[[transcripts generated automatically by WIPO speech-to-text]]
...
Good minding everybody, I hope everyone had a great even in yesterday
Today. We are no today's Thursday, where Almans are under the week, and I recall that you receive rev 1 the interim document yesterday,
Contains ideas concepts and views that were put forward by the facilitator and no it is time.
Not is time to comment and to propose modifications, deletion, corrections and insertions with the intent of
Developing Rev 2. Reflecting on the Rev 1, it is very clear that while there are some clarity around different positions, there is still some we to go to narrow gaps
To make significant progress on substantive issues, with those very brief remarks, I am going to invite Vice-Chair, Jucker lates,
I know if kill this name to Chair the meeting because I am going to have some bilateral meetings, I am going to ask you to excuse me, well the Vice-Chair has conduct of the meeting know. So I crivere indulgence.
While the Vice-Chair next is way. You could just put on the made substitive here.
I am invited the Vice-Chair of Juka to come and Chair know, thank you.
...
...
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, we will now resume the work of the Committee and our task is now to look at after you have been looking at
The document that was distributed yesterday a 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 in order to permit and allow pool our facilitator to continue his work
To which he is mandate in designed 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 st
Structure, the procedure, as 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 hopen for any comments you may have. And I think that yes
Today 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 it
Develop by our facilitator, who show ably yesterday, performed his work and also presented the result of that round, the floor is open.
...
I might entertain you and you are considering whether to take floor or not and when that the main
Element in our mandate is to try to narrow gaps, so it means, please, you please propose deletion 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 simplier for the concluding part of the work that once will happen when the cloud will move
Under some will sign in the room and the joint understanding growth. Canada has the floor, the brave 1.
You, Mr. Vice-Chair, good morning everyone and just in the interest of time we thought we should get this started so I have a few points to raise mainly points of clarification.
First, I would like to thank the facilitator for the hard work put into putting this Rev 1 together, so thank you very much for that, a first question is on the definition of source of genetic resources
We wanted to clarify whether this is being proposed as a new definition or for fits an alt to one of the other one should be old 4 or because it seems to be the same structure and
And general drafting as the other alternatives so that is one one question, we have I do not know we should enumerate all our the points or with
Want to often one by one. I invite you to pose the question when the facilitator is present so he can provide an explanation.
That maybe mainly a technical issue, Algeria for the African Group
Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chair, I am speaking on behalf of 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 faithfully reflects the discussions that took place in the ad hoc expert group meet
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, Africa Group
Still believes that 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
The text would be too risky as it could deviate the Committee from its objective to narrow gaps. 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 the Diplomatic Conference on the contrary this exercise may lead yet again to lengthier 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 a Canada to repeat the question with the presence of our facilitator, there was a question about the nature one elements in in the Rev 1.
...
Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chair, and thank you for let me we begin, once again I would like to thank express our thanks to the facilitator for his hard work and put in together at work.
One. And we have some points of clarification that we wanted to get introduced in the text at this point. So first on the definition of the source of genetic resources
We just wanted to know if that is being proposed as another alternative, another which 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. Thank you for the question.
You would note that in terms of the definitions the address slightly different matters, in terms of source, we thought it useful
To half a definition that applies to genetic resources and then also a second one which applies specificated 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 the primary source
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
The definition section, which is Article 1. It is supposed to give us an opportunity to place in that portion all the other sources. So in this sense 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 most substantive than an alt, same goes for 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 since again I will not refer it as an alt and is precisely for that reason that we
Move it up from its original placement in part B to now be in part A so that I will clarify the issues that you raised so really
These definitions are not part of all, there are list substantive works and on that score I wish to note that when the expert group discussed these matters, the object
If was to reflect what has emerged as a consensus and we should draw the infriends from that, that what came before the I have been came from that expert group was in
In a way to deal with the consensus and to the extent that it might be some all that are inconsistent, we could consider them as have not else I important
Importance that was the case, in fact, I would like to even suggest that if it is possible some of these inconsistent provisions given what as a major from the expert group should probably we may take the steps
Thank you very much to Canada and our facilitator the floor continues to be open.
Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chair, we just had a couple of more questions so I thought I should put those out while I have the floor and thank you very much to the facilitator for that explanation.
The next point of clarification is on Article 4.1, we are just wondering if there is an action word missing.
Yes, thanks for drawing attention to this, there is a word disclose which should be in 4 B, I have noted that announced going to bring it up, but yes, there is a web that is missing. So we took not a ready yesterday. Thank you.
Which method are you going to use to lift the to disclose to the chapeau or will you repeat it in A and B. Okay, we can repeat it, and then I will be the emphasized as
The floor continues to be open, Akhana has still.
My apologies is the last one that I have thank you again for the explanation, this point is just a general thematic point and I appreciate the Convention of introducing new text
That you know they are not subject to square brackets, just to point out in terms of the existing text, the Convention around the should shall may and just noting the
The need to align the primary text with the mandate to not prejudge outcome or nature of the instrument, so just a general comment am sure will get to that as we go through Article by Article, but just noting that in.
In terms of the text, the existing text is supposed in respect of the new proposals. Thank you very much for that observation, yes to extend possible tried to, of course,
Reflect those brackets and you note that in the presentation were mindful of the distinction between Member States on the one hand and parties and in some cases
To shall should, but again reflecting the discussions in some areas were quite open to now making specific references to shall in some context and also should in some context.
Have said that your points are well noted. Thank you very much, Canada, it is very important
Point concerning the nature and the instrument on the preparation. Russian Federation as the floor.
Примотли
Просите пожалуйста я подняла руку
Российской фенерате неслушно
...
...
