Question Q232 National Group: German Group Title: The Relevance of Traditional Knowledge to Intellectual Property Law Contributors: Katja GRABIENSKI, Martina SCHUSTER, THORSTEN BAUSCH, Jan DOMBROWSKI Reporter within Working Committee: Jan DOMBROWSKI Date: 14 June 2012 Questions I. Analysis of current law and case law 1) Is traditional knowledge (TK) defined in your national law? No. The German law does not provide a legal definition of the concept of traditional knowledge. 2) If yes to question 1, what is the source of the definition? See I. 1) 3) If yes to question 1 how is TK defined? 1
See I. 1) 4) If TK is not defined in your national law, is there any working definition described in any draft law or regulation, policy document or other discussion material? No, there is principally no definition of that kind. Without any obligation to use this definition, experts regularly use the two draft definitions of the Draft Articles On the Protection of Traditional Knowledge of the WIPO in their scientific discussions. The first draft definition reads as follows: Traditional knowledge means knowledge resulting from intellectual activity in a traditional context including the know-how, skills, innovations, practices and learning that form part of the traditional knowledge systems of an indigenous people or local community. The second draft definition reads as follows: (a) Traditional knowledge is dynamic and evolving. It is the result of the intellectual activities in diverse traditional contexts, including knowledge, skills, innovations, practices and teachings in a collective framework of indigenous peoples and local communities; (b) Traditional knowledge is part of a collective, ancestral, territorial, spiritual, cultural, intellectual and material heritage; (c) Traditional knowledge is transmitted from generation to generation in diverse forms and is inalienable, indivisible and imprescriptible; (d) Traditional knowledge is intrinsically linked to biodiversity and sustains cultural, social and human diversity embodied in traditional lifestyles. 5) Does your national law provide for any protection (whether positive or defensive) for TK? The German law does not provide any special regulations for the positive protection of TK other than the general statutory requirements for obtaining a property right. However, for a special group of cases which may be described as TK Section 1 (2) PatG [German Patent Act] clearly points out that inventions whose subject-matter is biological material may principally be patentable as well. Section 2 (2) PatG, in turn, specifies that patents whose subject-matter are plants and animals may generally be protected under patent law. Furthermore, plant varieties may be protected in accordance with the provisions of the SortenschutzG [German Plant Varieties Protection Act]. Nor does the German law expressly provide for any defensive protection of TK. However, there are provisions in the individual laws underlying the respective property rights which might result in such a defensive protection to prevent third parties from acquiring intellectual property rights to TK, see in particular Sections 2a, 3 PatG, Section 2 (2), 3 GeschmMG [German Design Act], Sections 8 (2) No. 1 to 3, 4, 5 and 9 MarkenG [German Trade Mark Act] (see details under I.6) and 7)). 6) If yes to question 5, is the protection found in: 2
a) existing IP laws or regulations; b) adaptation of IP laws or regulations through sui generis measures for TK protection; or wholly sui generis laws or regulations relating to TK protection? The provisions mentioned under I.5) above are existing regulations provided in simple laws adopted by parliamentary act. In this context, the provisions of Sections 1 (2) and 2 PatG are based on the so -called Biotechnology Patents Directive of the EU (Directive 98/44/EC). The provisions of Section 8 (2) No. 1 to 3 and 4, 5 und 9 MarkenG are based on Art. 3 of the Trade Mark Directive (formerly 89/104/EC, since 28 November 2008: 2008/95/EC) and are derived from Art. 6 quinquies of the Paris Convention in that respect. Neither these regulations adopted by parliamentary act nor the European directives aim at protecting traditional knowledge; rather, they only refer to such traditional knowledge briefly due to the subject-matter regulated in them. 7) If yes, to any part of question 6, please provide details of the law(s) or regulation(s), including where such detail exists: a) criteria for eligibility for protection; b) beneficiaries of protection; c) scope of protection; d) sanctions, remedies and exercise of rights; e) administration of rights; f) exceptions to and limitations on rights; g) term of protection; h) formalities to which protection is subject; i) transitional measures; j) consistency with other laws; k) national treatment and foreign interests; and l) trans-boundary cooperation. Patent law: The German patent law does not provide any special regulations for the positive protection of TK other than the general statutory requirements for granting a patent. However, for a special group of cases which may be described as TK, Section 1 (2) PatG clearly points out that patents may also be granted for inventions whose subject matter is a product consisting of or containing biological materials or a process used for producing or processing or using biological material. This applies even if the biological material already exists in na- 3
