trips article 27.3

Welcome to the e-TRIPS section on the Information for Review of the provisions of Art. 27.3(b)

At its meeting in December 1998, the TRIPS Council agreed to initiate the review of the provisions of TRIPS Article 27.3(b) through an information gathering exercise. The TRIPS Council invited Members that were already under an obligation to apply Article 27.3(b) to provide information on how the matters addressed in these provisions were presently treated in their domestic law. Other Members were invited to provide such information on a best-endeavours basis. While it would be left to each Member to provide information as it would see fit, the Secretariat provided an illustrative list of questions in order to assist Members to prepare their contributions (document IP/C/W/122). Meanwhile, certain Members developed another illustrative list of questions (document IP/C/W/126) and invited interested Members to submit responses, if they so desire.

The options below allow you to search the database of responses to the illustrative lists of questions for the review of the implementation of Art. 27.3(b), which deals with patentability or non-patentability of plant and animal inventions, and the protection of plant varieties. In particular, you can: (i) search, retrieve and download relevant documents; (ii) extract information of interest and generate customized reports; (iii) consult graphs and charts; and (iv) browse the list of Members having submitted relevant documents.

© World Trade Organization 2024 Contact us Disclaimer ver 2.0.2.27506 (13/02/2024 03:17 PM)

Article 27(3)(b) TRIPS and Plant Variety Protection in Developing Countries

Cite this chapter.

• Christoph Antons 8  

Part of the book series: MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law ((MSIP,volume 25))

1554 Accesses

4 Citations

In comparison with industrialised countries, agriculture in developing countries accounts for a substantial share of GDP and involves a substantial sector of small-holders and traditional agriculturalists. In view of these differences, the biotechnology clause of Article 27.3.b TRIPS with its requirement of plant variety protection either by patents or an effective sui generis system or a combination of the two has been controversial. However, developing countries have made surprisingly little use of the freedom to design their own systems in this field. Instead, there has been a surge in UPOV membership among developing countries and some have gone as far as introducing patent protection for plant varieties. Such countries now have to consider the same exclusions and exceptions to patenting that are normally discussed in countries with much more advanced biotechnology industries. The chapter examines the scope for the use of orde public considerations under Article 27.2 TRIPS, of exceptions for research and experimental purposes under Article 30 TRIPS, compulsory licensing under Article 31 TRIPS as well as the advantages of a specific breeding exemption and it briefly comments on the various sui generis options. While liberal interpretations of the TRIPS exceptions remain possible, the chapter concludes that the majority of developing countries will be better off in more creatively using the freedom to develop sui generis systems suitable for their local conditions rather than struggling to introduce TRIPS conform ‘limited exceptions’ to patent protection for plant varieties.

Prof. Dr. Christoph Antons is Professor at Deakin University, Melbourne, Affiliated Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich, Chief Investigator at the ARC Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation and Senior Fellow at the Center for Development Research, University of Bonn.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

E.g. P. Drahos & J. Braithwaite (2002), Information Feudalism: Who Owns the Knowledge Economy?; S.K. Sell (2003), Private Power, Public Law: The Globalization of Intellectual Property Rights.

See for example the discussion of the impact of Article 27.1 TRIPS in UNCTAD-ICTSD (2005), Resource Book on TRIPS and Development, pp. 363-367.

C.M. Correa (2012), TRIPS-Related Patent Flexibilities and Food Security: Options for Developing Countries, p. 3.

M. Llewelyn (2003), Which Rules in World Trade Law – Patents or Plant Variety Protection?, in T. Cottier & P.C. Mavroidis (Eds.), Intellectual Property: Trade, Competition and Sustainable Development, p. 306.

World Bank World Development Indicators: Data Indicators Agriculture, value added (% of GDP), available at: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NV.AGR.TOTL.ZS (accessed 24 March 2014).

C.M. Correa (2012), TRIPS-Related Patent Flexibilities and Food Security: Options for Developing Countries, p. 2.

H.M. Haugen, M.R. Muller & S.M. Narashiman (2011), Food Security and Intellectual Property Rights: Finding the Linkages, in T. Wong & G. Dutfield (Eds.), Intellectual Property and Human Development: Current Trends and Future Scenarios, pp. 103-138.

World Bank World Development Indicators: Data Indicators Rural population (% of total population), available at: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SP.RUR.TOTL.ZS (accessed 24 March 2014).

C. Wittayapak & P. Vandergeest (2010), The Politics of Decentralization: Natural Resource Management in Asia.

E.g. S. Smeltzer (2008), The Message is the Market: Selling Biotechnology and Nation in Malaysia, in J. Nevins & N.L. Peluso (Eds.), Taking Southeast Asia to Market: Commodities, Nature, and People in the Neoliberal Age, pp. 191-205.

See www.upov.int/members/en (accessed 25 September 2014).

See www.upov.int/members/en/observers.html (accessed 25 September 2014).

UNCTAD-ICTSD (2005), Resource Book on TRIPS and Development, p. 391.

D. Gervais (2008), The TRIPS Agreement: Drafting History and Analysis, pp. 361-372.

D.B. Barbosa & K. Grau-Kuntz (2010), Exclusions from Patentable Subject Matter and Exceptions and Limitations to the Rights: Biotechnology, WIPO SCP/15/3, p. 19, note 43.

On the different views in the Council for TRIPS deliberations during the review, see P. Roffe (2008), Bringing Minimum Intellectual Property Standards into Agriculture: The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), in G. Tansey & T. Rajotte (Eds.), The Future Control of Food, pp. 63-64.

D. Gervais (2008), The TRIPS Agreement: Drafting History and Analysis, p. 353; UNCTAD-ICTSD (2005), Resource Book on TRIPS and Development, p. 394; M. Llewelyn (2003), Which Rules in World Trade Law – Patents or Plant Variety Protection?, in T. Cottier & P.C. Mavroidis (Eds.), Intellectual Property: Trade, Competition and Sustainable Development, pp. 308-309; K. Aoki (2008), Seed Wars: Controversies and Cases on Plant Genetic Resources and Intellectual Property, p. 82, note 101; G. van Overwalle (2008), Biotechnology and Patents: Global Standards, European Approaches and National Accents, in D. Würger & T. Cottier (Eds.), Genetic Engineering and the World Trade System, p. 80.

H.M. Haugen, M.R. Muller & S.M. Narashiman (2011), Food Security and Intellectual Property Rights: Finding the Linkages, in T. Wong & G. Dutfield (Eds.), Intellectual Property and Human Development: Current Trends and Future Scenarios, p. 120.

S. Ragavan & J. Mayer (2007), Has India Addressed Its Farmers Woes? A Story of Plant Protection Issues, 20 Geo. Int’l Envtl. L. Rev. 2007, 101.

D.B. Barbosa & K. Grau-Kuntz (2010), Exclusions from Patentable Subject Matter and Exceptions and Limitations to the Rights: Biotechnology, WIPO SCP/15/3, p. 39; S. Ragavan & J. Mayer (2007), Has India Addressed Its Farmers Woes? A Story of Plant Protection Issues, 20 Geo. Int’l Envtl. L. Rev. 2007, 103.

UNCTAD-ICTSD (2005), Resource Book on TRIPS and Development, p. 353.

C.M. Correa (2012), TRIPS-Related Patent Flexibilities and Food Security: Options for Developing Countries, p. 6.

D.B. Barbosa & K. Grau-Kuntz (2010), Exclusions from Patentable Subject Matter and Exceptions and Limitations to the Rights: Biotechnology, WIPO SCP/15/3, pp. 20-24.

L. Bently (2011), Exclusions from Patentability and Exceptions to Patentees’ Rights: Taking Exceptions Seriously, 64 CLP 2011, 334.

R. Kanniah & C. Antons (2012), Plant Variety Protection and Traditional Agricultural Knowledge in Southeast Asia, 13 Australian J. Asian L. 2010, 3.

W.L. Ng-Loy (2015), IP and FTAs of Singapore: Ten Years On, in C. Antons & R.M. Hilty (Eds.), Free Trade Agreements and Intellectual Property in the Asia-Pacific Region.

C.M. Correa (2012), TRIPS-Related Patent Flexibilities and Food Security: Options for Developing Countries, p. 4; D.B. Barbosa & K. Grau-Kuntz (2010), Exclusions from Patentable Subject Matter and Exceptions and Limitations to the Rights: Biotechnology, WIPO SCP/15/3, p. 32.

C.M. Correa (2012), TRIPS-Related Patent Flexibilities and Food Security: Options for Developing Countries, pp. 5-6; see also H.M. Haugen (2007), The Right to Food and the TRIPS Agreement: With a Particular Emphasis on Developing Countries’ Measures for Food Production and Distribution, pp. 228-229.

Ibid., p. 233, fn. 84.

Ibid., p. 230.

G. van Overwalle (2008), Biotechnology and Patents: Global Standards, European Approaches and National Accents, in D. Würger & T. Cottier (Eds.), Genetic Engineering and the World Trade System, pp. 89-91; N. Louwaars et al. (2009), Breeding Business: The Future of Plant Breeding in the Light of Developments in Patent Rights and Plant Breeder’s Rights, pp. 15-16; P. van der Kooij (2010), Towards a Breeder’s Exemption in Patent Law?, 32 EIPR 2010, 546-547.

K. Aoki (2008), Seed Wars: Controversies and Cases on Plant Genetic Resources and Intellectual Property, pp. 30-34.

Diamond v. Chakrabarty, 447 U.S. 303 (1980).

N. Louwaars et al. (2009), Breeding Business: The Future of Plant Breeding in the Light of Developments in Patent Rights and Plant Breeder’s Rights, p. 29; P. van der Kooij (2010), Towards a Breeder’s Exemption in Patent Law?, 32 EIPR 2010, 549; C.M. Correa (2012), TRIPS-Related Patent Flexibilities and Food Security: Options for Developing Countries, p. 5; M. Rimmer (2013), Patent-Busting: The Public Patent Foundation, Gene Patents and the Seed Wars, in C. Lawson & J. Sanderson (Eds.), The Intellectual Property and Food Project: From Rewarding Innovation and Creation to Feeding the World.

R.C. Dreyfuss (2009), Fostering Dynamic Innovation, Development and Trade: Intellectual Property as a Case Study in Global Administrative Law, Acta Juridica 2009, 258-259.

