WIPO Genetic Resources Treaty Nears Ratification Threshold as African States Lead the Way on Patent Disclosure Obligations

Geneva, Switzerland · 19 November 2025 — More than a year after its historic adoption on 24 May 2024, the WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge (GRATK Treaty) is edging closer to entry into force — but has not yet reached the threshold of 15 ratifications required under its provisions. The treaty, the first international regulation to explicitly address the intersection of patent law with genetic resources and indigenous knowledge, will enter into force three months after 15 eligible parties deposit their instruments of ratification or accession with WIPO.

A detailed legal analysis published on 19 November 2025 by the Paris-based intellectual property firm Dreyfus & Associés clarifies the treaty's implications for patent holders, businesses, and institutions — and underscores why the ratification process, though slow, carries transformative potential for the global innovation landscape.

A Historic First After Two Decades of Negotiation

The GRATK Treaty was formally adopted by WIPO member states on 24 May 2024, culminating more than twenty years of negotiations within the WIPO Intergovernmental Committee on Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore (IGC). The treaty's adoption was widely hailed as a landmark: it is the first WIPO treaty to address the relationship between intellectual property and genetic resources/traditional knowledge, and the first to introduce a mandatory disclosure requirement in the patent system.

The treaty was open for signature for one year following its adoption, until 23 May 2025. Signing the treaty does not make a state a party to it; ratification or accession is the formal step required to become a contracting party and be bound by its terms.

Key Provisions: Mandatory Disclosure of Origin

The treaty's central provision establishes a mandatory international patent disclosure requirement. Patent applicants will be required to disclose the country of origin or the source of genetic resources and/or associated traditional knowledge if their claimed invention is "based on" these materials. Specifically, the treaty requires:

• Disclosure of origin: The applicant must disclose the country of origin or the source of the genetic resource used in the invention.
• Identification of source communities: The applicant must specify which indigenous or local communities are the source of the traditional knowledge exploited.
• Information system: The establishment of an information system (database) accessible to intellectual property offices to verify the compliance of patent applications.

African Leadership in the Ratification Process

The early ratification by Malawi and Uganda is consistent with the strong advocacy that African nations displayed throughout the IGC negotiations. African delegations, operating through the African Group at WIPO, were among the most vocal proponents of a binding disclosure requirement, arguing that the existing international framework — including the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) of 1992 and its Nagoya Protocol of 2010 — had proven insufficient to prevent the misappropriation of genetic resources and traditional knowledge, a practice commonly termed "biopiracy."

The Nagoya Protocol requires parties to ensure that access to genetic resources is done in compliance with prior informed consent from local and indigenous communities, and that benefits derived from their exploitation are shared fairly. The European Union and France have fully ratified these instruments. However, the Nagoya Protocol operates outside the patent system, and enforcement has been inconsistent across jurisdictions. The GRATK Treaty brings the disclosure obligation directly into the patent application process, creating a more direct compliance mechanism.

Implications for Patent Strategy

The Dreyfus & Associés analysis outlines several critical steps that patent applicants should consider when dealing with genetic resources and traditional knowledge, even before the treaty enters into force:

1. Document the exact origin of the genetic resource, specifying the country of origin, the indigenous or local community, and the sample used. This provides clear and transparent traceability.
2. Ensure compliance with access regulations — both national and international — including access permits or harvesting permits.
3. Obtain prior informed consent (PIC) from the community holding the knowledge, formalised to ensure the protection of community rights.
4. Include equitable benefit-sharing provisions in contracts, whether financial or non-financial, in favour of concerned communities.
5. Include a disclosure statement in the patent application about the provenance of genetic resources and/or traditional knowledge.
6. Conduct a specific prior art search focusing on traditional knowledge, local databases, and non-scientific publications to minimise the risk of contested novelty.

The Challenge of Oral Prior Art

One of the most complex legal issues the treaty raises is the treatment of traditional knowledge as prior art. Traditional knowledge may constitute undocumented or oral prior art, complicating the assessment of novelty or inventive activity in patent examination. If the source of a genetic resource or associated knowledge is not disclosed, a patent application may be contested for lack of adequate disclosure.

The classic example cited in legal analyses is that of turmeric (Curcuma longa), a plant used for centuries in traditional Indian medicine for its anti-inflammatory and healing properties. The turmeric root constitutes a genetic resource, while the medicinal knowledge transmitted within local communities falls under associated traditional knowledge. Patents granted on such resources without disclosure of origin or acknowledgment of source communities have been at the centre of biopiracy disputes for decades.

What Happens When the Threshold Is Met

Once 15 eligible parties have deposited their instruments of ratification, the treaty will enter into force three months later. At that point, contracting parties will be obligated to implement the disclosure requirement in their national patent laws. For patent applicants in ratifying jurisdictions, failure to comply with the disclosure obligation could result in rejection of a patent application, as well as financial compensation claims.

The treaty applies exclusively to patent law and does not introduce specific obligations in the fields of copyright, trademarks, or designs. However, the WIPO IGC continues to explore how to protect traditional cultural expressions and works derived from indigenous knowledge within the framework of copyright law — discussions that could eventually lead to complementary international instruments.

A Cautious Path Forward

The slow pace of ratification reflects the complexity of translating the treaty's principles into national law. For many countries, implementation will require amendments to existing patent legislation, the establishment of databases linking genetic resources to their origins, and the development of examination guidelines for patent examiners to assess disclosure compliance.

For African countries, which harbour significant biodiversity and traditional knowledge, the treaty offers a long-sought tool to prevent misappropriation. For patent applicants in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, and agricultural sectors — where inventions frequently rely on genetic resources — the treaty signals the end of an era in which the origin of biological materials could be treated as incidental rather than fundamental to the patent application process.

The question now is whether the remaining 13 ratifications will materialise quickly enough to bring the treaty into force within the next few years — or whether the momentum generated by its 2024 adoption will dissipate into prolonged domestic legislative processes. Either way, the GRATK Treaty has already reshaped the conversation around patents, biodiversity, and indigenous rights, and its influence on patent strategy is being felt even before it becomes binding law.

---

Sources:

• Dreyfus & Associés, WIPO Treaty of May 24, 2024: What are the implications for the patentability of genetic resources and traditional knowledge?, 19 November 2025 — dreyfus.fr
• WIPO, Summary of the GRATK Treaty — wipo.int
• WIPO, Treaty Notifications: GRATK — wipo.int
• USPTO, WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge — uspto.gov
• Strathmore University CIPIT, WIPO's New Treaty: Implications for Kenya's IP, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge — cipit.strathmore.edu