35. The representative of the United States recalled that all Members that did not provide product patent protection for pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical products as of 1 January 1995 were obliged to implement the provisions of Articles 70.8 and 70.9 and to start receiving patent applications under the implementing legislation concerned as of that date. They were also obliged to notify this implementing legislation promptly to the Council. In his delegation's view, in implementing these provisions, the Members in question had to establish, first, a legal right of priority to allow patent applications to claim the benefit of the filing date of applications filed under the "mailbox" even though examination of the patent applications would not occur until some future date. He emphasized in particular the importance of Article 70.9 which obliged Members concerned to provide the possibility of marketing exclusivity for inventions which were the subject of applications under Article 70.8. In bilateral consultations, his delegation had noticed that some countries had not appreciated this. In due course, inventors that had filed patent applications under Article 70.8 would receive marketing approval in their home country and should, once marketing approval had been obtained in countries where they had filed these applications, be entitled to claim exclusive marketing rights under Article 70.9. This should not be regarded as only something for the distant future but might happen quite soon. He referred to the statement by his delegation during the meeting of the General Council of 6 February 1996. Although he did not have a complete picture as to which WTO Members did not provide patent protection for pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical products, according to the information available to his delegation Pakistan, Kuwait, Nicaragua, Myanmar, Qatar and Tanzania were such Members that had not notified that they had established the necessary means under Articles 70.8 and 70.9. He called upon these countries to inform the Council that, in fact, they did provide patent protection for these forms of technology, or to end their violation of the TRIPS Agreement and make the necessary notification to the Council.