Browse all documents

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Reinstates Ayahuasca Patent

Report an error

Summary

AI-generated

This summary is written by a language model reading the source document. It is not the publisher's words and is not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment

This briefing by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) criticizes the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) for reinstating a plant patent awarded to Loren Miller for a variety of ayahuasca (Banisteriopsis caapi) known as "Da Vine." The author argues that the PTO erred by applying infringement standards rather than patentability standards and by ignoring procedural rules to accommodate the patent holder while excluding indigenous organizations from the reexamination process.

Key insights

AI-generated

These insights are written by a language model reading the source document. They are not the publisher's words and are not a substitute for the original.

Learn more about AI enrichment
  • The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) reversed its November 3, 1999, decision to reject Loren Miller's patent on the "Da Vine" ayahuasca plant, reinstating the patent on January 26, 2001.
  • The PTO's initial rejection was based on herbarium specimens (specifically Martin & Plowman 1805) showing that the flower petal color of "Da Vine"—its primary distinguishing feature—was not distinct from existing varieties of Banisteriopsis caapi.
  • The PTO reinstated the patent by shifting its focus from flower color to the size and shape of the leaves, despite earlier indications that such morphological differences were not sufficient for patentability.
  • The author contends the PTO misapplied the law by using the Imazio Nursery v. Dania Greenhouses (1995) case, which defines the scope of protection in infringement cases, to determine the initial patentability of the plant.
  • The PTO allegedly violated 37 CFR § 1.113(a) by allowing Loren Miller to submit new evidence and arguments after a final rejection was issued on April 14, 2000, while simultaneously denying third-party requesters the right to submit additional evidence.
  • The author notes that the "Da Vine" patent is economically limited because it only covers the single germplasm of the patented plant and its asexual progeny, and is set to expire in less than two years from the date of the briefing.

Cite the original document

APA
Wiser, G. (2001). U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Reinstates Ayahuasca Patent. Center for International Environmental Law. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/PTODecisionAnalysis.pdf
Chicago
Wiser, Glenn. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Reinstates Ayahuasca Patent. Center for International Environmental Law, 2001. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/PTODecisionAnalysis.pdf.
Wikipedia
{{cite report |last1=Wiser |first1=Glenn |title=U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Reinstates Ayahuasca Patent |publisher=Center for International Environmental Law |date=25 June 2001 |url=https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/PTODecisionAnalysis.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@techreport{wiser2001patent, author = {Wiser, Glenn}, title = {{U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Reinstates Ayahuasca Patent}}, institution = {Center for International Environmental Law}, year = {2001}, month = jun, url = {https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/PTODecisionAnalysis.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated