on-going dispute settlement case against Argentina announced in last year's Special 301 report.
Brazil's patent law imposes a "local working" requirement as a condition for enjoyment of exclusive patent rights. This requirement can only be satisfied by local production, and not importation, of the patented product. This appears inconsistent with Brazil's obligations under Article 27 of the WTO TRIPS Agreement, which requires that patent rights be "enjoyable without discrimination as to ... whether products are imported or locally produced." Brazil has stated repeatedly that it disagrees with this interpretation of the TRIPS Agreement. In order to resolve this longstanding difference in views over this issue, as well as to address the concern that other countries may cite the Brazilian "local working" requirement as a justification for proposing similar legislation, the United States is now requesting WTO consultations with Brazil to pursue this single-issue case.
Last year, in addition to the action against Argentina, Ambassador Barshefsky announced the initiation of two additional cases. In the dispute against Canada regarding its failure to provide a patent term of at least twenty years from the date of filing for all patents existing on January 1, 1996, a WTO panel recently ruled in favor of the United States. The dispute against the EU over its denial of national treatment with respect to geographical indications, and its failure to provide sufficient protection for pre-existing trademarks that are similar or identical to geographical indications, remains in consultations.
Several of the dispute settlement cases previously announced by Ambassador Barshefsky also remain outstanding:
Denmark -- The United States filed a WTO case against Denmark in May 1997 to address Denmark's failure to make available ex parte search remedies in intellectual property enforcement actions, as required by the TRIPS Agreement. This type of enforcement remedy is particularly important to the enforcement efforts of the software industry because of the ease and speed with which infringing software can be deleted from a suspected infringer's computer. The United States did not go forward with a panel request on the basis of Denmark's commitment in May 1998 to resolve these concerns. Denmark announced that it would form a Special Legislative Committee to consider the issue and determine the need for amendments to Danish law. Indeed, Danish officials have provided assurances that once this process is finished, the legislation will likely be passed very quickly by the Danish Parliament.
However, it has been almost two years since Denmark made its commitment to reform, and the committee has yet to produce a draft bill. As a developed country, Denmark should be a model of timely compliance with WTO obligations for other countries. Therefore, because of the lack
7
