“Deliverables” For Developing Nations Discussed By Hand-Picked WIPO Members

A group of nations hand-picked by the head of the World Intellectual Property Organisation on Thursday concluded informal consultations on ways to move the harmonisation of national patent regimes forward while addressing development concerns of some countries seen as delaying WIPO’s progress on the issue.

Among the topics expected to be discussed during the consultations were suggestions that arose from a 3 and 4 February meeting of wealthy nations held in Washington on “ways we can do training and other deliverables” that could appease the developing countries pushing a development agenda at WIPO, according to Steven Pinkos, deputy director of the US Patent and Trademark Office.

Pinkos said Thursday that USPTO Director Jon Dudas is in Morocco for the informal consultations with approximately 20 countries invited by WIPO Director General Kamil Idris.

The purpose of the Morocco meeting was to try to “bridge the gap” between the development agenda and patent harmonisation sought by developed countries, Pinkos said in an interview. A way to address patent harmonisation and development is necessary, he said, because “the developing world will raise their agenda in any way they can” and it has slowed progress on the technical issues involved in harmonisation. “Dr. Idris doesn’t want to see WIPO paralysed,” Pinkos said.

Efforts on patent harmonisation have been stalled at WIPO. Independent of WIPO, USPTO held the invite-only meeting on patent harmonisation in Washington two weeks ago with other developed nations, and agreement was reached to move forward on the issue in parallel to WIPO (see IP-Watch, 12 Feb. 2005).

Pinkos said participants in the Washington meeting recognised that WIPO has a division dedicated to technical assistance for developing countries that could be used for “meaningful” ways to address development concerns. He said the United States and other developed countries would look for a role to play in helping with development, but signalled there would be resistance to attempts to change substantive patent law toward development concerns.