95. The representative of Chinese Taipei said that many Members agreed there was no conflict between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD, and that Members shared the objectives of avoiding erroneously granted patents and misappropriation of genetic resources and traditional knowledge. Nevertheless Members had divergent views on how to achieve the aforementioned objectives, especially whether the TRIPS Agreement should be amended to include a mandatory disclosure requirement. He said that his delegation did not agree with the artificial linkage between the issue of TRIPS/CBD and other issues because each issue should be evaluated on its own merits. He expressed his delegation's concern about the lack of clarity in document TN/C/W/52. He recalled that his delegation had raised a number of questions about the proposed Article 29bis contained in document IP/C/W/474; likewise, the proposal contained in document TN/C/W/52 was of concern for his delegation. He questioned whether it was a constructive approach for Members to negotiate a mandatory disclosure requirement before discussing the definition of "associated traditional knowledge", and the trigger of the disclosure obligation. He said that as some proposals on the table might have an impact on the effectiveness and efficiency of the patent system, more clarity was needed to avoid unnecessarily increasing the burden on patent applicants and examiners and to avoid uncertainty with respect to issued patents. He emphasized the need for continuing technical discussions. He said that further discussion and sharing of national experience on prior informed consent and access and benefit sharing was important. In his delegation's view, national systems and the proposed disclosure requirement were not mutually exclusive. Members should be encouraged to share their experiences in the Council. Finally, he said that, due to the complexity of the issue, his delegation had not yet come to a conclusion about the necessity of amending the TRIPS Agreement.