ture, but is isolated or produced from its natural surroundings by means of a technological process. This also makes it clear that solely detecting a substance existing in nature is not protectable by a patent. Section 1 (2) PatG does not waive the requirement that an invention must be a technical teaching. Section 2 (2) PatG, in turn, clearly specifies that plants and animals may also be protected by a patent, provided that the execution of the invention is not restricted to a particular plant or animal variety. However, according to Section 2 (1), plant varieties, animal varieties and biological pr o- cesses for their production are not patentable. According to the German patent law, patent protection is regularly not granted for subjectmatters covered by inventions which are also part of TK due to lack of novelty according to Section 3 PatG or due to the lack of any inventive step according to Section 4 PatG, i.e. the general patentability requirements which do not specifically concern TK. In this context, in particular such TK is not protectable which (as in most cases) has already been made available to the public by means of a written or oral description, by use or in any other way (also outside Germany) and is thus state of the art. In this context, databases which are maintained by several states, in particular Asian states (South Korea, China, India), are becoming increasingly s ignificant. These contain the relevant TK from the respective countries and make an increasing number of public sources on TK available to patent offices and companies in understandable translations. At least from the date when the TK can be researched in the database it should be state of the art without doubt. If a patent for biological material of plant or animal origin is to be registered the applicant is obliged pursuant to Section 34a PatG to give information regarding the geographical origin of such material if known. Section 34a PatG transposes the almost literally identical recital 27 of the Biotechnology Patents Directive (Dir 98/44/EC) into German Patent Law. This provision is related to Article 15 of the Convention on Biological Diversity/CBD. More transparency is to be guaranteed in the field of the use of biological material in order to detect possible infringements of the CBD and thus indirectly prevent them. However, an infringement of this provision does not lead to an exclusion from patentability of the subjectmatter applied for. In German legal literature it is at best considered occasionally that the lack of information about the geographical origin may in individual cases and under special circumstances be contrary to the ordre public or morality according to Section 2, (1) PatG, Art. 53 (a) EPC. According to Section 34 (7) PatG in conjunction with Section 10 (2) No. 2 PatV [German Patent Regulation] the prior art relevant for the invention has to be stated in the patent description. All those documents are considered relevant which could be of importance for the understanding of the invention and its protectability as well as the execution of research and examination, i.e. also information on existing TK. Information on the state of 4
the art and the sources concerned has to be completely and truthfully stated to the best of one's knowledge in the application. However, documents the public accessibility of which is doubted do not need to be stated. This could potentially concern such TK of which no written sources exist or where the written sources are in a language which is not easily understood and translatable. If no prior art is stated in the application but it is evident from the circumstances that the applicant must know of the prior art not given (e. g. the research shows corresponding results in the TK database) the Patent Office can request him to submit this information. However, there are no possible sanctions opposed to the granting of a patent in this case. If traditional knowledge may be protected by a patent in individual cases the patent holder could assert the usual claims in the case of an infringement of the patent, i. a. claims for injunctive relief, for disclosure of information, for compensation, for damages, for destruction and for callback. Design law The design law does neither contain any specific regulations concerning the protectability of TK. However, according to German design law such forms of appearance which already exist in nature and are therefore part of the previously known design corpus are excluded from protection pursuant to Sections 2 (2) and 3 GeschmMG [German Design Act] due to lack of novelty or individual character. In the case of the design law, too, TK contained in databases can be part of the previously known design corpus. If traditional knowledge may be protected by a design in individual cases the right holder could assert the usual claims in the case of an infringement of the design, i. a. claims for injunctive relief, for disclosure of information, for compensation, for damages, for destruction and for callback. Trade mark law: There is no legal norm in trade mark law which directly concerns TK. A sign which is the subject-matter or a term of TK may be excluded from trade mark protection in particular, but not limited to, due to the absolute grounds of refusal of protection pursuant to Section 8 (2), No. 1-3 MarkenG [German Trademark Act]. According to these provisions such trade marks are excluded from registration which are devoid of any distinctive character for the goods or services claimed, which are merely descriptive or which have to be kept free for the trade because they have become customary in the current usage for the respective goods and services. Section 8 (2) No. 4, 5 and 9 MarkenG expand the possible protection of TK without stating it explicitly. According to Section 8 (2) No. 4 MarkenG such signs may not be protected as 5
