Browse all documents

DETAILED STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR REEXAMINATION OF U.S. PLANT PATENT NO. 5,751

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 document is a detailed statement submitted by the Center for International Environmental Law (CIEL) to the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) requesting the reexamination of U.S. Plant Patent No. 5,751. The patent, issued to Loren S. Miller for a cultivar of Banisteriopsis caapi named "Da Vine," is challenged on the grounds that the plant is neither new nor distinct, is found in an uncultivated state, and violates public policy and morality by appropriating sacred indigenous knowledge.

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 Requesters argue that the "Da Vine" cultivar is not distinct from the species Banisteriopsis caapi because its claimed distinguishing characteristics—specifically flower color—are common to the species. Prior art from herbarium accession sheets shows other B. caapi specimens with flowers described as "deep pink turning white with age," which matches the "rose color of its flower petals which fade with age to near white" claimed in the patent.
  • The statement asserts that the "Da Vine" cultivar is ineligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 161 because it is a plant "found in an uncultivated state." The document notes that B. caapi grows wild throughout the Amazon region and that the patentee merely obtained a cutting from a domestic garden in the rainforest without facilitating the creation of a new variety.
  • The Requesters claim the patent is based on speculative medicinal values that are not novel, as the therapeutic and psychotherapeutic properties of B. caapi have been known and used by indigenous Amazonian healers for centuries to treat organic and psychosomatic malfunctions.
  • The document argues that the patent violates public policy and morality by claiming private rights over a plant that is a "sacred element" in the religious rituals of numerous indigenous groups in South America, specifically referring to its use as "ayahuasca" (the "vine of the souls").
  • The statement contends that the patent constitutes an appropriation of traditional knowledge and violates international principles, such as those in the Convention on Biological Diversity, which advocate for the equitable sharing of benefits arising from the use of genetic resources.
  • The Requesters present evidence that B. caapi specimens identical to "Da Vine" were already present and documented in U.S. herbaria (University of Michigan and Field Museum) as early as 1974 and 1978, establishing that the plant was known and used in the U.S. before the patent application.
  • The document dismisses the claimed morphological differences (leaf size, shape, texture, pedicel size, and pubescence) as trivial results of "plasticity," noting that the subject plant was grown in Hawaii rather than its native Amazonian environment, which naturally alters its appearance.

Cite the original document

APA
Center for International Environmental Law (1999). DETAILED STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR REEXAMINATION OF U.S. PLANT PATENT NO. 5,751. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/ReexaminationofUSPlantPatent5751.pdf
Chicago
Center for International Environmental Law. DETAILED STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR REEXAMINATION OF U.S. PLANT PATENT NO. 5,751. 1999. https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/ReexaminationofUSPlantPatent5751.pdf.
Wikipedia
{{cite press release |author=Center for International Environmental Law |title=DETAILED STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR REEXAMINATION OF U.S. PLANT PATENT NO. 5,751 |date=30 March 1999 |url=https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/ReexaminationofUSPlantPatent5751.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}
BibTeX
@misc{centerforinternationalenvironmentallaw1999detailed, author = {{Center for International Environmental Law}}, title = {{DETAILED STATEMENT IN SUPPORT OF REQUEST FOR REEXAMINATION OF U.S. PLANT PATENT NO. 5,751}}, publisher = {Center for International Environmental Law}, year = {1999}, month = mar, url = {https://www.ciel.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/ReexaminationofUSPlantPatent5751.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }

Full text

Collected · Record updated