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

Ambassador Choi Hyuck (Korea)
C; D; E 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
84. The representative of Australia said that the issue of relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD was of key importance to his delegation, which had been doing a lot of work at the national level in recent years. As one of the world's mega bio-diverse countries with a strong intellectual property system and commitment to an innovative bio-technology sector, his delegation could contribute to the discussion on this issue in the TRIPS Council. In the view of his delegation, the starting point was that there was no problem in the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD and even if there were to be problems identified, it was not necessarily the case that the answers lay only in the patent system. However, he indicated that his delegation was not closed to a discussion of this issue. 85. He said that Switzerland's submission IP/C/W/446 had brought out some helpful questions, some of which were similar to the ones raised by his delegation at the previous TRIPS Council meeting, such as questions 5 and 9 regarding the implications of the disclosure requirements for both patent applicants and intellectual property offices. It was clear to his delegation that greater clarity on these definitional issues would assist the Council in taking the issue forward and his delegation looked forward to further discussion with the proponents of these issues. Turning to the cost implications of the proposals on the table, which had been raised by Australia and the United States, he said that it was an important issue and a discussion on it could not be avoided. 86. He said that his delegation shared the view of the United States that there was no conflict between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD, and that there was no crisis in the existing patent system. However, this did not mean that the patent system could not be made to work better and that a discussion of concerns raised, particularly by developing countries, was not warranted. He asked for more factual illustrations from the United States on how post-grant opposition and re-examination proceedings helped to avoid erroneously granted patents. 87. As regards Peru's paper IP/C/W/447, he took note of the proposals for the international and regional negotiating agenda contained in Section VII of the paper. He said that the paper provided Members with factual information and that his delegation would support the continuation of this fact-based approach. He indicated that while the emphasis in the paper was on the three major patent offices, Members should remain mindful of the impacts that any proposals might have on all patent offices.
IP/C/M/48