- The document discusses a 1995 patent granted to two American researchers for using turmeric to promote wound healing. However, turmeric has been used in India for wound healing for thousands of years. - In 1997, the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) successfully challenged the patent by providing evidence that turmeric's wound healing properties were prior art. The patent was revoked. - This "Turmeric Case" is considered a landmark ruling, showing how traditional knowledge from developing countries can be inappropriately patented if not properly represented as prior art. It highlights the need for protection of traditional knowledge.

1. INVERTIS UNIVERSITY
BAREILLY, U.P.
PROJECT ON:
Traditional Knowledge And Patent Issues: An Overview
Of Turmeric Case
SUBJECT: LAW RELATING TO INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY RIGHTS
SUBMITTED TO SUBMITTED BY
ARNIKA TIWARI SIDDHARTH SINGH
Asst. Professor of law Roll No. Bl2014004

2. INTRODUCTION:
Turmeric is basically considered as tropical herb grown in east India. Its powder is widely used
in India as a medicine, a food ingredient and as well as in the dye. It is also used as an essential
ingredient in cooking many Indian dishes. As medicines t is used to heal wounds and rashes and
used in the medical cosmetics. In 1995, two American researchers of Indian origin, Suman
K.Das and Hari Har P.Cohly of University of Missippi Medical Centre granted a US patent
“promoting healing of a wound by administering Turmeric to a patient afflicted with the
wound.”1 for using turmeric as a medicine for ‘Wound Healing’. It means they had got the
exclusive rights over such haldi drug and were in the position to make millions of dollars. On the
behalf of the patent, the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) filed a re-
examination case, challenging the patent on the grounds 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. 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 The patent was revoked in 1997, after ascertaining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. CSIR challenging that turmeric has been used for thousands of years
for healings wound and it is used as a medicine , therefore is was not a new invention.
Dr.R.A.Mashekar (Director General of CSIR) comes out with 32 extracts from various journals,
to bolster the case.
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:
Traditional Knowledge is often informal and oral, is not protected by conventional intellectual
property protection systems. There is a need for developing countries to develop their own
1 U.S. Patent 5,401,504

3. systems for protecting traditional knowledge, so that the interest of the countries could be
infringed
OBJECTIVE:
My objective is to answer the following research questions:
RESEARCH QUESTIONS:
 What is the meaning of traditional knowledge?
 What are the laws in India dealing with the traditional knowledge?
 “Wound healing” developed by American Researcher is prior art or not
 Summary of the turmeric case
 Cases related to traditional knowledge in India
.
DEFINATIONS:
MEANING OF TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE
Traditional knowledge refers to the knowledge, skills, and practices. Innovations and enveloped,
sustained and passed on from generation to generation within a community, often forming part of
its cultural or spiritual identity. It is often adopted to local culture and environment. It can be
found in a wide variety of contexts, including: agricultural, scientific, technical, ecological and
medicinal knowledge as well as biodiversity-related knowledge.
Defensive protection and Documentation of Traditional Knowledge:

4. To prevent people outside the community from getting intellectual property rights over
traditional knowledge. India has compiled a searchable database of traditional medicine
Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL)2 that can be used as evidence of prior art by
patent examiners when assessing patent applications.
Documentation helps in preservation, dissemination, use and management of this knowledge
rather than for the purpose of legal protection.
Positive protection is the granting of rights that empower communities to promote their
traditional knowledge, control its uses and benefit from its commercial exploitation. Some uses
of traditional knowledge can be protected through the existing intellectual property system.
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.
Laws in India dealing with the traditional knowledge
India is one of the few countries in the world who has had a number of legislations on IPR
protection. The Acts which have been enacted and are in force are: the Copyright Act, 1957, The
Patents Act, 1970 (as amended in 2005), The Trademarks Act, 1999,The Geographical
Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, the Designs Act, 2000, The
Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmer’s Right Act, 2001 and Biological Diversity Act, 2002.
In the year 2008, India came out with Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL) in An
effort to protect her traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expression. Also, the facility of
electronic filing (in short, e-filing) of applications has been introduced since July, 2007 to bring
the Indian Intellectual Property Regime in line with international requirements.
2 , http://www.tkdl.res.in/

5. “Wound healing” developed by American Researcher is prior art or
not
The two researcher discovered the wound healing in turmeric but it was known to us from
generation to generation and it have in use for years and our ayurveds for centuries. According to
Patent Act, 1970 defines as invention means a new product or process that involving an inventive
step and capable of industrial application. Novelty is of core value that means any invention or
technology they have not been anticipated by publication or used in the country or elsewhere in
the world before the date of filing of patent application with complete specification, which the
subject matter has not fallen in public domain or that it does not form part of the state of the art.
Therefore there would be no novelty if there has been prior publication and prior use of an
identical invention. Therefore wound healing developed by Researchers was no novelty I the
invention. Also that what had been patented was already published in Indian texts and use of
turmeric preparations has been made in our countries since immemorial.
Overview of the turmeric case
The Patent
In 1995 two Indian scientists working in the U.S. were granted a patent for a
method of: “promoting healing of a wound by administering Turmeric to a
patient afflicted with the wound.” 81 The patent was assigned to the
University of Mississippi Medical Center.
Plaintiff
The Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) of India challenged the patent in 1996.3
CSIR claimed that the patent lacked novelty as the use of Turmeric as a method for healing
wounds was age old in India and therefore a part of the prior art. CSIR presented 32 references,
some of them over a hundred years old, some references are:
The Effect of Indigenous Remedies on Wounds
J. Ind. Med. Asso (1953)
3 USPTO Re-exam. No. 90/004,433, Oct. 28, 1996

