67. The representative of Kenya associated his delegation with the statement made by India on behalf of the group of developing countries and those made by other delegations in support of document IP/C/W/438. He said that his delegation believed that the CBD and the TRIPS Agreement should be mutually-supportive, especially when it came to implementation of the two agreements. His delegation was advocating a system that would guarantee benefit-sharing between patent holders and owners of genetic resources used in patents under an enforceable legal framework such as the TRIPS Agreement. He said that such a system would guarantee that a patent office could refuse to grant a patent if the disclosure requirements were not complied with at the time of making the application. Such a system would guarantee that a patent granted could be revoked on the ground that disclosure requirements had not been not met at the filing of the application. He said that contracts could not substitute such a system because the greater majority of owners of genetic resources were not aware of the benefits of their resources, let alone of the patent system. It was the view of his delegation that governments had an obligation to protect owners of genetic resources by availing themselves of systems that would guarantee such protection.
68. He observed that in the patent system there was no need to ascertain the authenticity of all information that was provided as part of the disclosure requirement during the filing of the application. In case the information was not accurate and a patent was granted based on information available at the time of filing, the patent system allowed for revocation of that patent on the ground that the information was not accurate. That deterred applicants from providing inaccurate information because they risked the patent being revoked after grant.