Алл алл алл а лёл меня слышно нет алл
You may speak, ah, you may speak, ah, much your says, drafety меня слышно
Алю меня слышно алю алио алио алио
Десять лимишний репретный в вашем федорович вы hereю ю межпик а спасибо господин проседатель так от мы обсуждаем раздел определения
То нам кажется что мы лишним туда ставить из документа проседателя определения заявка заявитель и контегоциальная информация они используются в тех
Документа является достаточно вашными для понимания сути документа спасибо господинкой себя
You very much, Russian Federation would there be any comment from the side of our facilitator.
No at this moment, South Africa again remotely. Thank you, Chair,
We make any comment on the textual nature of Rob 1, we just want to know from the Chair whether this is a third document that is been placed on table for negotiations or is it an
Invilishment of chistics. Thank you for now. 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, you have some further comment. Just not seem to be the case.
Ah! Saoz abre cayó me continue
That the Rove 1 is a consolidation of the chased text, I would just need to get some clarity before we are
South Africa engages with a rev 1 because it is not a consolidated text, but it is more bearing towards the chased takes, so we just need to get some clarity from
From the Rapporteur, thanks the 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 just would restate, if you look at the title document, it says consolidated document relating to Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources
So the same name that would used for the working document produced by the IGC, so the changes that were made where if you also look at it somewhat
They have been tracked, so we are working on that consolidated text, I also noted yesterday that what we presented contained elements from the Chair's
Text which Ghana support during discussion of the experts, so it should not really be a problem to note that on the one hand we have the concept
Or related 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 hand today 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 simply do not understand this continuing the bit
Questions or issues being raised regarding the precise nature of the document currently under discussion, so I hope that provides adequate clarification on the issues. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Paul South Africa, you may continue. We cannot
Negotiating or discussing to her text. I think I think the Chair and the Secretariat has to now make a determination on which text we going, we cannot merit the both text.
One, either we going on the consolidated text or we are going on the text on the chastic, the South African delegation is asking you as a Chair to now make a determination as to which text
You very much your point is taken.
Should luis stil continué South Africa y es
Would morning colleagues would it be a fair assessment or observation of what is happening to say after with
This consolidated text, who will still be confronted with the Chair's text that she is currently working on, thereby subjecting ourselves
Two documents that will have to be working on is that a fair assessment because that is how we take it as South Africa.
В контелю
Okay. As the facilitator have been asked to make some policy decisions which have simply
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 presented, I also know the Chair's text has been produced and
For the bienniumstanding, let me just state my understanding is that is the Chair who would continue to work on that, so the direct answer to
Question is that yes, we have two different text without any doubt, as to what the status is of those two, have been armed not one who is going to make that determination as the facilitator when I am called upon
To facilitate to produce text certainly would do that. So I am open to working on any text, whether it is the consolidated document, the Chair's text, working steady or whatever, so I just want to make that very
Not up to me to be making rulings on those specific issues. Thank you very much for the reply and to clarifying also your role in this business.
A Switzerland has the floor. Thank you very much, Mr. Vice-Chair and good morning, in fact this is our understanding we are working on Ref 1 of the contolidated
Document, which includes some new textual proposals which are summer based on the Chair's text, and so more slightly also modified by the facilitator based on what if what the discussions went so
For 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 suppose now to just comment on the additional
Text that the facilitators into drew it a facilitator introduced in Rev 1 or are we supposed to comment on the entire rev 1. So 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 second possibility to make comments in general
To RF1. Thank you for clarifying my question. Thank you very much, Switzerland, the reply to your question is that the entire document is submitted to you for any comments, any part of it
Any element, the pre-existing elements plus the new elements suggested by the fair facil 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, Nigeria has the floor
Thank you Vice-Chair, my delegation would like to appreciate the work done by this facilitator.
In generating Rev 1. Which has built further into the consolidated text. But Chair, before I make my comment I have a procedural question. Yesterday if my memorous
May right, the Chair said that when we reconvene this morning that she would take responses from the coordinators of different negotiating blocks.
Before opening up the documental before technical decision how is to proceed what we started of this morning with the Member States bansing into the texts
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 and issue want to rule on that
...
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 consolidated text is not a structured discussion.
The explanation to this is that the floor is open, you may comment any part of the document to make it the life Asia for you so the interventions will not be in logical order compared to
Each others, all the comments and suggestions will be harvested and then in the preparatory process of the revised version number 2, they will be
Then considered in the right places, so this is just to make your life easier was, please put forward any comment you have on the document without waiting that part of the procedure come.
Comes. My experiences that this is much quicker than a structured discussion. And of course, this is with the open mission if
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
La República Dominica.
Y tomando a la palabra en nombre del GRULAC que era agradecer el trabajo del facilitador en plasmar y preparar este documento de revisión 1.
Solvamente voy an esperirme a un parte párrafos del preámulo, ya que también lo de más miembros de la delegación del GRULAC puedes tomarán la palabra respectivamente en algún otro momento.
En el sentido, tomando en cuenta su recomendación, señor Vicepresidente de la idea de reducir y eliminar corchetes, quiero solicitar que se elimine el corchete en el párrafo 3.
Que dice: Disaben to ensure y se se elimine ese término y se quedé el término solamente ensuring, todo ha sido
El solcitado por GRULAC en las secciones anteriores en el párrafo 5 del preámbulo que incluye un témeno más expansivo intelecto al
Property IPI, propiedente actual, en lugar de patente, algunos miembros del GRULAC pueden tener algunas preocupaciones sobre esta ese témino más expansivo, sin embargo, pueden ser flexibles
Si este término se limita al preámbulo y en las demás partes sustantivas del instrumento se mantiene las referencia solo a sistemas de patentes.
For the moment, Gracias señor, Mr. President, Just some clarification, the Delegate from the
The Mica 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 breach is sort of
Compromise to get us out of the previous dilemma that we faced and explains why 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
En temenos de edades como informé no existe una posta.
