EVALUATING THE WIPO 2024 TREATY: STRENGTHENING LEGAL SAFEGUARDS FOR GENETIC RESOURCES AND TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE BY - POORVAJA SUBRAMANIAN
EVALUATING
THE WIPO 2024 TREATY: STRENGTHENING LEGAL SAFEGUARDS FOR GENETIC RESOURCES AND
TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE
AUTHORED BY
- POORVAJA SUBRAMANIAN
ABSTRACT
The protection of genetic resources
(GR) and associated traditional knowledge (ATK) has become a pressing issue as
commercial corporations continue to exploit indigenous people without adequate
acknowledgement or compensation. This article critically evaluates the WIPO
2024 Treaty on Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge,
assessing its ability to meet these problems. The study notes numerous
challenges in the treaty, such as the restrictive "based on"
disclosure requirement, which limits the scope of mandatory patent disclosures,
and the provision allowing applicants to claim ignorance of the GR or ATK
source, which undermines due diligence. Furthermore, the limitation on patent
revocation for non-disclosure, unless fraudulent intent is shown, undermines
compliance enforcement.
The report emphasises the treaty's
failure to effectively address digital sequence information (DSI) and the
disparities in national implementation that lead to uneven enforcement.
While the treaty's requirements for patent disclosure and information system
development are desirable, they fall short of providing comprehensive
protection.
The paper proposes measures such as
extending disclosure standards, establishing an independent compliance
committee for monitoring, imposing tiered sanctions based on the severity of
noncompliance, and developing a worldwide information system for validating
disclosures. Defining "source" more clearly and include DSI in the
treaty's scope are critical to avoiding compliance gaps.
Future goals include increasing
transparency, protecting indigenous rights, and promoting equitable benefit
sharing through collaborative international processes. Strengthening the treaty
framework and encouraging robust international cooperation are critical to
attaining real protection for traditional knowledge and genetic resources. This
analysis indicates that, while the WIPO 2024 Treaty is a great beginning, it
requires considerable revisions to effectively achieve its aims.
KEYWORDS: Genetic Resources (GR), Traditional
Knowledge (TK), Associated Traditional Knowledge (ATK), WIPO 2024 Treaty,
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR), Mandatory Disclosure Requirements, Access
and Benefit-Sharing (ABS), Indigenous Rights, Digital Sequence Information
(DSI), Equitable Benefit-Sharing
RESEARCH
PROBLEM
Exploitation of genetic resources and
related traditional knowledge by commercial enterprises without adequate
acknowledgement or compensation for indigenous groups who have preserved and
advanced this knowledge over millennia, frequently leads to legal and ethical
issues in protecting their rights. There is a need to analyse if the latest
WIPO 2024 treaty on Genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge
offers a proper solution to this problem.
RESEARCH
QUESTIONS
1.
What are the legal ambiguities in the WIPO treaty in
terms of the protection of traditional knowledge associated with genetic
resources?
2.
How may the WIPO treaty be improved or reformed to
better safeguard traditional knowledge and protect the rights of indigenous
communities that preserve them?
LITERATURE
REVIEW
The
article, "Limitations and Exceptions in the WIPO Instrument on Genetic
Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge,"[1]
looks at current WIPO discussions on a treaty addressing intellectual property,
genetic resources, and associated traditional knowledge. It focusses on the
inclusion of limitations and exceptions to enable member states more
flexibility in disclosing genetic resource usage. The study underscores the
difficulties of balancing indigenous rights with the need for research and
innovation by comparing the treaty to the CBD and Nagoya Protocol, which do not
have such exceptions. It highlights a vacuum in practical implementation
tactics and recommends deleting or modifying exceptions to protect indigenous
rights and encourage equitable benefit-sharing.
