Leonor Magalhães Galvão: “A more robust global IP system would help foster green tech innovation”

In an exclusive interview with JUVE Patent, conducted at the AIPPI world congresses in Istanbul, Magalhães Galvão talks about the need for more green tech IP and the harmonisation of law. She explains why her adopted home country of Brazil is at the forefront of development, and discusses microbiome development in an IP context.

JUVE Patent: What are green tech inventions?
Leonor Magalhães Galvão: Green tech is an umbrella term that describes the use of technology and science to reduce human impacts on the natural environment, which includes inventions in a diverse array of technology fields. It’s about renewable energy sources and energy efficiency. But it also includes transportation like electric vehicles and alternative fuels, recycling technologies, and technologies relating to water treatment, agriculture construction and much more.

Can you give an example of the impact green inventions could have?
Given my background in life sciences, my favourite green tech innovations are in the agricultural field. For example, genetic engineering allows us to modify plants to essentially be able to thrive on fewer water resources or being resistant to certain diseases and pests resulting in a diminished use of pesticides. Such innovations have a significant environmental impact – not if you’re thinking about a single plant, but if you’re thinking about various crops. There are also sustainable manufacturing processes, eco-friendly packaging and supply chain optimisation technologies that enable products to reach the market in more efficient and sustainable ways.

“My favourite green tech innovations are in agriculture”

For how long have green IP technologies been themes in the patent world?
Some of these developments are quite old. For example, in Brazil we have cars that run on ethanol obtained from sugar-cane instead of oil since the late 1970s. What is more recent is to have an IP approach which fosters these innovations. In these fields, like in every technology field, IP plays a very significant role. If you have a very prominent IP system that fully supports these innovations, the more research you’re going to get in the field. Of course, this then leads to more innovation. More recently, some patent offices have now implemented green fast tracks for examination and significantly reduced their fees– if not made them completely free – to prosecute patents that target green technologies. There are also platforms for licensing green technologies such as the WIPO Green initiative. These are very strong incentives for technology developers to protect their IP. Sadly, not enough patent offices around the world have these green fast tracks.

Which patent offices or jurisdictions are leading the way in making these incentives?
Brazil actually has a very good programme, and it’s the only office in South America that has this programme. Australia, Canada, China, India, Israel, Japan, South Korea and Taiwan also have programmes.

What are the main issues facing protection for green IP?
Firstly, we have to define what green technology is. If you have mechanisms in place aimed at fostering IP protection and consequently investment in research these fields, then the market benefits from a harmonised definition of what constitutes a green innovation. Some patent offices have a certain definition and others might have another definition. This might mean that a certain technology will be fast tracked in a country but not fast tracked in another. Therefore, we need a harmonisation of the definition of green technology which should be as broad as possible.

Another hurdle is that so few patent offices actually have these green programmes in place. We need to see efforts to promote green examination fast tracks and fee-reduction schemes being applied in the majority of patent offices. There are also some active green proponents that are proposing things such as mandatory licensing for green technologies. Because at the end of the day, the world needs these technologies. Even if promoting mandatory licensing is too radical, there should at least be special mechanisms that will facilitate this licensing.

“We need a harmonisation of a broader definition of green technology”

Who or what is at the forefront of driving change for greener IP?
It’s a combination of many things. The WIPO is taking a big stand, especially with its ‘WIPO Green’ initiative – this is basically a platform where green IP rights owners can publicise their IP to facilitate partnerships with players interested in green technology. At AIPPI, the organisation has had an IP and Green Technology Standing Committee for almost 15 years, and the Intellectual Property Owners Association has just created a Green Technology Committee. But many of the IP organisations still don’t study these issues. The United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) is probably the greatest driver – not in terms of the IP, but in terms of climate change itself.

Which role does the AIPPI play in this regard?
We as AIPPI and specifically the IP and Green Technology Standing Committee are observers in this convention. This is how we are kept in the loop of the recent framework on climate change and its developments. The AIPPI itself has a very neutral position. Its aim is always to harmonise IP laws and practices. When it comes to climate change, this is what we are trying to do as well, trying to harmonise laws and practices that promote technologies that address the climate change issues.

What are the aims of the IP and Green Technology Committee?
The Standing Committee on IP and Green technology was created with the aim of monitoring, commenting and advising AIPPI on policy, regulatory and legal frameworks relating to protection and licensing of IP in the context of the climate change debate.

