VZCZCXYZ0018
PP RUEHWEB

DE RUEHEG #2735/01 2491523
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
P 061523Z SEP 07
FM AMEMBASSY CAIRO
TO RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHDC PRIORITY
RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 6808

UNCLAS CAIRO 002735 
 
SIPDIS 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
USTR FOR GROVES/SAUMS 
STATE FOR EB/TPP/IPE BOGER 
COMMERCE FOR USPTO KARIN FERRITER 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ECON ETRD KIPR EG
SUBJECT: EGYPTIAN HEALTH OFFICIALS SKEPTICAL ON IPR 
INITIATIVE, BUT OPEN TO DVC 
 
REF: A. CAIRO 2692 
 
     ¶B. STATE 107629 
     ¶C. CAIRO 678 
 
Sensitive but Unclassified, Not for Internet Distribution. 
 
¶1.  (SBU) Summary:  GOE health officials and advisors view 
many of the action items in the Special 301 Initiative for 
Egypt as "TRIPS plus," exceeding Egypt's obligations under 
the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property agreement, 
and therefore feel no obligation to implement them, health 
officials told USTR's Edmund Saums during meetings in Cairo 
Aug. 29.  However, members of a Ministry of Health advisory 
committee agreed to participate in digital video conferences 
with Washington officials to discuss Egypt's system for IPR 
protection, and Ministry of Trade officials expressed 
interest in participating in the initiative to improve IPR 
protection as part of broader discussions on bilateral 
economic relations.  End summary. 
 
¶2.  (SBU)  During a visit to discuss a range of bilateral 
trade issues (ref A), USTR Director for the Middle East 
Edmund Saums delivered to GOE officials a non-paper detailing 
the Egypt-specific action items under USTR's Special 301 
Initiative for 2007-2008 (ref B).  Dr. Mokhtar Warida, 
Advisor to the Minister of Health and Population for 
International Cooperation and Agreements, responded that GOE 
officials would consider the action items as "TRIPS plus," 
exceeding Egypt's treaty obligations.   For instance, he 
indicated that the GOE would not implement a "data 
exclusivity" system to protect drug-test data submitted by 
pharmaceutical companies from unfair use by their 
competitors. 
 
¶3.  (SBU) Steering the demarche away from technical issues, 
Saums suggested that a working-level group be formed 
including USG officials in Washington and GOE officials to 
discuss IPR issues in the pharmaceutical area by video 
conference.  He suggested the group convene in the fall, 
before reporting for next year's Special 301 review begins. 
 
¶4.  (SBU) While Warida agreed to participate in such 
discussions, members of the Ministry's Drug Policy and 
Planning Center (DPPC) Advisory Committee resisted the idea. 
They told Saums and IPR Attach that GOE officials have 
explained the GOE's pharmaceutical IPR protection system many 
times to various Embassy officials but continue to receive 
the same requests for explanation. One committee member 
indicated that answers to all the USG's questions on 
pharmaceutical IPR protection are answered in published laws 
and regulations.  Saums responded that a video conference 
would be a good opportunity to directly reach USG experts who 
work on the Special 301 report to ensure they have a correct 
understanding of the Egyptian system.  The Committee members 
agreed to participate in the video discussions, but requested 
an agenda in advance.  Saums proposed that the 301 initiative 
action items are a good starting place for discussions. 
 
¶5.  (SBU) Another Committee member claimed that the GOE had 
resolved the final two items in the action plan -- improving 
coordination between the health and patent authorities, and 
reducing the backlog of pharmaceutical "mailbox" 
applications.  Committee members said that the Patent Office 
had forwarded for review all patent applications filed in the 
mailbox up to 2005 and that they regularly review and return 
these to the patent office within two to three weeks. 
(COMMENT: Patent applications must be published after the MOH 
review period.  The numbers of mailbox applications published 
so far is low compared to the number of applications filed in 
the mailbox, suggesting that the patent office has not in 
fact completed processing of all mailbox applications. END 
COMMENT) 
 
¶6.  On a separate issue, Dr. Warida claimed that changing the 
start time of the five-year data protection period to the 
date of drug approval as outlined in the action plan would 
require a change to the law.  Saums suggested that the MOH 
could offer alternative solutions to address the data 
protection period offered within the current law. 
 
¶7.  Saums and Emboffs also raised the Special 301 Initiative 
in meetings with Ministry of Trade officials on a rage of 
bilateral trade issues.  Deputy Minister Samiha Fawzy said 
the GOE should maintain a single point of contact for the USG 
on IPR and other trade issues, suggesting the Ministry could 
fulfill the role of organizing GOE participation in digital 
video conferences. 
 
 
¶8.  COMMENT: IPR Attach and Econoff are continuing to engage 
GOE officials concerned with IPR -- such as the Patent 
Office, the Information Technology Industry Development 
Agency, and the MFA -- on the Special 301 Initiative.  We 
will also follow up with health and trade officials on the 
DVC proposal and continue to report the GOE response. 
RICCIARDONE