6. Ayurvedic Healing (1989)
The Wealth of India (1950)
Indian Materia Medica (1976)
Economic and Medical Plant Research (1990)
Home Remedies (1958)
The Ayurvedic Pharmacopea of India (1986)
Selected Medicinal Plants of India (1992)
Bustanul Mufredat (1867)
Khazanatul Adviy, Vol-3 (1920
Chakhambha Orientalia (1979)
Kyaa Kaha aur Kyoorti G.N. Chauhan
to support that the claims of the patent were well known and part of the prior art. In 1997, the
USPTO rejected all six claims of the patent as anticipated by the submissions of CSIR. The
patent was thus declared invalid.4
Defendant
The University of Mississippi Medical Center decided after this initial to abandon the patent and
the patent was re-assigned to the inventors. The inventors chose to pursue the case further on the
grounds that “the powder and paste had different physical properties, i.e. bio-availability and
absorbability, and therefore, one of ordinary skill in the art would not expect, with any
reasonable degree of certainty, that a powdered material would be useful in the same
application as a paste of the same material. The inventors, further, mentioned that oral
4 Mashelkar, R. A., Intellectual property rights and the Third World, 81 Current Science (2001), p. 960

7. administration was available only with honey and honey itself was considered to have wound
healing properties.”
The USPTO however rejected this objection and stated that both paste and powder were
equivalent in relation the references submitted by CSIR. In 1997 the claims were rejected a
second time, and in 1998 the re-examination certificate was issued which signified the end of the
case.
Summary
The Turmeric case is widely hailed as the first patent re-examination case where the rejection
was based on the presentation of TK. It is thus considered a landmark ruling. What the Turmeric
case clearly shows is that even though something is not actually new it can still slip through the
cracks within the patent system. Ensuring that patents such as the Turmeric patent which lacked
novelty are not granted is therefore of the utmost importance. The cost of the case is another
interesting issue; according to CSIR, the entire process cost them 500,000 rupees, nearly 14,000
dollars using the average exchange rate during 1997. Not an awful lot in the light of what patent
cases can cost but still sufficiently expensive to exclude many poor indigenous communities
from initiating an opposition procedure.
Cases related to traditional knowledge in India
In the case Institute For Inner Studies & Ors. vs. Charlotte Anderson & Ors5.
Defendants argued that the concept of Pranic Healing is the sequences of steps, concepts,
principles, techniques of performing the ancient exercise of yoga is incapable of protection in the
field of the Intellectual Property Rights as they form part of the public knowledge in the public
domain and thus cannot form subject matter of the protection. Therefore the concept of Pranic
Healing being a facet of Yoga forms part of the traditional knowledge of India and thus cannot
be appropriated by anyone exclusively much less the plaintiff under the the intellectual property
rights.
Maharshi Mahesh Jogi ... vs State Of M.P. & Ors6
5 AIR 2014 AD (Delhi)

8. According to “Gyan Vigyan” by the author really gives a clear picture about the said concept. a
brief reference to what has been attempted to be explained by the said author. According to the
writer, “Gyan Vigyan” can be analyzed in two ways, viz., Vishesh Gyan and Vishya Gyan. The
world science has linkages with senses and hence, scientific knowledge has got its roots in
senses. He would state that the traditional knowledge gets legitimacy only if it can be tested on
the basis of objectivity, through the senses. He would elaborate his idea by stating that while
science relies on senses, Vigyan i.e. Vishesh Gyan, can be acquired through ‘mind’. Therefore,
Vigyan is more than science as ‘mind’ is more than senses. He would conclude his analysis by
saying that ‘Gyan’ both in terms of its metaphysical and spiritual meaning, is acquired through
‘consciousness’ and that it is more than Vigyan as ‘consciousness’ is more than ‘mind’.
Vandana Shiva And Ors. vs Union Of India And Ors7.
Learned counsel also referred to various statements in the said Annexure viz. the statement in the
Annexure as to how, by allowing the patenting of micro-organisms, the Government of India
would be affecting the life of the citizens through a handful multi-national Corporations.
Patenting is based on traditional knowledge of the life-form and of its use. It is in no way
'"creation" of anything "original". Therefore the patent was not given as it was the already known
and in practices.
CONCLUSION:
Looking at the current situation prevailing in the world. It is to be noted that the IP world has
acknowledged the importance of successful documentation of indigenous Traditional knowledge
like India's play a role in defensive protection within the existing IP system. There are a number
of requirements that have to be fulfilled for the purpose of preservation of the knowledge as the
prior art. The only way to protect the traditional knowledge is the effective documentation of the
same because otherwise it would be a difficult task to assert and preserve the same. Therefore the
defensive protection strategy needs to be adopted for the protection of the traditional knowledge.
The using of protection under the conventional IPR has been a major issue. The requirements of
6 AIR 2013 SC
7 AIR 1995 (32) DRJ 447

9. novelty and non obvious nature of the knowledge to be patented, have to be satisfied. Therefore
this makes the gaining of the commercial protection rights over the knowledge traditionally
obtained, much inflexible. The other problem which is associated with the grant of the patent to
the traditional knowledge is the unidentified inventor as there is no single inventor who invents
this knowledge. The community as a whole is involved in the origination of the traditional
knowledge. Therefore this leads to be the important aspects for preserving the traditional
knowledge. It is high time India and other countries come with legislations to protect the
traditional knowledge.