55. The representative of Australia noted the large amount of work that had been generated on this issue not only in the TRIPS Council, but also in the WIPO. She said that there was no conflict between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD and that the two agreements could be implemented in a mutually supportive manner. Her delegation considered all the contributions as useful and that no particular document was the basis for the ongoing work. She said that the relationship between the problem of biopiracy and the solution proposed in documents such as IP/C/W/442 was still unclear. She agreed that the equitable sharing of benefits from the use of genetic resources and/or traditional knowledge was important and that the patent system was not the only solution to this problem. She was concerned about the possible effects of denying or invalidating patent protection because of a lack of a benefit-sharing arrangement. This might have the effect of undercutting the objectives of any benefit-sharing arrangement, if as a result of such action there was no way to capture the benefits of the innovation. She was also concerned about costs since this was not a simple notification system and would impose additional burdens on patent applicants and patent authorities. Paragraph 5 of document IP/C/W/429 stated that patent challenges involved high costs in terms of time and resources. She questioned how this system could be implemented while avoiding substantial costs, particularly with regard to the effects of non-compliance outlined in paragraph 14 of the new document relating to patent challenges.
