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 >

    LDCs Obtain New Waiver On IP Obligations At WTO, Take It As A Limited Victory

    Published on 12 June 2013 @ 5:30 pm

    By , Intellectual Property Watch

    World Trade Organization members this week agreed to give least-developed countries an extra eight years to implement international intellectual property protection rules. The decision received a broad support among countries, with some voicing reservations about the negotiation process.

    The decision [pdf] was reached through a series of informal meetings, most held by the chair of the WTO Council on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), Alfredo Suescum, the ambassador of Panama, to breach differences between countries.

    “The agreement reached by members makes very clear that we can come together and get things done,” said WTO Director-General Pascal Lamy. “This is the spirit we will need to see in full display over the coming months in order to produce a meaningful outcome to the Bali Ministerial Conference in December.”

    A draft decision issued on 7 June proposed an eight year extension, a long way from the initial request by LDCs that the extension remains open until a country is no longer considered to be an LDC. But after resistance from developed countries (which own the majority of IP rights), a compromise was reached last week, though LDCs found it to be a suboptimal result (IPW, WTO/TRIPS, 7 June 2013).

    Two major issues were at stake in the discussion. The first was the timeframe of the extension, and the other was the so-called “no roll-back clause” (IPW, WTO/TRIPS, 6 March 2013). This clause, which appeared in the 2005 extension, stated that “Least developed country Members will ensure that any changes in their laws, regulations and practice made during the additional transitional period do not result in a lesser degree of consistency with the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement.”

    The no roll-back clause was vehemently fought by LDCs, civil society and a number of academics, as hindering the ability of LDCs to use the policy space given them by Article 66.1 of the TRIPS (IPW, WTO/TRIPS, 9 May 2013).

    Paragraph 2 of the decision now calls on LDCs to “express their determination to preserve and continue the progress towards implementation of the TRIPS Agreement.” But the same paragraph also states that “Nothing in this decision shall prevent least developed country Members from making full use of the flexibilities provided by the Agreement to address their needs…”

    The decision does not mean LDCs are exempt from the provision of the TRIPS agreement, according to a WTO source. They are allowed to not protect IP rights, but if they do, they have to apply the TRIPS provisions and in particular the principle of non-discrimination, the source said.

    Most countries praised the overall outcome and some gave it as an example of a positive outcome reached through flexibility, adding that this could be applied to other areas of the WTO, according to sources. A WTO source said “there was never any doubt” that the extension would be granted to LDCs. LDCs have a built-in right to request extension under TRIPS Article 66.1, which states that “The Council for TRIPS shall, upon duly motivated request by a least-developed country Member, accord extensions of this period.”

    The only issue for this week’s TRIPS Council was the terms of the extension.

    The delegate of Lesotho praised the decision and said “LDC Members of the WTO have expressly declared their determination to move towards TRIPs compliance.” “While a much longer timeframe would have been desirable, Lesotho delegation nonetheless welcomes the 8 years extension we have just adopted,” he said, according to his statement.

    He also said, “The reference to LDCs flexibilities in the Decision is a resounding reassurance by Members that quells any doubt concerning the ability of LDCs to use the available policy space provided by such flexibilities.” [Update:] And he offered praise the chair for “the crucial role he played in steering the consultations between the LDC group and the partners to their successful conclusion.”

    “Ambassador Alfredo [Suescum]`s intellectual prowess and the ability to push delegations to the end of their limits and also to tease out flexibility from their entrenched positions are highly admired, at least, by the Lesotho delegations. [end]

    The European Union, in a press release yesterday, said, “The agreement sends a strong signal of intent in light of the 2011 United Nations Conference on the Least-Developed Countries in Istanbul, Turkey.” It added, “The Istanbul Programme of Action seeks to halve (from 48 to 24) the number of LDCs by 2020. It is also a positive result ahead of the ninth WTO Ministerial Conference in Bali in December this year.”

