Project Completion Report
SECTION A:
Project number & title:
CTI 31-2013A, APEC Capacity Building Workshop on FTA Negotiation
Skills on Intellectual Property
Project time period:
August 2013 – December
2014
Date submitted:
Committee on Trade and Investment
13 th February 2015
Committee / WG /
Fora:
Project Overseer
Ms Pham Quynh Mai, Deputy Director General, Multilateral Trade Policy
Name / Organization
Department, Ministry of Industry and Trade, Viet Nam
/ Economy:
SECTION B:
1. Project description:
On December 17 th and 18 th , 2014, the APEC Capacity Building Workshop on FTA Negotiation Skills on Intellectual Property, initiated by Viet Nam and co-sponsored by Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand, was held in Da Nang city, Viet Nam. Speakers and participants came from thirteen APEC member economies (Australia, Chile, China, Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia, the Philippines, Chinese Taipei, Peru,
Russia, Thailand, the United States, Viet Nam). A former Intellectual Property Counselor from WTO also attended and spoke at the Workshop. Most of the Workshop participants were current and potential intellectual property negotiators from APEC member economies.
The Workshop sought to increase capacity of negotiators and policymakers, with practical relevance, to participate in intellectual property negotiations. It aimed also at sharing best practices and experiences in preparing for negotiations. Last but not least, the Workshop was expected to explore possible implications on trade and intellectual property situation of economy(ies) if participating in the
FTA/FTAAP.
The Project is under the Action Plan Framework for Regional Economic Integration (REI) Capacity
Building Needs Initiative (CBNI) to strengthen and deepen regional economic integration, and facilitating the realization of FTAAP.
2. Meeting objectives:
The Workshop was successful in achieving its objectives. At the project evaluation forms, all
Workshop participants commented that they had a good opportunity to get better understanding, knowledge and skills on intellectual property negotiations under an FTA. The Workshop participants also shared valuable experiences in negotiating FTA-related intellectual property content. In addition, the Workshop participants raised useful recommendations to APEC on followed up activities to build and enhance capacities of member economies in this area. Last but not least, the Workshop was evaluated as a good opportunity for participants to network.
3. Evaluation:
Evaluation of the Workshop is made in form of the evaluation form, which the participants put their comments in and returned to the Organizers by the end of the Workshop. Comments are incorporated in the Project Summary Report. Evaluation form is attached as Appendice of this Project Completion
Report.
4. Output indicators:
.
Indicators
(Edit or Insert rows as needed)
# planned # actual Details or notes
1

# workshops / events
# participants (M/F)
1
80
N/A
8
N/A
N/A
N/A
01
1
60
12
7
2
1
N/A
01
Differences in registered participants and actual participants
# economies attending
# speakers/moderators engaged
# other organizations engaged
# publications distributed
# recommendations agreed on
Other:
Summary report
5. Outcomes:
With the active participation of various expertises among APEC member economies, this Workshop created a good platform for APEC economies to build and enhance FTA-related negotiation skills in the area of intellectual property. The last session (recommendations for future activities) provided an opportunity to share what participants can take away from the Workshop as well as to suggest potential APEC activities related to enhancing capacity-building activities to most benefit APEC member economies.
It was also expected that a network of attendants will be created/established after the Workshop, among current and potential FTA negotiators in intellectual property. The PO was interested to engage in communications among the Workshop participants during and after the event, when they discussed about the application of the knowledge from the Workshop as well as the commencement of other activities in their institutions and home economies.
In addition, the Workshop material may be used as a reference tools for economies in future
Workshops in their home economies.
6. Participants (compulsory for events): Attached as Appendice
Comments: The Organizers sent information on the Workshop to all CTI contact points and asked these contact points to circulate information within their home economies. CTI contact points are required to select participants who are negotiators who directly involve in negotiations on intellectual property and officers in charge of formulating intellectual property law/regulations.
7. Key findings:
The consensus view of the Workshop’s speakers, moderators and participants agreed that the project achieved its intended objectives. They considered the Workshop to have evaluated to be good for participants to enhance knowledge on IP topic and how IP is seen by other APEC economies, practice negotiating skills, etc. The Workshop has achieved the objective to develop increased capacity of negotiators and policy makers with practical relevance to participate intellectual property negotiations; and enhance knowledge on FTA negotiation in relation to intellectual property. In addition, participants recognized that sharing experiences on coordination and post-negotiation implementation from the perspectives of governments and the private sector were useful.
Participants also said that the
Workshop had provided a great opportunity for networking with relevant IP government officials within and outside APEC region.
There was also a discussion of possible future activities to continue this project. Participants suggested that future activities on other sectors should be Workshops on: general negotiation skills, trade in services, rules of origin, environment, trade remedy etc.
8. Next steps: Followed up activities should focus on following elements
2

Participants suggested that follow-up activities on intellectual property should be:
 At least 3-day Workshop, more simulation;
 Pharmaceutical case studies;
 More discussions with ex-negotiators;
 Protection of geographical indications;
 Analysis of textual proposals;
 Example in real court/case issues in IP chapter under FTAs;
 Advanced course on exercise, drafting text, actual FTA provisions (ambiguous), implementation phase etc.
9. Feedback for the Secretariat: Do you have suggestions for more effective support by
APEC fora or the Secretariat? Any assessment of consultants, experts or other stakeholders to
share? The Secretariat examines feedback trends to identify ways to improve our systems.
We would like to thank the APEC Secretariat, in particular Ms Catherine Wong and Mr Joji Koike
(Program Directors) and Ms Mary Tan (Program Executive) for their kind help and enthusiasm in implementing this project.
SECTION C: Budget
Attach a detailed breakdown of the APEC- provided project budget, including:

