The document discusses several cases of biopiracy involving Indian plants and products. It describes how turmeric, neem, and basmati rice were traditionally used in India for centuries but were later patented by foreign organizations. In each case, the Indian government and organizations challenged the patents by providing evidence of prior traditional use, and the patents were ultimately revoked or amended. The document concludes that countries are developing their own systems to protect traditional knowledge, while an international agreement is still being worked on.

1. Issues arising out of Turmeric, Basmati Rice and Neem
Course:- IPR, Good Lab Practices
and Bioethics
Msc Biotech 3
Roll no.: 1921913
Presented by: Gursheen Kour
Submitted to: Dr. Sonica Sondhi

2. Biopiracy: when indigenous knowledge is patented
for profit
Biopiracy happens when researchers or research organisations take biological
resources without official sanction, largely from less affluent countries or
marginalised people.
Biopiracy is not limited to drug development. It also occurs in agricultural and
industrial contexts. Indian products such as the neem tree, tamarind, turmeric,
and Darjeeling tea, etc have all been patented by foreign firms for different
lucrative purposes.
In 2000, WIPO members established an Intergovernmental Committee on
Intellectual Property and Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Folklore
(IGC), and in 2009 they agreed to develop an international legal instrument (or
instruments) that would give traditional knowledge, genetic resources and
traditional cultural expressions (folklore) effective protection.

3. Case Study: Turmeric (Curcuma longa)
 In India, the turmeric has been “a classic grandmother’s
remedy”, applied to cuts of children as an anti-parasitic
agent, used as a blood purifier and in treating the common
cold for generations.
 It is also used as an essential ingredient in many Indian
dishes. It is of our traditional knowledge.
 In 1995, two expatriate Indians at the University of
Mississippi Medical Centre were granted U.S. Patent
5,401,504 on Use of Turmeric in Wound Healing.

4.  The claim covered “a method of promoting healing of a wound by administering turmeric
to a patient afflicted with wound”. This patent also granted them the exclusive right to sell
and distribute turmeric. Initially, this news was a disbelief and surprised many people in
India.
 In 1996, The Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR), India, New Delhi
requested the US Patent and Trademarks Office (USPTO) to revoke the patent on the
grounds of existing of prior art. CSIR did not succeed in providing that many Indians
already use turmeric for wound healing although turmeric was known to every Indian
household for ages.
The patent was promptly challenged by Dr. R A Mashelkar, an Indian scientist who has
done much to awaken India to Intellectual Property Rights issues, Director general of
Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) (1995-2006).
 Fortunately, it could provide documentary evidence of traditional knowledge including
ancient Sanskrit text and a paper published in 1953 in the Journal of the Indian Medical
Association. The patent was revoked in 1997, after ascertaining that there was no novelty.

6. Case Study: Neem (Azadirachta indica)
There are approximately 14 million neem trees
(Azadirachta indica) in India. Access to neem products
was very cheap (if not free) and easy to get. It is a tropical
evergreen, related to the mahogany, that mainly grows in
arid regions of India and Burma and Southwest Asia and
West Africa.
The neem tree has many versatile traits that can be traced
back to the Upavanavinod, an ancient Sanskrit treatise
dealing with agriculture. This treatise cites the neem tree
as a cure for ailing soil, plants and livestock. The tree has
been referred to as the 'curer of all ailments' and the
'blessed tree' by both the Hindu and Muslim population in
India. The leaves and the bark have been used to treat
illnesses such as leprosy, ulcers, diabetes and skin
disorder.

9. Case Study: Basmati Rice
Originally from India and Pakistan, Basmati became a controversial
‘issue’ after RiceTec, a Texas-based company, in 1997, patented some
types of rice they developed as “American basmati”.
RiceTec Inc, had been trying to enter the international Basmati market
with brands like “Kasmati” and “Texmati”. Ultimately, the company
claimed to have developed a new strain of aromatic rice by interbreeding
basmati with another variety. They sought to call the allegedly new
variety as Texmati or American Basmati.
 RiceTec Inc, was issued the Patent number 5663484 on Basmati rice
lines and grains on September 2, 1997.

10. This was objected to by two Indian nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) — Centre for Food Safety, an
international NGO that campaigns against biopiracy, and the Research Foundation for Science,
Technology and Ecology, an Indian environmental NGO who filed Electronic copy available at:
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1143209 legal petitions in the United States. The Centre for Scientific and
Industrial Research also objected to it.
The Centre for Scientific and Industrial Research also objected to it. ü They sought trade protection for
basmati rice of the Indian subcontinent and jasmine rice of Thailand. They demanded amendment of U.S.
rice standards to specify that the term “basmati” can be used only for rice grown in India and Pakistan,
and jasmine for the Thai rice.
The Indian government, after putting together the evidence, officially challenged the patent in June 2000.

11. Issues:
 The patent was challenged on the fact that the plant varieties and grains already exist as a staple in India.5
75 percent of U.S. rice imports are from Thailand and that the remainder is from India and Pakistan and
both varieties are rice that cannot be grown in the United States. The legal theory is that the patent is not
novel and for an invention that is obvious, being based on rice that is already being imported in the United
States, therefore it should not have been granted in the first place.
 Trademark law could also be a basis for challenging the use of basmati. RiceTec and to prevent it from
marketing basmati rice in a way that creates confusion with the Indian product. But, in order to be
successful on such a claim, the Indian government would have to show likelihood of confusion among
consumers. RiceTec did not trademark the term ‘basmati’ and it has been careful in marketing its product so
as not to use the term basmati as an indication of source.
 As a result of the re-examination application filed by the Indian government, RiceTec agreed to withdraw
several of the claims. In January 29, 2002, the United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a Re-
examination Certificate cancelling claims 1-7, 10, and 14-20 (the broad claims covering the rice plant) out of
24 claims and entered amendments to claims 12- 13 on the definition of chalkiness of the rice grains.

13. Conclusion:
• This has prompted some countries to develop their own sui generis systems for
protecting traditional knowledge. However, the parameters and modalities are
being worked out. The broad objectives under sui generis systems would be
determination of protectable subject matter, ownership rights and procedure for
acquiring rights.
• Furthermore, sui generis systems protected under national law may not hold true
for other countries. Therefore, many indigenous, local communities and
governments are pressing for an international legal instrument. Recognizing and
valuing traditional mode of creativity and innovation as protectable intellectual
property would definitely be an historic shift in international law, empowering
indigenous communities as well as governments to have a say over the use of
their traditional knowledge by others.