Compte rendu ‒ Conseil des ADPIC ‒ Afficher les détails de l'intervention/la déclaration

Ambassador Alfredo Suescum (Panama)
Nigéria au nom de African Group
213. I did not have the intention to take the floor, but I am challenged by South Africa. I think it is clear when this Report came out, we were puzzled thinking about what really is going to be discussed in this Report. With the intervention by Brazil, things are becoming clearer. At least those issues or recommendations relating to the TRIPS Agreement can be discussed. We welcome, of course, the Report by High Level Panel and agree that those recommendations relating to the TRIPS Agreement be discussed in the TRIPS Council, in particular regarding the patentability criteria, that is the patent subject matter because it is good to share experience on that and what it entails. This concerns the issue of novelty, inventive steps, industrial application and disclosure of the patent. So we believe that the discussion would allow Members to appreciate each other's national law on these issues. Also, it would be good if we can look at the relevant provisions in bilateral agreements.
The Council took note of the statements made.
63. The Chairman recalled that Brazil, China, India and South Africa had requested that this item be added to the agenda of the Council's meeting in November 2016. To introduce the item, they had also submitted a communication (document IP/C/W/619).

64. In the course of that discussion, the delegation of South Africa had requested that this item be continued as an ad hoc item at the next meeting and the Council so agreed.

65. Since this was a continuation of the discussion had held at the Council's meeting in November 2016, he briefly summarized what had been said at that meeting. According to the co sponsors, the request to add this item to the Council's agenda had been intended to facilitate an exchange of views on the recommendations of the High Level Panel, as well as to share national experiences regarding the use of TRIPS flexibilities. At the meeting in November 2016, some delegations had welcomed the discussion of the report in this Council while others had said that they needed more time to consider the recommendations. Some delegations had expressed concern about the narrow scope of the report and had noted that it had neither been mandated nor endorsed by Members of the United Nations.

66. The representatives of India; Bangladesh on behalf of the LDC Group; Brazil; South Africa; China; Indonesia; Nigeria on behalf of the African Group; Egypt; the United States; Japan; Canada; the Republic of Korea; Norway; the European Union; Switzerland; Australia; Chinese Taipei; and Chile took the floor.

67. The representative of the World Health Organization took the floor.

68. The Council took note of the statements made.

IP/C/M/85, IP/C/M/85/Add.1