39. The representative of Brazil fully supported an amendment of the TRIPS Agreement to introduce a mandatory disclosure requirement. He said that his delegation's position on this issue was well known, and that the trail of submissions could be used to clarify technical aspects which had been discussed at great length at the Council's previous meetings. Referring to the disclosure group's submission in document WT/GC/W/590 and an informal proposal discussed in the consultations led by DDG Yerxa, he said that the proposal had been fully reflected in the DG's report. He said that over 100 Members were proposing a parallel treatment of the three TRIPS issues in the horizontal modalities process, that is, TRIPS/CBD, GI extension and GI register. This reflected a significant shift in the dynamics of support for these issues, at least on process. Over 100 Members wanted to move towards negotiations on these three issues as part of the Single Undertaking and wished Ministers to provide key negotiating parameters. He said that the disclosure requirement would be a major development outcome of the Round, which would be of great significance for the majority of developing country Members. He also indicated that some developed country Members had made middle-ground proposals in this area and indicated the possibility of discussing and negotiating these issues.
40. Referring to the statement made by Bolivia, he said that the disclosure requirement did not affect the legal provisions of countries with respect to the patentability of life forms or genetic resources because the requirement should not be conceived as a substantive patentability requirement. The disclosure requirement was a useful means to promote transparency and traceability with respect to commercial intellectual property-based exploitation of these resources worldwide, and would not change national laws with respect to patentability of life forms.
