Protection of Traditional Knowledge in Indian Patent act
By Dinesh Dayma
The new millennium poses serious challenge to the international legal community to set new international legal standard for tacking the problem of intellectual property protection throw open by the technology developments. Protections of the Traditional Knowledge of the local and indigenous communities seem to be one of the most contentious and complicated issue. The historical development of the protection of intellectual property in the wake of individual private property rights, pushed, the traditional knowledge and the innovative practice based on the it outside the purview of the formal intellectual property protection regime. Traditional Knowledge was treated as Knowledge in the public demeans for free exploitation without showing any respect or concern for the effort taken by the communities to preserve and promote the same. The new technological developments, particularly in biotechnology, clearly demonstrate the significance and usefulness of traditional knowledge for the development of new product of commercial importance. The formal intellectual Knowledge base. The need to protect the traditional knowledge captured the attention of the international community only recently but the standard setting was left to the national governments. The absence of the international standards, that causes serious negligence for the protection of the traditional knowledge and the benefits of new technology.
Traditional Knowledge (TK), variously referred to as ‘traditional knowledge’, ‘traditional ecological knowledge’, ‘local knowledge’, ‘folk knowledge’ is knowledge developed by local and indigenous communities over time in response to the needs of their specific local environment. The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) defines traditional knowledge as “indigenous cultural and intellectual property,” indigenous heritage,” and customary heritage rights”.
All other innovations and creations that is “tradition-based”. Tradition-based” refers to knowledge systems that have been transmitted from generation to generation; pertain to a particular people and their territory; and are constantly evolving in response to a hanging environment. Categories of traditional knowledge include agricultural knowledge, scientific knowledge, technical knowledge, ecological knowledge, medicinal knowledge and biodiversity-related knowledge. It is imperative to protect this TK because it is under serious threat today from the callous neglect visible in national and international policy. A central problem s that while knowledge created in laboratories is acknowledged as the property of the innovator; that created in fields and forests is not recognized as the property of its creators. The main arguments for granting protection to TK include equity considerations, conservation concerns, the preservation of traditional practices and culture, the prevention of appropriation by unauthorized parties of components of TK; and promotion of its use in development.
Over the past few years, the
patent system has come under considerable criticism of its failure to prevent
the misappropriation of traditional knowledge. While there is wide agreement
that positive protection of traditional knowledge can not be successively
accomplished through the patent system, increasingly, consideration is being
given to suggestions to use the patent system as a defensive measure against
misappropriation of traditional knowledge. Traditional knowledge also
constitutes much of the world’s medicinal knowledge and agricultural knowledge.
Indigenous and local communities around the world rely on this knowledge for
their survival, daily life, healing and nutrition needs. In
The Communities survived on their traditional knowledge base. The product they manufactured format part of there livelihood. Even today many local and indigenous communities in the Asian countries meet their basic need from the product they manufacturing and sell based in their traditional knowledge. Maintenance of there health even now based traditional medicine derived from plants and other natural products. The development of new technology and the new of technology and the survival of many of these communities. The modern culture industries as well as the manufacturing industry (textile, handicraft, pharmaceutical, seed etc,) now commercially exploit the traditional; knowledge based product using new technology without the permission and sharing of profits with the communities. It is possible today to bring out new products or find out new of existing product based on traditional; knowledge utilizing the technological in the field of biotechnology. This is provided beyond doubt particularly in the field of medicines, agriculture, etc. The Bio- prospecting helps the scientists in the modern pharmaceutical research laboratories to get that know that how to developed new product or new use of existing product.
The legal norms relating to the formal intellectual property rights based on copyright, patent, design, etc., were developed to tackle the social problems that emerged due to the scientific developments during industrial revolution in the West. The legal norms crystallized to protect the new Knowledge have a significant bearing on the manner in which the western system looked at science and scientific developments. Thus the concept of ‘originality’, ‘novelty’, ‘utility’, ‘non-obvious or inventive step’ etc., used to find out the items that are to be protected through the formal intellectual property system addressed only the scientific developments based on the western understanding of science. In the same way the insistence of the identity of the creator of the new Knowledge - author or inventor as the case may be - for the purpose of affording protection also reflects the individual private property jurisprudence underlying the protection of intellectual property. These concepts kept the traditional knowledge and the products based on it outside the scope of formal intellectual property system and treated it as Knowledge in the public domain for exploitation without authorization.
The Knowledge based of the community remains any legal protection, where as the creators of new knowledge based on it using modern science were afforded protection by the formal system. . The provisions in the TRIPS Agreement are a clear indication in this direction. This calls for a different jurisprudential approach for the protection of Traditional knowledge.
