Ipr Panels Terms Likely To Be Widened

The terms of reference of the expert panel on intellectual property rights are likely to be widened, while the panel itself may be enlarged with the inclusion of more members, official sources said yesterday.

The panel was constituted by the government in September, 1997, to evolve a national consensus with just two specific terms of reference to address the patents problems.

The move met with stiff resistance from the opposition parties and also from the parliamentary forum for intellectual property rights, which protested against the structure of the panel as well as its scope.

The panel itself ran into rough weather with a couple of members, including former foreign secretary Muchkund Dubey, resigning.

 

An informal discussion was held to broaden the terms of reference besides inducting more members, sources said. However, before any further action could be taken, the election process threw everything haywire, they added.

The expert panel, headed by the scientific advisor to the prime minister, was expected to evolve a national consensus on the patents issue within a month, but till date it has not met even once.

One of the main reasons for the parliamentary forum to oppose the panel was that it did not have any political representatives in it.

Views of political parties should also be taken into consideration to evolve a national consensus, BJP leader Murli Manohar Joshi had said in a letter to Prime Minister Inder Kumar Gujral.

The panel was formed soon after the World Trade Organisation (WTO) complained that the government was not fulfilling its commitment in providing patents for pharmaceutical and agro-chemical products.

The sources said one major reason for the WTO criticism was that a bill to amend the Patents Act introduced in Parliament two years ago was defeated.

Still, we formulated an administrative mechanism to receive applications for patents and over 1,500 proposals had been received, the sources said.

However, developed countries, led by the United States, did not accept the mechanism on the ground that it did not provide necessary legal backup.

Besides, the developed nations also sought exclusive marketing facility, which the government is not in a position to offer now, they added.