Author name: Sean Flynn

Sean Flynn The United States delegation, in its opening statement to the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore, expressed its desire to limit the activities and mandate of the Committee. The US statement, made at the 51st meeting of the Committee, recalled that the last two meetings failed to produce a common text of an agreement on traditional knowledge (TK) and traditional cultural expressions (TCEs) for the next meeting to work on. At the 49th meeting, the Like Minded Countries Group of developing countries supporting the IGC’s work blocked further use of a complex facilitator’s text produced at that meeting that contained a large number of newly competing provisions on most of the draft’s topics. At the 50th meeting, first the US and then Nigeria blocked further consideration of a consolidated text that combined draft documents on TCEs and on TK and contained several proposed changes that would threaten the desire by some for a binding and rights based approach. The US statement cited this lack of “tangible progress on textual negotiations” as evidence of “significant divergence among Member States on the purpose of the IGC and its desired outcomes” which “warrants taking a step back and reflecting on where we are going with these negotiations.”  The IGC is not a standing committee, which means that the General Assembly must reapprove a mandate for the Committee to continue work. That mandate, for the coming General Assembly meeting in July, will be negotiated at the 51st IGC. In this context, the US opined that “the next mandate should schedule fewer sessions,” and suggested that the Committee move from the current three meetings per year to just one.  The US statement is reprinted below in full. Other countries and groups supported renewing the mandate and holding three meetings per year. The US statement indicates that the negotiation over the mandate may be hard fought. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: Thank you, Chair. As we discussed potential renewal of the mandate, we should keep in mind the last two IGC meetings, IGC 49 and 50, ended with no tangible progress on textual negotiations. As we mentioned this morning, this came at great expense of time and money for the WIPO Secretariat, Member States and accredited observers. This lack of progress reflects the significant divergence among Member States on the purpose of the IGC and its desired outcomes. For example, we have not even been able to agree on the basic issue of whether the TK and TCE text should reflect the views of all Member States. In our view, this lack of tangible progress warrants taking a step back and reflecting on where we are going with these negotiations. The lack of tangible progress also warrants moving the IGC in a more productive and less contentious direction. This mandate renewal discussion provides an opportunity to reset IGC dynamics which is needed if the IGC is to operate in an effective manner. To that end, the next mandate should schedule fewer sessions. It should also require the use of real world scenarios including case studies during Committee sessions to rejuvenate and refocus our discussions and to encourage participants to have a constructive exchange of views. And the next mandate should also reaffirm that all Member State proposals will be reflected in working text and along those lines should reference the reality that currently exists, namely that Member States have widely divergent positions. I will briefly elaborate on the number of meetings in the biennium. The United States calls on the IGC to recommend to the General Assembly that the mandate reduce the number of sessions in the next biennium. In our view, this will lead to better meeting preparation and attendance which will hopefully result in more productive engagement and forward progress for the Committee. Fewer meetings will also help to temper expectations given the wide divergence in views among Member States in terms of priorities, working methodologies and acceptable outcomes. Most WIPO bodies hold their meetings once a year. It’s time to bring the IGC in line with that standard. Consequently, the next biennial mandate should schedule no more than two IGC sessions for the biennium, one session per year. Next, the mandate should continue to reflect the preservation of separate texts and work streams for TK and TCEs. The mandate should also retain language on taking an evidence-based approach, having a Member State driven process, providing examples of national experiences and adopting a work program based on open and inclusive working methods. We would like Member States to agree that proposals related to IGC work streams, including those directed to biodiversity issues, should be raised in the IGC and not in WIPO’s technical bodies such as technical Committees and working groups. Over the last year, several technical bodies at WIPO have faced proposals that are duplicative of IGC discussions. This has created unnecessary confusion in those bodies and distracted them from their properly mandated work. In our view, these proposals belong only in the IGC. Participants would be confused and express opposition if patent proposals were raised in the SCCR or updates to the international patent classification were proposed in the Madrid Working Group. Proposing GR, TK and TCE-oriented changes in other bodies or WIPO contexts is no different and ignores the jurisdictional integrity of WIPO bodies. The United States believes ensuring discussions are not taking place in duplicative manners across WIPO bodies is a critical consideration in any mandate outcome moving forward. Neither the TK nor TCE subject matter is ready for a Diplomatic Conference. Instead, the current texts reflect widely divergent positions. The IGC needs to continue the discussion and negotiation process. With or without brackets, the wide range of alternatives in the working text is a compelling reminder of just how far apart Member States are on every critical aspect of these discussions. Consequently, at this time, the United States cannot support a recommendation to the WIPO General Assembly that