a trade mark which are of such a nature to mislead the public, in particular with regard to the nature, the quality or the geographical origin of the goods/services. So misleading trade marks, including e. g. such marks which pretend the use of TK or are misleading with regard to the use of TK are excluded from trademark protection. Section 8 (2) No. 5 MarkenG excludes such marks from trade mark protection which are contrary to public policy or accepted principles of morality. A contravention of morality might in particular exist if, for example, it is offensive with regard to religion. It is irrelevant here whether a major part of the German trade circles belongs to the respective religion or the like. Only a certain knowledge of the sign which is to be registered as a trade mark among the trade circles concerned in Germany is required. In addition, Section 8, (2) No. 9 MarkenG excludes such marks from protection the use of which can evidently be prohibited in the public interest in accordance with other provisions. Provisions in the public interests are national provisions, e. g. on the labelling of food, but also international agreements on the indications of geographical origin or other international treaties. As such, an international agreement on TK - e. g. instigated by WIPO would be a possibility to provide for an unequivocal, definite protection of TK in Germany. If traditional knowledge may be protected by a trade mark in individual cases if applicable as a collective mark or an indication of geographical origin - the right holder could assert the usual claims in the case of an infringement of the trade mark protection, i. a. claims for injunctive relief, for disclosure of information, for compensation, for damages, for destruction and for callback. In the case of descriptive use which is not contrary to the principles of morality, however, these claims might be excluded pursuant to Section 23 MarkenG. Plant variety protection law: In principle, a plant variety can be part of TK according to the above definitions. According to Article 1 of the SortSchG [German Plant Variety Protection Act] protection can be granted for a plant variety provided that such variety is distinct, homogeneous, stable, new and designated by means of a registrable variety denomination. In the case of plant variety protection, too, there are no specific provisions regarding TK. However, TK can become relevant in this context, in particular with regard to the issue of novelty. 8) Are the protections described in response to questions 6 and 7 a) referable to TK alone; or b) related or linked to the concepts of protection of: (i) genetic resources; or (ii) TCEs? The provisions described under I. 6) and I 7) do not specifically refer to TK. 6
The provisions of the design, trade mark and plant variety protection laws are general legal norms. The provisions of Sections 3, 4 PatG are also general legal norms. The provisions in Sections 1 (2), 2a, 34a PatG are special legal provisions for biological material, however, they do not provide for a specific protection of TK. 9) If yes to question 8 (b) please provide details of any linkages. See details in I. 8) 10) Please identify any shortcomings in any protection of TK in your country by reference to the matters in questions 6 to 9 above. In principle, all issues arising in connection with TK can be resolved by means of the provisions on novelty and inventive step (patent law), individual character (design law) or absolute grounds of refusal of protection (trade mark law). It might only be difficult in individual cases to prove that TK is evident or has been previously known. 11) Please identify any significant case law in connection with protection of TK in your country. In its decision dated 26 January 2010 the European Patent Office (EPO) revoked the European patent EP 1 429 795 regarding the use of two medicinal plants from South Africa for the medicine Umckaloabo, since the protected subject-matter had been sufficiently previously known. In its decision dated 8 March 2005 (T 0416/01) the Board of Appeal of the EPO also revoked the European patent EP 0 436 257 B1. The subject-matter of the patent was a method for the extraction of neem oil controlling fungi on plants. In this case the Board of Appeal of the EPO also decided that there was a lack of inventive step since the prior art was clear. The Board of Appeal avoided a statement regarding TK. The scenario was similar in the so-called Viagra case. In these proceedings the Board of Appeal of the EPO (T 1212/01) also revoked the patent in dispute. In this case