WTO TRIPS COUNCIL October 25-26 2005

Código Fecha Clasificación Origen
05GENEVA2798 16 November 2005 No clasificado United States Mission Geneva

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

This record is a partial extract of the original cable. The full text of the original cable is not available.

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 08 GENEVA 002798

SIPDIS

PASS USTR FOR ESPINEL, MULLANEY, HAUDA, WINTER, WELLER,
STRATFORD
STATE FOR WILSON, FELT, EB/TPP/IPC, EAP/CM
USDA FOR LASHLEY, SALMON
USDOC FOR ITA/SCHLEGELMILCH
USDOJ PARSKY, CHEMTOB, GAMMS, SHARRIN

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: EAGR, ETRD, WTRO, Trade
SUBJECT: WTO TRIPS COUNCIL October 25-26 2005

1. SUMMARY: The TRIPS Council meeting took place on
Tuesday and Wednesday October 25-26, 2005. Mr. CHOI Hyuck
of Korea chaired the meeting. There was an informal session
held in the morning of October 25, with the formal session
beginning on the afternoon and continuing to the next day.
In particular, discussion continued on the Decision on the
Implementation of Paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on the
TRIPS Agreement and Public Health. As to the relationship
of TRIPS and the CBD, new documents were tabled by Peru and
a group of developing countries, and Brazil and India
requested new negotiations on patent disclosure
requirements. The least-developed countries (LDCs)
submitted a request to extend the transitional period for
TRIPS compliance by another 15-years. The formal meeting
was suspended to allow for further discussion on access to
medicines, the relationship of TRIPS and CBD, the LDC
extension request, and issues concerning non-violation and
situation complaints. END OF SUMMARY

INFORMAL SESSION

2. The TRIPS Council met in informal session on the
morning of October 25th. The Chair raised three issues for
discussion: (1) the Decision on the Implementation of
Paragraph 6 of the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement
and Public Health, (2) Non-violation Nullification Argument,
and (3) LDC extension request.

3. Brazil and India requested to be included in the small
group consultations that are occurring, noted concerns over
the status of the Chairman’s Statement as part of the
solution, and that the August 30th Decision is the basis for
the amendment. Brazil noted that Members that are not
consulted could not be considered bound by such
consultations and that "no solution would be better than a
bad solution."

4. India and Argentina noted that are apparently several
"informal" papers being circulated and discussed, but only
the Africa Group paper is formally on the table, so they
noted that they consider the African Group proposal from
December 2004 as the basis for work.

5. The USDEL indicated that consultations on this matter
have been helpful. The USDEL reiterated that the quality of
the amendment should be the same as the agreement reached on
August 30th. It was noted that the U.S. is not seeking to
elevate or diminish the status of the Chairman’s Statement,
and that the objective is to preserve the agreement reached.
The USDEL concluded by noting that the amendment process
should be a technical exercise and not a substantive one.

6. The EC agreed that the process should be one of a
technical nature and legally secure, and welcomed
intensified consultations on the issue.

7. Canada stated that it has circulated a paper noting in
detail how Canada has implemented the solution. Canada also
stated that it has an interest in ensuring that the result
of the amendment process does not result in a change in
Canada’s legislation.

8. Chair concluded, noting that he did not know when he
would be able to give better ideas as to the timing of
further consultations.

9. On NVNI, the Chair stated the status of Members’ views
on four recommendation options that are before the Council:
1) a majority have stated that NVNI is inapplicable to
TRIPS; 2) some have stated that the NVNI moratorium should
be extended; 3) a couple have stated that NVNI is applicable
to TRIPS in the context of DSB rules; and 4) one Member
states that the moratorium should expire at the Ministerial.
Colombia added that it has received instructions from
Capital, and that it will maintain its long-standing
position that NVNI is inapplicable to TRIPS. The Chair
concluded, noting that that there is no emerging consensus
and that he will report to the General Council that work
will need to continue in the run-up to the Hong Kong
Ministerial.

10. On the LDC extension request, no delegation took the
floor. It was discussed at the formal session.

FORMAL SESSION

FOLLOW-UP TO REVIEWS OF NATIONAL IMPLENTING LEGISALATION
ALREADY UNDERTAKEN

11. Egypt responded to follow-up questions submitted by
Switzerland and the United States. Both the U.S. and
Switzerland thanked Egypt for its responses and stated that
it agreed with the Chair that the regular review of Egypt
should be deleted from agenda. It was noted that follow-up
questions can be posed at any time.

