Cases / Genetic resources and benefit-sharing · Australia · 2020
Mary Kay's Kakadu plum patent application rejected in Australia over prior use
Short record: the main facts, with sources. A full case file has not been prepared.
Nature's voice · report
No measurement of the harm done to me here is on record.
Did nature suffer? Not measured.
Not on record
- The record does not name which of my species, waters, soils or forests were harmed.
Mary Kay sought a patent on the Kakadu plum, and the application was rejected in Australia in 2020 on evidence of prior use. The sources reviewed record no benefit-sharing payment linked to it.
What?
Mary Kay's application for a patent on the Kakadu plum was rejected in Australia. UNSW
Where?
Australia. UNSW
When?
August 2020. UNSW
Who?
Gained
- Mary Kay — Sought exclusive patent rights over the Kakadu plum; the application was rejected UNSW
Lost
None on recordHarmed
None on recordWhy?
Not stated in the sources reviewed.
How?
Rejection on evidence of prior use of the Kakadu plum. UNSW
6 of 6 questions answered from the record
What happened
The record, in order.
UNSW reported that Australia rejected Mary Kay's Kakadu plum patent application in August 2020 on evidence of prior use.
The sources reviewed record no benefit-sharing payment linked to the application.
In court and with insurers
Every proceeding and every insurer decision on record.
Lawsuits and rulings
No court case on record. No court has ruled on this case.
Insurers
No insurer decision on record.
What we don't know
Undisclosed, unproven, untried: recorded as data.
Nature
- Not measured Harm to nature: The record holds no measurement of harm to nature.
Record
- None on record The sources reviewed do not say whether Mary Kay appealed the rejection.
Did the harm stop?
Not stated in the sources reviewed.
Who paid?
Not stated in the sources reviewed.
Sources
Voices on record: — Company or project— Government and regulators— Courts— Press and investigations— Communities and civil society✓ Researchers