EPO accepts biopiracy argument and revokes patent

March 14, 2005

Brussels, 11 Mar 2005

The European Patent Office (EPO) has, for the first time, decided to withdraw a patent on the grounds of biopiracy.

A patent was awarded to the US Department of Agriculture and the multinational company WR Grace in 1995 for the fungicidal properties of seeds extracted from the neem tree, native to India. But a campaign for the revocation of the patent was immediately launched by a three-party coalition: the European Parliament's Green Party, India's Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, and the International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements.

'[This] is a victory for traditional knowledge and practises. This is the first time anybody has been able to have a patent rejected on these grounds. Second, it is a victory for solidarity; with the people of developing countries - who have definitively earned the sovereign rights to their natural resources, and with our colleagues in the NGOs [non-governmental organisations] who fought with us against this patent for the last ten years,' said Magda Aelvoet, who was president of the Green Party in 1995, when the original submission to the EPO was made.

The patent was revoked five years after it was awarded, but the decision was appealed by the US Department of Agriculture and WR Grace. The decision on 8 March brings the ten-year dispute to a close.

'Biopiracy' describes a process in which living resources or traditional knowledge and practises are patented, thus applying intellectual property restrictions to their use. The resources in question are predominantly from developing countries, and are the subject of patent applications by companies in developed countries. The neem tree has been used for thousands of years in India in agriculture, public health, medicine, toiletries, cosmetics and livestock protection. A patent application should always be rejected if there is prior existing knowledge about a product.

CORDIS RTD-NEWS / © European Communities
Item source: http:///dbs.cordis.lu/cgi-bin/srchidadb?C ALLER=NHP_EN_NEWS&ACTION=D&SESSION=&RCN= EN_RCN_ID:23505 Previous Item Back to Titles Print Item

Please login or register to read this article.

Register to continue

Get a month's unlimited access to THE content online. Just register and complete your career summary.

Registration is free and only takes a moment. Once registered you can read a total of 3 articles each month, plus:

  • Sign up for the editor's highlights
  • Receive World University Rankings news first
  • Get job alerts, shortlist jobs and save job searches
  • Participate in reader discussions and post comments

Have your say

Log in or register to post comments

Most commented

Recent controversy over the future directions of both Stanford and Melbourne university presses have raised questions about the role of in-house publishing arms in a world of commercialisation, impact agendas, alternative facts – and ever-diminishing monograph sales. Anna McKie reports

3 October


Featured jobs