DOCSLIB.ORG

Respondent's Rejoinder on the Merits

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Respondent's Rejoinder on the Merits IN THE MATTER OF AN ARBITRATION UNDER CHAPTER ELEVEN OF THE NORTH AMERICAN FREE TRADE AGREEMENT AND THE UNCITRAL ARBITRATION RULES (1976) BETWEEN: ELI LILLY AND COMPANY Claimant/Investor AND: GOVERNMENT OF CANADA Respondent/Party (Case No. UNCT/14/2) GOVERNMENT OF CANADA REJOINDER MEMORIAL December 8, 2015 Trade Law Bureau Departments of Justice and of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Lester B. Pearson Building 125 Sussex Drive Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0G2 CANADA REJOINDER MEMORIAL INDEX Volume I Rejoinder Memorial Volume II Witness Statements Dr. Marcel Brisebois Dr. Michael Gillen Volume III Expert Reports Ronald E. Dimock Timothy R. Holbrook Heidi Lindner T. David Reed Dr. Daniel J. Gervais Volume IV Exhibits Volume V Legal Authorities TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. 1 A. Preliminary Statement .................................................................................. 1 B. Evidence Submitted in Support of Canada’s Rejoinder .............................. 7 II. BACKGROUND .................................................................................................. 10 A. Canadian Law Provides Protection for Patent Rights Where Such Protection Is Warranted ............................................................................. 11 1. The Patent Bargain Reflected in Canada’s Patent Act Involves a Careful Balance of Benefits and Obligations ................................ 11 2. Secondary Patents Must Satisfy the Patent Bargain and Meet All Patentability Criteria ..................................................................... 15 3. The Patent Applicant, the Patent Office and the Courts Each Play a Role in Ensuring that the Patent Bargain Is Met ........................... 20 a) The Applicant Determines the Scope of the Monopoly that It Seeks .............................................................................. 20 b) The Patent Office Determines Whether the Patentability Requirements of the Patent Act Are Met Based On the Record Before It ................................................................ 22 c) The Courts Ultimately Determine a Patent’s Validity Based on the Evidence and Argument Presented by Litigants .... 23 B. Claimant’s Invalid Raloxifene, Atomoxetine and Olanzapine Patents Were Speculative Secondary Patents ......................................................... 26 III. CLAIMANT’S CHALLENGE TO THE CANADIAN LAW ON UTILITY IS OUTSIDE THE TRIBUNAL’S JURISDICTION RATIONAE TEMPORIS ...................................................................................... 30 A. Overview .................................................................................................... 30 B. Articles 1116(2) and 1117(2) Establish a Strict Three-Year Time Limit to Submit a Claim to Arbitration ...................................................... 32 C. The Time Limit in NAFTA Articles 1116(2) and 1117(2) Begins to Run from the First Date a Claimant Acquires Knowledge of the Alleged Breach and a Loss ........................................................................ 34 D. Claimant Failed to Submit Its Claims Challenging the Canadian Law of Utility Within the Prescribed Three-Year Time Limit .......................... 39 1. Claimant Is Now Challenging the Judicial Interpretation of Canada’s Patent Act ...................................................................... 39 i Eli Lilly and Company v. Government of Canada Rejoinder Memorial of Canada December 8, 2015 2. Claimant First Acquired Knowledge of the Challenged Judicial Interpretations in the 2008 PM(NOC) Proceedings Related to its Raloxifene Patent .......................................................................... 42 a) The “Promise of the Patent” Doctrine Was Applied in the Raloxifene Proceedings .................................................... 43 b) The Post-Filing Evidence Rule Was Applied in the Raloxifene Proceedings .................................................... 44 c) The Sound Prediction Disclosure Rule Was Applied in the Raloxifene Proceedings .................................................... 45 3. Claimant Incurred a Loss as a Result of the Challenged Judicial Interpretations in 2009, More than Three Years Before Submitting This Claim to Arbitration .............................................................. 46 IV. CANADA’S LAW ON UTILITY AND ITS APPLICATION TO CLAIMANT’S PATENTS ARE NOT AN UNLAWFUL EXPROPRIATION IN BREACH OF ARTICLE 1110 ................................... 49 A. Overview .................................................................................................... 49 B. A Judicial Determination That a Patent Is Invalid Does Not Engage the Obligations Under Article 1110 ........................................................... 51 C. Article 1110(7) Also Bars the Application of Article 1110 in this Case ... 58 1. Canada’s Law Is Consistent With Article 1701(1) ....................... 59 2. Canada’s Law Is Consistent With Article 1709(1) ....................... 61 a) Claimant’s Analysis of the Meaning of Article 1709(1) Is Flawed ............................................................................... 61 b) The Ordinary Meaning of Article 1709(1) Makes Clear that the NAFTA Parties Have the Flexibility to Set and Implement the Utility Requirement .................................. 66 (1) The NAFTA Parties Had Different Thresholds for Utility Prior To NAFTA ....................................... 