WIPO Committee on Development and Intellectual Property Meeting, November 16-20, 2009

Código Fecha Clasificación Origen
10GENEVA11 8 January 2010 No clasificado Mission Geneva

Buscar la fuente: [Wikileaks] [MRKVA] [Google]

VZCZCXYZ0000
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHGV #0011/01 0081154
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 081154Z JAN 10
FM USMISSION GENEVA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 1155
RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHINGTON DC

UNCLAS GENEVA 000011

SIPDIS

STATE FOR EEB/IPC, IO/GS, OES
COMMERCE FOR USPTO

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: ECON, KIPR, WIPO
SUBJECT: WIPO Committee on Development and Intellectual Property
Meeting, November 16-20, 2009

1. SUMMARY: The 4th session of the WIPO Committee on Development
and Intellectual Property (CDIP) was a constructive step forward
from the U.S. perspective. The Committee approved five major
thematic projects and reviewed all projects and activities under
current implementation. On the important issue of how CDIP should
coordinate with other WIPO bodies, the U.S. delegation worked
closely with its Group B partners to forge a common position and to
narrow differences with the group of "like-minded countries". END
SUMMARY

2. The Fourth Session of the CDIP was held from November 16 to
November 20, 2009. 89 Member States and 36 Observers participated
in the meeting. U.S. delegation members were Neil Graham, Attorney
Advisor, Office of Intellectual Property Policy and Enforcement, US
Patent and Trademark Office(USPTO) (head of delegation); Michele
Woods, Senior Counsel, Office of Policy and International Affairs,
U.S. Copyright Office; Marina Lamm, Attorney Advisor, Office of
Intellectual Property Policy and Enforcement, USPTO; Paula Pinha,
Attorney Advisor, Office of Policy and International Affairs, U.S.
Copyright Office; and Otto Hans Van Maerssen, Counselor for Economic
and Science Affairs, U.S. Department of State, U.S. Mission,
Geneva.

Issue of "Coordination Mechanism" Takes Center Stage


-------
3. Two contrasting proposals on the issue of the coordination
mechanism were discussed at CDIP 4, one from Group B (developed
country) members, including the United States, and one from Brazil,
Algeria, Pakistan, and India: central players in what is sometimes
called the group of "like-minded" countries, or Group A. The
fundamental distinction between the two proposals is that Group B
believes that CDIP should have a status equal to but not greater
than all other WIPO committees, whereas Group A maintains that CDIP
should be placed in an oversiht role that would effectively place
it above al other WIPO committees with respect to the
impleentation of WIPO development initiatives. Specificlly, the
Group B proposal stressed the need to esure that development remain
an integral part ofWIPO’s work, but emphasized the importance of
keeping all WIPO committees on an equal footing and accountable to
the General Assembly, as well as the need to avoid any new financial
obligations for member states. In discussions, Group B also
emphasized the importance of using available meeting time more
efficiently before considering additional special sessions to enable
CDIP to fulfill its evaluative role.

4. By contrast, the proposal by the "like-minded" countries would
have required: permanent special sessions of the committee to
review and assess mandatory reports by other committees on their
implementation of the Development Agenda; the use of the Audit
Committee as an independent evaluation body to assess the overall
progress of the Development Agenda throughout WIPO; and a council of
"wise men / women" — experts in IP and development - to conduct
biennial reviews of WIPO and its progress in "mainstreaming" the
Development Agenda into the organization’s activities.

5. Informal negotiations over these competing proposals took place
Thursday morning and continued in the evening, with frank and
productive discussions between the two sides. Based on these
discussions, the parties modified their original proposals, and
informal negotiations on Friday resulted in an early effort to
create a single document setting out alternative proposals on the
various issues that could eventually evolve into a compromise text.
At the end of the meeting on Friday, it was apparent that while
progress had been made to narrow differences, insufficient time
remained to discuss all of the outstanding issues. The like-minded
countries pushed for intersessional meetings on this agenda item,
but Group B members objected, citing the difficulty and expense of
bringing home country experts to Geneva. As a compromise, it was
agreed that discussions on the issue would continue at CDIP 5 next
April as the first item on the agenda, but that delegations should
feel free to conduct bilateral discussions in the interim.