Decision on the implementation of paragraph 6 of the Doha
Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and public health

12. Brazil began the discussion by noting that its country
takes the access to medicines issue and the amendment
process very seriously. Brazil commented on its publicly
funded AIDS program and that the costs of medicines in
Brazil weighs heavily on Brazilian taxpayers. Brazil noted
that a delicate balance was struck to reach agreement in
August 2003. Brazil stated that there is no reference made
in the General Council Decision to the Chairman’s Statement
and that paragraph 11 of the Decision calls for the
amendment to be based, where appropriate, on the Decision
and not on the Statement. Brazil added that it could not
agree to a procedure that would change the legal status of
the Decision or the Statement. Brazil noted concerns that
some Members make reference to "agreed package" or "agreed
solution" and stated that the amendment mandate in the
Decision mentions only the Decision itself. Brazil
continued, noting that the asterisk that was included in
document WT/L/540 (the asterisk states that the Decision was
adopted by the General Council in the light of a Statement
read out by the Chairman) should be removed as it was added
after the Decision was adopted. Brazil added that while the
Secretariat issued a Corrigendum that contains additional
language to that asterisk claiming that it is a Secretariat
note for administrative purposes only, this correction does
not solve the problem and the asterisk should be removed.
Brazil stated that the Africa Group proposal for the
amendment is the only proposal on the table, and provides a
very good basis for the amendment. Brazil argued that there
are elements in the Africa Group proposal that are quite
convincing (ie., removing redundancies when transposing it
to legal text for amendment of the agreement; regional
patent systems probably not appropriate to include in text
of TRIPS). Brazil concluded by stating that it is an
interested party in whatever consultations the Chair carries
out.

13. Nigeria made a positive statement that it considers the
consultations to be the most viable way of reaching some
decision before the Ministerial.

14. India noted its substantive interest in the issue, both
as supplier and also for its citizens. India stated that it
agrees that the Africa Group proposal is a good basis for
work. Added that the Chairman’s Statement is not a part of
the Decision itself and that the subject matter for
amendment is the Decision. India concluded, noting that it
fully supports Brazil’s statement regarding the asterisk.

15. Argentina reiterated that the Africa Group proposal is
the basis for work on the amendment. Noted that there are
elements in the proposal that deserve close attention.
Argentina noted that it agreed with the proposal that
certain aspects of the Decision should not be included in
the amendment. Noted that the Decision is the only
agreement among the parties that exists, and added that it
does not recall any agreement on placement and use of the
asterisk. Argentina stated that the text should stand as it
was formulated in the General Council.

16. Philippines indicated that it is committed to remaining
constructive during the consultations and that it is ready
to participate in any consultations on the matter. Noted
that it continues to maintain that the Africa Group proposal
is important basis for the discussions. It stated that any
decision should be considered in the humanitarian context in
which the Decision was negotiated.

17. China stated that it is in process of drafting
implementation regulations for both domestic use and for
export under the Decision. China added that the amendment
will provide legal certainty for all Members.
18. The USDEL stated that the consultations have been
helpful for the amendment process. The U.S. reiterated its
position that there needs to be an express reference of the
Chairman’s Statement and the Decision in the amendment. The
process should not reopen the solution and noted that they
view it to be a technical exercise. With respect to the
asterisk, the U.S. stated that the corrigendum was
unnecessary and that certainly no further action should be
taken by the Secretariat.

19. New Zealand and Australia agreed with the U.S.
intervention that the process should be a technical
exercise. They noted that the question is not whether to
deal with the Chairman’s Statement but how should it be
described in the amendment.

20. In response to Brazil’s comments regarding whether the
Chairman’s Statement is interpretive context, the EC noted
that the definition of "context" in the Vienna Convention is
defined in Article 31 paragraph 2a and the Statement is
context for interpretation. India added that the EC’s
explanation reconfirms fears about the unclear status of the
Chairman’s Statement.

21. Korea and Singapore asked that the voluntary opt-out
not be turned into a legal obligation during the amendment
process.

22. The Chair stated that the EC paper remains as a non-
paper and that he will continue to hold consultations with
Members.

REVIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF ARTICLE 27.3(B), THE
RELATIONSHIP OF THE TRIPS AGREEMENT AND THE CBD AND THE
PROTECTION OF TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND FOLKLORE.

23. PERU PRESENTED A NEW PAPER ON SPECIFIC CASES RELATED
TO THEIR BIOPIRACY CONCERNS. "CAMU CAMU" WAS DISCUSSED AS
AN EXAMPLE. IT IS A WILD FRUIT SIMILAR TO CHERRY THAT COMES
FROM THE AMAZON AND CONTAINS HIGH LEVELS OF VITAMIN C. PERU
NOTED THAT IN THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS, THERE HAVE BEEN
ATTEMPTS TO INDUSTRIALIZE CAMU CAMU FOR FOOD AND COSMETICS.
PERU ADDED THAT THERE IS A NEED FOR A MANDATORY DISCLOSURE
OF SOURCE REQUIREMENT, AS PATENT SYSTEMS HAVE FAILED TO
PREVENT PROBLEMATIC CIRCUMSTANCES INVOLVING THE PATENTING OF
GENETIC RESOURCES. PERU REITERATED THAT IT SEEKS TO AMEND
TRIPS ARTICLES 27 & 29 TO INCLUDE MANDATORY DISCLOSE OF
SOURCE OF ORIGIN TO RESULT IN TRANSPARENCY AND SECURITY AND
TO HELP PERU AVOID HAVING TO CONDUCT STUDIES OF WHICH
PATENTS WERE ERRONEOUSLY GRANTED. PERU ALSO ADDED THAT THE
AMENDMENTS WOULD HELP THE PATENT SYSTEM MEET THE DEVELOPMENT
NEEDS OF THEIR PEOPLE.

24. INDIA INTRODUCED ITS NEW SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF
BOLIVIA, BRAZIL, CUBA AND PAKISTAN. THE PAPER IS IN
RESPONSE TO THE CONTRACT BASED APPROACHED PRESENTED IN THE
JUNE SUBMISSION OF THE UNITED STATES. INDIA NOTED THAT
WHILE THE CBD DOES NOT CONTAIN PATENT DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT
PROVISIONS, THE CBD DID CONTAIN OBLIGATIONS THAT COUNTRIES
SHOULD NOT ALLOW INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY TO RUN CONTRARY TO
CBD OBLIGATIONS AND A NEW TRIPS DISCLOSURE REQUIREMENT WOULD
ENSURE THIS. INDIA STATED THAT THE KEY PROBLEM RELATED TO
THE ACCESS TO GENETIC RESOURCE ISSUE IS WITH RESPECT TO
TRANSBOUNDARY ACTIONS AND THAT ONLY AN INTERNATIONAL BINDING
SOLUTION WILL SOLVE THE ISSUE. INDIA ALSO STATED THAT "BAD
PATENTS" IS ALSO AN ISSUE AND THAT IT WILL ATTACH A LIST OF
BAD PATENTS IN A FUTURE SUBMISSION. INDIA CONTINUED BY
NOTING THAT ERRONEOUSLY GRANTED PATENTS ARE NOT RARE
EXCEPTIONS, BUT THE BURDEN OF GETTING A PATENT REVOKED IS
HIGHER THAN THE AMENDMENT IT SEEKS. IT WAS NOTED THAT IS
PROPOSAL WILL NOT FORCE COUNTRIES TO ENFORCE THE LAWS OF
OTHER COUNTRIES. INDIA CONCLUDED BY NOTING THAT IT WELCOMES
SUGGESTIONS ON AMENDMENT LANGUAGE.

25. The USDEL stated that there was more vigor in the
discussions as there are more facts and issues being brought
forth for discussion. The U.S. stated that national
contract-based systems are essential elements of any system
regarding access to genetic resources, and continues to
consider that new patent disclosure requirements are not
effective in meeting the concerns raised. The answer is
tailored national laws outside the patent system that
regulate conduct in this area. The USDEL continued by
noting the negative effects new disclosure requirements will
have on biotech, as an engine of economic growth. As
result, the amendments in TRIPS could be negative for both
developed and developing countries. If patents are
invalidated, the proposals aim at advancing benefit sharing
will not be realized. The USDEL mentioned that the IGC at
WIPO recently had its mandate renewed on TK/CBD/GR and noted
that it looks forward to the IGC’s consultations that will
be informative to the TRIPs Council’s work.

