Biopiracy, largely defined as misappropriation and intellectual property control of biological resources and associated traditional knowledge, has long had profound adverse impacts on the lives of the people and communities in developing countries, including Southeast Asia, one of the global biodiversity hotspots. Given that patents are the main means used in most biopiracy cases to exploit resources and knowledge, this article will discuss its feasibility as the other policy instrument to tackle biopiracy in Southeast Asia and suggest how it should be established and/or improved. For this purpose, this article examines two policy instruments in the patent regime that can be and have been used to address the aforementioned problem: compulsory licensing and the disclosure requirement. Based on the analysis of these two instruments, this article discusses why compulsory licensing is an unlikely means of tackling the problem and suggests how a disclosure requirement can be established or improved to tackle biopiracy in the region.

I. Introduction
II. Definition of Biopiracy and Biopiracy Cases inSoutheast Asia
    A. Definition
    B. Biopiracy Cases
    C. Implications of the Cases
III. Compulsory Licensing in the IP regime and ItsFeasibility for Tackling Biopiracy in Southeast Asia
    A. Compulsory Licensing in the TRIPS Agreement
    B. State Practices
    C. Can Compulsory Licensing Be Used by Southeast Asian states against Biopiracy?
IV. The Disclosure Requirement as an Alternative to Tackle Biopiracy in Southeast Asia
    A. The Disclosure Requirement in International Patent Regimes
    B. Disclosure Requirement in the Patent Instruments inSoutheast Asia
V. Conclusion

• Jinyup Kim(Research Fellow at Korea Intellectual Property Protection Agency)