La presura homogénea del grupo, algunos miembros tienen preocupación con el término propiedente elector aplicado de manera general, pero si se limita al preámbulo como usted ha dicho.
Y estos miembros han manifestado que serían flexibles, en relación a los aspectos sustantivos del instrumento, entendemos que usamos
Y para estar el camino sistema de patentes sería en más adecuado. Gracias. Anquivere much Dominican Republic, Dobio
Point is taken, and as you as our facilitator all the yesterday also explained the formula in our preamble now should be considered and looked
In the conjunction with the Ard new Article on review, Nigeria has the floor.
Thank you, Chair, I ask to your question earlier, I believe you forgot to address my question. But I would like to, if you want to repeat our question 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 and with an invitation to the groups or negotiating blocks
To make their general statement regarding Rev 1. But that has not happened and what we have seen this Member States boundsing into the document.
So I was wondering whether as the preceding here 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
The response to Rev 1 is the Africa Group that wanted to answer that question before my delegation determines what next to do. Thank you very much it was a
Turning and remark I omitted that part of the procedure which should, of course, have happened already from the very beginning of this session, the group adamicities from the groups should have been
Collected first, before we start with the mixture of group representatives and members of the groups, so we might
I put emphasis on that undeclar that the floor is hope and now mainly for the group coordinators to put forward the messages from the Group coordination meeting.
I did not evident 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
The aims at capturing the results of the expert group discussions and somehow transferring some elements into the consolidated documents so we still understand this is the consolidated document we have working on.
The first point I would like to touch upon is the preamble and as addressed by GRULAC as regards the reference is to the IP system versus patent system as we have
They did previously and consequently we very much welcome the approach in the Chair's text which narrow down to the patent system, they were very much in favor of that focus.
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 while 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 strengthen in
In Rev 1 document as compared to the Chair's text in document 43/5, so as originally issued in 2019. So we see here
Amendments that make it a stronger general understanding that the whole process is of open to IP and we
See this focus on patent system some were diluded by these references, so we cannot welcome these changes in throughout the preamble and also we see that in the review close itself there is now
Added focus on elaborating on other IP rights, which is not person in the Chair's text review clause, articulating what other kind of IPRs may be addresslate on, so we
Do we do recognize that the operative Articles still remain focus on a patent system, but there is some sort of discopency to us in this and which we cannot welcome and let me just recall that that what
Was included in the Chair, that was considered by us as a very carefully balanced compromise and we really try to go 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
And elements in a definition, Article 1, we have now seen a new definition material or directly based on and 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
And it appear to as 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 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 slash directly based on, has been converted into a double deaf
A nation material or directly based on interpears to as this is not, not perhaps not the most fortunate way of addressing the problem that some preferred directly based on some performity real based on NS discussing the expert group material based
Done 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 resolve this
Problem so we would prefer I mean our original preferences, of course directly based on it remains a preference and I explain a little bit more and that, but we were from the start open to exploring material based
On we still believe that the most important thing is what is contained in the definition, but actually we believe that this material or directora is on and it comes back in attacks, so wherever it is addressed we would have the same comment
It is not exactly fortunate that we have a term which is like the doal term in that way. So when it comes to the content we stated several times that here of
Very important thing for us is the link to the physical access issue. It comes as no surprise that we cannot support a disclosure requirement which extends to digital sequence information. This whole trigger concept is
Very closely linked to that discussion and are firm position on that, so in this respect, of course we have alternatives which do make specific reference.
2, the resource to which of which the invent or must have had physical access which was also an element contained in an own proposal dating 2005.
One comment that we made about the Chair's text on in this regard was exactly on there, 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 at
That would not be unacceptable interpretation for as of this definition. So but this is a comment that has already been made and also I think at the last
A plenary session, the IGC 42 be made that comment. So now we also we turn to social genetic resources and the social knowledge associated with genetic resources.
We can welcome that these definitions have been to removed up as explained by the facilitator, we fully agree that these are closely linked to the disclosure article and is logical to include
Them in this way and I think we are basically in line with 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 leature publicly access
Where databases and patent applications and patent publications, we have been considering to propose something like scientific and patently treacher to make it more more encompassing
In shorter reference covering the rest of the list, this is just for consideration of the facilitate of perhaps they should merit. And then turning to Article
Therefore, the disclosure requirement article here we were generally able to welcome these changes.
As regards for 1B and yes, it was addressed during the coordination that there may be some
Editorial problem minor problem with B, but this has been addressed by the facilitator already 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 41B from THE, the
The source to another source is is a better solution, but perhaps this is not a major substantive matter and when it comes to forced 3 for 4 and 4th
Five in general we are supportive. Now, coming to sanctions which you know is a very key article to us here again we welcome the
The endeavour to find two the wording of this article and offer some more elaborate wording.
And we also have had the intention of fine-toning on this wording when it comes to improving this article and here what we would like to say.
Date in general is that we see this Article needs to clearly safeguard a ceiling so this needs to be a provision that
That actually safeguard against revocation and this needs to be the wording needs to be tight around that so this is what we have been commenting bef.
Or that we feel we can very much support that intention, however, with the concrete wording, we had impression that is not the best to achieve that goal, and now looking at this text it appears to be
Closer to what we would eventually like to see, here and actually win thinking of submitting a textual proposal on this, maybe this is not the right moment for us because
We before this session we have not really had the opportunity to substantively coordinate on new elements emerging on sanctions, for example in the non-paper.