Patents and Traditional Knowledge:
In broad terms, patents can be defined as exclusive rights granted for an invention - either a product or a process - that offers a new technical solution to a specific problem. A patent implies the grant of a “monopoly” to an inventor who has used his knowledge and skills to produce a product or process which is new, involves an inventive step and is capable of industrial application.
The TRIPS Agreement also has some provisions having limited application to the protection of Traditional Knowledge. The obligation to protect geographical indications can be used to protect traditional knowledge if associated with the indication used for production and sale of goods. It is made clear that a given quality, reputation or other characteristics of the goods essentially attributable to its geographical origin are to be considered in identifying the geographical indications for protection. Thus it may be possible for protection through geographical indication the traditional knowledge associated with goods.
Disclosing traditional knowledge which forms part of an invention and of the state of the art or prior art will promote the progress of science by creating an incentive for the maintenance of traditional knowledge systems . This will happen by traditional knowledge being widely and universally accepted within “western” or “modern” innovation protection systems and becoming a reference point within the regular operations of the international patent system.
Traditional Knowledge in Danger:
As demand for commercialization of biodiversity and traditional knowledge increases at a rapid pace and as the world globalizes, develops and modernizes, indigenous societies are being encroached upon faster than traditional knowledge can be protected. Their cultures and knowledge are being lost. In many parts of the world, the very existence of indigenous societies is under threat.
b) Encroachment, Bio-prospecting and Bio-piracy:
One of the biggest threats to biodiversity and related traditional knowledge is ever-increasingly bioprospecting activities on behalf of enthobotonists, pharmaceutical companies and others who wish to profit from the rich biodiversity and traditional knowledge in indigenous territories.
Current legal systems are inadequate, allowing for the biopiracy of biodiversity and traditional knowledge. “Legislation is required and it is required yesterday,” says Noiwazi Gcaba, a South African patent attorney.
c) Inadequacy of Legal Systems that Address Traditional Knowledge:
This point is divided into two major sections:-
1. General issues relating to the protection of traditional knowledge.
Devolution, encroachment, the bio
prospecting rush, lack of appropriate legal systems and a clash of systems all
make traditional knowledge highly vulnerable to Biopiracy. Several traditional
plants and related knowledge in
Traditional knowledge is generally associated
with biological resources and is invariably an intangible component of such a
biological resource. Traditional knowledge has the potential of being
translated into commercial benefits by providing leads/clues for development of
useful practices and processes for the benefit of mankind. The valuable
leads/clues provided by TK save time,
money and investment of modern biotech and other industries into any research
and product development. Reasonably, we can say that a share of such
benefits should accrue to the creators and/or holders of such Traditional
Knowledge. Some countries have specific legislation protecting this kind of
knowledge while some other countries feel their existing IPR regime protects
such knowledge. As of now,
In the recent past, there have been
several cases of bio-piracy of TK from
In 1993, the
US PTO granted the University of Mississippi Medical Center patent rights over
a “healing a wound by administering turmeric to a patient afflicted with a
wound.” But again, Turmeric has been used for centuries in
C. Basmati Rice
In 1997, the
In basmati case demonstrates the problem as illustrated in TRIPS that
patents are granted to biotechnological processes. Thus, even though basmati
rice has been in
In 2001 after
the Viagra craze, two
Recently amended patent law of ours
contains provisions for mandatory disclosure of source and geographical origin
of the biological material used in the invention while applying for patents in
2. Granting of patents in respect of traditional knowledge:
Concern that has been expressed
in the discussion in the council for TRIPS is about the grant of patents or
other IPRs covering traditional knowledge to persons other then the indigenous
peoples or community who have originated the knowledge and legitimately control
it. Several patents have been cited as ex. including in regard to turmeric,
Two area it has been said that the patent system is not working well enough in connection with the granting of patent covering traditional knowledge have been referred to “Definition of prior art” used to determine weather a claimed invitation meets the novelty stranded for patentability. The second concern the “adequacy of the information on prior art” available to patent examiners.
3. Consent and benefit sharing:
Traditional knowledge is being used without the authorization of the indigenous peoples or communities who have originated and legitimately control it and without proper sharing of the benefit that occurs from such use.
Ø Use of the existing system IPR:
It has been suggest theta starting point should be explore possibility for making more effective use of the exciting IPR system for protecting the traditional knowledge of indigenous peoples and local communities. 
