PD Dr. Christine GodtLMU München/Universität Bremen

Property Revisited:The need to enforce benefit sharing

in user countries

PD Dr. Christine Godt Property Revisited

Outline

I. Introduction

II. Jurisdiction of user countries (EU/FRG)

III. Applicable Law

IV. Concepts: Territoriality & Sovereignty

V. Conclusion

PD Dr. Christine Godt Property Revisited

I. Introduction: Enforcement

(1) existing BS-contracts.

(2) regulatory effect.

PD Dr. Christine Godt Property Revisited

border measures

User Measures

certificatesof

origin

disclosurein patent applicationprocedure

contracts propertyIP

torts

PD Dr. Christine Godt Property Revisited

border measures

User Measures

certificatesof

origin

disclosurein patent applicationprocedure

contracts propertyIP

torts

PD Dr. Christine Godt Property Revisited

Today:

contracts propertyIP

torts

Benefit Sharing Enforcement in User Countries

PD Dr. Christine Godt Property Revisited

What Benefits?

Tvedt/Young 2007, p. 70 „incremental steps“

t

access reseach results patent application commercialisation

PD Dr. Christine Godt Property Revisited

What Benefits?

Tvedt/Young 2007, p. 70

t

access reseach results patent application commercialisation

fees information sharing re-negotiation shares in profitsprize repatriation of knowledge of non-commercial

samples licenses professional education mile stone payments mile stone payments

PD Dr. Christine Godt Property Revisited

Model Constellations

Contract

with Royalty Promise

Contract

with re-negotiation duty in case of commercial use

no Contract

PD Dr. Christine Godt Property Revisited

Constellations

Contract

with Royalty Promise

Contract

with re-negotiation duty in case of commercial use

no Contract

equitable?

„derived of“?

PD Dr. Christine Godt Property Revisited

Problem 1: Triggers of benefit sharing

Contract

with Royalty Promise

Contract

with renegotiation duty in case of commercial use

no Contract

=Property/Torts

PD Dr. Christine Godt Property Revisited

My focus today:

the right to benefits from „Genetic Resources“

Propertyof

Material

ImmaterialProperty

ofInformation

PD Dr. Christine Godt Property Revisited

Not initial triggers:

- Loopholes:

aquisition did not happen inside „provider state“

- Definitons „associated TK“

„derived from“

- Presumption: A „right“ exists.

PD Dr. Christine Godt Property Revisited

Claims

Contract

with Royalty Promise

Contract

with renegotiation duty in case of commercial use

Property/Torts

paymentinterim

injunction

re-negotiation

damagesincl. profits

injunction

or

PD Dr. Christine Godt Property Revisited

II. Jurisdiction of EC-Courts (EuGVVO 2002)(actor sequitur-Principle)

Contract

with Royalty Promise

Contract

with renegotiation duty in case of commercial use

no Contract

payment intermediary injunction

renegotiation

damagesfor infringement

injunction

Art.2 EuGVVO

Art.2 EuGVVO

Art.2 EuGVVOArtt. 2 & 5 (3)

EuGGVOArt.2,5 (3)EuGGVO

PD Dr. Christine Godt Property Revisited

III. Applicable Law(National Conflict of Law Rules for Contracts, „ROM II“ for Property & Torts)

Contract

with Royalty Promise

Contract

with renegotiation duty in case of commercial use

no Contract

payment intermediary injunction

renegotiation

damagesfor infringement

injunction

or

Lex contractus

Lex contractus

Lex fori/Lex Contractus

Lex rei sitae

Lex loci

delicti

qualified as„material property“

Lex Fori/Lex rei sitae

PD Dr. Christine Godt Property Revisited

III. Applicable Law (EC Conflict of Laws)

Contract

with Royalty Promise

Contract

with renegotiation duty in case of commercial use

no Contract

payment intermediary injunction

renegotiation

damagesfor infringement

injunction

or

Lex contractus

Lex contractus

german law

germanlaw

germanlaw

providercountry´s

law

Consequences

PD Dr. Christine Godt Property Revisited

Where is the „right“:

Shift in perception:

(1) Standing of local communities

(2) „Genetic Resources“ as „collective ownership“

(3) Universal material property

PD Dr. Christine Godt Property Revisited

Contract

with Royalty Promise

Contract

with renegotiation duty in case of commercial use

no Contract

payment intermediary injunction

renegotiation

damagesfor infringement

injunction

or

Lex contractus

Lex contractus

only when contractual duty

no injuncti

on

Value ofdamages ?

Results

Value ofdamages ?

PD Dr. Christine Godt Property Revisited

III. Applicable Law (National Conflict of Law Rules for Contracts, „ROM II“ for Property & Torts)

Contract

with Royalty Promise

Contract

with renegotiation duty in case of commercial use

no Contract

payment intermediary injunction

renegotiation

damagesfor infringement

injunction

or

Lex contractus

Lex contractus

Lex fori/lex

protectionis

Lex loci

protectionis

Lex loci

protectionis

when qualified as „immaterial property“

PD Dr. Christine Godt Property Revisited

III. Applicable Law (National Conflict of Law Rules for Contracts, „ROM II“ for Property & Torts)

Contract

with Royalty Promise

Contract

with renegotiation duty in case of commercial use

no Contract

payment intermediary injunction

renegotiation

damagesfor infringement

injunction

or

Lex contractus

Lex contractus

Lex fori/lex

protectionis

Consequences

Germanlaw

Providercountrieslaw

Germanlaw

Providercountrieslaw

PD Dr. Christine Godt Property Revisited

III. Applicable Law (National Conflict of Law Rules for Contracts, „ROM II“ for Property & Torts)

Contract

with Royalty Promise

Contract

with renegotiation duty in case of commercial use

no Contract

payment intermediary injunction

renegotiation

damagesfor infringement

injunction

or

Lex contractus

Lex contractus

Property/Tort Claimswill be dismissed as unfounded

(due to lack of mutual recognition agreements)

Infringing activity in provider country?