So in general terms we would like to say is 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 a certain that 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 closely I think I made already made some comments on this one. Thank
Thank you very much, the facilitator may have some comments. 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 shares 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 a ceiling
But, of course, take into account as well that some jurisdictions have it as part of their law and it did my understanding is the whole common law system is premising exactly on the fact
That the presence of fraud would be adequate sufficient to lead to any decision of commitments that are made so unless we want to change the common law and various well established
A legal doctrines were not very comfortable simply omitting to refer to the fact that fraud is an important consideration, so we
Settly would welcome textual proposals that would provide the ceiling by a list not trying to change centuries of legal traditional
So that is the first point, the second one, perhaps us to deal with the references to the trader materially or their
The based, and know there has been some questions as to whether or not that is building on the previous all that we had in response
I will note that the previous definitions, distinguished materially based from directly based, the new definition that 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 with
Simply using a term, as is referred to in the text and attempting to provide some working definition in that light we also looked at 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 defined 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
It is and he pointed to subject matter such as designs, plant, varieties, copyright trademarks and all that as what they thought
Should include, should be included way talk about other IP, so we simply elaborating in that respect and trying to reflect the concerns of those
That is whether a part comes in, then there was a question about access when it comes to the trigger access to the genetic resource, yes we note that that has
Been part of the debate for some time now, but we also manful 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 and certainly will not please everybody
There would be people who continue to have some objections so that is just what we presented, but again we always open to considering certain deletion that we have made
I will, of course, wish to observe that if we have this continuing, well, I would say practice, methodology where we delete and reinset, then we will simply back to square one and
We will know the making progress, but certainly will take on board all the concerns that have been expressed and will continue to be expressed, but again we welcome the textual proposals of the
I would also put a word on on the trigger
We commented by the European representative of the European Union, materially or directly based seems to combine two different criteria.
The one or the other condition fulfilled the trigger, trigger functions, the definition seems to
It 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 with rather equivalent, there is not much difference probably
If you look at the gest text, you have the materialist trock directly based.
If you read the expert renote by the former Chair, you see that the struck should be red and both should be
Both conditions should be fulfilled for the trigger, so you may come to the same or another reading of this
But this is my tentative 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 material based are soon here to each other as in fact
Appolas pointed out, we have Egypt, Indonesia, Nigeria and South Africa on the list of speakers, Egypt has the floor.
شكرا سيدي الرئيس في البداية أود أن أشكر الصديق العزيز أه الميسر بول أه لقد أديت عملك سيدي بكل الأمانة والنزاهة والحرفية
Well-many. وليس عليك إدراك النجاح ولكن عليك أن تسعى وهذا ما فعلته بالفعل لأنك لو قدمت كل هذه الإسامات في سياق آخر
فعلت ذلك في جولات سابقة فأنك بالفعل تكون قد أديت كل معلكها وبالفعل ما فعلته في أزيده ولكن الموقف سيء. سيد الرئيس إن الشجاعة الأدبي.
تقتضي أن يقر وفد بلادي بأننا في موقف لا نحسد عليه بل في دالما حقيقي سيد الرئيس.
لقد حاولت بالأمس بكل ما أمتلكوا من خبرة تشريعية وتفوضية تزيد على ثلاثين عاما أن أدرس الموضوع فوجدت نفسي إزاء ثلاثة وثائق
مطلوب أن نناقشها وهو أمر لو تعرفون عسير لمن مارس العمل التشريع ولعل السبب في هذا الموقف
الذي لا نحسد عليه هو غياب الإرادة السياسية ومبدأ التفاوض بحس ننية من أجل أن نصل إلى سق قانوني.
وفقا لولاية لجنتنا وأن سد الفجوات ويجب أن نكر بأننا بعيدون للغاية عن تلك الولاية وإذا
تمر عملون وفقا لهذه الوتيرة فلن نصل إلى شيء ولو بعد خمس سنوات إضافي سيدي الرئيس إن المجموعة الإفريقي قدمت حلا بل حلولا
Leilmoke of allazi نحن فيه, when you read al ensoff, yambury and havetemed with a zil حلول or شكرا. Thank you very much Egypt.
I should express my apologies, I slipped away from the proceed reminded about by the Nigeria and Delegate, we should, first of all,
Listen to the messages from the groups and we have an one delegation who represent the LMC Indonesia, Indonesia as the
Thank you, Mr. Chair for giving me the floor, Indonesia taking the floor on behalf of the like-binded countries and will share our general views with regards to rev 1. Of course we join others in conveying our appreciation to the facilitator for
Diligent work in coming up with Rev 1, the group takes note of the changes on rev 1 and are of the view that the document as it stands is facedful to was discussed and has transpired during the ad hoc expert
Group meeting, in our view would also reflect 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 consolidate document.
In this regard, Mr. Chair, we would like to reiterate that the majority of the LMCs are comptable 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 wait and do attention to the Chair's text within the negotiation process of the genetic resources, and this regard we take positive note that the Chair's text remains a formal document based on the mandate of the IGCF
The by them 22, 23 and welcome the Chairs in touching to continue to be the pended holder this document.
Are there other group coordinate those who would like to take the floor now we have heard Africa group, we have heard LMC
...
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.
Out and comments from the ad hogics pred group into the consolidated document regarding this new text and this new additions, first I would like to
Talked with the few comments related to the preamble and to the new Article X on the review, on the review clause, in general the CEBS Group would like to brief
For 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
For national legislation of other Member States to extend the scope to other rights may be needed. But regarding the language of paragraph 14.
Of paragraph 16 and review clause in Article in Article X. In our view
This wording should be of both para 16 of preamble and of this Article Xon review should be at least so often, so often in a way that not to make the review clause
A mandatory and in Article X not to expressly 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 soon. We would like also to suggest to bracket the Article X and paragraph 16 of the preamble.
I would like to continue with some comments of the CEBS Group to the definitions in Article 1 as regards the
The term of Traditional Knowledge associated with the GRs, the CEBS Group would like to remind that this PK 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 on TK and then possibly reflected in the text.
