H.E. Ambassador Dr Pimchanok PITFIELD

United States of America

4; 5; 6 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

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.

The Council took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to these matters at its next meeting.

17. The Chair proposed to address these three agenda items together. She recalled that one tool for the review under item 4 was the information provided by Members in response to lists of questions on Article 27.3(b). She said that the latest Annual Report on Notifications and other Information Flows circulated by the Secretariat illustrated that responses to that checklist had been rather sparse recently. So far, only 28 Members had responded to the lists of questions on Article 27.3(b), with Saudi Arabia being the most recent Member to respond in 2021. The Chair thus encouraged Members to submit responses to these checklists, and to update their previous submissions if they were out of date.
18. The Chair noted that two long-standing procedural issues had been discussed extensively on the record at every regular meeting of the Council for almost ten years. The first was the suggestion for the Secretariat to update 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. The second was the request to invite the CBD Secretariat to brief the Council on the Nagoya Protocol to the CBD, initially proposed in October 2010.
19. The Chair noted that delegations' positions on these issues were well-known and had already been extensively recorded in the Council's minutes. She therefore suggested that delegations focus their interventions on suggestions on how to resolve the differences and on how make progress on substantive issues.
20. The representatives of India; Bangladesh; Indonesia; Peru; South Africa; China; Tanzania, on behalf of the African Group; Ecuador; the United States of America; Japan; Nigeria; Thailand; Korea, Republic of; Canada and Brazil took the floor.
21. The Council took note of the statements made and agreed to revert to these matters at its next meeting.

IP/C/M/108, IP/C/M/108/Add.1