VZCZCXYZ0001
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHTV #0453 0561511
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 251511Z FEB 09
FM AMEMBASSY TEL AVIV
TO SECSTATE WASHDC 0654

UNCLAS TEL AVIV 000453 
 
SENSITIVE 
SIPDIS 
 
EEB/TPP/IPE FOR TMCGOWAN, SKEAT 
NEA/IPA FOR TGOLDBERGER 
PLS PASS USTR TO JCHOEGROVES AND SFRANCESKI 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ECON ETRD KIPR IS
SUBJECT: ISRAEL: SPECIAL 301 REVIEW 2009: POST 
RECOMMENDATION 
 
REF: A. TEL AVIV 156 
     ¶B. TEL AVIV 2173 
     ¶C. TEL AVIV 2709 
 
¶1.  (SBU) SUMMARY: From April 2008 - January 2009, Israel 
underwent an Out-of-Cycle Review (OCR) to address its 
deficiencies in Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) protection 
(see reftels).  While several GOI officials made a good-faith 
effort to implement an agreed-upon action plan, the net 
result is that the OCR failed to meet its goals of 
introducing legislation to correct data exclusivity and 
patent-term extension issues in Israel.  While Post hopes 
that the OCR will become a basis for future negotiations, the 
reality on the ground remains the same: Israel provides one 
of the weakest levels of protection for innovative 
pharmaceutical products among all industrialized countries. 
Due to the continuation of deficiencies that were the basis 
for past determinations of Israel's Special 301 status, and 
to maintain pressure on the GOI to take action, Post 
recommends that Israel remain on the Priority Watch List in 
¶2009.  END SUMMARY. 
 
THE OCR 
 
¶2.  (SBU) The USG put forth a strong effort in much of 2008 
to help the GOI address IPR issues, with disappointing 
results.  While progress was made in laying a base for 
possible future negotiations, the GOI refused to formalize 
any of these results in written form.  The reality is that on 
pharmaceuticals, Israel still provides one of the weakest 
levels of patent protection of any current or potential 
OECD-member country.  During two formal interministerial 
meetings, there seems to have been a shift in GOI thinking, 
but much work remains to translate this thinking into changes 
in IPR legislation and practices on the ground.  The OCR did 
prove helpful in bringing to light practices at the Ministry 
of Health that are preventing innovative pharmaceutical 
companies from having a full-term of data exclusivity, but 
absent GOI resources allocated to address this, the situation 
will not change. 
 
¶3.  (SBU) One problem is that the GOI does not speak with one 
voice on IPR issues, and internal differences become readily 
apparent in discussions on budgets and legislation.  While 
Post perceived some improvement in the tone of these 
discussions, there was no concrete progress.  There are also 
external players that stymie IPR reform, and those interests 
have not changed, even though the USG initiated a dialogue 
with key generic industry companies. 
 
CONCLUSION 
 
¶4.  (SBU) While Post is hopeful that negotiations can begin 
where they left off at the end of 2008, the fact remains that 
Israel's pharmaceutical IPR, and, to a lesser extent, its 
copyright laws, still do not meet USG standards for 
protection of intellectual property.  Israel created its IPR 
system to benefit its domestic industries, but it must be 
fixed if Israel wants to be treated like an OECD-member 
country with a free trade agreement with the United States. 
Keeping Israel on the Priority Watch List, while 
acknowledging its progress in conducting an OCR, will 
maintain pressure on the GOI to take action in 2009.  Without 
the continued Priority Watch List designation, Post sees no 
prospect of a newly elected Israeli government addressing 
U.S. IPR concerns. 
 
 
********************************************* ******************** 
Visit Embassy Tel Aviv's Classified Website: 
http://www.state.sgov.gov/p/nea/telaviv 
********************************************* ******************** 
CUNNINGHAM