According to the paper, “Sanctions for non-disclosure, as set out
in Article 6 of the WIPO Basic Proposal on Intellectual Property, Genetic
Resources and Traditional Knowledge, Should Include Possible Revocation of a
Patent”[2] by
James Love, Cassedy, the sanctions for failing to disclose the origin of
genetic resources or traditional knowledge in patent applications, as described
in Article 6 of the WIPO Basic Proposal, are inadequate. It recommends that
patent revocation should be a viable consequence, not dependant on fraudulent
intent, to guarantee serious compliance with disclosure requirements. Drawing
on the Bayh-Dole Act in the United States, the article discusses the effects of
lax enforcement and recommends measures to increase compliance, such as
third-party reporting and audits. However, it does not cover international
enforcement or how to protect indigenous people beyond patent revocation.
Peter K. Yu's paper "WIPO Negotiations on Intellectual
Property, Genetic Resources, and Associated Traditional Knowledge"[3]
covers the continuing WIPO negotiations for a legal tool to safeguard genetic
resources and traditional knowledge (TK). It emphasises crucial aspects such as
disclosure requirements for patent applicants and penalties for noncompliance,
while also addressing the difficulties of combining Indigenous Peoples' rights
with the interests of patent applicants. The author criticises the
"three-step test" employed in IP treaties, doubting its effectiveness
in protecting Indigenous rights. The study advocates for additional protections
to protect TK and emphasises the importance of openness. However, it does not
investigate realistic enforcement measures for Indigenous rights, particularly
those involving sensitive information.
Frédéric
Perron-Welch's work "Striking a Balance Between Innovation and
Tradition in the Global Patent System"[4]
examines the WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources, and
Associated Traditional Knowledge, which was adopted in May 2024. To improve
transparency and preserve Indigenous rights, the treaty mandates the disclosure
of patents for genetic resources (GR) and traditional knowledge (ATK). It also
defines sanctions for noncompliance in order to prevent erroneous patent
issuance. While the paper emphasises the treaty's significance in balancing
innovation and the protection of traditional knowledge, it fails to look into
how disclosure requirements will interact with national laws or
cross-jurisdictional enforcement problems.
In
“Balancing Competing Interests to a Landmark Achievement”[5]
by Letícia Piancastelli Siqueira Brina and Henry Philippe Ibanez de Novion, with
an emphasis on the mandatory disclosure requirements for genetic resources (GR)
and traditional knowledge (TK), the paper considers the difficulties in
striking a balance between the interests of the Global North and South during
the negotiations of the WIPO Treaty. In contrast to the more expansive
"utilisation" trigger in the Nagoya Protocol, the article criticises
the treaty's restrictive "based on" trigger for disclosure, which
only applies if GR or TK was required for the invention. This may limit the
treaty's efficacy, even though it is a step forward in transparency. It
suggests incorporating digital sequence information (DSI) in upcoming revisions
to bring it into line with access and benefit-sharing systems and urges future
treaty assessments to close this gap.
A.
INTRODUCTION
i.
Background on Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge
Traditional Knowledge (TK) refers to
a living body of knowledge that is developed, maintained, and passed down
through generations within a community. It often plays a key role in the
cultural or spiritual identity of that community. In simple terms, TK can be
understood as:
•
knowledge,
know?how, skills, innovations or practices;
•
that
are passed between generations;
•
in
a traditional context; and
•
that
form part of the traditional lifestyle of indigenous and local communities who
act as their guardian or custodian.
TK can be broadly divided into 2
categories –
1. Genetic Resources and associated
traditional knowledge (GRATK) and
2. Traditional cultural expressions
(TCEs).
Let us call TK associated with GR as
‘GRATK’ (GRs are defined in the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) as parts
of biological materials that contain genetic information of value and are
capable of reproducing or being reproduced.) GRATK refers to TK closely associated
with genetic resources (GRs). Communities often use and conserve these
resources over generations, and in modern scientific research, TK can help
guide researchers in identifying valuable compounds within GRs.
Traditional Cultural Expressions
(TCEs), on the other hand, are the ways in which a community's culture is
expressed. This could include forms such as dances, songs, handicrafts,
designs, ceremonies, stories, and other artistic or cultural expressions.