C.M. Correa (2012), TRIPS-Related Patent Flexibilities and Food Security: Options for Developing Countries; C.M. Correa (2005), The International Dimension of the Research Exception; C. Garrison (2006), Exceptions to Patent Rights in Developing Countries, UNCTAD-ICTSD Issue Paper No. 17; G. Dinwoodie & R. Dreyfuss (2007), Diversifying Without Discriminating: Complying with the Mandates of the TRIPS Agreement, 13 Mich. Telecomm. Tech. L. Rev. 2007, 445; H.M. Haugen (2007), The Right to Food and the TRIPS Agreement: With a Particular Emphasis on Developing Countries’ Measures for Food Production and Distribution; H.M. Haugen (2009), Human Rights and TRIPS Exclusion and Exception Provisions, 11 J. W. Intell. Prop. 2009, 345; H.M. Haugen, M.R. Muller & S.M. Narashiman (2011), Food Security and Intellectual Property Rights: Finding the Linkages, in T. Wong & G. Dutfield (Eds.), Intellectual Property and Human Development: Current Trends and Future Scenarios.

K.J. Strandburg (2009), Evolving Innovation Paradigms and the Global Intellectual Property Regime, 41 Conn. L. Rev. 2009, 861-920; C. Dent (2011), The TRIPS Agreement and an Experimental Use Exception for ‘Research Tools’, 44 Australian Econ. Rev. 2011, 73-78.

C.M. Correa (2012), TRIPS-Related Patent Flexibilities and Food Security: Options for Developing Countries, p. 8.

S. Hubicki & B. Sherman (2005), Terminator Genes as “Technical” Protection Measures for Patents?, in C. Heath & A. Kamperman Sanders (Eds.), New Frontiers of Intellectual Property Law: IP and Cultural Heritage, Geographical Indications, Enforcement and Overprotection.

H.M. Haugen (2009), Human Rights and TRIPS Exclusion and Exception Provisions, 11 J. W. Intell. Prop. 2009, 349-350.

G. van Overwalle (2008), Biotechnology and Patents: Global Standards, European Approaches and National Accents, in D. Würger & T. Cottier (Eds.), Genetic Engineering and the World Trade System, p. 81.

M. Llewelyn (2003), Which Rules in World Trade Law – Patents or Plant Variety Protection?, in T. Cottier & P.C. Mavroidis (Eds.), Intellectual Property: Trade, Competition and Sustainable Development, p. 307.

H.M. Haugen (2009), Human Rights and TRIPS Exclusion and Exception Provisions, 11 J. W. Intell. Prop. 2009, 345.

J. Curci (2010), The Protection of Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge in International Law of Intellectual Property, pp. 234-235.

P. Drahos (2010), The Global Governance of Knowledge: Patent Offices and their Clients.

C. Arup (2008), The World Trade Organization Knowledge Agreements, p. 392; see also R.C. Dreyfuss (2009), Fostering Dynamic Innovation, Development and Trade: Intellectual Property as a Case Study in Global Administrative Law, Acta Juridica 2009, 252.

L. Bently (2011), Exclusions from Patentability and Exceptions to Patentees’ Rights: Taking Exceptions Seriously, 64 CLP 2011, 329, 338-341.

C.M. Correa (2005), The International Dimension of the Research Exception, pp. 7-8.

Ibid., p. 6, note 4.

Ibid., p. 8.

S.J.R. Bostyn (2013), Patentability of Plants: At the Crossroads between Monopolizing Nature and Protecting Technological Innovation?, 16 J. W. Intell. Prop. 2013, 132.

V. Prifti (2013), The Breeding Exemption in Patent Law: Analysis of Compliance with Article 30 of the TRIPS Agreement, 16 J. W. Intell. Prop. 2013, 218-219.

K.J. Strandburg (2004), What Does the Public Get? Experimental Use and the Patent Bargain, Wis. L. Rev. 2004, 122.

G. van Overwalle (2006), The Implementation of the Biotechnology Directive and its After-Effects: The Introduction of a New Research Exemption and a Compulsory Licence for Public Health, 37 IIC 2006, 907.

C.M. Correa (2005), The International Dimension of the Research Exception, p. 23; C. Garrison (2006), Exceptions to Patent Rights in Developing Countries, UNCTAD-ICTSD Issue Paper No. 17, pp. 4-5; E. Misati & K. Adachi (2010), The Research and Experimentation Exceptions in Patent Law: Jurisdictional Variations and the WIPO Development Agenda, UNCTAD-ICTSD Policy Brief No. 7, pp. 3-6.

Ibid., pp. 4, 6.

V. Prifti (2013), The Breeding Exemption in Patent Law: Analysis of Compliance with Article 30 of the TRIPS Agreement, 16 J. W. Intell. Prop. 2013, 219.

Ibid., 236, note 4, mentioning the pharmaceutical, biofuel, chemical and cosmetics industry.

See the overview in C.M. Correa (2005), The International Dimension of the Research Exception, pp. 34-66.

Ibid., p. 31.

W.R. Cornish (1998), Experimental Use of Patented Inventions in European Community States, 29 IIC 1998, 735; E. Misati & K. Adachi (2010), The Research and Experimentation Exceptions in Patent Law: Jurisdictional Variations and the WIPO Development Agenda, UNCTAD-ICTSD Policy Brief No. 7, p. 3.

UNCTAD-ICTSD (2005), Resource Book on TRIPS and Development, p. 443.

N. Louwaars et al. (2009), Breeding Business: The Future of Plant Breeding in the Light of Developments in Patent Rights and Plant Breeder’s Rights, p. 17; S.J.R. Bostyn (2013), Patentability of Plants: At the Crossroads between Monopolizing Nature and Protecting Technological Innovation?, 16 J. W. Intell. Prop. 2013, 133-134. See also the list of countries in WIPO (2010), Patent Related Flexibilities in the Multilateral Legal Framework and their Legislative Implementation at the National and Regional Levels, WIPO Doc. CDIP/5/4 Rev., p. 21.

C. Dent (2011), The TRIPS Agreement and an Experimental Use Exception for ‘Research Tools’, 44 Australian Econ. Rev. 2011, 76-77.

H. Grosse Ruse-Khan (2011), Assessing the Need for a General Public Interest Exception in the TRIPS Agreement, in A. Kur & M. Levin (Eds.), Intellectual Property Rights in a Fair World Trade System: Proposals for Reform of TRIPS, p. 183; A. Kur (2011), Limitations and Exceptions under the Three-Step Test – How much Room to Walk the Middle Ground?, in A. Kur & M. Levin (Eds.), Intellectual Property Rights in a Fair World Trade System: Proposals for Reform of TRIPS, p. 227.

R.C. Dreyfuss (2009), Fostering Dynamic Innovation, Development and Trade: Intellectual Property as a Case Study in Global Administrative Law, Acta Juridica 2009, 252-255.

A. Kur (2011), Limitations and Exceptions under the Three-Step Test – How much Room to Walk the Middle Ground?, in A. Kur & M. Levin (Eds.), Intellectual Property Rights in a Fair World Trade System: Proposals for Reform of TRIPS, pp. 236-237, 239.

C. Garrison (2006), Exceptions to Patent Rights in Developing Countries, UNCTAD-ICTSD Issue Paper No. 17, pp. 41-42.

C.M. Correa (2005), The International Dimension of the Research Exception, p. 10.

A. Kur (2011), Limitations and Exceptions under the Three-Step Test – How much Room to Walk the Middle Ground?, in A. Kur & M. Levin (Eds.), Intellectual Property Rights in a Fair World Trade System: Proposals for Reform of TRIPS, p. 240.

L. Bently (2011), Exclusions from Patentability and Exceptions to Patentees’ Rights: Taking Exceptions Seriously, 64 CLP 2011, 346-347.

A. Kur (2011), Limitations and Exceptions under the Three-Step Test – How much Room to Walk the Middle Ground?, in A. Kur & M. Levin (Eds.), Intellectual Property Rights in a Fair World Trade System: Proposals for Reform of TRIPS, p. 238.

C. Geiger, J. Griffiths & R.M. Hilty (2008), Declaration on a Balanced Interpretation of the ‘Three-Step Test’ in Copyright Law, 39 IIC 2008, 709.

H. Grosse Ruse-Khan (2011), Assessing the Need for a General Public Interest Exception in the TRIPS Agreement, in A. Kur & M. Levin (Eds.), Intellectual Property Rights in a Fair World Trade System: Proposals for Reform of TRIPS; A. Kur (2011), Limitations and Exceptions under the Three-Step Test – How much Room to Walk the Middle Ground?, in A. Kur & M. Levin (Eds.), Intellectual Property Rights in a Fair World Trade System: Proposals for Reform of TRIPS.

A. Kur (2011), Limitations and Exceptions under the Three-Step Test – How much Room to Walk the Middle Ground?, in A. Kur & M. Levin (Eds.), Intellectual Property Rights in a Fair World Trade System: Proposals for Reform of TRIPS, p. 249.

H.M. Haugen (2007), The Right to Food and the TRIPS Agreement: With a Particular Emphasis on Developing Countries’ Measures for Food Production and Distribution, p. 243.

C.M. Correa (2005), The International Dimension of the Research Exception, p. 16.

V. Prifti (2013), The Breeding Exemption in Patent Law: Analysis of Compliance with Article 30 of the TRIPS Agreement, 16 J. W. Intell. Prop. 2013, 225.

C.M. Correa (2005), The International Dimension of the Research Exception, pp. 34-66.

See for example the provisions in Albania, Argentina, Bahrain, Bolivia, Kazakhstan, Nicaragua and others. See also the countries listed in WIPO (2010), Patent Related Flexibilities in the Multilateral Legal Framework and their Legislative Implementation at the National and Regional Levels, WIPO Doc. CDIP/5/4 Rev., p. 21.

UNCTAD-ICTSD (2005), Resource Book on TRIPS and Development, p. 437.

M.R. Dove (2000), The Life-Cycle of Indigenous Knowledge, and the Case of Natural Rubber Production, in R. Ellen, P. Parkes & A. Bicker (Eds.), Indigenous Environmental Knowledge and its Transformations: Critical Anthropological Perspectives, p. 215.

M.R. Dove (2012), The Banana Tree at the Gate: A History of Marginal Peoples and Global Markets in Borneo, p. 201.

A. Kur (2011), Limitations and Exceptions under the Three-Step Test – How much Room to Walk the Middle Ground?, in A. Kur & M. Levin (Eds.), Intellectual Property Rights in a Fair World Trade System: Proposals for Reform of TRIPS.

C.M. Correa (2005), The International Dimension of the Research Exception.

See also P. van der Kooij (2010), Towards a Breeder’s Exemption in Patent Law?, 32 EIPR 2010, 549.

C. Dent (2011), The TRIPS Agreement and an Experimental Use Exception for ‘Research Tools’, 44 Australian Econ. Rev. 77; K.J. Strandburg (2004), What Does the Public Get? Experimental Use and the Patent Bargain, Wis. L. Rev. 2004, 138-146.

