MINUTES OF MEETING
Held in the Centre William Rappard on 9-10 June 2015
Chairperson:
Ambassador Al-Otaibi (Kingdom of Saudi-Arabia)
The present document contains
the record of the Council for TRIPS meeting held on 9‑10 June 2015.
The statements made during the meeting will be circulated in an addendum to the
present document.
_______________
Subjects
discussed
1 Notifications under Provisions of the
Agreement. 3
2 Reviews of National
Implementing Legislation.. 4
2.1 Review of the national implementing
legislation of Tajikistan. 4
2.2 Follow-up to reviews already undertaken. 4
2.3 Arrangements for the review of the
national implementing legislation of the Republic of Seychelles 4
3 Review of the
Provisions of Article 27.3(b). 5
4 Relationship between
the TRIPS Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity. 5
5 Protection of
Traditional Knowledge and Folklore. 5
6 Non-violation and
Situation Complaints. 5
7 Review of the
Implementation of the TRIPS Agreement under Article 71.1. 6
8 Review of the
Application of the Provisions of the Section on Geographical Indications under
Article 24.2. 6
9 Technical Cooperation
and Capacity-Building.. 6
9.1 Protocol Amending the TRIPS Agreement 6
9.2 Arrangements for Annual Review of
Technical Cooperation. 7
10 IP and Innovation:
the role of intellectual property in financing innovation 7
11 Request for an
Extension of the Transitional Period under Article 66.1 for Least Developed
Country Members with respect to Pharmaceutical Products and for Waivers from
the Obligation of Articles 70.8 and 70.9. 8
12 Information on
Relevant Developments Elsewhere in the WTO.. 8
13 Observer Status for
International Intergovernmental Organizations. 8
14 Other Business. 8
14.1 Invitations to ad hoc observers. 8
14.2 13th Annual Review under Paragraph 2 of
the Decision on the "Implementation of Article 66.2 of the TRIPS
Agreement". 9
14.3 Other reviews. 9
14.4 Contribution of Intellectual Property to
Facilitate the Transfer of Environmentally Sound Technology 9
14.5 Chair for the TRIPS Council Meeting in
October 10
1.1. The Chairman said that, since
its meeting in February 2015, the Council had received a number of laws and
regulations that Members had notified under Article 63.2 of the Agreement:
· Following the brief oral introduction at the last meeting, Colombia had
notified a decree from November 2014 regulating the compensation prescribed for
the infringement of trademark rights;
· Uruguay had notified amendments to its law establishing provisions
on trademarks that had been adopted in November 2013, as well as a decree of
October 2014 that provided for implementing regulations in this regard;
· Denmark had notified a consolidated version of its Act on Copyright of
October 2014;
· Japan had notified its Designs Act, Patent Act, Trademark Act and its Law
Concerning International Applications Pursuant to the Patent Cooperation
Treaty, as well as related Enforcement Ordinances;
· Norway had notified consolidated versions of its Design Act, Patent
Act, Trademark Act and related Regulations, as well as a number of other laws;
and
· The Russian
Federation had notified its Law on
Information, on Information Technology and on Protecting Information and
related amendments. It had also submitted amendments to the Civil Procedure
Code.
1.2. These notifications of laws and
regulations were available in the IP/N/1- series of documents, and the actual
texts of laws in sub-series of documents in electronic form on the Documents
Online database.
1.3. No initial responses or updates to
the Checklist of Issues on Enforcement had been provided since the last meeting
in February.
1.4. Botswana had notified an update to a
contact point under Article 69 for the exchange of information and cooperation
on trade in infringing goods. The information on the Members' transparency
toolkit page had been updated accordingly.
1.5. He particularly encouraged the
delegations that had notified a new or revised legislative measure, or a new or
updated response to the enforcement checklist to briefly inform the Council
about the key points of the notified amendment or information provided, as most
new notifications were revisions or amendments of existing notifications.
Several delegations had followed this practice at recent sessions of the
Council. This had provided valuable insight into the notifications submitted
and had assisted in promoting awareness and transparency.
1.6. The
representatives of Canada; the Russian Federation; and Japan
took the floor.
1.7. The Chairman urged those
Members whose initial notifications of laws and regulations remained incomplete
to submit the outstanding material without delay. Equally, he urged other
Members to fulfil their obligations under the TRIPS Agreement to notify any subsequent
amendments of their laws and regulations without delay after their entry into
force.