This paper shall focus on the
protection of GRATK through Intellectual property law.
ii.
Need for the protection of GRATK
Traditional knowledge is generally
regarded under the conventional IP system as being in the public domain,
meaning anyone can use them without restriction. However, in recent years,
indigenous peoples, local communities, and governments—mainly in developing
countries—have demanded IP protection for traditional knowledge. The
"public domain" status of TK and TCEs exposes them to unwelcome
appropriation and misuse. Hence, the demand for protection.[6]
Indigenous groups frequently have
extensive knowledge of genetic resources that have been mastered over years of
observation and research, such as the therapeutic qualities of plants or
farming methods. When foreign organisations find a feature in a
plant, microbe, or other natural resource that has commercial value, they
patent it without considering the contributions or ownership rights of the
communities that have been using the resource for many generations. By patenting these resources or the
related knowledge, businesses or individuals essentially assert ownership
without acknowledging or compensating the original knowledge holders. As a
result, local communities are deprived of their rights.
This creates the need for protection
of GRATK.
B.
OVERVIEW OF INTERNATIONAL LEGAL FRAMEWORKS FOR
PROTECTING GRATK
Genetic resources (GRs)
are defined in the Convention on Biological Diversity, 1992 (CBD) as genetic
material of plant, animal, microbial or other origin containing functional
units of heredity that has actual or potential value.[7] Genetic
resources as such, are not intellectual property (IP). They are not creations
of the human mind and thus cannot be directly protected as IP. However,
inventions based on or developed using GRs (and associated TK) are eligible for
protection through the IP system, either through a patent or through other IP
rights.[8] GRs
are subject to international access and benefit-sharing (ABS) regulations.
The most prominent legal
frameworks that directly relate to the protection of GRATK and establish
access-benefit sharing mechanism, are the following:
i.
The Convention on Biological Diversity
The CBD is an
international agreement, which was signed by 150 governments at the 1992 Rio
Earth Summit and to which India is also a signatory. This Convention is
dedicated for promoting sustainable development and ensuring fair and equitable
sharing of the benefits arising out of the utilisation of genetic resources. It
provides a mechanism to ensure conservation and sustainable use of biodiversity
for the present as well as the future generations.[9]
ii.
Nagoya Protocol
The Nagoya Protocol on
Access to Genetic Resources and the Fair and Equitable Sharing of Benefits
Arising from their Utilisation (ABS) to the Convention on Biological Diversity
is a supplementary agreement to the Convention on Biological Diversity. It outlines
a legal framework for the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of
the utilisation of genetic resources.[10]
iii.
The International Treaty on Plant Genetic Resources for Food and
Agriculture
This treaty was adopted by the
Thirty-First Session of the Conference of the Food and Agriculture Organisation
of the United Nations on 3 November 2001. It has 3 primary objectives - recognising
contribution of farmers to the diversity of crops; establishing a global system
to provide farmers, plant breeders and scientists with access to plant genetic
materials; and ensuring that recipients share benefits they derive from the use
of these genetic materials.[11]
C.
WIPO 2024 TREATY ON GENETIC
RESOURCES AND TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE
i.
An Introduction to the WIPO 2024 Treaty
Although WIPO does not specifically address the regulation of ABS of
GRs, it does take into account IP issues that are directly related to GRs, and
in doing so, it enhances the framework offered by the CBD, the Nagoya Protocol,
the International Treaty, the PIP Framework, and other components of the global
ABS regime. The particular IP management arrangements negotiated inside ABS
agreements may have an impact on the overall outcomes of access to GRs.[12]
In the year 2000, the Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual
Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge, and Folklore (IGC) was
created by the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) at its General
Assembly to handle intellectual property matters pertaining to genetic
resources, traditional knowledge (TK), and traditional cultural expressions
(TCEs). At first, IGC concentrated on researching these problems. It then
started text-based talks on an international instrument in this area in 2010.
