Dr Evana Wright is a Lecturer in the Faculty of Law University of Technology Sydney researching in the fields of intellectual property and the protection of Indigenous traditional knowledge. Her PhD thesis examined the emerging international framework for the recognition and protection of Indigenous traditional knowledge and its implementation in India and Peru with the objective of identifying lessons for Australia in developing a nationally consistent regime for the protection of traditional knowledge. As a PhD scholar, she held the Quentin Bryce Law Doctoral Research Scholarship and Teaching Fellowship.
Prior to joining the Faculty as a Lecturer in 2018, Evana was a Research Fellow in the Faculty of Law working on the ARC Linkage Project 'Garuwanga: Forming a Competent Authority to protect Indigenous knowledge.'
Evana was admitted as a legal practitioner in the Supreme Court of New South Wales in 2006 and has previously worked as an in-house legal counsel in Australia and Silicon Valley for major IT corporations and in an ICT research and development incubator.
Evana holds a PhD from the University of Technology Sydney, Master of Laws (Honours) also from the University of Technology Sydney, and a Bachelor of Science/Bachelor of Laws from Macquarie University.
Admitted as a Legal Practitioner in the Supreme Court of New South Wales
Unrestricted Practising Certificate, Law Society of New South Wales
Can supervise: YES
Intellectual property law
Protection of data
History and Theory of Intellectual Property
Global Aspects of Intellectual Property
Preparing for Intellectual Property Practice
Disruptive Technologies and the Law
Wright, E 2020, Protecting Traditional Knowledge Lessons from Global Case Studies, Edward Elgar Publishing.
Protecting Traditional Knowledge examines the emerging international frameworks for the protection of Indigenous traditional knowledge, and presents an analysis situated at the intersection between intellectual property, access and benefit sharing, and Indigenous peoples' rights to self-determination.
Drawing on the experience of India and Peru, the author identifies lessons that may be used by Indigenous and local communities in making decisions regarding the protection of traditional knowledge. Using these two key case studies, the book argues that a sui generis regime based on principles of self-determination, prior informed consent and mutually agreed terms may empower Indigenous and local communities and act as a form of corrective justice.
This informative and accessible book will be a valuable resource for Indigenous and local peoples as well as scholars of intellectual property law, Indigenous knowledge systems and international environmental law. It will also be of interest to readers working in policy development, governance, law and international development, human rights and the rights of Indigenous and local communities
Martin, F, Cahill, A, Wright, E & Stoianoff, N 2019, 'An international approach to establishing a Competent Authority to manage and protect traditional knowledge', Alternative Law Journal, vol. 44, no. 1, pp. 48-55.View/Download from: Publisher's site
This article discusses the establishment of a Competent Authority in accordance with the Nagoya Protocol to ensure that traditional knowledge of Indigenous communities is accessed subject to free, prior and informed consent and the fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising out of such use. It builds on research expressing the view that the design and development of a Competent Authority should take a grass roots approach. It analyses the authorities established in the Cook Islands and Vanuatu that include significant Indigenous voice and concludes with comments on the attributes of each system and its limitations
Wright, E 2019, 'Protecting traditional knowledge in Australia: What can we learn from India and Peru?' in Is Intellectual Property Pluralism Functional?, pp. 206-234.View/Download from: Publisher's site
© The Editor and Contributors Severally 2019. There is limited protection of traditional knowledge in Australia with some legislative frameworks established at federal, state and territory levels. The partial protections established under these frameworks are fragmented across each jurisdiction providing opportunities for third parties to exploit these gaps and engage in misappropriation and exploitation of traditional knowledge. While Australia is yet to ratify the Nagoya Protocol, the Australian federal government is engaging in consultations to assess the operation of the intellectual property system with regards to traditional knowledge. In doing so, it is valuable to examine how foreign jurisdictions have approached the issue and to learn from their experience. This chapter examines what can be learnt from the experience of India and Peru in establishing their respective regimes for the protection of traditional knowledge with the objective of informing the design and implementation of a nationally consistent regime for the protection of traditional knowledge in Australia.
Wright, E 2019, 'Protecting traditional knowledge in Australia: what can we learn from India and Peru?' in Frankel, S (ed), Is Intellectual Property Pluralism Functional?, Edward Elgar Publishing, UK, pp. 206-234.View/Download from: Publisher's site
Stoianoff, N & Wright, EA 2018, 'Fair Use and Traditional Cultural Expressions' in Corbett, S & Lai, JC (eds), Making Copyright Work for the Asian Pacific: Juxtaposing Harmonisation with Flexibility, ANU Press, Australia, pp. 75-94.View/Download from: Publisher's site
Indigenous knowledge may be broadly described as the system of knowledge developed and maintained by Indigenous and local communities and transmitted from generation to generation and includes:
[L]iterary, artistic or scientific works; performances; inventions; scientific discoveries; designs; marks; names and symbols; undisclosed information; and all other tradition-based innovations and creations resulting from intellectual activity in the industrial, scientific, literary or artistic fields.3
Stoianoff, NP, Cahill, A & Wright, EA 2017, 'Indigenous knowledge: what are the issues?' in Stoianoff, NP (ed), Indigenous Knowledge Forum: Comparative Systems for Recognising and Protecting Indigenous Knowledge and Culture, LexisNexis, pp. 11-37.
Stoianoff, NP, Cahill, A, Wright, E & Marshall, V UTS – Indigenous Knowledge Forum & North West Local Land Services (NSW)) 2014, Recognising and Protecting Aboriginal Knowledge Associated with Natural Resource Management - White Paper for the Office of Environment and Heritage, NSW, 2014, pp. 1-137, Sydney.
Wright, EA 2017, 'A sui generis regime for the protection of Traditional Knowledge: What can we learn from India and Peru in the design and implementation of a nationally consistent framework for the protection of Traditional Knowledge in Australia?'.