83. The representative of India responded to Canada by repeating that he wanted to know which specific provisions of the TRIPS Agreement needed to be addressed. With respect to the impact on Article 29 of the Agreement, he said that the disclosure requirements would be a minimum standard for patent applicants. The impact would depend upon the scope of the disclosure requirements. The impact on Article 27 would be manifold as it would impact on information material to patentability under paragraph 1 of Article 27 and on the various issues relating to patenting of life-forms under paragraph 3 of that Article.
84. Turning to the Canadian comment on text-based negotiations, he said that, while all options remained open with regard to "any appropriate action", no action was not appropriate after eight years of discussions in the Council. This work was part of the single undertaking and negotiations. The range of possible actions had to be discussed. Therefore, his delegation proposed to move towards a text-based negotiation that would determine what would be the eventual appropriate action to be proposed to the General Council for adoption by July of 2006.
85. Turning to the question of how the TRIPS Council should organize its work in the light of paragraph 44 of the Hong Kong Ministerial Declaration, the Chair said that, in the light of the consultations he had held on the matter, his sense was that delegations considered that the ongoing process was fruitful and useful in elucidating the issues, including in regard to the study of national experience. Therefore, he suggested that the Council agree to maintain its present method of work on these matters at this stage, and to keep this method under review to assess whether any change might prove appropriate in the light of developments.
