation of two representatives who were  IP/C/M/50 
 Page 29 
 
 
  shuttling between meetings.  He did not remember ex actly when the supposed agreement to revert to 
this item at the present meeting had been reached.  Perhaps his delegation had not been present at that 
time.  As recorded in the minutes, his delegation had requested that this item be deleted from the 
agenda.  However, he said that he was not raising a point of order. 
153. The representative of Argentina  said that accepting to follow the procedure suggested by the 
Chair would imply that Members would de facto  accept that the matter be kept on the agenda.  
Although since the beginning of the discussions on it there had been a significant number of delegations who had said that the inclusion of this agenda item was not pertinent;  nevertheless, this 
topic unfortunately continued to be on the agenda. 
154. The Chairman
 said that it was not his intention to suggest this time that Members revert to 
this item at the Council's next meeting. 
155. The representative of India , responding to the European Communities said that he did not 
have instructions on the substance of the EC pr oposals, since it had been his understanding that the 
item was not to come up unless so requested by the European Communities.  His capital was not 
engaged on this issue at that point of time, sinc e it had other matters to deal with, including the 
instructions given by Ministers. 
156. The representative of the European Communities  said that his delegation had specifically 
requested that the item be put on the agenda of this  meeting.  Furthermore, it would request that the 
item to be put on the agenda of the next mee ting.  His delegation was engaged in constructive 
discussion on many items on the Council's agenda for which it was not a demandeur .  This item was 
one of the priorities of his delegation, and it would not disappear. 
M. INFORMATION ON RELEVANT DEVELOPMENTS ELSEWHERE IN THE WTO 
(i) Accessions 
157. The Chairman  said the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia had become the 149th Member of the WTO 
on 11 December 2005.  In paragraph 272 of the Re port of the Working Party on the Accession of the 
Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (WT/ACC/SAU/61), the representative of Saudi Arabia had stated that 
Saudi Arabia would apply fully a ll the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement from the date of accession 
to the WTO, without recourse to any transitional pe riod.  This commitment had been incorporated in 
paragraph 2 of the Protocol on the Accession of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (WT/L/627). 
158. The WTO Sixth Ministerial Conference had approved, on 15 December, the terms of 
accession of Tonga.  In accordance with paragraph 8 of the Protocol on the Accession of the Kingdom of Tonga (WT/L/644), the Protocol shall enter in to force 30 days after its acceptance by Tonga. 
159. The representative of Saudi Arabia
 thanked all countries that had helped and supported 
Saudi Arabia in its efforts to join this organiza tion.  He also thanked the WTO Secretariat for its 
assistance. 
160. The Council took note  of the statements made. 
(ii) Acceptance of the TRIPS Amendment 
161. The Chairman  said that, on 17 December 2005, the United States had become the first 
Member to notify its acceptance of the Protocol Amending the TRIPS Agreement that was done at 
Geneva on 6 December 2005.  The Protocol shal l enter into force for the United States upon 
acceptance of the Protocol by two thirds of the Members. IP/C/M/50 
Page 30  
 
  162. The Council took note
 of the Chair's statement. 
N. OBSERVER STATUS FOR INTERNATIONAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS  
163. The Chairman  said that the list of the 17 pending requests for observer status in the 
TRIPS Council by other intergovernmental organizations was contained in document 
IP/C/W/52/Rev.11.  He recalled that the Council had discussed these pending requests at its previous 
meetings, but had not been able to reach consensus on  any of them.  In the light of the consultations 
he had held on this matter, it appeared  that there were no new developments. 
164. The Council agreed  to revert to the matter at its next meeting. 
O. OTHER BUSINESS  
(i) Arrangements for the review of Saudi Arabia 
165. The Chairman  said that, as he had informed the Co uncil under agenda item M, Saudi Arabia 
had recently acceded to the WTO and was not applying any transitional period in the area of TRIPS.  
The Council had not yet received the required notificati ons of its legislation.  He therefore suggested 
that the Council request the Secretariat to remind Sa udi Arabia of its notification obligations.  Given 
that after the receipt of the notifications, Members would need some time to prepare questions to be 
posed in the context of its review, and then Sa udi Arabia would need some time to prepare its 
responses, it appeared that the most appropriate time for the review of TRIPS implementing legislation of Saudi Arabia would be the Council's fi rst meeting in 2007.  If the Council so agreed, he 
suggested that it revert to the arrangements for this review, in particular the deadline for questions and 
responses, at its next meeting. 
166. The Council so agreed
. 
 (ii) Dates of the Council's meetings in 2006 
167. The Chairman  recalled that at its last meeting in October 2005, the Council had agreed on the 
dates for its meetings in 2006.  The end of the year meeting had been scheduled for Tuesday and 
Wednesday, 24-25 October 2006.  Given that the Director-General had since decided that 
24 October 2006 would be an official holiday, he s uggested that the Council delay the meeting by one 
day, i.e., hold it on Wednesday and Thursday 25-26 October 2006. 
168. The Council so agreed . 
P. ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON  
169. The Chairman  recalled that, at its meeting of 8 Febr uary 2005, 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 Council for TRIPS elect H.E. Ambassador C. Trevor 
Clarke from Barbados as its Chairman for the coming year by acclamation. 
170. The Council so agreed . 
__________