[[transcripts generated automatically by WIPO speech-to-text]]
Are we?
Good morning, everybody, I hope everyone had agreed evening, yes,
We are now today's Thursday where almost at the end of the week, and I recall that you received rev 1, the interim document yesterday, and
Rev 1 contains ideas, concepts and views that were put forward by the facilitator and now it is time.
Now it is time to comment and to propose modifications, deletions, corrections and insertions with the intent of the
In developing Rev 2. Reflecting on the rev 1, it is very clear that while there is some clarity around different positions, there is still some way to go to narrow gaps.
And to make significant progress on substantive issues with those very brief remarks, I am going to invite Vice-Chair Jukka Liedes,
To Chair the meeting, because I am going to have some bilateral meetings, I am going to ask you to excuse me, while the Vice-Chair has conduct of the meeting now, so I crave your indulgence
While the Vice-Chair makes his way, you can just put on him.
I am inviting the Vice-Chair, Jukka, to come and chair no, thank you.
You have the floor.
...
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, we will now resume the work of the Committee and our task is now to look after you have been looking at
The document that was distributed yesterday, revised version of the consolidated text number 1 to collect comments on that document,
Suggestions, proposals, whatever you may have in your mind or in your pockets in order to permit and allow all our facilitator to continue his work
To which he is mandated and assigned to prepare a second revised version which will then appear tomorrow as customary in these meetings, and that means that we are following the same main status
Structure of the procedures in the context of many previous meetings of this Committee. By these words, I open open now the
The work and open the floor for you, the floor is open for any comments you may have, and I think that, yes,
Day our Chair said that also comments to the Chair's text which is there as a resource paper on the table are also welcome and those comments will be collected for her.
Use that text will be evolving under her authority, and the revised versions of the consolidated text will be
Developed by our facilitator who showed ably yesterday performed his work and also presented the result of that round. The floor is open. The
...
And I might entertain you when you are considering whether to take the floor or not, and when that the main
Element in our mandate is to try to narrow gaps, so it means, please, propose deletions and
Eliminations of square brackets, anything that makes the paper more streamlined and leads to some convergence of views. So the
Very objective is not to make the thing more complex but to make it simpler for the concluding part of the work that once will happen when the clouds will move
Underson will shine in the room and the joint understanding growth, Canada has the floor, the brave one, the
Thank you, Mr. Vice-chair, good morning, everyone, and just in the interest of time we thought we should just get this started. So I have a few points to raise, mainly points of clarification. First, we would like to thank
A facilitator for the hard work put in to putting this Rev 1 together. So thank you very much for that. Our first question is on the definition of source of genetic resources. We want to clarify whether the
This is being proposed as a new definition or forfeits an Alt to one of the other ones, should it be Alt 4 or because it seems to be the same structure and general drafting as
As the other alternatives, so that is one question, I do not know if we should enumerate all the points or if we want to deal with them one by one.
I invite you to pose the question when the facilitator is present so he can provide an explanation to that maybe mainly a technical
Thank you, Mr. Vice-chair, I am speaking on behalf of the
The African Group, we would like, first of all, to thank the facilitator, Mr. Paul Kuruk, for his professionalism, expertise, and diligence in preparing the rev 1 of the consolidated document.
Our group takes note of the rev 1 of the consolidated document which we believe it fully reflects the discussions that took place in the ad hoc expert group meeting. We would like to note that the discussions within the other group
Has been greatly influenced by the Chair's text, actually the Chair's text enjoys continuing support from the majority of the Member States and is likely to allow the Committee to narrow gaps and reach consensus in line with its
Mandate. While acknowledging the efforts made by the Committee to improve the consolidated text, the Africa Group still believes that a two-track approach would be inconsistent with the IGC mandate.
Aimed at narrowing gaps and reducing divergences. Our concern is that bringing new elements from the Chair's text to the consolidated text would be too risky as it could deviate the Committee from its objective
We believe that the structure of the consolidated text with many contradicting alternatives is not such as to allow the Committee to move forward towards a Diplomatic Conference on the contrary, this
Exercise may lead yet again to lengthy and counterproductive negotiations. Our group is of the view that the Committee should place the Chair's text as the basis for negotiations leading to the Diplomatic Conference
And reiterate its full commitment to engage constructively with all the members and stakeholders to achieve this much awaited objective. I thank you, Mr. Vice-chair.
Thank you very much, Distinguished Representative of Algeria, speaking on behalf of the Africa Group. I invite now Canada to repeat the question of
With the presence of our facilitator there was a question about the nature, one element in the rev 1. We
Thank you, Mr. Vice-chair, and thank you for leaving me rebegin, once again, I would like to thank
I express our thanks to the facilitator for his hard work and putting together rev 1. And we have some points of clarification that we wanted to get introduced in the text at this point.
On the definition of the source of Genetic Resources, we just wanted to know if that is being proposed as another alternative, in other words should be alternative 4, or is it
Seeking to replace the other three alternatives because it is sort of follows the same structure in terms of definition as the other as the other three.
I thank you for the question, you would note that in terms of the definitions they address slightly
Different matters. In terms of source, we thought it useful to have a definition that applies to Genetic Resources and then also a second one which applies
Specifically to Traditional Knowledge associated with Genetic Resources, that is useful because of the drafting technique that we used with respect to Article 4 on disclosure, Article 4,
On disclosure talks about country of origin as a primary source when it comes to Genetic Resources and then there is a part B which talks about other sources. So therefore,
The definition that you now find in the definition of section which is Article 1 is supposed to give us an opportunity to place in that portion all the other
Sources, so in this sense it is really different and I would not refer to it, therefore as an Alt, it is really a main provision and it is something that is more substantive than an Alt, same goes for the
The definition of source in relation to traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources, it also allows us to capture fully the other sources, so in that sense, again, I will not refer it as an aught.
And it is precisely for that reason that we moved it up from its original placement in part B to now be in part A So that I believe should clarify.
The issues that you have raised, these definitions are not part of Alts, there is substantive work, and on that score, I wish to note that when the expert group discussed these
Matters. The objective was to reflect what has emerged as a consensus, and we should draw the inference from that, that what came before the having
Came from that expert group was in a way to deal with the consensus and to the extent that there might be some odds that are inconsistent, we could consider them as a
I would like to even suggest that if it is possible, some of these inconsistent provisions, given what has been made from the expert group,
I should probably we may take the steps today to now delete them. Thank you very much to Canada and our facilitators.
Thank you, Mr. Vice-chair, we just had a couple more questions, so I thought I should put those out.
Well, I have the floor and thank you very much to the facilitator for that explanation, the next point of clarification is on Article 4.1B, we are just wondering if
There is an action word missing, yes, there is a word disclosure, we should be in 4, I have noted that I was going to bring it up, but yes, there is that, if that is missing.
So we took note of that yesterday, which method are you going to use to lift the to disclosure to the chapeau or will you repeat it in A and B?
Okay. We can repeat it in NIMB, nor emphasize the thing, the floor continues to be open.
And that is still my apologies, this is the last one that I have, and thank you again for the explanation, this point is just a general thematic point, and I appreciate the conventions of introducing
New text, and that, you know, they are not subject to square brackets, but just to point out in terms of the existing text, the moment the Convention around the should shall may and just noting the
The need to align the preliminary text with the mandate to not prejudge outcome or nature of the instrument, so just a general comment, I am sure we will get to that as we go through article by article.
