SUBSCRIBE TODAY!
Subscribing entitles a reader to complete stories on all topics released as they happen, special features, confidential documents and access to the complete, searchable story archive online back to 2004.
IP-Watch Summer Interns

IP-Watch interns talk about their Geneva experience in summer 2013. 2:42.

Inside Views

Submit ideas to info [at] ip-watch [dot] ch!

We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

Latest Comments
  • So simply put, we have the NABP saying that all ph... »
  • The original Brustle decision was widely criticise... »

  • For IPW Subscribers

    A directory of IP delegates in Geneva. Read more>

    A guide to Geneva-based public health and intellectual property organisations. Read More >


    Monthly Reporter

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter, published from 2004 to January 2011, is a 16-page monthly selection of the most important, updated stories and features, plus the People and News Briefs columns.

    The Intellectual Property Watch Monthly Reporter is available in an online archive on the IP-Watch website, available for IP-Watch Subscribers.

    Access the Monthly Reporter Archive >

    Abrupt End To Ministerial Leaves Questions On Future Of IP Issues At WTO

    Published on 31 July 2008 @ 8:19 pm

    Intellectual Property Watch

    By William New
    The World Trade Organization Doha Round is over, and bitterly, at least for now, but negotiators left town with the general consensus that hard-earned work to date should not be lost and that there might be resumption of talks sometime in the future.

    The fate of intellectual property issues at the WTO remains vague and may not come clear for weeks or months, according to some sources, while others said it will be business as usual for international trade rules on IP.

    The WTO mini-ministerial held in Geneva from 21-29 July ended in collapse, and members have scattered to rethink and maybe later regroup.

    “The main question is what happens with the round at this point, because then we can start speculating on TRIPS,” one source said. TRIPS is the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights.

    The progress on TRIPS issues was not formalised during the ministerial, as the issue did not reach the level of ministers, “but people have probably learned” the issues, the source said. IP negotiators met regularly during the past 10 days since the ministerial began on 21 July, and had made some progress on process if not substance of proposals (IPW, WTO/TRIPS, 29 July 2008).

    The WTO secretariat also is facing questions about how it will handle intellectual property issues with the departure of Adrian Otten, head of the WTO IP Division, who has been involved with IP issues at the organisation since before the TRIPS agreement. Some sources have said his departure may prompt some consideration of whether to restructure internal management of TRIPS issues.

    The three IP issues under consideration at the ministerial were: 1) the establishment of an international register of wines and spirits geographical indications – product names associated with places and characteristics (“GI register”); 2) the possibility of extending higher level GI protection (TRIPS Article 23) to products other than wines and spirits (“GI extension”); and 3) a proposed amendment to the TRIPS agreement that would bring it in line with obligations under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), adding a requirement for disclosure of origin in patent applications and possibly ensuring benefit-sharing with communities to deter biopiracy (“CBD amendment”).

    India was one of the chief proponents of the CBD amendment, and an Indian official said afterward that it is too soon to consider how those who see a need for more biodiversity protection will proceed. “We are always willing to constructively engage,” he said, on the basis of the proposal they and others put forward at the start of the ministerial (IPW, WTO/TRIPS, 18 July 2008).

    A European government source said, “If we’d had modalities then some paper would have come on the table, but it didn’t. The question is what’s the status of that.”

    Europe was a strong proponent of higher protection for geographical indications, distinctive products named for places.

    No members appear to have mentioned TRIPS issues in their closing statements at the meetings of the Trade Negotiations Committee (Wednesday) or General Council (Thursday), participants said. But some members called for overall talks to begin again in September.

    An Indian consultant commented to an Intellectual Property Watch story posted on the ip-health listserv, questioning whether the built-in review of TRIPS Article 27.3(b) could be a place for the biodiversity disclosure issue to reappear. “Even if the Doha talks have collapsed, the mandate on members to pursue the review of Article 27.3(b) will remain intact,” the commenter said. Article 27.3(b) covers the patenting of life forms, a topic that Bolivia raised in the final General Council, according to the WTO press officer.

    Article 27.3(b) was mandated for review in the TRIPS agreement four years after the agreement went into effect, which was 1 January, 2005. The review mandate was renewed under Article 19 of the 2001 Doha Declaration. But it has not progressed significantly in the TRIPS Council over the years.

