Differences on the relationship between the TRIPS Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity remained at the TRIPS Council meeting held on 14-15 March 2006.

Further submissions, however, shed light on Members’ positions.
In its new submission, the US reiterated its opposition to the proposed multilateral requirement for disclosure of origin of biological materials and related traditional knowledge in patent applications, arguing that disclosure requirements would not prevent mistakenly issued patents and indicating the necessity for national laws on access and benefit-sharing, outside the patent system.
Proponents of the requirements acknowledged that disclosure requirements were in themselves unlikely to stop biopiracy. They indicated, however, that the problem is not only the quality of patents, but also the lack of knowledge regarding foreign patent applications involving their genetic resources. In another submission, they provided definitions of the technical elements required to fulfill the Doha Declaration paragraph 19 mandate on the CBD-TRIPS relationship.
In separate informal consultations mandated under paragraph 12 of the Doha Declaration and led by WTO Deputy Director-General Rufus Yerxa, members examined a list of eleven questions on the CBD-TRIPS relationship, focusing on the different arguments for and against disclosure requirements. These consultations continued on 23 March, with China and Norway joining Brazil, Peru, India and other developing countries calling for text-based negotiations on disclosure.
Links to further information
ICTSD Bridges Trade BioRes, 17 March 2006
IP Watch, 15 March 2006
IP Watch, 16 March 2006
IP Watch, 24 March 2006