Of document on the GRs or just referred to and right now in Article 1 in 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 to traditional knowledge associated with GR, which is the origin of term we want to define. On the new term of the materially or direct
Be based on. We consider the scope of this term as two brought and inconsistent with the definition of the term invention directly based on. Also as
Wanted out by the you, what the TEBS 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 new definition of surse of genetic resource, we have a small or minor textual suggestion
I would like to read it, if you allow me, Sir of Genetic Resources refers to any serce from which the applicant has obtained the GRs
And then we after this we would like to propose to add other than the country of origin and continue such as the research centre-ging bank and so on.
As regard, the definition of the serse of Traditional Knowledge associated with genetic resources.
We can go on what has been proposed by the EU or just slightly modified the end of this definition by saying scientific
Literature or and patent documents and publicly accessible databases, full stop, that is our suggestion.
Regarding the disclosure requirement we very much welcome the additions and changes made to the Article 4, but at the same time we would like to propose to bracket that
Are metarily or directly based on in Article 4.1. And as regards the Article 4.5, we would prefer to related more to
The national law, especially this reference to the patent procedures, so but we would like to keep this under the facilitator
To decide how to in the best way put the reference to the patent procedures for the national law. 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 TEBS group has the preference
For no revocation close, but we believe that further discussion on these new additions and on this article as such are needed. Thank you very much.
You very much, still there are groups whose coordinators have not been offered.
The floor, does not Group B, Germany, you have the
Thank you Mr. Vice-Chair, I would like to thank you for your efforts in bringing forward the document Rev 1 and indicated members
So through B will make their comments in national capacity on this at they started and I think continue to do. Thank you. Thank you very much for that message
For the moment, no other groups, group coordinators are asking the law, we have deserved a coffee break, coffe is available outside of the meeting room.
So I declare a break now of 15 minutes.
...
...
Welcome back, ladies and gentlemen, we will continue our discussion based on and commenting based on rev 1, the
Delegation of Nigeria is the first to have the floor now.
And thank you so much for recognizing that procedure issue that we raised earlier on, Chair, I would be in my delegation statements
By restating appreciation for the work of the facilitator in Rev 1 and building further into the consolidated text.
Our Delegation identifies with the statements met by Algeria for the African Group and by Indonesia for LMCs.
We want to put it on record that there has been a convergence of interest by a large number of 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 further 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 operations and suggestions without limit or without limiting it to the new injections or new draft proposed by the facilitator.
Now building on the MEDAFO, Rev 2, sorry Rev 1 is now a more complicated consolidated
Text is looking like a forest of dead bodies and the value of dribbounds, living us no possibility for any definite destination.
If anything, rev one 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
A she has already done to mandate the facilitator to work with the consolidated text that is to say to hold the pen
We see no reason why the Chair could not also exercise the same discretion to hold
Or to delegate sam to the facilitator on the chia's text in foderance 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 the
To do the sentence over and over and over and over and over again and I do not know whether we expect in a different result so this pathways 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. Thank you very much.
Nigeria for your serious points, next speaker will be South Africa again.
Thank you, Chair, I think the
Made by Nigeria pre-empted what I actually want to say, but in saying that I just want the Secretariat and the Chair to know that the
The comments made by 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.
Now there are widing the gaps and stead of narrowing the gaps, I just want to indicate is that
Africa will be making a formal proposal that we take the chis text to the General Assembly with the recommendation to have a deepcom in South Africa. Thank you for that.
You very much for your intervention and for the request which is in properly
Recorded understood by everybody, the next speaker will be the Delegate of Mexico.
Which has the Russia, you have this
Mr President, the ad hoc in
GRULAC no tuvimos una posición como grupo para poder la traerle an esta reunión, quisiera aprovechar esta
Esta posibilidad utilizar el micrófono para sentar y de parte de la delegación de Béxico y primero para felicitar al facilitador por
Bajo realizado y que ha dado como resultado en la versión red uno del documento consolidado para nosotros está muy claro que lo que estamos opinando horita
Es sobre el resultado de la rev uno del documento consolidado hemos escuchado
El planteamiento sobre la inclusión de propiedad intelectual en el préámbulo de acuerdo an este Reuno y podríamos aceptar el cambio, siempre cuando en la parte operativa las patentes
Sien el elemento central. Aqui haciendo referencia algo que señaló el coordinador GRULAC también
It proposríamos eliminar a corcheter, the design to ensure it párrafo 3, e, quitar los corchetes and the palabra ensuring.
Dos parece también que el párrafo es adecuado en tanto que abre la posibilidad de revisar el instrumento an otras figuras de propiedad intelectual
Y mantiene la relación con el nuevo párrafo X. Respecto al término material martyralí o directive base
Aunque creemos que terme en materia de baiste pudiera aparecer que o más amplio se refiere a una cuestión de la propunta vista muy humilde
De la lo que quiere decir en inglés materia hoy desde el punto de vista esencial
Ider y pareceriad que hay una confunción con de vehicliveist, pero no tendría que ver en el momento que se oportuno en el ya en la Conferencia quise la Comisión.
Agradecia diplomática, si hubiera necesidad aclarar que es significa y en qué lengua estamos anomativi allí veste y la traducción correspondiente al castellano.
Darial muy similar a lo que es además tenemos que aclarar si esto incluye
Nos parecen adecuadas las definiciones propuestas para la fuente de recursos genéticos
Y fuente de conocimientos tradicionales asociados a los recursos genéticos, posiblemente al igual que os, como lo han señalado otras delegaciones, habría que ajustar la redacción del
4, presunto juste de la relación. Y, finalmente, respecto al párrafo 83, parecería que exime la posibilidad
De revocar unas patentes antes de que un solicitante no haya diburado la información conforme al artículo 4. En nuestro entendido de México.
