Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-26T17:44:29.807Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Patent law and bioprospecting in Antarctica

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 June 2010

Morten Walløe Tvedt
Morten Walløe Tvedt*
Affiliation:
Fridtjof Nansen Institute, Fridtjof Nansens vei 17, NO-1326 Lysaker, Norway ([email protected])
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The number of patents and patent applications related to inventions based on biological material from the Antarctic is increasing. Bioprospecting in the Antarctic is happening with no explicit regulation of property rights or benefit sharing requirements. This leaves patent law as the only legal system to establish exclusive rights to genes, bacteria, and other biological material found in the Antarctic. Patent law is general in form and is applied to all areas of invention with very few adaptations to single fields of innovation. Therefore, it is interesting to identify the issues in patent law in cases in which the biological material from the Antarctic is likely to create challenges or loopholes. The aim of this article is to couple the understanding of this particular legal regime and of biological circumstances in the Antarctic with knowledge of the international patent system for the purpose of contributing to the work of the Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meetings (ATCMs) regarding bioprospecting in the Antarctic.

Type
Research Article
Information
Polar Record , Volume 47 , Issue 1 , January 2011 , pp. 46 - 55
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2010

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

Antarctic Treaty. 1959. Adopted 1 December 1959. 401 UNTS; entered into force 23 June 1961.Google Scholar
ATCM (Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting). 2002. Biological prospecting in Antarctica – working paper by the United Kingdom, 25th ATCM. Warsaw (WP-043).Google Scholar
ATCM (Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting). 2003. Bioprospecting: the intenational regime for bioprospecting existing policies and emerging issues for Antarctica. Information paper by Norway and the UK. 26th ATCM. Madrid (IP-075-UK, NO Agenda Item: VI CEP 7).Google Scholar
ATCM (Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting). 2004. Industry involvement in Antarctic bioprospecting. Information paper IP 106. 27th ATCM. Cape Town (agenda Item CEP 7 and ATCM 17).Google Scholar
ATCM (Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting). 2005a. Biological prospecting in Antarctica. Working paper WP 13 submitted by New Zealand and Sweden. 28th ATCM. Stockholm (agenda item 18).Google Scholar
ATCM (Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting). 2005b. Biological prospecting in Antarctica. Information paper IP 008 submitted by Spain. 28th ATCM. Stockholm (agenda item 18).Google Scholar
ATCM (Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting). 2005c. Recent developments in biological prospecting relevant to Antarctica. Information paper IP 93 presented by UNEP. 28th ATCM. Stockholm (agenda item 18).Google Scholar
ATCM (Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting). 2006a. A la recherche d'un régime juridique pour la bioprospection en Antarctique. Information paper IP 13 submitted by France. 29th ATCM. Edinburgh (agenda item 18).Google Scholar
ATCM (Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting). 2006b. Argentine activities of bioprospecting and bioremediation in Antarctica. Information paper IP 112 presented by Argentina. 29th ATCM. Edinburgh (agenda item 18).Google Scholar
ATCM (Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting). 2006c. Recent trends in the biological prospecting. Information paper IP 116 presented by UNEP. 29th ATCM. Edinburgh (agenda item 18).Google Scholar
ATCM (Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting). 2007a. Biological prospecting in the Antarctic Treaty area – scoping for a regulatory framework.. Working paper WP 036, submitted by the Netherlands, Belgium and France. 30th ATCM. New Delhi.Google Scholar
ATCM (Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting). 2007b. Biological prospecting in Antarctica: review, update and proposed tool to support a way forward. Information paper IP 067, submitted by UNEP. 30th ATCM. New Delhi.Google Scholar