67 (2) The NAFTA Parties Implemented Their Utility Standards in Different Ways When NAFTA Was Signed ................................................................... 71 c) The Context of Article 1709(1) Confirms that the NAFTA Parties Did Not Adopt a Restrictive Definition of Utility in Article 1709(1) .................................................................. 77 d) Subsequent Practice Confirms that the NAFTA Parties Did Not Adopt a Restrictive Definition of Utility in Article 1709(1) .............................................................................. 79 ii Eli Lilly and Company v. Government of Canada Rejoinder Memorial of Canada December 8, 2015 e) Relevant Rules of International Law Confirm that the NAFTA Parties Did Not Adopt a Restrictive Definition of Utility in Article 1709(1) .................................................. 80 f) Supplementary Means of Interpretation Confirm that the NAFTA Parties Did Not Adopt a Restrictive Definition of Utility in Article 1709(1) .................................................. 82 3. Canada’s Law Is Consistent With Article 1709(7) ....................... 83 4. Canada’s Law Is Consistent With Article 1709(8) ....................... 91 D. There Has Been No Unlawful Direct or Indirect Expropriation of Claimant’s Patents ..................................................................................... 94 1. Claimant’s Legal Theory On Judicial Expropriation Is Incorrect 95 2. Claimant’s Patents Were Not Directly Expropriated .................. 100 3. Claimant’s Patents Were Not Indirectly Expropriated ............... 100 a) The Measures Did Not Substantially Deprive Claimant of Its Investment .................................................................. 102 b) The Measures Did Not Violate Claimant’s Reasonable Investment-Backed Expectations .................................... 102 c) The Character of Canada’s Measures Weighs Heavily Against a Finding of Indirect Expropriation ................... 106 4. Canada’s Measures Do Not Breach Any Other Rule of International Law ........................................................................ 107 V. CANADA’S LAW ON UTILITY AND ITS APPLICATION TO CLAIMANT’S PATENTS DO NOT BREACH ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER ARTICLE 1105 ................................................................................... 109 A. Overview .................................................................................................. 109 B. Claimant Has Not Established the Existence of a Rule of Customary International Law Other Than Denial of Justice Applicable to Judicial Adjudication ............................................................................................. 110 C. Claimant Has Failed to Meet Its Obligation to Establish That Customary International Law Provides the Protections It Alleges .......... 115 1. Claimant Has Failed to Establish That Customary International Law Protects Against Arbitrary Conduct .................................... 117 2. Claimant Has Failed to Establish That Customary International Law Protects Against All Forms of Discrimination ................... 118 3. Claimant Has Failed to Establish That Customary International Law Protects Its “Legitimate Expectations” ............................... 120 D. The Threshold for Establishing a Breach of Article 1105(1) Is High ...... 122 iii Eli Lilly and Company v. Government of Canada Rejoinder Memorial of Canada December 8, 2015 E. Claimant’s Arguments Rely on Mischaracterizations and Misrepresentations of Canadian Law and Court Decisions ..................... 122 1. The Decisions of the Federal Courts Were Not Arbitrary .......... 122 2. The Decisions of the Federal Courts Were Not Discriminatory . 126 3. The Decisions of the Federal Courts Did Not Violate Claimant’s “Legitimate Expectations” .......................................................... 128 VI. REQUEST FOR RELIEF ................................................................................. 129 iv Eli Lilly and Company
Load more

Recommended publications
  • State of Intellectual Property Protection and Enforcement in Armenia
    State of intellectual property protection and enforcement in Armenia 2020 Supported by Implemented by Table of contents Foreword ............................................................................................................................................... 4 Acknowledgements ............................................................................................................................... 5 About Editors ......................................................................................................................................... 6 Acronyms and Abbreviations ................................................................................................................ 7 Introduction............................................................................................................................................ 9 Executive summary ............................................................................................................................... 11 Chapter 1 Contribution of IP system and IP protection to economic growth and development .......................................................................................................................................... 13 1.1. Importance of efficient IP system for economic growth and development ............. 13 1.2. Importance of IP protection for national economies ............................................... 15 Chapter 2. Current state of the IP system in Armenia ..................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Ests Under Canadian Patent Law: Useful Or Not?