Planned costs: 127,600.00 USD

Actual expenditures:
No. Item Description Budget Actual Balance Variance Notes
1. Expert's Honorarium 4,000.00
Revised budget
2,000.00 1,500.00
32,500.00 32,500.00 32,500.00
500.00 Only 7 speakers are eligible for honorarium
(Planned: 8)
0 2. Direct labour /
Contractor (clerical, secteraries, consultants)
3. Per Diem -
Speakers/Experts
4. Per Diem-
Participants
4,170.00 4,309.00 3,787.75 521.25
5.
6.
Airfare -
Speakers/Experts
Airfare -Participants
11,467.50 11,467.50 9,411.25 2,056.25 Only 18 participants come from 22 participants planned
22,400.00 24,261.00 15,215.37 9,045.63 Variance of airfare
43,062.50 43,062.50 29,610.67 13,451.83 Only for 18 participants from 22 participants planned, and
Variance of airfare
1,000.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 0.00 Not in use 7
8
9
Specialized equipment
Photocopying
Communication
10 Hosting
Component Total
Project Total
3,000.00
1,000.00
5,000.00
3,000.00
1,000.00
5,000.00
2,970.00
1,000.00
5,000.00
30.00
0.00
0.00
127,600.00 127,600.00 101,995.04 25,604.96
3


Variance notes: An explanation of any budget line under- or over-spent by 20% or more.
SECTION D: Appendices
Please attach the following documentation to the report as required. Note that the participant contact list is a mandatory requirement for all Project completion reports .
 Appendices Notes v v v v
Participant contact list : contact info, gender, job titles ( mandatory)
Experts / consultants list : contact info, job titles, roles, gender
Event Agenda
Reports, websites or resources created: links or soft copies
Post activity survey or other evaluation data (raw and/or aggregated)
Other information or resources
FOR APEC SECRETARIAT USE ONLYAPEC comments: Were APEC project guidelines followed? Could the project have been managed more effectively or easily by the PO?
4

APPENDICE 1 – LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
Designation Organization No Economy
1
N/a
2 USA
Name
Thu-Lang Tran Wasescha
Christine R. Peterson
International Trade
Specialist
Former IP Counselor, WTO IP Division
Office of Intellectual Property Rights,
International Trade Administration, US
Department of Commerce
Khazanah National Chair, University of
Malaya
3
Australia
4
Chile
5
Australia
6 Thailand
7
8
Korea
Chile
Robert Ian McEwin
Carolina Sepúlveda
Jo Feldman
Vikran Duangmanee
Taemin Eom
Jose Manuel Campo
Director
Legal Adviser
IP Manager
Director
Assistant
Intangible Consultancy Ltd
Trade Law Branch, Australian Department of Foreign Affaors and Trade
SCG Chemical Co Ltd
Multilateral Affairs Division, Korean
Intellectual Property Office
DIRECON e-mail address thulang.tranwasescha@yahoo.com
christine.peterson@trade.gov
mcewin@me.com csepulveda@intangible.cl
jo.feldman@dfat.gov.au
vikrand@scg.co.th
tmeom@korea.kr
jcampos@direcon.gob.cl
9 Chile
10 Russia
11 Peru
Felipe Ferrerira
Ovchinnikova Evgenia
Sergio Chuez
Legal Adviser
Senior Expert
Director Deputy of
Trademarks
DIRECON
Ministry of Economic Development
INDECOPI fferreira@direcon.gob.cl
ov.evgenia@mail.ru schuezs@indecopi.gob.pe
5

No Economy
12
The
Philippines
13
The
Philippines
Name
Lolibeth R. Medrano
Leny B. Raz
14 China Wang Qi
Designation
Assistant Director to
Patent
Organization
Intellectual Property Office
Director for Trademark Intellectual Property Office
Official Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM)
15 The Philipines NATHANIEL S. AREVALO
DIRECTOR FOR
LEGAL AFFAIRS
Flora Susan 16 Indonesia
17
18
19
20
Chinese
Taipei
Chinese
Taipei
Chinese
Taipei
Chinese
Taipei
21
Russia
22
Korea
23
Korea
24 Viet Nam
25 Viet Nam
Shu-Min Hong
Hua-Cheng Chao
Ching-Ting Hung
Yung-Ming Chan
Anna Sysoeva
Park Su Jin
Shandong Hwang
Le Thu Tra
Nguyen Thanh Huy
Secretary General
Section Chief
Economic Secretary
Executive Officer
Consultant
Second Secretary
Official
Official
Intellectual Property Office
Ministry of Trade
Intellecutual Property Office, MOEA
Intellecutual Property Office, MOEA
Office of Trade Negotiations, MOEA
Bureau of Foreign Trade, MOEA
Eurasian Economic Commission
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
KIPO
Ministry of Industry and Trade
Ministry of Industry and Trade
6 e-mail address lolibeth.medrano@ipophil.gov.ph
leny.raz@ipophil.gov.ph
ipr@mofcom.gov.cn arevalo@ipophil.gov.ph florassn@yahoo.com min00043@tipo.gov.tw chaochris88@gmail.com cthung@moea.gov.tw ymchan@trade.gov.tw sysoeva@eecommission.org
sujpark@mofa.go.kr
shandong.hwang@korea.kr
tralt@moit.gov.vn huynt@moit.gov.vn

