Page:Special 301 Report 2001.pdf/9

 Government's fonnal instructions to public prosecutors to ensure the timely prosecution of television piracy cases; and – most importantly – the commitment by Greece to continue these enforcement efforts.

 In the 1997 Special 301 report, the United States announced that it was invoking WTO dispute settlement procedures against Denmark for failure to make available ex parte search remedies in intellectual property enforcement actions, as required by Article 50 of the TRIPS Agreement. This type of enforcement remedy is needed to ensure that relevant evidence with respect to alleged intellectual property infringements is preserved, especially given the ease and speed with which infringing software can be deleted from a suspected infringer's computer. After the United States and Denmark held several rounds of formal and informal consultations, the Danish Government agreed to implement its TRIPS obligations, and formed a Legal Preparatory Committee to draft the appropriate legislation to amend Denmark's intellectual property regime. The United States did not move forward with a panel request given this commitment by Denmark. However, after two years in which minimal progress was made in the Committee, USTR announced in last year's Special 301 report that it would take the next step in this dispute and request the establishment of a WTO panel "unless progress [was] made imminently." In June 2000, the Legal Preparatory Committee issued its report recommending an amendment to Danish intellectual property legislation to include an ex parte search provision, and introduced the requisite legislation into the Danish Parliament for consideration and passage. On March 20, 2001, the Danish Parliament approved the legislation, which was then signed into law on March 28, 2001. The United States welcomes the passage and implementation of this legislation, and is now in the process of fonnally settling this dispute with Denmark in the WTO.

 On May 6, 1999, as a result of the 1999 Special 301 detenninations, the United States filed a WTO dispute settlement case challenging Argentina's failure to provide a system of exclusive marketing rights for pharmaceutical products, and to ensure that changes in its laws and regulations during its transition period do not result in a lesser degree of consistency with the TRIPS Agreement. Subsequently, as announced in the 2000 Special 301 Report, the United States expanded its claims to include new concerns that arose due to Argentina's failure to fully implement its remaining TRIPS obligations that came into effect on January 1, 2000. These concerns include Argentina's failure to protect confidential test data submitted to government regulatory authorities for marketing approval for pharmaceuticals and agricultural chemicals; denial of certain exclusive rights for patents; failure to provide such provisional measures as preliminary injunctions to address patent infringement; and exclusion of certain subject matter from patentability. In all, the United States raised nine distinct claims with Argentina in this dispute. We are pleased that recent consultations with the Government of Argentina have been constructive and are encouraged by the dialogue that has developed to possibly resolve certain claims in the case. However, there are still some outstanding issues that must be addressed before the dispute settlement case can be fully concluded.