File #2796: "2019_Book_IntellectualPropertyAndDevelop.pdf"
Text
1|Foreword|5
1|Contents|9
1|Contributors|11
1|Abbreviations|13
1|Introduction|19
2|References|30
1|International Trade and Technology Transfer|31
1|Policy Space in Intellectual Property Rights and Technology Transfer: A New Economic Research Agenda|32
2|1 Introduction|33
2|2 IPRs and Technology Transfer: A Selective Review|34
2|3 Deploying Policy Flexibilities|40
3|3.1 Economic Context: Arguments for Policy Flexibility in Technology Transfer|40
3|3.2 Elements of Flexibility|42
3|3.3 Frustrating Lack of Evidence|43
2|4 A Broader Research Agenda|43
3|4.1 Linked National Surveys|45
3|4.2 Quasi-exogenous Policy Experiments|46
3|4.3 Panel Surveys|46
2|5 Concluding Remarks|47
2|References|47
1|Legislative and Regulatory Takings of Intellectual Property: Early Stage Intervention Against a New Jurisprudential Virus|50
2|1 Introduction|51
2|2 Takings of Intellectual Property Rights|53
3|2.1 Takings in the Investor to State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) Context|53
3|2.2 The Ordinary Consequences of Changes to Legislation|54
3|2.3 The Constitutional Question|58
3|2.4 Investment Backed Expectations|59
3|2.5 Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto|60
3|2.6 Action by the Congress Versus Action by the Courts|61
2|3 Exhaustion and Parallel Imports|62
2|4 Conclusion|63
2|References|64
1|Intellectual Property and Technology Transfer: Why We Need a New Agenda|65
2|1 1948–1995 in Retrospect|66
2|2 From 1995 to 2017: Are We In or Out of Balance?|70
3|2.1 The Notion of Balance in the TRIPS Agreement|71
3|2.2 The Ever-Expanding World of IP in Free Trade Agreements|74
3|2.3 IP Expansion and Market Power: A Structuralist Perspective|77
2|3 IPRs and Market Concentration: Current Trends and Some Preliminary Evidence|80
2|4 Balancing Geopolitics with a Sustainable Technology Agenda: Some Thoughts for the Future|86
2|References|89
1|Intellectual Property as a Financial Contribution Under the WTO Subsidies Agreement|92
2|1 Introduction|93
2|2 The SCM Agreement and the Definition of “Subsidy”|94
2|3 Whether IPRs Can Properly Be Characterized as “Goods”|96
3|3.1 IPRs Are Neither a Tangible Goods Nor Intangible Services|97
3|3.2 Right Context to Interpret the Term “Good”|97
3|3.3 Interpretation of “Goods” in the Context of a “Financial Contribution”|98
3|3.4 IPRs as “Intangible Goods” Within the Meaning of Article 1.1(a)(1)(iii) of the SCM Agreement|99
2|4 Did the AB Findings in the US—Softwood Lumber IV Case Really Limit the Term “Goods” to “Intangible Goods”?|102
2|5 The “Provision” Part of the Term “Provision of Goods”|103
2|6 Conclusion|105
2|References|106
1|Four Decades of Technology Transfer, Trade and Intellectual Property|108
2|1 Introduction|109
2|2 Transfer of Technology|109
3|2.1 The Code of Conduct on the Transfer of Technology|110
3|2.2 Two Outstanding Contributions for a Better Comprehension of the Transfer of Technology|111
2|3 Free Trade Agreements|114
3|3.1 International Architecture of Intellectual Property|115
3|3.2 “TRIPS-Plus Era”|117
3|3.3 Flexibility and Implementation|118
2|4 Conclusions|120
2|References|120
1|Development and Public Policy|122
1|Development Bridge Over Troubled Intellectual Property Water|123
2|1 Introduction|123
2|2 Recounting Developments from the Past|125
2|3 Recognizing Newness in the Present|130
2|4 Reorienting Towards a Better Future|134
2|5 Conclusion|139
2|References|139
1|What Role for Intellectual Property in Industrial Development?|145
2|1 Introduction|146
2|2 Diverging Paths of Industrial Development: East Asia Versus Latin America|147
2|3 Differences in IP Policies and IP Use|152
2|4 Review of Evidence on IP Protection and Industrialization|158
2|5 So, What Role for IP then?|159
2|References|160