No Economy
26 Viet Nam
Name
Pham Thi Kim Oanh
27 Viet Nam
Nguyen My Linh
28 Viet Nam
29 Viet Nam
30 Viet Nam
33 Viet Nam
34 Viet Nam
35
36
Malaysia
Malaysia
37 Thailand
38 Thailand
Tran Nguyet Minh
Pham Thi Hai Yen
Nguyen Thi Duy Ly
Do Duy Khanh
Designation
Deputy Director
General
Official
Official
Official
Official
Official
Nguyen Minh Tri
Eziatul Nurin Binti Ahmad
Sapawi
Official
Lim Chee Hau
Assistant Secretary
Principal Assisstant
Director
Prawichaya Sunthornsanan Trade Officer
Bannarod Juthapark Trade Officer
39 Indonesia
Hamidi Official
40 Indonesia
41 China
42
43
Viet Nam
Viet Nam
Novianto Wibowo
Wang Chunyang
Le Thi Hoa
Pham Thi Yen
Official
Official
Officer
Officer
Organization
Copyright Office of Viet Nam, Ministry of
Culture, Sports, and Tourism
National Office of Intellectual Property,
Ministry of Science and Technology
National Office of Intellectual Property,
Ministry of Science and Technology
Ministry of Industry and Trade e-mail address oanhpk@cov.gov.vn mylinhnguyen@noip.gov.vn minhtn@noip.gov.vn yenpth@moit.gov.vn
Ministry of Industry and Trade
Ministry of Industry and Trade lyntd@moit.gov.vn khanhdd@moit.gov.vn
Ministry of Industry and Trade
Ministry of Domestic Trade, Co-operative and Consumerism
Ministry of International Trade and Industry
(MITI)
Department of Trade Negotiations
Department of Trade Negotiations
Directorate of APEC and Other
International Organizations Cooperation,
Ministry of Trade
Directorate of APEC and Other
International Organizations Cooperation,
Ministry of Trade
Ministry of Commerce (MOFCOM)
National Office of Intellectual Property of
Viet Nam trinm@moit.gov.vn nurin@kpdnkk.gov.m limcheehau@miti.gov.my
prawichayas@dtn.go.th bannarodj@gmail.com hamidi.hasyim@gmail.com bowo_wibowo@yahoo.com wangchunyang@mofcom.gov.cn
Lehoa9989@yahoo.com
Ministry of Science and Technology
7
Yenpt407@yahoo.com

No Economy
44
Viet Nam
45
Viet Nam
46
Viet Nam
47
Viet Nam
48
Viet Nam
49
Viet Nam
50
Viet Nam
51
Viet Nam
52
Viet Nam
53
Viet Nam
54
Viet Nam
55
Viet Nam
56
Viet Nam
57
Viet Nam
58
Viet Nam
59
Viet Nam
60
Viet Nam
Bui Thi Ly
Name
Cao Phuong Ha
An Thuy Duong
Nguyen Thu Hang
Vu Minh Phuong
Tran Thi Phuong Thuy
Nguyen Van Phuong
Cao Thi Thu Van
Do Thi Thanh Huyen
Pham Hong Chuong
Pham The Anh
Pham Thanh Long
Bui Thanh Nam
Nguyen Thi Kim Chi
Nguyen Hoang Long
Nguyen Hoang Viet
Ms Nguyen Bich Ngoc
Designation
Offial
Offial
Lecturer
Lecturer
Lecturer
Lecturer
Head of Faculty
Official
Lecturer
Deputy Director
Vice Principal
Lecturer
Organization
Multilateral Trade Policy Dept, Ministry of
Industry and Trade
Multilateral Trade Policy Dept, Ministry of
Industry and Trade
Foreign Trade University
Foreign Trade University
Foreign Trade University e-mail address hacp@moit.gov.vn duongat@moit.gov.vn khuongduy.ftu@gmail.com khuongduy.ftu@gmail.com khuongduy.ftu@gmail.com
HCMC Foreign Trade University
International School, HCM National
University
Trade Promotion Agency, Ministry of
Industry and Trade
University of Industry, HCM City
National Economics University
National Economics University
Hanoi Industrial and Trade Agency
Viet Nam National University
Viet Nam National University
Viet Nam Commerce University
Viet Nam Commerce University
Institute of International Trade and
Economics, National Economic University phuongthuy.ftu@gmail.com nvphuong@hcmiu.edu.vn
caovan@vietrade.gov.vn
huyenuyen2003@gmail.com thanhlan@neu.edu.vn thanhlan@neu.edu.vn longscthn@yahoo.com dinhtv2008@gmail.com dinhtv2008@gmail.com tin@vcu.edu.vn nhviet@vcu.edu.vn hadhtmai@neu.edu.vn
8