26. The USDEL also responded to questions posed by
Switzerland at the June meeting. The first was (1) How would
a purely national approach address problems arising with
regard to trans-boundary access and benefit sharing, that
is, cases where genetic resources and traditional knowledge
are used outside the scope of application of the national
solutions advanced by the United States? The USDEL noted
that a contract-based system can provide great flexibility
concerning trans-boundary actions and provide an effective
solution by including appropriate provisions for when
disputes arise, such as choice of forum, choice of law,
and/or binding international arbitration clauses. These
provisions would be helpful whether the dispute is in
country or "transboundary." The contract could also specify
terms regarding the nature of the benefit-sharing
arrangement, regardless of the country in which the
commercialization takes place. Similarly, under a contract-
based system, a monitoring plan for commercial applications
could be established, particular to the facts of each case.

27. The second was how would a purely contractual approach
address cases where no contract on access and benefit
sharing has been concluded between the provider and the user
of genetic resources and traditional knowledge? The USDEL
noted that cases in which no contract has been concluded in
violation of the domestic ABS regime, as in any other
situation where a company fails to comply with domestic
regulation, would be governed by the requirements and
penalties of the domestic access and benefit-sharing regime
in place. As a result, such an absence would be enforced by
criminal and/or civil penalties specifically designed for
the ABS regime.

28. The third question was how would the proposed approach
take into account the generally long-term nature of research
and development activities involving genetic resources? The
USDEL noted that an ABS system could include regular
reporting requirements for researchers on the nature of
their research, including whether any new commercial
applications are envisioned. The USDEL continued by noting
that a contract-based system is a better mechanism of
addressing long-term R&D activities, since a patent may, and
sometimes does, expire on a newly identified product before
a commercially valuable use of that product is discovered.
Furthermore, a contract based system can better control the
distribution of the genetic resource, if a patent can be
applied for, and how that patent is controlled.

29. The USDEL also responded to the questions posed by
India at the June meeting regarding Turmeric. The U.S.
stated the turmeric patent was filed by two Indian nationals
working in the U.S., and that the patent disclosure does, in
fact, disclose India as the country of traditional origin of
turmeric. So a disclosure of origin would not have
prevented the situation from occurring. Moreover, the U.S.
noted that the issue in this case was information relevant
to inventorship and the state of the prior art. The
applicant was already under a type of disclosure requirement
in the U.S. - that of disclosing information material to
patentability. In the turmeric case, information regarding
healing properties of turmeric would have been material to
patentability but such information was not disclosed by the
applicant. The USDEL noted that the re-examination process
allowed for prior art to be brought to the attention of the
USPTO, a reexamination was filed, and the prior art was
applied against the claims in an appropriate and effective
manner, leading to cancellation of all claims in the
turmeric situation. This took place over 19 months. The
USDEL reiterated that it fully supports efforts to
strengthen options to prevent mistakenly granted patents,
such as the requirement to disclose information material to
patentability, the use of organized databases, and post-
grant opposition proceedings, such as reexamination.

30. Canada provided questions to the U.S. concerning its
position: 1) would the authorities that would be involved in
monitoring a contract-based system be national or
international in nature, and if international, under which
jurisdiction would they operate; and 2) in a scenario where
sanctions are put into place outside of patent system, what
impact would disclosure requirement have on patent system?
Canada also provided questions to the EC regarding their
textual changes proposed and how would they address access
to benefit sharing arrangements. Canada also asked the
demandeurs to clarify who would be the appropriate party in
a misappropriation suit; would it be the country of source
or country of origin named in the patent? Canada asked
Switzerland who would determine which government agencies
are part of pre-qualified list to help enforce prior
informed consent and access to benefit sharing and what role
would they play?

31. Japan noted that it has guidelines for access to
genetic resource documents to help companies understand how
to use the CBD. Japan noted that it does not support the
proposals for patent disclosure requirements made by various
developing countries.

32. Thailand, Ecuador, Bolivia and Dominican Republic
supported India and Brazil’s submissions.

33. In response to Brazil’s proposal that the Chair make a
recommendation to the TNC/GC to begin negotiations on patent
disclosure requirements, the USDEL noted that it does not
support Brazil’s request and it would not be appropriate for
Chair to make a statement on the matter when there are a
wide divergence of views on the issue. Japan supported the
U.S. intervention, agreeing that it would be premature to do
anything but continue discussing the issue.

