Page:Special 301 Report 1999.pdf/6

 On November 25, 1999, Sweden passed legislation amending its intellectual property laws to provide provisional remedies in civil enforcement proceedings. This type of remedy is particularly important for enforcement efforts in the software industry. On December 2, 1998, the United States and Sweden formally notified the WTO that they had reached a mutually satisfactory resolution to the U.S. complaint.

The cases against Ireland, Denmark, Greece and the EU are still pending, although progress has been achieved over the past year. In February 1998, Ireland committed to accelerate its work on a new comprehensive copyright law, and in July 1998 passed expedited legislation addressing two pressing enforcement issues. Denmark is presently considering options for amending its law to strengthen provisional remedies available to intellectual property right holders. In Greece, the rate of television piracy declined in 1998, and in September, Greece enacted legislation that provides an additional administrative enforcement procedure against copyright infringement by television stations. Ambassador Barshefsky stated, "We urge the Government of Greece to implement its new enforcement procedure in a strong and consistent manner, and to take steps to improve the handling of intellectual property cases in the court system in order to resolve this dispute."

Ambassador Barshefsky also expressed satisfaction today with the recent conclusion of the United States' dispute settlement proceedings against India. In December 1997, the WTO Appellate Body upheld a panel ruling in favor of the United States in this case involving patent protection for pharmaceuticals and agricultural chemicals. India's deadline for compliance was April 19, 1999. Earlier this year, the Government of India promulgated a temporary ordinance to meet its obligations, and then last month, it enacted permanent legislation entitled the Patents (Amendment) Act 1999. Through these mechanisms, the Government of India has established a mechanism for the filing of so-called "mailbox" patent applications, and a system for granting exclusive marketing rights for pharmaceutical and agricultural chemical products. The United States has expressed serious concerns regarding certain features of the new Indian law regarding exclusive marketing rights; however, in light of the discretionary nature of some of the problematic provisions of the new law, as well as the significant steps that India has taken or pledged to take to mitigate the impact of others, the USTR has concluded that no further action is appropriate at this time. Should any of the problematic provisions in the Indian law be invoked to the detriment of U.S. right holders in the future, the United States retains its rights to take further action.