C. Dent et al. (2006), Research Use of Patented Knowledge: A Review, STI Working Paper 2006/2, pp. 38-39.

C.M. Correa (2012), TRIPS-Related Patent Flexibilities and Food Security: Options for Developing Countries, p. 15.

Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions; P. van der Kooij (2010), Towards a Breeder’s Exemption in Patent Law?, 32 EIPR 2010, 547-548.

H. Grosse Ruse-Khan (2011), Assessing the Need for a General Public Interest Exception in the TRIPS Agreement, in A. Kur & M. Levin (Eds.), Intellectual Property Rights in a Fair World Trade System: Proposals for Reform of TRIPS, p. 184.

J.J. Fox (2014), Fast Breeding Insect is Devastating Java’s Rice – Thanks to Pesticides, Jakarta Globe of 7 March 2014.

N. Louwaars et al. (2009), Breeding Business: The Future of Plant Breeding in the Light of Developments in Patent Rights and Plant Breeder’s Rights, p. 53; P. van der Kooij (2010), Towards a Breeder’s Exemption in Patent Law?, 32 EIPR 2010, 545.

V. Prifti (2013), The Breeding Exemption in Patent Law: Analysis of Compliance with Article 30 of the TRIPS Agreement, 16 J. W. Intell. Prop. 2013, 222.

Ibid., 226; L. Bently (2011), Exclusions from Patentability and Exceptions to Patentees’ Rights: Taking Exceptions Seriously, 64 CLP 2011, 343.

See also P. van der Kooij (2010), Towards a Breeder’s Exemption in Patent Law?, 32 EIPR 2010, 552.

V. Prifti (2013), The Breeding Exemption in Patent Law: Analysis of Compliance with Article 30 of the TRIPS Agreement, 16 J. W. Intell. Prop. 2013, 235.

P. van der Kooij (2010), Towards a Breeder’s Exemption in Patent Law?, 32 EIPR 2010, 545.

C.G. Trojan (2012), Problem-solving Approaches to the Issue of the Overlap between Patent Law and Breeders’ Rights in the Plant Breeding Sector.

P. van der Kooij (2010), Towards a Breeder’s Exemption in Patent Law?, 32 EIPR 2010, 550.

For a detailed discussion see D. Leskien & M. Flitner (1997), Intellectual Property Rights and Plant Genetic Resources: Options for a Sui Generis System, IPGRI Issues in Genetic Resources No. 6; C.M. Correa (2000), Options for the Implementation of Farmers’ Rights at the National Level, S. Ctr. Working Paper No. 8.

R. Kanniah & C. Antons (2012), Plant Variety Protection and Traditional Agricultural Knowledge in Southeast Asia, 13 Australian J. Asian L. 2012, 12-13; E.O. Awuku (2008), Intellectual Property Rights, Biotechnology and Development: African Perspectives, in D. Würger & T. Cottier (Eds.), Genetic Engineering and the World Trade System, p. 115; T. Jaeger (2015), The EU Approach to IP Protection in Partnership Agreements, in C. Antons & R.M. Hilty (Eds.), Intellectual Property and Free Trade Agreements in the Asia-Pacific Region.

C. Antons (2010), Sui Generis Protection for Plant Varieties and Traditional Knowledge in Biodiversity and Agriculture: The International Framework and National Approaches in the Philippines and India, 6 Ind. J.L. Tech. 2010, 95, 103; B. Tobin (2013), Open Access Seeds and Breeds: The Role of the Commons in Protecting Farmers’ and Livestock Keeper’s Rights and Food Security, in C. Lawson & J. Sanderson (Eds.), The Intellectual Property and Food Project: From Rewarding Innovation and Creation to Feeding the World, pp. 86-90.

R. Andersen & T. Winge (2013), Realising Farmers’ Rights to Crop Genetic Resources: Success Stories and Best Practices.

T. Winge, R. Andersen & A. Ramanna Pathak (2013), Combining Farmers’ Rights and Plant Variety Protection in Indian Law, in R. Andersen & T. Winge (Eds.), Realising Farmers’ Rights to Crop Genetic Resources: Success Stories and Best Practices; S. Ragavan & J. Mayer (2007), Has India Addressed Its Farmers Woes? A Story of Plant Protection Issues, 20 Geo. Int’l Envtl. L. Rev. 2007, 97.

R. Sagar (2005), Intellectual Property, Benefit-Sharing and Traditional Knowledge: How Effective is the Indian Biological Diversity Act, 2002?, 8 J. W. Intell. Prop. 2005, 383; N.S. Gopalakrishnan (2002), Protection of Traditional Knowledge: The Need for a Sui Generis Law in India, 5 J. W. Intell. Prop. 2002, 725; C. Antons (2007), Sui Generis Protection for Plant Varieties and Traditional Agricultural Knowledge: The Example of India, 29 EIPR 2007, 480; C. Antons (2010), Sui Generis Protection for Plant Varieties and Traditional Knowledge in Biodiversity and Agriculture: The International Framework and National Approaches in the Philippines and India, 6 Ind. J.L. Tech. 2010, 89; B. Tobin (2013), Open Access Seeds and Breeds: The Role of the Commons in Protecting Farmers’ and Livestock Keeper’s Rights and Food Security, in C. Lawson & J. Sanderson (Eds.), The Intellectual Property and Food Project: From Rewarding Innovation and Creation to Feeding the World; R. Kanniah & C. Antons (2012), Plant Variety Protection and Traditional Agricultural Knowledge in Southeast Asia, 13 Australian J. Asian L. 2012, 1.

See the contributions in J.P. Brosius, A. Lowenhaupt Tsing & C. Zerner (2005), Communities and Conservation: Histories and Politics of Community-Based Natural Resource Management; C. Wittayapak & P. Vandergeest (2010), The Politics of Decentralization: Natural Resource Management in Asia.

E. Ostrom & C. Hess (2007), A Framework for Analyzing the Knowledge Commons, in C. Hess & E. Ostrom (Eds.), Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory to Practice.

P. Vandergeest & C. Wittayapak (2010), Decentralization and Politics, in C. Wittayapak & P. Vandergeest (Eds.), The Politics of Decentralization: Natural Resource Management in Asia.

L.R. Helfer & G.W. Austin (2011), Human Rights and Intellectual Property: Mapping the Global Interface, p. 388.

See also C.M. Correa (2012), TRIPS-Related Patent Flexibilities and Food Security: Options for Developing Countries, p. 13.

L.R. Helfer & G.W. Austin (2011), Human Rights and Intellectual Property: Mapping the Global Interface, p. 388, quoting J. Watal (2000), Intellectual Property Rights in the WTO and Developing Countries.

Andersen, R. & Winge, T. (2013), Realising Farmers’ Rights to Crop Genetic Resources: Success Stories and Best Practices, Abingdon (UK): Routledge

Google Scholar  

Antons, C. (2007), Sui Generis Protection for Plant Varieties and Traditional Agricultural Knowledge: The Example of India, 29 EIPR 2007, 480, London: Sweet & Maxwell

Antons, C. (2010), Sui Generis Protection for Plant Varieties and Traditional Knowledge in Biodiversity and Agriculture: The International Framework and National Approaches in the Philippines and India, 6 Ind. J.L. Tech. 2010, 89, Bangalore: National Law School of India University

Aoki, K. (2008), Seed Wars: Controversies and Cases on Plant Genetic Resources and Intellectual Property, Durham, North Carolina: Carolina Academic Press

Arup, C. (2008), The World Trade Organization Knowledge Agreements, 2 nd ed., Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Awuku, E.O. (2008), Intellectual Property Rights, Biotechnology and Development: African Perspectives, in D. Würger & T. Cottier (Eds.), Genetic Engineering and the World Trade System, pp. 109-117, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Barbosa, D.B. & Grau-Kuntz, K. (2010), Exclusions from Patentable Subject Matter and Exceptions and Limitations to the Rights: Biotechnology, WIPO SCP/15/3, available at: http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/scp/en/scp_15/scp_15_3-annex3.pdf (accessed 24 March 2015)

Bently, L. (2011), Exclusions from Patentability and Exceptions to Patentees’ Rights: Taking Exceptions Seriously, 64 CLP 2011, 315, Oxford: Oxford University Press

Bostyn, S.J.R. (2013), Patentability of Plants: At the Crossroads between Monopolizing Nature and Protecting Technological Innovation?, 16 J. W. Intell. Prop. 2013, 105, Malden: John Wiley & Sons

Brosius, J.P., Lowenhaupt Tsing, A. & Zerner, C. (2005), Communities and Conservation: Histories and Politics of Community-Based Natural Resource Management, Lanham, MD/Plymouth, UK: Altamira Press

Cornish, W.R. (1998), Experimental Use of Patented Inventions in European Community States, 29 IIC 1998, 735, Munich/Berlin: C.H. Beck/Springer

Correa, C.M. (2000), Options for the Implementation of Farmers’ Rights at the National Level, S. Ctr., T.R.A.D.E., Working Paper No. 8

Correa, C.M. (2005), The International Dimension of the Research Exception, Washington, DC: SIPPI Project, AAAS, available at: http://sippi.aaas.org/intlexemptionpaper.shtml (accessed 24 March 2015)

Correa, C.M. (2012), TRIPS-Related Patent Flexibilities and Food Security: Options for Developing Countries, Geneva: Quaker United Nations Office (QUNO) and International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development (ICTSD)

Curci, J. (2010), The Protection of Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge in International Law of Intellectual Property, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Dent, C. (2011), The TRIPS Agreement and an Experimental Use Exception for ‘Research Tools’, 44 Australian Econ. Rev. 2011, 73, Malden: John Wiley & Sons

Dent, C. et al. (2006), Research Use of Patented Knowledge: A Review, STI Working Paper 2006/2, Paris: OECD Directorate for Science, Technology and Industry

Dinwoodie, G. & Dreyfuss, R. (2007), Diversifying Without Discriminating: Complying with the Mandates of the TRIPS Agreement, 13 Mich. Telecomm. Tech. L. Rev. 2007, 445, Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Law School

Dove, M.R. (2000), The Life-Cycle of Indigenous Knowledge, and the Case of Natural Rubber Production, in R. Ellen, P. Parkes & A. Bicker (Eds.), Indigenous Environmental Knowledge and its Transformations: Critical Anthropological Perspectives, pp. 213-248, London: Routledge

Dove, M.R. (2012), The Banana Tree at the Gate: A History of Marginal Peoples and Global Markets in Borneo, Singapore: NUS Press

Drahos, P. & Braithwaite, J. (2002), Information Feudalism: Who Owns the Knowledge Economy?, London: Earthscan

