TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE AND PATENT PROTECTION: CONFLICTING VIEWS ON INTERNATIONAL PATENT STANDARDS

As diseases continue to spread around the globe, pharmaceutical and biotech companies continue to search for new and better drugs to treat them. Most of these companies have realised that useful compounds for these purposes may be found in the natural resources that indigenous and local communities use. And yet, even though the importance of these biological resources to global health and economic livelihood is well recognised, the legal ownership and control of this traditional knowledge is still very controversial. This article undertakes a comparative analysis of American and European, as well as international legal regulations on patent law and traditional knowledge. Key questions include: What is traditional knowledge? How have the national patent laws of these countries treated the protection of plant variety and plant genetic resources? What are the existing international standards for patents, and what implications do they have for protecting traditional knowledge? And finally, what protection systems are emerging for the future?


Introduction
In an era of diseases like cancer, diabetes, heart disease and HIV, pharmaceutical and biotech companies search for new and better drugs every day. 1 Most of these companies have realised that numerous useful compounds may lie in the natural resources that indigenous and local communities around the world have been using for centuries. 2These remedies 3 are part of traditional knowledge, regardless of whether or not sophisticated medical science embellishes them.Even though the importance of biological resources to human civilization is well recognised, the legal ownership and control of plant resources is still very controversial. 4The expansion of intellectual property rights laws 5 into traditional knowledge areas, in turn, has received increasing international attention. 6The debate encompasses a diverse range of innovations in industrial, agricultural, environment and health matters developed from traditional products. 7aditional knowledge is also very significant for the economy.The world market for herbal medicines has reached over forty-three billion US dollars, with annual growth rates of between five and fifteen percent. 8Plants are a very important source of medicine, 9 and many pharmaceutical products are based on, or consist of, biological materials. 10The annual worldwide trade in plant-based medicine amounts to an which the rights to genetic resources and knowledge are "erased and assumed by those who have exploited indigenous knowledge and biodiversity." 24cording to Matchup's definition, a patent is a discretionary grant of a state on an invention, which excludes unauthorised persons, for a specified number of years, from making commercial use of a clearly defined and specified invention. 25

The road to biotechnology patents in the United States and Europe
To analyse the influence of patent law on traditional knowledge, it is necessary to examine the conditions for patentability.To do this, it is worthwhile to take a brief look at some significant cases and legal regulations.

The protection of plant varieties and plant genetic resources in the United States
Patent law in the United States has been shifting and adapting itself to the evolution of technology and science, and to economic trends. 26Initially, American patent law did not allow the patenting of natural products.In 1852 in Le Roy v Tatham, 27 the United States Supreme Court held that: A principle, in the abstract, is a fundamental truth: an original cause; a motive; these cannot be patented, as no one can claim in either of them an exclusive right.Nor can an exclusive right exist to a new power, should one be discovered in addition to those already known. 28Until 1930 there was no protection for plant varieties in the United States. 29 1930 Congress enacted the Plant Patent Act 30 in order to give the same opportunity "to participate in the benefits of the patent system as has been given industry." 31However, under the Plant Patent Act, patent rights were granted only to asexually reproducing species. 32In another case -Dennis v Pitner -the United States Supreme Court challenged the principle that a discovery was not patentable.
The Court held that the subject matter, an extract from the root of a plant found in South America, was patentable. 33The patent was not granted in the end, however, because the Supreme Court concluded that Dennis was not the first one to discover this particular new insecticide. 34actly fifty years after enacting the Plant Patent Act, in 1970, the Plant Variety Protection Act 35 afforded patent-like protection to novel varieties of sexually reproduced plants.The Act provided research and farmers' privilege exceptions from granted exclusive right. 36The courts in their practice often expanded the boundaries of the patent system in favour of biotechnology's patentability. 37rhaps the most famous and crucial decision on life forms as patentable subject matter, however, is the majority decision of the US Supreme Court in Diamond v Chakrabarty. 38The decision provided an innovative basis for future American patent law by making transgenic micro-organisms patentable.In their decision, which overturned the US Patent Office's original denial of the patent, the Supreme Court held that: The Committee Report accompanying the 1952 Act informs us that the Congress intended statutory subject matter to "include anything under the sun that is made by man" ... and the relevant distinction was not between living and inanimate things, but between products of nature, whether living or not, and human-made inventions.isolated from naturally occurring material, including genes and isolated DNA sequences. 41