Sean Flynn One of the questions swirling around Geneva these days is whether one country can block all progress alone. In WIPO last week, the U.S. laid down a couple gauntlets that may reappear at the Program and Budget Meetings next week. The US delegation asserted that, despite WIPO being a member of the United Nations, “[t]he United States does not support any proposal … intended to advance the implementation of the SDGs.” It also took aim at so-called “DEI” projects, asserting that “the policy of the United States to use clear and accurate language that recognizes women are biologically female and men are biologically male,” and that “[t]he United States does not and will not support the implementation of any program that promotes any form of diversity, equity or inclusion, precepts or initiatives.” So, if other countries do not bend to this will and extract such expenditures from WIPO’s budget, can the US alone block progress? The quick answer is no.   Most Geneva-based institutions strive to make decisions based on consensus, which can account for the glacial pace of some policy agendas. In the World Trade Organization, the U.S. alone has ground the organization to a halt by refusing to concede to the appointment of Appellate Board members. The WTO operates based on a very strict norm of consensus. In general, WIPO strives to operate based on consensus and one or a few members can often block progress. But the rules of operation for WIPO actually allow for votes  and majority rule. There is a very recent precedent of using voting to approve the diplomatic conferences on the two most recent treaties adopted by the organization – the Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge (the “GRATK Treaty”), concluded at the WIPO Headquarters in Geneva, Switzerland in May 2024, and the Design Law Treaty (DLT) adopted in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia on November 22, 2024. Chapter VI of WIPO’s Rules of Procedure provide for voting on “[p]roposals and amendments submitted by a delegation … if they are supported by at least one other delegation.” (Rule 25). In such voting, “one half of the States members shall constitute a quorum,” and [u]nless expressly provided otherwise in the applicable treaties or in the present General Rules of Procedure, all decisions shall be made by a simple majority.” These rules were used to sideline US opposition to moving toward diplomatic conferences on the GRATK Treaty and the DLT in the 55th Session of the WIPO General Assemblies (GAs) in July 2022. In that meeting, the US called for several votes to overcome Russia’s opposition to funding IP technical assistance in Ukraine. As Margo Bagley described in a recent article published by the Geneva Graduate Institute, these calls opened the door for voting strategies by others: But where some saw opposition, others saw an opportunity. If WIPO members were open to voting on one issue, how about another? What about a Diplomatic Conference (DipCon), or two? Diplomats from demandeur countries in the IGC conferred with diplomats from high-income countries who wanted adoption of the draft Design Law Treaty, which had been languishing for years in a different WIPO committee and proposed a horse trade: agreement to two DipCons to result in two new treaties. If each group agreed to support the combined proposal (and lobbied like-minded states to do so as well) and the matter came to a vote, there should be enough votes to pass the measure – strategic opportunism at its best. In the end, the minority of countries opposed to the diplomatic conferences, including the United States, abstained rather than vote against the proposals. But the threat of a vote and willingness to call for one enabled the majority of countries in favor of the treaties to move them forward over the protestations of a minorty. Majority rule prevailed. A similar linkage between two normative agenda items – the Broadcast Treaty and an instrument on Limitations and Exceptions – is being pursued in the SCCR. Cf https://infojustice.org/archives/44840 (WIPO IGC Director Wend Wendland noting: describing the “overt linkage between two seemingly unrelated normative agenda items, inspired by ‘package deals’ and ‘single undertakings’ agreed on in other organizations such as the WTO” as ”a novelty in WIPO”). The EU and allied countries are pushing for a diplomatic conference on the Broadcast Treaty. The African Group and allied countries took the position in the last SCCR that “an instrument on the protection of broadcasting organizations should advance to a Diplomatic Conference jointly with an instrument on limitations and exceptions that meets the 2012 General Assembly’s mandate.” https://infojustice.org/archives/46253 At the last SCCR, the US maintained its support for discussing an instrument on “objectives and principles” for limitations and exceptions, and thus it is not formally opposed to progress on an L&E instrument. But even if it changed its position to block consensus, there is a procedural avenue – through voting – to overcome the opposition. Voting is generally only called for in the General Assembly and the Broadcast Treaty and L&E instrument will not be moving at the next meeting. But if the US blocks the budget based on its opposition to sustainable development and DEI considerations, we may see more rounds of voting at the next GA this July.