1.8. He especially encouraged Members to
notify changes made to their laws and/or regulations to implement the Decision
on TRIPS and public health. At least 51 WTO Members, including many of the
world's major exporters of medicines, had adopted implementing legislation that
allowed them to use the Paragraph 6 System as exporters and/or importers.
However, only 16 Members had formally notified such measures to the TRIPS
Council. Completing the notification of all relevant laws and regulations could
assist Members in preparing for the potential use of the System. It would also
help the Secretariat in its efforts to provide informed technical support to
Members in this area.
1.9. The representative
of the Secretariat updated the Council on its work to
improve the timeliness, user-friendliness and cost-effectiveness of the
notification system.
1.10. The Council took note of the
statements made.
2.1. The Chairman said that at its
meeting in October 2014, the Council had initiated the review of Tajikistan's
national implementing legislation. Since the Council's last meeting, Tajikistan
had notified its Law on Copyright and Related Rights and the Law on Trade
Secrets. While the original laws or consolidated versions thereof were yet to
be notified, Tajikistan had also submitted amendments and additions to its Law
on Pharmaceuticals and Pharmaceutical Activities, as well as to its Law on the
Production and Safe Handling of Pesticides and Agrochemicals. They were being
circulated in document series IP/N/1/TJK/, and the text of the laws could be
found in the relevant law series of documents.
2.2. Tajikistan had also received
questions from the United States, which had been circulated in document
IP/C/W/604. It had provided responses to these questions that had been
circulated in document IP/C/W/606.
2.3. Shortly before the meeting, the
United States had submitted follow-up questions to Tajikistan. Since these
questions were yet to be circulated and were only available in English, the Chairman
suggested that the Council revert to the matter at its next meeting..
2.4. He also asked the delegation of
Tajikistan to submit answers to any follow-up questions in writing within eight
weeks after the meeting. Any delegation that would wish to raise further
questions should provide those questions in writing to the delegation of
Tajikistan, with a copy to the Secretariat.
2.5. The Council so agreed.
2.6. The Chairman recalled that
the reviews of two Members' national implementing legislation that had been
initiated at the Council's meetings since April 2001 remained on the
Council's agenda, namely those of Fiji; and Saint Kitts and Nevis. As agreed at
the last meeting, to support this process, he had also contacted the Members in
question to enquire when they would expect to be in a position to provide the
outstanding materials needed to complete the reviews and to offer any
Secretariat technical support that they might need.
2.7. The Council took note of the statements made and agreed
to revert to the matter at its next meeting.
2.8. The Chairman noted that the
Republic of Seychelles had acceded to the WTO on 26 April 2015. It
had agreed to apply the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement no later than the
date of its accession to the WTO, without recourse to any transitional periods.
It had also agreed to submit all initial notifications required by any
Agreement constituting part of the WTO Agreement upon accession.
2.9. He suggested that the Secretariat be requested to contact the
Republic of Seychelles concerning the notification procedures of the Council
and that the Council revert to the arrangements for this review at its meeting
in October.
2.10. The Council so agreed.
5.1. The Chairman suggested that
the Council continue to discuss the three agenda items together on the basis of
contributions by Members.
5.2. The representatives of Bangladesh
on behalf of the LDC Group; Brazil; South Africa; Egypt;
Ecuador; Colombia; Peru; China; Indonesia; India;
Mali; Tanzania; Chile; Pakistan; Switzerland;
Cuba; the United States; Japan; Canada; the Republic
of Korea; the European Union and Australia took the floor.
5.3. Regarding the proposals that the CBD Secretariat be invited to brief the Council
on the Nagoya Protocol that had been adopted in October 2010 and that the WTO
Secretariat be requested to update the three factual notes that summarize the
points delegations had made in the Council's past discussions under these
agenda items, the Chairman pointed out that the Council had already
devoted considerable time to these proposals in virtually each meeting over the
last couple of years. He therefore indicated his readiness to facilitate the
process with a view to reaching a decision at the Council's next meeting that
would provide for a definite solution.
5.4. He also urged Members to provide responses to or update their
initial responses to the illustrative list of questions on Article 27.3(b)
TRIPS and to notify or report on any relevant mechanisms to protect genetic
resources and traditional knowledge.
5.5. The Council took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to
them at its next meeting.
