This summary has been prepared by the Secretariat under its own responsibility. The summary is for general information only and is not intended to affect the rights and obligations of Members.
> The basics: how disputes are settled in WTO
> Computer based training on dispute settlement
> Text of the Dispute Settlement Understanding
Current status back to top
Key facts back to top
Summary of the dispute to date back to top
The summary below was up-to-date at
Complaint by the United States.
On 30 May 2000, the US requested consultations with
Brazil in respect of those provisions of Brazil’s 1996 industrial property
law (Law No. 9,279 of 14 May 1996; effective May 1997) and other related
measures, which establish a “local working” requirement for the
enjoyability of exclusive patent rights. The US asserts that the “local working” requirement can only be satisfied by the local
production — and not the importation — of the patented subject-matter.
More specifically, the US noted that Brazil’s “local working”
requirement stipulates that a patent shall be subject to compulsory
licensing if the subject-matter of the patent is not “worked” in
the territory of Brazil. The US further noted that Brazil explicitly
defines “failure to be worked” as “failure to manufacture
or incomplete manufacture of the product” or “failure to make
full use of the patented process”. The US considered that such a
requirement is inconsistent with Brazil’s obligations under Articles 27
and 28 of the TRIPS Agreement, and Article III of the GATT 1994.
Panel and Appellate Body proceedings
At its meeting of 1 February 2001, the DSB established a panel. Cuba,
the Dominican Republic, Honduras, India and Japan reserved their third
Mutually agreed solution
On 5 July 2001, the parties to the dispute notified to the
DSB a mutually satisfactory solution on the matter.
> Problems viewing this page?
Please contact firstname.lastname@example.org giving details of the operating system and web browser you are using.