EGYPTIAN HEALTH OFFICIALS SKEPTICAL ON IPR

UNCLAS CAIRO 002735 SIPDIS SENSITIVE SIPDIS USTR FOR GROVES/SAUMS STATE FOR EB/TPP/IPE BOGER COMMERCE FOR USPTO KARIN FERRITER E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: ECON ETRD KIPR EG SUBJECT: EGYPTIAN HEALTH OFFICIALS SKEPTICAL ON IPR INITIATIVE, BUT OPEN TO DVC REF: A. CAIRO 2692 ¶B. STATE 107629 ¶C. CAIRO 678 Sensitive but Unclassified, Not for Internet Distribution. ¶1. (SBU) Summary: GOE health officials and advisors view many of the action items in the Special 301 Initiative for Egypt as "TRIPS plus," exceeding Egypt's obligations under the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property agreement, and therefore feel no obligation to implement them, health officials told USTR's Edmund Saums during meetings in Cairo Aug. 29. However, members of a Ministry of Health advisory committee agreed to participate in digital video conferences with Washington officials to discuss Egypt's system for IPR protection, and Ministry of Trade officials expressed interest in participating in the initiative to improve IPR protection as part of broader discussions on bilateral economic relations. End summary. ¶2. (SBU) During a visit to discuss a range of bilateral trade issues (ref A),USTR Director for the Middle East Edmund Saums delivered to GOE officials a non-paper detailing the Egypt-specific action items under USTR's Special 301 Initiative for 2007-2008 (ref B). Dr. Mokhtar Warida, Advisor to the Minister of Health and Population for International Cooperation and Agreements, responded that GOE officials would consider the action items as "TRIPS plus," exceeding Egypt's treaty obligations. For instance, he indicated that the GOE would not implement a "data exclusivity" system to protect drug-test data submitted by pharmaceutical companies from unfair use by their competitors. ¶3. (SBU) Steering the demarche away from technical issues, Saums suggested that a working-level group be formed including USG officials in Washington and GOE officials to discuss IPR issues in the pharmaceutical area by video conference. He suggested the group convene in the fall, before reporting for next year's Special 301 review begins. ¶4. (SBU) While Warida agreed to participate in such discussions, members of the Ministry's Drug Policy and Planning Center (DPPC) Advisory Committee resisted the idea. They told Saums and IPR Attach that GOE officials have explained the GOE's pharmaceutical IPR protection system many times to various Embassy officials but continue to receive the same requests for explanation. One committee member indicated that answers to all the USG's questions on pharmaceutical IPR protection are answered in published laws and regulations. Saums responded that a video conference would be a good opportunity to directly reach USG experts who work on the Special 301 report to ensure they have a correct understanding of the Egyptian system. The Committee members agreed to participate in the video discussions, but requested an agenda in advance. Saums proposed that the 301 initiative action items are a good starting place for discussions. ¶5. (SBU) Another Committee member claimed that the GOE had resolved the final two items in the action plan -- improving coordination between the health and patent authorities, and reducing the backlog of pharmaceutical "mailbox" applications. Committee members said that the Patent Office had forwarded for review all patent applications filed in the mailbox up to 2005 and that they regularly review and return these to the patent office within two to three weeks. (COMMENT: Patent applications must be published after the MOH review period. The numbers of mailbox applications published so far is low compared to the number of applications filed in the mailbox, suggesting that the patent office has not in fact completed processing of all mailbox applications. END COMMENT) ¶6. On a separate issue, Dr. Warida claimed that changing the start time of the five-year data protection period to the date of drug approval as outlined in the action plan would require a change to the law. Saums suggested that the MOH could offer alternative solutions to address the data protection period offered within the current law. ¶7. Saums and Emboffs also raised the Special 301 Initiative in meetings with Ministry of Trade officials on a rage of bilateral trade issues. Deputy Minister Samiha Fawzy said the GOE should maintain a single point of contact for the USG on IPR and other trade issues, suggesting the Ministry could fulfill the role of organizing GOE participation in digital video conferences. ¶8. COMMENT: IPR Attach and Econoff are continuing to engage GOE officials concerned with IPR -- such as the Patent Office, the Information Technology Industry Development Agency, and the MFA -- on the Special 301 Initiative. We will also follow up with health and trade officials on the DVC proposal and continue to report the GOE response. RICCIARDONE