Just noting that in terms of the text, the existing text is supposed to in respect of the new proposals, thank you very much for that term.
Observation, yesterday, it seemed possible to try to, of course, reflect those brackets and you would note that in the presentation we are mindful of the distinction between Member States
So on the one hand and parties and in some cases to shelf should, but, again, reflecting the discussions, some areas were quite open to now, making
Specific references to shall in some context and also should in some context. But then having said that, your points are well noted. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Canada, it was a very important point concerning the nature of the instrument on the preparation. Russian Federation has the floor.
You have the floor, please.
You have the floor, please.
Yes, we can.
Yes, you
We can hear the delegate from the Russian Federation.
Please go ahead.
Yes, can we, yes, we can hear the Russian Federation.
Maybe you may speak Ah but you shall have to get me as Lucian are you I do not mean yes yes Hello Hello.
Can you hear me? Well, we hear you may speak.
Thank you, Chairman, since we are considering
The preamble of the document, we should indeed specify whether we are
Specify those areas which are responsibility of Member States and those which are the responsibility of offices. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Russian Federation, would there be any comment from the side of our facilitators?
Thank you, Chair, before we make any comments on the textual nature of
Of rev 1 I would just want to know from the Chair whether this is a document that is been placed on table 4 negotiations or is it an embellishment of the text, thank you, Chair.
So we are commenting the document that was distributed yesterday, which is the consolidated
Text amended by the facilitator on the basis of the outcome from the Ad Hoc Expert Group on Sunday, mainly as he yesterday explained
So it is a further version of the consolidated text that we are talking about.
The floor is still open for South Africa if you have some further comment.
It does not seem to be the case with South Africa, you may continue.
That is
The rev 1 is a consolidation of the change text, I do not need to get some charity before we do our South Africa engages with a Rev 1 because it is not a consolidated text.
But it is more feeling towards the Chair's text, so just we just need to get some clarity from the Rapporteur.
Yes, thanks to South Africa for that question, but I wish to note that this really is a question you asked yesterday, and I thought I had responded to, but I just would restate if you look at me at
Tad of document, it is consolidated document relating to Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, so the same name that was used for the working document produced by the
IGC. So the changes that were made were, if you also look at it, some of you have been tracked, so we are working on that consolidated text. I also noted that
Yesterday that what we presented contained elements from the Chair's text which garnered support during the discussion of the experts. So
It should not really be a problem to note that on the one hand we have the consolidated document which is building on what we have previously used.
On the other hand, we also have the Chair's text, so what is on how to be clearly we are talking about is not strictly speaking, the Chair's text is a consolidated text which has borrowed
Elements of the Chair's text. So we certainly do not understand this continuing debate or questions or issues being raised regarding the precise nature of the document.
So I hope that provides adequate clarification on the issues. Thank you. Thank you very much, Paul. South Africa. You may continue.
The question we cannot be negotiating or discussing to the text.
I think I think the chair and the Secretariat has to now make a determination on which text we are going we cannot manage the board takes into one either we win on the consolidated text or we are going on it.
On the chastic as the South African delegation is asking you as a chair to now make a determination as to which text O " we are proceeding on thank you Chair.
Thank you very much, your point is taken, should we still continue with South Africa?
Yes South Africa has the floor and will not you Chair and good morning, colleagues.
And would it be a fair assessment or observation of what is happening to say after we have discussed this consolidated text who will.
Will be confronted with the Chair's text that she is currently working on, thereby subjecting ourselves to two documents that will have to be working on, and
Is that a fair assessment because that is how we take it and start after the thank you?
Okay. As the facilitators have been asked to make some policy decisions, we say simply
It is not within my remit, so all I would like to note is that we worked on the consolidated document and that is what I have presented, I also know the Chair's text has been produced and
So far, the my understanding, let me just state my understanding is that is the Chair who would continue to work on that, so the direct answer to the
Question is that yes, we have two different texts without any doubt as to what the status is of those two, I am not one who is going to make that determination as the facilitator when I am called upon.
To facilitate, produce text, I am open to working on any text, whether it is a consolidated document, the Chair's text, working study or whatever, so I just want to make that very
It is not up to me to be making rulings on those specific issues, thank you very much for that reply, and clarifying also your role in this
Thank you very much, Mr. Vice-chair, and good morning, in fact this is our understanding we are working on rev 1 of the consolidated
Document which includes some new textual proposals which are some are based on the Chair's text, and so moral slightly also modified by the facilitator based on what the discussions went so
Are in the expert group as well as in the plenary. To us, this seems clear what we would like. We also have a question of clarification. So are we supposed now to just comment on the additional
Text that the facilitators into the facilitator introduced in rev 1 or are we supposed to comment on the entire Rev 1. And if it is the case that we are first commenting just
On the amendments made by the facilitator, then the following up question is from whether there is a second reading of a second possibility to make comments in general
To rev 1. Thank you very much, Switzerland. The reply to your question is that the entire document is submitted to you for any part of it.
Any element the pre-existing elements plus the new elements suggested by the fair facility data, that is in order to have a meaningful process of
For the preparation of a second revised version at this meeting of this Committee. And Nigeria has the floor.
Thank you, Vice-Chair, my delegation would like to appreciate the work done by this SCT.
To the consolidated text, but before I make my comment, I have a procedural question.
Yesterday if my memory serves me right, the Chair said that when we reconvened this morning that she would take responses from.
The coordinators of different negotiating blocks, before opening up the document or before taking a decision on how to proceed, what we started off this morning with the
The only group that we have heard is the African delegation as a negotiating block, so I want to see some degree of harmonization of procedure.
If you want to rule on that, I would wait before I proceed as a Member State, thank you.
Thank you very much, so there was a comment on the procedure that may be interpreted that
The discussion on the revised version, number one of the country related text is not a structured discussion under the
The explanation to this is that the floor is open, you may comment any part of the document to make it the life easier for you, so the interventions will not be in a logical order compared to it.
Each other's all all the comments and suggestions will be harvested and then in the preparatory process of the revised version number two they will be
So this is just to make your life easier, please put forward any comment you have on the document without waiting that part of the procedure
Comes my experience is that this is much quicker than a structured discussion and, of course, this is with your permission, if a
If you agree on working in this way, my guess is that it will be an effective discussion and produce useful outcome to be used in the
Preparatory process of the revised version number two, the Lao Republic of Dominica.
Thank you, Vice Chairman, I am speaking on behalf of GRULAC, I would like to thank the facilitator for his work, preparing we have one of
The consolidated document, I would like to refer to a couple of the paragraphs in the preamble. The
The members of GRULAC will undoubtedly take the floor at a later time as the idea of reducing the number of or eliminating square brackets,
I would like to remove the square brackets in paragraph 3 of the preamble, the words designed to ensure, remove desiring to ensure and just keep
Ensuring that was requested by GRULAC in previous meetings, paragraph 5 of the preamble which
Uses a much broader term, Intellectual Property instead of patents, some members of GRULAC might have some concerns as to this
Broader term, however, we can be flexible if this term is exclusively used in the preamble and in the substantive part of the
A reference is made exclusively to the patent system. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just some clarification. Are you the
Delegate from the Dominican Republic saying that we should make exclusive reference to patents even in a preamble or refer to the two terms
Intellectual Property/patents or what because the Convention that has developed is that for the most part the substantive parts of the instrument would make references to the patent system,
In the preamble, we make the sole reference to the Intellectual Property system, our understanding was that that would serve as a bridge sort of
Compromise to get us out of the previous dilemma that we faced and expressed while we also have now proposed a review clause. So
Could you clarify again your submission take into account the explanation that I am given now with respect to the changes that were made in the preamble in light of also the introduction of a new
Article 1. Thank you, facilitator.