    Canadian Journal of Law and Technology Volume 5 Number 2 Article 2 4-1-2006 ESTs under Canadian Patent Law: Useful or Not? Natalie C. Bellefeuille Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.schulichlaw.dal.ca/cjlt Part of the Computer Law Commons, Intellectual Property Law Commons, Internet Law Commons, Privacy Law Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation Natalie C. Bellefeuille, "ESTs under Canadian Patent Law: Useful or Not?" (2006) 5:2 CJLT. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Schulich Law Scholars. It has been accepted for inclusion in Canadian Journal of Law and Technology by an authorized editor of Schulich Law Scholars. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ESTs under Canadian Patent Law: Useful or Not? Natalie C. Bellefeuille† Introduction one of the two cDNA strands: a 5’ EST is obtained when the beginning portion of a cDNA is sequenced, whereas a 3’ EST is obtained when the ending portion of a cDNA The Debate is sequenced. 9 ESTs thus represent short DNA sequences, the majority of which encode part of a gene, but rarely a he patentability of human genetic material has full-length gene. As will be discussed in greater detail T given rise to considerable debate around the below, they are generally only useful to researchers as 1 world. As Kevles notes, ‘‘[o]ne of the most controversial tools to identify the full-length gene, and rarely provide issues in biotechnology in the Unites States and Europe information about the function or location of the gene.
    [Show full text]
  • Expert Report of Professor Norman V. Siebrasse
    In the Arbitration under the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law and the North American Free Trade Agreement (Case No. UNCT/14/2) ELI LILLY AND COMPANY Claimant v. GOVERNMENT OF CANADA Respondent EXPERT REPORT OF PROFESSOR NORMAN V. SIEBRASSE Professor of Law, University of New Brunswick TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. Introduction ............................................................................................................................. 3 A. Background and Qualifications........................................................................................... 3 B. Overview of Patent Law in Canada .................................................................................... 3 (i) Purpose of Patent Rights ................................................................................................. 3 (ii) Patentability Requirements ......................................................................................... 4 (iii) Claims and Disclosure ................................................................................................ 4 II. Law of Utility In Canada ........................................................................................................ 6 A. Overview ............................................................................................................................. 6 B. Utility At Date of Filing/Examination of Zyprexa and Strattera Patents............................ 7 (i) Utility Standard ..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Working Group
    Annex 1 E PCT/WG/11/27 ORIGINAL: ENGLISH DATE: JANUARY 11, 2019 Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Working Group Eleventh Session Geneva, June 18 to 22, 2018 REPORT adopted by the Working Group 1. The Patent Cooperation Treaty Working Group held its eleventh session in Geneva from June 18 to 22, 2018. 2. The following members of the Working Group were represented at the session: (i) the following Member States of the International Patent Cooperation Union (PCT Union): Algeria, Australia, Austria, Belarus, Brazil, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, China, Colombia, Côte d’Ivoire, Czech Republic, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Denmark, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Honduras, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Israel, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kuwait, Lithuania, Malaysia, Malta, Mexico, Montenegro, Morocco, Nigeria, Norway, Oman, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Republic of Korea, Romania, Russian Federation, Saudi Arabia, Senegal, Singapore, Slovakia, South Africa, Spain, Sudan, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, Trinidad and Tobago, Turkey, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, United States of America, Uzbekistan, Viet Nam, Zimbabwe (69); and (ii) the following intergovernmental organizations: the European Patent Office (EPO), the Nordic Patent Institute (NPI), and the Visegrad Patent Institute (VPI) (3). 3. The following Member States of the International Union for the Protection of Industrial Property (Paris Union) participated in the session as an observer: Mauritius, Yemen (2). 4. The following intergovernmental organizations were represented by observers: African Intellectual Property Organization (OAPI), African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO), African Union (AU), Eurasian Patent Organization (EAPO), European Union (EU), Patent Office of the Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf (GCC Patent Office), South Centre (7).
