Ipr neem patent Intellectual Property Rights

1. Assignment
Presentation on
Neem Patent
Presented By:
Patel Savankumar G.
04-AGRMA-01808-2018
Dept. of Agronomy,
C.P.C.A. , Sardarkrushinagar
Submitted to:
Dr. K. K. Tiwari
Assistant Professor,
Dept. of Genetics & Plant Breeding
C.P.C.A. , Sardarkrushinagar

2. THE PROBLEM
– For centuries the Western world ignored the neem tree and its
properties: the practices of Indian peasants and doctors were
not deemed worthy of attention by the majority of British,
French and Portuguesecolonialists.
– In 1971, US timber importer Robert Larson observed the tree's
usefulness in India and began importing neem seed to his
company headquarters inWisconsin.
– Over the next decade he conducted safety and performance tests
upon a pesticidal neem extract called Margosan-O and in 1985
received clearance for the product from the US Environmental
Protection Agency(EPA).

3. – Three years later he sold the patent for the product to the
multinational chemical corporation, W RGraceand Co.
– Since 1985, over a dozen USpatents have been taken out by US
and Japanese firms on formulae for stable neem-based
solutions and emulsions and even for a neem-based toothpaste.
– In 1992, W.R. Grace secured its rights to the formula that used
the emulsion from the Neem tree's seeds to make a powerful
pesticide.
– It also began suing Indian companies formaking the emulsion.

4. DISPUTE
– The controversy over who has the rights to the Neem tree raised
manyquestions.
– India claims that what the USCompanies are calling discoveries
are the actual stealing and pirating of the indigenous practices
and knowledge of itspeople.
– The Indians and members of the Green Party in the European
Union oppose big businesses owning the rights to living
organisms, because they believe that the rights of poor farmers
in developing countries willbe harmed.

5. THE NEEM CAMPAIGN:
– The neem campaign consists of group of NGOs, individuals
was initiated in India in 1993.
– This was done to mobilize worldwide support to protect
indigenous knowledge systems and resources of the Third
World from piracy by the West, particularly in light of
emerging threats from intellectual property rights regimes
under WTOandTRIPS.
– The Neem patent became the first caseto challenge European
and USpatents on grounds of Biopiracy.

6. CASE JUDGEMENT
– On the 30th September 1997, the European Patent Office (EPO)
delivered a favorable interim judgment on the challenge of a
European patent on the fungicidal effects of neem oil (Patent
No. 436 257 B1) owned by W.R.Grace& Co.
– The European Patents Office accepted the arguments offered by
Indian scientists and rejected the order of the US patents office
to award the patent to W R Grace, a US-based company, at the
last hearing of thecase.
– The Indian scientists argued that the people of India have
known the medicinal properties of neem for thousands of years
and hence no other company can patent its properties. The EPO
accepted the argument.

7. – The victory is a result of four-year-long effort by the
Research Foundation for Science, Technology and
Environment. Professor U P Singh, an agricultural scientist at
the Banaras Hindu University represented the Indianside.
– The European Patent Office agreed to withdraw the patent in
May 2000, the Patent was revokedhowever.
– The US also needs to change its patent laws which allow
Biopiracy by non-recognition of foreign prior art. Patents are
supposed to satisfy three criteria - of novelty, non-
obviousness and utility.