Drahos, P. (2010), The Global Governance of Knowledge: Patent Offices and their Clients, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Dreyfuss, R.C. (2009), Fostering Dynamic Innovation, Development and Trade: Intellectual Property as a Case Study in Global Administrative Law, Acta Juridica 2009, 237, Claremont: Juta Law

Fox, J.J. (2014), Fast Breeding Insect is Devastating Java’s Rice – Thanks to Pesticides, Jakarta Globe of 7 March 2014

Garrison, C. (2006), Exceptions to Patent Rights in Developing Countries, Geneva: UNCTAD-ICTSD Issue Paper No. 17

Geiger, C., Griffiths, J. & Hilty R.M. (2008), Declaration on a Balanced Interpretation of the ‘Three-Step test’ in Copyright Law, 39 IIC 2008, 707, Munich/Berlin: C.H. Beck/Springer

Gervais, D. (2008), The TRIPS Agreement: Drafting History and Analysis, 3 rd ed., London: Thomson Reuters

Gopalakrishnan, N.S. (2002), Protection of Traditional Knowledge: The Need for a Sui Generis Law in India, 5 J. W. Intell. Prop. 2002, 725, Malden: John Wiley & Sons

Grosse Ruse-Khan, H. (2011), Assessing the Need for a General Public Interest Exception in the TRIPS Agreement, in A. Kur & M. Levin (Eds.), Intellectual Property Rights in a Fair World Trade System: Proposals for Reform of TRIPS, pp. 167-207, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar

Haugen, H.M. (2007), The Right to Food and the TRIPS Agreement: With a Particular Emphasis on Developing Countries’ Measures for Food Production and Distribution, Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers

Haugen, H.M. (2009), Human Rights and TRIPS Exclusion and Exception Provisions, 11 J. W. Intell. Prop. 2009, 345, Malden: John Wiley & Sons

Haugen, H.M., Muller M.R. & Narashiman S.M. (2011), Food Security and Intellectual Property Rights: Finding the Linkages, in T. Wong & G. Dutfield (Eds.), Intellectual Property and Human Development: Current Trends and Future Scenarios, pp. 103-138, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Helfer, L.R. & Austin, G.W. (2011), Human Rights and Intellectual Property: Mapping the Global Interface, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Hubicki, S. & Sherman, B. (2005), Terminator Genes as “Technical” Protection Measures for Patents?, in C. Heath & A. Kamperman Sanders (Eds.), New Frontiers of Intellectual Property Law: IP and Cultural Heritage, Geographical Indications, Enforcement and Overprotection, pp. 267-289, Oxford/Portland, Oregon: Hart Publishing

Jaeger, T. (2015), The EU Approach to IP Protection in Partnership Agreements, in C. Antons & R.M. Hilty (Eds.), Intellectual Property and Free Trade Agreements in the Asia-Pacific Region, pp. 171-210, Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer

Kanniah, R. & Antons, C. (2012), Plant Variety Protection and Traditional Agricultural Knowledge in Southeast Asia, 13 Australian J. Asian L. 2012, 1, Annandale, NSW: The Federation Press

Kur, A. (2011), Limitations and Exceptions under the Three-Step Test – How much Room to Walk the Middle Ground?, in A. Kur & M. Levin (Eds.), Intellectual Property Rights in a Fair World Trade System: Proposals for Reform of TRIPS, pp. 208-261, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar

Leskien, D. & Flitner, M. (1997), Intellectual Property Rights and Plant Genetic Resources: Options for a Sui Generis System, IPGRI, Issues in Genetic Resources No. 6

Llewelyn, M. (2003), Which Rules in World Trade Law – Patents or Plant Variety Protection?, in T. Cottier & P.C. Mavroidis (Eds.), Intellectual Property: Trade, Competition and Sustainable Development, pp. 303-339, Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press

Louwaars, N. et al. (2009), Breeding Business: The Future of Plant Breeding in the Light of Developments in Patent Rights and Plant Breeder’s Rights, Wageningen: Centre for Genetic Resources

Misati, E. & Adachi, K. (2010), The Research and Experimentation Exceptions in Patent Law: Jurisdictional Variations and the WIPO Development Agenda, Geneva, UNCTAD-ICTSD, Policy Brief Number 7, March 2010

Ng-Loy, W.L. (2015), IP and FTAs of Singapore: Ten Years On, in C. Antons & R.M. Hilty (Eds.), Free Trade Agreements and Intellectual Property in the Asia-Pacific Region, pp. 337-353, Heidelberg/Berlin: Springer

Ostrom, E. & Hess, C. (2007), A Framework for Analyzing the Knowledge Commons, in C. Hess & E. Ostrom (Eds.), Understanding Knowledge as a Commons: From Theory to Practice, pp. 41-81, Cambridge, Mass./London: The MIT Press

Prifti, V. (2013), The Breeding Exemption in Patent Law: Analysis of Compliance with Article 30 of the TRIPS Agreement, 16 J. W. Intell. Prop. 2013, 218, Malden: John Wiley & Sons

Ragavan, S. & Mayer, J. (2007), Has India Addressed Its Farmers Woes? A Story of Plant Protection Issues, 20 Geo. Int’l Envtl. L. Rev. 2007, 97, Washington D.C.: Georgetown University Law Center

Rimmer, M. (2013), Patent-Busting: The Public Patent Foundation, Gene Patents and the Seed Wars, in C. Lawson & J. Sanderson (Eds.), The Intellectual Property and Food Project: From Rewarding Innovation and Creation to Feeding the World, pp. 201-249. Farnham, Surrey/Burlington, VT: Ashgate

Roffe, P. (2008), Bringing Minimum Intellectual Property Standards into Agriculture: The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), in G. Tansey & T. Rajotte (Eds.), The Future Control of Food, pp. 48-68, London: Earthscan

Sagar, R. (2005), Intellectual Property, Benefit-Sharing and Traditional Knowledge: How Effective is the Indian Biological Diversity Act, 2002?, 8 J. W. Intell. Prop. 2005, 383, Malden: John Wiley & Sons

Sell, S.K. (2003), Private Power, Public Law: The Globalization of Intellectual Property Rights, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Smeltzer, S. (2008), The Message is the Market: Selling Biotechnology and Nation in Malaysia, in J. Nevins & N.L. Peluso (Eds.), Taking Southeast Asia to Market: Commodities, Nature, and People in the Neoliberal Age, pp. 191-205, Ithaca/London: Cornell University Press

Strandburg, K.J. (2004), What does the Public get? Experimental Use and the Patent Bargain, Wis. L. Rev. 2004, 81, Madison: University of Wisconsin Law School

Strandburg, K.J. (2009), Evolving Innovation Paradigms and the Global Intellectual Property Regime, 41 Conn. L. Rev. 2009, 861, Hartford: University of Connecticut School of Law

Tobin, B. (2013), Open Access Seeds and Breeds: The Role of the Commons in Protecting Farmers’ and Livestock Keeper’s Rights and Food Security, in C. Lawson & J. Sanderson (Eds.), The Intellectual Property and Food Project: From Rewarding Innovation and Creation to Feeding the World, pp. 75-100. Farnham, Surrey/Burlington, VT: Ashgate

Trojan, C.G. (2012), Problem-solving Approaches to the Issue of the Overlap between Patent Law and Breeders’ Rights in the Plant Breeding Sector. Report submitted to the Dutch Ministry of Economic Affairs, Agriculture and Innovation, available at the website of the International Association of Horticultural Producers, http://www.aiph.org/site/index.cfm?act=download.mod&doc…trojan (accessed 30 September 2014)

UNCTAD-ICTSD (2005), Resource Book on TRIPS and Development, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Vandergeest, P. & Wittayapak, C. (2010), Decentralization and Politics, in C. Wittayapak & P. Vandergeest (Eds.), The Politics of Decentralization: Natural Resource Management in Asia, pp. 1-20, Chiang Mai: Mekong Press

Van der Kooij, P. (2010), Towards a Breeder’s Exemption in Patent Law?, 32 EIPR 2010, 545, London: Sweet & Maxwell

Van Overwalle, G. (2006), The Implementation of the Biotechnology Directive and its After-Effects: The Introduction of a New Research Exemption and a Compulsory Licence for Public Health, 37 IIC 2006, 889, Munich/Berlin: C.H. Beck/Springer

Van Overwalle, G. (2008), Biotechnology and Patents: Global Standards, European Approaches and National Accents, in D. Würger & T. Cottier (Eds.), Genetic Engineering and the World Trade System, pp. 77-108, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Watal, J. (2000), Intellectual Property Rights in the WTO and Developing Countries, London/The Hague/Boston: Kluwer Law International

Winge, T., Andersen, R. & Ramanna Pathak, A. (2013), Combining Farmers’ Rights and Plant Variety Protection in Indian Law, in R. Andersen & T. Winge (Eds.), Realising Farmers’ Rights to Crop Genetic Resources: Success Stories and Best Practices, pp. 54-61, Abingdon, UK: Routledge

Wittayapak, C. & Vandergeest, P. (2010), The Politics of Decentralization: Natural Resource Management in Asia, Chiang Mai: Mekong Press

World Intellectual Property Organization (2010), Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP), Patent Related Flexibilities in the Multilateral Legal Framework and their Legislative Implementation at the National and Regional Levels, WIPO Doc. CDIP/5/4 Rev. of 18 August 2010, available at: http://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/doc_details.jsp?doc_id=131629 (accessed 30 September 2014)

Download references

Acknowledgement

This research was supported under the Australian Research Council’s Discovery Project’s funding scheme (project number DP130100213).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Faculty of Business and Law, School of Law, Deakin University, Melbourne, VIC, Australia

Christoph Antons

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christoph Antons .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich, Germany

Hanns Ullrich

Reto M. Hilty

Matthias Lamping

Josef Drexl

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Antons, C. (2016). Article 27(3)(b) TRIPS and Plant Variety Protection in Developing Countries. In: Ullrich, H., Hilty, R., Lamping, M., Drexl, J. (eds) TRIPS plus 20. MPI Studies on Intellectual Property and Competition Law, vol 25. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-48107-3_12

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-48107-3_12

Publisher Name : Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

Print ISBN : 978-3-662-48106-6

Online ISBN : 978-3-662-48107-3

eBook Packages : Law and Criminology Law and Criminology (R0)

Share this chapter

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Welcome to Department of Commerce, Government of India : 91-11-23062261

Government of India

Ministry of commerce and industry, department of commerce.