Multiple Projects Given Green Light


6. The United States delegation came to CDIP 4 with the hope that
substance - the discussion of concrete projects to implement the
agreed recommendations — would prevail over an inordinate
preoccupation with procedure, something that has sometimes happened
in past committee meetings. For the most part, this hope was
realized. During the week, the committee approved five thematic
projects:

— IP and Competition Policy (CDIP/4/4)
— IP, ICTs, the Digital Divide, and Access to Knowledge (CDIP4/5)
— IP and the Public Domain (CDIP4/3) (patent and copyright
components)
— Developing Tools for Access to Patent Information (CDIP/4/6)
— Enhancing WIPO’s Results Based Management (RBM) Framework to

Support the Monitoring and Evaluation of Development Activities
(CDIP/4/8) (slightly modified)

7. The Committee also agreed that a proposal by Japan to develop a
database of case studies showing the successful creation and use of
IP in business, with a focus on developing countries, would be
implemented as part of WIPO’s ongoing activities. Two Korean
proposals — one on branding, the other on the use of patent
information in the transfer of technology - will be discussed at
CDIP 5 after the Secretariat prepares formal project documents for
those proposals.

8. The Committee also reviewed projects currently being implemented.
Although there were calls from many countries (e.g., France,
Brazil) to undertake this review, when the discussion finally took
place on Thursday afternoon, it lasted less than an hour.

9. The project on IP and the Public Domain generated a lively
debate. As originally proposed by the Secretariat, the proposal
involved studies and activities in four areas: (i) copyrights; (ii)
trademarks; (iii) patents, and (iv) traditional knowledge (TK) and
traditional cultural expressions (TCEs). By week’s end, the TK/TCE
component had been removed from the project document after protests
from Indonesia, Zimbabwe, Egypt, and South Africa, among others, who
refused to equate TK/TCE and the public domain. The trademark study
will be discussed at the next session because of USG concerns over
the terms of the study. The copyright project will go forward, but
will now include modifications suggested by Brazil and Bolivia to
the scoping study on copyright and related rights (Section 1.3 of
CDIP/4/3). As revised, the study will survey tools that "affect"
[the original word was "facilitate"] access, use and identification
of the public domain "particularly in the digital environment" [the
original proposal did not include an express reference to the
digital environment]. The patent study will go forward, but without
a last-minute revision suggested by Bolivia / India to expand the
study to include "the implication of patent thicketing, ever
greening patents, the extension of patent term, pre-grant or
post-grant opposition to patents, and the disclosure requirements."
The United States objected that discussion of those topics would be
duplicative of work taking place in the Standing Committee on
Patents. Nonetheless, the U.S. delegation agreed to discuss the
possible addition of these elements to the patent study at CDIP 5.

Technology Transfer Project Held Over


10. The United States came to CDIP 4 prepared to give its approval
to the Secretariat’s proposed Project on Intellectual Property and
Technology Transfer: Common Challenges - Building Solutions"
(CDIP4/7). A group of "like-minded" countries (Brazil, Egypt,
India, South Africa, Bolivia, Burundi, Sri Lanka, Yemen, among
others), however, raised questions about the project, questioning
the meaning of some of the terms, a lack of specificity, and an
absence of action-oriented elements in the project. After lengthy
discussions, it was agreed that the "like-minded" countries would
have until the end of 2009 to submit comments on the project to the
Secretariat. Other member states will then be invited to respond to
that document by January 31, 2010. The Secretariat will then
prepare a non-paper summarizing all members’ suggestions (available
by the end of February) for discussion at the fifth session of CDIP
in April.

New Chair to Be Elected at CDIP 5


11. The previous chairman of the committee, Ambassador Trevor C.
Clarke (Barbados), resigned his position earlier this year to enable
him to accept an appointment as Assistant Director General for
Copyright and Related Rights at WIPO, a position he recently
assumed. The Fourth Session of CDIP was chaired by the committee’s
senior vice-chair, Mr. Mohamed Abderraouf Bdioui (Tunisia), but the
Committee will need to elect a permanent new chairman at the next
session. The United States remains cautiously optimistic that
member states will be able to identify and elect a suitable chairman
for this increasingly important Committee.

GRIFFITHS#

1