The construction of an access- and benefit-sharing regime and intellectual property issues: criteria and options

Jonathan Curci

doi:10.1017/CBO9780511770685.006

5 - The construction of an access- and benefit-sharing regime and intellectual property issues: criteria and options

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

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 04 August 2010

Jonathan Curci

Show author details

Jonathan Curci: Affiliation:
Touro International University, Rome

Book contents

Get access

Summary

This section explores an ABS regime in accordance with the mandated provisions of the relevant international legal instruments and the major policy options that States and the international community can follow.

While in other fields of IP law, one can avail oneself of comparable experiences, I do not know of any analogy in establishing an access regime. For instance, when shaping new types of protection like the neighboring rights of phonogram producers, of software, or of the sui generis protection of databases, one would resort to copyright and other sui generis regimes as paradigms to follow or to depart from according to the circumstances. In contrast, some of the possible suggestions aiming at protecting TK and GRs originally stem from IP law, e.g. the CBD and the ITPGFRA legal regimes. Here resides the difficulty in spelling out an IP system inspired by non-IP standard concepts and non-IP parallel implementation regimes.

In this endeavor, the concept of mutual supportiveness plays a pivotal role as do all the other rules of interpretation of applicable treaties and the rules for solving conflicting provisions.

The bilateral correspondence of the efforts on the part of biodiversity recipient and provider countries is absolutely indispensable for ensuring that the system is functional. These efforts consist of adopting and enforcing rules aimed at guaranteeing compliance with biodiversity provider rules regarding access in connection with the grant of IP protected innovations incorporating GRs originating from provider countries.

Type: Chapter
Information: The Protection of Biodiversity and Traditional Knowledge in International Law of Intellectual Property , pp. 103 - 130

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511770685.006 [Opens in a new window]

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.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

O'Hagan, J. and McAndrew, C., “Restricting International Trade in the National Artistic Patrimony: Economic Rationale and Policy Instruments” (2001) 10International Journal of Cultural Property32Google Scholar

Birnhack, M. D., “The Dead Sea Scrolls Case: Who is an Author?” (2001) 23(3) European Intellectual Property Review128Google Scholar

Pavoni, R., “Accesso alle risorse fitogenetiche e diritti di proprietà intellectuale dopo il trattato dalla FAO del 2001” (2003) 3 Communità internazionale369, 382–83Google Scholar

Heller, M., “The Tragedy of the Anticommons: Property in the Transition from Marx to Markets” (1998) 111 Harvard Law Review621–88CrossRef Google Scholar

Blakeney, M., “Bioprospecting and the Protection of Traditional Medical Knowledge of Indigenous Peoples: An Australian Perspective” (1997) 6 European Intellectual Property Review299–300Google Scholar

Posey, D. and Dutfield, G., Beyond Intellectual Property Rights: Towards Traditional Resource Rights for Indigenous Peoples and Local Communities (International Development Research Centre, Ottawa, 1996) 44Google Scholar

McManis, C., Recent Publications on Indigenous Knowledge Protection – New Directions in Indigenous Knowledge Protection 71 (ATRIP Collection of Papers, 1999)Google Scholar

Coombe, R.-J., “Intellectual Property, Human Rights and Sovereignty: New Dilemmas in International Law Posed by the Recognition of Indigenous Knowledge and the Conservation of Biodiversity” (1998) 6 Indiana Journal of Global Legal Studies59Google Scholar

Ghidini, G., “Equitable Sharing of Benefits of Biodiversity-Based Innovation: Some Reflection under a Neem-Tree”, ATRIP Congress (New Delhi, 2002)Google Scholar

Ricolfi, M., “Is There an Antitrust Antidote, against IP overprotection within TRIPS?” (2006) 10(2) Marquette Intellectual Property Law Review343Google Scholar

Overwalle, G., “Belgium Goes Its Own Way on Biodiversity and Patents” (2002) 24 European Intellectual Property Review235–6Google Scholar

Cottier, T., “The Prospects for Intellectual Property in GATT” (1991) 28 Common Market Law Review383, 408Google Scholar

Reichman, J., “The TRIPS Agreement Comes of Age: Conflict or Cooperation with the Developing Countries?” (2000) 32 Case Western Reserve Journal International Law441Google Scholar

Reichman, J., “From Free Riders to Fair Followers” (1996) 29 New York University Journal of International Law and Politics36–39Google Scholar

Lowenstein, V. and Hurtado, M. F., “Intellectual Property and Investment Negotiations: A Stormy Marriage?”, Collection of Papers of the LLM in Intellectual Property592–93 (WIPO Worldwide Academy Torino, Italy 2001)Google Scholar

Trebilcock, M., The Limits of Freedom of Contract (Harvard University Press, Cambridge, Mass. and London, 1993) 118Google Scholar

Fuller, L. and Eisenberg, M., Basic Contract Law 678 (Thomson West, 2001)Google Scholar

Burton, S. and Eisenberg, M., Contract Law Selected Source Materials (Thomson West, Minn., 2003)Google Scholar