1|WIPO’s Assistance to Developing Countries: The Evolution of Debate and Current Challenges|163
2|1 Introduction|164
2|2 An Overview of WIPO’s Development Cooperation Portfolio|165
2|3 Evolution of WIPO’s Assistance to Developing Countries|167
3|3.1 The History of WIPO’s Assistance to Developing Countries and Calls for Change|167
3|3.2 The WIPO Development Agenda in the Area of Technical Assistance and Capacity-Building: Expectations and Recommendations|173
2|4 Weak Governance of WIPO’s Development Cooperation|181
3|4.1 Contests Over WIPO’s Mandate and the Purpose of Development Cooperation|181
3|4.2 WIPO’s Financial Arrangements: Private Sector Financing|183
3|4.3 Poor Processes for Member State Oversight of Development-Orientation|185
3|4.4 Governance Gaps: Poor Oversight of Extra-Budgetary Spending on Development Cooperation|188
2|5 Poor Management by the Secretariat and the Bureaucratic Politics of Reform|190
3|5.1 Measuring and Monitoring Resource Allocation by Country|191
3|5.2 The Secretariat’s Black Box: The Development Activities of the Regional Bureaus|191
3|5.3 Evaluating Results and Impact|192
3|5.4 Weak Processes for Country Planning of Assistance|193
3|5.5 Poor Institutional Leadership, Bureaucratic Politics and Institutional Culture|194
2|6 The National and Regional Dimension: Weak Institutions and Inconsistent Demand for Development-Orientation from Developing Countries|195
2|7 Conclusion|198
2|Annex: Examples of WIPO Development Agenda Recommendations Relevant to WIPO’s Development Cooperation Activities|199
2|References|201
1|The Twenty-First Century Intellectual Property Office|206
2|1 Introduction|207
2|2 A Necessary Evolution|207
2|3 First Step: Impeccable Registry|208
2|4 Diffusion of Knowledge and Technology Transfer|211
2|5 Source of Statistical and Economic Data|213
2|6 Key Player in Public Policies|214
2|7 Competition and Intellectual Property|215
2|8 Internationally Connected|216
2|9 Chile’s Experience in the Creation of an IP Office|218
2|10 Positioning|219
2|11 Breaking New Ground|220
2|12 Our Final Step: The IP National Strategy|222
2|13 Conclusions|222
2|References|223
1|Least-Developed Countries, Transfer of Technology and the TRIPS Agreement|224
2|1 Introduction|225
2|2 Definition of LDCs in the WTO|225
2|3 TRIPS Negotiations in the Uruguay Round and the Role of LDCs|227
2|4 Article 66.2—The Obligation|228
2|5 Four Phases in the Monitoring of the Article 66.2 Obligation in the Council|229
3|5.1 1995–1998: Not on the Agenda|230
3|5.2 1998–2000: The First Reports|230
3|5.3 2001–2003: Negotiating a Monitoring Mechanism|232
3|5.4 2003–2016: Implementation of the Monitoring Mechanism|237
2|6 Analysis of Article 66.2 Reports Submitted from 2003 to 2016|240
3|6.1 Submission of Reports to the Council|240
3|6.2 What Are the Broad Fields in Which Incentive Programmes Are Being Reported and How Has This Changed Over Time?|242
3|6.3 How Many LDC Members Have Benefitted from the Reported Incentives?|245
2|7 Understanding of “Transfer of Technology” and “Incentives”|249
2|8 Concluding Remarks|251
2|References|253
1|Warner Lambert v Actavis: The Tricky Task of Examining Patent Infringement in New Medical Use Cases|254
2|1 Introduction|254
2|2 The Facts|255
2|3 The Legal Issue|257
3|3.1 Direct Infringement|257
3|3.2 Indirect Infringement|263
2|4 Conclusions and Policy Considerations Regarding the Patentability of New Uses of Known Pharmaceutical Products|265
2|References|270
1|Traditional Knowledge and Genetic Resources|271
1|Traditional Knowledge and the Public Domain in Intellectual Property|272
2|1 Introduction|273
2|2 Traditional Knowledge and the Public Domain in Intellectual Property|275
3|2.1 The Public Domain as the “Dark Side” of Property|276
3|2.2 Territoriality and the Public Domain|279
3|2.3 Resisting the Public Domain in Intellectual Property|282