the Board of Appeal also avoided a decision on TK and had already confirmed an inadmissible adding of matter. A very up-to-date topic are the patent applications by the company Nestec S.A., a member of the Nestlé group, regarding the medicinal effects of rooibos and honeybush. In this context the applicant has filed various patent applications, in particular EP 2 133 088 A3. None of the individual states concerned has granted a patent yet, with TK being one of the citations stated. The relevant research reports also cited databases as relevant prior art. The application for EP 2 133 088 A3 has meanwhile been withdrawn. In its decision dated 12 September 2001 the German Federal Patent Court (BPatG) refused protection for an international trade mark registration "KOMBUCHA" for "beers" extended to 7
Germany. The reason given was that the designation "KOMBUCHA" had for a long time been used for a certain tea fungus and the fermented drink produced from it. The German purity law for beer, however, prohibits the adding of such an ingredient. Limiting the list of goods to beer without the addition of Kombucha was not sufficient and not suitable for excluding any risk of deception pursuant to Section 8 (2) No. 4 MarkenG. II. Proposals for harmonisation The Groups are invited to put forward proposals for the adoption of harmonised rules in relation to the role of TK in relation to IP law. 12) Is a harmonised definition of TK desirable? A harmonised definition of TK does not seem useful. On the one hand, practical reasons speak against a harmonised definition because the ideas of individual countries and NGOs concerning the concept of "TK" and what exactly is to be achieved with initiatives for the protection of TK vary widely. On the other hand, a multinational agreement on the protection of TK does not seem to be desirable either because the current legal situation seems to be sufficient for the protection of TK. In the field of patent law, pursuant to the legal situation in Germany, the cases can be adequately resolved by means of the definition of "state of the art". From the point of view of the German national group the term "state of the art" alone should be decisive and not a possible definition of TK. In trade mark law, it can be considered pursuant to Section 8 (2) No. 9 MarkenG that trade mark protection may be refused if the registration of a trade mark contravenes provisions outside the trade mark law. In this context, both national, international and multinational provisions and agreements are also relevant. As explained under I. above there seems to be sufficient protection of TK with regard to all IP rights in Germany. 13) If yes to question 12, please propose a definition of TK, or the concepts that should be included in any proposed harmonised definition of TK. See II.12 14) Is it desirable to have only one form of protection for TK, either positive or defensive, or both forms? Please state reasons. The German national group does not advocate a positive protection beyond the existing property rights. If in an individual case TK is not already part of the state of the art (or the previously known design corpus) of course a patent or a design can be granted (independent of whether it is TK or not). However, if - as is usually the case - a protection of TK is not possible considering the prior art and the previously known design corpus a property right sui generis for TK does neither seem necessary nor useful. On the one hand, it cannot be determined clearly enough who is entitled to hold such a property right. On the other hand, a reasonable integration of a sui generis protection of TK (which is to be granted completely independent of whether it was a l- 8
ready accessible for the public or not) into the existing systems of industrial property law is hardly conceivable. In the German group's opinion, defensive protection of TK should be guaranteed in as far as existing TK (which is thus a subject-matter of the prior art, the previously known design corpus or is partly descriptive) may be continued to be practised without restrictions. Such a protection is already guaranteed through the existing legal system since publicly accessible TK is part of the prior art or the previously known design corpus according to German law and can therefore not be monopolised, or a descriptive use of trade marks is possible, respectively. For generally accessible TK which is, however, only practised within a closed community, national rights to continued use should be guaranteed should they not exist yet. In the German group's opinion, however, these rights to continued use should only refer to TK as such and not to possible further inventive developments. From the German national group's point of view, it does not seem appropriate to require an authorisation by the holder of the TK before industrial property rights are granted. On the one hand, the identification of the holder involves too many uncertainties in our opinion. On the other hand, in the case of generally accessible TK a monopolisation of such TK is not possible since it does not meet the essential requirements for protection. In the German group's opinion, it should be possible to monopolise a further development based exclusively on TK for the inventor if the invention does