Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-mzp66 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-27T12:52:34.189Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

6 - The defensive protection of traditional knowledge in international patent law

from Part III - The protection of traditional knowledge in the international patent system

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 August 2010

Jonathan Curci
Jonathan Curci
Affiliation:
Touro International University, Rome
Get access

Summary

Defensive protection of GR-related TK refers to legal methods of avoiding its misappropriation by IP holders or applicants. In order to grant a defensive protection to TK in the international IP system, it is necessary to rethink the role of the legal concepts underlying IPRs in their international context.

Since TK is viewed as an external element to the classic patent system, most patent attorneys (and indeed lawyers) think that protecting it within the patent system amounts to imposing hurdles to the progress of science and to the mandate of patent law. In their opinion, patent law should exclusively deal with technological innovation, should stand as a neutral tool for rewarding investment in innovation, and should function as the main incentive for more innovation. The discussion on the challenges of the patentability of biotechnology and of the IP system as a whole presented in section 2.2 above has shown that the IP system is evolving from a purely technical field to a broader tool of economic policy encompassing elements that were once external to its nature.

This chapter looks first at the methods by which TK can be defended within the current laws of the patent system (lex lata) and then considers the methods that are more remote from the current patent system (lex ferenda).

Type
Chapter
Information
The Protection of Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge in International Law of Intellectual Property , pp. 131 - 274
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Hendrickx, F.Koester, V., and Prip, C., “Access to Genetic Resources: A Legal Analysis” (1993) 23 (6) Environmental Policy and Law250–58.Google Scholar
Gadgil, M. and Devasia, P., “Intellectual Property Rights and Biological Resources: Specifying Geographical Origins and Prior Knowledge of Uses” (1995) 69 Current Science637–39;Google Scholar
Tobin, B., “Alternative Mechanisms for Protection of Indigenous Rights”, paper presented at Symposium of Indigenous Peoples of Latin America: Indigenous Peoples, Biodiversity and Intellectual Property (Santa Cruz: Bolivia, September 27–30, 1994)Google Scholar
Baxter, R., “Treaty and Custom” (1970) 129 Recueil des Cours de l'Académie de Droit International25–106Google Scholar
Weil, P., “Toward Relative Normativity in International Law” (1983) 77 American Journal of International Law435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenne, S., Practice and Methods of International Law (Oceana Publications, London, 1984) 55Google Scholar
Carter, B., Trimble, P., and Bradley, C., International Law (Aspen Publishers, New York, 2003) 122Google Scholar
Dupuy, P.-M., “Le droit des Nations unies et sa pratique dans la jurisprudence de la court internationale de justice”, La pratique et le droit international, Colloque de Geneve de la Societe francaise pour le droit international (Pedone, Paris, 2004) 139Google Scholar
Kohen, M., “La pratique et la théorie des sources du droit international”, La pratique et le droit international, Colloque de Genève de la Société française pour le droit international, (Pedone, Paris, 2004) 106Google Scholar
Stefano, G. Di, “La pratique subséquente des Etats parties à un traité” (1994) 40 Annuaire français de droit international41, 45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simma, B., “International Human Rights and General International Law: A Comparative Analysis” (1993) 4 (2) Collected Courses of the Academy of European Law234.Google Scholar
Chinkin, C. “The Challenge of Soft Law: Development and Change in International Law” (1989) 38 (4) International and Comparative Law Quarterly851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Handl, G. F., et al., “A Hard Look at Soft Law” (1988) 82 Proceedings of the American Society of International Law372Google Scholar
Caflisch, L., “La pratique dans le raisonnement du juge international”, La pratique et le droit international, Colloque de Genève de la Société française pour le droit international, 128 (Pedone, Paris, 2004)Google Scholar
Gopalakrishnan, N. S., “TRIPs and Protection of Traditional Knowledge of Genetic Resources: New Challenges to the Patent System” (2005) 27 (1) European Intellectual Property Review11–18Google Scholar