    WTO Marches On

    Whether or not there is a round, WTO activities related to TRIPS will continue, such as implementation and dispute settlement, sources said. It is unclear how much a cessation in formal negotiations will impact discussions among members in the TRIPS Council, nor whether focus will turn more sharply to dispute settlement.

    Thaddeus Burns, an IP lawyer at General Electric Corporation and a former US negotiator, said that despite the ministerial collapse the WTO will continue to function as a “tremendously important institution.” From an IP standpoint, they “don’t need a round every couple of years,” he said, as governments “can spend the next 10 to 20 years seeing the benefits of TRIPS unfold in terms of helping developing countries move up the value curve in terms of innovation.” The TRIPS agreement, he said, creates an “enabling environment” that didn’t exist before, and is “like steroids for innovation.”

    Ahmed Abdel Latif, programme manager for intellectual property at the International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development, said, “Discussions on the three TRIPS issues during the ministerial meeting and possible ways to address them were mostly limited to ‘process’ matters that would not entail significant changes in comparison with existing deliberations on these issues.”

    “This comes, in part, as a result of dealing with complex issues where differences have gone unresolved at the technical level for many years,” he said.

    Yet, Abdel Latif added, “It is also significant that TRIPS issues became one of the debated matters in the ministerial meeting. This has certainly reinforced the need for reaching concrete outcomes on issues that have been on the table for many years.”

    This is particularly the case of the TRIPS-CBD relationship which he said has “gained momentum during the past year as a result of the increased support for proposals to introduce a disclosure requirement in patent applications to declare the origin of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge used in the inventions, and this notwithstanding differences over the legal consequences for non-compliance with this requirement.”

    A US industry lobbyist, meanwhile, called the collapse of the talks a “sad day for the trading system,” but said there was some relief in industry that the CBD amendment did not proceed.

    An African delegate told Intellectual Property Watch the reason that disclosure of origin is so important to least-developed countries is that lack of development is so extreme in these communities – and the forefront of biotechnological development so advanced – that there is limited capacity to understand what is contained within traditional knowledge and genetic resources that is being used in new products up for patenting.

    So those communities also do not understand how to get advantages from the use of their resources, he said, because they do not know what of those resources is inside the new product.

    Uncharted Waters

    Joe Guinan of the German Marshall Fund told a 24 July side event early in the ministerial, “I think if there isn’t progress in the next few days, they’re heading into uncharted waters.”

    At the event, sponsored by the fund, John Weekes, senior policy advisor at Sidley Austin law firm in Geneva, and Canadian ambassador to the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade during the Uruguay Round, predicted that failure to complete the round now could delay implementation of any agreements as far into the future as 2020.

    If there had been an agreement this week, the earliest to finish negotiations would have been end of 2009, with implementation likely on 1 January, 2011, he calculated.

    But failure could be affected by presidential elections, especially in the United States (there are other elections as well such as in India next year), which could lead to a new administration in the United States choosing not to continue the effort on the Doha Round or trying to refocus WTO on other issues such as climate change. A change would lead to a new process of years to set an agenda and conduct negotiations, he said.

    “I don’t think that 2020 is all that far-fetched,” Weekes said. That would be 28 years after the current baseline for negotiated tariffs, which is 1993, from the last round of negotiations, the Uruguay Round, he noted.

    He also noted that there is a precedent in that the first George Bush was unable to finish the Uruguay Round before giving way to the Clinton administration, which took it up and completed it. But he warned against waiting. “I think the longer we wait to complete this deal, the more complicated it is going to become,” he added. “It is very hard to freeze positions as they are.”

    Kaitlin Mara contributed to this article.

    William New may be reached at wnew@ip-watch.ch.

     

    Comments

    1. D.Bheemeswar says:

      It is sad that the meeting without further negotiations. But I have doubts about few.
      The three IP issues under consideration at the ministerial were: 1) the establishment of an international register of wines and spirits geographical indications – product names associated with places and characteristics (“GI register”); This is going on in the different countries in variations it can not be taken as GI indiactor, as this entire process is known and traditional, it should go in the biodiversity issue, who ever wanted to use can use it but should give royality to the respective Biodiversity boards of the countries. All the specific specias of animals, plants and herbs that can grow only in those particular geographical conditions should be brought under GI indicators any other persons other than natives of those respective countries should pay premium as well as royalty to that specific country.
      2) the possibility of extending higher level GI protection (TRIPS Article 23) to products other than wines and spirits (“GI extension”); All the herbal and ayurvedic nedicines should be brought under Biodiversity act of respective countries. It is free for those traditional personal whose family it is coming from ages any other firms using those formulas should pay royality as well some premium to those families. Any IP gegnerated out of these medicinal value materials or any other use like paints and other things .

      and 3) a proposed amendment to the TRIPS agreement that would bring it in line with obligations under the UN Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), adding a requirement for disclosure of origin in patent applications and possibly ensuring benefit-sharing with communities to deter biopiracy (“CBD amendment”).

