117. The United States does not support requests to ask the TRIPS Secretariat to update the three factual briefs, as we have explained in previous sessions and in bilateral meetings. We do not view this as a good use of the Secretariat's resources. Members remain able to freely access the minutes of past interventions and the subjects through the WTO website and we continue to be willing to discuss this bilaterally with interested Members.
118. Regarding the proposal to invite the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) Secretariat to brief the TRIPS Council, the United States is not in a position to support this proposal, as it is Nagoya Protocol parties that are responsible for implementing the obligations of the Nagoya Protocol. We believe that it is Members that should explain their domestic policies for implementing the proposal rather than the CBD Secretariat. Over the years, there has been no shortage of outside events on the Nagoya Protocol that have included the CBD Secretariat that provide Members with opportunities to hear directly from Secretariat on issues that might be of interest to them.
119. As to the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD, a number of delegations noted that they believe that there is a need to avoid erroneous patents that involve the use of genetic resources and related traditional knowledge. We agree that there is a need to avoid erroneous patents, but we disagree that a disclosure of origin would help improve the quality of patents. In the many years that this issue has been discussed, we note that many countries have imposed disclosure requirement upon applicants. If that disclosure requirement has, in fact, improved the quality of patents, then surely by now, there would be data to support this conclusion.