La divulgación debería de indicarse al momento de hacer la solicitud o bien rectificar ates de que se otorgue la patente, hacer de claro, solicitaríamos estas aclaraciones y el caso del parte
De verdad, nosotros nos preocupa, pero no estamos preocupa que sabemos que estamos en el
En la senda correcta en de paz, en de right pat con la revisión 1 con el documento consolidado, we are in the right pat, lo diga en inglés, para que damos todos de.
Es una solución eventual cercana a un proyecto que nos sirva a una Conferencia, pero eso lo tendrá que decidir la Asamblea
Y, por lo tal, tutemos que llegar con un documento que vaya en el camino en el paz en el sendero de converger las posiciones. Muchas gracias señor Vicepresidente.
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 yesterday, our Chair, Lily clear made clear that at some instance
Soon 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 non-paper together with its annex and secondly, she yesterday expressed that she she invites you all
See the declares all comments to that Chair's text also welcome additional comments compared to what we have been the non-paper, so that is clear and that exercise will happen at
Some instance in the future. The next speaker will be Indonesia. Thank you very much, Mr. Vice-Chair and outset Indonesia and itself
Its statement delivered on behalf of the LMCs in relations to document Rev 1. While maintaining our general preference for the Chair's text, we take note of the Chair and you of Vice-Chair have mentioned yesterday and the day with
For and today that we are working on both document and take notes and we welcome the intention of the Chair to continue to be the penholder 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
Or his diligent work who managed to faith 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 the couple of IGC goes, we welcome the general move with regard to a middle ground coalition with regard to the text.
On minimum, minimum international legal standards, so we are actually happy that some elements that were from the Chair's text that were discussed in the Etho expert group are now reflected in the consolidated document Rev 1 that
We are within line with this period of having a minimum international legal standard, specifically on the preamble we take note and we welcome the changes that now the preamble focusing
To on the wider Intellectual Property to mature that this is 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 run, the text are actually focusing on patent, and we also welcome the additional paragraph under incorporation of a mandatory review closely is also still in line with what Indonesia prefers that was reflect
The preference that was reflected in the Chair's text, even though we also take note that some Delegations have also mentioned that there is a slight changes or a little bit different spirit with regard to the review clause now in the Ref 1.
On Article 1 definitions, Indonesia welcome the additional definitions on materially or directly based on, but we also have some concerns we take note of the explanation related by the facilitator in the Vice -
Chair, with regard to the or, but maybe for the time being Indonesia will prefer its suit stay with slash, because what we are like what we have mentioned in the add of expert group, this is where there is this uncomfort
Fertability with the directly, because there is another definition within the consoley the text on the invention directly based on, which is actually include qualified of physical access. Indonesia things that that
The materially are a materially slash directly based on which is a language that was reflected in the Chair's text and the non-paper are a good way to reach a middle ground language to be able to give a level of comfort for most of
Of the members of this Committee. With regard 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 out of expert group that it should go without saying that what will 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
For point 1, we actually related to what we have commented earlier with regard to the focus on IP on preamble but in the working provisions are actually focusing on the patent system, we also align ourselves with earlier comments made with regard to 41
Be that that needs an action or fair with regarded to the disclosure and we welcome that the primary resources of the disclosure are actually country of origin for GRs and Indigenous People and local communities for
For associated Traditional Knowledge, while there are in cases where primary sources are not cannot be identified than other sources might be disclose. With regard to Article 4.2 Indonesia actually our ideal
Reference and what we thought was a middle ground link which was actually the original language on alternative 2 for 4.2 without the addition that is currently reflected right now but in the spirit of flexibility in Indonesia welcomes the addition of this reflected right now in the Alt 2
Or 4.2 we hope that this might give comferred again to that the coalition that can actually go towards a middle ground position where we are aiming on having a minimum international legal standards can be
Chief. With regard to the Article 8 on sanction and remedies again in an ideal word Indonesia would prefer that this article will also be having the same spirit of minimum international legal standards but we respect and under
Then the concern 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 for us to be able to have these sanctions and remedies provision as so ceiling provision, we would like to see whether we can safeguard that some policies
Pace would still be available for Member States, especially in the case of fraud that it will be in line with our national laws. With regard to Article X review, Indonesia welcomes this addition as well because as as 6
Learned by the facilitator, we also take note that maybe there is no urgent need to actually laid out all the different IP that there is going to be reviewed in this provision, with that I thank you, Mr. Vice
Thank you very much for your intervention, United States of America has the floor. Thank you Mr. Chairman, we would also like to thank the facilitator
For his work on the Rev document, it is our pleasure to provide comments on the Rev 1 Rev 1 of the consolidated document regarding the preamble paragraph 1.
We recommend we suggest excusing bracketing the term obligations and replacing that with rights and this is because the UNDRIP
It is non-binding, so it cannot establish obligations, this suggestion is intended to correct this paragraph in paragraph 3.
Some delegations have commined on the formulation of ensuring versus desiring to ensure and this delegation would prefer to retain the designing to ensure formulation because it does a
Not prejudge the outcome. With respect to paragraph 4, we recommend bracketing recognizing in replacing that with promoting respect for
A bracketing principles in 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 care grise pick and mat as principles as doing so might suggest that their principles of international law.
