In response to this need, ICTSD has engaged in a bottom-up assessment of the strategies that individual developing countries have developed to enhance their ability to make use of WTO dispute settlement and to coordinate such activities among public and private stakeholders on a national level. The outcome is the form of nine country studies is now presented in the book Dispute Settlement at the WTO – The Developing Country Experience. Countries covered in the analysis include Brazil, Argentina, China, India, Thailand, Bangladesh, Egypt, South Africa and Kenya. The publication concludes with a comprehensive list of recommendations. For further information kindly consult our webpage at: http://ictsd.org/i/dsu/98179/.

With the growing recognition that innovation is key for economic growth and development, developing countries are currently considering a range of policies to promote innovation; many of these import or adapt policies from other countries.

Multilateral discussions also stress innovation policies: The World Intellectual Property Organization’s (WIPO’s) Development Agenda emphasizes the need to promote creativity and innovation in developing countries (Recommendation 19), and to consider intellectual property (IP) policies that serve this end (Recommendation 25).

In this context, several developing countries, including India, Brazil, South Africa, Malaysia, and Jordan, are debating or have recently passed legislation modeled on the U.S. Bayh-Dole Act which facilitated patenting by American research universities.

As has been well documented by the proponents of Bayh-Dole type initiatives, since 1981, university patenting and licensing have increased dramatically, as has licensing income from university research. These data provide a main impetus for initiatives to emulate Bayh-Dole in developing countries.

The policy brief provides an assessment of one such bill, the Indian Bayh-Dole Act. It focuses on India because legislation is currently under consideration there; however, many of the issues considered are relevant for other developing countries.

It suggests that India—and other countries considering legislation of this sort—should provide specific guidance about what sorts of publicly funded research outputs ought to be patented, and what should instead be placed in the public domain.

The policy brief underscores the need to evaluate the positive and negative impact of Bayh-Dole type legislation and consider the range of other models and approaches that have evolved in the post-Bayh-Dole era, in response to these concerns.

The policy brief is also available at iprsonline.org

Entre el 18 y 19 de junio se presentó y discutió en las instalaciones del Centro Internacional de Política Económica Para el Desarrollo Sostenible (CINPE) el informe “Impacto de las normas de propiedad intelectual y acceso a medicamentos: Costa Rica y el Acuerdo CAFTA-DR” basado en la utilización de un modelo prospectivo de análisis económico aplicado a la nueva realidad que el acuerdo de libre comercio configura para los países de América Central. Se trata del  resultado de un esfuerzo conjunto de las organizaciones (ICSTD, OPS-OMS, PNUD) que conforman el llamado consorcio e igualmente producto  del fructífero diálogo del mismo con instituciones locales, en este caso el CINPE.

Ha sido una buena oportunidad no sólo para dar a conocer las posibles implicaciones del Acuerdo CAFTA-DR sobre el acceso a medicamentos en los países firmantes del CAFTA-DR sino igualmente un escenario propicio para intercambiar experiencias y compartir información sobre las diferentes perspectivas que caracterizan  el necesario equilibrio entre Salud Pública y DPI. Especialmente en unos momentos donde, tras la aprobación de la Estrategia Global sobre Salud Pública, Innovación y Propiedad Intelectual y su progresiva implementación en las Américas se perfila un escenario más dinámico con nuevas iniciativas y proyectos específicos dirigidos a promover la innovación y acceso a los medicamentos.

Exchange of views with participants

 
 
Pre-registration by May 28th is required due to limited space and security requirements. Please e-mail: crussell@ictsd.ch or call +41 22 917 8855

Peter K. Yu: Key Legal Findings and Implications of the US-China Panel Report

Xuan Li: US-China Case: Implications for the Protection and Enforcement of IPRs in China

The United Nations Conference on Trade and Development (UNCTAD) and the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD) held a roundtable on: The WTO US-China Panel Report: Findings and Implications for the Future of IPRs Enforcement, Monday 23rd February 2009, 14:45-17h30, World Meteorological Organisation (WMO), Room C 1.