It has been suggest that the beat way of dressing this concern would be through system based on bilateral contract between holder of traditional knowledge and persons or companies wishing to access and use the knowledge.
Ø Disclosure requirement:
It has been suggest that applicant for patent for indentations that used traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources should be required to disclose the course. Or the origin of the source of the traditional knowledge in their patent applications.
Ø Sui generis system of protection:
It has been suggest that only a system of protection of traditional knowledge which provides proprietary rights can insure that market forces will be operate to generate fairness and equity. The suggestions concerning contracts and disclosure, which have also been made in regarded to genetic material used in invention that are the subjects of patent application, are discuss in more detail in the secretariat’s revised summery note on the relationship between the TRIPS agreement and convention on biological diversity..
The Indian legislation for the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act 2001 also acknowledge that the conservation, exploration, collection, characterization, evaluation of plant genetic resources for food and agriculture are essential to meet the goals of national food and nutritional security as also for sustainable development of agriculture for the present and future generations. It also acknowledges that the plant genetic resources for food and agriculture are the raw material indispensable for crop genetic improvement. The concept of effective benefit sharing arrangement between the provider and the recipient of the plant genetic resources forms an integral part of our Act. The protection provided to a plant variety bred by a breeder can be cancelled if there is an omission or wrongful disclosure of such information.
Strategies to Increase Protection of Traditional Knowledge:
There are several international legal platforms and instruments that currently address intellectual property protection as it relates to traditional knowledge. Some of the most prominent include.
The UN Draft Declaration on Rights of Indigenous Peoples:
This UN Draft Declaration, in Article 29, specifically states that “Indigenous peoples are entitled to the recognition of the full ownership, control and protection of their cultural and intellectual property. They have the right to special measures to control, develop and protect their sciences, technologies and cultural manifestations, including human and other genetic resources, seeds, medicines, knowledge of the properties of fauna and flora, oral traditions, literatures, designs and visual and performing arts.”
A recent positive initiative is the drafting of a set of corporate guidelines
for businesses that want to use native plants and traditional knowledge from
indigenous communities to make commercial drugs. In April 2002 in
It has also been suggested that a requirement on patent applications to disclose in their applications any traditional knowledge used in the invention in question could help in the assessment of novelty and also assist countries with possible claims to examine the application and oppose the patent in time.
The Geographical Indication of Goods
(Registration and Protection) Act, 1999 passed by Parliament is another step
Suggestion for Improve Indian Patent act for Traditional Knowledge:
In responsible, it has been said that:
— The criteria for patentability are properly applied; the granting of erroneous patents would be avoided
— Under the patent law of many member, prior art comprises not only earlier disclosures in writing but also what is early publicly know or used any where in the world.
In response it has been said that, even if the national laws applicable do not allow patents on invention based on traditional knowledge, patents in other regimes that allow such patents reduce the economic value of the knowledge of local community and may constrain the development and use of their knowledge in the market-place or may facilitate otherwise of exploitation of their knowledge with out any rewards to them. It has been suggest that the development of database on traditional knowledge would help patent examiners discover relevant prior art so as to improve examination of patent application and prevent the grant of patents for subject matter that should not be patentable.. Database would also help potential licensees in terms of searching for knowledge, innovations and parties’.
Various suggestions have been
(i) Documentation of TK;
(ii) Registration and innovation patent system; and
(iii) Development of a sui generis system.
It is sometimes believed that proper documentation of associated TK could help in checking bio-piracy. Documentation could be a double-edged sword. It is assumed that if the material/ knowledge are documented, it can be made available to patent examiners the world over so that prior art in the case of inventions based on such materials/knowledge are/is readily available to them. It is also hoped that such documentation would facilitate tracing of indigenous communities with whom benefits of commercialization of such materials/knowledge has to be shared.
Some specific suggestions:
1. Access to these databases for patent authorities and relent judicial authorities could be facilitated through the establishment of an international gateway for traditional knowledge, which would electronically link this data based.
2. At least minimum harmonization of the structure and content for these data based should be achieve
3. Data based should be reachable over the Internet.
4. To the extent that traditional knowledge which already recorded in databased and print media, it is important to insure that patent examiners are made familiar with this resources.
5. Databased should only disclose traditional knowledge already in the public domain or traditional knowledge for which prior inform consent has been obtained.
6. Access these data based should not involve costly or burdensome procedures.
In this regard, concerns have been expressed about the following:
1. In this responsibilities for bearing cost of maintaining these database.
2. While serving as repository of information, database cannot be completely exhaustive as they may not contain knowledge held by local communities in oral form or knowledge that is continuously evolving through informal innovation within a community.
