U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Reinstates Ayahuasca Patent

The document argues that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) erred in reinstating Loren Miller's patent for 'Da Vine,' a variety of ayahuasca. It contends the PTO ignored evidence that the plant's flower color was not distinct from existing varieties, misapplied the legal standard for patentability by using an infringement test from the Imazio case, and violated procedural rules by allowing Miller to submit new evidence after a final rejection while denying similar opportunities to indigenous organizations. The author concludes that the decision reflects a systemic failure to protect the traditional knowledge and biological resources of indigenous peoples in the Amazon Basin.

• The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) reversed its November 3, 1999, rejection of Loren Miller's patent for 'Da Vine' (Banisteriopsis caapi) on January 26, 2001, despite earlier findings that the plant's flower color was not patentably distinguishable from herbarium specimens.
• The PTO's decision to reinstate the patent relied on a misapplication of the law, specifically using the Imazio Nursery v. Dania Greenhouses (1995) case to apply a 'single germplasm' infringement standard to a question of patentability, rather than determining if the plant had 'characteristics clearly distinguishable' from existing varieties.
• The PTO ignored scientific evidence regarding plant 'plasticity,' which suggests that differences in leaf size and shape can result from environmental factors rather than genetic distinctiveness, and instead accepted these differences as justification for the patent.
• The PTO exhibited a double standard by allowing Loren Miller to submit new materials and legal arguments after a final rejection was issued on April 14, 2000, while strictly denying third-party requesters, such as COICA and CIEL, the right to submit additional declarations.
• The patent is described as economically worthless because it expires in less than two years from the date of the briefing and only protects the specific germplasm of the original plant and its asexual progeny, not the medicinal properties of the ayahuasca vine generally.

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} }