The agreement of WIPO members to have a diplomatic conference in July 2022 to
finalise an International Legal Instrument Relating to Intellectual Property,
Genetic Resources, and Traditional Knowledge Associated with Genetic Resources
was ultimately made possible by these negotiations.
On May 24, 2024, at the Diplomatic Conference on Genetic Resources
and Associated Traditional Knowledge (DIPCON-GRTK), IGC finally adopted a
Treaty on GR & TK. As per the provisions of the treaty (Section 17)[13],
the treaty shall come into force once 17 members ratify it.
ii.
Objectives and salient
features of the Treaty
The Treaty aims to enhance the efficacy, transparency and quality of
the patent system with regard to genetic resources and traditional knowledge
associated with genetic resources (GRATK), and prevent patents from being
granted erroneously for inventions that are not novel or inventive with regard
to genetic resources and associated TK.[14]
The
Treaty imposes a mandatory patent disclosure requirement, which requires patent
applicants to disclose the country of origin of the genetic resources and/or
the Indigenous Peoples or local community that provided the associated TK, if
the claimed inventions are 'based on' genetic resources and/or associated TK.
If this information is unknown, the origin of the genetic resources or linked
TK should be revealed. If none of the information listed above is known, the
patent applicant must declare it.
The
Treaty recommends consulting with Indigenous Peoples, local communities, and
other stakeholders to build information systems (databases) for genetic
resources and associated traditional knowledge, taking into account their
national circumstances. Patent offices should have access to information
systems for searching and examining patent applications. Technical working
groups might be formed to solve issues like accessibility to patent offices.
D.
LEGAL AMBIGUITIES IN THE WIPO 2024
TREATY AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR INDIA
i.
Challenges
Narrow requirement for disclosure
The treaty’s Article 3 has a "based on" requirement for
disclosure. This implies that to trigger mandatory disclosure requirements, an
invention must have a direct, causal connection to the genetic resource (GR) or
associated traditional knowledge (ATK) for it. This essentially means the GR or
ATK must be an integral part of the invention's creation or formulation, not
just tangentially related. The ‘based on’ requirement, is more stringent than
the ‘utilisation’ requirement that is given under CBD and Nagoya protocol.
‘Utilisation’, covers any research and development using GRs, regardless of
whether or not the GR forms an essential part of the final invention. The
broader scope of "utilisation" thus mandates disclosure in cases
where GRs have been used at any stage of innovation, even if their role is
secondary or indirect in the final product. The shift from "utilisation"
to "based on" in the treaty effectively narrows the disclosure obligations.
By requiring the GR or ATK to be a central component of the invention, this
criterion risks excluding inventions that, although developed with some use of
GRs or ATK, do not have these elements as their foundation. This dilution could
undermine the treaty's objectives, as it may allow inventors to circumvent
disclosure by claiming that the GR or ATK used in research does not directly
underpin the invention.[17]
Can claim ignorance of source
While the Treaty's mandate of worldwide disclosure standards is
intended to provide legal certainty, it appears to be taking the wrong
approach. For example, while Articles 3.1 and 3.2 of the Treaty require the
disclosure of the country of origin and indigenous peoples or communities who
provide traditional knowledge associated with the GR, Article 3.3 makes an
exception and states that if the applicant does not know such information, he
or she must provide a declaration about it. These provisions are problematic. It
gives the parties a chance to avoid having to provide information. There are
clear enforcement issues when declarations made under Article 3.3 without the
required obligation of due diligence and without knowledge of the GR source are
permitted.[18] [19]
Ambiguous language surrounding creation of national legislation.
