Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Patents
  • Published:

Patents

Are ecological processes that select beneficial traits in agricultural microbes nature’s intellectual property rights?

Nature Biotechnology volume 41, pages 1381–1384 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

Novel beneficial traits in agricultural microbes represent inventive steps of nature, but the inability of patent laws to reward nonhuman inventors has led to conflicts over microbial ownership rights and presents barriers to the sharing of benefits.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Evolution of a beneficial agricultural microorganism is a novel, utilitarian inventive step of nature.

References

  1. Foley, J. A. et al. Nature 478, 337–342 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Overmann, J. & Smith, D. In Bioprospecting, Topics in Biodiversity and Conservation (eds. Paterson, R. & Lima, N.) 51–79 (Springer International, 2017).

  3. Reichman, J. H. In Intellectual Property and Development: Understanding the Interfaces (eds. Correa, C. & Seuba, X.) 295–314 (Springer Nature, 2019).

  4. Kothamasi, D., Spurlock, M. & Kiers, E. T. Nat. Biotechnol. 29, 1091–1093 (2011).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Soto, M. P. Rev. Derecho Puertorriq. 59, 51–70 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Diamond v. Chakrabarty 447 US 303 (1980).

  7. Harvard College v. Canada (Commissioner of Patents), [2002] 4 S.C.R. 45, 2002 SCC 76.

  8. Epo.org. EPO – T 0272/95 (Relaxin/Howard Florey Institute) of 23.10.2002, http://www.epo.org/law-practice/case-law-appeals/recent/t950272eu2.html (2002).

  9. Srinivas, K. R. Int. Soc. Sci. J. 188, 319–334 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Sullivan, S., Igoe, J. & Büscher, B. New Proposals J. Marx. Interdiscipl. Inq. 6, 15–19 (2013).

    Google Scholar 

  11. Fitz-Henry, E. In Wild Law—In Practice (eds. Maloney, M. & Burdon, P.) 133–148 (Routledge, London, 2014).

  12. Vermeylen, S. In Environmental Law and Governance for the Anthropocene (ed. Kotze, L.) 137–162 (Hart Publishing, Oxford, 2017).

  13. Wen, W. & Forman, C. Commun. ACM 59, 42–43 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Murray, F. & Stern, S. Innov. Policy Econ. 7, 33–69 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. George, A. & Walsh, T. Nature 605, 616–618 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Gold, E. R. Nat. Biotechnol. 40, 1428–1430 (2022).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Espacenet. https://worldwide.espacenet.com (accessed 20 July 2022).

  18. Deepika, S., Mittal, A. & Kothamasi, D. J. Basic Microbiol. 59, 1229–1237 (2019).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Overmann, J. Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 38, 258–265 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Reichman, J. H. In Designing the Microbial Research Commons: Proceedings of an International Symposium (ed. Paul, F.) 43–53 (National Academies Press, 2011).

  21. Heller, M. A. & Eisenberg, R. S. Science 280, 698–701 (1998).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Dedeurwaerdere, T. Res. Microbiol. 161, 414–421 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Chander, A. & Sunder, M. Calif. Law Rev. 92, 1331–1373 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Lemley, M. A. AIPLA Q. J. 22, 369–425 (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Eisenberg, R. S. Am. J. Bioeth. 2, 3–11 (2002).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Association of Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics Inc. 569 US 576 (2007).

  27. Dreyfuss, R. C., Nielsen, J. & Nicol, D. J. Law Biosci. 5, 550–589 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  28. Cole, P. Cold Spring Harb. Perspect. Med. 5, a020891 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Van’t Padje, A., Werner, G. D. A. & Kiers, E. T. New Phytol. 229, 2933–2944 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Chaparro, J. M., Badri, D. V. & Vivanco, J. M. ISME J. 8, 790–803 (2014).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Douglas, G. L. & Klaenhammer, T. R. Annu. Rev. Food Sci. Technol. 1, 397–414 (2010).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Diamond, J. Nature 418, 700–707 (2002).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Legras, J. L., Merdinoglu, D., Cornuet, J. M. & Karst, F. Mol. Ecol. 16, 2091–2102 (2007).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Makarova, K. et al. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 103, 15611–15616 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  35. Dutfield, G. In New Frontiers in the Philosophy of Intellectual Property (ed. Lever, A.) 172–202 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2012).