APPENDICE 2 - LIST OF EXPERT/ CONSULTANT
Consultant:
Address
Phone
Email
Dr. Pham Thi Hong Diep
No.1 Lane 17 Hong Ha street, Ba Dinh district, Ha Noi, Viet Nam
+84(0)912162468
Hongdiep666@yahoo.com
Position: Consultant for the APEC Capacity Building Workshop on FTA Negotiation
Skills on Intellectual Property
17 th and 18 th December 2014 in Da Nang city, Viet Nam (tentative date)
Scope of Work
Work coverage includes:

Developing an overall working plan, including detailed work needed to be done to implement the project;

Developing a detailed simulation exercise for participants of the Workshop;

Collaborating with the Organizing Committee to develop the agenda of the Workshop with updates and revisions if necessary;

Arranging logistics arrangements for the organization of the Workshop (including the preparation of the General Information document, the Workshop’s venue);

Preparing and collect all evaluation forms and evaluation report etc, including the evaluation form for speakers and participants to fill in at the end of the Workshop (2 nd day);


Identifying possible issues expected to be discussed at the Workshop;

Inviting, identifying and allocating roles for moderators to conduct agenda of the Workshop;

Recommending appropriate speakers and undertake necessary procedures to invite appropriate speakers to attend the Workshop;
Facilitating networking of speakers and involved organizations;

Inviting Vietnamese participants, including policy makers, academic and business representatives, to attend the Workshop (with prior discussions with the Project Overseer);

Producing recommendations on the best way to implement the project and preparing a summary report of the Workshop’s outcomes;

Compiling materials received before and during the Workshop;

Helping the Project Overseer upon her request relating the content of the project as well as the organizational work of the project.
11

APPENDICE 3 – AGENDA
Day 1 – 17 th December 2014
Schedule Time
8:30 – 9:00
9:00 – 9:15
Registration
Opening Remarks by H.E. Mr. Nguyen Cam Tu, Vice Minister of Ministry of Industry and
Trade, Viet Nam
Day 1: (i) Understanding Intellectual Property Chapter and (ii) Prepare for Negotiating Intellectual
Property Chapter in an FTA
Session 1
9:15 – 10:00
Moderator: Dr R. Ian McEwin, Khazanah National Chair, University of Malaya
The necessity of having Intellectual Property Chapter in FTAs
This Session will introduce participants on how Intellectual Property and trade are related and the rationale for including Intellectual Property provisions in trade agreements, including the international framework for IP protection (from the Paris Convention to the
TRIPS Agreement)
Speaker: Ms Thu-Lang Tran Wasescha, Consultant, former Counselor at WTO Intellectual
Property Division
10:00 – 10:30 Discussions
10:30 – 10:45 Coffee Break
Session 2
10:45 – 11:45
WTO’s Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights
Speakers will present the TRIPS Agreement, several side agreements on Intellectual
Property and/or texts of the FTAs relating to Intellectual Property. In this Session, the speakers may highlight how Intellectual Property provisions have evolved over time and in various trade agreements. Presentations may also include IPR dispute settlement at the
WTO
Speakers:
A WTO Representative
Ms Thu-Lang Tran Wasescha, Consultant, former Counselor at WTO Intellectual
Property Division
11:45 – 12:15 Discussions
12:15 – 14:00 Lunch
Session 3
14:00 – 15:00
Moderator: Ms Carolina Sepúlveda, Director, Intangible Consultancy Ltd, Chile
The Law and Economics of Intellectual Property Rights
In this Session, speakers may present on (i) International and regional patent and
12

trademark systems, (ii) International and regional copyright system, (iii) new developments in IP Laws in APEC member economies, (iv) Geographical indications, (v) IP and biological diversity, (vi) IP and public health etc.
Speakers:
Dr R. Ian McEwin, Khazanah National Chair, University of Malaya
Ms Vikran Duangmanee, IP Manager, SCG Chemical Co Ltd, Thailand
15:00 – 15:30 Discussions
15:30 – 16:00 Coffee Break
Negotiating Intellectual Property Chapter in an FTA
In this Session, speakers will share practical experience in negotiating Intellectual Property
Chapters in trade agreements. This Session will also discuss typical challenges in the negotiation of Intellectual Property Chapter in trade agreements.
Session 4
16:00 – 17:30
Speakers:
Ms Jo Feldman, Legal Advisor, Trade Law Branch, Australian Department of
Foreign Affairs and Trade
Ms Christine R. Peterson, International Trade Specialist, Office of Intellectual
Property Rights, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
Ms Carol ina Sepúlveda, Director, Intangible Consultancy Ltd, Chile
17:30 – 18:00 Discussions and Introduction of the simulation exercise of Day 2
18:30
Moderator: Ms Vikran Duangmanee, IP Manager, SCG Chemical Co Ltd, Thailand
– 20:30
Welcome Dinner hosted by Ministry of Industry and Trade, Viet Nam
Venue: Khong Gian Xua restaurant, 402 - 404 Dien Bien Phu, Thanh Khe, Da Nang
13