The group does not have a homogeneous position some members of the group are concerned with the use of Intellectual Property geometry but if it is limited to the preamble.
As you have said those members have said that they would be flexible on that issue as to the substantive articles.
Of the instrument, the use of patent system exclusively would be more appropriate. Thank you very much, Dominican Republic.
Your point is taken, and as our facilitator already also explained, the formula in our preamble now should be a
Considered and looked in conjunction with the Article on review. Nigeria has the floor.
Thank you, Chair, I ask you a question earlier, I believe you forgot to address my question, but I would like to
And if you want me to repeat our question I was going to repeat it and the question was precisely that yesterday the Chair said that when we start this morning that she was going to open up the
And if we turn an invitation to the groups or negotiating blocks to make their general statements regarding rev 1. But that has not happened and what we have seen is
So I was wondering whether as the presiding Chair now, you are endorsing that procedural change so that without regard to regional block or group responses,
The only regional group that has made an official response to Rev 1 is the Africa Group, so I wanted to answer that question before my delegation determines what next to the
Thank you very much, it was a pertinent remark, I omitted that part of the procedure, which should, of course, have happened already from the very beginning of this session, the group
The messages from the groups should have been collected first before we start with the mixture of group representatives and the
So we might put emphasis on that and declare that the floor is open now mainly for the group coordinators to put forward the messages of
From the group coordination meetings. I did not evidently Distinguished Colleague from
Nigeria, I did not listen to attentively enough before the European Union.
Thank you very much, Vice-Chair, we do have some substantive comments regarding rev 1. But of course, I would like to start
By thanking the facilitator for preparing this document. And, of course, we share the understanding as expressed by you and some previous speakers that this document in
Ames at capturing the results of the expert group discussions and somehow transferring some elements into the consolidated document so we still understand this is the consolidated document we are working on.
The first point I would like to touch upon is the preamble and as addressed by GRULAC as regards the references to the IP system of the patent system as
We have stated previously and consequently we very much welcomed the approach in the Chair's text which narrowed down to the patent system, we were very much in favor of that focus in
And what we see in the rev 1 is in the preamble there are some amendments and also there is this new article with the review and why fully understanding the explanation kindly offered by the facilitator.
A point we would like to make is that it appears that this review element and the involvement of the whole IP system has become somewhat strengthened in
In rev 1 document as compared to the Chair's text in document 43/5 so as originally issued in 2019, so we here see here out
The amendments that make it a stronger general understanding that the whole process is so open to IP and we
See this focus on patent system, some were deluded by these references. So we cannot welcome these changes throughout the preamble. And also we see that in the review clause itself, there is now
Added focus on elaborating on other IP rights, which is not present in a Chair's text, where we close, articulating what other kind of IPRs may be addressed later on, so we
Do we do recognize that the operative Articles still remain focused on the patent system, but there is some sort of discrepancy to us in this and which we cannot welcome and let me just recall that what
Was included in the Chair's text was considered by us as a very carefully balanced compromise and we really tried to call along with that, but it appears that this is now a little bit more.
More intense and with that, I think the point is clear that we cannot welcome this change when it comes to the
And elements in the definition, Article 1, we have now seen a new definition materially or directly based on in page 5 where actually
As addressed by the Delegation of Canada, indeed, we can see several versions here, several alternatives, this was indeed not entirely clear whether this is
It would appear to us a new alternative, but indeed there is no old whatever, so we understand that this is an additional, an additional
Possible way of defining the court to the concept, so we have invention directly based on further up into alternative versions, and now we have this new
Definition. So we certainly appreciate that the rev document tries to elaborate further on this trigger concept because it is one of the
Key concepts to us and you have heard several comments from us on this. And when we look at the new wording, the first striking element is that
It says materially or directly based on, so this duality, materially set directly based on has been converted into a double deaf
And it is not the most fortunate way of addressing the problem that some prefer directly based on some prefer material based on and is discussed in the expert group.
If we really based on can, it is subject to various connotations, some understanding this way, others in another way, and so perhaps this is not, this is not the way to
To resolve this problem. So we would prefer, I mean our original preference is, of course, directly based on it. It remains a preference. I will explain a little bit more in that. But we were
On the start open to exploring materially based on, we still believe that the most important thing is what is contained in the definition, but actually we believe that this materially or direct reason and it comes back in a text
Or wherever it is addressed, we would have the same comment, it is not exactly fortunate that we have a term which is like a dual term in that way.
So when it comes to the content, we stated several times that here a very important thing for us is the link to the physical access issue, it comes as no surprise that we we cannot support this
Cause requirement which extends to digital sequence information. This whole trigger concept is very closely linked to that discussion and our firm position on that. So in this respect,
Of course, we have alternatives which do make specific reference to the resource to which the inventor must have had physical access which was also an element contained in our own proposal.
One comment that we made about the Chair's text in this regard was exactly on this, so we addressed this in the context of the review clause, because
We try to seek some comfort that the SI is not covered here, so that would not be an acceptable interpretation for us of this definition. So but this
This is a comment that has already been made and also I think at the last plenary session, IGC 42 we made that comment, so now we also return to social genetic resources
And source of traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources, we can welcome that these definitions have been to have moved up as explained by the facilitator, we fully agree that these are closely linked to the
The disclosure article, and it is logical to include them in this way. And I think we are
Basically in line with these definitions, perhaps we could make some minor suggestions about the second one, and when it says,
In the last two lines, including Indigenous and Local Communities, scientifically literature publicly accessible databases and patent applications and patent publications, we have been considering to propose something like a
Scientific and patent literature to make it more encompassing and shorter reference covering the rest of the list. This is just for consideration of the facilitator, perhaps this
And then turning to Article 4, the disclosure requirement Article, here we were generally
I am able to welcome these changes as regards for 1 and, yes, indeed, it
Was addressed during EU coordination that there may be some editorial problem, minor problem with B, but this has been addressed by the facilitator, whether it seems that the inclusion of
This clause would actually cover that point as to the contents we have been wondering if this change in line 2 of
For 1B, the source to another source is a better solution, but perhaps this is not a major substantive
Matter and when it comes to 4,3,4, 4 and 4, 5 in general we are supportive. Now, coming to sanctions, which, as you know, is a very key article to us.
Again, we welcome the endeavor to fine tune the wording of this article and offer some more
Perhaps some more elaborate wording and we also have had the intention of fine tuning on this wording when it comes to improving this
Article and here what we would like to state in general is that we see this Article needs to clearly safeguard a ceiling, so this needs to be
A provision that actually safeguard against revocation, and this needs to be the wording needs to be tied around that, so this is what
We have been commenting before that we feel we can very much support that intention, however, with the concrete wording, we had the impression that it is not the best to achieve that call, and now looking at this text, it appears to be
A closer to what we would eventually like to see here and actually we have been thinking of submitting a textual proposal on this, maybe this is not the right moment for us
Because before this session we have not really had the opportunity to substantively coordinate on new elements emerging on sanctions, for example in the nonpaper,
In general terms we would like to say that what we need to see in this provision for us to be able to support it is a clear ceiling, we are not quite certain that it is already there, but what
We may wish to comment on this further and may even be in a later stage able to submit some concrete wording. And finally, coming to the review clause, I think I made already made some comments on this one. That is
I would like to thank the Distinguished Delegate from the
European Union for her remarks, but just to comment briefly on some of the issues she has identified the first
I think I would like to address would be the matter about sanctions, the ceiling, we would welcome textual proposals that would clarify.
