This document discusses different models for commercializing crop varieties developed under public research systems in India. It summarizes various approaches taken such as licensing to a large number of companies with low fees, licensing to a small number of companies with high fees and selection criteria, and licensing without fees but with minimal royalties. Royalties collected at the source of seed sales are preferred by partners. Licensing varieties to big corporations is discussed for more specialized varieties. The advantages and issues of different partnership and licensing models are presented.

1. Commercialization of Varieties under Public
Research Systems
Dr. Neeru Bhooshan,
ADG(IP&TM), ICAR

2. Presentation Overview
1
IPR ERA-Varieties Commercialization
2
3
4 Enforcement of PV rights
Compliances
PRE-IPR ERA Variety Commercialization

3. Varietal Development in Crops
(Conventional Breeding) (Pre IPR Era)
▪ Rice : PB 1; PB 1121; PRH10
▪ Wheat : HD 2329; HD2285; HD 2851; HD2773
▪ Maize : Ganga Safad 2; Pusa Sankar2
▪ Mustard : Varuna (CCA, Kanpur, 1959); Pusa Kalyani (IARI,
1969); Pusa Bold (IARI, 1985)
▪ Lack of availability of HYV seeds
▪ Timely availability
▪ Directly foundation seed as certified seed
▪ More time for dissemination and release of variety
▪ Weak research-extension linkages
▪ Lack of adoption of available technologies
▪ Research Institute don't get any thing

4. Bottom-UP Approach
Collective Decision Making
Consultative Decision Making
Outsourcing
Top-to-Bottom
• Decision
• Direction
• Execution
• Guidance
ICAR’s 3-tier IPR Management System
IP & TM
unit
ZTMU 10
ITMU (89)

5. INVENTION
DISCLOSURE
Technology
Assessment
Patent and
literature
Search
ZTM &
BPD
UNIT
Institutional
Rights
PATENTABLE
IP
TOR by
ITMC
Commercial
feasibility
Technical
Drafting(claims/
inventive step)
IP Protection
(Filling &
Registration)
Technology
Offer
Startups
/Spinoffs
Match: Site Visits
facilitate discussion, tech
evaluation, negotiation
(POC)
Scaling-up & R&D
Contract Research
Marketing
&
Promotion
Business
Intelligence
•Industry& Institute Joint R&D
•Industry requirement
Industry
&
Institute
projects
Technology
development
/ Technical
capability
Innovation and
entrepreneurship
Licensing Agreements
IP Management &
Commercialization Pathway
[Technology
&Market
Assessment ]
Valuation
Approaches
High end Technologies
To Corporate Sector,
Eg. Nano-basket
Small Technologies:
Social
Entrepreneurship, Eg.
Nutri Cookies, Soya
Nuts
Low Cost
Technologies: Small
Scale Industries,
e.g: Extraction
Technologies

6. S.No Name of crop Total no of PPVFR
Application filed
No. of New
varieties
No. of Extant
varieties
No. of Registered
Varieties
1 Rice 16 (2 EDV varieties) 2 11 3
2 Wheat 24 11 13 10
3 Mustard 18 1 17 17
4 Chickpea 2 2
5 Maize 1
6 Brinjal 6 4 2
7 Cauliflower 4 2 2 2
8 cabbage 1 - 1 1
9 Tomato 3 3 2
10 Onion 1 1
11 Chrysanthemum 1 1
IPR Era : Crop Varieties Registered under
PPVFR Act
Emphasis on PPP

7. Different Licensing Models for PPP
▪ Models are crop/variety dependent
Model 1: Low Licensing Fee & Large no of Companies
Model 2: High Licensing Fees & Strong Selection Criteria
Model 3: No Licensing Fee + Minimal Royalty at source
Model 4: High Licensing Fees + Royalty at source
▪ Royalty at source is preferable by the partners
Easy to implement
Industry is comfortable, Incentives for higher production
▪ Through Big Corporates: Specialized varieties

8. Patent filed- 134, Grant 75
Plant Varieties filed 77, Registered 37
Active TT Licensing agreements 290
Start up 75-80+/ year
Industry Connect 600+, 2300+
Corporate members
IP, Technology Commercialization & Partnership @IARI
Technology Commercialization
Biofertilizer
24%
Cereal varieties
32%
veg varieties
5%
flower
varieies
7%
PHT
15%
Agri Chem
5%
Bio tech
3%
Agri Implements
9%
2 8 20 52 81 130 154 166 197 238 247 253 279
359 399
12 16 28 82 95 131
276
372 379 407 446
565 615
680
782
25 29 47 96 127
327
484
593
655 700 742
822 864
957
1095
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23
No. of technology Number of Industrial Partner Total Revenue generated (Rs in Lakhs)

9. 9/29/2023 9
S.No Name of the
crops
No of Licensees
1. Rice 160
2. Wheat 386
3. Maize 20
4. Mustard 20
5. Vegetables 46
Industry Partnerships

10. ▪ Corporate membership
(first offering)
▪ Licensing
▪ Scaling Up & Validation
▪ Contract Research
▪ Shared Research facilities
▪ Consultancy
Public Private Partnership
7% 7%
84%
2%
Farmers NGOs Seed firms Others
Corporate Membership