3. While database may help forestall the grant of inappropriate patents, they cannot address the problem of the non-accrual to the holders of traditional knowledge of economic benefits resulting from the use of knowledge.
4. Reference to database by patent examiner would be voluntary and patent examiners in member countries would have no obligation to consider this information in their prior art searches. Obligations, guidelines or recommendations should be established to improve and substantial tighten up search systems in respect of information that is relevant to traditional knowledge so as to evaluate novelty and inventiveness.
Documentation of traditional knowledge is also acknowledge as a means of giving due recognition to the traditional knowledge holders. This particular aspect of documenting formulations in the Ayurvedic system of medicine in India in the shape of traditional knowledge Digital Library (TKDL) is already on and we appreciate the efforts of WIPO to arrange for a presentation in this regard as also on the topic of Health Heritage Data Base for the benefit of the members attending the last Intergovernmental Committee meeting in Geneva in June 2002. The scope of the TKDL work relates to the transcription of 35,000 formulations used in Ayurvedic system of medicines. These details are being converted into Patent Application Format and will include description, method of preparation, claim and the usage of the bibliography.
Documentation of TK is one means of giving recognition to knowledge holders. But mere documentation may not enable sharing of benefits arising out of the use of such knowledge, unless it is backed by some kind of mechanisms for protecting the knowledge. This necessitates the need for extending some kind of protection to TK. Documentation of TK may only serve a defensive purpose, namely that of preventing the patenting of this knowledge in the form in which it exists. Documentation per se, however, will not facilitate benefit sharing with the holders of TK.
 WIPO “Intellectual Property Needs & Expectation of Traditional Knowledge Holders” WIPO Report on Fact- Finding Missions on Intellectual Property & Traditional Knowledge (1998- 1999) pg.25.
 Id at 25.
 WIPO “Intellectual Property Needs & Expectation of Traditional Knowledge Holders” WIPO Report on Fact- Finding Missions on Intellectual Property & Traditional Knowledge (1998- 1999) pg.25.
 Biodiversity, l3ioteclmology and the Protection of
 Balick, Michael, “Traditional Kiowledge: Lessons from
the Past, Lessons for the Future,” p. 3, paper presented at conference,
“Biodiversity, Biotechnology and the Protection of Traditional Knowledge,”
 Shiva, Vandana, “Indigenous Knowledge and IPRs,”
Biopkacy: The Plunder of NatHre and Knowledge, South End Press,
 . “About Neem,” at http:/fwww.neem.com.auJabout.html
 Walker, Simon “The TRIPS Agreement, Sustainable Development and the Public Interest A Discussion paper” INCU Law and Policy paper no. 41, IUNCE & CILE, 2001, PG.36.
 Gollin, Michael, “New Rules for Natural Products,” Sep. 1999, Vol. 17 &9, pg 921-922.
 Higher Education and Research Opportunities in the UK (HERO), “Knowledge Grabbers Pay Nothing,” available at: http:f/www.hero.ac.ukiresearcblknowledge grabbers pay no4305.cfm
 India, IP/CIW/198, IP/CIM/48, paras, 57-59.
 14. Brazil, IP/C/W/228.
 Peru,IP/CIW/447;Indja, IP/C/M130,para. 170
 India, IP/C/M139, Para. 122, 1P1C128, Para. 126; Kenya, IP/C/M/28, Para. 141; Peru, 1P/C/W/447
 AUSTRALIA, IP/C/W/310;EC,IP/C/W/383; Japan, IP/C/M/29,para 157
 United Sate, IP/CIW/434,IP/C/W/393,IP/CIW/341,IP/CIW/257
 Switzerland, IP/C/W/433,IP/C/W/423, IP/CIWI400IRev.1
 EC, IPIC/383, 1P/C/M/44 Para. 29, IPIC/W42 Para 107. ,IP/C/M/37fadd. 1 Para. 228
 UN Economic and Social Council, “Discrimination Against Indigenous Peoples,” Report of Working Group on Indigenous Populations in its 11th Session, E/CN.4/Sub.2/1993/29/Annex 1.23 August 1993, http;//www.cswis.org/fwdp/drft9329.html
 United Nations Convention on Biological Diversity, available at www.biodiv.org
 Japan, IP/C1W1236.
 United State ,IP/C/W/449,IP/C/W/434, IP/C/M/49,para.105,IP/C/M/48,Para.33.IP/C/M/46
africation group, IP/C/W/404;