Good respect to paragraph 5 of the preamble, we suggest 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 such
Such replacing that with respect for, we prepar the reference to instruments rather than agreements as this will not prejudge the outcome of the negotiation and we believe that respect is a more general term to disclare
Gribe 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 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 clearer version of this language seems to have been identified or 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 allow patents on plans and animals, other than microorganisms is a TRIPS flexibility
That is important to be preserved, we believe that it is important to maintain 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, comma, as they occur in nature comma, are not novel, comma 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: 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 16 to consider the preservation of the public domain within WIPO's normative processes and deepen the analysis of the implict
Cations and benefits of a rich and accessible public domain, in Article 1 definitions in the definition of traditional knowledge associated which genetic resources
We suggest inserting associated with Genetic Apter Traditional Knowledge and inserting after Genetic Resources refers to and then inserting
It 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 with means as this is a more precise formulation for definition of terms, the term substantive knowledge is this
Think from pensful knowledge and other types of knowledge, according to Marian webstirisdictionary, a simple definition of substance is important, real or meaningful or supported by facts
To logic. It is 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 received and after other beneficiaries inserting other rightsful holders of traditional knowledge associated which genetic resources and inserting that last phrase
Again, after beneficiaries at the end of paragraph B, preferred alternative definition would read: Traditional Knowledge associated which 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 has previously proposed by the US delegation, including generated in a Traditional Pont
Text and collectively preserved and transmitted from generation to generation, in the definition of country of origin, old, the US delegation supports the old text because the phrase and
Still possesses Genetic Resources and in C2 conditions as clarity to the definition, we also support the inclusion of the world first because it would be difficult to close for a patent applicant
And, our difficult them are impossible for a patent applicant to disclose all of the countries that possess or have possessed, a particular example of a Genetic Resource Institute, Special
Is may migrate or be found in transboundary ranges, therefore the patent applicant will be allowed to disclose the source such as a genuine bank can stand. An alternative US preferred text would be
The country of origin means the country where genetic resource was collected from INC2 conditions under the definition of country providing slash providing country, the language provide
We heard by the US delegation is country providing slash providing country means the country of origin that has the genetic resource and or traditional knowledge and that provides the genetic resource.
And our traditional knowledge. We believe this is a simpler 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 in
Turning or traditional knowledge as applicable after genetic resource and both the original and the old paragraphs. This is because there is at least one in
Since 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 a needed 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
Unetic resources, physical access, under with respect to the section other terms, and I do see 35 that is
The LTA is split the terms into two groups, 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 of term should be consolidated. With respect to exC to conservation
And 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
An authorized access and/or unauthorized use after misappropriation and with respect to Article 2, we propose
A new old as follows: the objectives of this instrument are to A, prevent patents from being granted erroneously for inventions that are not novel in
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 which Genetic Resources that might result from the erroneous
Patenting thereove; ensure that patent offices have the appropriate available information on genetic resources and traditional knowledge associated
With Genetic Resources needed to make inform decisions in granting patents and see preserve a rich and accessible public domain that will foster creativity and innovation.
So the reasons for these suggestions are first that we do not agree that a disclosure requirement would lead to greater transparency as we have previously explained patent applications already disclosed
The source of genetic resources where the sources material to the invention, we believe that an additional legal requirement to disclose such information, my result in a cluder of irrel of information that would not promote
Transparency, this alternative also provides plenary text and includes the objective of fostering creativity and innovation, their rich and accessible public domain,
Again, consistent with the Development Agenda Recommendation 16. So turning now to 4.2, we suggest brackets
Within compliance with ABS requirements, including pick and replacing that with entitlement to use the genetic resource, for example, a license from the patent owner or permit
From the Rold and Authority to access the genetic resource, these suggestions are made because we believe that requiring applicants to provide role in information regarding ABS compliance
It might be burden some and might distance set up by innovation, with respect to Alt 1.4.2, we suggest bracketing of Interrupt
Placing that with consistent with in this is before the term paragraph 1. This suggestion is made in order to avoid again the use of previous language, the IGC mandate special
Fies that our work should not prejudge the nature of the outcome of this instrument, with respect to Alt 2.2, 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 regional paragraph 4.2. In 4.3, we suggest the insertion of
Side that the bracketing of requirement and the replacement of that term with of the geographic location where the genetic material was obtained. Also wind
I suggest at the end of that paragraph inserting as well as an opportunity for applicants or patenties to correct any disclosures that our erroneous or incorrect are 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 that
Contents of the disclosure, 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 patenties to correct any disclosures that are erroneous or incorrect. This proposal was previously made by the US delegation, it is
Intended at clarity and give patent applicants the opportunity to correct erroneous or incorrect disclosures, paragraph 4.4. We suggest the insertion
Of a new 4.4 old as follows: Patent offices should publish the entire disclosure of the patent on the Internet and the date of the Patent Grant
In should also make a contents of the patent application publicly accessible over the Internet, we believe this suggested language would add certainty to the publication process, and we suggest adding
The following you paragraph 4.5 were access to genetic resources or associated traditional knowledge is not necessary to make or use the invention, information regarding this
Source of origin of the Genetic Resource were associated traditional knowledge and be provided at any time after the filing date of the application in without payment of a
The ICP this suggested language is declarify that the filing date of a patent application should not be determined by the date that the applicant complies with formalities.
That are unrelated to the disclosure of their invention, Article 5, exceptions and limitations, we suggest bracketing complying with replacing that with implementing
Bracketing the obligations set forth replacing that with provisions, these suggestions are to limitate three language and again to avoid prejudging the outcome of our negotiation
Institutions. Article 6, non-roach activity, we suggest bracketing that after prior to and the words ratification
Of our accession 2 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 the scribed and then in the last line bracketing parties and replacing that with Member States of
Gribing two and these were made for the same reason of avoiding treaty language, in after Article 8.5,
We recommend, we suggest a new paragraph 8.6 as follows, value to examine a patent application in a timely manner shall resolve in an adjustment of the term of the
Patent to compensate the Patenty for administrator to laise. This suggestion is in response to our concerns about patent, delays in patent examination that maybe cause
By Patent disclosure requirements which are explained in greater depth in document 43/8. And finally Mr.