The objective of the roundtable was to examine the findings of the panel report in the WTO US-China dispute (Measures Affecting the Protection and Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights) and discuss its implications for the future of IPRs enforcement.

Background

The enforcement of intellectual property rights (IPRs) has gained prominence in recent years on the global trade and intellectual property agenda. A number of initiatives and developments in this area at the global, regional and bilateral level carry wide reaching implications for the regulation of the knowledge economy.

In this context, the United States initiated, in April 2007, a WTO case against China, claiming that a number of Chinese measures and laws were inadequate for the effective enforcement of IPRs and were inconsistent with China’s obligations under the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS).

The panel’s findings in this dispute were highly anticipated as it involved the interpretation by a WTO panel, for the first time, of a number of key TRIPS provisions on enforcement, such as Article 61, which requires countries to provide criminal penalties for trademark counterfeiting or copyright piracy “on a commercial scale” – without a clear definition of what this constitutes.

After a year of review of the claims and complaints involved, the WTO panel released its report on 26 January, 2009.

The main objective of the roundtable is to examine the findings of the panel in the US-China dispute and the reasoning behind them.

The roundtable will also examine the implications of the panel report for the future of IPRs enforcement and for efforts to achieve a balanced and development oriented implementation of the TRIPS Agreement.

UNCTAD and ICTSD have invited for this occasion a number of distinguished scholars and experts to provide analysis and opinions on the issues involved.
The interventions by key experts will be followed by a discussion with participants. Coffee and tea will be available.
We hope you will be able to participate in a lively exchange of ideas and contribute with your experience and expertise to the roundtable discussion.

PROGRAMME


Welcome and introduction,

Speakers

Key legal findings and implications of the US. China Panel Report

Peter Yu
Professor of Law and Director of the Intellectual Property Research Centre, Drake University
Systemic implications for international trade and WTO law

Joost Pauwelyn

Professor, International Economic Law and WTO Law, The Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies


A perspective from developing countries and consumers

Atul Kaushik
Director, CUTS Geneva Resource Centre

Implications for the protection and enforcement of IPRs in China

Xuan Li
Coordinator, Innovation and Access to Knowledge Programme, South Centre

Exchange of views with participants

This event will take place at the World Meteorological Organization, on Monday 23rd of February 2009, 14h45-17h30, Room C1.

Pre-registration by February 20th is required due to limited space and security requirements.
Please e-mail: crussell@ictsd.ch or call +41 22 917 8855;
To subscribe or unsubscribe to/from this distribution list, please
visit: http://www.ictsd.org/subscribe/subscribe_form.htm

Estos acuerdos tienen y tendrán sin duda muchas implicaciones no sólo en el ámbito comercial sino que definirán aspectos fundamentales en el diseño de políticas económicas y de desarrollo sostenible en la región centroamericana.

Con el fin de apoyar al equipo negociador centroamericano en la mesa de propiedad intelectual del acuerdo con la UE, ICTSD junto a la Corporación Andina de Fomento (CAF) organizan un “Diálogo regional sobre indicaciones geográficas en las negociaciones de un Acuerdo de Cooperación Económica con la UE”.

Dicho evento tiene lugar los días 15 y 16 de enero en la Cuidad de Guatemala.

Ricardo Melendez-Ortiz, Executive Director, ICTSD (moderator)

The Economic Implications for Developing Countries of the TRIPS Agreement 10 Years On

Keith E. Maskus, Professor of Economics, University of Colorado at Boulder

What were the economic expectations of developing countries with regard to the TRIPS Agreement?
Have these expectations been fulfilled?
How can we increase the opportunities for technology transfer under the current framework of the TRIPS Agreement?
What can developing countries do to improve opportunities and reduce cost arising from the TRIPS Agreement?