The Treaty gives contracting parties the freedom to create national
legislation that complies with the Treaty's provisions. In the lack of explicit
and unambiguous language in the Treaty, the Contracting Parties will apply
different standards for disclosure requirements. For example, the United
States, which is not a party to the CBD, has a pro-innovation regime. In
contrast, India has a rigorous policy in place to protect indigenous
populations' GRs and ATK. Due to the Treaty's subjectivity, its implementation
may result in varied disclosure requirements in different countries. The
Treaty's primary goal is obscured by the discretion granted to nations in
determining what actions are "appropriate, effective, and
proportionate" under Article 6. Different nations' "goals," as
mentioned above, will lead to uneven enforcement and ambiguity in the law.[20]
Inadequate sanctions
Article 5.3 of the treaty states that no Contracting Party shall
revoke, cancel, or render unenforceable the acquired patent rights simply based
on an applicant's failure to disclose the required information, unless there is
fraudulent intent, as defined in Article 5.4. This means that, in the absence
of fraudulent intent, patents are nonetheless valid even if the applicant fails
to reveal critical information regarding genetic resources or associated
conventional knowledge. This limitation has been criticised for potentially
compromising the enforceability of disclosure requirements, as the possibility
of patent revocation serves as a strong deterrent to noncompliance.[21]
Non-retroactivity
Significant inventions utilising genetic resources may be able to
proceed without fulfilling disclosure requirements because patents lodged prior
to the treaty's entry into force are excluded.[22]
Long Timeframe for Initial Review
The four-year initial review is lengthy, delaying necessary
adaptations in response to early implementation challenges.[23]
DSI included or not?
Recent technological developments have made it easier and faster to
define GRs using digital sequence information (DSI). Because DSI frequently has
unclear geographic origins, compliance is made more difficult. Whether the
treaty covers DSI of GRs is one point that remains unsolved. Earlier drafts of
the Treaty required applicants to have access to the "physical
samples" of GRs, even though "DSI" is not specifically mentioned
in the text. Due to disagreements, this clause was eventually eliminated,
leaving the matter unsolved. This uncertainty is most likely brought on by the
fact that the WIPO may wait to align with the new mechanism and definition of
DSI, as the Global Mechanism for Benefit-Sharing from the Use of DSI is now
being reviewed in the wake of COP 15.
ii.
Implications on India
What does it mean for India, if India does sign on the treaty?
India will have to weaken some of its most important protections
against bad patents in order to comply with the WIPO provisions. Currently,
Section 25(1)(j) of the Patent Act allows for the filing of a pre-grant
objection to the failure to disclose the source of origin, and Section 64(1)(p)
allows for the revocation of a granted patent for failure to disclose this
information. According to Articles 3 and 5 of the current Treaty, these clauses
would not be permitted because, according to their conjoint reading, the
applicant may be allowed not to reveal the source of origin (if it is unknown
to him) and a patent cannot be denied for this reason unless it is fraudulent!
Even though the treaty aims to address problems posed by erroneous patents
based on genetic resources, if it is not properly executed, it may
unintentionally encourage their proliferation. The treaty's legal framework may
result in more patent declarations without sufficient review, making it
difficult for developing countries like India to adequately monitor compliance
and safeguard their genetic resources.[24]
E.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STRENGTHENING
THE
WIPO
2024 TREATY
Refine Cross-Border Terminology
Define a collaborative disclosure strategy for resources that
originate in more than one country. Like the following: “In cases where genetic
resources are native to multiple countries, applicants shall disclose all
relevant countries or utilise a regional biodiversity disclosure system
recognised by the Assembly.”
Broader criteria for disclosure
Modify “based on” to incorporate genetic resources that have any
discernible impact on the invention. “An invention shall be considered ‘based
on’ genetic resources if any unique property of the genetic material
contributes, directly or indirectly, to the functionality, novelty, or utility
of the claimed invention,” is one possible wording for the proposed clause. Require
applicants to provide thorough documentation outlining how genetic resources contributed
to the invention, even if only indirectly or partially.
Establish an Independent Monitoring Committee
A separate "Treaty Compliance Committee" may be
established under WIPO to oversee compliance and implementation. To maintain
transparency, this authority could conduct random audits and examine the yearly
reports that contracting parties provide. Include clauses in the treaty
allowing this committee to conduct periodic evaluations and recommend
improvements or corrective measures to parties that are not complying.