6.1. The Chairman recalled that,
at the Ninth Session of the Ministerial Conference, Ministers had directed the
TRIPS Council to continue its examination of the 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 their next Session that would be held in Nairobi in
December 2015. It had been agreed that, in the meantime, Members would not
initiate such complaints under the TRIPS Agreement.
6.2. He recalled that Members had
discussed the matter at the three meetings that the Council had held in the
course of last year, as well as at its last meeting in February when the
Council again had agreed to revert to this matter at the present meeting. In
particular, a communication on "Non-Violation Complaints under the TRIPS
Agreement" that had been submitted by the United States (circulated in
document IP/C/W/599) had served as the basis for an intense exchange of views
at the last two meetings.
6.3. Since its last meeting in February,
the Council had received a revision of a communication on "Non-Violation
and Situation Nullification or Impairment Under the TRIPS Agreement" that
had been circulated on 30 October 2002. The revised submission (circulated in
document IP/C/W/385/Rev.1) was co-sponsored by a number of TRIPS Council
Members (Argentina, the Plurinational State of Bolivia, Brazil, China,
Colombia, Cuba, Ecuador, Egypt, India, Indonesia, Kenya, Malaysia, Pakistan,
Peru, the Russian Federation, Sri Lanka and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela).
6.4. He said that the Council was
mandated to provide its recommendations on scope and modalities to the Nairobi
Ministerial Conference; the Council's meeting in October would therefore be the
last scheduled opportunity to conclude these recommendations. He
therefore urged delegations to provide guidance on how the Council could
conclude its substantive work on this matter, which had been originally
mandated in the TRIPS Agreement for the Council to conclude in 1999.
6.5. The representatives of Brazil;
Bangladesh on behalf of the LDC Group; Ecuador; Argentina;
India; South Africa; Colombia; Cuba; the Bolivarian
Republic of Venezuela; Lesotho on behalf of the Africa Group; Chile;
Switzerland; Peru; Nepal; Indonesia; Pakistan;
China; the Republic of Korea; Norway; Tanzania; the
Russian Federation; Egypt; Japan; Chinese Taipei; Uruguay;
Hong Kong, China; Canada;
the United States and Barbados on behalf of the ACP Group took the floor.
6.6. The Chairman recalled that
there was only one more formal meeting of the Council left to respond to the
instruction by Ministers that draft recommendations be prepared by the next
Ministerial Conference. This should be of particular concern to delegations,
given that there were still no concrete proposals on the table as to how the
Council might prepare the recommendations. He therefore suggested that the
Chairman be requested to hold consultations before the matter would be raised
again at the next meeting with a view to enabling the
Council to agree on its recommendation to the Nairobi Ministerial Conference at
that meeting.
6.7. The Council took note of the
statements made and so agreed.
7.1. No
statements were made by Members under this agenda item.
7.2. The Council agreed to revert
to the matter at its next meeting.
8.1. The Chairman recalled that
Article 24.2 provided that the Council shall keep under review the application
of the provisions of the GI Section of the Agreement. The principal
tool used to coordinate the review process had been a Checklist of Questions
contained in document IP/C/13 and Add.1. However, only 49 Members out of 161 had undertaken
this valuable exercise to date, and a number of past responses were likely to
be out of date, since they dated back over a decade. In
addition, at its meeting in March 2010, the Council had agreed to encourage
Members to share information on and notify to the Council bilateral agreements
related to the protection of geographical indications, which they had entered
into.
8.2. As the
question of GI protection remained of continuing interest, he invited those
delegations that had not yet provided responses to the Checklist of Questions
to consider doing so and those who had already done so to consider updating the
information as appropriate. In line with the Council's recommendation made in
March 2010, he also encouraged any Member that was party to any bilateral
agreements related to the protection of GIs and had not yet shared such
information with the Council to do so.
8.3. The Council agreed to revert
to the matter at its next meeting.
9.1. The Chairman recalled that, at its last meeting, the Council
had been informed by his predecessor about the Director-General's renewed
efforts that he had undertaken earlier this year in order to secure the entry
into force of the TRIPS amendment by MC10.
9.2. As outlined by the Director-General in his statement at the General
Council in February, entry into force of the amendment would give this new
compulsory licensing mechanism the same status as all other public
health-related flexibilities under the TRIPS Agreement. It would provide a
permanent legal pathway that strengthens the System's future potential to
facilitate export of medicines that was needed by patients in developing
countries. And it would respond to widespread calls within the UN, including
from the UN Economic and Social Council and the UN General Assembly, to
complete the process of acceptance.