Day 2 – 18 th December 2014
Schedule Time
Day 2: (i) Simulation exercise, (ii) Coordination and stakeholder consultation, (iii) Post-negotiation implementation
Moderator: Ms Jo Feldman, Legal Advisor, Trade Law Branch, Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and
Trade
Session 5
9:00 – 11:30
Simulation exercise
(Coffee and snack is served outside of the Conference room at 10.30 AM)
11:30 – 12:00 Lessons from the simulation exercise
12:00 – 13:30 Lunch
Moderator: Ms Thu-Lang Tran Wasescha, Consultant, former Counselor at WTO Intellectual Property Division
Experiences in Coordination and Stakeholder Consultation
Speakers will share various experience in coordinating and consulting stakeholders, including public engagement and social media. In this Session, speakers will be invited from negotiation team or the private sector, to share relevant perspectives.
Session 6
13:30 – 14:30
Speakers:
Ms Christine R. Peterson, International Trade Specialist, Office of Intellectual
Property Rights, International Trade Administration, U.S. Department of Commerce
Dr Taemin Eom, Director, Multilateral Affairs Division, Korean Intellectual Property
Office
-
Ms Carolina Sepúlveda, Director, Intangible Consultancy Ltd, Chile
14:30 – 15:00 Discussions
15:00 – 15:30 Coffee Break
Best Practices in Post-negotiation Implementation
(Action plan, legislative action plan, cost/opportunities/benefit analysis, dissemination, review)
Session 7
15:30 – 16:30
Speakers:
Ms Jo Feldman, Legal Advisor, Trade Law Branch, Australian Department of
Foreign Affairs and Trade
Dr Taemin Eom, Director, Multilateral Affairs Division, Korean Intellectual Property
Office
Ms Carolina Sepúlveda, Director, Intangible Consultancy Ltd, Chile
16:30 – 17:00 Discussions
Moderator: Ms Pham Quynh Mai, Deputy Director General, Multilateral Trade Policy Department, Ministry of
Industry and Trade, Viet Nam
17:00 – 17:30 Workshop’s Wrap-up and Recommendations for Future Cooperation
14

APPENDICE 4 – SUMMARY REPORT
I. Introduction
On December 17 th and 18 th , 2014, the APEC Capacity Building Workshop on FTA Negotiation Skills on Intellectual Property, initiated by Viet Nam and co-sponsored by Indonesia, Malaysia and Thailand, was held in Da Nang city, Viet Nam. Speakers and participants came from thirteen APEC member economies (Australia, Chile, China, Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia, the Philippines, Chinese Taipei, Peru,
Russia, Thailand, the United States, Viet Nam). A former Intellectual Property Counselor from WTO also attended and spoke at the Workshop. Most of the Workshop participants were current and potential intellectual property negotiators from APEC member economies.
The Workshop sought to increase capacity of negotiators and policymakers, with practical relevance, to participate in intellectual property negotiations. It aimed also at sharing best practices and experiences in preparing for negotiations. Last but not least, the Workshop was expected to explore possible implications on trade and intellectual property situation of economy(ies) if participating in the
FTA/FTAAP.
II. Background
1. This project is designed to put into action APEC Ministers’ instructions to build capacity to strengthen and deepen the regional economic integration, and to facilitate the realization of the Free
Trade Agreement of the Asia - Pacific (APEC 2011 Ministerial Meeting statement), which is also a rank
#1 priority of APEC of “promoting regional economic integration via free and open trade and investment.”
A. In their 2013 Declaration, APEC Leaders insisted that “APEC has an important role to play in coordinating information sharing, transparency, and capacity building...” and “agreed to ...increase the capacity of APEC economies to engage in substantive negotiations.” Furthermore, APEC Ministers
“encouraged officials to advance the Regional Economic Integration Capacity-Building Needs Initiative
Action Plan Framework as a key delivery mechanism for the technical assistance needed to one day make the FTAAP a reality.”
Themes covered during the two-day event included: (i) The Necessity of Having Intellectual Property
Chapter in FTAs, (ii) WTO’s Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, (iii)
The Law and Economics of Intellectual Property Rights, (iv) Negotiating Intellectual Property Chapter in an FTA, (v) Simulation Exercise, (vi) Experiences in Coordination and Stakeholder Consultation, and (vii) Best Practices in Post-negotiation Implementation.
III. Discussion
Outcomes
The APEC Capacity Building Workshop on FTA Negotiation Skills on Intellectual Property included 2 days for presentations and discussions on FTA-related intellectual property and for simulation exercise. The last session (recommendations for future activities) was overwhelmed with active discussions of all speakers and participants who all had an opportunity to share what they can take away from the Workshop as well as to suggest potential APEC activities related to intellectual property or other APEC capacity building activities. Overall, the Workshop achieved its main objectives as described in the project proposal. Moreover, all participants considered this as a valuable chance for networking among experts in the field of intellectual property within and outside the APEC region.
Key Issues Discussed
Opening remarks
In his opening remarks, Mr Nguyen Cam Tu (Vice Minister of Industry and Trade, Viet Nam) , stressed the importance of the Workshop in the light that intellectual property is a complicated issue whereas developing economies has modest knowledge and experiences. He reiterated that building
15