not only concern the subject-matter of the TK but further investments were necessary. In this case a further authorisation requirement does not seem appropriate. Difficulties in proving that a certain teaching is part of generally accessible TK could arise (Question 10, Part I), but they can be best managed by collecting existing TK and cataloguing it in databases which are then again part of the prior art or the previously known design corpus. In addition, protection of TK against misleading or deceiving registration and also the use of terms (including those of TK) does already exist. These regulations can be found in the trade mark law and in the Unfair Competition Act (UWG) as well as in special laws, e. g. the German Food and Feed Code (LFBG). If in fact a certain form of traditional knowledge is to be protected, e. g. a term for a special production method for a food, positive and defensive protection can be sufficiently guaranteed by means of the protection of indications of geographical origin (regi s- tered or non-registered) or the registration of collective marks. 15) Should TK be protected by: a) existing IP laws or regulations; b) adaptation of IP laws or regulations through sui generis measures for TK protection; or c) wholly sui generis laws or regulations relating to TK protection? In your answer, please identify which and state reasons. 9
No. A harmonised approach is already available to a large extent in the concept of the "prior art" and the "previously known design corpus". A further harmonisation does not seem to be necessary. 16) If yes to any part of question 15, is a harmonised approach to protection desirable? In your answer, please state reasons. See II.15 17) If yes to question 16, how should that approach be implemented a) at an international level; and b) at a national or regional level? The existing legal systems seem to provide for an adequate defensive protection of TK. For those cases in which no rights to prior use or continued use for the holders of TK are provided for, bilateral or multilateral agreements can lead to the desired results. 18) Having regard to WIPO/GRTKF/IC/19/5, please provide any proposals you have as to a harmonised approach concerning a) criteria for eligibility for protection; b) beneficiaries of protection; c) scope of protection; d) sanctions, remedies and exercise of rights; e) administration of rights; f) exceptions to and limitations on rights; g) term of protection; h) formalities to which protection is subject; i) transitional measures; j) consistency with other laws; k) national treatment and foreign interests; and 10
l) trans-boundary cooperation. m) any specific measures for facilitating protection of TK, e.g. systems for recording TK, specific mechanisms for benefit-sharing, or collective or reciprocal systems of administration on behalf of indigenous people or local communities An indication of the origin according to Section 34a PatG also seems to be desirable for other countries. In other respects protection through existing IP laws and regulations seems to be sufficient in Germany from the German national group's point of view. In the German group's opinion, the protection of TK can above all be improved by establishing internationally accessible databases which contain TK and thus describe the prior art and the previously known design corpus. Summary In the German national group's opinion, a positive protection of TK beyond the existing property rights is not required. If, in individual cases, TK does not already belong to the prior art or the previously know design corpus TK should of course be protected by industrial property rights taking into account the general requirements for granting such protection. If, however, TK cannot be granted protection taking into account the prior art and the previously known design corpus TK should not be protected by a property right sui generis in the German national group's opinion. From the German group's point of view, defensive protection for TK should be guaranteed in as far as existing TK (which is thus a subject-matter of the prior art and the previously known design corpus) may be continued to be practised without restrictions. Such a protection is already guaranteed through the existing legal system since publicly accessible TK is part of the prior art or the previously known design corpus according to German law and can therefore not be monopolised, or it can be designated in a descriptive way, respectively. In this context the German national group in particular advocates the collection and cataloguing of existing TK in databases to make it easier for the patent and trade mark offices to research the information. For generally accessible TK which is, however, only practised within a closed community national rights to continued use should be guaranteed should they not exist yet. In the German group's opinion, however, these rights to continued use should only refer to TK as such and not to possible further developments. The German national group rejects that a special authorisation by the holders of TK is required in this context. Since in the German group's opinion the (positive and defensive) protection of TK arising from the general provisions with regard to industrial property rights is sufficient this protection should be based on these provisions rather than special provisions developed for TK. Against this background a harmonised definition of TK is not necessary in the German national group's opinion. 11
