TWN Info Service on Intellectual Property Issues (Jul26/04)
17 July 2026
Third World Network

WIPO: Global South calls for a balanced a development-oriented SCP agenda

Geneva, 17 July (TWN) – Developing countries emphasized that the Standing Committee on the Law of Patents (SCP) agenda is to be to promote a balanced, development-oriented patent framework that preserves their policy space and ability to utilize TRIPS flexibilities, particularly for public health.

This was during the adoption of the Committee’s report at the 68^th ssession of Assemblies of the Member States of the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) that took place from 7 to 15 July at the WIPO headquarters, Geneva in a hybrid mode.

Further, developing countries emphasised the need to prioritize discussions on exceptions and limitations, equitable technology transfer, and targeted capacity building.

Introducing document WO/GA/60/4, Deputy Director-General Lisa Jorgensen (Patents and Technology Sector) reported that the SCP's 37th session (3–7 November 2025) had continued work on its five standing topics: (a) exceptions and limitations to patent rights; (b) quality of patents, including opposition systems; (c) patents and health; (d) confidentiality of communications between clients and their patent advisors; and (e) transfer of technology; and had adopted "a full set of activities" for its 38th session (2–6 November 2026) and subsequent sessions.

GRULAC (Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries) reiterated the region’s commitment to “promoting equitable and inclusive innovation models” and underscored the importance of the SCP as a key multilateral forum to advance towards a “balanced patent system that takes into account the different levels of economic development and realities of Member States”.

The Group particularly appreciated the importance of “exceptions and limitations to patent rights”, in the work agenda of the committee, “patent quality, including opposition and review mechanisms, the relationship between patents and public health, and technology transfer as an essential tool to foster development and bridge innovation gaps.”

Furthermore, GRULAC emphasized that “the Committee’s work should continue to focus on capacity building, technical cooperation, and inclusive dialogue with the aim of advancing towards an international patent system that supports sustainable development, innovation, and the well-being of our societies.”

Colombia, supporting the GRULAC statement, asked the Committee to help developing countries and least developed countries (LDCs) "fully harness the flexibilities within the patent system in a legitimate way and without any pressure".

Brazil went to the mechanism most often used to neutralize flexibilities in practice, technology-transfer conditionality.  It voiced "serious concerns regarding the conceptual limitations of restricting [technology transfer] to a voluntary basis and on mutually agreed terms, the so-called V-MAT (Voluntary - Mutually Agreed Terms) clause," warning that "conditioning technology transfer on the consent and commercial terms dictated by rights holders would render compulsory license and other public interest measures ineffective."

The European Union, through Ireland, had stated the opposing view in the same debate: "voluntary transfer of technology on mutually agreed terms is the best way for the development of the economy."

Brazil, while affirming the support towards the Committee’s work, stood along with the statement of GRULAC. It too gave particular emphasis “on the items concerning patents and public health, technology transfer, and exceptions and limitations.” It advocated, in the light of COVID-19 pandemic, for the Committee to “deepen its discussions on flexibilities within the patent regime… and the need to prepare for future public health emergencies” with the needs of developing countries in mind.

Speaking on technology transfer, Brazil shared its “serious concerns regarding the conceptual limitations of restricting it to a voluntary basis and on mutually agreed terms, the so-called VMAT clause.” It argued that the term V-MAT “is not only conceptually restrictive, but also misleading and inconsistent with the obligations and objectives enshrined in the international IP regime.” It further stated that “the insistence on raising the VMAT clause on discussions around different multilateral fora in Geneva and around the world reflects a clear attempt to redefine the concept of technology transfer in a way that risks undermining essential TRIPS obligations and flexibilities, particularly compulsory licensing mechanism. Conditioning technology transfer on the consent and commercial terms dictated by rights holders would render compulsory license and other public interest measures ineffective.”

Recognizing “the growing interest to discussions relating to the cutting edge of technological [such as AI and patents] development at SCP” Brazil reiterated the need for the discussion to be “balanced and development oriented”. It further reminded the meeting of “the longstanding understanding that SCP should refrain from any normative work, thereby avoiding substantive patent law harmonization and preserving the policy space and flexibilities available to Member States.”

It concluded by asking the WIPO Committee to follow the 2010 General Assembly decision to annually report to the Assembly “…whether and how it has worked to advance the implementation of the WIPO Development Agenda recommendations during the previous calendar year.”

India stated that “…public health and technology transfer remains key priorities, WIPO’s Development Agenda and TRIPS flexibilities must remain central to patent policy” and “India believes the transparent and fair licensing rules are essential to support innovation and prevent market distortions, especially in emerging economies.”