Barber, C., Johnston, S. and Tobin, B., User Measures: Options for Developing Measures in User Countries to Implement the Access and Benefit-Sharing Provisions of the Convention on Biological Diversity (2nd edition, United Nations University Institute of Advanced Studies, Tokyo, 2003) 29–30Google Scholar
Sterckx, S., “Some Ethically Problematic Aspects of the Proposal for a Directive on the Legal Protection of Biotechnological Inventions” (1998) 20 European Intellectual Property Review123Google Scholar
Spada, P., “Liceità dell'invenzione brevettabile ed esorcismo dell'innovazione” (2000) 5(1) Rivista di diritto privato5.Google Scholar
Abi-Saab, G., “La coutume dans tous ses états ou le dilemme du développement du droit international général dans un monde éclaté”, in Le droit international à l'heure de sa codification. Etudes en l'honneur de Roberto Ago, (Giuffré, Milan, 1987) 53–65Google Scholar
Abi-Saab, G., “Cours général de droit international public” (1987) 207 Recueil des cours de l'Académie de droit international173Google Scholar
Haggenmacher, P., “La doctrine des deux éléments du droit coutumier dans la pratique de la Cour internationale” (1986) 90(1) Revue générale de droit international public5, 118.Google Scholar
Abi-Saab, , “Cours général de droit international public” (1987) 207 Recueil des cours de l'Académie de droit international, 180–82.Google Scholar
Stein, T., “The Approach of the Different Drummer: The Principle of the Persistent Objector in International Law” (1985) 26 Harvard Law Journal463;Google Scholar
Thirlway, H. W. A., International Customary Law and Codification (A. W. Sijthoff, Leiden, 1972) 78Google Scholar
Sorensen, M., “Principes de droit international public: Cours general” (1960) 101 Le recueil de cours de l'Académie de droit international44;Google Scholar
Danilenko, M., Law-Making in the International Community (Martinus Nijhoff Publ., Dordrecht, 1993) 109–13Google Scholar
Steinfeld, A., “Nuclear Objections: The Persistent Objector and the Legality of the Use of Nuclear Weapons” (1996) 62(4) Brooklyn Law Review1635–86Google Scholar
Loschin, L., “The Persistent Objector and Customary Human Rights Law: A Proposed Analytical Framework” (1996) 2 U.C. Davis Journal of International Law & Policy148;Google Scholar
Pentassuglia, G., La rilevanza dell'obiezione persitente nel diritto internazionale (Laterza, Bari, 1996) 255Google Scholar
McClane, B. J., “How Late in the Emergence of a Norm of Customary International Law May a Persistent Objector Object?” (1989) 13 ILSA Journal of International Law6;Google Scholar
Charney, J., “The Persistent Objector Rule and the Development of Customary International Law” (1985) 56 British Yearbook of International Law1–24;CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dupuy, P.-M., “A propos de l'opposabilité de la coutume générale”, in Le droit international au service de la paix, de la justice et du développement. Mélanges offerts à Michel Virally (Paris, 1991) 257–72Google Scholar
Bos, M., “The Identification of Custom in International Law” (1982) 25 German Yearbook of International Law45–50Google Scholar
Buzzini, G. P., Le droit international général au travers et au-delà de la coutume: Essai de conceptualization d'une réalité aux contours fluctuantes (Graduate Institute of International Studies, Geneva, 2007)Google Scholar
Condorelli, L., “La Coutume” in Bedjaoui, M. (ed.), International Law: Achievement and Prospects (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization, Paris, 1991) 205
Skubiszewski, K., “Les actes unilatéraux des Etats”, in Bedjaoui, Mohammed (ed.), Droit international: Bilan et perspectives (Pedone, Paris, 1991) 231Google Scholar
Cheng, B., “Custom: The Future of General State Practice in a Divided World”, in Macdonald, R. and Douglas, M. (eds.), The Structure and Process of International Law: Essays in Legal Philosophy Doctrine and Theory (Kluwer, The Hague, 1983) 513, 532, 549Google Scholar
Cheng, B., “United Nations Resolutions on Outer Space: ‘Instant’ International Customary Law, Indiana”, Journal of International Law (1965) 5, 23–48Google Scholar
Dupuy, P. M., “Soft Law and the International Law of the Environment” (1991) 12 Michigan Journal of International Law420, 422–25, 428–31Google Scholar
Chowdhury, S. R., “Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources”, in Hossain, K. and Chowdury, S. R., Permanent Sovereignty over Natural Resources in International Law (Frances Pinter Publ. London, 1984) ixGoogle Scholar
