Page:Special 301 Report 2001.pdf/25

 reduce the growing backlog of patent. After the failure of extensive efforts to work with Brazil to resolve U.S. concerns regarding Brazil's "local manufacturing requirement" for patents, the United States initiated WTO dispute settlement proceedings to resolve the dispute. A panel was then established on February 1, 2001. In addition, we are concerned about the codification of a previously provisional ruling requiring that Brazil's health authority approve all patent applications for pharmaceutical products prior to the granting of the patent. Such a requirement has apparently prevented Brazil from granting pipeline patents as of October 2000, and appears to undermine the implementation of the TRIPS Agreement in Brazil by singling out pharmaceutical patents for discriminatory treatment.

The serious copyright piracy problem shows little sign of abatement and no significant enforcement actions were taken in the past year to combat this alarming situation. We are, however, pleased to see the establishment of an Inter-Ministerial Committee To Fight Piracy pursuant to the Presidential Decree of March 2001. We look to the Government of Brazil to develop and implement an effective action plan to allow this Committee to take concrete, significant action to reduce and deter piracy in Brazil.

 The WTO determined that Canada's patent law fails to comply with TRIPS as it does not provide a 20-year term of protection for patents that were applied for prior to October 1, 1989. New legislation to rectify this incompatibility has been introduced in the Canadian Senate, and the United States hopes for its early passage. We are concerned, however, that Canada fails to protect from unfair commercial use confidential test data submitted to health authorities for marketing approval. While the Canadian Food and Drug Regulations appear on their face to provide for such data protection, Canadian courts have interpreted these provisions so narrowly as to render them meaningless, thus permitting second-comers to unfairly rely on test data generated and submitted by innovator companies to obtain marketing approval for themselves almost immediately after the innovator companies' own marketing approval applications are filed.

 Chile's intellectual property laws are not fully consistent with its international obligations. As we mentioned in last year's report, the Government of Chile introduced legislation in 1999 intended to make Chile's intellectual property regime TRIPS-compliant. This legislation has still not been enacted and reportedly is not TRIPS-consistent, even in its draft form. Among other issues, we are concerned that the draft law may not provide adequate protection for confidential test data. Inadequate enforcement against piracy and counterfeiting also remains a serious problem, as does the large backlog of pending patent applications. We are now engaged in negotiations on the U.S.-Chile Free Trade Agreement. We expect the Government of Chile to bring its legal regime into compliance with TRIPS before we conclude these negotiations.

 Colombia has made limited progress over the past year to improve its intellectual property regime. Colombia lacks effective enforcement of its existing copyright laws and, as a result, piracy levels for most copyright sectors remain high. Cable piracy in particular continues to be