Article 1

1. Members shall give effect to the provisions of this Agreement. Members may, but shall not be obliged to, implement in their law more extensive protection than is required by this Agreement, provided that such protection does not contravene the provisions of this Agreement. Members shall be free to determine the appropriate method of implementing the provisions of this Agreement within their own legal system and practice.

2. For the purposes of this Agreement, the term "intellectual property" refers to all categories of intellectual property that are the subject of Sections 1 through 7 of Part II.

3. Members shall accord the treatment provided for in this Agreement to the nationals of other Members. In respect of the relevant intellectual property right, the nationals of other Members shall be understood as those natural or legal persons that would meet the criteria for eligibility for protection provided for in the Paris Convention (1967), the Berne Convention (1971), the Rome Convention and the Treaty on Intellectual Property in Respect of Integrated Circuits, were all Members of the WTO members of those conventions. Any Member availing itself of the possibilities provided in paragraph 3 of Article 5 or paragraph 2 of Article 6 of the Rome Convention shall make a notification as foreseen in those provisions to the Council for Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (the "Council for TRIPS").

Case law

IPPT20250721, WTO Arbitration, China v EU
China's anti-suit injunction policy (“ASI”), which frustrates patent holders enforcement of standard essential patents (SEPs) in foreign courts, in inconsistent with TRIPS Agreement. The ASI policy is a rule or norm of general and prospective application. Obligation to “give effect” to the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement (Article 1.1 TRIPS) is to do so without frustrating the functioning of the systems of protection and enforcement of IP rights implemented by other Members in their respective territories.” WTO members must not frustrate the patent owner’s ability to exercise the exclusive rights conferred on it (Article 28.1 TRIPS) by another WTO Member […], i.e. to prevent third parties not having the patent owner's consent from making, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing the patented products. ASI policy frustrates the patent owner’s ability to exercise the right to conclude licensing contract (Article 28.2 TRIPS). The availability of ASIs to SEP implementers under the ASI policy alters the negotiating position of SEP holders in a fundamental way. It removes the main incentive for SEP implementers to negotiate with a SEP holder a licensing contract on FRAND terms.