55. The representative of India said that he attached importance to this review. He believed that the substantive review of Article 27.3(b) had begun and should figure on the agenda of all subsequent meetings of the TRIPS Council during the year 2000. He said that the flexibility which was presently available under Article 27.3(b) should not be diluted at any cost; if anything, it might need to be enhanced. India was open to any delegation raising any issue under the rubric of Article 27.3(b). India itself had raised the issue of the interface between the TRIPS Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity without any presumption of compatibility or otherwise. Next, India had raised the issue of the disclosure of the source or origin of any biological resources used in an invention for which a patent was sought. Then, India had raised the issue of domestic mechanisms for benefit sharing concerning the commercial exploitation of such patented inventions with indigenous communities and holders of traditional knowledge. India had also broached the subject of benefit sharing by innovators through either material transfer agreements or transfer of information agreements. India believed that, if a patent application mentioned the source of the biological resources involved and if that was open to full public scrutiny upon filing of the application, this might alert countries with possible opposition claims to examine the application and state their claims well in time. Other issues concerned the patenting of living organisms and the definition of biological or non-biological processes.
56. The representative of India said that the Council should attempt to address some of these issues within the next half year and subsequently. He was not opposed to a list as had been suggested by the Chair but, if such a list posed problems, the Council should simply give enough time to Members to comment on the issues raised by India and others. India expected a certain engagement by its trading partners on at least some of the issues that India had raised. Of course, the list of issues was not closed. If Members had other issues, India was perfectly willing to address them. So far, there had been only one meeting in which comments had been made from various angles and where papers had been put forward. Members could now go beyond those papers and make specific and concrete suggestions. He urged Members to approach the review in a constructive fashion. Wanting to advance the process, he said he was flexible about the modalities and the instrument.
