Abstract
In the absence of an effective international legal regime to regulate biopiracy, a second-best solution is for source countries to regulate access to their genetic resources. Among the pioneering legislation in this regard is the Indian Biodiversity Act of 2002. This legislation seems to accord with world’s best practice of nesting bioprospecting within the broader environmental legal framework which will allow a greater degree of certainty. Similarly South Africa has enacted its National Environmental Management: Biodiversity Act, 2004, which regulates bioprospecting, within the framework of the National Environmental Management Act, 1998. The slow evolution of an international legal regime to deal with the biopiracy of genetic resources is now threatened with obsolescence as it now becomes possible to assemble DNA sequences in a laboratory. Those genes can be accessed in public databases without the necessity to access biological material from source countries. In 2016 the Conference of Parties of the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD CoP) has begun meeting to consider how the Nagoya Protocol might be modified to deal with biopiracy and synthetic biology.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
US patent US5411736 A.
- 2.
US patent 5,663,484.
- 3.
US patent No. 5,663,484, Re-examination Certificate C1 (4525th) (reissued 29 January 2002).
- 4.
See http://www.cgiar.org/consortium-news/genebanks-investing-in-biodiversity-for-future-generations/, accessed 2 May 2017.
- 5.
US patent 5,859,339.
- 6.
US patent 6,537,592, 25 March 2003; US Patent 7,105,185, 12 September 2006.
- 7.
US patent 7,326,734, 5 February 2008.
- 8.
US patent No. 5,276,268.
- 9.
Australian patent application 2007205838 by MARY KAY, INC. relates to a skin care product comprising Kakadu plum extract or acai berry extract. (Claim 1); Australian patent application 2004268233 by MANNATECH, INC. relates to a dietary supplement which may contain Australian bush plum (Claims 33–41); Australian patent application 2005328670 by MANNATECH, INC. relates to a modified release dietary supplement comprises polysaccharides which is compressed at a pressure of greater than 100 psi. (Claim 1); Australian patent application 2006237559 by MANNATECH INC. relates to a modified release dietary supplement which comprises polysaccharides which is compressed at a pressure of greater than 100 psi. (Claim 1); Australian patent application 2004203276 by CORADJI Pty Ltd relates to a method of removing the seed from the fruit of the Terminalia ferdinandiana (i.e. bush plum) (Claim 1); Australian patent application 2007231781 by EXIST MARKETING PTY LTD. to a method and compositions of treating bursitis which may contain Kakadu plum (page 14); Australian patent application 2007249801 by INTERLEUKIN GENETICS, INC. is to a food composition comprising rose hips and optionally Kakadu concentrate, from the Kakadu plum. (Claim 1); Australian innovation patent application 2008100919 by GREENTASTE Pty Ltd. is to a herbal composition which optionally may contain Kakadu plum (page 26).
- 10.
US patent 7175862 assigned to ACCESS BUSINESS GROUP INTERNATIONAL LLC is to a method of preparing dried powder from the Kakadu plum. US Patent 7384654 assigned to ACCESS BUSINESS GROUP INTERNATIONAL LLC is to an anti-allergy composition which may contain Kakadu concentrate. US patent 7384656 assigned to ACCESS BUSINESS GROUP INTERNATIONAL LLC is to a method of inhibiting an allergic response by administering a composition which may contain Kakadu concentrate.
- 11.
See D. F. Robinson: “The Biological Patent Predicament Traditional Knowledge and Biological Product Derivative Patents: Benefit-Sharing and Patent Issues Relating to Camu Camu, Kakadu Plum and Açaí Plant Extracts” Guest Article, United Nations University, Institute of Advanced studies, Traditional Knowledge Initiative, Published online 30 April 2010, accessed at http://www.unutki.org/news.php?doc_id=174.
- 12.
US patent No. 5,741,537, 21 April 1998; US Patent No. 5,527,555, 18 June 1996; US Patent No. 5,346,998, 13 September 1994.
- 13.
Granted patents include US 6552206 “Compositions and methods for preparation from Lepidium”; US 6428824 “Treatment of sexual dysfunction with an extract of Lepidium meyenii roots”; US 6267995 “Extract of Lepidium meyenii roots for pharmaceutical applications”; US 6878731 “Imidazole alkaloids from Lepidium meyenii and method of usage”.
- 14.