Verification of Disclosure
Article 3.5 must be amended to mandate that patent offices cross-verify
disclosures with a global genetic resource register or database. Partnerships
with global conservation organisations or Indigenous knowledge repositories
could be used to handle this. A uniform verification procedure can be created, that
patent offices can use, which include, looking through databases and asking
applicants for supporting documentation.
Implement Tiered Sanctions
Article 5.1 may be amended to define sanctions based on the severity
of noncompliance, such as monetary penalties and mandatory correction for minor
omissions. Suspension of patent rights until correction, for major omissions. Immediate
termination of patent rights and a prohibition on future patent applications
for a set length of time, in case of fraudulent non-disclosure. Also, provide
clear guidance on what constitutes fraudulent non-disclosure, to avoid
ambiguity.
Clarify “Source” Disclosure
“Source” must be more specifically defined, requiring applicants to
track and report the original habitat or Indigenous community associated with
the resource. That is, applicants must be required to disclose the entire chain
of custody, including intermediaries and the original source of the genetic
material or traditional knowledge. A checklist could be developed for patent
applicants, to ensure full disclosure. In addition to this, applicants could be
required to provide certification that the information provided is accurate to
the best of their knowledge.
Implement a transition period
Include a clause for a transition period during which patents filed
before to the treaty's entry into force may voluntarily update their
disclosures. Reduced patent maintenance fees or patent term extensions could be
offered as incentives. Contracting parties shall be required to examine previously
granted patents in identified important sectors retrospectively, to ensure
compliance with the spirit of the treaty.
Establish minimum standards for information systems
Develop baseline standards for information systems, such as standard
data fields and security protocols, to ensure that all contractual parties have
analogous and reliable databases. Contracting parties must be required to submit
their information systems for an initial and periodic examination by the WIPO
Compliance Committee.
Accelerate the Initial Review
The initial evaluation term may be set at two years instead of four,
to allow for timely identification and rectification of initial implementation
challenges.
F.
CONCLUSION
i.
Summary of Key Findings
This research has revealed substantial legal and practical
inconsistencies in the WIPO 2024 Treaty on Genetic Resources and Associated
Traditional Knowledge (GRATK). Notably, the "based on" requirement
for disclosure limits the breadth of necessary disclosures, potentially
allowing inventors to avoid critical transparency requirements. Allowing
applicants to state ignorance of the source of genetic resources (GR) or
associated traditional knowledge (ATK) puts at risk, the disclosure
system's integrity by undermining due diligence. Furthermore, the treaty's
provision prohibiting patent revocation for non-disclosure unless fraudulent
purpose is proved, diminishes the enforceability of compliance.
The study also highlights the treaty's weaknesses in addressing the
cross-border character of GRs, the variation in country legislative
implementations, and the possible issues caused by the lack of digital sequence
information (DSI). The lack of an impartial monitoring structure and consistent
verification methods inhibits the treaty's effective implementation. In
contrast, while the treaty includes the crucial component of mandatory patent
disclosure and information systems to improve transparency, these measures are
insufficient to assure effective protection of indigenous rights and prevent
abuse.
ii.
Future Directions for
the Protection of Traditional Knowledge
To remedy these gaps, future efforts should centre on improving the
treaty to ensure complete protection and equitable benefit-sharing for
indigenous and local populations. Key areas for development include increasing
the disclosure requirements to include any significant use of GRs or ATK, as
well as imposing more stringent penalties for noncompliance. An independent
compliance committee inside WIPO could be critical for monitoring
implementation and performing periodic audits to assure compliance.
There is a need to define “source” more precisely and mandate
complete disclosure of the chain of custody for genetic material and associated
knowledge. The inclusion of DSI within the scope of the treaty must be
specified in order to coincide with contemporary biotechnology breakthroughs
and avoid compliance gaps. A unified, global information system with
standardised processes can help to validate disclosures and ensure uniformity
across jurisdictions.
