Where local production of a patented drug promises to be cheaper than importation (at least in the medium term), thus enhancing the population’s access to that drug, it would seem inappropriate to consider the different treatment of imports and locally produced drugs as “discrimination” within the meaning of TRIPS Article 27.1. But the United States later withdrew the complaint, agreeing with Brazil on bilateral consultations in case the Brazilian Government intends to invoke the local working ground against a United States patent holder.390 Thus, countries that are decided to introduce a local working requirement need to be aware of the risk of facing WTO dispute settlement proceedings for alleged infringement of Article 27.1, TRIPS Agreement, despite the fact that a number of solid arguments seem to support the legality of such a requirement for public health purposes. This definition does not apply to measures taken to promote access to life-saving medicines.