DEMYSTIFYING THE WIPO TREATY: PROTECTING TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE

 

AYTHORED BY - ASHUTOSH RATURI

CO-AUTHORED - RAMAKANT TRIPATHI

 

 

ABSTRACT

The WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources, and Traditional Knowledge aims to defend the rights of indigenous communities and protect their cultural heritage. The complex legal and ethical issues pertaining to the use and ownership of genetic resources and the traditional knowledge they are associated with are addressed in this historic agreement. The

treaty aims to guarantee equitable benefit-sharing and prevent misappropriation through international cooperation and legal frameworks. Nevertheless, there are difficulties in putting it into practice, such as defining terminology and juggling conflicting interests. This article highlights the importance of the treaty in defending the intellectual property rights of indigenous peoples around the world by giving a succinct summary of its goals, ramifications, and difficulties.

 

 

The WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources, and Traditional Knowledge1 is a milestone in the field of Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Traditional Knowledge. It was signed at the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) in Geneva from May 13 to May 24, 2024. A noteworthy development in international intellectual property law is the WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources, and Associated Traditional Knowledge. This is the first of its sort, having been adopted at the Diplomatic Conference to Conclude an International Legal Instrument Relating to Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources, and Associated Traditional Knowledge with Genetic Resources.

 

This treaty’s primary goal is to resolve the complex interrelationships among genetic resources, traditional knowledge, and intellectual property rights. It is noteworthy because it is the first WIPO treaty with explicit provisions for local communities and Indigenous Peoples. This convention will herald in a new era in international law, specifically in patent regulations

 

1 WIPO, WIPO Member States Adopt Historic New Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge. PR/2024/919. Available at https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/articles/2024/article_0007.html. (Visited on June 05, 2024).concerning genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge. Once it is ratified by 15 contracting parties.

 

A crucial disclosure requirement is now in place for patent applications whose inventions depend on genetic resources or related traditional knowledge, according to the treaty. In particular, it requires patent applications to reveal the nation of origin or source of genetic resources as well as the Indigenous Peoples or local communities engaged in the case of traditional knowledge. Genetic resources are used as the foundation for many discoveries that are protected by intellectual property rights, mostly through patents. These resources can be found in medicinal plants, agricultural products, and animal breeds. The treaty also recognises the complex relationship that exists between genetic resources and traditional knowledge, which is frequently used and conserved by Indigenous Peoples and local communities for many generations. When combined with scientific study, this information can greatly aid in the creation of patentable inventions. The conference was classified in two committees, namely Main Committee I and Main Committee II. They were the two main committees of the WIPO diplomatic conference held in Geneva. In contrast to the former, which concentrated on negotiating substantive intellectual property provisions, the later dealt with concluding clauses and administrative issues. Leading this historic occasion were notable individuals like Ms. Vivienne Katjiuongua, who chaired Main Committee II, and Ms. Jodie McAlister, who chaired Main committee II.

 

More committees were established during the meeting to guarantee that the negotiations proceeded without hiccups. These committees included the Drafting Committee, which was in charge of coordinating the wording of the treaty throughout its six iterations, and the Credentials Committee, which was in charge of confirming delegate credentials. These committees’ dedication, coupled with the combined efforts of the participating countries, resulted in the treaty’s development and approval. Signing the treaty at the end of the conference shows a strong commitment to its ideas, even though it does not legally bind countries to its contents. Furthermore, the Final Act, which functions as a conference record, is still available for signature after adoption. Article 1 of the treaty deals with the goals of the treaty, which are improving the quality, effectiveness, and transparency of the patent system with regard to traditional knowledge and genetic resources. Avoiding the wrongful issuance of patents for innovations pertaining to genetic resources and traditional knowledge related with genetic resources that lack originality oringenuity. Article 1 essentially lays the foundation for maintaining a just and equitable intellectual property environment, protecting the interests of all parties concerned.

 

The complete framework of the treaty is designed to promote accountability, equity, and transparency in the domain of intellectual property rights. Article 3 establishes a rigorous disclosure standard for patent applicants, guaranteeing openness over the source of genetic resources and related conventional knowledge. It requires the nation of origin or source to be disclosed, which creates a vital connection between inventions and their basic components. In addition, the treaty’s commitment to complete documentation and contribution acknowledgment is emphasized by the provision for situations in which this information is unknown. As per the article, patent applications must disclose the source of genetic resources and related conventional knowledge. The article encourages transparency and makes sure that the contributions of different countries and knowledge holders are recognised and valued by mandating patent applications to submit this data.

