VZCZCXYZ0000
RR RUEHWEB

DE RUEHGV #0011/01 0081154
ZNR UUUUU ZZH
R 081154Z JAN 10
FM USMISSION GENEVA
TO RUEHC/SECSTATE WASHDC 1155
RUCPDOC/DEPT OF COMMERCE WASHINGTON DC

UNCLAS GENEVA 000011 
 
SIPDIS 
 
STATE FOR EEB/IPC, IO/GS, OES 
COMMERCE FOR USPTO 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: ECON KIPR WIPO
SUBJECT: WIPO Committee on Development and Intellectual Property 
Meeting, November 16-20, 2009 
 
¶1. SUMMARY:  The 4th session of the WIPO Committee on Development 
and Intellectual Property (CDIP) was a constructive step forward 
from the U.S. perspective.  The Committee approved five major 
thematic projects and reviewed all projects and activities under 
current implementation.  On the important issue of how CDIP should 
coordinate with other WIPO bodies, the U.S. delegation worked 
closely with its Group B partners to forge a common position and to 
narrow differences with the group of "like-minded countries".  END 
SUMMARY 
 
¶2. The Fourth Session of the CDIP was held from November 16 to 
November 20, 2009.  89 Member States and 36 Observers participated 
in the meeting.  U.S. delegation members were Neil Graham, Attorney 
Advisor, Office of Intellectual Property Policy and Enforcement, US 
Patent and Trademark Office(USPTO) (head of delegation); Michele 
Woods, Senior Counsel, Office of Policy and International Affairs, 
U.S. Copyright Office; Marina Lamm, Attorney Advisor, Office of 
Intellectual Property Policy and Enforcement, USPTO; Paula Pinha, 
Attorney Advisor, Office of Policy and International Affairs, U.S. 
Copyright Office; and Otto Hans Van Maerssen, Counselor for Economic 
and Science Affairs, U.S. Department of State, U.S. Mission, 
Geneva. 
 
Issue of "Coordination Mechanism" Takes Center Stage 
--------------------------------------------- ------- 
¶3. Two contrasting proposals on the issue of the coordination 
mechanism were discussed at CDIP 4, one from Group B (developed 
country) members, including the United States, and one from Brazil, 
Algeria, Pakistan, and India: central players in what is sometimes 
called the group of "like-minded" countries, or Group A.  The 
fundamental distinction between the two proposals is that Group B 
believes that CDIP should have a status equal to but not greater 
than all other WIPO committees, whereas Group A maintains that CDIP 
should be placed in an oversiht role that would effectively place 
it above al other WIPO committees with respect to the 
impleentation of WIPO development initiatives.  Specificlly, the 
Group B proposal stressed the need to esure that development remain 
an integral part ofWIPO's work, but emphasized the importance of 
keeping all WIPO committees on an equal footing and accountable to 
the General Assembly, as well as the need to avoid any new financial 
obligations for member states.  In discussions, Group B also 
emphasized the importance of using available meeting time more 
efficiently before considering additional special sessions to enable 
CDIP to fulfill its evaluative role. 
 
¶4. By contrast, the proposal by the "like-minded" countries would 
have required:  permanent special sessions of the committee to 
review and assess mandatory reports by other committees on their 
implementation of the Development Agenda; the use of the Audit 
Committee as an independent evaluation body to assess the overall 
progress of the Development Agenda throughout WIPO; and a council of 
"wise men / women" -- experts in IP and development - to conduct 
biennial reviews of WIPO and its progress in "mainstreaming" the 
Development Agenda into the organization's activities. 
 
¶5. Informal negotiations over these competing proposals took place 
Thursday morning and continued in the evening, with frank and 
productive discussions between the two sides.  Based on these 
discussions, the parties modified their original proposals, and 
informal negotiations on Friday resulted in an early effort to 
create a single document setting out alternative proposals on the 
various issues that could eventually evolve into a compromise text. 
At the end of the meeting on Friday, it was apparent that while 
progress had been made to narrow differences, insufficient time 
remained to discuss all of the outstanding issues.  The like-minded 
countries pushed for intersessional meetings on this agenda item, 
but Group B members objected, citing the difficulty and expense of 
bringing home country experts to Geneva.  As a compromise, it was 
agreed that discussions on the issue would continue at CDIP 5 next 
April as the first item on the agenda, but that delegations should 
feel free to conduct bilateral discussions in the interim. 
 