The TRIPS Agreement in an Historical Perspective

Pedro Roffe, Director of the UNCTAD/ICTSD IPRs and Development Project

Why has the TRIPS Agreement entailed such a significant change in international IP relations?
Has TRIPS provided opportunities for developing countries to implement the new minimum standards of protection with due consideration to their development requirements?
Has the Doha Declaration significantly improved access to medicines by developing countries?
What are the main features of the TRIPS phenomenon?

The Negotiations on GIs in the TRIPS Council

Dwijen Rangnekar, University of Warwick

What were the WTO Members’ expectations regarding GI protection under the TRIPS Agreement?
Have these expectations been fulfilled?
Which is the economic rational for GI protection?
Which is the status of the negotiation of an international registration and notification system on wines and spirits?
What will the impact of the expansion of the higher protection of GIs to products other than wines and spirits be?

Regional and Bilateral Agreements: The TRIPS-plus Backdoor

David Vivas, Programme Manager, ICTSD

Which are the main trends in IP regional and bilateral agreements?
Which are the links between current regional and bilateral processes and the TRIPS agreement?
Are regional and bilateral trade agreements undermining the Doha Declaration?
Have we addressed biodiversity concerns in the new generation of regional and bilateral agreements?

Participants

Åberg, Nate
Arnqvist, Maria
Aulin, Sara - UD
Courades Allebed, Aqus
Davidson-Abdelli, Margareta
Dickson, Jenny - HHS
Eriksson, Madeleine - UD
Gopper, Karlis
Granström, Ola - HHS
Gustafsson, Peter - HHS
Hagberg, Olle - LIF
Hiertman, Ivan - LIF
Horn af Rantzien, Mia - UD
Jegou, Ingrid - KK
Kiessling, Johan - SU
Klöfver, Inger - Naturvårdsver
Ljungman, Ankin - Diakonia
Lòfoundus, Elisabeth - KK
Nilsson, Ingela - INEC
Otterstedt, Annika - NATUR
Papaòopoulou, Frantzeska
Sandgren, Claes - Juridicum
Sindenvall Jegou, Ingrid - Domers K
Thorström, Carl-Gustav - SLU
Wachtmeister, Alexandra NAIUR
Wettergreu, Hans
Wilberg, Åsa

The objective of this roundtable is to bring together developed and developing country delegates, academics, IGOs and NGOs to discuss the substantive challenges posed by the proposal and other recent initiatives to rethink WIPO’s mandate with respect to development. The Roundtable will be informal and off the record, and delegates will not be expected to represent the position of their country/organisation. Formal presentations will be kept to a minimum, allowing for enough time for an open and frank debate.