Chairman, in alternatives to disclosure requirements, paragraph 4.6, we suggest bracketing the term due after timely manner in replacing that would in a relation
And then after a word to inserting delays resulting from implementation of A, then bracketing after compensate the Patenty4 bracketing Administer
Creative in replacing that with those and bracketing at the end of the sentence adjustment in replacing that with the lays, and this suggestion these suggestions are made in order to clarify which delays
I addressed in what the adjustment is based on and you Mr. Chairman. 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 one Dutchment, and we also appreciate the Vice-Chair's clarification on the status of the Chair's Declaration
And the rev 1 document, the Delegation of Uganda aligns itself with the statements made by the coordinators
The African Group and the RMCs and the submission subsequently made by the Delegations of Nigeria and South Africa among others.
Believe that rev 1 of the consolidated document as far as these currently seems to be widening the gaps.
Is not providing for a seaable solution in the near future and therefore we strongly believe that the Chair's text has
Narrowed gaps and it could lead us into a Diplomatic Conference as indicated by South Africa.
Thank you very much, Uganda Switzerland has the floor. Thank you very much, Ms.
Vice-Chair, we join orders 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 general
The observation from our perspective we should try to find the right balance in terms of details that we like to include into such an instrument, where 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
If text, first as regards 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 observation knows on the preamber.
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 like to address in the preamble, so sometimes patents
It might be appropriate terms sometimes IP in the preamble. Second, or sort as regards to the definition, materially or directly based on in our view this definition could indeed work
For inventions related to genetic resources. We are of the view that further discussions would have been needed whether this is a meaningful definition or trigger for inventions related to TK associated with Genetic Resol
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 on disclosure, I would like to highlight that we specifically support the reference to another source in paragraph 4.1B. As regards sanctions and remedies
We appreciate the fact that the amended text brings in more clarity as regards pre and post-grant sanctions as well as failures to that occurred unintentional or those that were made will fully or with fraudulent in
10. Yet, we would like to reiterate our view that there is a need to establish a clear maximum standard when it comes to pose grant sanctions, therefore specifically in Article 8.3, we
Propose 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.
On the other hand, we would like to include an additional text in this paragraph which basically also says all invalidate established
Patent rights, so it is not just a revocation or rendering on enforceable a patent but it also the invalidation of established patent rights where we would like to see a maximum standard.
Mr. Waster 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 wrongfully 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 so 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 remote.
Sir, Josier, Jonwa d'aver 3,
感谢主席秘术处和协调研的新情的工作我们认为虽然合并文件是
多年他多年的讨论成果但讨论至今仍然存在很多的分析有很多的替代方案
合并安文的调款本身已经非常复杂很难继续推进不有成效的讨论主席安文
初步融合各方的意见民合了部分分析也提炼了重要的条款是一份很重要的会议文件
为了谈判能够继续向前推进并取得持续性进价通过代表盘将尊重主席的决定
并继续支持主席协调员和密输出的工作参与相关的讨论谢谢中心
Thank you very much, China, the next trick will be the delegation of France. Merci Monsieur le Vice-Président,
Je voudrais tout d'abord remercier le facilitateur pour la préparation de la rêve 1 et préciser ici que la France intervient en sa capacité nationale pour rappeler que la mention de peuples autochtones et de droit des peuples autochtones nous
Pose des problèmes d'ordre constitutionnels, les mention de ces notions dans un accord juridiquement contraignant compromettrait donc l'adoption et la ratification du fait de nos contraintes constitutionnelles, nous proposons un langage
Alternatives acceptables, à savoir l'emploi des termes communautés autochtones et ou locales. De même les expressions droits des communautés autochtones, ou droit des populations autochtones ne seraient pas pas acceptes
Nous proposons de remplacer le terme droit des peuples autochtones par droit des personnes autochtones ou droits des personnes appartenant à des populations autochtones. Plus largement quand les références
Au droit des peuples autochtones sont faites pour souligner la nécessité d'une prise en compte de ces droits, nous pouvons proposer de remplacer cette expression par questions autochtones spécifiques. Merci Monsieur le Vice.
Thank you very much, France, for your intervention, the next
To speaker will be the Delegation of Australia. Thank you Vice Chair and we also thank the facilitator for his work in creating this rev 1 document as a general comment as previously
That by this delegation we do see the Chair's text as a way forward, but we welcome the rev 1 at it is made as a way to take these discussions forward to, all run through some 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 generally and having the operative clauses focused on patents, we can support that approach as a
Pragmatic way forward that could balance the range of views and while they might be need to consider that 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 TK, we can support these be included in the text and on the suggestion of the new language
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 bit clearer, perhaps the corresponding Chair's text, Article is a more clear approach
Overall, we are of the view that these edits as well as the addition of 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5, I find to appear here in the text. On Article 8 sanctions
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
It is further what text proposals might help or address that. Thank you very much, Australia.
...
It is almost 1:00 time for a lunch break, we have one the list of speakers for the moment Niger, South Africa, remotely Japan, Argentina and
India remotely. The steps of foundation, and it seems that one by one and you speakers are appearing, so there is all reason to cond
We in the afternoon at 3:00. So the meeting will continue at 3:00 we will have, break now and then other announcements for the long
Thank you, Mr. Chair, maybe I can start with announcement, so as our ADG mission on Monday
The Secretariat is organizing inside Iman today at 2 pm in NB0107, introduce the traditional knowledge divisions work, so all the delegates are invited to attend the side human
At 2:00 pm, interpretation of English and Spanish will be provided. No food will be provided, but I saw that she know there are so many different fools from the Asian countries outside of the Conference room so you can have
A food here and then drawn us in NB0107 for side invent. Thank you at a two pm. Other announcements.
Group B Germany. Thank you, Mr. Vice
Chair, just to briefly remind Group B members that we will meet at 2:00 for a group coordination. Thank you very much other announcements.
No requests for the floor, it means that we will break now and convene at the three clock again.
Thank you very much.
[[powered by WIPO S2T]]