40. The representative of Chinese Taipei said that his delegation had not yet decided its position on the CBD issue. He posed the following questions to the co-sponsors of document WT/GC/W/564/Rev.1 regarding the draft amendment: whether the co-sponsors suggested that WTO Members not party to the CBD should comply with it; what the definitions of the terms "biological resources", "traditional knowledge", "derived from", and "developed with" were; who the provider would be if, for example, the applicant bought a potato in the domestic market and with whom the patent applicant would have to share benefits; whether the obligation to supplement and correct the information, as required by the third paragraph of draft Article 29bis, would exist both before and after the patent was granted; what would happen if Members did not have provisions on unenforceability of patents in their patent systems; and if a third party would seek the cancellation of a patent after finding falsely disclosed information in a patent specification, should the patent office allow the patentee to correct the information or revoke the patent directly? He said that since there was no international body or mechanism to verify the information disclosed by the patent applicant, it would be a great burden on patent examiners to review the fulfilment of the disclosure requirement. There should be a balanced mechanism to ensure that the owner of genetic resources and traditional knowledge received the benefits arising from the use of such resources and knowledge, that the inventor had the incentive to make innovations, and that the patent system had legal certainty without undue burdens on both patent examiners and patent applicants. In conclusion, he said that Chinese Taipei was in the process of formulating its own access and benefit sharing regime and was therefore interested in knowing about other Members' national experiences in this regard.