and enhancing FTA negotiation skills on intellectual property is essential and pragmatic for the benefits of all APEC economies, especially the developing ones. He hoped that with intensive presentations of speakers and active discussions of all participants, the Workshop would offer a worthwhile opportunity for negotiators and policy-makers of Viet Nam and other APEC members to exchange and learn precious experience, as well as to enhance their knowledge on negotiating intellectual property issues in FTAs. This would contribute to boosting the efficiency of both intellectual property negotiations and the implementation of intellectual property regulations, once the FTAs enter into force.
Workshop’s sessions
Experts provided presentations on the following topics:
1/ During Session 1 on “The Necessity of Having Intellectual Property Chapter in FTAs”, Ms Thu-lang
Tran Wasescha (former Counsellor at the WTO Intellectual Property Division) outlined her presentation into 5 parts: (i) Trade, (ii) Intellectual property/ intellectual property rights (IP/IPR), (iii) the trade – intellectual property relation, (iv) Why an IP Chapter in FTAs?, and (v) Multilateralism and plurilateralism. She highlighted that intellectual property has added value and is accessible to all economies, even the smallest or vulnerable. To her, there are many reasons behind the inclusion of
IPRs in the Uruguay Round and in FTAs, such as increased economic importance of IP, reinforced by economies’ acceptance of TRIPS as part of the landscape, distortions to international trade, market access problems. In addition, IP will help to add value to products and services and is one of the bargaining chips in negotiations. She commented that some FTAs contain a reaffirmation of TRIPS, while others seek to go beyond. Last but not least, she introduced the current IP planet through an interesting graph.
2/ During Session 2 on “WTO’s Agreement on Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights”,
Ms Thu-lang Tran Wasescha divided her presentation in 4 parts: (i) TRIPS overview, (ii) TRIPS in
2014, (iii) Trade policy review (TPR) mechanism and (iv) WTO dispute settlement and TRIPS. After a comprehensive overview on TRIPS, Ms Wasescha provided useful information on TRIPS up to 2014, such as implementation, success stories, the unfinished business of the Uruguay Round, various misunderstandings, the TRIPS-public health debate, etc. She then introduced the TPR mechanism, which was evaluated as a dynamic instrument, containing a great wealth of information in all areas and as a transparency mechanism. Finally, Ms Wasescha presented the WTO dispute settlement and
TRIPS.
3/ During Ses sion 3 on “The Law and Economics of Intellectual Property Rights”, there were 2 speakers: Dr. R. Ian McEwin (Khazanah National Chair of Regulatory Studies, University of
Malaya, Malaysia) and Ms Vikran Duangmanee (IP Manager, SCG Chemical Co. Ltd, Thailand).
Dr R Ian McEwin made a presentation on “Basic Economies of Intellectual Property”. Dr McEwin briefed the participants on intellectual property law and basic economics of IP law. He raised arguments of some economist that there is no need for IPRs because IPRs slow down the rate at which consumers can enjoy the benefits at lower prices and firms use IPRs strategically. In addition,
Dr McEwin provided useful information on fundamental IP contradiction, real property rights, and scope of IPRs. He also mentioned IPRs and particular sectors (pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, copyright, computer software, patents, trademark, trade secrets). Dr McEwin gave an interesting example on cumulative and complementary innovations. According to Dr McEwin, the tentions are: (i) real problem arises in reconciling short and long term goals, (ii) the difficulty is knowing whether any market power gained as a result of IP protection is necessary to promote innovation or really an attempt to go beyond innovation incentives to earn a higher than necessary award, and (ii) it is impossible in practice to know once an IP right has been created what return was necessary to ensure its creation.
Ms Vikran Duangmanee divided her presentation into 4 parts: (i) IP, business and technology, (ii)
Current IP systems, (iii) IP collaboration in ASEAN and (iv) IP laws of Thailand. Ms Duangmanee listed ASEAN Member States and their participation in IP systems (TRIPS and other Conventions such as Paris, Berne, PCT, Madrid, Hague). Regarding IP collaboration in ASEAN, she presented on
16