  36. Barbieri, M. Naturwissenschaften 95, 577–599 (2008).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Pottage, A. & Sherman, B. Figures of Invention: A History of Modern Patent Law (Oxford Univ. Press, 2010).

  38. Biermann, F. Env. Polit. 30, 61–80 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  39. Cepic, M., Bechtold, U. & Wilfing, H. Ecol. Modell. 465, 109854 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Haraway, D. J. Staying with the Trouble: Making Kin in the Chthulucene (Duke Univ. Press, 2016).

  41. Petersmann, M. Earth Syst. Govern. 9, 1–8 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Emmeneger, S. & Tschentscher, A. Georgetown Environ. Law Rev 6, 545–592 (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  43. O’Donnell, E. Griffith Law Rev. 29, 643–668 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Darpö, J. Can nature get it right? A study on rights of nature in the European context, https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2021/689328/IPOL_STU(2021)689328_EN.pdf (European Union, 2021).

  45. Murris, K. & Bozalek, V. Int. J. Qual. Stud. Educ. 32, 872–886 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Pessers, D. In Symbolic Legislation Theory and Developments in Biolaw (eds. van Klink, B. van Beers, B. & Poort, L.) 4, 201–212 (Springer Nature, 2016).

  47. Wingreen, N. S. & Levin, S. A. PLoS Biol. 4, e299 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  48. Grear, A. In Environmental Law and Governance in the Anthropocene (ed. Kotze, L.) 77–95 (Hart Publishing, 2017).

  49. Postler, T. S. & Ghosh, S. Cell Metab. 26, 110–130 (2017).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. van de Guchte, M., Blottière, H. M. & Doré, J. Microbiome 6, 81 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Margulis, L. Symbiotic Planet: A New Look at Evolution (Basic Books, 1998).

  52. Reitschuster, L. In Critical Zones: The Science and Politics of Landing on Earth (eds. Latour, B. & Weibel, P.) 350–353 (MIT Press, 2020)

  53. Kramm, M. J. Human Dev. Capabil. 21, 307–319 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

D.K. received a Marie Skłodowska-Curie Actions Horizon 2020 Individual Fellowship under the project MICROB-COM, grant ID 894188. The authors thank G. Dutfield, E. T. Kiers, A. Cardesa-Salzmann and J. Young for advisory comments on the manuscript drafts.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Strathclyde Centre for Environmental Law and Governance, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, UK

    David Kothamasi & Saskia Vermeylen

  2. Laboratory of Soil Biology and Microbial Ecology, Department of Environmental Studies, University of Delhi, Delhi, India

    David Kothamasi & Sharma Deepika

  3. Department of Botany, Zakir Husain Delhi College, University of Delhi, New Delhi, India

    Sharma Deepika

Authors
  1. David Kothamasi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Saskia Vermeylen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sharma Deepika
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

D.K. and S.V. conceptualized the study. D.K., S.V. and S.D. provided input and concepts. D.K. wrote the first draft. All authors reviewed and made edits on the manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David Kothamasi.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kothamasi, D., Vermeylen, S. & Deepika, S. Are ecological processes that select beneficial traits in agricultural microbes nature’s intellectual property rights?. Nat Biotechnol 41, 1381–1384 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-023-01966-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41587-023-01966-7

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing Microbiology

Sign up for the Nature Briefing: Microbiology newsletter — what matters in microbiology research, free to your inbox weekly.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing: Microbiology