Infringing activity in provider country?

PD Dr. Christine Godt Property Revisited

First lesson learnt:

„conclude contracts“!

PD Dr. Christine Godt Property Revisited

Second lesson learnt:

benefit sharing can be claimed in user countries

via conflict of law rules

==> applying provider state laws.

PD Dr. Christine Godt Property Revisited

more precise:

(1) Damages for material property violation might be irrelevant.

(2) Damages for IP-infringement, might encompass profits.

(3) There is no remedy when illegal bioprospection

cannot be directly attributed to the user state´s

company (outsourced bioprospection).

PD Dr. Christine Godt Property Revisited

Third lesson learnt:

Applying (only) user state law, no damage claim can be construed - due to the lack of a „right“.

As in industrial property law, territoriality (the lack of a right) could be remedied by intergovernmental recognition treaties.

PD Dr. Christine Godt Property Revisited

Any Remaining Problem?

(1) Reaping the Benefits:

Territoriality of Information Property.

(2) Genetic Resources as State Property.

PD Dr. Christine Godt Property Revisited

IV. Problem Shooting

1. Territoriality: Universal Property vs. Territorial Intellectual Property

2. Sovereignty: Distinguishing Public Regulation vs. Public Property

PD Dr. Christine Godt Property Revisited

Property Right

at

BiologicalMaterial

either

Immaterial Property

at

Information

orBinary Model

PD Dr. Christine Godt Property Revisited

Universal Property Right

at

BiologicalMaterial

either

Territorial Immaterial Property

at

Information

orBinary Model

PD Dr. Christine Godt Property Revisited

$

Intellectual Property-Model

PD Dr. Christine Godt Property Revisited

Property-Model

damage= lost value

PD Dr. Christine Godt Property Revisited

PROS

1. „Natural“ claim forroyalties

2. Damages do not depend on the value (isolated economic value can be small)

2. Damages enclose profits.

IP-Model

CONS

1. Territoriality limits enforcement.

2. Benefits arise late.

3. Benefits are bound to timely limited right.

PD Dr. Christine Godt Property Revisited

IP-modelappropriate?

PD Dr. Christine Godt Property Revisited

IP:Timelylimited

monopolyin competition

prone to national industrial policies

Public (souvereign)

Property

Cultural Autonomy

(comp. to Personality R.)

PD Dr. Christine Godt Property Revisited

Property Right

at

BiologicalMaterial

neither

Immaterial Property

at

Information

nor

sui generis(exclusionary) right to

Genetic Resources& TK

but

PD Dr. Christine Godt Property Revisited

sui generis(exclusionary) right to Genetic Resources& TK

- universal (thus international, not bound to sovereignty)

- claim of share in profits (independent of initial value)

- not bound to time lapse of another IP-right (limits remain to be defined)

PD Dr. Christine Godt Property Revisited

Universal

Sui Generis(exclusionary) Right to

Genetic Resources& TK

Argument (1):

similar to formeruniversal-principleof brands & copyright

Argument (2):

similar to „right to personal autonomy“

PD Dr. Christine Godt Property Revisited

transnationalSui Generis(exclusionary) Right to

Genetic Resources& TK

Argument (3):

GK-TK is internationally acknowledged:

- CBD/UNESCO etc. international convened protection

- an intergouvernmental recognition agreement would only be a formal act

PD Dr. Christine Godt Property Revisited

IV.1. Conclusion: Property or Intellectual Property?

1) BS - is a universal sui generis right

2) BS - model is „cultural heritage“

3) BS - enforceable in user states, resultung in a legitime claim to a share in profits.

PD Dr. Christine Godt Property Revisited

Contract

with Royalty Promise

Contract

with renegotiation duty in case of commercial use

no Contract

payment intermediary injunction

renegotiation

damagesfor infringement

injunction

or

Lex contractus

Lex contractus

Law Suit based on IP-Property and IP-Infringementwill be dismissed as unfounded

(due to lack of mutual recognition agreements)

Infringing activity in provider country?

Infringing activity in provider country?

PD Dr. Christine Godt Property Revisited

Contract

with Royalty Promise

Contract

with renegotiation duty in case of commercial use

no Contract

payment intermediary injunction

renegotiation

damagesfor infringement

injunction

or

Lex contractus

Lex contractus

Lex fori

BS as„sui generis“-right

Providercountrieslaw

Lex loci

delicti

Lex loci

delicti

PD Dr. Christine Godt Property Revisited

IV.2. Territorial Sovereignty:

International jurisdiction for(privider) state claims?

- as trustee of public property.- as party to a BS-contract.

PD Dr. Christine Godt Property Revisited

1) No: for claims in relation to regulating access (fees, fines -

and no circumvention via property)

2) Yes: as „owner“ of „national patrimony“ judged according to national provider state laws (cultural heritage analogy)

PD Dr. Christine Godt Property Revisited

V. Concusing: Lessons Learnt 1) Negotiate contracts!

2) BS is sui generis right.

3) National ABS-laws in provider countries are essential for user countries´ measures.

PD Dr. Christine Godt Property Revisited

3)a) recognition of a right

b) defining duties.

c) limits to free disposition: - payment duties to special funds - predetermination for conservation purposes

PD Dr. Christine Godt Property Revisited

thanks !