Earlier this year, members of the World Trade Organisation’s (WTO) Council for Trade-related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) accepted that the deadline for the least developed countries (LDC) to protect intellectual property (IP) generally could be extended beyond the current 1 July 2013 date.
Then in a ‘behind closed doors’ meeting earlier this month, it was decided that LDCs can have an extra an extra eight years to comply with international IP rules, covering use of products such as medicines, films and reading materials, with a draft agreement being hoped for tomorrow (June 18).
Some rich countries, including the USA, have opposed the proposal to allow the world’s poorest countries to be exempt from the WTO’s IP rules as long as they remain officially classified as LDCs.
In particular, the USA has argued for a “no rollback” clause, which would have legally required LDCs to maintain any new intellectual property laws or regulations that they had introduced.
However, “no rollback” has reportedly not been included in the provisional agreement, so LDCs have maintained the right to enjoy “full use” of flexibilities in their intellectual property policies so long as the exemption lasts.
WTO members also repeated their positions on “non-violation” complaints, whereby countries should be allowed to bring dispute cases against each other if one feels that another government’s action or a specific situation has deprived it of an expected benefit, even if no agreement has been violated.
Members have agreed not to bring “non-violation” disputes against each other on intellectual property for a period, the latest extension being until the Bali Ministerial Conference in December.
As on previous occasions, some want this to become permanent, others want a further extension, and some argue that “non-violation” disputes should be allowed in intellectual property, just as it is for trade in goods and services.