12
Résumé De l avis du groupe national allemand, une protection positive des savoirs traditionnels n est pas nécessaire au-delà des droits de propriété existant. Si, dans des cas particuliers, les savoirs traditionnels n appartiennent pas déjà à l art antérieur ou à l ensemble des dessins et modèles antérieurement connus, les savoirs traditionnels devraient bien entendu être protégés par des droits de propriété industrielle, en tenant compte des exigences générales d octroi d une telle protection. Si toutefois, les savoirs traditionnels ne peuvent se voir accorder cette protection au regard de l art antérieur et de l ensemble des dessins et modèles antérieurement connus, les savoirs traditionnels ne devraient pas être protégés par un droit de propriété sui generis d après le groupe national allemand. Du point de vue du groupe allemand, une protection défensive des savoirs traditionnels devrait être garantie pour autant que les savoirs traditionnels existant (qui sont donc l objet de l art antérieur et de l ensemble des dessins et modèles antérieurement connus) puissent continuer d être pratiqués sans restriction. Une telle protection est déjà garantie à travers le système juridique en vigueur depuis que les savoirs traditionnels accessibles au public font partie de l art antérieur ou de l ensemble des dessins et modèles antérieurement connus conformément à la loi allemande et ne peuvent par conséquent pas être monopolisés, mais peuvent être désignés de manière descriptive. Dans ce contexte le groupe allemand recommande particulièrement de recueillir et de compiler les savoirs traditionnels existants dans des bases de données afin de faciliter la recherche d information par les offices de brevets et de marques. Pour les savoirs traditionnels communément accessibles qui sont cependant pratiqués seulement au sein d une communauté fermée, des droits nationaux à un usage continu devraient être garantis s ils n existent pas déjà. De l avis du groupe allemand, ces droits à un usage continu devraient toutefois se référer uniquement aux savoirs traditionnels en tant que tels et non pas à d éventuels développements nouveaux. Le groupe national allemand exclut qu une autorisation spéciale des détenteurs des savoirs traditionnels soit exigible dans ce contexte. Puisque, de l avis du groupe allemand la protection (positive et défensive) des savoirs traditionnels résultant de dispositions générales relatives aux droits de propriété industrielle est suffisante, cette protection devrait être basée sur ces dispositions plutôt que sur des dispositions spéciales développées pour les savoirs traditionnels. Dans ce conteste, une définition harmonisée des savoirs traditionnels n est pas nécessaire d après le groupe national allemand.
Zusammenfassung Nach Auffassung der deutschen Landesgruppe ist ein positiver Schutz von TK über die bestehenden Schutzrechte hinaus nicht erforderlich. Sollte TK im Einzelfall einmal nicht bereits zum Stand der Technik oder dem vorbekannten Formenschatz angehören, soll TK unter Berücksichtigung der allgemeinen Erteilungsvoraussetzungen natürlich durch gewerbliche Schutzrechte geschützt werden können. Sollte jedoch unter Berücksichtigung des Standes der Technik und des vorbekannten Formenschatzes ein Schutz für TK nicht in Betracht kommen, soll TK nach Auffassung der deutschen Landesgruppe auch nicht durch ein Schutzrecht sui generis geschützt werden können. Defensiver Schutz für TK sollte nach Auffassung der deutschen Landesgruppe insoweit gewährleistet sein, als bereits bestehendes TK (das also Gegenstand des Standes der Technik und des vorbekannten Formenschatzes ist) auch weiterhin ungehindert praktiziert werden darf. Ein solcher Schutz wird durch die bestehende Rechtsordnung bereits gewährleistet, denn öffentlich zugängliches TK gehört nach deutschem Recht zum Stand der Technik bzw. zum vorbekannten Formenschatz und kann daher nicht monopolisiert bzw. kann beschreibend bezeichnet werden. In diesem Zusammenhang befürwortet die deutsche Landesgruppe insbesondere das Erfassen und Katalogisieren in Datenbanken von bereits existierendem TK, um solches TK für die Patent- und Markenämter leichter recherchierbar zu machen. Für nicht allgemein zugängliches, aber innerhalb einer geschlossenen Community praktiziertes TK sollten nationale Weiterbenutzungsrechte garantiert werden, sofern diese nicht ohnehin schon bestehen. Nach Auffassung sollen diese Weiterbenutzungsrechte allerdings nur das TK an sich betreffen und nicht auch etwaige Weiterentwicklungen. Ein besonderes Genehmigungserfordernis durch die Inhaber von TK in diesem Zusammenhang lehnt die deutsche Landesgruppe ab. Da nach Auffassung der deutschen Landesgruppe der sich aus den allgemeinen Vorschriften hinsichtlich gewerblicher Schutzrechte ergebende (positive und negative) Schutz für TK ausreichend ist, soll sich dieser Schutz also gerade an diesen Vorschriften und nicht an besonderen, für TK geschaffenen Vorschriften orientieren. Vor diesem Hintergrund ist nach Auffassung der deutschen Landesgruppe auch eine harmonisierte Definition von TK nicht erforderlich. 14 / 14