ASEAN Framework, IPR Action Plan, ASEAN Patent Examination Cooperation (ASPEC) etc.
Moreover, Ms Duangmanee introduced participants on Thai IP Laws, which include substances on copy right, optical disc products, trademark, protection of new varieties of plant, traditional Thai medicinal intelligence, geographical indications, layout – design of integrated circuits, patent, and trade secrets. Last but not least, she updated participants on recent development of Thai Copyright
Law with new issues of interim injunctive relief, rights management information, technological protection measures, exceptions to copyright infringement, performer’s rights and rights of performer’s heir, double penalty and confiscation of copyright – infringing goods.
4/ During Session 4 on “Negotiating Intellectual Property Chapter in an FTA”, there were 3 speakers:
Ms Jo Feldman (Assistant Director, Legal, Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade),
Ms Christine R Peterson (International Trade Specialist, Office of Intellectual Property Rights,
International Trade Administration, US Department of Commerce) and Ms Carolina Sepúlveda
(Director, Intangible Consultancy Ltd, Chile).
According to Ms Jo Feldman , it is important to well prepare for negotiation by consulting stakeholders, departments with expertise in the subject area and lawyers to identify the government’s negotiating goals. From that basis, Ms Feldman reiterated the needs of identifying the negotiating parameters: red box (commitments you can not accept), amber box (commitments you will not actively seek, but which, if necessary, and in view of the overall treaty package, you could accept) and green box (commitments you will actively seek to include in the treaty). Regarding the content, Ms Feldman highlighted interpretive, substantive and relationship provisions. She concluded by referring to the language to be used in the treaty.
The presentation of Ms Christine R Peterson focused on the practical experience and typical challenges in negotiating IP Chapters in FTAs. Ms Peterson introduced several IP Chapters’ structures and highlights in its FTAs in force with 20 countries. In addition, she mentioned the U.S. objectives regarding IP sector in TPP negotiations. Ms Peterson also introduced domestic IP laws and made conclusion remarks that IP Chapters in FTAs will lead to an easier trading environment, business confidence, greater transparency, clearer IP laws, harmonization of IP rules and procedures, and greater certainty that IP will be protected.
Ms Carolina Sepúlveda approached the issue from the perspectives of a former IP Chilean negotiator and an IP and technology transfer advisor. According to Ms Sepúlveda, the question is the kind of IP system that developing economies need to stimulate their innovation and such kind will be different from what have been established in developed economies. In the opinion of Ms Sepúlveda, developing economies need an IP system in accordance with their levels of development.
Furthermore, Ms Sepúlveda stressed that it is essential to prepare three kinds of proposals in different stages of negotiations: active proposal (or proposition), balance’s proposal and defensive proposal.
After providing specific, interesting examples for each of proposal, Ms Sepúlveda commented on most impacting proposals for developing economies, current negotiations of TPP and power of negotiation.
In her final remarks, Ms Sepúlveda reaffirmed that “once we know that we need, we could have a better strategy of negotiations and more alternatives to get a more balanced agreement.”
5/ During Session 5 on “Experiences in Coordination and Stakeholder Consultation”, there were 3 speakers: Ms Christine R. Peterson, Dr Taemin Eom (Director, Multilateral Affairs Division,
Korean Intellectual Property Office - KIPO) and Ms Carolina Sepúlveda.
Ms Christine R. Peterson made an indepth presentation on “Stakeholder Coordination and
Consultation”. In the view of Ms Peterson, it is essential to identify the stakeholders and give stakeholders an opportunity to identify themselves. To Ms Peterson, stakeholders are Government agencies, Senate and House of Representatives, elected State Officials, industry, SMEs, NGOs and acdemia, and the public. In addition, it is important to work with stakeholders to identify equities, keep stakeholders updated on the issues they care about., work with stakeholders to sharpen priorities, create opportunities for all stakeholders to be heard, and use online tools and social media to reach more people.
17

The presentation of Dr. Taemin Eom was outlined in 6 parts: (i) Introduction, (ii) Korea’s FTAs, (iii)
FTA policy and procedures, (iv) Experiences in FTA, (v) Public consensus-building in FTAs, (vi)
Coordination and consultation. Dr Eom emphasized the objectives and principles in IPR negotiations.
Those are: (i) higher IPR protection to promote IP-based economies, (ii) advancing IP system to increase FDI and (iii) adjusting unreasonable regulations to protect interests of stakeholders.
According to Dr Eom, preparation for FTA would include conducting a feasibility and strategy study on
FTA, establishing Task Force team, collecting extensive opinions from industries, universities and research institutions, and coordination among government agencies. Moreover, Dr Eom stressed the importance of public consensus-building in FTA as well as collecting opinions. In his summing up, Dr
Eom observed that FTA negotiation under KIPO would include research/fundamental study, establishing strategy and public hearing.
Ms Carolina Sepúlveda started her presentation by pointing out that internal and external coordination would form national consensus. In terms of internal coordination, there are Interministerial committee (political) and IP Inter-ministerial committee (technical). Meanwhile, external coordination would engage private sector, Congress and citizens’ organizations. Ms Sepúlveda was of the view that consultation is very good practice, with the aim of properly detecting and interpreting the sensibilities and interests of the different production sectors, which are included in the offers and negotiations. She then discussed Chile’s institution of room next door since 2001, which helped to build trust between negotiators and private sector and organizations. Ms Sepúlveda concluded her presentation by stressing that consultations, meetings with the private sector, room next door, informative sessions in the congress are important instrument to guarantee participation and then validation of the negotiation process. But, she reiterated that it is important to highlight that those processes must have minimal standards to comply with its objectives.
6/ During Session 6 on “Best Practices in Post-negotiation Implementation” , there were 3 speakers:
Ms Jo Feldman, Dr. Taemin Eom and Ms Carolina Sepúlveda.
Ms Jo Feldman shared experiences in treaty implementation in Australia. First, she provided a brief overview on the relationship between treaties and international law, as well as approaches to treaty implementation. She then described 6 steps of treaty making in Australia: (i) mandate, (ii) negotiations,
(iii) legislation (is new legislation required?), (iv) approval for signature, (v) and (vi) ratification and entry into force. Ms Feldman finally commented that a treaty can only live up to its promise of improving IP protection and increasing trade if stakeholders understand the changes that have been made following the treaty.
The contents of Dr Taemin Eom ’s presentation were: (i) Goals of FTA in principle, (ii) Korea after 10 years of FTA, (iii) FTA issues, (iv) Challenges and policy implications, (v) Direction of upcoming FTAs, and (vi) Suggestions. Dr Eom was of the view that the FTA utilization rate of SMEs was low and the trade deficit of agricultural industry with FTA partners increased. He also noted some challenges and policy implications such as worsening policy environment for FTAs, implementation issues, public consensus building, spaghetti bowl effect. Dr Eom concluded by raising several lessons, including (i) considering political situation in preparing for FTA, (ii) upgrading industrial competitiveness to maximize FTA effects, (iii) establishing FTA support system to raise SMEs’ utilization rate, (iv) enhancing cooperation between private and public sectors to resolve problems, (v) increasing industrial cooperation competitiveness rather than providing subsidies for loss.
Ms Carolina Sepúlveda started her presentation by putting for ward a definition of “implementation”.
She clarified that there were 2 perspectives of implementation: general and specific terms. After going into details on 2 perspectives of implementation, she concluded by raising some final remarks for policy makers i n charge of IP chapter’s implementation to take into account. Those are: (i) Define different interests affected by the policies, (ii) Determine the impact of the policy at the political and economical level, (iii) Strategy of the country, (iv) Previous implementing experiences from other countries, (v) Design a draft taking into account those divergents interests in a balanced way, (vi)
Design internal and external strategy to lead a national consensus.
Mock negotiation
18