Baslar, K., The Concept of the Common Heritage of Mankind in International Law (Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, 1998) 136Google Scholar
Allott, P., “State Responsibility and the Unmaking of International Law” (1988) 29 Harvard International Law Journal1Google Scholar
Boyle, A., “State Responsibility and International Liability for Injurious Consequences of Acts Prohibited by International Law: A Necessary Distinction?” (1990) 39 International and Comparative Law Quarterly1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Magraw, D., “Transboundary Harm: The International Law Commission's Study of International Liability” (1986) 80 American Journal of International Law305CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Combacau, J. and Alland, D., “Primary and ‘Secondary’ Rules in the Law of State Responsibility: Categorizing International Obligations” (1985) 16 Netherlands Yearbook of International Law81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Handl, G., “Liability as an Obligation Established by a Primary Rule of International Law” (1985) 16 Netherlands Yearbook of International Law49CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spinedi, M. and Simma, B. (eds.), United Nations Codification of State Responsibility (Oceana, New York, London, 1987)Google Scholar
Dupuy, P.-M., “The International Law of State Responsibility: Revolution or Evolution?” (1989) 11 Michigan Journal of International Law105Google Scholar
Dupuy, P.-M., “Reviewing the Difficulties of Codification: On Ago's Classification and Obligations of Means and Obligations of Result in Relation to State Responsibility” (1999) 10 European Journal of International Law371.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lowe, V., “Precluding Wrongfulness or Responsibility: A Plea for Excuses” (1999) 10 European Journal of International Law405 (1999).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wells, A. J., “Patenting Life Forms: An Ecological Perspective” (1994) 3 European Intellectual Property Review117Google Scholar
Baxter, R., “International Law in ‘Her Infinite Variety’” (1980) 29 International and Comparative Law Quarterly550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Girsberger, M., “Transparency Measures under Patent Law regarding Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge – Disclosure of Source and Evidence of Prior Informed Consent and Benefit-Sharing”, (2004) 7(4) The Journal of World Intellectual Property465–67.Google ScholarPubMed
Pellet, A., “Can a State Commit a Crime? Definitely Yes”, (1999) 10 European Journal of International Law425.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heath, C. and Weidlich, S., “Intellectual Property: Suitable for Protecting Traditional Medicine” (2003) 1 Intellectual Property Quarterly82Google Scholar
Verma, K., “Protecting Traditional Knowledge” (2004) 6 The Journal of World Intellectual Property788.Google Scholar
Tobin, B., “Certificates of Origin: A Role for IPR Regimes in Securing Prior Informed Consent”, in Access To Genetic Resources. Strategies for Sharing Benefits (ACTS Press, Nairobi, 1997)Google Scholar
Carvalho, N., “Requiring Disclosure of the Origin of Genetic Resources and Prior Informed Consent in Patent Applications Without Infringing the TRIPS Agreement: the Problem and the Solution” (2000) 2 Washington University Journal of Law and Policy371–401Google Scholar
Correa, C., Establishing a Disclosure of Origin Obligation in the TRIPS Agreement (Quaker UN Office, Geneva, August 2003)Google Scholar
Fritz, D., Patente auf der Grundlage biologischer Ressourcen aus Entwicklungsländern, Mitteilungen der deutschen Patentanwälte (2003) 94. Jg., Heft 8/9, 349–72
Dutfield, G., “Sharing the Benefits of Biodiversity – Is there a Role for the Patent System?” (2002) 5(6) World Journal of Intellectual Property899–931CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hassemer, M., “Genetic Resources”, in Lewinski, S. (ed.), Indigenous Heritage and Intellectual Property (Kluwer, The Hague, 2004) 211Google Scholar
Bellman, C., Dutfield, G., and Meléndez-Ortiz, R. (eds.), Trading in Knowledge (Earthscan, London, 2003) 202
Bently, L. and Sherman, B., Intellectual Property Law (Oxford University Press, 2001) 420–22Google Scholar
, R. P. C 1, in Abbott, F., Cottier, T. and Gurry, F. (eds.), The Intellectual Property System: Commentary and Materials (Kluwer, The Hague, 1999) 42–45Google Scholar
Curci, J. and Vittori, M., “Improving Access to Life-Saving Patented Drugs – Between Compulsory Licensing and Differential Pricing” (2004) 7 The Journal of World Intellectual Property747Google Scholar