2|3 Public Domain Challenges for a Global Framework for the Protection of Traditional Knowledge|284
3|3.1 Four Challenges of the Public Domain in Intellectual Property Discourse|285
3|3.2 Toward a Custom-Built Public Domain for Traditional Knowledge|286
2|4 Possible Ways Forward for the Protection of Traditional Knowledge and the Public Domain|291
3|4.1 A Tiered Approach to Traditional Knowledge|291
3|4.2 Delineating the Public Domain for Traditional Knowledge|294
2|5 Conclusion|295
2|References|296
1|The Globalisation of Plant Variety Protection: Are Developing Countries Still Policy Takers?|299
2|1 Introduction|300
2|2 Origins|301
2|3 Key Provisions of the UPOV Convention|305
2|4 Developed and Developing Countries: Interests in Alignment?|309
2|5 Are There Alternatives?|312
2|6 Conclusion|313
2|References|314
1|Why the Nagoya Protocol to the Convention on Biological Diversity Matters to Science and Industry Everywhere|316
2|1 The Propertization of Plant, Microbial, and Animal Genetic Resources|317
2|2 The Legal Status of Ex Situ Plant and Microbial Transactions After the Nagoya Protocol (2010)|321
3|2.1 General Enforcement Measures Under the Nagoya Protocol|324
3|2.2 Measures Favoring Scientific Research|326
2|3 The Implications for Science Policy|327
2|4 Envisioning a Multilateral Regime of Facilitated Access to Ex Situ Microbial Genetic Resources|330
2|References|333
1|The Private International Law of Access and Benefit-Sharing Contracts|336
2|1 Introduction: Public and Private Enforcement of Access and Benefit-Sharing|337
2|2 The International ABS Framework Under the CBD and Its Nagoya Protocol|340
3|2.1 From Rio to Nagoya|340
3|2.2 Facilitating Compliance with ABS Rules and Contracts|344
2|3 Private International Law Aspects in the Enforcement of ABS|348
3|3.1 ABS Contracts|348
3|3.2 Access and Utilization Without an ABS Contract|381
2|4 Conclusions: Elements of an ABS-Friendly Private International Law Regime|388
3|4.1 Jurisdiction|390
3|4.2 Applicable Law|392
2|References|394
1|New Challenges for the Nagoya Protocol: Diverging Implementation Regimes for Access and Benefit-Sharing|397
2|1 Introduction|398
2|2 Background|398
2|3 Key Implementation Matters|401
3|3.1 The “Trigger” for Benefit-Sharing and Temporal Scope|401
3|3.2 Associated Traditional Knowledge|407
3|3.3 User Compliance Measures, Monitoring and Checkpoints|411
2|4 Challenges of Diverging Implementation Regimes|417
3|4.1 Legal Certainty|417
3|4.2 Facilitated Access Likely to Be Undermined Due to Lack of Trust|419
3|4.3 Issues Pertaining to Monitoring Compliance|419
2|5 Conclusions|420
2|References|421
1|Marine Genetic Resources Within National Jurisdiction: Flagging Implications for Access and Benefit Sharing and Analysing Patent Trends|424
2|1 Introduction|425
2|2 Utilisation of Marine Genetic Resources in Selected Industrial Sectors|426
3|2.1 Pharmaceutical Industry and MGRs|427
3|2.2 Specific ABS-Related Issues Connected with R&D on Marine Microorganisms|428
3|2.3 Marine Peptides/Proteins and Digital Sequence Information|429
3|2.4 Industrial Biotechnology|430
3|2.5 Cosmetics|431
2|3 Jurisdictional Issues and Applicable International Law|431
3|3.1 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982)|431
3|3.2 National Legislation and ABS Contracts|433
2|4 Some Experiences on Commercial Utilisation of MGRs|435
3|4.1 Access Under National Jurisdiction and the Role of ABS|435
3|4.2 Access in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction|438
3|4.3 How to Better Regulate and Reap Benefits from the Use of MGRs Within National Jurisdiction?|439
2|5 Brief Discussion on Links with Patent Trends on MGRs and the TRIPS-CBD Relationship|440
3|5.1 Trends in Patent Applications Based on Marine Resources|440
3|5.2 The TRIPS-CBD Relationship and Links to MGRs|443