 
Multiple Projects Given Green Light 
----------------------------------- 
¶6. The United States delegation came to CDIP 4 with the hope that 
substance - the discussion of concrete projects to implement the 
agreed recommendations -- would prevail over an inordinate 
preoccupation with procedure, something that has sometimes happened 
in past committee meetings.  For the most part, this hope was 
realized.  During the week, the committee approved five thematic 
projects: 
 
-- IP and Competition Policy (CDIP/4/4) 
-- IP, ICTs, the Digital Divide, and Access to Knowledge (CDIP4/5) 
-- IP and the Public Domain (CDIP4/3) (patent and copyright 
components) 
-- Developing Tools for Access to Patent Information (CDIP/4/6) 
-- Enhancing WIPO's Results Based Management (RBM) Framework to 
 
Support the Monitoring and Evaluation of Development Activities 
(CDIP/4/8) (slightly modified) 
 
¶7. The Committee also agreed that a proposal by Japan to develop a 
database of case studies showing the successful creation and use of 
IP in business, with a focus on developing countries, would be 
implemented as part of WIPO's ongoing activities.  Two Korean 
proposals -- one on branding, the other on the use of patent 
information in the transfer of technology - will be discussed at 
CDIP 5 after the Secretariat prepares formal project documents for 
those proposals. 
 
¶8. The Committee also reviewed projects currently being implemented. 
 Although there were calls from many countries (e.g., France, 
Brazil) to undertake this review, when the discussion finally took 
place on Thursday afternoon, it lasted less than an hour. 
 
¶9. The project on IP and the Public Domain generated a lively 
debate.  As originally proposed by the Secretariat, the proposal 
involved studies and activities in four areas:  (i) copyrights; (ii) 
trademarks; (iii) patents, and (iv) traditional knowledge (TK) and 
traditional cultural expressions (TCEs).  By week's end, the TK/TCE 
component had been removed from the project document after protests 
from Indonesia, Zimbabwe, Egypt, and South Africa, among others, who 
refused to equate TK/TCE and the public domain.  The trademark study 
will be discussed at the next session because of USG concerns over 
the terms of the study.  The copyright project will go forward, but 
will now include modifications suggested by Brazil and Bolivia to 
the scoping study on copyright and related rights (Section 1.3 of 
CDIP/4/3).  As revised, the study will survey tools that "affect" 
[the original word was "facilitate"] access, use and identification 
of the public domain "particularly in the digital environment" [the 
original proposal did not include an express reference to the 
digital environment].  The patent study will go forward, but without 
a last-minute revision suggested by Bolivia / India to expand the 
study to include "the implication of patent thicketing, ever 
greening patents, the extension of patent term, pre-grant or 
post-grant opposition to patents, and the disclosure requirements." 
The United States objected that discussion of those topics would be 
duplicative of work taking place in the Standing Committee on 
Patents.  Nonetheless, the U.S. delegation agreed to discuss the 
possible addition of these elements to the patent study at CDIP 5. 
 
 
Technology Transfer Project Held Over 
------------------------------------- 
¶10. The United States came to CDIP 4 prepared to give its approval 
to the Secretariat's proposed Project on Intellectual Property and 
Technology Transfer:  Common Challenges - Building Solutions" 
(CDIP4/7).  A group of "like-minded" countries (Brazil, Egypt, 
India, South Africa, Bolivia, Burundi, Sri Lanka, Yemen, among 
others), however, raised questions about the project, questioning 
the meaning of some of the terms, a lack of specificity, and an 
absence of action-oriented elements in the project.  After lengthy 
discussions, it was agreed that the "like-minded" countries would 
have until the end of 2009 to submit comments on the project to the 
Secretariat.  Other member states will then be invited to respond to 
that document by January 31, 2010.  The Secretariat will then 
prepare a non-paper summarizing all members' suggestions (available 
by the end of February) for discussion at the fifth session of CDIP 
in April. 
 
 
New Chair to Be Elected at CDIP 5 
--------------------------------- 
¶11. The previous chairman of the committee, Ambassador Trevor C. 
Clarke (Barbados), resigned his position earlier this year to enable 
him to accept an appointment as Assistant Director General for 
Copyright and Related Rights at WIPO, a position he recently 
assumed.  The Fourth Session of CDIP was chaired by the committee's 
senior vice-chair, Mr. Mohamed Abderraouf Bdioui (Tunisia), but the 
Committee will need to elect a permanent new chairman at the next 
session.  The United States remains cautiously optimistic that 
member states will be able to identify and elect a suitable chairman 
for this increasingly important Committee. 
 
GRIFFITHS# 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1