Europe
The most significant treaty for granting European patents at the regional and continental level is the European Patent Convention of 1973 (hereafter the EPC). 42 contrast to American patent law, the EPC does not allow the patenting of plant varieties.Article 53 (b) of the EPC states that patents shall not be granted: For plants or animals varieties or essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals; this provision does not apply to microbiological processes or the products thereof. 43 the Ciba-Geigy case, the European Patent Office Board of Appeals held that "no general exclusion of inventions in the sphere of animate nature can be inferred from the European Patent Convention." 44 In the analogous Lubrizol case, the Board of Appeals granted Lubrizol patent protection for the method of modifying plant cells.45 The The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property (TRIPS), in turn, 59 sets the global minimum for patentability.It is a basic framework that protects the intellectual property rights of individuals and corporations across the member-states of the World Trade Organisation.TRIPS is recognised as an "impressive" agreement with "comprehensive scope and coverage," leading some to argue that it is the "most important multilateral instrument in this field." 60According to Article 1 of TRIPS, members are not obliged to implement more extensive protection in their domestic law than that required by TRIPS. 61Rather, what is important is that TRIPS has established, for the first time in this era of patents, global minimum standards for patentability. 62These provisions provide that: 1. Subject to the provisions of paragraphs 2 and 3, patents shall be available for any inventions, whether products or process, in all fields of technology, provided that they are new, involve an inventive step and are capable of industrial application. 63cording to paragraphs 2 and 3, members may exclude from patentability: 2. Inventions, the prevention within their territory of the commercial exploitation of which is necessary to protect ordre public or morality, including to protect human, animal or plant life or health or to avoid serious prejudice to the environment, provided that such exclusion is not made merely because the exploitation is prohibited by their law.3. Diagnostic, therapeutic and surgical methods for the treatment of humans or animals; plants and animals other than micro-organisms, and essentially biological processes for the production of plants or animals other than non-biological and microbiological processes.However, Members shall provide for the protection of plant varieties either by patents or by an effective sui generis system or by any combination thereof. 64wever, while Article 27 establishes general global requirements for patentability, it does not provide a universal international definition for the terms "new," "inventive step" or "industrial application."Therefore member-states may apply different interpretations of these terms, which is problematic.TRIPS also does not provide an international standard for "inventive creativity."Thus many developing countries could be patenting the obvious without realising it.Indeed, from the traditional knowledge perspective, the most important aspect of patentability is this criterion of novelty.

The criterion of novelty
Since the TRIPS Agreement does not provide any definition of invention, memberstates are relatively free to frame the policy options in the biological patents' field however they choose. 65The patent system has thus far established the legal doctrine that only tangible inventions are protectable. 66However, as stated previously, patents are granted now more and more to inventions that are discoveries of the laws of nature or isolates of natural chemical compounds.
According The major criticism of American patent law on this point is its state-centric nature.
The United States operates under a system of geographically specific notions of printed publications to determine prior art.Scholars argue that American patent law thus "waters down the novelty requirement by patenting inventions known or used in foreign countries as long as they have not been patented in a printed publication." 73veloping countries which do not have strong systems of patent protection could therefore suffer, and traditional knowledge could be exploited in the United States.
Indeed, the cultural and economic damage that this regime could cause to indigenous people is mammoth.
In European patent law, the novelty requirement is treated a bit differently.Under Article 54(2) of the EPC: The state of the art shall be held to comprise everything made available to the public by means of a written or oral description, by use in any other way, before the date of filing of the European patent application. 74 under European patent law it is not important whether or not the general public is aware of the existence of information stating prior art, but rather that the information According to Correa Traditional Knowledge 7: "Prior art is all public knowledge before the priority date which could be relevant to the novelty or obviousness of an invention." is available and accessible to anyone at any given time before an application is filed. 75 illustrate the implications of these different interpretations of novelty for biopiracy in industrialised countries, it is worthwhile to consider the Neem Tree case. 76The neem tree (Azadirachta indica) is a tree that is native to the Indian sub-continent but exists in Australia, Africa, Central and South America. 77An extract from the tree has been used in pesticides, medicines, cosmetics, dental remedies, and contraceptives. 78Indeed, Indian communities have known of these useful properties patent granted lacked novelty.This shows that the European Patent Office does not give a patent for an invention which has been known anywhere else. 84The fact that the European Patent Office challenged this patent on the grounds that the process was based on traditional knowledge is interesting for other reasons as well. 85The European Patent Office usually prefers to rely on the technicalities of an inventive step rather than on the ordre public and morality. 86 Oller "EPO accepts traditional knowledge database".
The Neem Tree case shows just how differently various countries interpret the requirements of intellectual property, such as the novelty requirement for patents.
Indeed, we can distinguish between standards of absolute novelty and relative novelty. 92The TRIPS Agreement therefore fails to protect traditional knowledge because it does not provide an international rule of novelty and gives too much discretion to states in shaping their own domestic patent law. 93