What she is referred to as the ceiling, as I previously explained, the current draft that we have was intended to set such a ceiling
But, of course, take into account as well that some jurisdictions have it as part of the law and indeed my understanding is the whole common law system is premised exactly on the fact
That the presence of fraud would be adequate sufficient to lead to any recession of commitments that are made, so unless we want to change the common law and very as well as
Established legal doctrines, we were not very comfortable simply omitting to refer to the fact that fraud is an important consideration
So we certainly would welcome textual proposals that would provide the ceiling by at least not trying to change centuries of
Legal tradition. So that is the first point. The second one perhaps has to deal with the references to the trader, much
You are directly based. I know there has been some questions as to whether or not that is building on the previous pulse that we had.
In response, I will note that the previous discussions distinguished materially based from directly based the new different
In addition, the new term, I would say that is proposed, talks about materially based or material or directly based, that is the term that is captured in the instrument and so just trying to keep to
Well-known principles of drafting, we are simply using a term as is referred to in the text and attempting to provide some working definition. In that light, we also looked
That the drafting of the same terms in the Chair's text, and as I said, we borrowed liberally in some respects from the Chair's text, so if you look at the Chair's text as exactly how those terms are different
Right. So that is where that term comes from. In terms of the review also, I think you had a question about the listing of
Certain types of other IP. It is because the discussions in the expert group there were representations made by
Certain experts and appointed to subject matter such as designs, plant varieties, copyright, trademarks, and all that.
As what they thought should include, should be included, we talk about other IP, so we are simply elaborating in that respect and trying to reflect the concerns.
So that is where that part comes in, then there was a question about access when it comes to the trade, access to the genetic
Resource, as we note that that has been part of the debate for some time now, but we are also mindful that some Delegations were concerned about the continuing references
To physical access is for that reason that we do not include that in the current consolidated text. But of course, we are aware that the product that has been presented is a work of compromise
Vice and certainly will not please, everybody, there would be people who would continue to have some objections, so that is just what we present it, but again, we will move open to
We are considering certain deletions that were made, but of course we wish to observe that if we have discontinuing, well, I would say practice, that technology where we delete
And we said then we will simply have back to a square one and we will not be making progress, but certainly we will take on board all the concerns that have been expressed and will continue to be expressed, but
Again, we welcome the textual proposals on the European Union.
On the trigger commented by the European representative of the European Union, materially or directly based seems to combine a
Two different criteria: the one or the other conditions fulfilled the trigger, trigger functions, and
The definition seems to indicate that they can be defined by said the same words, that means that they are considered probably in this definition to be a
Rather equivalent, there is not much difference, probably, if you look at the Chair's text, you have the materialist
Stroke directly based, and if you read the expert report by the former Chair, you see that the stroke should be read and
Both the conditions should be fulfilled for the trigger, so
You may come to the same or another reading of this, but this is identity reading of the Chair's text and the present text in the version revised number
1. Probably this does not matter too much because most probably directly based and materially based on
Are so near to each other as in fact Paul has pointed out, we have Egypt, Indonesia, Nigeria and South Africa on the list of speakers, Egypt has the floor.
Thank you, Madam Chair, to begin with, I would like to extend my thanks, my dear colleague, the facilitator Paul, he did an excellent job
And very trustworthy and professionalism and thank you very much for the effort extended and obviously you cannot be perfect, however, you have to aim at perfection and this is what you did actually, because
If you had solved every single thing, then you would have absolutely been some kind of a master, so we do know that what you have done so far has been highly appreciated
Dear Chair, I mean, my country, Egypt has to say that we are in a bind in a very difficult situation and this is a difficult situation
And it is a deadlock, Mr. Chair, I tried yesterday, based on my expertise and my knowledge, which is about 30 years old, to look into the issue and I, by some really, found
I will find Marshall before three documents to be discussed today, and this is literally very difficult for any expert, no matter how experts here
Can be, so this is a very, very difficult situation, I have to admit, and that is the problem is a lack of political will and the proper faithful intent to come up with solutions and
Based on the mandate of our IGC and there is no real intent to bridge the gaps and we have to agree that we are very, very far from that we have diverted from
Our mandate. And if we continue this way, unfortunately, we will be still doing the same thing, even five years down the road. Mr. Chair, the African Group has proposed
Solutions to come out of this deadlock and if you want to be fair we have to look into the proposal made by the African Group. Thank you very much, Egypt. I should
I have expressed my apologies, I slipped away from the procedure reminded by the Nigerian delegate, we should first listen to
The messages from the groups, and we have one delegation who represents the LMC, Indonesia, Indonesia has the floor.
For giving me the floor, Indonesia is taking the floor on behalf of the like-minded countries and we will share our general views with regards to rev 1. Of course, we join others in conveying our appreciation to the facilitator for his diligent work in coming up with Rev.
One, the group takes note of the changes on rev 1 and are of the view that the document as it stands is faithful to what was discussed and has transpired during the Ad Hoc Expert Group meeting.
In our view it also reflects the overwhelming support for language on core elements contained within the Chair's text as many elements from the Chair's text were transposed into the rev 1 of the consolidated document.
In this regard, Mr. Chair, we would like to reiterate that the majority of the LMCs are comfortable with the Chair's text and would be ready to move forward to the next step of the process with the Chair's text, we feel as a group that it is necessary to give
More weight and due attention to the Chair's text within the negotiation process of the Genetic Resources and in this regard we take positive note that the Chair's text remains a formal document based on the mandate of the IGC
Of the biennium 2022, 23, and welcome the Chair's intention to continue to be the patent holder of the said document. I thank you very much, Indonesia.
Are there other group coordinators who would like to take the floor now, we have heard Africa Group, we have the LMC, the
European Union has spoken, CEBS, you have the floor.
Thank you, Mr. Vice-chair, let me start by thanking the facilitator for his work on the consolidated text and for his attempts to accommodate the report and the comments from the
Ad Hoc Expert Group in the consolidated document regarding this new text and these new additions, first I would like to start with the few comments,
Related to the preamble and to the new article X under review on the review clause. In general, the CEBS Group would like to prefer that the document and the
Main articles will be focused on the patent rights and on the patent systems as such but at the same time we understand that some flexibility for national legislation of other Member States to extend the scope
To other rights may be needed. But regarding the language of paragraph 14, paragraph 16, and review clause
In Article 6, in our view, this wording should be of both paragraph 16 of
Preamble and of this article excellent review should be at least softened softened in a way that not to make the review clause a mandatory and in Article 8 not to expert
Firstly, name the other areas of the IP, so keep it in general IP rights and strike out or delete the reference to copyright, trademarks, and so on.