Lastly, in order to serve as effective deterrents, treaty should have
expedited review deadlines and the implementation of tiered sanctions.
Promoting an equitable and transparent intellectual property system that values
and preserves traditional knowledge would require cooperative international
institutions that involve indigenous groups in decision-making procedures and
protect their knowledge through participatory frameworks.
In summary, although the WIPO 2024 Treaty is a significant step in
acknowledging the importance of genetic resources and related traditional
knowledge in the international patent system, it still needs significant
enhancements and strong international collaboration to effectively protect
indigenous rights and encourage just benefit sharing.
REFERENCES:
1.
Flynn, S. (2024). Limitations
and Exceptions in the WIPO Instrument on Genetic Resources and Associated
Traditional Knowledge.
2.
Love, J., & Cassedy, C.
(2024). Sanctions for Non-Disclosure, as Set Out in Article 6 of the WIPO
Basic Proposal on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Traditional
Knowledge, Should Include Possible Revocation of a Patent.
3. Yu,
P. K. (2024). WIPO Negotiations on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources
and Associated Traditional Knowledge. Akron Law Review, 57, 23-71.
4. Perron-Welch,
F. (2024). Striking a balance between innovation and tradition in the global
patent system. Journal of Intellectual Property Law and Practice, 19(10),
747-749.
5. Piancastelli
Siqueira Brina, L., & Philippe Ibanez de Novion, H. (2024). WIPO Treaty on
Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge:
Balancing Competing Interests to a Landmark Achievement.
9. The
Nagoya Protocol on Access and Benefit-sharing, The Convention
on Biological Diversity https://www.cbd.int/abs/about/default.shtml.
10. Overview,
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations https:\www.cbd.int\abs\about\default.shtml
11. WIPO
Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional
Knowledge, 2024 Informal Summary, wipo.int https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/mdocs/en/gratk_dc/gratk_dc_exsum.pdf.
12. Suryansh
Pandey, WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and
Associated Traditional Knowledge: A Step Forward, Miles to Go, NLR Blog
(Aug. 20, 2024),.https://nliulawreview.nliu.ac.in/blog/wipo-treaty-on-intellectual-property-genetic-resources-and-associated-traditional-knowledge-a-step-forward-miles-to-go-2/
13. Dr.
Anson C J, WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and
Associated Traditional Knowledge: Concerns of India and Developing Nations-
Part I, Spicy IP (June 3, 2024), https://spicyip.com/2024/06/wipo-treaty-on-intellectual-property-genetic-resources-and-associated-traditional-knowledge-concerns-of-india-and-developing-nations.html.
14. Ashutosh
Singh, Unveiling the Critique of the WIPO Treaty on Intellectual
Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge, 2024, IP
link (July 12, 2024), https://www.iplink-asia.com/article-detail.php?id=1170.
15. Jocelyn
Bosse, We have a new treaty! Report on the conclusion of the WIPO
Diplomatic Conference on Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge, The
IPKat (May 24, 2024),https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/05/we-have-new-treaty-report-on-conclusion.html.
16. Article
by Helena Tian in Jurist News titled "UN
intellectual property agency approves first global treaty on intellectual
property, genetic resources and traditional knowledge"
17. Article
By Praharsh Gour on May 25, 2024 in spicyip.com “Finally,
WIPO Adopts a Treaty on IP, Genetic Resources and Associated TK! But at What
Cost?”
18. UNCTAD/DITC/TED/2004/14:
Analysis of Options For Implementing Disclosure Of Origin Requirements In
Intellectual Property Applications
19. Article
by Prashant Reddy and Malathi Lakshmikumaran in National Library of Medicine in
October 2015, titled "Protecting
Traditional Knowledge Related to Biological Resources: Is Scientific Research
Going to Become More Bureaucratized?"
20. Article
by Bhushan Patwardhan in National Library of Medicine: "Traditional
knowledge patents: New guidelines or deterrents?