    2. Tim Roberts says:

      Intellectual Property Watch repeatedly refers to the proposed “disclosure of origin” requirement to “bring TRIPs into line with the CBD”. This implies that TRIPs is at present out of line with the CBD. This is not the case. Proponents of the requirement believe that it would encourage respect for the CBD’s provisions, and benefit biodiversity-rich developing countries. These are admirable objectives, but evidence that the requirement will actually promote either of them is lacking.

    3. Yossarian says:

      It’s more like a Catch-22 situation for most countries.

      The WTO was set up 6 months after the CBD came into force. There are currently 191 members of the CBD as opposed to the 153 of TRIPS.

      TRIPS should be respecting CBD and it certainly needs to bring itself in harmony with the CBD. Member States for both conventions face difficulty.

      The disclosure requirement would create lots of benefit…especially for the indigenous people.


    Leave a Reply

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website. By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    We welcome your participation in article and blog comment threads, and other discussion forums, where we encourage you to analyse and react to the content available on the Intellectual Property Watch website.

    By participating in discussions or reader forums, or by submitting opinion pieces or comments to articles, blogs, reviews or multimedia features, you are consenting to these rules.

    1. You agree that you are fully responsible for the content that you post. You will not knowingly post content that violates the copyright, trademark, patent or other intellectual property right of any third party or which you know is under a confidentiality obligation preventing its publication and that you will request removal of the same should you discover that you have violated this provision. Likewise, you may not post content that is libelous, defamatory, obscene, abusive, that violates a third party's right to privacy, that otherwise violates any applicable local, state, national or international law, that amounts to spamming or that is otherwise inappropriate. You may not post content that degrades others on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual preference, disability or other classification. Epithets and other language intended to intimidate or to incite violence are also prohibited. Furthermore, you may not impersonate others.

    2. You understand and agree that Intellectual Property Watch is not responsible for any content posted by you or third parties. You further understand that IP Watch does not monitor the content posted. Nevertheless, IP Watch may monitor the any user-generated content as it chooses and reserves the right to remove, edit or otherwise alter content that it deems inappropriate for any reason whatever without consent nor notice. We further reserve the right, in our sole discretion, to remove a user's privilege to post content on our site. IP Watch is not in any manner endorsing the content of the discussion forums and cannot and will not vouch for its reliability or otherwise accept liability for it.

    3. By submitting any contribution to IP Watch, you warrant that your contribution is your own original work and that you have the right to make it available to IP Watch for all purposes and you agree to indemnify IP Watch, its directors, employees and agents against all damages, legal fees and others expenses that may be incurred by IP Watch as a result of your breach of warranty or of these terms.

    4. You further agree not to publish any personal information about yourself or anyone else (for example telephone number or home address). If you add a comment to a blog, be aware that your email address will be apparent.

    5. IP Watch will not be liable for any loss including but not limited to the following (whether such losses are foreseen, known or otherwise): loss of data, loss of revenue or anticipated profit, loss of business, loss of opportunity, loss of goodwill or injury to reputation, losses suffered by third parties, any indirect, consequential or exemplary damages.

    6. You understand and agree that the discussion forums are to be used only for non-commercial purposes. You may not solicit funds, promote commercial entities or otherwise engage in commercial activity in our discussion forums.

    7. You acknowledge and agree that you use and/or rely on any information obtained through the discussion forums at your own risk.

    8. For any content that you post, you hereby grant to IP Watch the royalty-free, irrevocable, perpetual, exclusive and fully sub-licensable license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display such content in whole or in part, world-wide and to incorporate it in other works, in any form, media or technology now known or later developed.

    9. These terms and your posts and contributions shall be governed and interpreted in accordance with the laws of Switzerland (without giving effect to conflict of laws principles thereof) and any dispute exclusively settled by the Courts of the Canton of Geneva.

     

     
    Your IP address is 54.82.119.238