• Department setup and function
• Subject Under Administrative Control
• Advisory Board
• Bilateral Chamber of Commerce
• Officers handling Public / Staff grievances
• Citizen Charter
• Appellate Committee
• International Trade Policy Division
• Foreign Trade Territorial Division
• Export Products Division
• Export Industries Division
• Export Services Division
• SEZ Division
• Economic Division
• Administration and General Service Division
• Vigilance Division
• Supply Division
• Logistics Division
• The Marine Products Export Development Authority (MPEDA)
• Agricultural and Processed Food Products Export Development Authority (APEDA)
• Export Inspection Council
• Indian Institute of Foreign Trade (IIFT)
• Indian Institute of Packaging (IIP)
• State Trading Corporation (STC)
• PEC Limited
• MMTC Limited
• Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited
• India Trade Promotion Organisation
• Federation of Indian Export Organisation
• Export Promotion Council for EOUs.&.SEZa
• Project Exports Promotion Council of India (PEPC)
• Basic Chemicals,Cosmetics and Dyes Export Promotion Council (Chemexcil)
• Chemicals and Allied Products Export Promotion Council (CAPEXIL)
• Council for Leather Exports
• Sports Goods Export Promotion Council
• Gem and Jewellery Export Promotion Council
• Shellac Export Promotion Council
• Cashew Export Promotion Council of India
• The Plastics Export Promotion Council
• Pharmaceutical Export Promotion Council
• Indian Oil Seeds And Produce Export Promotion Council (IOPEPC)
• Services Export Promotion Council
• Indian Diamond Institute
• India Brand Equity Foundation
• Price Stabilization Fund Trust
• Indian Institute of Plantations Management, Bengaluru
• National Export Insurance Account (NEIA Trust)
• India and World Trade Organization (WTO)
• Trade Agreements
• FAQs on FTAs
• Joint Statements and Minutes of the Meetings
• TBT and SPS Portals
• India Trade Portal of SAARC, ASEAN and top 25 Countries
• Trade Promotion Programmes and Schemes
• 7th Trade Policy Review (TPR) of India
• FAQs on FTAs Engineering Sector
• EU GSP Scheme of Self Certification
• Departmental Updates
• Publications/ Reports
• Press Releases
• Major Achievements
• Photo Gallery
• Video Gallery
• General Matters on RTI
• Suo Moto Disclosure under RTI Act
• Application Forms
• Trade Promotion
• Acts and Schemes
• Parliamentary Business
• Links for Public Interfaces
• Training Notices
• Tender Notices
• Monitoring System
• Organizational Chart
• Useful Links
• Website Policy
• Department of Commerce Grievance Management System
• Indian Submissions in WTO
• Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights(TRIPS)

Review of the Provisions of Article 27.3.(b) – Communication from India

Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (99-4755) Original: English

The following communication, dated 20 October 1999, has been received from the Permanent Mission of India,

• Patents are one of the seven intellectual property rights protected under TRIPS Agreement. It requires Member countries to make patents available for any inventions, whether product or processes, in all fields of technology without discrimination, subject to the normal tests of novelty, inventiveness and industrial applicability. It also requires that patent be available and patent rights enjoyable without discrimination as to the place of invention and whether products are imported or locally produced. Of course, patents and patents rights have a territorial application i.e. patents granted under a particular national law can be enforced only within the territorial jurisdiction of that country.
• There are some general exceptions to the basic rule on patentability contained in Article 27. One is for inventions contrary to ordre public or morality. This also includes inventions dangerous to human, animal or plant life or health or which seriously prejudice the environment. The use of this exception is subject to the condition that the commercial exploitation of the invention must also be prevented. Secondly, Members may exclude from patentability diagnostic, therapeutic and surgical methods for the treatment of humans or animals.
• A review of clause (b) of paragraph 3 of Article 27 of the TRIPS Agreement is due in the year 1999. This part of the Article states as under: “Member may also exclude from patentability: (b) Plants and animals other than microorganisms, and essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals other than non-biological and microbiological processes. However, Members shall provide for the protection of plant varieties either by patents or by an effective sui generis system or by any combination thereof. The provisions of this subparagraph shall be reviewed four years after the entry into force of the WTO Agreement.”
• The review could perhaps encompass three distinct but overlapping dimensions of Article 27.3. Firstly, it may be a subject of review whether and what form of exclusion from patentability should apply to plants and animals per se (patenting of lifeforms). Secondly, the review could consider the effect of protection granted to microorganisms and non-biological and microbiological processes (scope and definition of microorganisms). Thirdly, it would be reviewed whether and what form of protection of plant varieties through sui generis systems is an effective form of protection (effectiveness of plant variety protection).
• The TRIPS Council had initiated an information gathering exercise by inviting Members to provide information on how the matters addressed in this provision were presently treated in their national laws. Developed country Members were to provide this information as they are already under an obligation to apply this provision, while others could provide information on a best endeavour basis. The information received was incomplete, as a majority of Members, having yet to take on obligations under this provision, had no information to give. The information received was also incomplete as it related primarily to the way developed countries were treating implementation of Article 27.3 (b) in their laws. It is clear from the proposals made in the communication of Kenya on behalf of the African Group in the General Council (Document No. WT/GC/W/302) that the information made available so far by Members does not represent the practices of the Membership. The various proposals made by Members in the General Council regarding review of the TRIPS Agreement, including the review of Article 27.3 (b), also show that the review of this Article is a substantive review of the provisions in the Article and not a review of the operation of the Article. Therefore, this paper discusses the three aspects of the review mentioned in paragraph 4 above.
• Patenting of lifeforms may have at least two dimensions. Firstly, there is the ethical question of the extent of private ownership that could be extended to lifeforms. The second dimension relates to the use of the IPRs concept as understood in the industrialized world and its appropriateness in the face of the larger dimension of rights on knowledge, their ownership, use, transfer and dissemination. International IPR regimes recognize formal systems of knowledge only. Informal systems e.g. the shrutis and smritis in the Indian tradition and grandmothers’ potions all over the world get scant recognition. To create systems that fail to address this issue can have severe adverse consequences on mankind, some say even leading to our extinction.
• exclude patents on all lifeforms; If this is not possible, then
• exclude patents based on traditional/indigenous knowledge and essentially derived products and processes from such knowledge; or at least
• insist on disclosure of the country of origin of the biological resource and associated knowledge, and obtain consent of the country providing the resource and knowledge, to ensure equitable sharing of benefits.
• As regards micro-organisms, the discussion would focus on the scope of patentability of micro-organisms and non-biological and microbiological processes. There are many grey areas in defining the scope of patentable microorganisms and microbiological processes multilaterally. The WTO could consider various dimensions of this in these discussions. The first is the difference between discovery and invention – only the latter should be patented. For example, patent on Steptomyces Vioaceus a micro-organism accessed from the soil in Hyderabad, India (Patent No. 4992376), granted by US PTO in 1991, to Bristol Myer would not be a valid patent. The second dimension is the patentability criteria. Article 27.1 provides that patents shall be available for any inventions provided they are new, involve an inventive step and are capable of industrial application. Thus the criteria of novelty, non-obviousness and usefulness have to be satisfied before the grant of patent. The third dimension is the coverage of micro-organisms under the Article. The Article requires patenting of microorganisms, non-biological and microbiological processes. This would mean that perhaps a microorganism which is a manmade, genetically-engineered bacterium, would meet the test of patentability. Another question is the patentability of biological material such as cell lines, enzymes, plasmids, cosmids and genes. It appears that these will not qualify as inventions unless there is human intervention involved and unless they fall in the category of micro-organisms. In cases where the biological material is also a chemical, as in the case of artificial enzymes, they could be patentable as chemicals. As for other biological material, it is felt that since plants and animals are excluded, parts would also be excluded. Thus a gene cannot be patented except if it also qualifies as a micro-organism that is patentable under the national law. National laws vary considerably on this issue. Therefore, it should be left to national policy to decide what are patentable micro-organisms.
• The Article clearly excludes essentially biological process for the production of plants and animals. It may be pertinent to note that micro-organisms or not, some inventions could be excluded from patentability for other reasons given in the TRIPS Agreement. These reasons are given in Article 27.2 of the Agreement and include ordre public, morality, human, animal or plant life or health and environment. Thus, many of the fears arising out of possible adverse consequences of patenting of micro-organisms can be allayed through proper national laws using these exceptions and through effective examination of patent applications in this area. This is all the more reason why scope of patentability of micro-organisms should be left to national policy.
• Article 27.3(b) stipulates protection of plant varieties either by patents or by an effective sui generis system or by any combination thereof. It is therefore abundantly clear from a plain reading of the language that patents are only one of the possible options available to countries for providing protection of plant varieties. Clearly, other options available are: either a sui generis system that is effective or any combination of these two. Thus, we believe wide latitude has been given to countries for developing an effective means of providing for protection of plant varieties. Obviously, in devising such a system, a country may be expected to take into account its own public policy objectives including developmental and technological objectives (clearly recognized in the TRIPS Agreement) and also the obligations that the country has undertaken in the context of the TRIPS Agreement and other international Agreements. In view of this, the TRIPS Agreement is right in leaving it to the Member concerned to decide what system it would like to choose for providing protection of plant varieties in accordance with its own legal system and practice.
• The UPOV Convention is considered by some to provide one set of models. The UPOV Convention is derived from the need to protect the interests of plant breeders in industrialized countries; it does not derive from the needs of users in developing countries. However, the 1978 Act of UPOV allows the recognition of farmers’ privilege to resow farm-saved seeds. The FAO Commission on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture is currently recasting its International Undertaking on Genetic Resources for Food and Agriculture, 1983. That could provide another set of models. Certain national or regional laws based on a combination of plant variety protection and the conservation of biological diversity also could be used as effective models. Thus there are various ways to develop an effective sui generis system of protection of plant varieties. There is no reason why countries cannot develop their own models, which are effective sui generis systems under the TRIPS Agreement.
• Some broad suggestions for creating a sui generis system that is effective under the TRIPS Agreement but also caters to environmental concerns could be discussed during the review. One suggestion could be to ensure that implementation of obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity regarding its preservation and its benefit sharing should not be considered a dilution of the effectiveness of the system. Another is to give full consideration to environmental and ethical concerns about intellectual property rights on lifeforms as discussed above. Still another is to ensure that a system considered effective should also promote food security and health security. It would be essential to ensure that preservation of farmers rights would not be considered as a dilution of effectiveness of the system. Finally, what is an effective sui generis system may be best left to each Member to evolve in its legal system and practice.
• The paper is intended to identify the scope of the review of Article 27.3 (b) and highlight some of the important suggestions made nationally as well as internationally in various discussions on the subject that have taken place since the coming into force of the TRIPS Agreement. It is neither intended to be an exhaustive treatise of the concerns on the review nor is it intended to limit the scope of review to the suggestions mentioned therein. The paper is intended to introduce the subject and suggest a possible road map for the review.
• In conclusion, it is submitted that developing countries like India cannot accept any further strengthening of the protection provided to lifeforms at present. Developing country laws in this area are still being developed. It may take some more time for developing countries to acquire experience on the level of protection necessary and desirable as well as the exceptions and balances necessary for ethical, social and economic needs of their peoples. Perhaps it may be beneficial to wait till such experience is acquired before debating the extent of protection of intellectual property rights in this area. In fact, it may be ideal to exclude patent protection for lifeforms from all national laws until such time. Until then, it may also not be advisable for the WTO community to assess the implementation of obligations in this area.

