In our previous blogpost here, we discussed an agreement between Kenya Wildlife Service (KWS) and global biotech firm Novozymes A/S entered into in May 2007 entitling Denmark-based Novozymes to access and exploit for commercial purposes genetic resources, enzymes and micro-organisms within national parks, national reserves and other protected areas within Kenya.
In a recent media report, Chief Administrative Secretary in the Ministry of Environment William Kiprono has urged the Baringo County government to ‘demand full disclosure of all the money from the royalties deal.’ Kiprono reportedly said that the micro-organisms collected from Lake Bogoria ‘should have been of great benefit to the community’ and that ‘the county government should revisit to see if the amount paid to the community living around the lake is commensurate with the billions of shillings the bio-tech industries are getting from the enzymes.’
On 31 August 2016, President Uhuru Kenyatta (pictured above) assented to the Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Cultural Expressions Bill, No.48 of 2015. The Bill was published in Kenya Gazette Supplement No. 154 on 7 September 2016 cited as the Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Cultural Expressions Act, No. 33 of 2016. The date of commencement of the Act is 21 September 2016, which means the Act is now in force. A copy of the Act is available here.
In previous blogposts here, we have tracked the development of this law aimed at creating an appropriate sui-generis mechanism for the protection of traditional knowledge (TK) and cultural expressions (CEs) which gives effect to Articles 11, 40 and 69(1) (c) of the Constitution. This blogpost provides an overview of the Act with special focus on the issues of concern raised previously with regard to the earlier Bill.
This blogger has learnt that the Protection of Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Bill, 2015 has undergone Second Reading at the National Assembly as it nears enactment as a law in Kenya.
Other than the detailed commentary sent out last month by Prof. John Harrington and Dr. Lotte Hughes on the Bill, there has been no other substantive reactions or comments on the Bill excluding this recent piece on an earlier draft of the Bill.
A copy of the Bill tabled in Parliament is available here.
The commentary and response by Harrington and Hughes on the Bill reads in part:
“…the bill freely mixes ideas from conventional IP protection, sui generis regimes for TK and TCEs and the 2003 UNESCO Convention on the Safeguarding of the Intangible Heritage without trying to harmonise them or limit problematic consequences from the different approaches taken. The resulting system of protection may have some unintended consequences.”
What follows are some of this blogger’s thoughts on the Bill including some of the same issues raised by Harrington and Hughes.
In a previous post here, this blogger announced that among the topics to be discussed at the 6th Global Entrepreneurship Summit (GES) was the protection of intellectual capital with a sharp focus on intellectual property (IP). In addition to the IP Workshop on the first day, there was a Creative Economy Workshop on the second day. According to this workshop’s introduction, the creative industries (arts, entertainment, fashion) are attractive to many young people but few understand the business behind these industries and how to tap the creative economy to give them returns. On the workshop’s panel was a group of successful creatives who are turning the creative arts into sources of revenue, jobs and wealth creation.
In addition to the above, this blogpost will profile some of the top products and services pitched during the Global Innovation through Science and Technology (GIST) Tech-I Competition at GES which recorded over 790 applications from 74 countries in the sectors of agriculture, energy, healthcare, and information communication technology.
As many readers may recall, the Member States of the African Regional Intellectual Property Organization (ARIPO) adopted the Swakopmund Protocol on the protection of traditional knowledge and expressions of folklore on August 9, 2010 at Swakopmund in the Republic of Namibia. Section 27 of the Protocol provides that it shall come into force three (3) months after six (6) states have deposited their instruments of ratification or accession with the Government of the Republic of Zimbabwe.
Since the adoption of the Protocol, the following five (5) states have deposited their instruments of ratification or accession: Botswana, Zimbabwe, The Gambia, Rwanda and Malawi. The sixth and final ratification was deposited (fittingly one might add) by Namibia on February 11, 2015. Therefore, the Swakopmund Protocol shall enter into force on May 11, 2015.
As many IP enthusiasts may have heard, South Africa has recently published a Draft National Policy on Intellectual Property (IP) (hereafter the Policy). Within the Kenyan context, this blogger has previously questioned the need for a national IP policy particularly in light of the recognition given to IP in the Constitution. However, for the purposes of this post, the policy provides a good basis for a comparative analysis of the state of IP in both South Africa and Kenya as well as possible recommendations to strengthen IP laws.
In the area of patents, Kenya’s IP office undertakes both formal and substantive examinations of patent applications whereas in South Africa, the Policy recommends the establishment of a substantive of a substantive search and examination of patents to address issue of “weak” vs “strong” patents. The policy’s recommendation to amend South African patent law to include pre-and post-opposition would also be instructive to Kenya.
Read the rest of this article here.