And we would like also to suggest to bracket the Article X and paragraph 16 of the preamble I would like to continue with the
Some comments of the CEBS Group to the definitions in Article 1 as regards the term of Traditional Knowledge associated with the
The CEBS Group would like to remind that this TK associated with the GRs has not until now the exact established definition and we believe that at
First, it needs to be clarified during IGC session, not TK, and then possibly reflected in the text of document on the GRs or just referred to, and right now in Article
One and the definition of TK associated with the GRs, we are missing the link to the Genetic Resources because we are referring only to the traditional knowledge and not through traditional knowledge as
Associated with GR, which is the original term we want to define. On the new term of the materially or directly based on, we consider the scope of this term as a
Too broad and inconsistent with the definition of the term invention directly based on also as pointed out by the EU.
What the CEBS Group is missing in this definition of materially or directly based on is the physical access to the resource because we are not in favor to cover the digital sequence information in the text of
The document, and therefore we would also prefer to bracket this new definition of materially or directly based on. Regarding the
A new definition of source of genetic resource, we have a small or minor textual suggestion, I would like to read it if
You allow me. series of genetic resources refers to any source from which the applicant has obtained the GRs, and then we after
So this we would like to propose to add other than the country of origin and continue such as the research central gene bank and so on.
As regards the definition of the source of traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources.
We can go on what has been proposed by the EU or just slightly modify the end of this definition by saying scientific and
Literature or end patent documents and publicly accessible databases, full stop. That is our suggestion. The
Regarding the disclosure requirement, we very much welcome the additions and the changes made to the Article 4. But at the same time, we would like to propose to bracket that
Term materially or directly based on in Article 4.1. And as regards to Article 4.5, we would prefer to relate it more to
The national law, especially this reference to the patent procedures, so but we would like to keep this on the facilitator,
To decide how to, in the best way, put the reference to the patent procedures for the national law. And furthermore, as regards the
Article 8 on sanction and remedies, on behalf of the CEBS Group, I would like to state that this is the important article for us, in general the CEBS Group has the preference for no revoke
Nation clause, but we believe that further discussion on these new additions and on this article as such are needed. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much, still there are groups whose coordinators have not been offered the floor.
Group B, Germany, you have the floor.
Vice-Chair, I would like to thank you for your efforts in bringing forward the document Rev 1 and indicate that members of Group B will
I will make their comments in national capacity on these targets and I think continue to do. Thank you very much for that message.
For the moment, no other group coordinators are asking the floor, we have deserved a coffee break, coffee is available outside of the meeting room.
So I declare a break now about 15 minutes.
...
...
Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen, we will continue our discussion based on and commenting based on rev 1. The
The Delegation of Nigeria is the first to have the floor now.
Thank you so much for recognizing that procedural issue that we raised earlier on. Chair, I would begin my delegation's statements
By re-stating our appreciation for the work of the facilitator in Rev 1, I am building further into the consolidated text.
Our delegation identifies with a statement made by Algeria for the African Group and by Indonesia for LMCs.
Here we want to put it on record that there has been a convergence of interest by a large number or majority of delegates around the Chair's text.
For the most part during our deliberations in this session and before we note strongly that rev 1 has for the extra
Ended the scope of the consolidated text, leaving it with all the arts, and as you have directed here already, opening it up,
For other alterations and suggestions without limiting it to the new injections or new drafts proposed by the facilitator.
Now, building on the metaphor Rev 2, sorry, rev 1 is now a more complicated consolidated
Text is looking like a forest of dead bodies and a value of drivers leaving us no possibility for any definite destination.
If anything, Rev 1 confirms our strongest reservation on the consolidated text as a document that deviates
Strongly from our mandates, Chair, if the new Chair of the IGC was going to exercise our discretion,
As she has already done to mandate the facilitator to walk with a consolidated text that is to say to hold the pen.
Like she did yesterday we see no reason why the Chair could not also exercise the same discretion to hold the pen.
We want to delegate them to the facilitator on the Chair's text in furtherance of her promise.
To continue to work with that text, this is important to build confidence and to take in the signal and the message being sent
By majority of the delegates, but in any way, both approaches would also affirm the work that was done by the ad hoc technical expert
Group and coincidentally, the facilitator is also the Chair of the ad hoc technical expert group. So in some, we are getting
To do the sending over and over and over and over and over again and I do not know whether we are expecting a different result so this pathway is troubling and that point has been made by South Africa.
By Algeria for the African Group by LMCs and we are really seeking a direction for progress. Thank you very much.
For your serious points, next speaker will be South Africa again.
Remote. Thank you, Chair, I think the
Comments made by Nigeria preempted what I actually wanted to say, but in saying that, I just want the Secretariat and the Chair to note that the
The comments made by this the African Group is not about textual changes we are now beyond textual changes and we find the submissions made by the EU and the CEBS very disturbing.
Because now they are waving the gaps instead of narrowing the gaps Chair I just want to indicate is that
South Africa will be making a following proposal that we take the Chair's text to the General Assembly with the recommendation to have a dip come in South Africa, thank you for that.
Thank you very much for your intervention and for the request which is in properly
Recorded and understood by everybody, the next speaker will be the Delegate of Mexico.
Thank you very much, Mr. Vice-chairman.
Mr. Vice Chairman, Mr. Vice-Chairman,
Given that in GRULAC we do not have a unified group position in this meeting I would like to.
I take this opportunity to use my microphone to share Mexico's position.
Firstly, we must congratulate the facilitator for his work and for thank him for the Rev 1 of the consolidated document for us, it is
Very clear that what we are discussing and we are talking about the we will work on
The consolidated document rev 1 we have talked about the inclusion of Intellectual Property in the preamble and we could accept this change as long as in the substance
Of sections, the patents be retained, we are referring to something that the
GRULAC coordinator mentioned and we would be happy to remove the brackets from round design to ensure and to
We will take the brackets away from ensuring, and paragraph 16, we feel that the review of the document for
Other Intellectual Property instruments, we are happy with that and we are also happy to see Paragraph X, and concerning the material or directly based,
Discussion, although we like we think that materially might be broader.
In our point of view what in English materially based means,
It really goes to the essence, it is essentially based and I think there is a confusion around directly based and we can discuss this at
The appropriate time, perhaps in the Diplomatic Conference, if there is any need to clarify what it signifies and the language specifically of materially, the
What the translation in Spanish would be, it is fairly clear, however, that well, we have to
To clarify whether or not this includes digitally sequenced information. Further, the definitions proposed
Concerning the source of Genetic Resources are inadequate and possibly as other Delegations have
I noted that paragraph Section 4, Article 4, we could accept and with regards to 8.3, last
The this does seem to leave a possibility of revoking patents before the disclosure has been made for
Finally, disclosure must be made when the patent is requested or it must be clarified before the patent is granted.
So this needs to be clarified by the facilitator, Mr. Vice-chair, in all honest
We do have concerns, but we are not generally concerned that we are on the wrong path, we are in the right path with this rev 1 document. We are in the right
We are on the right path to a possible solution and a possible draft that would be the basis for
For a conference, we feel that the assembly will also have
A role and we need to have a text that can put us that we can take along that path with us. Thank you very much, Distinguished Delegate of Mexico.
I should still take the points made by Nigeria and South Africa a moment ago and remind you that yes,
Today our Chair made clear that at some instance I am sure she will look at the Chair's text and prepare a revised
Version of it. And she has, of course, already reached material for that exercise in the form of the nonpaper together with its annex. And secondly,
She yesterday expressed that she invites you or declares all comments to that Chair's text and also welcomes additional comments compared with
To what we have in the non-paper, so that is clear and that exercise will happen at some instance in the future. The next
Thank you very much, Mr. Vice-chair, at the outset, Indonesia, and itself with the statement delivered on behalf of the LMCs in relation to document Rev.