Watch CBS News

Clarence Thomas took 3 undisclosed trips on private jet provided by GOP megadonor, committee says

By Melissa Quinn

Updated on: June 13, 2024 / 4:21 PM EDT / CBS News

Washington — Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas took three undisclosed trips aboard a private jet provided by Republican megadonor Harlan Crow between 2017 and 2021, according to documents obtained by the Senate Judiciary Committee and released Thursday.

The records, which Crow turned over to the committee, show that Thomas traveled aboard Crow's private jet in May 2017 on a flight from St. Louis, Missouri, to Kalispell, Montana, with a return flight to Dallas two days later.

The second newly revealed trip on the plane took place in March 2019, from Washington, D.C., to Savannah, Georgia, and back. The third, in June 2021, included roundtrip flights between Washington and San Jose, California.

The committee said the documents were obtained as a result of its vote to authorize a subpoena for Crow in November. In addition to Crow, the panel's Democrats voted to issue a subpoena to conservative judicial activist Leonard Leo, who refused to comply with their demand for information. Crow's office said in April he had not received a subpoena from the committee.

A release from the committee noted that Thomas did not include the private jet travel in his most recent financial disclosure statement, which was released last week . The Supreme Court did not immediately return a request for comment.

"Nearly $4.2 million in gifts and even that wasn't enough for Justice Thomas, with at least three additional trips the Committee found that he has failed to disclose to date," Judiciary Committee chairman Dick Durbin said in a statement. "The Senate Judiciary Committee's ongoing investigation into the Supreme Court's ethical crisis is producing new information — like what we've revealed today — and makes it crystal clear that the highest court needs an enforceable code of conduct, because its members continue to choose not to meet the moment."

Crow's office said in a statement that he reached an agreement with the panel to turn over information going back seven years in response to Democrats' requests  for lists of travel, gifts, lodging or other transactions he provided to any member of the Supreme Court.

"Despite his serious and continued concerns about the legality and necessity of the inquiry, Mr. Crow engaged in good faith negotiations with the Committee from the beginning to resolve the matter," Crow's office said. "As a condition of this agreement, the Committee agreed to end its probe with respect to Mr. Crow."

Durbin said the documents also showed travel aboard Crow's private jet for a trip to Bali, Indonesia, in July 2019, an eight-day "yacht excursion" for that vacation and private jet travel for a July 2019 trip to Santa Rosa, California.

The two trips in July 2019, to Indonesia and California, were reported by Thomas in an amendment to his 2019 financial disclosure form, which was included in his latest disclosure covering 2023 released last week. Thomas reported receiving food and lodging at a private club and hotel. He did not include the trips aboard the private plane or yacht. His report said the lodging information was "inadvertently omitted" from his original filing.

Durbin also said the dates of the Indonesia trip reported by Thomas differ from those listed in documents Crow provided.

The Judiciary Committee has been investigating ethics issues at the Supreme Court for roughly a year. The probe was sparked by reporting from the news outlet ProPublica that detailed trips Thomas took with Crow, including the Bali vacation, which had not been included on his financial disclosure reports.

Thomas said last year that he did not believe he was required to disclose the travel and pledged to comply with guidelines about personal hospitality issued last year by the Judicial Conference, the policymaking body for the federal courts. His financial disclosure report for 2022 listed flights Thomas took aboard Crow's private plane, as well as lodging at his property in the Adirondacks. Thomas also provided details about a 2014 real estate transaction with Crow that ProPublica revealed.

Thomas' relationship with Crow led Senate Democrats to pressure the Supreme Court to adopt a formal code of conduct, and the Judiciary panel advanced legislation  last July that would've required the court to put binding ethics rules in place. But the measure has not been taken up for a vote on the Senate floor, and an attempt by Durbin on Wednesday to unanimously pass the ethics bill was blocked by Republican Sen. Lindsey Graham.

The Supreme Court did unveil its own code of conduct in November, but it did not include a means of enforcement, and Democrats criticized the ethics rules as inadequate. 

• Harlan Crow
• Supreme Court of the United States
• Clarence Thomas
• Republican Party

Melissa Quinn is a politics reporter for CBSNews.com. She has written for outlets including the Washington Examiner, Daily Signal and Alexandria Times. Melissa covers U.S. politics, with a focus on the Supreme Court and federal courts.

More from CBS News

Supreme Court upholds Trump-era tax, skirting disruptive ruling

Trump, GOP urge early and mail voting while continuing to warn of voter fraud

Steve Bannon's bid to delay 4-month prison sentence rejected by appeals court

Judge to hear arguments over Jack Smith special counsel appointment

Germany's Habeck says China ties more complex ahead of Beijing trip

• Medium Text

Sign up here.

Reporting by Maria Martinez; writing by Matthias Williams; editing by Miranda Murray

Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles. New Tab , opens new tab

World Chevron

Floods ravage parts of bangladesh, strand over 2 million people.

Monsoon rains and upstream river water from India have caused widespread flooding in northeastern Bangladesh, stranding more than 2 million people, and the situation could worsen, officials said on Friday.

• Election 2024
• Entertainment
• Newsletters
• Photography
• Personal Finance
• AP Investigations
• AP Buyline Personal Finance
• AP Buyline Shopping
• Press Releases
• Israel-Hamas War
• Russia-Ukraine War
• Global elections
• Asia Pacific
• Latin America
• Middle East
• Election Results
• Delegate Tracker
• AP & Elections
• Auto Racing
• 2024 Paris Olympic Games
• Movie reviews
• Book reviews
• Personal finance
• Financial Markets
• Business Highlights
• Financial wellness
• Artificial Intelligence
• Social Media

Biden plans to head to Camp David to prepare for June 27 debate with Trump

President Joe Biden talks with Air Force Col. Angela Ochoa, Commander, 89th Airlift Wing, as he arrives at Andrews Air Force Base, Md., on Marine One Monday, June 10, 2024. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

• Copy Link copied

WASHINGTON (AP) — After back-to-back trips to Europe, President Joe Biden plans to head to Camp David next week to prepare for his first 2024 debate with former President Donald Trump , hunkering down at the woodsy Maryland hideaway that has hosted many similar cram sessions in the past.

Biden spent most of last week in France marking the 80th anniversary of D-Day . He goes to Italy on Wednesday for a summit of the Group of Seven industrialized nations and then straight to Los Angeles for a weekend fundraiser featuring Hollywood superstars George Clooney and Julia Roberts.

All that travel has left Biden little time to devote to preparation for the June 27 debate. A second faceoff is set for Sept. 10.

A person with knowledge of the president’s plans, who insisted on anonymity to more freely discuss them, suggested Biden could spend the better part of a week at Camp David getting ready for the first debate.

But others involved in the planning said Monday that details were still being worked out, including how many days Biden would devote to prep. They said exactly where he’d be doing it, at Camp David or elsewhere, had not been finalized.

Camp David, located in the Catoctin Mountains northwest of Washington, is no stranger to presidents prepping for the debate stage. Presidents Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan went there to ready themselves for debates during their reelection campaigns, as did George H.W. Bush before a debate in 1992.

What to know about the 2024 Election

• Democracy: American democracy has overcome big stress tests since 2020. More challenges lie ahead in 2024.
• AP’s Role: The Associated Press is the most trusted source of information on election night, with a history of accuracy dating to 1848. Learn more.
• Read the latest: Follow AP’s complete coverage of this year’s election.

President Barack Obama visited Camp David before his final debate with Republican Mitt Romney in 2012. Biden himself used the presidential retreat to prepare for his State of the Union address in February.

In a memo released to coincide with the one-month mark prior to the debate, Jen O’Malley Dillon, chair of Biden’s reelection campaign, wrote that the president will aim to go on the offensive and push Trump to talk about how his three appointees to the Supreme Court helped overturn Roe v. Wade, and how he could further undermine abortion rights in a second term.

Biden also wants Trump to discuss his “attacks” on U.S. democracy and promotion of political violence and an economic agenda that Biden’s team says will furnish the rich with tax cuts while imperiling funding for Social Security, O’Malley Dillon wrote.

Trump, meanwhile, has been eager to debate Biden, challenging him to a faceoff “anytime, anyplace.”

At one point Trump suggested that the president join him for a debate outside the lower Manhattan courthouse where the presumptive Republican nominee was on trial for 34 felony counts in a case involving hush money payment to a porn actor. Trump’s campaign set up an empty lectern at several of his rallies to underscore the message.

While Trump participated in more traditional debate prep in previous races — with his former friend-turned-critic Chris Christie playing the role of Hillary Clinton in 2016 — his team insists that this time around he will be eschewing the kind of formal preparation expected from Biden.

“President Trump takes on numerous tough interviews every single week and delivers lengthy rally speeches while standing, demonstrating elite stamina,” said Trump senior adviser Jason Miller.

Associated Press writer Jill Colvin contributed to this report from New York.

WORLD TRADE ORGANIZATION

Home   |  About WTO   |  News & events   |  Trade topics   |  WTO membership   |  Documents & resources   |  External relations

Contact us   |  Site map   |  A-Z   |  Search

• legal texts

URUGUAY ROUND AGREEMENT: TRIPS

Part II — Standards concerning the availability, scope and use of Intellectual Property Rights

Sections 1 and 2

• PART I General Provisions and Basic Principles
• PART II Standards Concerning the Availability, Scope and Use of Intellectual Property Rights
• 1. Copyright and Related Rights
• 2. Trademarks
• 3. Geographical Indications
• 4. Industrial Designs
• 6. Layout-Designs (Topographies) of Integrated Circuits
• 7. Protection of Undisclosed Information
• 8. Control of Anti-Competitive Practices in Contractual Licences
• PART III Enforcement of Intellectual Property Rights
• 1. General Obligations
• 2. Civil and Administrative Procedures and Remedies
• 3. Provisional Measures
• 4. Special Requirements Related to Border Measures
• 5. Criminal Procedures
• PART IV Acquisition and Maintenance of Intellectual Property Rights and Related Inter-Partes Procedures
• PART V Dispute Prevention and Settlement
• PART VI Transitional Arrangements
• PART VII Institutional Arrangements; Final Provisions

Section 1: copyright and related rights

Article 9 relation to the berne convention.

