# \[e-drug\] Reuters on WTO panel US - Brazil **URL:** \ **Category:** e-drug\ **Created:** [February 4, 2001, 6:50am UTC](https://talk.edrugplus.org/t/e-drug-reuters-on-wto-panel-us-brazil/10260 "2001-02-04T06:50:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![ehoen](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8e8cbc/32.png) [@ehoen](https://talk.edrugplus.org/u/ehoen)\ **Post date:** [February 4, 2001, 6:50am UTC](https://talk.edrugplus.org/t/e-drug-reuters-on-wto-panel-us-brazil/10260/1 "2001-02-04T06:50:00Z")
E-drug: Reuters on WTO panel US - Brazil --------------------------------------------- SWITZERLAND: Update 1- WTO to rule on U.S.- Brazil patent row. By Stephanie Nebehay 02/01/2001 Reuters English News Service (C) Reuters Limited 2001. GENEVA, Feb 1 (Reuters) - The World Trade Organisation ( WTO ) on Thursday set up a dispute panel to examine a U.S. complaint that Brazilian patent law discriminates against imports, a WTO spokesman said. The decision, which pavesg the way for neutral arbitration, was taken by the WTO 's Dispute Settlement Body, composed of the global trade watchdog's 140 member states. Brazil countered by saying it had detected "several discriminatory provisions" in the U.S. Patents Codes - an allegation rejected by the U.S. delegation - and would seek new consultations with the United States. At the heart of the row - which could decide the fate of U.S. pharmaceutical firms in Brazil - is Brazil 's 1997 patent law that obliges products to be manufactured domestically. If they are not, then after three years a local company can win the legal right to produce another firm's patented product. Diplomats said the alleged "patent theft" case could for the first time test an exception in WTO intellectual property rules that allows countries to grant "compulsory licensing" to skirt global patent rules when a national emergency is invoked. Medecins Sans Frontieres (Doctors Without Borders) called on the United States to withdraw its complaint, arguing that it might handicap Brazil 's successful AIDS programme, which freely distributes antiretroviral drugs, many of which are produced generically by Brazilian companies. In 1994, Brazil 's government urged local firms to start making drugs against AIDS, and Brazil now makes eight of the 12 antiretroviral drugs used in the so-called AIDS cocktail. Prices of those drugs have plummeted more than 70 percent. A typical treatment now costs about $4,500 a year in Brazil , compared with about $12,000 in the United States. "The U.S. complaint threatens the Brazilian AIDS policy, which includes providing free drugs to HIV-infected people. The lives of hundreds of thousands of patients depend on this system," the Brussels-based medical group said. AIDS DEATHS DOWN Medecins Sans Frontieres said Brazil 's programme, currently treating 90,000 HIV-AIDS patients with antiretroviral therapy, had cut AIDS deaths by 50 percent between 1996 and 1999. The statistic is from Brazilian government data, a spokesman said. "A key factor in the success of this programme is the free distribution of ARV drugs, many of which are manufactured domestically by Brazilian companies," the humanitarian group said in a statement in Geneva. The U.S. delegation criticised Brazil 's law for imposing a "local working" requirement that "all patents, regardless of who owns them or who funds their creation, be subject to compulsory license unless locally manufactured". This violated the WTO 's agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, known as the TRIPS agreement, according to the U.S. delegation. The row could decide the future of U.S. pharmaceutical firms operating in the South American country, the world's eighth largest pharmaceutical market, according to diplomats. Brazilian ambassador Celso Amorim said the law was consistent with the TRIPS agreement. " Brazil is confident that a panel will only confirm that our legislation is fully consistent with the TRIPS agreement and that the U.S. action amounts to a demand for commitments, which go beyond the agreement through resort to dispute settlement procedures." Amorim added: "...this is not only legally unfounded. It may prove politically disastrous". Four other countries - Japan, India, Honduras and the Dominican Republic - reserved their "third-party" rights in the dispute, according to diplomats.