9.3. These earlier initiatives by the Director-General had triggered
significant interest in many WTO Members who were yet to accept the TRIPS amendment.
Other Members who had already accepted the TRIPS Protocol had also confirmed
their availability to assist and share their experience with Members concerned.
9.4. Reportedly, considerable progress had been made in domestic
acceptance procedures in some of the Members concerned. This said, since the
last meeting in February, only Brunei Darussalam had formally deposited its
instrument of acceptance.[1]
9.5. In his capacity as the Chair of the Council, he therefore had taken
the initiative to suggest, in a communication that had been circulated by the
WTO Secretariat in a fax dated 26 May 2015, that the issue of cooperation to
facilitate domestic procedures to accept the TRIPS Protocol and thus ultimately
to support the entry into force of the TRIPS amendment be raised under the
agenda item on technical cooperation. At this stage, he still hoped that this
goal could be achieved in time for MC10 later this year. For this to happen, it
was necessary that another 26 Members submit their respective instruments of
acceptance to the WTO.
9.6. His initiative built on past work in this Council that had
recognized the need for technical assistance concerning the acceptance process
and had also provided support to Members in this area. In his communication, he
had proposed that Members concerned come prepared to this meeting to share
information about any potential needs for further assistance and experience
sharing and to inform the Council about the steps taken in order to complete
their domestic acceptance procedures since the letter of the Director-General
in February.
9.7. The representatives of Chile; India; the European
Union; Bangladesh on behalf the LDC Group; Australia; Brazil;
the Republic of Seychelles; Chinese Taipei; Pakistan and Rwanda
took the floor.
9.8. The Council took note of the
statements made.
9.9. The Chairman recalled that the Council had traditionally
undertaken its annual review of technical cooperation at its end-of-year
meeting. Therefore, he suggested that the Council hold its annual review at its
meeting scheduled for 15-16 October. Accordingly, he suggested that the Council
once more invite developed country Members to supply information on their
activities pursuant to Article 67 of the TRIPS Agreement. Other Members who
also make available technical cooperation were encouraged to share information
on these activities if they so wished. He also suggested that once more the
Council invite those intergovernmental organizations that had observer status
in the Council to provide information on their activities of relevance and that
the WTO Secretariat might also be instructed to report on its activities. He
proposed that the Council request that this information be made available by 23
September 2015 in order to allow its timely circulation before the meeting.
9.10. Given the extensive documentation that had been provided on this
topic, and the benefits of a streamlined approach to its management, reporting
Members were encouraged to review the possible approaches that had in the past
been suggested in the Council. The Secretariat was able to provide informal
support and background in this regard on request to interested delegations.
9.11. The Council so agreed.
10.1. The Chairman said this item had been put on the agenda at the
written request by the delegations of Switzerland and the United States. Since
the circulation of the airgram, Singapore and the European Union had also
indicated their intention to co-sponsor this item.
10.2. The representatives of the United States; Switzerland;
Singapore; the European Union; India; Bangladesh on
behalf the LDC Group; Chile; Chinese Taipei; the Republic
of Korea; Japan; Brazil; Pakistan; Canada and Australia
took the floor.
10.3. The Council took note of the
statements made.
11.1. The Chairman said that this
item had been put on the agenda at the written request by the delegation of
Bangladesh on behalf of the LDC Group.
11.2. The representatives of Bangladesh
on behalf of the LDC Group; Uganda on behalf of the LDC Group; Lesotho
on behalf of the Africa Group; South Africa; Nepal; Myanmar;
Barbados on behalf of the ACP Group; Cambodia; Tanzania; India;
Norway; Mali; Cuba; Brazil; the Republic of
Yemen; Argentina; Togo; Canada; China; the United
States; Japan; Chinese Taipei; Sierra Leone; Turkey;
Haiti; the Democratic Republic of Congo; the European Union;
Chile; Uruguay; Rwanda; Switzerland; Australia;
the Holy See and the Secretariat of the WHO took the floor.
11.3. The Council took note of the
statements made and requested the Chairman to consult on the matter before its
next meeting in October.
12.1. The Chairman noted that the Republic of Seychelles had
deposited its Instrument of Acceptance with the Director-General on 27 March
2015 and became the 161st Member of the WTO on 26 April 2015.[2]
13.1. The Chairman recalled that
there remained 12 pending requests for observer status in the TRIPS Council by
other intergovernmental organizations. The updated list was contained in
document IP/C/W/52/Rev.13.