While maintaining our general preference for the Chair's text, we take note of the Chair and you Vice-Chair I have mentioned yesterday and the day before and today that we are working on both documents and take notes.
And we welcome the intention of the Chair to continue to be the pen holder of the Chair's text and Indonesia will make comments with regard to the Chair's text directly to the Chair. Now with regard
To the rev 1 document that we have in front of us Indonesia would like to put on record some of its views and positions with regard to the document rev 1. Firstly we would like to thank, of course, the facilitator for his diligent work who have managed to feed
Fully reflect the discussion that were happened in the ad hoc expert group that were held in the last Sunday. In general as Indonesia has been maintained since a couple of IGC goes
We are we welcome the general move with regard to a middle ground coalition with regard to the text on minimum legal, minimum international legal standards, so we
We are actually happy that some elements that were from the church that were discussed in the ad hoc expert group are now reflected in the consolidated document, rev 1 that actually are within in line with the spirit of having a minimum international legal standard.
Specifically on the preamble, we take note and we welcome the changes that now the preamble focusing on the wider Intellectual Property to make sure that there is a decision
An effort to bridge gap between the debate on whether the instruments should focus on IP or patent, and we welcome that the working provisions later on on the sorry the text are actually focusing on patent
And we welcome the additional parameter incorporation of mandatory review clauses in line with what Indonesia prefers that was reflected in the preference that is reflected in the Chair's text, even though we also take note that is
Some Delegations have also mentioned that there is a slight change or a little bit different spirit with regard to the review clause now in the rev 1. On Article 1, definitions, Indonesia,
We welcome the additional definitions on materially or directly based on, but we also have some concerns, we take note of the explanation earlier made by the facilitator and the vice chair with regard to the R, but maybe for the time being Indonesia would prefer it to stay with slash
Because what were like what we have mentioned in that of expert group, this is where there is this uncomfortability with the directly because there is another definition within the consolidated text on the invention of
Directly based on, which is actually include a qualifier of physical access, Indonesia thinks that materially or materially/directly based on which is a language that was reflected in the Chair's text
In the nonpaper are a good way to reach a middle ground language to be able to give a level of comfort for most of the members of this Committee. With regard to
To the subject matter, we welcome the deletion of the brackets on genetic resources on associated traditional knowledge and because this has been discussed within the Arab expert group
That it should go without saying that what we are discussing here is GRs and associated traditional knowledge while noting, of course, that not all traditional knowledge are associated with genetic resources and therefore are not within the scope of
This draft instrument. With regard to the Article 4 disclosure requirement, Indonesia welcomes the changes reflected in Article 4.1, which is actually related to what we have commented earlier with regard to the focus on IP and preamble but in the working proficiency
And we are focusing on the patent system, we align ourselves with earlier comments made with regard to 4.1B that needs an action or a firm with regard to the disclosure.
We welcome that the primary sources of the disclosure are actually country of origin for GRs and Indigenous People in local communities for associated traditional knowledge while there are in cases where primary sources cannot be identified.
Item and other sources might be disclosed. With regard to Article 4.2, Indonesia, actually, our ideal preference, and what we thought was a middle ground language, was actually the original language on alternative 2, for
2, the addition that is currently reflected right now, but in the spirit of flexibility, Indonesia welcomes the addition that is reflected right now in the Alt 2, 4.2, we hope that this might give comfort again to that, so that the
Coalition that can actually go towards a middle ground position where we are aiming to on having a minimum international legal standard can be achieved. With regard to the Article 8 on sanction and remedies, the
Again, in an ideal where Indonesia would prefer that this article will also be having the same spirit of minimum international legal standards but we respect and understand the concerns that have been made by some delegates that
There is pertinent needs to make this Article some sort of a ceiling kind of provision and Indonesia certainly welcomes that with the conditions or with of
For us to be able to have these sanctions and remedies provision as a ceiling provision, we would like to see whether we can safeguard that some policy space would still be available for Member States, especially in the case of
Front that it will be in line with our national laws. With regard to Article X review, Indonesia welcomes this addition as well as as explained by the facilitator. We also take note that maybe
There is no urgent need to actually lead out all the different IP that is going to be reviewed in this provision with that, I thank you very much.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. We would also like to thank the facilitator for his work on the rev document. It is our pleasure to
Five comments on the rev 1, rev 1 of the consolidated document, regarding the preamble paragraph 1, we recommend, we suggest, excuse me, brackets
Getting the term obligations and replacing that with rights, and this is because the UNDRIP is non-binding, so it cannot establish obligations
This suggestion is intended to correct this paragraph in Paragraph 3. Some Delegations have commented on the formulation of ensuring versus decide
Desiring to ensure and this delegation would prefer to retain the desiring to ensure formulation because it does not prejudge the outcome with respect to the
Paragraph 4, we recommend bracketing recognizing and replacing that with promoting respect for bracketing principles and replacing that with goals.
These suggestions are to avoid the use of treaty language in order to avoid prejudging the outcome of this negotiation, also we would prefer to not characterize the
PIC and MAT as principles as doing so might suggest that there are principles of international law with respect to Paragraph 5 of the preamble with
Just bracketing protection of and replacing that with respect for, we think that this term would be a better fit for this preambular paragraph in paragraph 8,
We recommend bracketing agreement and replacing it with suggestions and bracketing protection of and replacing that with respect for, we propose
For the reference to instruments rather than agreements, as this will not prejudge the outcome of the negotiation, we believe that respect is a more general term to describe the function of this instrument with respect to
Paragraph 10, we suggest bracketing pre-and post grant, these phrases might be redundant with preventing the erroneous grants of patents, also in this phrase " might conflict with
National laws in those countries that do not have pregrant opposition systems. With respect to paragraph 13, we recommended, recommend bracketing to the mutual advantage of
Through the end of the sentence, a clear version of this language seems to have been identified are captured already in paragraphs 6 and 7. In paragraph 14, we suggest
Bracketing life forms, we do not support the concept that patents or other Intellectual Property rights should not be granted on life forms, the ability of a government to decide whether to
Will allow patents on plants and animals, other than microorganisms is a TRIPS flexibility that is important to be preserved, we believe that it is important to maintain the
The incentive to conduct research and development in this field in order to simplify this concept, we suggest a new paragraph as follows: We recognize that living things
Coma, as they occur in nature, are not novel, and thus patents should not be granted on such living things.
In paragraph after paragraph 16, after paragraph 15 of the preamble, we would like to propose a new paragraph as follows.