    [Show full text]
  • Patent Harmonisation and Utilisation: First Europe and Then the World?
    Patent Harmonisation and Utilisation: First Europe and Then the World? Dr Mark Weaver 3 December 2009 Director Practice & Procedure Utilisation and Harmonisation - Drivers Challenges • Worldwide Patent Application Backlogs - Millions • Duplication of Work • Increased Costs • Lack of Consistency • Increased Legal Uncertainty Possible Solutions • Utilisation and Work Sharing • New Bilateral or Multi-Lateral Agreements • Improve on Existing Work Sharing Agreements • Substantive Patent Law Harmonisation • Simplified Language Requirements First Europe ... European Patent Landscape EPO - 36 Member States Unified Patent Litigation System Austria • Belgium • Bulgaria • Croatia • UPLS Cyprus • Czech Republic • Denmark • Estonia • Finland • France • Germany • Greece • Hungary • Iceland • Ireland • Italy • Latvia • Liechtenstein • Lithuania • Luxembourg • Former Yugoslav Republic of European and Macedonia • Malta • Monaco • Netherlands • Community Norway • Poland • Portugal • Romania • Community San Marino • Slovakia • Slovenia • Spain • Patents Court Patent Sweden • Switzerland • Turkey • United Kingdom ECPC European patent applications and patents can European also be extended at the applicant's request to Enhanced Patent Network the following states: Partnership Albania • Bosnia-Herzegovina • Serbia EPN Status: December 2009 European Patent Landscape • Unified Patent Litigation System • Draft Council Conclusions on an enhanced patent system in Europe http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/09/st14/st14040.en09.pdf • Draft Council Agreement
    [Show full text]
  • Doing Business in Kazakhstan
    DOING BUSINESS 2021 IN KAZAKHSTAN Doing Business in Kazakhstan 2021 Baker McKenzie – CIS, Limited Almaty office Samal Towers, 8th Floor 97 Zholdasbekov Street Almaty, Kazakhstan 050051 Phone: +7 727 3 300 500 Facsimile: +7 727 258 40 00 [email protected] www.bakermckenzie.com The information in this brochure is for informational purposes only and it may not reflect the most current legal developments, judgments or settlements. This information is not offered as legal or any other advice on any particular matter. The Firm and the contributing authors expressly disclaim all liability to any person in respect of anything and in respect of the consequences of anything done or omitted wholly or partly in reliance upon the whole or any part of the contents of Baker McKenzie’s “Doing Business in Kazakhstan” brochure. No client or other reader should act or refrain from acting on the basis of any matter contained in this brochure without seeking the appropriate legal or other professional advice on the particular facts and circumstances. Doing Business in Kazakhstan Table of Contents 1 Kazakhstan — an overview ..................................................... 1 1.1 Geography .................................................................... 1 1.2 Population .................................................................... 1 1.3 History.......................................................................... 1 1.4 Government and political system ................................. 2 1.5 Economy .....................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Patent Cooperation
    TREATIES AND OTHER INTERNATIONAL ACTS SERIES 13-1218.1 ________________________________________________________________________ INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Patent Cooperation Treaty Between the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and OTHER GOVERNMENTS Adopted at Geneva June 1, 2000 with Amended Schedule Adopted May 15, 2008 NOTE BY THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE Pursuant to Public Law 89—497, approved July 8, 1966 (80 Stat. 271; 1 U.S.C. 113)— “. .the Treaties and Other International Acts Series issued under the authority of the Secretary of State shall be competent evidence . of the treaties, international agreements other than treaties, and proclamations by the President of such treaties and international agreements other than treaties, as the case may be, therein contained, in all the courts of law and equity and of maritime jurisdiction, and in all the tribunals and public offices of the United States, and of the several States, without any further proof or