WIPO Technical Study on Patent Disclosure Requirements Related to Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge 59 (World Intellectual Property Organization, 2003)
Dutfield, G., “Disclosure of Origin: Time for a Reality Check?”, Dialogue on Disclosure Requirements: Incorporating the CBD Principles in the TRIPS Agreement on the Road to Hong Kong 2 (WTO Public Symposium, Geneva, April 21, 2005)Google Scholar
Drahos, P., “Indigenous Knowledge and the Duties of Intellectual Property Owners” (1997) 11 Intellectual Property Journal179Google Scholar
Biber-Klemm, S. and Curci, J., “Clearing House Mechanisms”, in Cottier, T. and Biber-Klemm, S. (eds.), Rights to Plant Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge (CABI, 2006) 269 ffGoogle Scholar
Girsberger, M., Biodiversity and the Concept of Farmers' Rights in International Law (Peter Lang, Berne, 1999) 176–77Google Scholar
The TRIPS Agreement and Developing Countries 34 (United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, New York, 1996)
Roht-Arriaza, N., “Of Seeds and Shamans: The Appropriation of the Scientific and Technical Knowledge of Indigenous and Local Communities” (1996) 17 Michigan Journal of International Law919, 937Google Scholar
Bagley, M., “Patently Unconstitutional: The Geographical Limitation on Prior Art in a Small World”, (2003) 87 Minnesota Law ReviewGoogle Scholar
Dutfield, G., Developing and Implementing National Systems for Protecting Traditional Knowledge: Experiences in Selected Developing Countries (New York, United Nations, 2004)Google Scholar
Marden, E., “The Neem Tree Patent: International Conflict over the Commodification of Life”, (1999) 22 Boston College International & Comparative Law Review279Google Scholar
Rydstromnot, J., “Comment Note – Application and Effect of 35 US CODE paragraph 103, Requiring Nonobvious Subject-matter in Determining Validity of Patents”, (2005) 23 A. L. R. Fed. 326Google Scholar
Cullet, P., Germann, C., Nascimiento, A. and Pasadilla, G., “Intellectual Property Rights, Plant Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge”, in Cottier, T. and Biber-Klemm, S. (eds.), Rights to Plant Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge: Basic Issues and Perspectives (CABI, Geneva, 2006) 135Google Scholar
Nard, C., “In the Defense of Geographic Disparity” (2003) 88 Minnesota Law Review221Google Scholar
Golden, J., “Biotechnology, Technology Policy, and Patentability: Natural Products and Invention in the American System” (2001) 50 Emory Law Journal101, 104–5Google Scholar
Merges, R. and Reynolds, G., “The Proper Scope of the Copyright and Patent Power”, (2000) 37 Harvard Journal on Legislation45, 46Google Scholar
Chisum, D., “Foreign Activity: Its Effect on Patentability Under United States Law”, (1980) 11 International Review on Industrial Property and Copyright26, 36Google Scholar
Bagley, , “Still Patently Unconstitutional: A Reply to Professor Nard”, (2003) 88 Minnesota Law Review238Google Scholar
Ricolfi, M., “Patent Harmonization: First to File v. First to Invent”, in Chisum, D. S., Nard, C., Schwartz, H. F., Newman, P. and Kieff, F. Scott, Principles of Patent Law (3rd edn., Foundation Press, New York, 2004) 516–21Google Scholar
Meltzer, D. J., “Customary International Law, Foreign Affairs, and Federal Common Law”, (2002) 42 Virginia Journal of International Law513, 519Google Scholar
Morneault, M. and Rademaker, B. F., “A Maze of Laws and Exceptions: Examples of Novelty Around the World”, (2001) 4 Journal of World Intellectual Property1, 28Google Scholar
Leistner, M., “Analysis of Different Areas of Indigenous Resources” in Lewinski, S. (ed.), Indigenous Heritage and Intellectual Property (Kluwer, The Hague, 2004) 60Google Scholar
Dutfield, G., Protecting Traditional Knowledge and Folklore, A Review of Progress in Diplomacy and Sustainable Development (UNCTAD, ICTSD, Geneva, 2003) 37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pavoni, R., “Brevettabilità genetica e protezione della biodiversità: la giurisprudenza dell'Ufficio europeo dei brevetti” (2000) 83 Rivista di diretto internazionale429–80Google Scholar
écrits en hommage à Jean Foyer (Presses Universitaires de France, 1997) 310
Doppelhammer, M., (1999) 1 Revue du marché unique européen238
Benvenuti, P., Comunità statale comunità internazionale e ordine pubblico internazionale (Giuffrè, Milano, 1977)Google Scholar
Barile, G., “Ordine pubblico” (dir. int. privato) in Enciclopedia del diritto, Vol. XXX (Milano, Giuffrè, 1980) 1106, 1110–114Google Scholar
Morelli, G., Elementi di diritto internazionale privato italiano (Napoli, 1986) 83–6Google Scholar
Schatz, U., “Patentability of Genetic Engineering Inventions” (1999) 29 International Review of Industrial Property Copyright Law2–6 (1999)Google Scholar