The promoting the preservation of a rich and accessible public domain in order to foster creativity and innovation, this paragraph is consistent with the Development Agenda Recommendation 6,
D, to consider the preservation of the public domain within WIPO's normative processes and deepen the analysis of the implications and benefits of a rich and accessible
In Article 1, definitions in the definition of Traditional Knowledge associated with Genetic Resources, we suggest inserting associated with genetic capital
Or Traditional Knowledge, and inserting after Genetic Resources refers to and then inserting means immediately after that,
After other beneficiaries we suggest inserting other rightful holders of Traditional Knowledge associated with Genetic Resources, we suggested their placement of refers
To what means, as this is a more precise formulation for definition of terms, the term substantive knowledge is distinct from possible knowledge and other types of knowledge
According to Marian Webster's dictionary, a simple definition of substance is important, real or meaningful or supported by facts or logic at its
Also reflect that many groups of people have traditions and knowledge that corresponds to traditional knowledge, a number of examples are contained in US submission 34/13 which was tabled
In IGC 34, for this reason, we suggest the inclusion of other rightful holders in paragraph subparagraph A We recommend bracketing risk
Received and after other beneficiaries inserting other rightful holders of Traditional Knowledge associated with Genetic Resources in inserting that last phrase again after beneficiaries at
The end of paragraph B, a preferred alternative definition would read: Traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources means substantive knowledge of the properties and uses
Of Genetic Resources generated in a traditional context, collectively preserved and transmitted from generation to generation and held by rightful holders including indigenous
Peoples, the new definition contains elements of language as previously proposed by the US delegation, including generated in a traditional context and collectively preserved and transmitted from generation to general
In the definition of country of origin, all, the US delegation supports the old text because the phrase and still possesses genetic resources and insitu
Conditions as clarity to the definition, we also support the inclusion of the word "first" because it would be difficult to impose for a patent applicant or difficult for a patent applicant to
To disclose all of the countries that possess or have possessed a particular sample of a genetic resource institutes, species may migrate or be found in transboundary ranges, therefore
Or the patent applicant will be allowed to disclose the source such as the gene bank in Spain, an alternative you as preferred text would be country of origin means the country where a genetic risk
Source was collected from NC2 conditions under the definition of country providing/providing country, the language preferred by the US delegation is country
Providing/providing country means the country of origin that has the genetic resource and/or traditional knowledge and that provides the genetic resource and/or traditional knowledge. We believe this is a simple
Their formulation. Also, it is important to note that this definition is not subject to the CBD and its Nagoya Protocol, subjecting this definition to the CBD and its Nagoya Protocol might
Report to make the CBD Nagoya Protocol retroactive under the term invention directly based on, we suggest inserting the
Or Traditional Knowledge as applicable after genetic resource in both the original and the old paragraphs, this is because there is at least one instance in the draft of this
Term being used only in connection with Traditional Knowledge rather than Genetic Resources so defining it only in connection with Genetic Resources may not make sense. Our preferred language is as
Follows: Invention directly based on means the invention makes immediate use of the genetic resource or traditional knowledge as applicable and the inventive concept depends
On the specific properties of the resource or knowledge as applicable of which the inventor had access and in the case of Genetic Resources, physical acts
And with respect to the section, other terms, at IGC 35, the facilitators split the terms into two groups.
In terms used in the operative Articles and other terms, we suggest that each term that appears in the text should be defined in order to provide clarity and avoid misinterpretation of the document.
We also suggest that these two categories are terms should be consolidated, with respect to XC2 conservation, we note that this term is not used in the
Text, with respect to the definition of misappropriation, in the old paragraph, we suggest the insertion of unauthorized access and/or unauthorized
Use after misappropriation. And with respect to Article 2, we propose a new Alt as follows: The
The objectives of this instrument are 2A, prevent patents from being granted erroneously for inventions that are not novel or inventive with regard to
Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge associated with Genetic Resources which could protect Indigenous Peoples and local communities from the limitations of
The traditional use of Genetic Resources and their Traditional Knowledge associated with Genetic Resources that might result from the erroneous patenting thereof.
B, ensure that patent offices have the appropriate available information on Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge associated with Genetic Resources and
It is needed to make informed decisions in granting patents, C, preserve a rich and accessible public domain that will foster creativity and innovation, so the reasons for these issues
Questions are first that we do not agree that a disclosure requirement would lead to greater transparency, as we have previously explained, patent applications already disclose the source of Genetic Resources
And where the source is material to the invention we believe that an additional legal requirement to disclose such information might result in a clutter of irrelevant information that would not promote transparency and
This alternative also provides cleaner text and includes the objective of fostering creativity and innovation to a rich and accessible public remain, again consistent with the
Agenda recommendation 16. So turning now to 4.2, we suggest bracketing compliance with
ABS requirements including PIC and replacing that with entitlement to use the genetic resource, for example, a license from the patent owner or permit from the relevant authority
The suggestions are made because we believe that requiring applicants to provide relevant information regarding ABS compliance might be burdened
M. and my disan set up by innovation. With respect to Alt 1, 4.2, we suggest bracketing of and replacing that with consistent
And this is before the term Paragraph 1. This suggestion is made in order to avoid again the use of treaty language, the IGC mandate specifies that our work should not
To judge the nature of the outcome of this instrument. With respect to Alt 2, 4.2, this is a new paragraph that is not currently bracketed. It should be in brackets since a more
Detailed formulation has now been suggested in the original paragraph 4.2. In 4.3, we suggest the insertion, I am sorry, that the bracketing
Of requirement and their placement of that term with of the geographic location where the genetic material was obtained. Also we suggest at the end of
That paragraph inserting as well as an opportunity for applicants or Patentees to correct any disclosures that are erroneous or incorrect, our preferred language is as follows.
The disclosure requirement of the geographic location where the genetic material was obtained does not place an obligation on patent offices to verify the contents of the disco
Closure, but patent offices should provide guidance to patent applicants and how to meet disclosure requirements as well as an opportunity for applicants
For applicants or patentees to correct any disclosures that are erroneous or incorrect. This proposal was previously made by the US delegation. It is intended to add clarity
And give patent applicants the opportunity to correct erroneous or incorrect disclosures. Paragraph 4.4 we suggest the insertion of a new four
While for Alt as follows, patent offices should publish the entire disclosure of the patent on the Internet and the date of the patent grant and should also make
The contents of the patent application publicly accessible over the Internet. We believe this suggested language would add certainty to the publication process. We suggest adding the following new
Paragraph 4.5 where access to genetic resources or associated traditional knowledge is not necessary to make or use the invention, information regarding the source of
Origin of the genetic resource or associated traditional knowledge can be provided at any time after the filing date of the application and without payment of a
The suggested language is to clarify that the filing date of a patent application should not be determined by the date that the applicant complies with formalities.
Are unrelated to the disclosure of their invention. Article 5, exceptions and limitations, we suggest bracketing, complying with, replacing that with implementing the
Bracketing the bracketing obligations set forth replacing that with provisions, these suggestions are to eliminate three language and again to avoid prejudging the outcome of our negotiation.
Article 6, and we suggest bracketing that after prior to, and the words " ratification,
Of or accession to before this instrument and then inserting after this instrument becoming operative and then at the end of the paragraph, bracketing ratification or accession and its
13 instrument becoming operative, these suggestions, again, are to avoid treaty language, in Article 7, we suggest bracketing Contracting Parties, replacing that with Member States,
And then after disclosure requirement, bracketing specified and replacing that with described, and then in the last line, bracketing parties and replacing that with Member States, so
Scribing two, and these were made for the same reason of avoiding treaty language. In after Alt Article 8.5,
We recommend we suggest a new paragraph 8.6 as follows: Failure to examine a patent application in a timely manner shall resolve in an adjustment of the term of the
Patent, to compensate the patentee for administrative delays. This suggestion is in response to our concerns about patent delays in patent examination that may be caused
By patent disclosure requirements which are explained in greater depth in document 43/8. Finally, Mr.