    “Where least-developed countries voluntarily provide some kinds of intellectual property protection even though they are not required to do so under the TRIPS Agreement, they have committed themselves not to reduce or withdraw the current protection that they give,” the EU release said.

    According to some sources, LDCs were more organised and more supportive of each other in their 2012 request and negotiations than in 2005. Currently, 34 countries which are categorised as “least developed” are WTO members, according to a WTO official.

    No Mention of Technical Assistance

    Out of the decision is also the mention of technical assistance, which appeared in the 2005 extension. The link that was made between the extension and the requirement for developed countries to provide technical assistance for LDCs was considered by LDCs and some developing countries as erroneous since they estimate the transition period to be part of flexibilities in the TRIPS, according to developing country sources.

    It was decided during the informal discussions that this topic would be handled in the Council’s other work on technical co-operation and capacity building, according to a WTO source.

    In its statement to the TRIPS Council in the context of technical cooperation and capacity building, the EU said in the discussion on the LDCs extension they have agreed “not to maintain any language or provision on technical cooperation,” according to the EU statement.

    However, the delegate said, technical cooperation “remains an important tool to helping LDCs implement the TRIPS,” reaffirming the EU commitment to such technical cooperation, following TRIPS Article 67.

    The EU proposed that the WTO secretariat start working on a report that would consider the progress LDC members have made in implementing the TRIPS and consider outstanding difficulties in that implementation. This report, which would be submitted in the TRIPS Council in 2014, “could use available information, both from the WTO’s own assistance and monitoring work as well as that of other organisations, in particular WIPO pursuant to the Agreement between WIPO and WTO,” the EU said.

    This follows, it said, the previous extension which invited LDC members to provide information on their needs for technical and financial cooperation to implement the TRIPS. According to a source, the topic will be further discussed at the next session of the TRIPS Council.

    Systemic Concern

    Meanwhile, according to sources, India said the extension is far removed from the original request of LDCs, and the negotiated outcome is “a derogation from the provisions of Article 66.1.” Article 66.1 deals with the possibility of extending the transition period for LDCs. The delegate said the decision still represents a step forward from the 2005 decision, and India would join the consensus on the adoption of the decision.

    However, the delegate said he wanted to “point out our systemic concern about the process adopted in reaching this decision which was negotiated between a small group of countries, to the exclusion of the larger membership.” During the closed-door informal negotiations, LDC representatives faced off with developed countries but no larger developing countries were in the negotiations until it was brought before other members for comment (IPW, WTO/TRIPS, 24 May 2013).

    The Indian delegate also mentioned the upcoming deadline of the transition period for pharmaceuticals expiring on 1 January 2016, and said India hopes that any future request for further extension would be “looked at in a positive manner without any conditionalities being imposed on them.”

    LDCs have a separate waiver to implement TRIPS provisions on pharmaceutical products until 1January 2016. The decision taken yesterday by the TRIPS Council states that it does not prejudice the waiver on pharmaceutical products, according to the WTO, which will run its course until the deadline. An extension can be required by LDCs on that particular waiver, sources said.

    China also agreed with the systemic concern, while welcoming the decision. Brazil too said it shared the systemic concern voiced by India. China and Brazil told Intellectual Property Watch that in future negotiations, consultations should include a broader membership.

    According to a WTO source, the negotiations leading to the decision were first undertaken by “both sides” with Nepal for the LDCs and Australia for developed countries coordinating the meetings. Then Suescum, on 14 May, was asked to chair the meetings, according to the source. Suescum “kept the whole membership informed” during informal sessions on 21, 30 May, and 7 June, giving the membership opportunities to comment, the source said.

    Civil Society between Enthusiasm and Scepticism

    Primah Kwagala, program manager, policy advocacy for the Center for Health, Human Rights & Development (CEHURD) in Kampala, Uganda, praised the decision. “We appreciate the council’s decision to give LDCs an extension that will offer us living in LDCs an opportunity to develop our indigenous capacities to manage IPRs,” he told Intellectual Property Watch.

    “The decision is impressive because it has not attached conditionalities such the dreadful ‘no roll back’ clause earlier proposed by the EU,” he said.

