111. The representative of the United States said that his delegation's position on the three agenda items was well-known, and had been reiterated in the various meetings and discussions held in connection with the July ministerial meeting. His delegation did not support amending the TRIPS Agreement to address the concerns of the proponents of the patent disclosure requirement as doing so would not be the most effective way of addressing those concerns. His delegation continued to believe that Members should focus on the shared objectives that had been revealed through the Council's work to date. His delegation agreed that prior informed consent and equitable benefit sharing with respect to the use of genetic resources and related traditional knowledge were important issues, and also agreed on the importance of avoiding erroneously granted patents. However, Members continued to diverge on the premise that a disclosure requirement would be an effective means of achieving the shared objectives. His delegation disagreed with this premise and therefore was not able to support the initiation of negotiations as part of the Single Undertaking towards a preordained outcome that would not, in its view, accomplish the shared objectives.
112. He said that, at a fundamental level, the most critical element in ensuring appropriate compliance with prior informed consent and access and benefit-sharing requirements was the development and strengthening of national regimes and legal frameworks designed specifically to accomplish these objectives. Bringing the patent system into the equation would not make sense in the absence of well-functioning access and benefit-sharing regimes. Even if strong prior informed consent and access and benefit-sharing systems were in place, his delegation wondered how new patent requirements, including the possibility of denial of patents or revocation of patents in some circumstances, would help accomplish the legitimate and important shared objectives. The most effective way to ensure the effective sharing of benefits was to generate benefits in the first place. Benefits would be generated when useful and good products were developed and commercialized and the existence of an incentive through the patent system was a critical element in encouraging such development and commercialization. With this, and with meaningful national access and benefit-sharing systems in place, Members could have confidence that the common objectives could be achieved.
113. Finally, he noted that the agenda of the Council limited Members' discussion to consideration of the three items in tandem. He said that some references had been made to document TN/C/W/52, which included only one issue on the agenda. The two other issues that it covered were not reflected on the Council's agenda. The fact that some Members had found it useful to address these issues together through a parallel approach did not overcome his delegation's vigorous opposition to their being considered as a package in the context of the Doha Development Agenda negotiations, particularly in light of differences in negotiating mandates, or the lack thereof, with respect to these issues. He said that these issues must continue to be considered on their individual merits and within the specific bodies and consultation mechanisms designated in previous ministerial guidance, which could not be short circuited by the work of the Council. Returning to the items that were reflected on the Council's agenda, he said that his delegation remained committed to being actively engaged in the Council's examination as well as consultation of these issues.