Chairman, in alternatives to disclosure requirements, paragraph 4.6, we suggest bracketing the term due after timely manner and replacing that with in relation
And then after the word, two, inserting delays resulting from implementation of A, then bracketing after compensate the patent before bracketing administrative
Later in replacing that with those and bracketing at the end of the sentence adjustment, replacing that with delays, and this suggestion, these suggestions are made in order to clarify which delays
Are addressed in what the adjustment is based on. Thank you very much. United States. The next speaker will be the Delegate of
Thank you, Vice-Chair, the Delegation of Uganda would like to appreciate the
The facilitators work on Rev 1 document and we also appreciate the Vice-Chair's clarification on the status of the Chair's text
The Delegation of Uganda aligns itself with the statements made by the coordinators
Of the African Group and the RMCs and the submission subsequently made by the Delegations of Nigeria and South Africa among others.
We believe that rev 1 of the consolidated document as far as this guarantee seems to be widening the gaps.
It is not providing for a civil solution in the near future, and therefore, we strongly believe that the Chair's text has a
And it could lead us into a Diplomatic Conference as indicated by South Africa.
Thank you very much, Mr.
Vice Chair, we join others to thank the facilitators for his diligent work, I would like to limit our remarks to the newly introduced text in Rev 1, but first, let me allow a general
From our perspective, we should try to find the right balance in terms of details that we would like to include into such an instrument, we are of the view that we can easily overload the instrument
By adding a lot of detailed proposals. In our view, the Chair's text actually goes in that sense in the right direction to find this right balance. Now to our detailed remarks on the specific
Specific text. First, as regards to the preamble, we are in principle fine with the amendments, noting that the entire preamble is still in brackets. Nevertheless, let me make the following observations on the preamble. The
We should not blindly approach this exercise and include either the term patents or IP rights in the preamble because this really depends on the specific issues that we would like to address in the preamble.
It might be the appropriate terms on terms IP in the preamble. Second, as regards the definition materially or directly based on, in our view, this definition could indeed work for
Or inventions related to genetic resources. We are of the view that further discussions would, however, be needed whether this is a meaningful definition or trigger for inventions related to TK associated with genetic
Resources. Fourth, on the new definition for source of genetic resources, we welcome the new text, yet the text should be amended by also including a reference to the
Country of origin as well as to the two Indigenous Peoples and local communities. In our view, both could also be sources of genetic resources. Therefore, in Article
For disclosure, I would just like to highlight that we specifically support the reference to another source in paragraph 41B, as regards sanctions and remedies,
We appreciate the fact that the amended text brings in more clarity as regards free and post grant sanctions as well as failures that occurred unintentional or those that were made wilfully or with fraudulent in
And yet we would like to reiterate our view that there is a need to establish a clear maximum standard when it comes to post grant sanctions, therefore specifically in Article 8.3 we
Proposed to delete the part, the first part which says, except as provided in Article 8.4. And then we also propose to delete the term solely. The
On the other hand, we would like to include an additional text in this paragraph which basically also says or invalidate established
Patent rights, so it is not just a revocation or the rending unenforceable patent but it is also the invalidation of established patent rights where we would like to see a maximum standard.
Mr. Vice Surrey may provide further views on how to achieve a clear maximum standard while taking into account appropriate sanctions in situations where the applicant provided will fully wrongful in
Information. Finally, Mr. Vice-Chair, we believe that further progress could be made if the facilitator for the Rev 2 would either change the order or mark the various alternatives in this
Text on the different articles in order to better understand which alternatives in the various articles would fit together so this would help to better understand this text also from a conceptual level.
Thank you very much, Switzerland, next speaker will be the Delegation of China remotely.
Thank you, Chair, the Chinese Delegation
I thank the Chair and the Secretariat and the facilitator for your hard work, we believe that although the consolidated text is the result of
Multiple years negotiation, however, with the negotiation up to date, there is still a lot of disagreement and differences and a multitude of alternative texts, the Articles
In the consolidated test are already very complicated, it is very difficult for us to continue to promote fruitful negotiations, the Chairman's text has combined
The opinions of different sites and has close to differences, and he has also proposed some important articles, it is a very important conference document for the negotiation in order for
For us to continue to promote the negotiation and achieve results, the Chinese Delegation will respect the decision of the chairperson and we will continue to support the chairperson
The facilitator and the Secretariat will continue to participate in negotiations, thank you very much.
The next speaker will be the delegation of France.
The preparation of the document and we are speaking in our national capacity to remind you that the rights of tokinous people and Indigenous People of
Of concern to us. The use of these terms would compromise the adoption of ratification because of our constitutional issues. We would propose an acceptable alternative language as
That is indigenous communities or local community, and the rights of indigenous communities or rights of Indigenous Peoples would not be acceptable, we suggest replace
Think that by the right of Indigenous Peoples or rights of persons belonging to indigenous communities, the reference to the rights
Of indigenous people are used in order to stress the importance of such rights, we suggest replacing it by specific indigenous issues, thank you.
Thank you very much, France, for your intervention, the next speaker will be the Delegation of Australia.
For his work in creating this rev 1 document. As a general comment, as previously said by this delegation, we do see the Chair's text as a way forward. But we welcome the Rev 1 and it is made as a way to take these to
Discussions forward today. I will run to recent very brief comments, particularly on some of the edits that have been made. On the general approach of having the preamble talk about or refer to IP rights in some cases,
Is generally and having the operative clauses focused on patents we can support that perch as a pragmatic way forward that could balance the range of views and while there might be a need to consider the particular drafting in
Some of the new paragraphs to the preamble and as well as Article X we can support the current inclusions as being useful at this stage. On the definitions added regarding source of GR and associated
UK, we can support these being included in the text, and on the suggestion of the new language of materially or directly based on, we do generally prefer directly based on, however, feel that the term used is
Not as important as the actual definition provided, which we think here is heading in the right direction. On disclosure, Article 4, we welcome generally the attempt to make this text in 4.1 a big
Clear, perhaps the corresponding Chair's text article is a more clear approach, but overall, we are of the view that these edits as well as the addition of 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5 of
One to appear in the text. On Article 8, sanctions. Again, these inclusions are useful. We would support a clear maximum standard here regarding revocation as well as ensuring some flexibility around
The other remedies that could occur in this case, and we will consider further what text proposals might help to address that. Thank you very much, Australia.
...
It is almost 1: 00 for a lunch break, we have on the list of speakers for the moment, Niger, South Africa, remotely Japan, Argentina, and the
India remotely the technical foundation, and it seems that one by one, the new speakers are appearing, so there is all reason to convene in the after
So the meeting will continue at 3: 00, we will have a break now, and then other announcements for the lunch break,
Thank you, Vice-Chair, maybe I can start with announcements, so as our ADG mentioned among the Secretariat is our
Recognizing a side event today at 2 pm in NB0107, it is introduced the Traditional Knowledge Division's work, so all the delegates are invited to attend the side event at 2: 00.
Yeah, interpretation of English and Spanish will be provided, no food will be provided, but I saw that there are so many different fools from the Asian countries outside of the conference room so you can have a food
Here and then join us in NB, 0107 for side event, thank you at 2 pm other announcements.
Thank you, Mr. Vice-chair, just to
Briefly, remind Group B members that we will meet at 2: 00.
No requests for the floor, it means that we will break now and convene at 3 o'clock again.
Thank you very much.
[[powered by WIPO S2T]]