Bridges Trade BioRes • Volume 2 • Number 15 • 10th October 2002
Developing Countries Wary Of Additional Commitments In WIPO
Developing Countries Wary Of Additional Commitments In WIPO
Meeting for the WIPO [World Intellectual Property Organization] Assemblies on 23 September to 1 October, WIPO member states widely criticised the Director-General’s proposed agenda for the international patent system, which many saw as going far beyond the scope of WIPO’s mandate. Also among the contentious issues on the table was a US proposal to establish a standing committee on enforcement that would take the place of existing advisory committees.
Developing countries strongly rejected the Director-General’s most recent proposal on the international patent system (IPS). The Group of Countries of Latin America and the Caribbean (GRULAC) noted that the document was not balanced, as it did not take into account major policy areas such as health, biodiversity and traditional knowledge protection, and seemed "to focus principally on the interest of the users of the patent system". They added that they were not prepared to accept any of the document’s recommendations before their impact on development had been assessed. In their rejection of the proposal, several countries, including Brazil and Argentina, cited recent conclusions of the UK Commission on Intellectual Property Rights (CIPR) report, which had spoken out against a one-size-fits-all approach to intellectual property rights (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 26 September 2002).
Most developing countries — including GRULAC, as well as several countries from the Africa Group and Asia — also rejected a US proposal to set up a standing committee on enforcement with a normative mandate, which would allow it to establish treaties, models or best practice. Instead, developing countries favoured keeping the existing advisory committees, possibly merging them into one, which would be charged with information exchange, capacity building and training. While not opposing the idea of enforcement, the countries did not want to accept new commitments that might be used as an additional source of pressure exerted at the bilateral level. They further feared that the establishment of a new standing committee would result in additional rules to those already provided for in the WTO Agreement on Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPs). Given the limited effective participation of developing countries in WIPO some poorer country delegates were concerned that new rules would likely be biased in favour of influential members and business groups.
Background
In 2001, the Director-General of WIPO announced a new initiative — the WIPO Patent Agenda — aimed at launching worldwide discussions for the purpose of preparing a strategic blueprint for the future evolution of the international patent system (IPS). Currently, WIPO’s efforts to harmonise the IPS focuses on three elements. First, the Patent Law Treaty (PLT) — concluded in June 2000 — harmonises patent procedures relating to national and regional patent applications and maintenance of patents. The Treaty will enter into force once 10 signatories have ratified or acceded.
Second, the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), an international filing system for patents that enables inventors to apply for patent protection in up to 112 countries by submitting a single "international application", is currently being streamlined and simplified to improve efficiency of the system and facilitate obtaining patents worldwide. As the non-governmental group Genetic Resource Action International (GRAIN) has pointed out, the reform process provides an opening for the PCT to adjust to new policy objectives and needs within WIPO’s harmonisation agenda, which might include, inter alia, the incorporation of a database of traditional knowledge for international searches (see BRIDGES Vol. 6 no 6, pp 17).
Third, a Substantive Patent Law Treaty (SPLT) is being developed which would cover a number of basic legal principles that underpin the granting of patents in different countries. GRAIN has expressed concern that the SPLT could make the TRIPs Agreement obsolete as it would set up a fixed set of rules on what could be patented and under what conditions. They added that while TRIPs "only" spelled out minimum required elements of national patent laws, the SPLT would define both the top and the bottom line. GRAIN also noted that the current draft of the SPLT would not allow countries to make any further demands on patent applicants than those found in the treaty. Such additional demands could include requirements for the disclosure of the origin of genetic resources and traditional knowledge or evidence of prior informed consent and benefit-sharing, as repeatedly called for by many developing countries (see BRIDGES Trade BioRes, 26 September 2002).
ICTSD reporting; "Warning over patent harmonization approach at WIPO," SUNS, 2 October 2002.