Access and benefit-sharing was a key objective of the United Nations' Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD). Implementing this objective in Australia has seen the adoption of a contract model where the terms and condition and price of access are negotiated between the bioprospector and the resource holder. Patents are a part of the price. This article assesses the place of patents in theory and in practice through the examples of the Craig Venter Institute contract and the Griffith and AstraZeneca Partnership agreement(s) in Australia. The article concludes that there is little evidence that benefits flow to conservers and curators of in situ biodiversity (such as protected areas) and that uncertain property and use rights from patents may be further reducing the value bioprospectors are likely to pay to access and use biodiversity.