authentication thereof.” MULTILATERAL Intellectual Property: Patent Cooperation Treaty adopted at Geneva June 1, 2000; Transmitted by the President of the United States of America to the Senate September 5, 2006 (Treaty Doc. 109-12, 109th Congress, 2d Session); Reported favorably by the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations September 11, 2007 (Senate Executive Report No. 110-6, 110th Congress, 1st Session); Advice and consent to ratification by the Senate December 7, 2007; Ratified by the President May 6, 2008; Ratification deposited September 18, 2013; Entered into force December 18, 2013. With Amended Schedule adopted May 15, 2008. PATENT LAw TREATY (PLT) PATENT LAW TREATY (PLT) and REGULATIONS UNDER THE PATENT LAW TREATY Done at Geneva on June 1, 2000 and EXPLANATORY NOTES ON THE PATENT LAW TREATY and THE REGULATIONS UNDER THE PATENT LAW TREATY 2 NOTE: This page appears to be intentionally blank, except for page number.
    [Show full text]
  • Expert Report of Professor Robert P. Merges the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law
    In the Arbitration under the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law and the North American Free Trade Agreement (Case No. UNCT/14/2) ELI LILLY AND COMPANY Claimant v. GOVERNMENT OF CANADA Respondent Expert Report of Professor Robert P. Merges The University of California, Berkeley, School of Law Table of Contents I. Background and Qualifications ................................................................................................. 3 II. Summary of Conclusions ............................................................................................................. 3 III. Overview of U.S. Patent Law .................................................................................................. 5 A. U.S. Patentability Requirements .......................................................................................... 5 B. Utility: The Standard of Operability ................................................................................... 8 C. Purpose of U.S. Utility Doctrine ......................................................................................... 12 IV. Comparing the Canadian “Promise Doctrine” to U.S. Law on Utility .................. 15 A. The Utility of the Strattera and Zyprexa Patents ........................................................ 15 B. The Cost of the Promise Doctrine ..................................................................................... 20 V. Conclusion .....................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Fox on the Canadian Law of Patents, 5Th Edition
    Fox on The Canadian Law of Patents, 5th Edition August 1, 2013 By Donald H. MacOdrum Bereskin & Parr is pleased to announce the publication of Fox on The Canadian Law of Patents, 5th Ed., authored by Donald H. MacOdrum, one of Canada’s most respected and experienced intellectual property practitioners. Fox on The Canadian Law of Patents, published by Carswell, provides a complete overview of Canadian patent law, including authoritative commentary, indispensable guidance and practical insight. Fox on The Canadian Law of Patents is the preeminent reference work for patent lawyers and agents in Canada. This book includes insightful commentary on a wide range of topics, including: invention; obviousness; novelty; utility; patent specification; construction and application; international patent protection including the Patent Cooperation Treaty; the patent grant and validity of patents; re-issue, disclaimer, correction, dedication and re-examination; infringement and remedies for infringement. Donald MacOdrum is a partner in Bereskin & Parr LLP’s Litigation practice group. His practice focuses on intellectual property litigation, which he has practiced for over 40 years. He is recognized as one of the leading patent and patent litigation lawyers in Canada and was the only Canadian ranked in the Intellectual Property category in The BTI Client Service All-Star Team for Law Firms 2013. Click here for more information. Content shared on Bereskin & Parr’s website is for information purposes only. It should not be taken as legal or professional advice. To obtain such advice, please contact a Bereskin & Parr LLP professional. We will be pleased to help you. Bereskin & Parr LLP | bereskinparr.com.