Noiville, C., Ressources génétiques et droit. Essai sur les régimes juridiques des ressources génétiques marines (Pédone, Paris, 1997) 437Google Scholar
Ricolfi, M., “La brevettazione delle invenzioni” Rivista di diritto industriale (Giuffre Editore, Milan, 2003)Google Scholar
Mazzoni, C. M. (ed.), Bioethics Markets and Morals: The Case of Biotechnological Patents, A Legal Framework for Bioethics (Kluwer, Dordrecht, 1998) 131
Bostyn, S. J. R., “One Patent a Day Keeps the Doctor Away? Patenting Human Genetic Information and Health Care” (2000) 7 European Journal of Health Law242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagley, M., “Patent First, Ask Questions Later: Morality and Biotechnology in Patent Law” (2003) 45 William and Mary Law Review469, 517–30Google ScholarPubMed
Nollkaemper, P. A., “What You Risk Reveals What You Value and Other Dilemmas Encountered in the Legal Assaults on Risks, The Precautionary Principle and International Law” in Freestone, D. and Hey, E. (eds.), The Precautionary Principle and International Law: The Challenge of Implementation (Kluwer, The Hague, 1996) 73–94Google Scholar
Mayer, S. and Alexander, D., “Mice, Morals and the Environment” (1992) 514(II) Propriété Industrielle – Bulletin Documentaire10Google Scholar
Brandon, P. and Dunnet, J., “E.P.O. Case Law; Ignore It at Your Peril! A Review of the Recent Board of Appeal Decisions” 52 (1993) Patent World39Google Scholar
Beyleveld, D. and Brownsword, R., Mice, Morality and Patents (Common Law Institute of Intellectual Property, London, 1993) 33–46Google Scholar
Drahos, P., “Biotechnology Patents, Markets and Morality” (1999) 21(9) European Intellectual Property Review441–9Google Scholar
Commissioner of Patents v. Wellcome Foundation (New Zealand, Supreme Court, 1979, 2 NZLR)
Anaesthetic Supplies v. Rescare (1994, 28 IPR 383 Australia, Federal Court)
Llewelyn, M., “Article 53 Revisited”, (1995) 17 (10) European Intellectual Property Review506, 511Google Scholar
Arechaga, E. Jimenez de, “International Law in the Past Third of a Century” (1978) 159 Recueil des cours de l'académie de droit international, 1, 49Google Scholar
Francioni, F. (ed.), Environment, Human Rights and International Trade (Hart Publishing, Oxford, 2001) 177
Mintier, B. (ed.), Les lois “bioétique” à l'épreuve des faits (Presses universitaires de France, Paris, 1998) 35
Martens, T. J., “The Standard of Proof for Preliminary Questions of Fact under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments” (1988) 30 Arizona Law Review, 119–33Google Scholar
Trachtman, J. P., “Trade and Problems, Cost-Benefit Analysis and Subsidiarity” (1998) 9(1) European Journal of International Law45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wirth, D., “The Role of Science in the Uruguay Round and NAFTA Trade Disciplines” (1994) 27 Cornell International Law Journal817Google Scholar
Walker, V., “Keeping the WTO from Becoming the ‘World Trans-science Organization’: Scientific Uncertainty, Science Policy, and Factfinding in the Growth Hormones Dispute” (1998) 31 Cornell International Law Journal258Google Scholar
Hunter, D., Salzman, J. and Durwood, Z., International Environmental Law and Policy (University Casebook Series, New York Foundation Press, 1988) 360–61Google Scholar
Murphy, S. D., “Biotechnology and International Law” (2001) 41(1) Harvard International Law Journal47Google Scholar
Sudre, F., ‘Existe-t-il un ordre public européen?’, in Tavernier, P. (ed.), Quelle Europe pour les droits de l'homme? (Bruylant, Bruxelles, 1996) 39Google Scholar
Moufang, R., “The Concept of Ordre Public and Morality in Patent Law”, in Overvalle, G. (ed.), Patents, Ethics and Biotechnology (Katholieke Universiteit Brussel, Bruxelles, 1998) 65–77Google Scholar
Roberts, T., “Patenting Plants around the World” (1996) 18 European Intellectual Property Review531–36Google Scholar
Abbott, F., Cottier, T. and Gurry, F. (eds.), The Intellectual Property System; Commentary and Materials (Kluwer, The Hague, 1999) 25
Smith, A. R., “Monsters at the Patent Office: The Inconsistent Conclusions of Moral Utility and the Controversy over Human Cloning” (2003) 53 DePaul Law Review159Google Scholar
Schulze, R., “Le droit privé commun européen” (1995) 1 Revue Internationale de Droit Comparé7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chin, A., “Research in the Shadow of DNA Patents” (2005) 87 Journal of Patent & Trademark Office Society846Google Scholar
Garner, B. A. (ed.), Black's Law Dictionary (8 edition, Thomson West, 2004)

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×