Ms Irene Young (Hong Kong, China)

Brésil

11 INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND INNOVATION: SUMMARY OF THE 2017 THEME ON INCLUSIVE INNOVATION AND MICRO, SMALL AND MEDIUM-SIZED ENTERPRISES (MSMES): COLLABORATION, GROWTH AND TRADE; AND 2018 IP AND INNOVATION THEME: THE SOCIETAL VALUE OF IP IN THE NEW ECONOMY

330. Brazil thanks the sponsors of the present agenda item. We have submitted to our capital the document IP/C/W/641, circulated on February 21st. As initial comments, let me stress that Brazil continuously strives to provide an environment conducive to innovation and we appreciate opportunities for the exchange of views and experiences that enable mutual understanding. Our first innovation law was approved back in 2004 and during its drafting we carefully studied the legal framework of other countries and their concrete results achieved. As recent as February 7th, a new decree was approved with additional initiatives to encourage innovation and scientific and technological research in Brazilian universities. We hope to come back with further comments in the next session of the Council. 331. The dynamics of intellectual property protection in a market economy and their role in relation to creativity and innovation provide the background to this discussion. In our view, this implies that a well-crafted and balanced IP system is able to stimulate innovation while addressing the potential anticompetitive effects, avoiding that IP themselves become a barrier to access to technology and dissemination of information. It is thus important to deepen understanding of features of the intellectual property system related to the achievement of the objective set in Article 7 of the TRIPS Agreement. 332. I would also add the importance that industrial property offices issue patents of high quality that enhance legal certainty and provide clear boundaries of the rights granted. Patents of low quality can represent an additional barrier to entrepreneurs, in special to MSMEs. 333. In this sense, public databases containing information on the legal status of patents would further help companies to determine the freedom to operate, and to what extent and with whom, licences need to be negotiated. They would also be able to access the vast amount of information contained in patent applications, thereby assisting their efforts to innovate and creating opportunities for further cooperation.

IP/C/W/641

The Council took note of the statements made.

33. The Chairperson said that this item had been put on the agenda at the request of Australia; the European Union; Japan; Switzerland; the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu; and the United States. It covered two aspects of the broader topic of IP and innovation. The first sub-topic was "Inclusive Innovation and MSME Trade", a topic that the Council had discussed at its meetings in 2017. A relevant communication had been received from Australia; Canada; the European Union; Japan; Singapore; Switzerland; the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu; and the United States (IP/C/W/638). The second sub-topic was "The Societal Value of IP in the New Economy", which was the theme on which the cosponsors wished to focus in 2018. A relevant communication had been received from Australia; the European Union; Japan; Switzerland; the Separate Customs Territory of Taiwan, Penghu, Kinmen and Matsu; and the United States (IP/C/W/641).

34. The representatives of Japan, the European Union, the United States, Switzerland, Norway, Chinese Taipei, Colombia, El Salvador, Australia, Brazil, Canada, India, Israel, and South Africa took the floor.

35. The Council took note of the statements made.

IP/C/M/88, IP/C/M/88/Add.1