The Forty-Sixth Session of the World Intellectual Property Organization’s Standing Committee on Copyright and Related Rights (SCCR) concluded with modest but meaningful progress on key agenda items, including on the Broadcasting Treaty, the limitations and exceptions (L&Es) agenda and the agenda item on copyright remuneration in the digital environment. The SCCR was Chaired by Vanessa Cohen, Copyright Director of Costa Rica. Broadcasting Treaty: Refined Focus, Continued Dialogue The Committee continued its examination of the Draft WIPO Broadcasting Organizations Treaty, which has been on the SCCR’s agenda since its first meeting in 1998. After the first failure to create a basic text for the negotiation in 2006, the 2007 General Assembly mandated that the SCCR achieve “agreement on objectives, specific scope and object of protection” before a recommendation to complete the treaty in a diplomatic conference. (WO/GA/34/16). The GA has further instructed that the Broadcasting Treaty be “confined to the protection of broadcasting and cablecasting organizations in the traditional sense” and “based on a signal-based approach” (WO/GA/33/10, para 107, 2006).  The Chair’s statements for SCCR 44 and 45 aptly summarized the current consensus on the committee on the bounds of a text that could be advanced to the Diplomatic Conference: “With respect to objectives, there is common understanding … that the treaty should be narrowly focused on signal piracy, should not extend to any post-fixation activities and that it should provide member states with flexibility to implement obligations through adequate and effective legal means” and “that the object of protection (subject-matter) of the treaty is related to programme-carrying signals linked to linear transmission”. But the bounds of these concepts have been pressed by Chair’s Drafts of a treaty that continue to use exclusive rights as a baseline, including rights to fixation and to make available stored programs on the Internet. This SCCR featured more vigorous debate over the draft than at the last few SCCR meetings, with a larger number of countries offering specific comments on provisions including on national treatment and reciprocity, exceptions and limitations, the protection of signals used in making available stored programs, and the functioning of the mechanism for alternatives to exclusive rights.  Some member states, including the European Union, the Central European and Baltic States Group (CEBS) and the Group of Latin American and Caribbean Countries (GRULAC) supported moving the current text to a diplomatic conference. But the two days of deliberations showed significant concern about many of the draft text’s provisions. After the deliberations showed a lack of consensus on the document, Brazil proposed that the Broadcast Treaty be removed from the formal agenda of the SCCR and be worked on by groups of countries outside of the SCCR. Ultimately the Chair’s Summary concluded that the facilitators would create a new draft text and the item would remain on the agenda without any endorsement of a timeline toward a diplomatic conference. Opposition to the current Chair’s Text appeared to be growing. The Africa Group noted that “some members are concerned about the potential overreach of those protections, fearing that they could restrict access to broadcast or create unintended barriers to the flow of information.” The Asia Pacific Group similarly reported the views of some of its members “determination as to whether and how Intellectual Property rights should apply with respect to broadcasting is also a development to the issue that requires a delicate balance.” The Africa Group stated an additional position that “an instrument on the protection of broadcasting organizations should advance to a Diplomatic Conference jointly with an instrument on limitations and exceptions that meets the 2012 General Assembly’s mandate.”  Among the “Group B” coalition of wealthy countries, the United States continued to raise serious substantive objections, stating the view that “significant work remains to be done” on the Chair’s Draft, which “continues to exceed the GA mandate for a signal based approach to protect broadcasters in the traditional sense.” The US stated that it supports “a narrow text that is focused solely on the live signal,” including through deletion of the Chair’s Draft’s rights to fixation (Art 7) and making available stored programs (art 8).  Ultimately, while the level of engagement on the Broadcast Treaty was elevated, it does not appear the current text, especially its extensions to Internet-based transmissions and post-fixation rights to stored content, have sufficient consensus to move to a diplomatic conference. Limitations and Exceptions: A Foundation for Bridging Divergence The key issue for the limitations and exceptions agenda is reaching an agreement to begin text-based work on the 2012 GA mandate to work toward an “appropriate international legal instrument or instruments (whether model law, joint recommendation, treaty and/or other forms)” on uses by libraries, archives, museums, educational and research institutions, and persons with other disabilities (WO/GA/41/14). In SCCR 43, the Committee adopted a Work Program SCCR/43/8 REV to draft “objectives, principles, and options” for potential instruments. As noted above, the African Group will not support moving the Broadcast Treaty to a Diplomatic Conference without an instrument on L&E prepared to also be endorsed for finalization.  The Chair announced at the start of the L&E agenda that she had a meeting of “volunteer” member states the week before the SCCR to consult on ways forward. She further proposed that she could use the Chair’s position to “help put together a list of objectives and principles that could be seen as ground, a common basis” and that “could be seen as the cornerstone for a soft law instrument” that “could be an important tool used by WIPO and adopted by the General Assembly, it could provide Member States with significant guidelines and guiding principles.” She further proposed “the possibility of appointing facilitators to try and identify that common base.” All countries implicitly endorsed moving to text based work on principles and objectives for limitations and exceptions. The debate in the Committee was about where to start. Group B and CEBS endorsed starting to discuss the US proposed document – SCCR/44/5. The African Group and many developing countries opposed beginning with