    “This decision will enable East African countries like Uganda and Tanzania to amend their already existing laws on copyright and seed respectively to include flexibilities that ensure access to essential commodities such as seed, education materials among others,” Kwagala said. “East African civil society capacity and ability to influence decisions at the WTO TRIPS Council through their legislative Assembly has also been demonstrated through the pressure they have unanimously asserted on the EU, US and the TRIPS Council.”

    “This is a victory we all must celebrate but also a good precedent to efforts to start early to prepare for a push for an indefinite extension to the forth coming expiry of the 2016 extension on pharmaceutical products,” Kwagala said.

    For the Swiss non-governmental organisation Berne Declaration, LDCs have relented to the pressure applied by developed countries, in particular Switzerland, which, according to a Berne Declaration press release [pdf in French], opposed the request for a limitless extension. This extension, it said, is crucial for the everyday life of people living in LDCs and their human rights, including access to health, seeds or education, adding that several decades would be necessary before LDCs can benefit from binding intellectual property rules.

    A source from the Electronic Information for Libraries said “the decision gives LDCs more breathing space. By all accounts, it was an extraordinarily hard won gain. LDCs should now review their policy options for how best to maximise access to knowledge resources for education, research and development in order to make effective use of the transition period.”

    A senior policy officer for Both ENDS, an NGO working with civil society organisations in developing countries, said “The big risk is that now more money of the shrinking budgets for development cooperation will be allocated to make least developed countries to comply with the IPR agenda of donors like the US and EU.”

    Knowledge Ecology International commenting on the decision said the new extension comes with some restrictions, but provides more freedom than the previous extension. However, the group said, “The decision to extend the period of years before very poor countries have to implement tough patent and copyright laws is welcome, but it was surprisingly difficult to reach.”

    “What should happen next is greater experimentation regarding the types of laws that are in the best interest of least developed countries,” KEI said. “Unfortunately, with less than a decade before the extension runs out, the opportunity to experiment will be burdened with uncertainty about the longer term future.”

    For Professor Brook Baker of Health GAP, at the Northeastern University School of Law Program on Human Rights and the Global Economy, “LDCs started strong and stayed strong, winning a substantially better extension of the transition period to become compliant with WTO standards for intellectual property protection than they won in 2005.”

    “LDCs asked for an extension that would directly allow them to rollback IPRs if it were in their interest to do so and one that would last as long as a country was an LDC giving them much more time to pursue their development objectives unburdened by IP monopolies,” he said, adding “Of course, the US and the EU carried the water for multinationals once again and coerced some concessions – but much smaller concessions than they wanted or thought they would get.”

    “Now LDCs have to use their policy space and take off their IP shackles,” Baker said. “They also have to fight even harder to preserve their unconditional extension of the transition period for medicines and diagnostics when a separate extension expires in 2016.”

    Catherine Saez may be reached at info@ip-watch.ch.

     

    Comments

    1. Top 10 Weekly IP & Patent News Update - Article One Partners says:

      [...]  LDCs Obtain New Waiver on IP Obligations at WTO, Take It As Limited Victory – Intellectual Property Watch [...]

    2. WTO DG Lamy: Road To Bali Ministerial Clearer | Intellectual Property Watch says:

      [...] LDCs were granted an extension of their waiver on the enforcement of the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) in June (IPW, WTO/TRIPS, 12 June 2013). [...]

    3. What Does WTO Extension For LDCs To Enforce IP Mean For Pharmaceuticals? | Intellectual Property Watch says:

      [...] The June 2013 extension for LDCs to enforce WTO IP rules will end on 1 July 2021. It temporarily waives the obligation of least developed countries (LDCs) to apply the provisions of the WTO Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), except for articles 3 (national treatment), 4 (most-favoured-nation treatment), and 5 (multilateral agreements on acquisition or maintenance of protection) (IPW, WTO/TRIPS, 12 June 2013). [...]


    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 54.226.207.27