2|6 Some Lessons and Conclusions|446
2|References|447
1|Contents|9
1|Contributors|11
1|Abbreviations|13
1|Introduction|19
2|References|30
1|International Trade and Technology Transfer|31
1|Policy Space in Intellectual Property Rights and Technology Transfer: A New Economic Research Agenda|32
2|1 Introduction|33
2|2 IPRs and Technology Transfer: A Selective Review|34
2|3 Deploying Policy Flexibilities|40
3|3.1 Economic Context: Arguments for Policy Flexibility in Technology Transfer|40
3|3.2 Elements of Flexibility|42
3|3.3 Frustrating Lack of Evidence|43
2|4 A Broader Research Agenda|43
3|4.1 Linked National Surveys|45
3|4.2 Quasi-exogenous Policy Experiments|46
3|4.3 Panel Surveys|46
2|5 Concluding Remarks|47
2|References|47
1|Legislative and Regulatory Takings of Intellectual Property: Early Stage Intervention Against a New Jurisprudential Virus|50
2|1 Introduction|51
2|2 Takings of Intellectual Property Rights|53
3|2.1 Takings in the Investor to State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) Context|53
3|2.2 The Ordinary Consequences of Changes to Legislation|54
3|2.3 The Constitutional Question|58
3|2.4 Investment Backed Expectations|59
3|2.5 Ruckelshaus v. Monsanto|60
3|2.6 Action by the Congress Versus Action by the Courts|61
2|3 Exhaustion and Parallel Imports|62
2|4 Conclusion|63
2|References|64
1|Intellectual Property and Technology Transfer: Why We Need a New Agenda|65
2|1 1948–1995 in Retrospect|66
2|2 From 1995 to 2017: Are We In or Out of Balance?|70
3|2.1 The Notion of Balance in the TRIPS Agreement|71
3|2.2 The Ever-Expanding World of IP in Free Trade Agreements|74
3|2.3 IP Expansion and Market Power: A Structuralist Perspective|77
2|3 IPRs and Market Concentration: Current Trends and Some Preliminary Evidence|80
2|4 Balancing Geopolitics with a Sustainable Technology Agenda: Some Thoughts for the Future|86
2|References|89
1|Intellectual Property as a Financial Contribution Under the WTO Subsidies Agreement|92
2|1 Introduction|93
2|2 The SCM Agreement and the Definition of “Subsidy”|94
2|3 Whether IPRs Can Properly Be Characterized as “Goods”|96
3|3.1 IPRs Are Neither a Tangible Goods Nor Intangible Services|97
3|3.2 Right Context to Interpret the Term “Good”|97
3|3.3 Interpretation of “Goods” in the Context of a “Financial Contribution”|98
3|3.4 IPRs as “Intangible Goods” Within the Meaning of Article 1.1(a)(1)(iii) of the SCM Agreement|99
2|4 Did the AB Findings in the US—Softwood Lumber IV Case Really Limit the Term “Goods” to “Intangible Goods”?|102
2|5 The “Provision” Part of the Term “Provision of Goods”|103
2|6 Conclusion|105
2|References|106
1|Four Decades of Technology Transfer, Trade and Intellectual Property|108
2|1 Introduction|109
2|2 Transfer of Technology|109
3|2.1 The Code of Conduct on the Transfer of Technology|110
3|2.2 Two Outstanding Contributions for a Better Comprehension of the Transfer of Technology|111
2|3 Free Trade Agreements|114
3|3.1 International Architecture of Intellectual Property|115
3|3.2 “TRIPS-Plus Era”|117
3|3.3 Flexibility and Implementation|118
2|4 Conclusions|120
2|References|120
1|Development and Public Policy|122
1|Development Bridge Over Troubled Intellectual Property Water|123
2|1 Introduction|123
2|2 Recounting Developments from the Past|125
2|3 Recognizing Newness in the Present|130
2|4 Reorienting Towards a Better Future|134
2|5 Conclusion|139
2|References|139
1|What Role for Intellectual Property in Industrial Development?|145
2|1 Introduction|146
2|2 Diverging Paths of Industrial Development: East Asia Versus Latin America|147
2|3 Differences in IP Policies and IP Use|152
2|4 Review of Evidence on IP Protection and Industrialization|158
2|5 So, What Role for IP then?|159
2|References|160
1|WIPO’s Assistance to Developing Countries: The Evolution of Debate and Current Challenges|163