    [Show full text]
  • The Presumption of Validity in Canadian Patent Law
    NOTES The Presumption of Validity in Canadian Patent Law The role of the presumption in our legal system can best be understood in the light of the fact-finding process, for it permits a party to prove to the court facts crucial to his case merely by establishing the existence of other facts, from which the court will deduce the existence of the primary facts which he alleges. Article 1349 of the Code Napolgon provides that: Les pr6somptions sont des consequences que la loi on le magistrat tire d'un fait connu h un fait inconnu. The implications of this definition' are important, for they indicate that, in strict legal terms, it is not proper to speak of presumptions with respect to a question of law. On the contrary, the term "presumption" is by definition confined to the fact-finding process. Although it follows from this line of reasoning that section 48 of the Patent Act 2 does not create a presumption in favour of a patentee since the issue as to the validity of a patent is ultimately a question of law and one for the courts to decide, there is no doubt that the section, by providing that the patent is "prima facie valid", places a burden upon a litigant challenging the right of the patentee. At the outset, it must be emphasized that the term "presumption" will be used throughout this note in its conventional sense as opposed to its narrow legal meaning. That is to say, the term will indicate that, when it applies, a presumption has the effect of placing upon one party an onus which he would otherwise not have to bear, and, conversely, alleviating the burden of the person opposing him.
    [Show full text]
  • The Right to Repair Doctrine and the Use of 3D Printing Technology in Canadian Patent Law
    Canadian Journal of Law and Technology Volume 14 Number 2 Article 2 6-1-2016 The Right to Repair Doctrine and the Use of 3D Printing Technology in Canadian Patent Law Tesh W. Dagne Gosia Piasecka Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.schulichlaw.dal.ca/cjlt Part of the Computer Law Commons, Intellectual Property Law Commons, Internet Law Commons, Privacy Law Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Recommended Citation Tesh W. Dagne and Gosia Piasecka, "The Right to Repair Doctrine and the Use of 3D Printing Technology in Canadian Patent Law" (2016) 14:2 CJLT. This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Schulich Law Scholars. It has been accepted for inclusion in Canadian Journal of Law and Technology by an authorized editor of Schulich Law Scholars. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Right to Repair Doctrine and the Use of 3D Printing Technology in Canadian Patent Law Tesh W. Dagne and Gosia Piasecka* Abstract 3D printing technology is part of a new economic movement, termed the sharing economy, where consumers rely less on large corporations for supplying them with products. The technology allows consumers to bypass the traditional manufacturing process. Instead, consumers increasingly share and sell products to each other on online sharing platforms. Consumers can download digital copies of products and print them in the convenience of their homes. In addition, they can repair and modify these products to suit their needs. Canadian patent law permits the repair of a patent-protected item but prohibits its reconstruction.
    [Show full text]
  • RESTRICTED WT/TPR/S/390 11 June 2019 (19-3978)
    RESTRICTED WT/TPR/S/390 11 June 2019 (19-3978) Page: 1/127 Trade Policy Review Body TRADE POLICY REVIEW REPORT BY THE SECRETARIAT THE REPUBLIC OF NORTH MACEDONIA This report, prepared for the second Trade Policy Review of the Republic of North Macedonia, has been drawn up by the WTO Secretariat on its own responsibility. The Secretariat has, as required by the Agreement establishing the Trade Policy Review Mechanism (Annex 3 of the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization), sought clarification from the Republic of North Macedonia on its trade policies and practices. Any technical questions arising from this report may be addressed to Mr. Mark Koulen (tel: 022 739 5224); Ms. Martha Lara Fernandez (tel: 022 739 6033); and Mr. Pierre Latrille (tel: 022 739 5266). Document WT/TPR/G/390 contains the policy statement submitted by the Republic of North Macedonia. Note: This report is subject to restricted circulation and press embargo until the end of the first session of the meeting of the Trade Policy Review Body on the Republic of North Macedonia. This report was drafted in English. WT/TPR/S/390 • The Republic of North Macedonia - 2 - CONTENTS SUMMARY ........................................................................................................................ 7 1 ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................................ 13 1.1 Main Features of the Economy .....................................................................................13 1.2 Recent Economic
    [Show full text]