34. The Chair noted that he will report to the TNC/GC that
there is no consensus and wide divergence of views. The
Chair will keep this agenda item open on a suspended agenda.

NON-VIOLATION AND SITUATION COMPLAINTS

35. The following delegations intervened noting that NVNI
complaints should not apply to TRIPS: Canada, Colombia,
Argentina, Peru, Malaysia, Brazil, Chile, Thailand, EC,
Ecuador, India, Indonesia, Cuba and Venezuela. India
further added its interpretation that TRIPS Article 64 will
not allow for NVNI complaints if the moratorium expires.

36. The USDEL noted that it supports application of NVNI in
TRIPS and that it expects the moratorium to end at the Sixth
Ministerial Conference.

37. Japan and Switzerland stated that they support further
work on scope and modalities.

38. The Chair noted that further consultations will need to
take place, as the Council cannot currently make a
recommendation to the TNC. The Chair noted that he will
report to the General Council on the work undertaken on the
matter.

TRANSITION PERIOD FOR LEAST-DEVELOPED COUNTRIES-REQUEST FOR
EXTENSION

39. Zambian Ambassador introduced LDC proposal to extend
transitional period for TRIPS Compliance by An additional 15
years. He stressed points concerning that resource and
economic difficulties LDCs face and the costs of
implementing TRIPS obligations. Tanzania, Uganda, Cambodia,
Senegal, Lesotho all supported Zambia’s statement.

40. Argentina and Brazil commented that no evidence exists
that IPRs are good for developing countries, citing their
Development Agenda proposals in WIPO. They stated that many
developing countries are questioning the benefits of IP and
TRIPS in their economies and whether it actually leads to
technology transfer and development.

41. Japan, U.S., EC and Switzerland all indicated that a
more country-by-country approach to the extension request
would be more feasible in order to ensure that all countries
can implement and benefit from the TRIPS Agreement. The
USDEL specifically noted the well-documented links between
IP and development.

42. Norway stated that it supported the request but also
stated that IP is essential to development and would come
back to the issue at a later time.

REVIEW OF THE APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION
ON GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 24.2

43. On the Article 24.2 review of the protection for
geographical indications, the EC stated that to further work
in this area the Council should develop an agenda based on
the Secretariat’s compilation document developed last year
on the 24.2 checklist responses. The EC added that the
discussion should focus on examining the application of the
GI provisions, but should not focus on Members’
implementation of provisions.

44. The USDEL opined that it continues to support a walk
through of the GI provisions paragraph by paragraph, and
that it would be premature to structure the discussions
based on the headings in the Secretariat’s document. The
U.S. noted that it is interested in attending any
consultations on the matter.

45. The Chair noted that it will revert the matter to the
next meeting.

FOLLOW-UP TO THE SECOND ANNUAL REVIEW UNDER PARAGRAPH 2 OF
THE DECISION ON THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ARTICLE 66.2 OF THE
TRIPS AGREEMENT

46. Rwanda and Zambia noted their appreciation for the
reports submitted by developed countries on incentives to
encourage business to provide technology transfer to LDCs.
Rwanda specifically noted that more measures should be
adopted to encourage technology transfer, and suggested that
a committee of experts comprised of developed countries,
LDCs, and specialists formulate recommendations to make tech
transfer policies more effective.

TECHNICAL COOPERATION AND CAPACITY-BUILDING

47. Developed countries submitted their reports on
technical assistance programs in 2005. India raised an item
in the Australian report regarding GI’s that they claimed
was mere advocacy of positions and not technical
cooperation. Australia indicated that while they did have
an advocacy session, they stated that a work-shop was also
held with trademark examiners.

48. Brazil also noted concern with respect to the technical
assistance activities reported by WIPO, noting that WIPO
mischaracterized the Brazil, Argentina proposal at WIPO
regarding the Development Agenda.

