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

Ambassador Carmen Luz Guarda (Chile)
G Review of Legislation in the Areas of Patents, Layout-designs (Topographies) of Integrated Circuits, Protection of Undisclosed Information and Control of Anti-competitive Practices in Contractual Licences
35. The Chairperson recalled that the procedures for this review could be found in the minutes of the Council meeting of 9 May 1996 (document IP/C/M/7, paragraph 6), with the adjustments agreed at the meetings of 22 to 25 July 1996 (document IP/C/M/8, paragraphs 69 and 70) and 11 to 15 November 1996 (document IP/C/M/11, paragraph 44). In accordance with these procedures, the Secretariat had circulated a proposed timetable in an informal note of 2 May 1997. The procedures for the review had been annexed to that note. Prior to the meeting, written questions concerning other Members' legislation had been received from the European Communities and their Member States, New Zealand, Japan, the United States, and India, while written responses had been received from the European Communities, Hungary, New Zealand, Bulgaria, Iceland, Slovenia, Australia, Switzerland, the United States, Liechtenstein, Japan, the Czech Republic, Norway and Canada. She suggested to proceed as had been done at the July and November 1996 meetings and invited each Member to provide, in introducing its legislation, a brief overview of the structure of its legislation on patents, layout-designs (topographies) of integrated circuits, protection of undisclosed information and control of anti-competitive practices in contractual licences and of the changes, if any, that it had had to bring about in order to make the legislation compatible with the TRIPS Agreement. After having done so, an introduction might be provided to the responses to the questions put to them by other Members. Where responses had already been made available in the three WTO languages, the Member in question might limit itself to a brief summary, drawing attention to any points that it wanted to highlight. After these presentations and introductions of responses, she would then offer the floor to other delegations for any comments or other questions. 36. The record of the introductory statements made by delegations, the questions put to them and the responses given (including certain written responses provided after the meeting) will be circulated in the following documents: IP/Q3/AUS/1 Australia IP/Q3/BGR/1 Bulgaria IP/Q3/CAN/1 Canada IP/Q3/CZE/1 Czech Republic IP/Q3/EEC/1 European Communities IP/Q3/AUT/1 Austria IP/Q3/BEL/1 Belgium IP/Q3/DNK/1 Denmark IP/Q3/FIN/1 Finland IP/Q3/FRA/1 France IP/Q3/DEU/1 Germany IP/Q3/GRC/1 Greece IP/Q3/IRL/1 Ireland IP/Q3/ITA/1 Italy IP/Q3/LUX/1 Luxembourg IP/Q3/NLD/1 Netherlands IP/Q3/PRT/1 Portugal IP/Q3/ESP/1 Spain IP/Q3/SWE/1 Sweden IP/Q3/GBR/1 United Kingdom IP/Q3/HUN/1 Hungary IP/Q3/ISL/1 Iceland IP/Q3/JPN/1 Japan IP/Q3/LIE/1 Liechtenstein IP/Q3/NZL/1 New Zealand IP/Q3/NOR/1 Norway IP/Q3/POL/1 Poland2 IP/Q3/ROM/1 Romania IP/Q3/SVK/1 Slovak Republic IP/Q3/SVN/1 Slovenia IP/Q3/ZAF/1 South Africa IP/Q3/CHE/1 Switzerland IP/Q3/USA/1 United States

2 The representative of Poland said that, although his country had invoked its entitlement to the transitional period under Article 65.3 of the Agreement and was not among the countries whose legislation was to be reviewed, his delegation had received questions from three Members. He said that his delegation would be in a position to answer only a part of the questions received, namely those relating the areas of undisclosed information and anti-competitive practices.