Through the facilitation of informed decision-making during the patent granting process, it prevents the misuse of traditional knowledge resources. Article 4 states that patent applications submitted before the treaty’s entry into effect are protected by the principle of non-retroactivity, which guarantees a fair transition into its regulations. This clause establishes a precise limit for the applicability of the treaty’s commitments while respecting current national legislation. It guarantees that patent applications lodged prior to the treaty’s entry into effect will not be subject to retroactive duties. This clause gives patent applicants legal certainty while respecting current country legislation. By exempting prior patent applications from the new disclosure requirements, it protects the interests of countries and knowledge holders and helps to prevent potential legal problems. Article 5 outlines the procedures for enforcing disclosure requirements and highlights the significance of appropriate penalties. The exclusion clause recognises instances of fraudulent conduct and ensures accountability without unduly penalizing, while the possibility for rectification prior to punishment highlights a constructive attitude toward compliance. The article lays out steps to address instances of necessary information being omitted from patent applications. The article encourages adherence to the disclosure obligations outlined in Article 3 by instituting suitable penalties and remedies. By discouraging fraudulent activity and guaranteeing that patent applications meet their responsibilities, it preserves accountability and advances the intellectual property rights of states and knowledge holders.

 

Article 8 states the periodic review commitment, which illustrates how flexible the treaty is in response to changing IP environments and new technological advancements. This particular section highlights the treaty’s dynamic nature and commitment to ongoing improvement by discussing future expansions of the disclosure requirement as well as other significant topics. Contracting parties are required by Article 8 to evaluate the treaty’s contents and scope in order to address new challenges and possible extensions of the disclosure requirement. Parties may adjust the treaty to new technology and changing intellectual property environments by revising it on a regular basis. This guarantees that, in the face of evolving opportunities and challenges, the treaty will continue to be applicable and effective in defending the rights of states and holders of intellectual property. Article 10 talks of the assembly which was established to act as the governing body in charge of the upkeep and advancement of the treaty. Its inclusive structure, which accepts local communities and Indigenous Peoples as observers, shows a dedication to collaboration and involvement from a variety of stakeholders. Financial assistance provisions also stress on fair participation, guaranteeing representation from all parties involved in the contract. The Assembly is designated in this article as the governing body in charge of the treaty’s upkeep and development. The Assembly fosters inclusivity and collaboration by giving all contracting parties a forum to engage in decision-making processes. Furthermore, the clause allowing for the active engagement of Indigenous Peoples and local communities as observers guarantees that their viewpoints are taken into account during the treaty’s implementation, protecting their rights to traditional knowledge. Article 11 deals with the International Bureau’s administrative role highlighting the treaty’s centralized coordination and operational efficiency. The Bureau facilitates meetings and offers logistical support to improve the efficacy of the treaty’s implementation and continued administration. Article 11 delegated to the International Bureau of WIPO administrative responsibilities pertaining to the treaty. Through meeting facilitation and logistical support, the Bureau guarantees the smooth operation of the pact. This guarantees the effective implementation and enforcement of the treaty’s terms, thereby promoting the intellectual property rights of states and knowledge holders. In conclusion, every article in the treaty advances and defends the rights of countries and knowledge holders regarding their traditional knowledge and intellectual property. They create systems of openness, responsibility, and collaboration, guaranteeing that the advantages of intellectual property are shared fairly and that traditional knowledge is valued and conserved. It is imperative to underscore the collaborative spirit that is the foundation of the treaty’s execution, given its multinational structure and the vast range of stakeholders involved. The Asemble’s emphasis on consensus-based decision-making upholds its commitment to inclusive government and respect for all parties to the contract. The treaty’s clauses pertaining to denunciation, entrance into force, languages, and reservations emphasize procedural elements that are crucial to its proper execution and compliance. The Treaty is a significant development in international law that establishes a standard for the peaceful coexistence of community rights, biodiversity, and intellectual property rights.