Peru has successfully blocked several foreign companies from securing patents on products by demonstrating that these products were developed using the traditional knowledge of Peruvian communities.

In recent months, the Peruvian National Commission Against Biopiracy has presented evidence to authorities in France, Japan, Korea, and the United States showing that certain patent applications were based on knowledge long held by the Peruvian people. The Commission argued that these products did not meet the necessary standards of innovation and inventiveness required for patent protection.

“This is a strong example of how collaboration between the government, private sector, and civil society can prevent the improper granting of patents that involve genetic resources and traditional knowledge,” said Andrés Valladolid, technical coordinator at the Commission, in an interview with SciDev.Net.

The products in question were derived from Lepidium meyenii, Plukenetia volubilis Linneo, and Myrciaria dubia, three plant species that have been traditionally used by indigenous communities in Peru for their medicinal properties.

Graham Dutfield, Professor of International Governance at the University of Leeds, United Kingdom, remarked, “I believe many developing countries will find Peru’s approach inspiring and may consider establishing their own bodies to investigate claims of biopiracy.” Dutfield further noted, “Some may view these patent rejections as evidence that the system can function properly when closely monitored and when there is sufficient prior documentation to challenge questionable patent claims.” However, he also cautioned, “Others might argue that since not all countries will commit the same level of resources as Peru to contest dubious patents, the patent system, in its current form, tends to facilitate biopiracy and requires significant reform to safeguard traditional knowledge.”

The Commission currently monitors 69 Peruvian genetic resources in major international patent databases. “Our goal is not to prevent companies from utilizing our genetic resources or traditional knowledge,” Valladolid explained, “but rather to ensure that indigenous communities receive fair compensation.”

However, Michel Pimbert, Director of the Sustainable Agriculture, Biodiversity and Livelihoods Programme at the International Institute for Environment and Development, expressed doubts about whether such equitable benefit-sharing is likely. He pointed out that indigenous communities often struggle to have their rights fully acknowledged by their own national governments. “It would be naive to assume that national governments will automatically ensure that local communities receive a fair share of the benefits when biopiracy is prevented or compensation is awarded,” Pimbert stated.