ATCM (Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting). 2007c. Final report. 30th ATCM. New Delhi.Google Scholar
ATCM (Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting). 2008. Report of the ATCM intersessional contact group to examine the issue of biological prospecting in the Antarctic Treaty area. WP 4, presented by the Netherlands. 31th ATCM. Kyiv.Google Scholar
ATCM (Antarctic Treaty Consulative Meeting). 2009a. The Antarctic biological prospecting database. Document WP 1 submitted by a group of countries.. 32nd ATCM. Baltimore (agenda item ATCM 17).Google Scholar
ATCM (Antarctic Treaty Consulative Meeting). 2009b. Regulation of biological prospecting under the Antarctic Treaty system. Document WP 18 submitted by Australia and New Zeland. 32nd ATCM. Baltimore (agenda item 17).Google Scholar
ATCM (Antarctic Treaty Consulative Meeting). 2009c. A gap analysis of the Antarctic Treaty system regarding the management of biological prospecting. Document WP 26, submitted by a group of countries. 32nd ATCM. Baltimore (agenda item 17).Google Scholar
ATCM (Antarctic Treaty Consulative Meeting). 2009d. Bioprospecting: baselines and parameters. Document WP 49 rev. 2, submitted by Chile. 32nd ATCM (Baltimore (agenda item 17).Google Scholar
ATCM (Antarctic Treaty Consulative Meeting). 2009e. Biological prospecting in the Antarctic: an update on the review by SCAR. Document IP 65 presented by SCAR. 32nd ATCM. Baltimore (agenda item 17).Google Scholar
Biswajit, D., and Anuradha, R.V.. 2004. Access benefits-sharing and intellectual property rights. Journal of World Intellectual Property 7 (5): 597–640.Google Scholar
Bostyn, S.J.R. 2002. A European perspective on the ideal scope of protection and the disclosure requirement for biotechnological inventions in a harmonised patent system – the quest for the Holy Grail? Journal of World Intellectual Property 5 (6): 1013–1046.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
BT (Budapest Treaty on the International Recognition of the Deposit of Microorganisms for the Purposes of Patent Procedure). 1977. Adopted 28 April 1977, entered into force August 19, 1980, amended 26 September 1980, 20 January 1981, 1 October 2002 (WIPO (World Intellectual Property Rights Organisation) publication 277).Google Scholar
BT Regulations 1977. Regulations under the Budapest Treaty on the international recognition of the deposit of microorganisms for the purposes of patent procedure, adopted on 28 April 1977 and amended on 20 January 1981 and 1 October 2002, in force with its latest amendments 2 October 2002. URL: http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/registration/budapest/trtdocs_wo048.html.Google Scholar
CBD (Convention on Biological Diversity). 1992. Adopted 5 June 1992, entered into force 29 December 1993. 31 International Legal Materials 818.Google Scholar
Dross, M., and Wolff, F.. 2005. New elements of the international regime on access and benefit-sharing of genetic resources – the role of certificates of origin. Germany: Federal Agency for Nature Conservation.Google Scholar
Dutfield, G. 2002. Sharing the benefits of biodiversity: is there a role for the patent system? Journal of World Intellectual Property 5 (6): 899–932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EU (European Union). 1998. Directive 98/44/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 6 July 1998 on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions. Brussels: EU (Official Journal L 213, 30/07/1998 P. 0013 – 0021).Google Scholar
Farrell, R., and Duncan, S.. 2005. Uniqueness of Antarctica and potential for commercial success. In: Hemmings, A.D., and Rogan-Finnemore, M. (editors). Antarctic bioprospecting. Christchurch: University of Canterbury: 10–40.Google Scholar
Finston, S.K. 2005. The relevance of genetic resources to the pharmaceutical industry: the industry perspective. Journal of World Intellectual Property 8 (2): 141–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Girsberger, M.A. 2004. Transparency measures under patent law regarding genetic resources and traditional knowledge: disclosure of source and evidence of prior informed consent and benefit-sharing. Journal of World Intellectual Property 7 (4): 451–490.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Graham, A. 2005. Environmental, ethical and equity issues. In: Hemmings, A.D., and Rogan-Finnemore, M. (editors). Antarctic bioprospecting. Christchurch: University of Canterbury: 41–68.Google Scholar