2|1 Introduction|164
2|2 An Overview of WIPO’s Development Cooperation Portfolio|165
2|3 Evolution of WIPO’s Assistance to Developing Countries|167
3|3.1 The History of WIPO’s Assistance to Developing Countries and Calls for Change|167
3|3.2 The WIPO Development Agenda in the Area of Technical Assistance and Capacity-Building: Expectations and Recommendations|173
2|4 Weak Governance of WIPO’s Development Cooperation|181
3|4.1 Contests Over WIPO’s Mandate and the Purpose of Development Cooperation|181
3|4.2 WIPO’s Financial Arrangements: Private Sector Financing|183
3|4.3 Poor Processes for Member State Oversight of Development-Orientation|185
3|4.4 Governance Gaps: Poor Oversight of Extra-Budgetary Spending on Development Cooperation|188
2|5 Poor Management by the Secretariat and the Bureaucratic Politics of Reform|190
3|5.1 Measuring and Monitoring Resource Allocation by Country|191
3|5.2 The Secretariat’s Black Box: The Development Activities of the Regional Bureaus|191
3|5.3 Evaluating Results and Impact|192
3|5.4 Weak Processes for Country Planning of Assistance|193
3|5.5 Poor Institutional Leadership, Bureaucratic Politics and Institutional Culture|194
2|6 The National and Regional Dimension: Weak Institutions and Inconsistent Demand for Development-Orientation from Developing Countries|195
2|7 Conclusion|198
2|Annex: Examples of WIPO Development Agenda Recommendations Relevant to WIPO’s Development Cooperation Activities|199
2|References|201
1|The Twenty-First Century Intellectual Property Office|206
2|1 Introduction|207
2|2 A Necessary Evolution|207
2|3 First Step: Impeccable Registry|208
2|4 Diffusion of Knowledge and Technology Transfer|211
2|5 Source of Statistical and Economic Data|213
2|6 Key Player in Public Policies|214
2|7 Competition and Intellectual Property|215
2|8 Internationally Connected|216
2|9 Chile’s Experience in the Creation of an IP Office|218
2|10 Positioning|219
2|11 Breaking New Ground|220
2|12 Our Final Step: The IP National Strategy|222
2|13 Conclusions|222
2|References|223
1|Least-Developed Countries, Transfer of Technology and the TRIPS Agreement|224
2|1 Introduction|225
2|2 Definition of LDCs in the WTO|225
2|3 TRIPS Negotiations in the Uruguay Round and the Role of LDCs|227
2|4 Article 66.2—The Obligation|228
2|5 Four Phases in the Monitoring of the Article 66.2 Obligation in the Council|229
3|5.1 1995–1998: Not on the Agenda|230
3|5.2 1998–2000: The First Reports|230
3|5.3 2001–2003: Negotiating a Monitoring Mechanism|232
3|5.4 2003–2016: Implementation of the Monitoring Mechanism|237
2|6 Analysis of Article 66.2 Reports Submitted from 2003 to 2016|240
3|6.1 Submission of Reports to the Council|240
3|6.2 What Are the Broad Fields in Which Incentive Programmes Are Being Reported and How Has This Changed Over Time?|242
3|6.3 How Many LDC Members Have Benefitted from the Reported Incentives?|245
2|7 Understanding of “Transfer of Technology” and “Incentives”|249
2|8 Concluding Remarks|251
2|References|253
1|Warner Lambert v Actavis: The Tricky Task of Examining Patent Infringement in New Medical Use Cases|254
2|1 Introduction|254
2|2 The Facts|255
2|3 The Legal Issue|257
3|3.1 Direct Infringement|257
3|3.2 Indirect Infringement|263
2|4 Conclusions and Policy Considerations Regarding the Patentability of New Uses of Known Pharmaceutical Products|265
2|References|270
1|Traditional Knowledge and Genetic Resources|271
1|Traditional Knowledge and the Public Domain in Intellectual Property|272
2|1 Introduction|273
2|2 Traditional Knowledge and the Public Domain in Intellectual Property|275
3|2.1 The Public Domain as the “Dark Side” of Property|276
3|2.2 Territoriality and the Public Domain|279
3|2.3 Resisting the Public Domain in Intellectual Property|282
