U.S. Patent Office Cancels Patent on Amazonian Plant "Ayahuasca"
11/4/99
*******************************
RELAYED TEXT STARTS HERE:
Title: U.S. Patent Office Admits Error, Cancels Patent on Sacred
"Ayahuasca" Plant
Source: Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL)
Status: Copyright 1999, contact source for permission to reprint
Date: November 4, 1999
Washington, D.C. - Indigenous peoples from nine South American
countries won a precedent-setting victory yesterday, as the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) canceled the patent issued to a
U.S. citizen for the "ayahuasca" vine.
The plant, Banisteriopsis caapi, is native to the Amazonian
rainforest. Thousands of indigenous people of the region use it in
sacred religious and healing ceremonies, as part of their traditional
religions.
The PTO's decision came in response to a request for reexamination of
the patent filed with the PTO in March by the Coordinating Body for
the Indigenous Organizations of the Amazon Basin (COICA), the
Coalition for Amazonian Peoples and Their Environment, and lawyers at
the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL).
"Our Shamans and Elders were greatly troubled by this patent. Now
they are celebrating. This is an historic day for indigenous peoples
everywhere," says Antonio Jacanamijoy, General Coordinator of COICA.
According to David Rothschild, director of the Amazon Coalition,
"Given that ayahuasca is used in sacred indigenous ceremonies
throughout the Amazon, this patent never should have been issued in
the first place."
The PTO based its rejection of the patent on the fact that
publications describing Banisteriopsis caapi were "known and
available" prior to the filing of the patent application. According
to patent law, no invention can be patented if described in printed
publications more than one year prior to the date of the patent
application. William Anderson, director of the University of Michigan
Herbarium, agreed that the PTO needs to improve its procedures for
researching applications.
CIEL lawyer David Downes noted that "while we are pleased that the
PTO has cancelled this flawed patent, we are concerned that the PTO
still has not dealt with the flaws in its policies that made it
possible for someone to patent this plant in the first place." He
explained that "the PTO needs to change its rules to prevent future
patent claims based on the traditional knowledge and use of a plant
by indigenous peoples." He also argued that "the PTO should face the
issue head-on of whether it is ethical for patent applicants to claim
private rights over a plant or knowledge that is sacred to a cultural
or ethnic group."
In a separate proceeding at the PTO, the three groups have called for
changes in PTO rules. They argue that the PTO should require that
patent applicants identify all biological resources and traditional
knowledge that they used in developing the claimed invention.
Applicants should also disclose the geographical origin, and provide
evidence that the source country and indigenous community consented
to its use.