Currently we’re looking to propose a study question with regard to the destruction of infringing goods. An infringing good has two climate issues: firstly, the production of the infringing good, which often is manufactured under less controlled and regulated conditions and uses poor quality raw materials. Take fake batteries as an example – they are completely pollutant and there’s no control of where the factory waste is going. Secondly, there’s the impact when you seize these goods. It’s the responsibility of the infringer to destroy their seized goods, but the cheapest way to destroy these goods is by burning them. Therefore, one of the issues that our Standing Committee would like to study and hopefully have a resolution on, is the options that countries have to force infringers to destroy apprehended goods in more environmentally friendly ways – for example, through recycling or reuse.

What do you hope to achieve through initiatives such as AIPPI?
AIPPI itself cannot change anything, but it can propose change. The idea is that AIPPI resolutions are taken quite seriously. And hopefully the AIPPI suggestions will be at some point implemented, or at least taken into consideration, in national and regional laws and practice.

How do your experiences in green IP and biotech fit together?
In this year’s AIPPI congress, I moderated a panel discussion about the patentability of microbiomes. Microbiomes basically are a collection of microorganisms that exist in a particular environment. They could live in the soil, they could live in your skin, they could live in your gut or the gut of an animal. And the issue discussed was: how can you patent microbiomes in several jurisdictions, and how do you harmonise protection? There aren’t that many microbiome inventions that are related to green technology.

But one of the cases we discussed is how, by feeding cattle with a specific combination of bacteria, you can fight infection and improve the output of this cattle. This is an example of how a biotechnology innovation, that in principle you would think is completely unrelated to green innovation can have a significant climatic impact because healthier cattle hopefully yield a greater production of meat or milk. Therefore, you need fewer cattle, and therefore fewer carbon emissions, to achieve the same level of production.

“Some biotechnology innovations, which seem unrelated to green IP, can have a huge climate impact”

What’s the next step for microbiome technology?
Since microbiome technology is still relatively new, the legal systems aren’t very prepared to deal with these technologies and because of this, with the same invention, you can end up with patents that are very different from one another in different jurisdictions. So the panel aimed to raise awareness of the need for harmonisation in this field, since a weak and unharmonised IP system could deter innovation. If we really want to help foster innovation, in whichever field, we need robust IP systems in place.

What’s the Brazil patent scene currently like?
It’s very dynamic. If we take a snapshot of the Brazil patent scene, there’s still a lot of work to be done. But if we look back to when I started my career over 20 years ago, I’m so proud of what we have achieved – for example, we’ve significantly reduced the backlog, we have more robust patent examination guidelines and sound patent office and court decisions. Brazil has come a long way in terms of IP protection and upholding IP rights.

You mentioned the Brazilian patent office is quite forthcoming when it comes to green inventions and prosecution. Why do you think Brazil is pushing this idea?
Brazil is really at the forefront. Besides the green patent examination fast-track, the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office also has a program for “matchmaking” in Green Technology, similar to the WIPO Green platform. If you’re interested in licensing in or licensing out green technology, you can use this platform. And this environmental concern isn’t novel. When Brazil started developing ethanol derived from sugar cane as fuel and ethanol driven cars, it was very forward thinking. I think it owes to the fact that we have the Amazon, and we’ve always been very concerned with our biodiversity and the climate change cause.

Looking ahead to 20 years’ time, where would you like green IP tech to be?
I would love every patent office in the world to have a green fast track, and to have no fees for green innovations. That alone would be such an incentive. On top of that, none-IP related benefits such as tax benefits would be welcomed.

“I would love every patent office in the world to have a green fast track”

Do you see an appetite for green IP tech in the younger generation of IP lawyers?
I would like to invite the younger generations to become more active and get more involved with green tech – at the end of the day, it’s the newer generation that’s going to suffer the environmental consequences the most. For example, at AIPPI we have a lot more active members in Standing Committee of Biotechnology than in the Standing Committee of IP and Green Technology. As much as I appreciate the value of what we do in the Biotechnology Standing committee, I would love for people to be queuing at the door of the IP and Green technology committee!

The interview with Leonor Magalhães Galvão was conducted by Amy Sandys and Mathieu Klos.