FICPI, the International Federation of Intellectual Property Attorneys, broadly representative of the free profession of more than 70 countries, assembled at its Executive Committee meeting held in Goodwood Park, England from September 2 to 7, 2001, passed the following Resolution :

Recognising that the HIV/AIDS epidemic is representative of serious public health problems that developing and least developed countries must address; and

Recognising that the TRIPS Agreement provides in Article 31, under government use provisions, a mechanism for WTO Member countries to obtain a license for predominantly domestic production of a pharmaceutical product, and that such mechanism is sufficient to deal with most situations; but

Recognising, however, that some developing and least developed countries do not have an adequate technological base for local production of a desired pharmaceutical product,

Now, therefore, FICPI urges that Article 31 be interpreted leniently, and if necessary, the TRIPS Agreement be amended to allow developing and least developed countries to apply under TRIPS compliant procedures for a license in another WTO Member country having the technological base for such production, such amendment also providing that :

1. The license granted be only for production of amounts required for supplying the needs of the developing or least developed country, and
   
   
2. The developing or least developed country is to use, but not to sell, the pharmaceutical product domestically, and therefore not to export it to any other country.

FICPI, the International Federation of Intellectual Property Attorneys, broadly representative of the free profession of more than 70 countries, assembled at its Executive Committee meeting held in Goodwood Park, England from September 2 to 7, 2001, passed the following Resolution :

Noting the ongoing discussions of WIPO's Standing Committee on the Law of Patents in connection with a draft Substantive Patent Law Treaty

In particular noting the proposals within those discussions for a provision that published patent applications shall constitute prior art as of their filing dates for the purposes of novelty ("prior applications")

Also noting the possibility that such prior applications may constitute prior art with global effect

And recalling that Article 11(3) of the Patent Cooperation Treaty 1970 (as amended) provides that an international application shall have the effect of a regular national application in each designated state as of its international filing date

Appreciating that the underlying purpose of the "whole contents" treatment of prior applications as prior art in first-to-file patent systems with early publication is to avoid patents being granted to different applicants in respect of the same invention in the same jurisdiction

Believing that it is economically undesirable to deny the grants of parallel patents for the same invention to different applicants in different jurisdictions

And observing that before publication of a prior application a different applicant cannot have gained knowledge of the invention from the prior application

Resolves that the prior art effect of a prior application from its filing date should be limited to the jurisdiction in which the prior application was made

And that an international patent application should not have prior art effect as a prior application in a designated state unless the requirements of Articles 22(1) or 39(1)(a) PCT for that designated state have been completed.

FICPI, the International Federation of Intellectual Property Attorneys, broadly representative of the free profession of more than 70 countries, assembled at its Executive Committee meeting held in Goodwood Park, England from September 2 to 7, 2001, passed the following Resolution:

Appreciating the benefit to applicants for patents of being able to obtain high quality international search and optional international preliminary examination reports at an early stage of prosecution of a patent application made under the Patent Cooperation Treaty 1970 (as amended) ("the PCT"), before being required to file translations of the application in any of the PCT Contracting States, whilst preserving the possibility of obtaining patents in all of the Contracting States

Also appreciating the convenience to applicants of having substantially harmonised time limits under Articles 22(1) and 39(1)(a) fixed by the national laws of the Contracting States

Having regard to the serious workload problem faced by certain International Preliminary Examining Authorities ("IPEAs")¹, including the European Patent Office, resulting from the success of the PCT system in attracting applicants to file an ever-increasing number of international patent applications

Noting the unilateral decision of 28 June 2001 of the Administrative Council of the European Patent Organisation ("EPO") to extend the time limit² in the European Patent Convention ("EPC") under Article 22(1) PCT to 31 months

And noting that some other, but not all, Contracting States propose to introduce similar amendments to their national laws

Noting the possibility under Article 3(4) of the EPO Agreement of the European Patent Office entrusting the national office of any state party to the EPC with work in respect of international search or international preliminary examination

Observing a degree of duplication of effort in searching and examining international patent applications as between the International Searching Authorities ("ISAs") and IPEAs and the national offices of the Contracting States

Recognising that the intrinsic balance in the existing PCT system between the interests of applicants for patents, third parties and the public interest must be maintained

Resolves:

(A) That the existing high standards of international searching and preliminary examination by all International Searching Authorities and International Preliminary Examining Authorities must be at least maintained,

(B) That international search reports must continue to be established within the existing time frame, and

(C) That any amendments to the time limits under Articles 22(1) and 39(1)(a) PCT should be harmonised as between all Contracting States, and

Encourages:

(D) Greater cooperation between ISAs to develop a universal searching standard and define a common, shared library of search documentation to allow an international search report established by any ISA to be utilised without undue duplication of effort by the national offices of all Contracting States, and

(E) The appointment of additional ISAs and IPEAs to handle the ever-increasing workload, and further work-sharing by ISAs and IPEAs by sub-contracting work in respect of international search and preliminary examination to the national offices of other Contracting States where such national offices have the capacity and competence to handle such work.
____________
¹ PCT/A/30/4, 20 July 2001, para. 3
² Rule 107(1) EPC

FICPI, the International Federation of Intellectual Property Attorneys, broadly representative of the free profession of more than 70 countries, assembled at its Executive Committee meeting held in Goodwood Park, England from September 2 to 7, 2001, passed the following Resolution:

recognising the fundamental requirement that a patent should incorporate a description that third parties can understand in a national language of a state in which it has effect,

having taken note that a number of states have signed the "Agreement on the Application of Article 65 of the European Patent Convention" which will result in cancellation of the requirement for translation of a granted European Patent into an official language of those states,

reminds the Contracting States of the arguments previously made that such signature risks the following consequences for at least some of those states :

• a significant reduction in the influence of national languages of those states;
  
  
• a translation cost burden on third parties, particularly small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), that do not understand the language in which the European Patent was granted;
  
  
• discrimination against third parties that have to respect a patent granted in a language that they are not otherwise obliged to understand;
  
  
• a reduction in the effectiveness of all those involved in the field of intellectual property, including the staff of the national patent offices, resulting in a reduced ability to promote and defend intellectual property in those states;

and urges those states that have signed the Agreement to reconsider their position before ratification in order to alleviate the undesirable consequences listed above.