TRIPS and the Convention on Biological Diversity
The Convention on Biological Diversity 94 (the CBD) was presented at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro in 1992. 95It came into force in 1993 and has 192 contracting states. 96The CBD attempts to recognise and formalise the value of traditional knowledge and to ensure that holders of traditional knowledge are compensated accordingly.The aims of the CBD are "the conservation of biological diversity, the suitable use of its components, and the fair and equitable sharing of the benefits from the use of genetic resources." 97nce many developing countries are dependent on biological resources, they support the CBD to prevent the unauthorised appropriation of traditional knowledge and to ensure benefit sharing, rather than to establish a system of positive protection. 98Article 8(j) of the CBD provides as follows: Subject to its national legislation, respect, preserve and maintain knowledge, innovations and practices of indigenous and local communities embodying traditional lifestyles relevant for the conservation and sustainable use of biological diversity and promote their wider application with the approval and involvement of the holders of such knowledge, innovations and practices and encourage the equitable sharing of the benefits arising from the utilization of such knowledge, innovations and practices.Many countries have therefore instituted legal regimes to restrict access to their biological resources. 100The access agreements require bioprospectors to share any profits that may arise from patented inventions based on natural products. 101nce there is no link between the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD, discussion about the relationship between the two has come to the fore recently. 102In particular, many arguments about the implementation of the TRIPS Agreement and the CBD together were raised in the Doha Ministerial Declaration in 2001. 103Proponents of patent protection for plant varieties and animal invention asked if adequate international protection was necessary to facilitate the transfer of technology.Opponents countered that broad patent protection would facilitate biopiracy. 104Some countries currently argue that there is inherent conflict between TRIPS and CBD.Developing countries have suggested that the patentability of genetic resources under TRIPS leads to the appropriation of those resources by private parties and is inconsistent with the sovereign rights 105 of countries supported by the CBD. 106On the other hand, developed countries have argued that TRIPS did not prevent member-states from protecting farmers' rights within their national sui generis systems of protection. 107 They also take the stand that there is no conflict between TRIPS and CBD because the objectives and purposes of both agreements are different.Granting exclusive rights over natural material and respecting the sovereign rights of countries over their genetic material are also reconcilable in their view. 108wever, poor countries and communities still complain of "biopiracy" because access to biodiversity is difficult to restrict and control and there is a structural imbalance between countries rich in biological diversity and those strong in technological and legal instruments.There is no mechanism and legal system to guarantee benefit sharing between a patent and a material holder. 109