JP 2001299278, 30 October 2001, JP2001348593, 18 December 2001, EP 1219698A1, 03 July 2002, WO0125377, 03 July 2002, WO02081606, 17October 2002.
- 15.
‘Bonn Guidelines on Access to Genetic Resources and Fair and Equitable Sharing of the Benefits Arising out of their Utilization’ in Report of the Sixth Meeting of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention on Biological Diversity, UN Doc. UNEP/CBD/COP/6/20 (2002).
- 16.
UNEP/CBD/COP/10/L.43/Rev.129 October 2010.
- 17.
WTO Doc. IP/C/W/228, IP/C/M/32, para. 128, IP/C/M/33, para. 121 (Brazil).
- 18.
Section 6(1), Indian Biodiversity Act of 2002.
References
Adams M (2009) New berry-based natural sweetener “Brazzein” to hit the market in 2009. http://www.naturalnews.com/025140.html. Accessed 3 May 2017
Blakeney M (1998) Intellectual property rights in the genetic resources of international agricultural research institutes- some recent problems. Biosci Law Rev 1:3–11
Blakeney M (2004) Bioprospecting and biopiracy. In: Ong B (ed) Intellectual property and biological resources. Marshall Cavendish, Singapore, pp 393–424
Blakeney, M. (2016) The negotiations in WIPO for international conventions on traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions Lai, J.C., Dominicé, A.M. Intellectual property and access to im/material goods. Edward Elgar. Cheltenham
Brody BA (2010) Intellectual property, state sovereignty, and biotechnology. Kennedy Inst Ethics J 20(1):50–73
Cabrera J et al (2012) Survey of future just biodiversity laws & policies. Available at https://www.worldfuturecouncil.org/file/2016/01/WFC_CISDL_2012_Survey_of_Future_Just__Biodiversity_Policies_and_Laws.pdf. Accessed 7 May 2017
CBD (2008) Report of the meeting of the group of legal and technical experts on concepts, terms, working definitions and sectoral approaches of December. Available at http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/abs/abswg-07/official/abswg-07-02-en.pdf. Accessed 28 Apr 2017
Chandler M (1993) The biodiversity convention: selected issues of interest to the international lawyer. Colo J Int Envtl L Policy 4:141–175
FAO (2006) Report of the first session of the governing body of the international treaty on plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. IT/GB-1/06/Report, Madrid, 12–16
Forsyth M (2003) Intellectual property laws in the South Pacific: friend or foe? J S Pac Law 7:1–16, available at https://www.usp.ac.fj/index.php?id=13236. Accessed 2 May 2017
Fowler C, Hodgkin T (2004) Plant genetic resources for food and agriculture: assessing global availability. Annu Rev Environ Resour 29:10.1–10.37
Fowler C, Mooney P (1990) Shattering. Food, politics, and the loss of genetic diversity. University of Arizona Press, Tucson
Gorman JT, Griffiths AD, Whitehead PJ (2006) An analysis of the use of plant products for commerce in remote aboriginal communities of Northern Australia. Econ Bot 60(4):362–373
Halewood M, Nnadozie K (2008) Giving priority to the commons: the international treaty on plant genetic resources for food and agriculture. In: Tansey G, Rajotte T (eds) The future control of food. A guide to international negotiations and rules on intellectual property, biodiversity and food security. Earthscan, London
Ji F (2014) Pass the kava: implications for patent protections over traditional knowledge in Samoa’s new intellectual property act of 2011. Hous J Int L 36:789–821
Keswani C, Bisen K, Singh SP, Singh HB (2017) Traditional knowledge and medicinal plants of India in intellectual property landscape. Med Plants Int J Phytomed Relat Ind 9(1):1–11. https://doi.org/10.5958/0975-6892.2017.00001.6
Lightbourne M (2003) Of rice and men. An attempt to assess the basmati affair. J World Intellect Prop 6(6):875–894
Lindstrom L (2009) Kava Pirates in Vanuatu? Int J Cult Prop 16:291–308
Mahop MT (2006) Community rights and biodiversity regulations: lessons from Cameroon and South Africa, PhD thesis, Queen Mary, University of London
Manheim BS (2016) Regulation of synthetic biology under the Nagoya Protocol. Nat Biotechnol 34:1104–1105
Marcelin MT (2005) Biodiversity regulatory options. Involvement of rural communities in decision-making processes in South Africa. J World Intellect Prop 8(6):809–825
