Premium
Combating biopiracy in Australia: Will a disclosure requirement in the Patents Act 1990 be more effective than the current regulations?
Author(s) -
Dawkins Verity
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
the journal of world intellectual property
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.334
H-Index - 8
eISSN - 1747-1796
pISSN - 1422-2213
DOI - 10.1111/jwip.12086
Subject(s) - promotion (chess) , traditional knowledge , genetic resources , business , natural resource , knowledge sharing , intellectual property , biodiversity conservation , biodiversity , political science , law , economics , microbiology and biotechnology , management , ecology , biology , indigenous , politics
Genetic and biochemical resources have the ability to provide considerable economic, social and environmental benefits to a nation. Traditional knowledge of these natural resources is extensive. Biopiracy occurs when commercial actors appropriate traditional knowledge without recognition or benefit‐sharing. It has faced international condemnation. The importance of acknowledging traditional knowledge and ensuring benefit‐sharing from inventions based on this knowledge is recognized. This paper explores strategies for protection of traditional knowledge and considers the adequacy of Australia's approach. It discusses the global problem of biopiracy and Australia's international obligations. It explores Australia's current protection, including part 8A of the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Regulations ([, 2000]) (Cth). This paper then compares Australia's strategy to the protections afforded in the United States, New Zealand and Brazil. It is argued that an additional disclosure of origin and source requirement within the Australian Patents Act [, 1990] (Cth) would assist in better protection of traditional knowledge and the promotion of benefit‐sharing.