Obstacles to patenting traditional knowledge
Under current international patent standards, traditional knowledge faces many obstacles.According to Subbiah, we can distinguish between substantive, evidentiary, and administrative difficulties. 110om the substantive perspective, inventiveness is treated as an "isolated, individualised achievement of an identifiable inventor," as against traditional knowledge, which is generally collectively owned by the local communities in one or more countries and continents. 111Intellectual property law exists to create incentives for creation, but traditional knowledge needs no incentives for developmentit is developed as a response to the necessity of the natives. 112Moreover, identifying individual inventors may be contradictory to the community's beliefs and internal values.Some cultures regard their knowledge as "deeply personal and spiritual" and therefore not subject to ownership. 113Additionally, some indigenous people believe all life has spirit and is equal to human life, making any claim of private ownership of biodiversity an absurdity. 114identiary obstacles arise during the application process for a patent.Today's high patent standards require an applicant to separate the moment when the invention emerged, from the process of invention.For traditional knowledge holders it is very difficult to point to the particular moment of innovation.transmitted the knowledge from generation to generation. 117As stated previously, most traditional knowledge is undocumented.In the United States, for example, only documented knowledge that appears in a printed publication is beyond patentability.
It therefore fails to be recognised as prior art, and thus cannot be protected from being patented by another party.Finally, even if traditional knowledge in some regions is common knowledge, as it was in the NeemTree or Turmeric case, it may still be patented in some jurisdictions.The reasons are not only that there are very limited prior art searches in the United States, but also that there is no requirement for patent applicants to conduct their own prior art searches before lodging an application. 118ministrative barriers arise in the process of granting patents.It is obvious that indigenous peoples do not possess the appropriate financial resources to fill out a patent application themselves. 119Moreover, not only administrative but also judicial procedures are often long and costly.According to economists, it would cost a poor country more than two million US dollars to set up the basic infrastructure for administering intellectual property rights. 120In addition, patent applications also must be written using technical chemical and/or biotechnological terms.

The different strategies for the protection of traditional knowledge
As discussed above, traditional knowledge may be protected under patents.
However, the patent protection of traditional knowledge faces many difficulties.It is therefore worthwhile to briefly consider alternative protection strategies and options.

Models of intellectual property rights
New plant products and varieties of all species of plants may be protected under plant breeders' rights.(1984).
Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants 121 requires a more flexible novelty requirement than patent protection.Article 6(1) of the UPOV provides the following criteria for establishing novelty: The variety shall be deemed to be new if, at the date of filing of the application for a breeder's right, propagating or harvested material of the variety has not been sold or otherwise disposed of to others, by or with the consent of the breeder, for the purposes of exploitation of the variety (i) in the territory of the Contracting Party in which the application has been filed earlier than one year before that date and (ii) in a territory other than that of the Contracting Party in which the application has been filed earlier that four years or, in the case of trees or of vines, earlier than six years before the said date. 122aditional knowledge used in agricultural production may be protected under the protection of geographical indications.Many products that come from various regions are the result of traditional processes and knowledge implemented by communities in a given region. 123Proposals relating to the expansion of the products enclosed in Article 23(1) of the TRIPS Agreement 124 have been supported by developing countries in relation to international flora. 125l kinds of products, such as furniture, articles of ceramics, and leather and wood products may qualify for the protection of industrial designs. 126Copyright, in turn, can be used to protect artistic manifestations of holders of traditional knowledge, and could also include literary works like legends, myths, and poems, theatrical works, musical works, and textile compositions.
However, a system based on intellectual property rights at the national level creates only territorial rights, which means that the rights cannot be enforced in an outside, third country.The existence of such a regime therefore does not solve the problem of "biopiracy," as in most cases the appropriation of traditional knowledge is made by foreign entities.As Correa rightly pointed out, when creating a sui generis system it is always a matter of debate if the protection of traditional knowledge should be subsumed under a single and comprehensive regime covering all manifestations of traditional knowledge, or a set of specific regimes adapted to the nature of the subject matter to be protected. 130A single regime requires the determination of different subject matters, which might be hard to find and which may prove difficult when trying to define common legal rules. 131Alternatively, a more specific system could, for example, be divided into three parts: artistic creations including folklore, plant genetic resources for food and agriculture, and traditional medicine. 132So far, only a few countries have incorporated sui generis systems into their national constitutions or national laws. 133