2|3 Public Domain Challenges for a Global Framework for the Protection of Traditional Knowledge|284
3|3.1 Four Challenges of the Public Domain in Intellectual Property Discourse|285
3|3.2 Toward a Custom-Built Public Domain for Traditional Knowledge|286
2|4 Possible Ways Forward for the Protection of Traditional Knowledge and the Public Domain|291
3|4.1 A Tiered Approach to Traditional Knowledge|291
3|4.2 Delineating the Public Domain for Traditional Knowledge|294
2|5 Conclusion|295
2|References|296
1|The Globalisation of Plant Variety Protection: Are Developing Countries Still Policy Takers?|299
2|1 Introduction|300
2|2 Origins|301
2|3 Key Provisions of the UPOV Convention|305
2|4 Developed and Developing Countries: Interests in Alignment?|309
2|5 Are There Alternatives?|312
2|6 Conclusion|313
2|References|314
1|Why the Nagoya Protocol to the Convention on Biological Diversity Matters to Science and Industry Everywhere|316
2|1 The Propertization of Plant, Microbial, and Animal Genetic Resources|317
2|2 The Legal Status of Ex Situ Plant and Microbial Transactions After the Nagoya Protocol (2010)|321
3|2.1 General Enforcement Measures Under the Nagoya Protocol|324
3|2.2 Measures Favoring Scientific Research|326
2|3 The Implications for Science Policy|327
2|4 Envisioning a Multilateral Regime of Facilitated Access to Ex Situ Microbial Genetic Resources|330
2|References|333
1|The Private International Law of Access and Benefit-Sharing Contracts|336
2|1 Introduction: Public and Private Enforcement of Access and Benefit-Sharing|337
2|2 The International ABS Framework Under the CBD and Its Nagoya Protocol|340
3|2.1 From Rio to Nagoya|340
3|2.2 Facilitating Compliance with ABS Rules and Contracts|344
2|3 Private International Law Aspects in the Enforcement of ABS|348
3|3.1 ABS Contracts|348
3|3.2 Access and Utilization Without an ABS Contract|381
2|4 Conclusions: Elements of an ABS-Friendly Private International Law Regime|388
3|4.1 Jurisdiction|390
3|4.2 Applicable Law|392
2|References|394
1|New Challenges for the Nagoya Protocol: Diverging Implementation Regimes for Access and Benefit-Sharing|397
2|1 Introduction|398
2|2 Background|398
2|3 Key Implementation Matters|401
3|3.1 The “Trigger” for Benefit-Sharing and Temporal Scope|401
3|3.2 Associated Traditional Knowledge|407
3|3.3 User Compliance Measures, Monitoring and Checkpoints|411
2|4 Challenges of Diverging Implementation Regimes|417
3|4.1 Legal Certainty|417
3|4.2 Facilitated Access Likely to Be Undermined Due to Lack of Trust|419
3|4.3 Issues Pertaining to Monitoring Compliance|419
2|5 Conclusions|420
2|References|421
1|Marine Genetic Resources Within National Jurisdiction: Flagging Implications for Access and Benefit Sharing and Analysing Patent Trends|424
2|1 Introduction|425
2|2 Utilisation of Marine Genetic Resources in Selected Industrial Sectors|426
3|2.1 Pharmaceutical Industry and MGRs|427
3|2.2 Specific ABS-Related Issues Connected with R&D on Marine Microorganisms|428
3|2.3 Marine Peptides/Proteins and Digital Sequence Information|429
3|2.4 Industrial Biotechnology|430
3|2.5 Cosmetics|431
2|3 Jurisdictional Issues and Applicable International Law|431
3|3.1 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (1982)|431
3|3.2 National Legislation and ABS Contracts|433
2|4 Some Experiences on Commercial Utilisation of MGRs|435
3|4.1 Access Under National Jurisdiction and the Role of ABS|435
3|4.2 Access in Areas Beyond National Jurisdiction|438
3|4.3 How to Better Regulate and Reap Benefits from the Use of MGRs Within National Jurisdiction?|439
2|5 Brief Discussion on Links with Patent Trends on MGRs and the TRIPS-CBD Relationship|440
3|5.1 Trends in Patent Applications Based on Marine Resources|440
3|5.2 The TRIPS-CBD Relationship and Links to MGRs|443
2|6 Some Lessons and Conclusions|446
2|References|447