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
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