PD Dr. Christine Godt LMU München/Universität Bremen Property Revisited: The need to enforce...

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


I. Introduction: Enforcement

(1) existing BS-contracts.

(2) regulatory effect.


border measures

User Measures

certificatesof

origin

disclosurein patent applicationprocedure

contracts propertyIP

torts


Today:

contracts propertyIP

torts

Benefit Sharing Enforcement in User Countries


What Benefits?

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

t

access reseach results patent application commercialisation


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


Model Constellations

Contract

with Royalty Promise

Contract

with re-negotiation duty in case of commercial use

no Contract


Constellations

Contract


Contract

with re-negotiation duty in case of commercial use

no Contract

equitable?

„derived of“?


Problem 1: Triggers of benefit sharing

Contract


Contract

with renegotiation duty in case of commercial use

no Contract

=Property/Torts


My focus today:

the right to benefits from „Genetic Resources“

Propertyof

Material

ImmaterialProperty

ofInformation


Not initial triggers:

- Loopholes:

aquisition did not happen inside „provider state“

- Definitons „associated TK“

„derived from“

- Presumption: A „right“ exists.


Claims

Contract


Contract


Property/Torts

paymentinterim

injunction

re-negotiation

damagesincl. profits

injunction

or


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

Contract


Contract


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


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

Contract


Contract


no Contract


renegotiation


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


III. Applicable Law (EC Conflict of Laws)

Contract


Contract


no Contract


renegotiation


injunction

or

Lex contractus

Lex contractus

german law

germanlaw

germanlaw

providercountry´s

law

Consequences


Where is the „right“:

Shift in perception:

(1) Standing of local communities

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

(3) Universal material property


Contract


Contract


no Contract


renegotiation


injunction

or

Lex contractus

Lex contractus

only when contractual duty

no injuncti

on

Value ofdamages ?

Results

Value ofdamages ?


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

Contract


Contract


no Contract


renegotiation


injunction

or

Lex contractus

Lex contractus

Lex fori/lex

protectionis

Lex loci

protectionis

Lex loci

protectionis

when qualified as „immaterial property“



Contract


Contract


no Contract


renegotiation


injunction

or

Lex contractus

Lex contractus

Lex fori/lex

protectionis

Consequences

Germanlaw

Providercountrieslaw

Germanlaw




Contract


Contract


no Contract


renegotiation


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?



First lesson learnt:

„conclude contracts“!


Second lesson learnt:

benefit sharing can be claimed in user countries

via conflict of law rules

==> applying provider state laws.


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).


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.


Any Remaining Problem?

(1) Reaping the Benefits:

Territoriality of Information Property.

(2) Genetic Resources as State Property.


IV. Problem Shooting

1. Territoriality: Universal Property vs. Territorial Intellectual Property

2. Sovereignty: Distinguishing Public Regulation vs. Public Property


Property Right

at

BiologicalMaterial

either

Immaterial Property

at

Information

orBinary Model


Universal Property Right

at

BiologicalMaterial

either

Territorial Immaterial Property

at

Information

orBinary Model


$

Intellectual Property-Model


Property-Model

damage= lost value


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.


IP-modelappropriate?


IP:Timelylimited

monopolyin competition

prone to national industrial policies

Public (souvereign)

Property

Cultural Autonomy

(comp. to Personality R.)


Property Right

at

BiologicalMaterial

neither

Immaterial Property

at

Information

nor

sui generis(exclusionary) right to

Genetic Resources& TK

but


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)


Universal

Sui Generis(exclusionary) Right to


Argument (1):

similar to formeruniversal-principleof brands & copyright

Argument (2):

similar to „right to personal autonomy“


transnationalSui Generis(exclusionary) Right to


Argument (3):

GK-TK is internationally acknowledged:

- CBD/UNESCO etc. international convened protection

- an intergouvernmental recognition agreement would only be a formal act


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.


Contract


Contract


no Contract


renegotiation


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)




Contract


Contract


no Contract


renegotiation


injunction

or

Lex contractus

Lex contractus

Lex fori

BS as„sui generis“-right


Lex loci

delicti

Lex loci

delicti


IV.2. Territorial Sovereignty:

International jurisdiction for(privider) state claims?

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


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)


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.


3)a) recognition of a right

b) defining duties.

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


thanks !

PD Dr. Christine Godt LMU München/Universität Bremen Property Revisited: The need to enforce...

Documents

Transcript of PD Dr. Christine Godt LMU München/Universität Bremen Property Revisited: The need to enforce...