RESTRICTEDWORLD TRADE
ORGANIZATIONIP/C/W/215/Add.4
14 December 2000
(00-5459)
Council for Trade-Related Aspects
of Intellectual Property RightsOriginal:  English
REVIEW OF LEGISLATION
Follow-up questions by the United States posed to Paraguay and Peru
Addendum
By means of a communication from the Permanent Delegation of the United States, dated
29 November 2000, the Secretariat has received th e following follow-up questions addressed to
Paraguay and Peru.
_______________
PARAGUAY
1. Please explain whether and how an invention involving the innovative use of a product,
previously patented for a different use, may be patent ed if that use is new, involves an inventive step,
and has industrial applicability.
2. We would be interested to learn of the reasons that have caused Paraguay to decide to delay
until 1 January 2003 providing patent protection for agricultural chemicals and pharmaceutical
products.
3. Please explain if and how the law of Paraguay prevents relevant Ministries from relying on
earlier submitted undisclosed data of one party to approve another party's request for marketing
approval of its agricultural chemical or pharmaceu tical product which is bioequivalent to the product
of the first party.
PERU
1. Article 16 of Decision 344 appears not to have permitted the grant of patents for inventions
that claim a new use of a product patented previously for another use.  Article 21 of Decision 486
appears to continue this prohibition.  Please explain if and how an invention involving the innovativeuse of a product, previously patented for another use, may be patented if the innovative use is new,
involves an inventive step, and has industrial applicability.
2. Please explain if and how the law of Peru prevents relevant Ministries from relying on earlier
submitted undisclosed data of one party to approve another party's request for marketing approval of
its agricultural chemical or pharmaceutical product which is bioequivalent to the product of the first
party.
__________