ENFORCEMENT OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS-COMMUNICATION
FROM THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

49. The EC noted its paper, tabled at the June meeting,
concerning enforcement matters. The EC noted that it will
elaborate on proposals made in the communication in the
future. The EC added that the level of enforcement rules in
TRIPS can be improved. Moreover the concern over the lack
of enforcement is being debated at G8, Interpol, OECD, WIPO,
and should be discussed at the WTO as well. The objective
of the discussions will be to identify solutions regarding
WTO compliance with enforcement requirements under TRIPS.
The EC requested that the Secretariat produce a synopsis of
Members’ contributions to the enforcement checklist in
IP/C/W/5. With respect to the discussion in the Council,
the EC noted that it should seek to: identify difficulties
in implementing TRIPS enforcement provisions; identify the
appropriate mechanisms for addressing the difficulties; and
coordinate a response at the TRIPS level through various
tools, such as best practices. The EC noted that border
measures should be the first topic of discussion.

50. Japan stated that the recent development of high
technology and mass distribution has prompted growth in
pirate and counterfeit goods. There have been more reports
that these activities are linked to terrorist groups. Japan
noted that it welcomes the EC proposal which presents very
helpful points. Japan noted that in future meetings,
Members should pay attention to discussions going on in
other fora such as WIPO, G8 and OECD. Discussions in TRIPS
Council should include those noted in paragraph 26 of the EC
proposal: procedures to preserve evidence; calculating
damages methodology; sanctions available at civil and
criminal level; information right; and use of provisional
and protective measures, custom measures and their
availability for export and transit.

51. Brazil reiterated concerns expressed in last meeting of
TRIPS regarding EC proposal. It stated that it fully agrees
that piracy and counterfeiting are problems all Members
should address. But Brazil noted that it disagrees with the
focus and activities it proposes the TRIPS Council to
undertake. Brazil noted that implementation of TRIPS is
still an ongoing process for many, if not most, developing
countries and the Council is entertaining an LDC proposal
for extension of the burdensome TRIPS requirements. It
noted that the EC’s proposal is unfair, in that, it would
have the Council playing a de facto norm-setting role.
Brazil also noted that this proposal would be redundant with
the work going on at the WIPO enforcement body, which has
also turned down a TRIPS-plus norm-setting role. Brazil
asked that the item be removed from agenda of all future
TRIPS Council meetings.

52. Argentina stated that the TRIPS Council agenda already
allows for discussion regarding TRIPS oversight of Members
implementation. Argentina also noted that the EC’s proposal
should be off the agenda, as it does not represent the
interest of the majority of the members.

53. Canada noted that it is willing to discuss this issue
at future meetings.

54. The USDEL noted that the issue is an appropriate and
legitimate exercise for the Council to continue discussions.
The U.S. noted that it will need more time to consider the
details of the proposal, and noted that Council should focus
at present on important work already before us for the
Ministerial run up when we consider how to handle
enforcement discussions for the future. The EC responded
noting that it will provide more detail regarding its
proposal after the Ministerial.

55. India, Egypt, China, Philippines, and Chile noted
support for Brazil’s recommendation that it be removed from
the agenda.

56. Switzerland noted that this is an important issue to be
addressed by Council. In view of the Ministerial,
Switzerland noted that it probably was not the time to do it
now in the run-up. But Switzerland noted that it wants to
discuss this issue again at the next formal meeting.

Korea noted that the issue of enforcement is being discussed
at APEC, WIPO, and the OECD. Korea added that when the EC
proposal is available as formal document, they will comment
on it.

57. The EC stated that it views the issue to be an
appropriate discussion item for the Council, and that they
are not trying to make the Council a norm-setting body, or a
tribunal for how members are enforcing TRIPS.

58. Chair noted that this matter will be reverted to the
next meeting.

OBSERVER STATUS FOR INTERNATIONAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL
ORGANIZATIONS

59. Brazil and other delegations expressed support for
observer status for the South Centre and the CBD. While
Egypt reserved its right to come back with a written
opinion, the USDEL noted concern about granting observer
status for several of the international observer
organizations, including that guidelines have not be
established by the General Council.

OTHER BUSINESS

60. The U.S., Switzerland and Japan submitted an Article
63.3 request for details on specific enforcement cases in
China. China noted it will study the requests, but stated
it will not take any more obligations than required, and
that Members should not take action based on unilateral
interpretations. Japan, Switzerland and the U.S. noted that
they submitted these requests with the hope of enhancing
understanding of IPR enforcement in China and look forward
to China’s responses.

61. The Chair also announced the following tentative dates
for TRIPS Council sessions in 2006: 14-15 March 2006, 14-15
June 2006, and 24-25 October 2006.