11. Crop varieties Commercialization @ IARI
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
AP ASSM BH CG CHD DL GUJ HR KA MH MP PB RJ TN TS UK UP WB
3 2 1 2 1
17
12
26
6
16
7
17
4 4
18
8
17
1
State wise No of crop Varieties Commercialization
0
50
100
150
200
250
9 2 1 1 1
40
16
179
13
39
11
210
16 4
36
15
36
1
State-wise No. of Licensees for Crop Varieties

12. Models of Commercialization-
Rice Variety: PB 1121
Conventional Model
▪ Spread thru DA&FW Indent system
▪ No licensing thru Institute
Issues
▪ Research Institute don't get any thing
▪ Low Cost : breeder seed cost
▪ High and unrealistic indent
▪ Directly foundation seed as certified seed
▪ More time for dissemination and release of
variety
Licensing Conventional Model

13. •25 Companies (2008-2010)
•Terms
• Licensing fee +royalty at Source
• Rs. 36,000/- per Kg breeder seed
(Assumption1:100 multiplication ratio)
ISSUES
• Since parental line given to the
Companies have not come for next year to
Purchase the seed
• NO enforcement mechanism
•Loss of Revenue within 4 Years
Direct Licensing (Royalty at source)
(Rice Variety: PRH10)

14. IFSSA – Nodal Agency
•Given parental lines
•Multiply to FS
• FS to 14 companies for 4 years
• Royalty Rs 50/- per Kg of foundation seed
for IARI collected by IFSSA
•Small companies were happy
Issues
▪ Reluctance of Big companies to deal
with IFSSA
▪ Diminishing market demand
Comparison of two Approaches
Revenue Earned is more through Agency
than DL
Licensing Thru Nodal agency (Rice Variety: PRH10)

15. )
▪ Strict Selection criteria to achieve quality
requirements of the variety
▪ 15 Companies
▪ Licensing fee – Rs 5 lacs (Highest)
▪ Royalty-2% of NSV
Issues
▪ Problem in realizing royalty
▪ Boom for 2-3 years, then BUST
▪ Wrong timing of sowing
▪ Problems in proper management /extension
▪ Crash price because of adverse sentiments
by Exporters on quality issues
High Licensing Fee & strong selection criteria
(Rice variety PB1509)

16. •Released BS as TL seeds because of delay in Notification
•No Licensing Fee
• Nominal Royalty at source Rs. 10/- per kg of seed
•No of Licensee =35
Advantage
Helped in quick dissemination/ spread of variety
No Licensing fee + Minimal Royalty at source)
(Wheat Variety: HD 2967)

17. ▪ Wheat seed multiplication easier
▪ Target- Quick dissemination in large areas
▪ Highest ever No. of Licensee =239
▪ Licensing Fee – Rs 50000
▪ Royalty- Rs 10/kg at breeder seed
Issues: Free Riders
Enforcement: Intimation to State Seed Certification Agencies
regarding name of licensing companies and quantity of BS given
Low Licensing Fee & Large no of Companies
(Wheat Variety: HD 3086)

18. These wheat varieties: special characteristics features
Preference of big corporates for specific business strategy
Licensed to big corporates
Terms: Licensing Fee + Royalty
Yearly Royalty at source based on breeder seed supplied
High Licensing fee + Royalty at source)
(Wheat Variety: HI 1544 & HI 1536)

19. ▪ Licensee: minimum quantity of BS/year
▪ Registration of Licensee with the PPVFRA (apply
in PV-9) with a fees of Rs.15,000/-
▪ Licensee will have to mention the denomination
of the variety as registered and trade name of the
variety will have to be separately maintained
▪ Clause in Licensing agreement : that licensee will
display on all packaging & promotional material
including website and social media mention
▪ e.g “ Wheat Variety HD 3086 Reg 376 of 2016
developed and Licensed by ICAR-IARI”
Agreement Clauses

20. Noticed by IARI
▪ The Company was selling protected variety
PB 1692 without permission of the Breeder
▪ was selling the variety by giving it
the denomination deceptively similar
to denomination of a protected variety i.e
Karnal Pusa basmati 1692
▪ Another similar case of PB 1884
▪ Company started selling before notification
of the varieties
Infringement

21. Enforcement @ IARI
▪ IARI did Written Compliant to the
concerned state Agriculture
department regarding violation of
PV rights
▪ Notice was issued to Company by
state Authority
▪ Seize the Godown of the company
having the material.
▪ Stopped their sale of the seed of
our variety

22. ▪ 2-3 years window between Notification and
DA&FW indent
▪ Disseminate the variety within first year of release
▪ Quick and early dissemination (2-3 years)
▪ Small Revenue generation for Institute
▪ Boost to local SME’s
▪ Creation of new small businesses
Advantages

23. Industry
• Market Intelligence/
Requirement
• Monitoring facility
• Breeder seed
Research
Institutio
n
• Feed back Mechanism
• Dissemination of package
and practices
• Help in Adoption of new
varieties
Societal
• Skilled manpower Base
• Increase Seed Availbility
• Seed Entreprises
Advantages : Industry Partnership

24. Issues
• Strict NBA requirement for MNC
• Low pricing of Breeder Seed
• Private Companies indent through DA&FW
Issues

25. Summary
• Models are crop/variety dependent
– Large no of licensees vs strict selection of licensees
– License Fee entry barrier
• Royalty at source is preferable by the partners
– Easy to implement
– Industry is comfortable, Incentives for higher
production
• Through Big Corporates-
– Specialized varieties (Durham)
Summary