13.2. In the past few years, the Council had been able to make some
progress by agreeing to grant ad hoc observer status on a meeting-by-meeting
basis to ARIPO, OAPI, the GCC and EFTA.
13.3. The representatives of India; Bangladesh on behalf of the
LDC Group; Ecuador; Indonesia; Nepal; Brazil
and the United States took the floor.
13.4. The Council took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to
the matter at its next meeting.
14.1. The Chairman recalled that,
at its meetings in June 2010 and November 2012, the Council had agreed to grant
ad hoc observer status on a
meeting-to-meeting basis to the African Regional Intellectual Property
Organization, the African Intellectual Property Organization, the Cooperation
Council of the Arab States of the Gulf, and the European Free Trade
Association. He suggested that the Council again invite ARIPO, OAPI, GCC and
EFTA to attend the Council's next formal meeting on an ad hoc
basis.
14.2. The representatives of the United
States and Nigeria on behalf of the Africa Group took the floor.
14.3. The Chairman said that since
the Council could not take a decision under "Other Business"
regarding the grant of permanent observer status to ARIPO, OAPI, GCC and EFTA,
it could revert to that matter at its next meeting
under the agenda item on "Observer Status".
14.4. The Council so agreed.
14.5. The Chairman recalled that paragraph 1 of the Decision on the
"Implementation of Article 66.2 of the TRIPS Agreement provided that
developed country Members shall submit annually reports on actions taken or
planned in pursuance of their commitments under Article 66.2. To this end,
they must provide new detailed reports every third year and, in the intervening
years, provide updates to their most recent reports. These reports must be
submitted prior to the last Council meeting scheduled for the year in question.
Paragraph 3 of the Decision determined the information that must be
provided in these reports.
14.6. Detailed annual reports under the Decision had been presented to the
Council's end-of-year meetings in 2003, 2006, 2009 and 2012, and updates to the
Council's meetings in the intervening years. Therefore, developed country
Members should submit their fifth new detailed reports on actions taken or
planned in pursuance of their commitments under Article 66.2. These reports
should be provided prior to the Council's end of year meeting that had been
scheduled for 15‑16 October. As provided in paragraph 2 of the Decision,
the Council shall review these reports at that meeting.
14.7. Accordingly, he suggested that developed country Members be
requested to provide new detailed reports on actions they had taken or planned
in pursuance of their commitments under Article 66.2 by 23 September 2015, i.e.
three weeks before the meeting, in order to allow their timely circulation and
review at the Council's meeting later that month.
14.8. The Council's deliberations on past reports in this area and regular
workshops convened on this matter had drawn attention to possible practical
approaches to facilitating the submission, processing and consultation of these
reports. Given the extensive documentation that had been provided on this
topic, and the benefits of a streamlined approach to its management, reporting
Members were encouraged to review the possible approaches that had been
suggested. The Secretariat was able to provide informal support and background
in this regard on request to interested delegations.
14.9. The Council so agreed.
14.10. The Chairman said that, as already discussed under item 9,
the Council would take up the annual review of technical cooperation under
Article 67 at its meeting in October. The Council would also have on its
agenda the annual review of the functioning of the Paragraph 6 System. In
preparation of this review, he encouraged Members to share either directly with
him or through the Secretariat any thoughts or suggestions they might have
concerning the arrangements for this review. If needed, he would be available
to consult with interested delegations on the preparations of the review.
14.11. The Council took note of the information provided.
14.12. The Chairman recalled that, at the beginning of the meeting,
the delegation of Ecuador had said that it wished to inform the TRIPS Council
about the steps taken to advance its proposal regarding the issue of the
contribution of intellectual property to facilitate the transfer of
environmentally sound technology.
14.13. The representative of Ecuador
took the floor.
14.14. The Council took note of the
statement made.
14.15. The Chairman informed the
Council that, due to other commitments, he would not be available to chair the
Council's next formal meeting on 15-16 October 2015. In informal contacts,
Ambassador Alfredo Suescum from Panama, who had chaired the Council in 2013,
had kindly offered to replace him at that meeting.
14.16. The Council took note of the information provided.
__________
[1] Document WT/Let/1037.
[2] WT/Let/1036 of 1 April 2015; the Protocol on the Accession of the
Republic of Seychelles was circulated in document WT/L/944.