Conclusions
In recent decades, as biotechnology has developed, patentability has expanded in parallel.The expansion and globalisation of international trade has, in turn, further implicated intellectual property rights.With respect to biodiversity in particular, 127 'Sui generis' means "of one's or its own kind."See the Oxford English Dictionary.In law this is a term of art to identify a legal classification that exists independently of other categorisations because of its uniqueness.See Dunway v New York, 442 US 200 (1979).
Many questions about the establishment of legal systems to protect traditional knowledge remain open.The most general, but at the same time the most important, is whether these legal regimes should be founded at the national level or begin at international level and then trickle down into national regulations.Although TRIPS establishes international standards of intellectual property rights protection, concerns a),35 USC 1994.71 for ages.According to Ghosh, about 130 patents have been granted by the United States Patent Office on products and processes involving extracts from this Neem tree.79The most controversial ones are those patents granted to W.R. Grace, an American company in the chemical and pharmaceutical industries.The patent granted in 1990 was "for improving the storage stability of neem seed extracts containing azadirachtin" 80 and the patent granted in 1994 was "for storage of stable insecticidal composition comprising neem seed extract."81The Indian government filed a complaint in the US patent office accusing W.R. Grace of copying an Indian invention but soon withdrew the complaint when it became clear that the invented process was not based on traditional knowledge in India.The European Patent Office, after five years of legal battle, in 2000 withdrew the European patent grant to W.R. Grace and the US Department of Agriculture for a process to extract oil from the neem tree.82After five more years of litigation, in 2005, the patent for the anti-fungal properties of neem was also finally revoked and invalidated.83The Opposition Board of the European Patent Office found that the 75Taubman and Leistner "Traditional Knowledge" 114-119.76   The similar Turmeric case shows that the definition of prior art defines the scope of the protection of intellectual property.,(USPatent No 5, 401, 504; US Patent No 6, 048, 533; US Patent No 5,  897, 865) The Basmati case shows how patent law can permit the imitation of products.4, 949, 681.81 US Patent No 5, 124, 349 patented the method for controlling fungi on plants using a hydrophobic oil extracted from the seeds of the Neem tree.The patent was for a method of controlling fungi on plants with the aid of hydrophobic oil extracted from the Neem plant.(PatentNo EP0436257) about the relationship between TRIPS and the CBD remain.Therefore, decision makers should balance the possible benefits and costs of establishing legal systems and evaluate what other policies would be needed in order to effectively protect traditional knowledge from erosion and ensure its continuous development and wider use.Additionally, indigenous people should have more pro-active means by which to protect and promote their traditional knowledge, instead of having to rely on defensive protection.With enough political solidarity and enough careful consideration from both the industrialised and the developing countries, a new structure for international intellectual property rights law could be implemented. 142Recognising the rights of indigenous peoples within this new structure would be a significant step forward in the economic development of the poor, while also granting the global community access to valuable natural resources in the third world. 143Correa CM Traditional Knowledge and Intellectual Property.Issues and Options Surrounding the Protection of Traditional Knowledge (Quaker United Nations Office Geneva 2001) DeGeer 2003 New Eng J Int'l & Comp L DeGeer ME "Biopiracy: The Appropriation of Indigenous Peoples' Cultural Knowledge" 2003 New Eng J Int'l & Comp L 179-208 Dolder 2007 Biotechnology Law Report Dolder F "Traditional Knowledge and patenting: The Experience of the Neemfungicide and the Hoodia Cases" 2007 Biotechnology Law Report 583-590 Dutfield 2003 Case W Res J Int'l L Dutfield G "TRIPS-Related Aspects of Traditional Knowledge" 2001 Case W Res J Int'l L 233-275 Dutfield Intellectual Property Rights Dutfield G Intellectual Property Rights and the Life Science Industries: a Twentieth Century History (Ashgate Dartmouth 2003) Ekpere OAU's Model Law Ekpere JA The OAU's Model Law, Organisation of African Unity (Scientific, Technical & Research Commission Lagos 2000) European Commission Report on the International Protection European Commission Report on the International Protection of Expressions of Folklore under Intellectual Property Law (European Commission Brussels 2000) European Patent Office Scenarios for the Future European Patent Office Scenarios for the future: Evolution of the System (Munich 2008) Garcia 2007 Berkeley La Raza L J Shiva V et al The Enclosure and Recovery of the Commons (Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology New Delhi 1997) Sibley Law and Strategy Sibley KD The Law and Strategy of Biotechnology Patents (Butterworth-Heinemann London 1994) Sinnot World Patent Law Sinnot J World Patent Law and Practice (Matthew Bender New York 1977) Staffler Towards a Reconciliation Staffler JC Towards a Reconciliation Between the Convention on Biological Diversity and TRIPS Agreement: an Interface among Intellectual Property Rights Biotechnology, Traditional Knowledge and Benefit Sharing (University of Geneva Geneva 2001) Stenton 2004 Eur.Intell Prop Rev Stenton G "Biopiracy within the Pharmaceutical Industry: a Stark Illustration of how Abusive, Manipulative and Perverse the Patenting Process can be Towards Countries of the South" 2004 Eur Intell Prop Rev 17-26 Stoianoff "International Perspective" Stoianoff NP "An International Perspective on the Implementation of the Biodiversity Treaty and Access to Biological Resources" in Soianoff NP Accessing Biological Resources: Complying with the Convention on Biological Diversity (Kluwer Law International The Hague 2004) Subbiah 2004 BC Int'l & Comp L Rev Subbiah S "Reaping What They Sow: The Basmati Rice Controversy and Strategies for Protecting Traditional Knowledge" 2004 BC Int'l & Comp L Rev 529-559 Taubman and Leistner "Traditional Knowledge" The next crucial international step was the establishment of the World Intellectual Property Organisation in 1970.56ThePatentCooperationTreaty of 1970 was another step forward for achieving a unified procedure for filling patent applications in its Contracting States.57ThePatentCooperation Treaty, like the Paris Convention, is administrated by the WIPO.It establishes facilities for applicants wishing to obtain patent protection in more than one contracting state.According to the PCT, orally transmitted traditional knowledge can be used internationally only if the oral accounts are substantiated by a written description.58 A 2(1) Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property 1883.
to Article 52(1) of the European Patent Convention, "patents should be granted for any inventions which are susceptible of industrial application, which are new and which involve an inventive step."67In the United States, patents are granted for inventions that are novel and non-obvious, and if they serve a utilitarian . 68, at first glance the novelty standard looks the same in Europe as in the United States.Under Section 102 of the US Patent Act, prior knowledge, usage, and/or invention in the United States can be used as evidence to invalidate an American patent for lacking novelty.69Novelty, in turn, is measured against the state of the art.It is generally met unless the invention is patented or described in a publication in the United States or a foreign country.70Further,patentexaminers compare the invention with "prior art." 71 If the purported invention is identical to any references establishing prior art, it lacks novelty and no patent will be granted.72 64 A 27(2) and (3) Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights 1994.65 UNCTAD TRIPs Agreement 34.66 Pott 1944 Mod L Rev 113.67A 52(1) EPC.purpose