1. Members shall comply with Articles 1 through 21 of the Berne Convention (1971) and the Appendix thereto. However, Members shall not have rights or obligations under this Agreement in respect of the rights conferred under Article 6 bis of that Convention or of the rights derived therefrom.

2. Copyright protection shall extend to expressions and not to ideas, procedures, methods of operation or mathematical concepts as such.

Article 10 Computer Programs and Compilations of Data

1. Computer programs, whether in source or object code, shall be protected as literary works under the Berne Convention (1971).

2. Compilations of data or other material, whether in machine readable or other form, which by reason of the selection or arrangement of their contents constitute intellectual creations shall be protected as such. Such protection, which shall not extend to the data or material itself, shall be without prejudice to any copyright subsisting in the data or material itself.

Article 11 Rental Rights

   In respect of at least computer programs and cinematographic works, a Member shall provide authors and their successors in title the right to authorize or to prohibit the commercial rental to the public of originals or copies of their copyright works. A Member shall be excepted from this obligation in respect of cinematographic works unless such rental has led to widespread copying of such works which is materially impairing the exclusive right of reproduction conferred in that Member on authors and their successors in title. In respect of computer programs, this obligation does not apply to rentals where the program itself is not the essential object of the rental.

Article 12 Term of Protection

   Whenever the term of protection of a work, other than a photographic work or a work of applied art, is calculated on a basis other than the life of a natural person, such term shall be no less than 50 years from the end of the calendar year of authorized publication, or, failing such authorized publication within 50 years from the making of the work, 50 years from the end of the calendar year of making.

Article 13 Limitations and Exceptions

   Members shall confine limitations or exceptions to exclusive rights to certain special cases which do not conflict with a normal exploitation of the work and do not unreasonably prejudice the legitimate interests of the right holder.

Article 14 Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms (Sound Recordings) and Broadcasting Organizations

1. In respect of a fixation of their performance on a phonogram, performers shall have the possibility of preventing the following acts when undertaken without their authorization: the fixation of their unfixed performance and the reproduction of such fixation. Performers shall also have the possibility of preventing the following acts when undertaken without their authorization: the broadcasting by wireless means and the communication to the public of their live performance.

2. Producers of phonograms shall enjoy the right to authorize or prohibit the direct or indirect reproduction of their phonograms.

3. Broadcasting organizations shall have the right to prohibit the following acts when undertaken without their authorization: the fixation, the reproduction of fixations, and the rebroadcasting by wireless means of broadcasts, as well as the communication to the public of television broadcasts of the same. Where Members do not grant such rights to broadcasting organizations, they shall provide owners of copyright in the subject matter of broadcasts with the possibility of preventing the above acts, subject to the provisions of the Berne Convention (1971).

4. The provisions of Article 11 in respect of computer programs shall apply mutatis mutandis to producers of phonograms and any other right holders in phonograms as determined in a Member’s law. If on 15 April 1994 a Member has in force a system of equitable remuneration of right holders in respect of the rental of phonograms, it may maintain such system provided that the commercial rental of phonograms is not giving rise to the material impairment of the exclusive rights of reproduction of right holders.

5. The term of the protection available under this Agreement to performers and producers of phonograms shall last at least until the end of a period of 50 years computed from the end of the calendar year in which the fixation was made or the performance took place. The term of protection granted pursuant to paragraph 3 shall last for at least 20 years from the end of the calendar year in which the broadcast took place.

6. Any Member may, in relation to the rights conferred under paragraphs 1, 2 and 3, provide for conditions, limitations, exceptions and reservations to the extent permitted by the Rome Convention. However, the provisions of Article 18 of the Berne Convention (1971) shall also apply, mutatis mutandis , to the rights of performers and producers of phonograms in phonograms.

Section 2: trademarks  

Article 15 protectable subject matter.

1. Any sign, or any combination of signs, capable of distinguishing the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings, shall be capable of constituting a trademark. Such signs, in particular words including personal names, letters, numerals, figurative elements and combinations of colours as well as any combination of such signs, shall be eligible for registration as trademarks. Where signs are not inherently capable of distinguishing the relevant goods or services, Members may make registrability depend on distinctiveness acquired through use. Members may require, as a condition of registration, that signs be visually perceptible.

2. Paragraph 1 shall not be understood to prevent a Member from denying registration of a trademark on other grounds, provided that they do not derogate from the provisions of the Paris Convention (1967).

3. Members may make registrability depend on use. However, actual use of a trademark shall not be a condition for filing an application for registration. An application shall not be refused solely on the ground that intended use has not taken place before the expiry of a period of three years from the date of application.

4. The nature of the goods or services to which a trademark is to be applied shall in no case form an obstacle to registration of the trademark.

5. Members shall publish each trademark either before it is registered or promptly after it is registered and shall afford a reasonable opportunity for petitions to cancel the registration. In addition, Members may afford an opportunity for the registration of a trademark to be opposed.

Article 16 Rights Conferred

1. The owner of a registered trademark shall have the exclusive right to prevent all third parties not having the owner’s consent from using in the course of trade identical or similar signs for goods or services which are identical or similar to those in respect of which the trademark is registered where such use would result in a likelihood of confusion. In case of the use of an identical sign for identical goods or services, a likelihood of confusion shall be presumed. The rights described above shall not prejudice any existing prior rights, nor shall they affect the possibility of Members making rights available on the basis of use.

2. Article 6 bis of the Paris Convention (1967) shall apply, mutatis mutandis , to services. In determining whether a trademark is well-known, Members shall take account of the knowledge of the trademark in the relevant sector of the public, including knowledge in the Member concerned which has been obtained as a result of the promotion of the trademark.

3. Article 6 bis of the Paris Convention (1967) shall apply, mutatis mutandis , to goods or services which are not similar to those in respect of which a trademark is registered, provided that use of that trademark in relation to those goods or services would indicate a connection between those goods or services and the owner of the registered trademark and provided that the interests of the owner of the registered trademark are likely to be damaged by such use.

Article 17 Exceptions

   Members may provide limited exceptions to the rights conferred by a trademark, such as fair use of descriptive terms, provided that such exceptions take account of the legitimate interests of the owner of the trademark and of third parties.

Article 18 Term of Protection

   Initial registration, and each renewal of registration, of a trademark shall be for a term of no less than seven years. The registration of a trademark shall be renewable indefinitely.

Article 19 Requirement of Use

1. If use is required to maintain a registration, the registration may be cancelled only after an uninterrupted period of at least three years of non-use, unless valid reasons based on the existence of obstacles to such use are shown by the trademark owner. Circumstances arising independently of the will of the owner of the trademark which constitute an obstacle to the use of the trademark, such as import restrictions on or other government requirements for goods or services protected by the trademark, shall be recognized as valid reasons for non-use.

2. When subject to the control of its owner, use of a trademark by another person shall be recognized as use of the trademark for the purpose of maintaining the registration.

Article 20 Other Requirements

   The use of a trademark in the course of trade shall not be unjustifiably encumbered by special requirements, such as use with another trademark, use in a special form or use in a manner detrimental to its capability to distinguish the goods or services of one undertaking from those of other undertakings. This will not preclude a requirement prescribing the use of the trademark identifying the undertaking producing the goods or services along with, but without linking it to, the trademark distinguishing the specific goods or services in question of that undertaking.

Article 21 Licensing and Assignment

   Members may determine conditions on the licensing and assignment of trademarks, it being understood that the compulsory licensing of trademarks shall not be permitted and that the owner of a registered trademark shall have the right to assign the trademark with or without the transfer of the business to which the trademark belongs.

< Previous     Next >

Read a summary of the TRIPS Agreement

Download full text in: > Word format (31 pages; 150KB) > pdf format (33 pages; 193KB)

The texts reproduced in this section do not have the legal standing of the original documents which are entrusted and kept at the WTO Secretariat in Geneva.

• Go to a basic explanation of the agreements ...
• ...or a more technical one
• List of Abbreviations

We've detected unusual activity from your computer network

To continue, please click the box below to let us know you're not a robot.

Why did this happen?

Please make sure your browser supports JavaScript and cookies and that you are not blocking them from loading. For more information you can review our Terms of Service and Cookie Policy .

For inquiries related to this message please contact our support team and provide the reference ID below.

Advertisement

Supported by

Putin Threatens to Arm North Korea, Escalating Tension With West Over Ukraine

The Russian leader issued the warning at the end of a trip to Asia, during which he signed a mutual defense pact with North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un.

• Share full article

By Paul Sonne

President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia directly warned the United States and its allies that he is willing to arm North Korea if they continue to supply Kyiv with sophisticated weapons that have struck Russian territory, raising the stakes for the Western powers backing Ukraine.

Mr. Putin made the threat in comments to reporters traveling with him late Thursday in Vietnam before he flew home to Russia after a trip there and to North Korea. He had made a similar, though significantly less overt, threat a day earlier in Pyongyang, where he revived a Cold War-era mutual defense pact with North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un. The pact requires each nation to provide military assistance to the other “with all means at its disposal” in the event of an attack.

Mr. Putin cast his threat to arm Pyongyang, in violation of United Nations sanctions, as a response to decisions by the United States and its allies in recent months to allow Ukraine to make certain strikes on Russian territory with their weapons . The White House made that decision last month, but maintained its prohibition on longer-range attacks deeper in the country with U.S. arms.

“Those who supply these weapons believe that they are not at war with us,” Mr. Putin said. “Well, as I said, including in Pyongyang, then we reserve the right to supply weapons to other regions of the world.”

“And where will they go next?” Mr. Putin asked of the weapons, suggesting that North Korea could then sell the Russian arms to other rogue actors hostile to the United States and its allies around the world.

Though Mr. Putin didn’t say what weapons he would give to North Korea, Mr. Kim is seeking to advance his nuclear warheads, missiles, submarines and satellites — all areas where Russia possesses some of the most sophisticated and dangerous technology in the world.

The Russian leader’s visit to Pyongyang underscored how the war in Ukraine has become the guiding principle of his foreign policy, overtaking other priorities that the Kremlin had pursued for years. Washington and Seoul say North Korea has sent dozens of ballistic missiles and over 11,000 shipping containers of munitions to Russia for use in its war against Ukraine, helping Mr. Putin overcome ammunition shortages. Both Russia and North Korea have denied any exchange of arms, which would violate the U.N. sanctions.

For years, Russia participated in efforts at the United Nations to constrain Mr. Kim’s nuclear weapons and missile program, approving resolution after resolution at the Security Council intended to limit his regime’s access to arms, technology and resources. The restrictions were brought in as North Korea conducted six nuclear tests and developed an intercontinental ballistic missile program.