 Participants

Alehandro Neyra - Peruvian Mission Aleksandr Kulinkovich - Mission of Belarus

Andrea Petramcova - Czech Mission

Andrew Jenner - UK WTO

Anne-Marie Colandrea - Saint Siege

Anthony Muchiri - Kenya Mission

Antonio Berenguer - European Commission

Binod Prasad Acharya - Nepal Mission

Camen Dominguez - Mission of Chile to the WTO

Cameron Mckay - Canadian Mission

Carolyn Deere - Oxford University

Carsten Fink - World Bank

Chiara Galitta - Italian Mission

Christophe Spennemann - UNCTAD

Coline Parneau - Mission France

D. Croze - WIPO

Davinia Ovett - 3D

Eduardo Escobedo - ICTSD

Ermias Tekeste B. - South Centre

G. Clift - WHO

G. Sleeliwagen - Belgian Mission

Garbiel Atanasov - Mission of Macedonia

Hassan A.M. Badrul - Bangladesh Mission

Hussam Qudah - Mission of Jordan

Isabelle Scherer - IP Watch

J.S. Calheiros da Gama - Portuguese Mission

Leonardo De Athayde - Mission of Brazil

Lotty Endrede - Eucador Mission

Ludmila Sterbova - Czech Mission

Luis Abugottas - UNCTAD

 
M.S. Aristesvieta - APCO Marcos Gomez Martino - Mission of Spain

Maria Julia Oliva - CIEL

Maria Scimoni - Italian Mission

Martin L. Zoua- Mission Cameroun

Michele Weil-Guthmann - French Mission

Octavio Espinosa - WIPO

Patrick Ravillard - EC Commission

Philipp Reszat - Mission Germany

Prebay Francoise - French MAAPAR

Preeti Saran - Mission of India

Ragui El-Etraby - Mission of Egypt

Robyn Briese - CIEL

Roger Kampf - WTO Secretariat

S. Morzyasu

S. Sangeeta - Third World Network

S. Takahara - Mission of Japan

Sean Healy - MSF

Semence Marie Jose - Ministry of Economy France

Sisule Musungu - South Centre

Soledad Leal - Mexican Mission

Soozk Park - Mission Republic of Korea

Sugeeshwara Gunarahra - Sri Lanka Mission

Suisuetes Zermilli - UNCTAD

Thiru Bakisubramanam - CPTech

Veronika Cserba - Mission of Hungary

Viviana Munoz - South Centre

Wiebke Herding - IVCN

Wolf Meier-Ewert - WTO

The lack of outcome fostered a sense of frustration among many delegates who were eager to see progress at the level of the IGC’s working methods in view of the limited advancement in its substantive work after thirteen sessions.

Gurry expressed his disappointment at the outcome, but suggested that “the failure to close a deal on Friday night was a measure of the political significance of what is on the table: potentially, a major normative shift in the intellectual property system.” He noted that there was increasing political will to find a substantive and credible basis for systematic recognition, within the law of intellectual property, of the rights of indigenous peoples and local communities.

Ambassador Rigoberto Gauto, the new committee chair from Paraguay, said efforts would be continued in the coming weeks to try to overcome differences among member states.

Competing proposals on the way forward

During the first few days in the full plenary meetings, most members restated their well known positions on the issues at hand. While all agreed on the importance of protecting traditional knowledge and folklore/traditional cultural expressions (TCEs) as well as addressing the misappropriation of genetic resources, views diverged on the best ways to achieve this. Most developing countries favoured international legally binding measures, while developed countries emphasised the need for further analysis and expressed a preference for non-binding measures, in particular at the national level. Many countries also commented on the gap analyses, prepared by the Secretariat, which contrast the current international legal framework with specific examples of gaps in protection and practical considerations of how these gaps might best be addressed.

But the plenary session rapidly gave way to numerous informal meetings, led by the Chair, with heads of regional groups, which made efforts to find a way to move forward.

Consultations centred on competing proposals one submitted by the African Group at the start of the session, which was later revised, and another one by France on behalf of the European Union.

The revised African proposal outlined the work to be carried out by three taskforce groups on TCEs, traditional knowledge and genetic resources. It suggested that the task force groups on TCEs and traditional knowledge should address the definitions and subject matter of protection, exceptions and limitations and duration, prior informed consent and moral/economic rights to knowledge, beneficiaries, and sui generis options for protection.

The African proposal further suggested that the taskforce group on genetic resources should examine the development of disclosure requirements and alternative proposals for dealing with the relationship between IP and genetic resources as requested by the Convention on Biological Diversity. The genetic resources group would also tackle the development of guidelines and procedures for dealing effectively with the intellectual property aspects of access and benefit sharing arrangements. The African proposal stressed that the work of this taskforce group must be carried out “without prejudice to work in other international fora.”

The three taskforce groups would provide legal and technical advice including, where appropriate, “options and scenarios for the consideration of the Committee” on all of these issues without prejudice to the outcome.

The African proposal specified the number of experts or observers to be included in each taskforce group: i.e 27 experts to be nominated by member governments, 10 by observers of which 7 were to be from indigenous and local communities.