100
Kate and Laird Commercial Use 16.For more on the access to genetic resources see Wolfrum "Convention on Biological Diversity" 383.
104Gervais TRIPS Agreement 228.105 A 15(1) of the Convention on Biological Diversity 1992: "Recognising the sovereign rights of States over their natural resources, the authority to determine access to genetic resources rests with the national governments and is subject to national legislation".106 Stoianoff "International Perspective" 46-47.107 Gervais TRIPS Agreement 229.108 Gervais TRIPS Agreement 231.
115This is because traditional knowledge has been developed for ages and no one can determine an exact date of origin.116It is also difficult for traditional knowledge holders to determine which elements are self-evident and which are non-obvious creations, because they have 111 Subbiah 2004 BC Int'l & Comp L Rev 543-546 543.112 WIPO Survey on Existing Forms.113 Conway-Jones 2005 How L J 745-746; Nijar In Defense of Local Community 24.114 Bender 2003 Tulsa J Comp & Int'l L 294. 115 Ragavan 2001 Minn Intell Prop Rev 13. 116 Ragavan 2001 Minn Intell Prop Rev 13.
The protection of plant varieties under the International

sui generis regime of intellectual property rights
Another possible option, which may protect traditional knowledge, is a sui generis system of intellectual property rights. 127ere are several models of possible sui generis legislation.One such model was developed by the Third World Network in the 1994 discussion paper, Community Intellectual Rights Act. 128other one, for example, is provided by the Organisation of African Unity.129Inpractice, this kind of protection has not been systematically implemented, but it is strongly supported by many scholars and organisations.
121 International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants 1961, commonly known by its French acronym UPOV (Union pour la Protection des Obstentions Vegetales).122 A 6(1) of the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants 1961.123 GRULAC Traditional Knowledge.124 A 23(1) TRIPS enclosed additional protection for wine and spirits.125 Eg India, see WT/GC/W/147.126 For more on the protection of folklore see WIPO Matters Concerning Intellectual Property.