But now Mr. Putin has dramatically changed course , advocating the end of the very sanctions he approved, driven by his desire to raise the cost to the United States of supporting Ukraine and Russia’s need for North Korea’s vast stores of conventional ammunition and weaponry to use on the battlefield.

“Here the Westerners supply weapons to Ukraine and say that ‘we don’t control anything here at all, and it doesn’t matter how they are used,’” Mr. Putin said. “We can also say that we delivered something to someone, and then we have no control over anything. Let them think about that.”

His revival of the Cold War-era mutual defense pledge with North Korea, and his suggestion that he may arm Mr. Kim’s regime, stoked fears in South Korea and Japan , which house tens of thousands of American troops on U.S. bases.

South Korean officials said they would consider providing lethal assistance to Ukraine in response. Mr. Putin warned them against such a decision in his remarks Thursday before leaving the region.

“This would be a very big mistake,” Mr. Putin said. “I hope this doesn’t happen. If this happens, we will also take appropriate measures, which are unlikely to please the current leadership of South Korea.”

He said the mutual defense pact shouldn’t worry South Korea, because it calls for Russia’s military intervention only in the event of aggression against North Korea, and as far as he knew, he said, Seoul had no intention of carrying out such an attack.

The Russian leader, who has made criticizing the “strangulation of sanctions” a centerpiece of his international messaging, compared the restrictions on North Korea to the siege of Leningrad by the Nazis during World War II, which caused the death of his older brother, who was then a year old.

Mr. Putin reiterated in his comments Thursday that those sanctions should be re-evaluated, in particular questioning those related to labor migration, saying that North Korean families were unable to earn money and feed their children.

“Does this remind you of anything?” Mr. Putin said, referring to World War II. “And is this humane?”

Mr. Putin’s trip to Pyongyang came days after he issued new demands to end the war in Ukraine. He said he would agree to a cease-fire and enter talks if Kyiv withdrew troops from the four eastern Ukrainian regions Moscow has claimed as its own and dropped its aspirations to join NATO. Russia hasn’t held the full territory of those regions at any point during the war.

Ukraine and its Western allies immediately rejected the proposal as a demand of capitulation and additional Ukrainian land, rather than an honest overture for negotiations.

In the days since, the Russian leader and his top lieutenants have urged the West to take the offer seriously and tried to amp up the pressure, warning of worse terms to come and more catastrophic conditions on the battlefield.

The Russian leader also claimed Moscow was considering changing its nuclear doctrine in response to new devices being developed by the West that lower the threshold for nuclear use. Russia possesses the world’s biggest arsenal of so-called tactical nuclear weapons, which have lower yields and can be used in more limited battlefield scenarios.

Mr. Putin ordered his troops to practice using such weapons earlier this year in response to Britain’s announcement that Ukraine could use its weapons to strike Russia and to suggestions by President Emmanuel Macron of France that Western nations might put troops on the ground in Ukraine.

The Kremlin leader has regularly warned his Western foes against pursuing Moscow’s “strategic defeat” through a loss in the war against Ukraine — a message he reiterated on Thursday.

“This means the end of the 1,000-year history of the Russian state,” he said. “I think this is clear to everyone. And then the question arises: Why should we be afraid? Isn’t it better to go all the way?”

Paul Sonne is an international correspondent, focusing on Russia and the varied impacts of President Vladimir V. Putin’s domestic and foreign policies, with a focus on the war against Ukraine. More about Paul Sonne

Our Coverage of the War in Ukraine

News and Analysis

President Vladimir Putin of Russia and North Korea’s leader, Kim Jong-un, revived a Cold War-era mutual defense pledge  between their nations, a deepening  of ties  propelled by Putin’s need for munitions to use against Ukraine.

Mark Rutte, the departing prime minister of the Netherlands who has guided more than $3 billion in Dutch military support to Ukraine since 2022, is poised to become NATO’s next secretary general .

The European Union will impose economic penalties targeting some shipments of Russian natural gas  for the first time, hoping to deprive Moscow of income.

Inside Russia’s Chechen Units: After hundreds of years of enmity with Russia, Chechens are deploying to Ukraine to fight Moscow’s war .

Narrowing Press Freedoms: Journalists in Ukraine say they are subject to increasing restrictions and pressure from the government , adding that the measures go beyond wartime security needs.

Belugas Escape Ukraine: A pair of beluga whales were transported out of danger in Kharkiv to an aquarium in Spain in an incredibly complex rescue .

How We Verify Our Reporting

Our team of visual journalists analyzes satellite images, photographs , videos and radio transmissions  to independently confirm troop movements and other details.

We monitor and authenticate reports on social media, corroborating these with eyewitness accounts and interviews. Read more about our reporting efforts .

Their trip to Bali was going to be a month long. But they fell in love with the island and built a house near the sea, giving up city life for good.

• Tanguy and Lucie Yu gave up city life in Paris to move to Bali in 2019.
• Their house, located amid rice paddies, took 4 months to build and has a garden indoors.
• They say they are less attached to material things and want to focus on what truly matters to them in life.

Tanguy and Lucie Yu first visited Bali together in 2018 for a monthlong vacation.

That year, Lombok, a neighboring island, experienced a 6.9-magnitude earthquake that could be felt even in Bali, which was 40 minutes away by plane.

"We couldn't travel much to the other islands because the boats weren't working, so we rented motorbikes, and we did road trips to see all the different parts of the main island," Lucie, 35, told Business Insider.

The couple, who was living in Paris at the time, was blown away by the simplicity of life on the island and the generosity of the people they met.

"Farmers whose houses were damaged by the earthquake still invited us over for coffee. They had a smile on their faces and were just happy to be alive," Lucie said. "It was a sign that this place had some magic."

A year later, in September 2019, the couple packed up their lives and moved across the globe to Bali.

Finding land

Initially, they planned to use Bali as a base to travel around Asia. But six months later, the pandemic hit and derailed their plans.

Around then, Tanguy cofounded Astungkara Way , a regenerative travel company. That spurred the couple's decision to put down more permanent roots in Bali, so they started looking for land to build on.

During their first year in Bali, the couple lived in Kerobokan, an area sandwiched between the bustling, tourist-filled neighborhoods of Canggu and Seminyak.

"It was very busy, very loud, and a lot of traffic," Lucie said.

They knew they wanted to be somewhere quieter, and a friend introduced them to the property 10 miles north in Kediri, where they now live.

The only criterion they had was that the land couldn't be a rice paddy since part of the travel company's mission is to protect rice paddies.

"We thought that it was too far from things like hospitals and shops. But when he took us here, and we stepped on this land, we felt this was the place we wanted to be," Lucie said.

They had viewed three other plots of land before they found this.

"The land was basically the village dump and the soil was full of trash. It took us two weeks to clean everything up," Lucie said.

She added that back in 2020 , there was only one local village in the area, although things have changed since.

"We were like the last point before the rice paddies started and we were promised that it would stay that way," Lucie said. But two months later, a new 160-home development broke ground on the land just beyond their property.

Building a low-impact house

In local measurements, their land spans 15 are — about 16,145 square feet.

The couple says they paid 4.5 million Indonesian rupiah per are each year for a 25-year lease, which amounts to about 1.687 billion Indonesian rupiah in total, or about $103,500 in today's currency.

Building the home took about four months, and they estimate they spent about $70,000 on the build.

The couple's house is surrounded by their lush outdoor garden. A dirt pathway with an overhead trellis covered in creepers leads from the gate at the edge of their property to the couple's front door.

Related stories

The entire front section of the house is shielded by a giant insect net — meant for greenhouses — to prevent mosquitoes from entering.

"You get sun, you get wind, you get rain in the house as well, which is really nice, but you don't get bugs," Tanguy, 40, told BI.

There's even a garden inside the house, which helps keep their home cool even without a cooling system.

The couple's home was designed and built by the late architect Tony Gwilliam, a close family friend. The inspiration behind its design was another similar building prototype that Gwilliam had constructed in the Bloo Lagoon Eco Village , a resort located along the east coast of Bali.

"We went for a road trip during our first week in Bali, and we stopped by the Bloo Lagoon Eco Village because we wanted to see their permaculture garden. In the middle of the garden was the first prototype of our house, and we just fell in love with its concept," Lucie said.

It was a six-meter cube made from steel, and the couple liked the idea of incorporating that material into their build.

"If you're using steel, you can have very small foundational elements," Tanguy said.

For instance, the couple's house is supported by six steel pillars and made from local brick. Because it's light, the house can also be taken down and fit in a container to be moved if required.

"It doesn't take much space, and it doesn't require many materials," Tanguy added.

As he explained, Gwilliam and the couple were inspired by architect R. Buckminster Fuller's ideas about the weight of a house , which is related to its environmental impact.

"How much material was extracted from the ground, transported, and transformed? When you have a big concrete villa, the impact of those is colossal," Tanguy said.

Even the home's interiors are fairly minimal, with each piece of furniture designed by the couple and made by local craftsmen.

"Maybe we're getting older, we're less attached — and this is also what the idea of coming here was about, to be less attached to material things and more attached to how we feel, how we live, how we are as a couple, as parents, and just focusing more on life," he said.

Now, even with an infant son in tow, they have a slower pace of life.

Every day, they spend time as a family and walk their three dogs along the beach, which is less than 10 minutes away on foot. The couple also has two cats, and they rear chickens and grow their own produce in the garden.

"The only thing that we didn't think about when we were creating the house was that we were going to have a baby, so it's not very baby-proof," Lucie added.

That said, the layout can be easily adjusted because of the house's design and materials.

"If we want to add two more rooms, we can still do it within the space," she said. "We can improve it as we grow according to our needs."

Be part of the solution, not the problem

Tanguy acknowledges that mass tourism has greatly impacted Bali and its natural ecosystems. He points to the island's ongoing water crisis and the destruction of Bali's natural landscapes for materials as examples.

"I think people should move here if they want to contribute, but if they are here to just extract value from the people, from unregulated resource management, then they should reconsider," Tanguy said. "It's a pretty fragile part of the world."

He added that there are plenty of eco-tourism alternatives that are now available on the island.

"There are a lot of hotels that are trying to do better, who are growing their own food, doing wastewater treatment or sourcing their food locally," Tanguy said. "If you come to Bali, go there and support. The same thing for restaurants."

"Make sure to be part of the solution," he added.

Have you recently built or renovated your dream home? If you've got a story to share, get in touch with me at  [email protected] .

Watch: How a Vietnamese village is keeping an 800-year-old papermaking tradition alive

• Main content