21. WIPO
Website: WIPO Member States Adopt Historic
New Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated
Traditional Knowledge
23. Convention
on biological diversity C.B.D. Article 2 (WIPO 1992).
24. WIPO
treaty on intellectual property, genetic resources and associated traditional
knowledge Article 3 (WIPO 2024).
25. WIPO
treaty on intellectual property, genetic resources and associated traditional
knowledge Article 4 (WIPO 2024).
26. WIPO
treaty on intellectual property, genetic resources and associated traditional
knowledge Article 6 (WIPO 2024).
27. WIPO
treaty on intellectual property, genetic resources and associated traditional
knowledge Article 8 (WIPO 2024).
28. WIPO
treaty on intellectual property, genetic resources and associated traditional
knowledge Article 17 (WIPO 2024).
[1] Flynn, S. (2024). Limitations
and Exceptions in the WIPO Instrument on Genetic Resources and Associated
Traditional Knowledge.
[2] Love, J., & Cassedy, C. (2024).
Sanctions for Non-Disclosure, as Set Out in Article 6 of the WIPO Basic
Proposal on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge,
Should Include Possible Revocation of a Patent.
[3] Yu, P. K. (2024). WIPO Negotiations
on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional
Knowledge. Akron Law Review, 57, 23-71.
[4] Perron-Welch, F. (2024). Striking a
balance between innovation and tradition in the global patent system. Journal
of Intellectual Property Law and Practice, 19(10), 747-749.
[5] Piancastelli Siqueira Brina, L.,
& Philippe Ibanez de Novion, H. (2024). WIPO Treaty on Intellectual
Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge: Balancing
Competing Interests to a Landmark Achievement.
[7] Convention on biological diversity
C.B.D. Article 2 (WIPO 1992).
[10] The Nagoya Protocol on Access
and Benefit-sharing, The Convention on Biological Diversity https://www.cbd.int/abs/about/default.shtml.
[11] Overview, Food and
Agriculture Organization of the United Nations https:\www.cbd.int\abs\about\default.shtml
[12] Supra 8
[13] WIPO treaty on intellectual
property, genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge Article 17
(WIPO 2024).
[14] WIPO Treaty on Intellectual
Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge, 2024 -
Informal Summary, wipo.int https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/mdocs/en/gratk_dc/gratk_dc_exsum.pdf.
[15] WIPO treaty on intellectual
property, genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge Article 3
(WIPO 2024).
[16] WIPO treaty on intellectual
property, genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge Article 6
(WIPO 2024).
[17] Suryansh Pandey, WIPO
Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional
Knowledge: A Step Forward, Miles to Go, NLR Blog (Aug. 20, 2024), .https://nliulawreview.nliu.ac.in/blog/wipo-treaty-on-intellectual-property-genetic-resources-and-associated-traditional-knowledge-a-step-forward-miles-to-go-2/
[18] Ibid
[19] Dr. Anson C J, WIPO Treaty
on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional
Knowledge: Concerns of India and Developing Nations- Part I, Spicy IP (June
3, 2024), https://spicyip.com/2024/06/wipo-treaty-on-intellectual-property-genetic-resources-and-associated-traditional-knowledge-concerns-of-india-and-developing-nations.html.
[20]Ashutosh Singh, Unveiling
the Critique of the WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and
Associated Traditional Knowledge, 2024, IP link (July 12, 2024), https://www.iplink-asia.com/article-detail.php?id=1170.
[21] Jocelyn Bosse, We have a
new treaty! Report on the conclusion of the WIPO Diplomatic Conference on Genetic
Resources and Traditional Knowledge, The IPKat (May 24, 2024), https://ipkitten.blogspot.com/2024/05/we-have-new-treaty-report-on-conclusion.html.
[22] WIPO treaty on intellectual
property, genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge Article 4
(WIPO 2024).
[23] WIPO treaty on intellectual
property, genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge Article 8
(WIPO 2024).