Hemmings, A.D., and Rogan-Finnemore, M.. 2005a. The issues posed by bioprospecting in Antarctic. In: Hemmings, A.D., and Rogan-Finnemore, M. (editors). Antarctic bioprospecting. Christchurch: University of Canterbury: 234–244.Google Scholar
Hemmings, A.D., and Rogan-Finnemore, M.. 2005b. Science and commercial issues. Environment, ethics and equity issues. In: Hemmings, A.D., and Rogan-Finnemore, M. (editors). Antarctic bioprospecting. Christchurch: University of Canterbury: 248–268.Google Scholar
Jabour-Green, J., and Nicol, D.. 2003. Bioprospecting in areas outside national jurisdiction: Antarctica and the southern ocean. Melbourne Journal of International Law 4 (1): 76–111.Google Scholar
Nuffield Council on Bioethics. 2001. The ethics of patenting DNA. London: Nuffield Foundation of Bioethics.Google Scholar
Rogan-Finnemore, M. 2005. Setting the scene. In: Hemmings, A.D., and Rogan-Finnemore, M. (editors). Antarctic bioprospecting. Christchurch: University of Canterbury: 1–9.Google Scholar
SCAR (Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research). 2002. SCAR group of specialists on environmental affairs and conservation (GOSEAC). Report No 22/2002. URL: www.scar.org/publications/reports/22/ (Report of GOSEAC 12 meeting, College Station, Texas, United States, 24–27 April 2002).Google Scholar
SCAR (Scientific Committee on Antarctic Research). 2009. The International Council for Science. Cambridge: Scott Polar Research Institute (SCAR bulletin 172. Report from the SCAR delegation to 32nd ATCM, Baltimore, USA, 6–17 April 2009).Google Scholar
Tessensohn, F. 1987. Geophysical and geological data in Antarctica – the overlap between science and prospection. In: Wolfrum, R. (editor). Antarctic challenges. Berlin: Duncker and Humboldt (Proceedings of an Interdisciplinary Symposium 7 –12 July 1987. Berlin).Google Scholar
Tvedt, M.W. 2005. How will a substantive patent law treaty affect the public domain for genetic resources and biological material? Journal of World Intellectual Property 8 (3): 311–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tvedt, M.W. 2006. Elements for user country legislation to meet the fair and equitable commitment. Journal of World Intellectual Property 9 (2): 189–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tvedt, M.W. 2007a. The path to one universal patent. Journal of Environmental Policy and Law, 37 (4): 297–305.Google Scholar
Tvedt, M.W. 2007b. The disclosure obligation in Norwegian legislation: is it likely to lead to fair and equitable benefit sharing? Environmental Policy and Law 38 (1/2): 100–107.Google Scholar
Tvedt, M.W., and Young, T.R.. 2007. Beyond access – exploring implementation of the fair and equitable sharing commitment in the CBD. Gland, Switzerland: IUCN.Google Scholar
Vidas, D. 1996. The Antarctic Treaty system and the law of the sea: a new dimension introduced by the protocol. In: Stokke, O.S., and Vidas, D (editors). Governing the Antarctic, the effectiveness and legimacy of the Antarctic Treaty system. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. 61–90.Google Scholar
Westerlund, L. 2001. Biotech patents – equivalency and exclusions under European and U.S. patent law. Stockholm: Stockholm University, Faculty of Law.Google Scholar
WIPO (World Intellectual Property Rights Organisation). 2004. WIPO technical study on patent disclosure requirements related to genetic resources and traditional knowledge. Geneva: WIPO (WIPO publication no. 786(E). Study no. 3).Google Scholar
WIPO (World Intellectual Property Rights Organisation). 2003. Draft Substantive Patent Law Treaty. URL: http://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/scp/en/scp_10/scp_10_4.pdf.Google Scholar
Wolfe, T.A., and Zycher, B.. 2005. Biotechnological and pharmaceutical research and development investment under a patent-based sccess and benefit-sharing regime, California: Pacific Research Institute.Google Scholar
WTO (World Trade Organisation). 1994: Agreement establishing the World Trade Organization of 15. April 1994 ANNEX 1C: Agreement on trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights (TRIPS).Google Scholar