The proposal by the African group was supported by several other developing countries, including the Asian group, the Least-Developed Country (LDC) group and several Central and Latin American countries, as they called for small intersessional expert group meetings.

On the other hand the submission by France, made on behalf of the EU, proposed that three informal working groups be incorporated into the next IGC sessions, as opposed to the suggestion by the African Group of meeting prior to the IGC. The proposal suggested that these working group meetings should be held during the first three days of the next IGC, leaving the plenary to meet on the two final days. According to the proposal, these three groups would be open to all members, but would not have decision-making power merely reporting to the IGC plenary. They would initially on definitions, beneficiaries, and objectives for TKs and TCEs, as well as disclosure of origin for genetic resources. The submission also introduced the idea of an internet portal for electronic correspondence on these issues, and the establishment of a consultative group to advise the chair. This is unlike the revised African text proposals which call for working group meetings to be held prior to the next IGC session.

Several developed countries expressed concern about the financial implications of additional meetings. Some members viewed such protests as furtive means of opposing intersessional work.

The chair then advanced his own text, proposing one morning for general business during the upcoming 2009 IGC plenary, to be followed by three and a half days of expert working groups open to all members would that would run in parallel and would be chaired by individuals with expertise in the relevant subject matter. The groups would be expected to report to the plenary on 13 March 2009 for their work to be noted by the Committee.

Agreement elusive

In regard to the possibility of concurrent meetings, some delegates fear that some small countries may not have the capacity to source experts to attend the simultaneous sessions. Furthermore, some expressed doubt as to whether it would be possible to ensure substantive work from the expert groups without duplicating efforts made in previous IGC meetings.

As the meeting was drawing to a close, a final attempt was made to propose the following compromise: the next meeting of the IGC should be replaced with an “Extraordinary Expert Session of the Committee.” That session would allow three consecutive meetings of the working groups, running for two days each; the chair would determine the composition of the groups following consultation with the committee. According to the text, the meeting would be attended by several experts determined according to an equitable formula that would take into account the number of countries in each regional group. All other interested member states and accredited observers to the committee would be allowed to attend the meeting as observers. But several members were not keen on having a regular meeting of the IGC replaced.

Members of the African Group were particularly disheartened by the outcome in view of the efforts and proposals they had made. An African group delegate complained about the lack of “flexibility” shown by developed countries which “in reality opposed any effective intersessional mechanism which would inject momentum in the work of the IGC and contribute to progress in substantive discussions.” He pointed that the open-ended nature of the working groups suggested in some proposals “would considerably reduce their effectiveness and would replicate the IGC format which had shown its limits.”

But a developed country delegate argued that, while they supported efforts to accelerate the work of the Committee, they believed that any modalities reached should not prejudice the outcome of its deliberations either in form or in substance.

Brazil, for its part, was supportive of the African group proposal and of an effective intersessional mechanism to accelerate the work of the IGC, a Brazilian delegate said. In consultations, he mentioned that his country had stressed the importance it attached to the careful drafting of the terms of reference of the expert working group on genetic resources so as to ensure that its work is without prejudice to the progress achieved in other fora on this matter and more particularly at the WTO. In July, more than one hundred countries, Brazil among them, submitted draft modalities (TN/C/W/52) on the key parameters for negotiating final draft legal texts with respect to a number TRIPS issues including disclosure of origin of genetic resources in patent applications.

Despite this setback, many are still hopeful that a successful agreement may be reached through the continuation of informal consultations before it reconvenes in March 2009. The committee has two more meetings to fulfil in its remaining mandate (2008-2009).

ICTSD reporting. “WIPO Poised To Move To Talks On Potential Traditional Knowledge “Treaty,” IP-Watch, October 17, 2008; “WIPO Committee On Traditional Knowledge And Folklore Running In Place,” IP-Watch, 16 October 2008,