McConnell F (1996) The biodiversity convention. A negotiating history. Kluwer, London/The Hague/Boston
McGonigle IM (2016) Patenting nature or protecting culture? Ethnopharmacology and indigenous intellectual property rights. J Law Biosci 3(1):217–226
McNeely JA, Scherr SJ (2002) Ecoagriculture: strategies to feed the world and save wild biodiversity. Island Press, New York
Mittermeier RAP, Robles G, Mittermeier CG (eds) (1989) Megadiversity: earth’s biologically wealthiest nations. Cemex, Mexico City
NRC (National Research Council) (1989) Lost crops of the Incas: little known plants of the Andes with promise for worldwide cultivation. National Academy Press, Washington, DC
Peru (2005) The patent system and the fight against biopiracy – the Peruvian Experience. WTO Document: WIPO/GRTKF/IC/8/12, 30 May 2005
Peru (2006) Analysis of potential cases of biopiracy. WIPO/GRTKF/IC/9/10, March 15
RAFI (1995) RAFI Communiqué, ‘Biopiracy Update: A Global Pandemic’ Sept-October, 1995, referred to in May/June 2000 Issue #65 Biopiracy – RAFI’s Sixth Annual Update. http://www.etcgroup.org/upload/publication/327/01/com_biopiracy.pdf. Accessed 2 May 2017
Robinson DF (2010) Confronting biopiracy: challenges, cases and international debates. Earthscan, London
Rojahn J (2010) Fair shares or biopiracy? Developing ethical criteria for the fair and equitable sharing of benefits from crop genetic resources, Dissertation, der Fakultät für Biologie der Eberhard Karls Universität, Tübingen
Shiva V (2000) Stolen harvest: the hijacking of the global food supply. Zed Books, London
Shiva V (2013) The neem tree – a case history of biopiracy. Available at http://www.twnside.org.sg/title/pir-ch.htm. Accessed 25 Apr 2017
Shiva V, Holla-Bhar R (1996) Piracy by patent: the case of the neem tree. In: Mander G, Goldsmith E (eds) The case against the global economy. Sierra Club Books, San Francisco, pp 146–159
Singh HB, Jha A, Keswani C (eds) (2016) Intellectual property issues in biotechnology. CABI, Oxfordshire, p 304
Subbiah S (2004) Reaping what they sow: the Basmati rice controversy and strategies for protecting traditional knowledge. BC Int Comp L Rev 27:529–559
UK Parliament (1999) Appendix 7 to the minutes of evidence of the Select Committee on Environmental Audit, 1999. Available at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm199900/cmselect/cmenvaud/45/45ap08.htm
UNEP (2000) Progress report on the Implementation of the Programmes of Work-Information on Marine and Coastal Genetic Resources including Bioprospecting. UNEP/CBD/COP/5/INF/7, 20 April
WIPO (2000) Matters concerning intellectual property genetic resources traditional knowledge and folklore. WIPO Doc, WO/GA/26/6, August 25
WIPO, IGC (2001) WIPO Doc. WIPO/GRTKF/IC/2/3, September 10
WIPO, IGC (2003) Patents referring to Lepidium meyenii (maca): responses of Peru. Document submitted by the Delegation of Peru, WIPO/GRTKF/IC/5/13. Available at http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/tk/en/wipo_grtkf_ic_5/wipo_grtkf_ic_5_13.pdf. Accessed 1 May 2017
WIPO, IGC (2017) Consolidated document relating to intellectual property and genetic resources. WIPO Doc. WIPO/GRTKF/IC/34/4, March, 15
WIPO/UNEP (2001) The role of intellectual property rights in the sharing of benefits arising from the use of biological resources and associated traditional knowledge. Selected case studies. WIPO, Geneva
Wynberg R (2004) Rhetoric, realism and benefit sharing – use of traditional knowledge of Hoodia species in the development of an appetite suppressant. J World Intellect Prop 7(6):851–876
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2019 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Blakeney, M. (2019). Remedying the Misappropriation of Genetic Resources. In: Singh, H., Keswani, C., Singh, S. (eds) Intellectual Property Issues in Microbiology. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7466-1_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-13-7466-1_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-13-7465-4
Online ISBN: 978-981-13-7466-1
eBook Packages: Biomedical and Life SciencesBiomedical and Life Sciences (R0)