During the mock negotiation, participants were divided into 3 groups of three economies (A, B, C) negotiating a Regional Trade Agreement. Each country had differing economic characteristics and policy frameworks for patent and data protection.
One of the major outstanding areas of negotiation, indeed the one that has created the difficult challenges, is patent and data protection.
The objective of the mock negotiation is to reach an agreement amongst the 3 Parties regarding the inclusion of provisions rel ated to patent and data protection in the RTA’s
Intellectual Property Chapter.
Each team had one hour to prepare for the mock negotiation and another hour to undertake the negotiation. The negotiation was divided into two rounds. Each team was encouraged to designate one person to act as a lead negotiator during the mock negotiation.
Participants were encouraged to conduct research on patent and data protection policies, including within their respective countries, prior to attending the APEC Workshop and during breaks in order to familiarize themselves with the domestic policy considerations related to this issue.
The one-hour mock negotiation took place enthusiastically with 3 leaders of 3 groups to represent their groups to negotiate. The exercise on mock negotiation was evaluated to be frank, useful, effective and helped to exchange views of negotiators. Through the mock negotiation, participants understood more about the importance of preparation before undertaking negotiations, especially in terms of knowing IP laws and policies on other Parties, arguments, making coalition on common issues (in plurilateral/ multilateral negotiations), understanding views during breaks, building relationships. Furthermore, participants were aware of the importance of clarifications on terminology and concerns, proposing non-papers and preliminary texts etc. during negotiations (especially in case English is the 2 nd language of negotiators).
IV/ Conclusions and Recommendations
1/ The consensus view of the Workshop’s speakers, moderators and participants agreed that the project achieved its intended objectives. They considered the Workshop to have evaluated to be good for participants to enhance knowledge on IP topic and how IP is seen by other APEC economies, practice negotiating skills, etc. The Workshop has achieved the objective to develop increased capacity of negotiators and policy makers with practical relevance to participate intellectual property negotiations; and enhance knowledge on FTA negotiation in relation to intellectual property. In addition, participants recognized that sharing experiences on coordination and post-negotiation implementation from the perspectives of governments and the private sector were useful.
Participants also said that the Workshop had provided a great opportunity for networking with relevant IP government officials within and outside APEC region.
2/ The Workshop concluded with a discussion of possible future activities to continue this project.
Participants suggested that future activities on other sectors should be Workshops on: general negotiation skills, trade in services, rules of origin, environment, trade remedy etc.
Participants suggested that follow-up activities on intellectual property should be:
 At least 3-day Workshop, more simulation;
 Pharmaceutical case studies;
 More discussions with ex-negotiators;
 Protection of geographical indications;
 Analysis of textual proposals;
 Example in real court/case issues in IP chapter under FTAs;
 Advanced course on exercise, drafting text, actual FTA provisions (ambiguous), implementation phase etc.
19

APPENDICE 5 – EVALUATION FORM
Please indicate your level of agreement with the statements listed in the table below.
Strongly
Agree
Agree Disagree
COMMENTS (Continue on back if necessary)
The objectives of the
Workshop were clearly defined
The project achieved its intended objectives
The agenda items and topics covered were relevant
The content was well organized and easy to follow
Gender issues were sufficiently addressed during implementation
The trainers/experts or facilitators were well prepared and knowledgeable about the topic
The materials distributed were useful
The time allotted for the training was sufficient.
1. How relevant was this project to you and your economy?
5 4 very mostly
3
somewhat
2
a little
1
not much
Explain: ___________________________________________________________________________
_________________
2. In your view what were the project’s results/achievements?
Explain: ___________________________________________________________________________
_________________
3. What new skills and knowledge did you gain from this event?
Explain: ___________________________________________________________________________
_________________
4. Rate your level of knowledge of and skills in the topic prior to participating in the event:
20

5 4 3 2 1 very high high medium low very low
5. Rate your level of knowledge of and skills in the topic after participating in the event:
5 very high
4 3 high medium
2 low
1
very low
Explain: ______________________________________________ ___________________
6. How will you apply the project’s content and knowledge gained at your workplace? Please provide examples (e.g. develop new policy initiatives, organise trainings, develop work plans/strategies, draft regulations, develop new procedures/tools etc.).
Explain: ____________________________________ ____________________________
7. What needs to be done next by APEC ? Are there plans to link the project’s outcomes to subsequent collective actions by fora or individual actions by economies?
________________________________________________
8. How could this project have been improved? Please provide comments on how to improve the project, if relevant.
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
________________________________________________
Participant information (identifying information is optional):
Name:
Organisation/Economy:
Email:
Gender: M / F
Thank you. Your evaluation is important in helping us assess this project, improve project quality and plan next steps.
21