Minutes - TRIPS Council - View details of the intervention/statement

H.E. Ambassador Lundeg Purevsuren
3; 4; 5 REVIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 27.3(B); RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE TRIPS AGREEMENT AND THE CONVENTION ON BIOLOGICAL DIVERSITY; PROTECTION OF TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND FOLKLORE
85.   Switzerland supports the introduction of a non-burdensome requirement into the TRIPS Agreement to disclose the source of genetic resources and traditional knowledge in patent applications for inventions directly based on such genetic resource or knowledge. 86.   Switzerland is convinced that such a provision will promote the mutual supportiveness of the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD, and through enhanced transparency, also the better understanding and acceptance of the benefits of the patent system and the protection and innovation incentive mechanism it provides, in particular in relation to inventions in the field of biotechnology. 87.   In 2008, a group of 109 WTO Members, the so-called W52 coalition, representing 2/3 of the membership, submitted to the TNC a proposal for modalities for three outstanding implementation issues. 88.   Next to the proposal for a disclosure requirement for genetic resources and traditional knowledge in patent applications, this proposal concerns the extension of the effective level of Art. 23 of the TRIPS Agreement on the protection for geographical indications to all products as well as the multilateral register for geographical indications which the TRIPS Agreement mandates to be established. 89.   Should Members decide a WTO work programme at the forthcoming MC12 (in Nursultan), these long outstanding implementation issues will need to be taken into account in view of reaching mutually agreeable solutions for them. 90.   Finally, Switzerland can lend its support to the two procedural proposals, one concerning the update of the factual notes of the Secretariat, summarizing the Council's discussion between 2000 and 2006, the other to invite the CBD Secretariat to brief the Council at one of its next regular meetings about the Nagoya Protocol of the CBD.
The Council took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to the matters at its next meeting.
11.   The Chair proposed that, following past practice, agenda items 3, 4 and 5 be addressed together. He recalled that one tool for the review under item 3 was the information provided by Members in response to a list of questions on Article 27.3(b). Last year the Council had received the responses by Ukraine and Mexico. These had been the first responses after 15 years. He encouraged delegations to submit responses to this Checklist or update their previous responses; as well as notify any relevant changes in legislation.
12.   He noted that two longstanding procedural issues under these items had been discussed extensively on the record, at every regular meeting of the Council for several years:
a. first, the suggestion for the Secretariat to update the three factual notes on the Council's discussions on the TRIPS and CBD and related items; these notes were initially prepared in 2002 and last updated in 2006; and
b. second, the request to invite the CBD Secretariat to brief the Council on the Nagoya Protocol to the CBD, initially proposed in October 2010.
13.   Positions on these issues were well-known and already extensively recorded in the Council minutes. In addressing these procedural questions, he encouraged delegations to focus on suggestions as to how to resolve them.
14.   The representatives of Brazil; India; Bangladesh; Nigeria; China; Indonesia; Kenya; South Africa; Ukraine; the United States of America; Switzerland; Japan; Canada; and Plurinational State of Bolivia took the floor.
15.   The Council took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to the matters at its next meeting.
IP/C/M/94, IP/C/M/94/Add.1