[et_pb_section fb_built=”1″ admin_label=”section” _builder_version=”4.16″ global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_row admin_label=”row” _builder_version=”4.16″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” global_colors_info=”{}”][et_pb_column type=”4_4″ _builder_version=”4.16″ custom_padding=”|||” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_padding__hover=”|||”][et_pb_text admin_label=”Text” _builder_version=”4.16″ background_size=”initial” background_position=”top_left” background_repeat=”repeat” global_colors_info=”{}” custom_margin=”-89px|||||”] Professor Sean Flynn delivered the following statement at the World Intellectual Property Organization Standing Committee on Trademarks on the proposal by the United States and others for a Joint Recommendation on Graphical User Interfaces.  The Global Expert Network on Copyright User Rights is an association of IP professors around the world which includes many who also specialize in design law. We support the proposal by the African Group for a study on GUIs before moving further on the proposal for a joint recommendation.  In particular, I draw attention to the work of Professor Sarah Fackrell‬ Burstein, who has studied the use of design law protection on GUIs in the USA. She pointed out in correspondence with me that in the USA “Copyright protection is generally available for this subject matter,” but companies use design protection for GUIs “so they can subvert the low standards of copyright.” In her work Uncreative Designs, 73 Duke L.J. 1437 (2024), she describes how in the USA GUIs are sometimes granted protection that would not meet the copyright standard by the Supreme Court in Feist v. Rural Telephone, which held that information alone without a minimum of original creativity cannot be protected by copyright. One can see many interesting examples of such GUIs at her BlueSky hash tag #SubFeistDesigns https://bsky.app/hashtag/SubFeistDesigns  The US experience suggests that the terms in the joint recommendation may be very important and guidance may be needed for countries that do not want to promote extending protection to GUIs that is beyond that normally available under trademarks and copyrights in most countries already. It may be especially useful to study the potential impacts on large generic markets, such as those for cell phones, where expanding IP promotions for GUIs may negatively affect emerging industries.  We would be happy to work with the African Group and others interested in engaging the scholarship in this area.  [/et_pb_text][/et_pb_column][/et_pb_row][/et_pb_section]

Sean Flynn The Cradle Principles on Knowledge Governance were released today at the 50th meeting of the Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore at the World Intellectual Property Organization. The principles were drafted at a retreat with copyright academics, stakeholders and computational researchers who gathered in the Cradle of Humankind to address the goal of enabling African and other Global South uses of digital research tools without promoting “data colonialism” concerns. The Cradle Principles express that knowledge governance systems but must be seen as composed of various fields of information regulation including “international, constitutional, traditional knowledge, intellectual property, media and telecommunications, privacy, competition, biodiversity, and other laws, and are also composed of non-governmental cultural practices and norms, including traditional systems governing the use of community-held knowledge.” The Principles conclude that such systems, taken together, should further the following goals: -promote the goals of sustainable development, social justice, and human rights; -provide balanced frameworks that protect and promote access to, and use of information for research, scientific inquiry, analysis, translation, and preservation of cultures and languages; -promote the rights and interests of Indigenous peoples and local communities’ in the knowledge economy, including their right to self-determination, inclusion, cultural integrity, data sovereignty and sustainable development; -ensure sovereignty over knowledge resources to combat unidirectional information resource extraction and misappropriation that aggravates inequalities and injustice in the ability to access and use information and knowledge;. The Principles include a table of considerations to help determine when knowledge should be subject to more protection to safeguard the rights of traditional cultures and when knowledge should be more freely available for research, education and other public interest uses. The IGC is currently negotiating a treaty on the protection of traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions. Although the principles do not contain any specific language for the IGC’s work, they may nonetheless be useful in identifying options and considerations for balancing important public interests in the negotiation, including for the crafting of limitations and exceptions to any exclusive rights that may be included in a final treaty. See complete document here: https://knowledgegov.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/Cradle-Principles-V8.pdf