Further, it clarified its position, weighing in on the discussions of emerging technologies, that “India maintains that inventors must be natural persons, supports transparency on AI’s role in inventions and cautions against concentrating IP rights amongst AI developers” and in this regard they support “nonbinding ethical guidance for patent examiners.”

South Africa said "patent flexibilities, reliable patent information, and appropriately designed exceptions are essential to supporting access to medicines" and to ensuring the patent system "does not hinder the ability of healthcare providers to respond to patient needs."

 Iran said "transparency alone does not guarantee access," and that technical assistance under WIPO Development Agenda Recommendation 14 "should also strengthen the capacity of Member States to use available patent flexibilities [and] support local production."

Nepal, an LDC, said "compulsory licensing, government use, resource exception … remain essential."

India said, "TRIPS flexibilities must remain central to patent policy" while Botswana invoked "the Doha Declaration principle".

Nigeria grounded its own legislative reform in the SCP's compilations on "public interest flexibilities, compulsory licensing and government use," and defended "the fact finding and nonbinding nature of the SCP's current mandate."

Cuba, Bangladesh, Uganda, Samoa, Indonesia and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea aligned with the same access-and-policy-space priorities.

Iran reiterated “… the importance of the Standing Committee on the Law of Patents as a forum for promoting an appropriate balance between the legitimate interest of the patent holders and broader public policy objectives including public health, technology transfer, food security, and the national economic development.”

It reminded the Assembly during the discussion on the report of SCP that “The exception and limitations are not departures from the patent system. They are part of its legal architecture and enable Member States to safeguard legitimate public interests.” It stated that the “future reference documents related to exceptions and limitations should provide practical information on legislative options, policy objectives, implementation challenges, and relevant national experiences.”

Further, on patent and health, while Iran welcomed the continued work on publicly accessible patent status information on medicines, vaccines, diagnostics, and medical devices it stated that “transparency alone does not guarantee access”.

Iran said “technology transfer should not be understood merely as the conclusion of licensing agreements. Its success should be assessed by whether knowledge, know-how, technological capability, and productive capacity are effectively built in recipient points.”

While encouraging the growing momentum on bringing the AI in the patent system, Iran said that it deserves a “careful and balanced consideration” and “discussion should not be limited to the formal question of AI inventorship. Further, any discussion on the same “should also address the implications of AI for patentability criteria, inventive step assessment, prior art determination, examination capacity, and the possible concentration of technology’s capabilities.” Iran warned that the “…use of AI tools by patent offices may improve efficiency, but it should not reduce transparency, weaken human accountability, or widen existing technological gaps among national offices.”

On future work Iran advocated that “the SCP has accumulated a substantial body of studies, reference document, and expert exchanges. The next step should be to translate this work into practical and development-oriented outcomes. The work of the Committee should remain evidence-based and responsive to the diversity of national legal system, levels of development, and industrial capacities.”

The developed-country interventions ran the other way, and the United States was the furthest away.

 Ireland on behalf of the EU held that "the existing international Intellectual Property framework including the flexibilities available under international Intellectual Property rules provides an appropriate and effective basis for addressing public health challenges."

The Republic of Korea said it "remains cautious about any discussions that could be interpreted as promoting additional exceptions."

The United States said recent SCP work "only scratched the surface," called for the Committee to take up "patent remedies," injunctions and monetary damages, and to embrace "its core mandate" of "aligning and harmonizing patent laws and practices to promote patent protection throughout the world", "this task necessarily involves promoting and not undermining patent protection."

Among observers, Knowledge Ecology International (KEI) proposed an information panel on incentives for "voluntary licensing of inventions to serve social purposes," and Corporación Innovarte pressed for a dedicated item on "socially responsible licensing."

Third World Network (TWN) stated that the United States, Europe and Japan "account for 86.8 per cent of sales of new medicines launched between 2018 and 2023, while the 'pharmerging' economies, including China and India, take 3.8 per cent," and that of "1,005 new active substances introduced over two decades, 81 per cent were launched in the United States," with "most... never launched in developing countries."

On that basis, TWN argued that "patents entrench a right to profit while the right to health of the 80 per cent of humanity living in developing countries goes unmet," adding that "the TRIPS Agreement imposes patent protection but no corresponding obligation on holders to market a medicine, or to do so affordably, in the countries that grant it." Citing document SCP/36/6, TWN said "compulsory licensing under Article 31 is cumbersome, defeated by lack of active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) supply, the absence of manufacturing capacity, and sustained bilateral pressure such as the US 'Special 301' listings," arguing that "these flexibilities are not options but obligations" and that "public health, not the expansion of exclusivity, must anchor the SCP's future work."

The Assembly took note of the report on the Standing Committee on the Law of Patents SCP document WO/GA/60/4".