|
February 9, 2009
Prevention Is Better Than Cure-CSIR Moves To
Protect Traditional Knowledge In Europe!
When Neil Armstrong said, “This is one small step for man,
one giant leap for mankind” he set the pitch for concurring
the moon. Now swap the word mankind with “protection of
traditional knowledge” and you would gather the significance of
this development. The European Patent Office (“EPO”) will now,
prior to granting patents, consult an Indian database, the
“Traditional Knowledge Digital Library”1
(“TKDL”),that lists traditionally known drug formulations
and contains a 24-million-page searchable database that
translates text from Sanskrit, Urdu etc. into English, German,
French, Spanish and Japanese. The Indian Council for Scientific
and Industrial Research (“CSIR”) and EPO recently signed an
access agreement to this effect which will likely result in at
least 40 patent filings in Europe being rejected, which may have
otherwise been successful.2
What is Traditional Knowledge?
World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”), defines
traditional knowledge as, "tradition-based literary,
artistic, or scientific works; performances; inventions;
scientific discoveries; designs; marks, names, and symbols;
undisclosed information; and all other tradition-based
innovations and creations resulting from intellectual activity
in the industrial, scientific, literary or artistic fields"
This definition is inclusive of indigenous knowledge related to
various categories like agricultural knowledge, medicinal
knowledge, etc.3
Nip Litigation In The Bud
With the advent of globalization, intellectual property rights
and their protection have become more and more important. The
creation of monopolies often transgresses over the rights of
others. One such right is the right of traditional knowledge. In
India the Patents Act, 1970 does not allow traditional knowledge
to be patented.4
India has long been trying to resolve the issue of foreign
patent grants on products with medicinal values which form part
of the traditional knowledge in India. The last decade or so has
witnessed patents granted for turmeric and basmati by the United
States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and neem by the EPO
which were ultimately successfully opposed by India based
organizations like CSIR.
The EPO had granted a patent in 1995 to the United States
Department of Agriculture (“USDA”) and the multinational
corporation W.R. Grace for a fungicide derived from seeds of the
Neem tree, a tree indigenous to the Indian subcontinent. Leading
the campaign in the Neem case against the US multinational was
the EU Parliament's Green Party, India-based Research Foundation
for Science, Technology and Ecology (“RFSTE”) and the
International Federation of Organic Agriculture Movements
(IFOAM). The mainstay of RFSTE's challenge was that the
fungicidal qualities of the Neem tree and its use had been known
in India for over 2,000 years. The RFSTE contested that various
parts of the Neem tree (bark, leaves, seeds, etc) had been used
traditionally to make insect repellents, soaps, cosmetics, tooth
cleaners and contraceptives. In addition, documented evidence
was also presented by India which included research done by two
scientists prior to 1995 on use of Neem for making several
products including fungicide. This was used as prior art to
revoke the patent granted to USDA and W.R. Grace. In addition to
the Neem case and Turmeric case at the USPTO, a patent on a
variety of Basmati rice and a number of patents on the different
asanas or positions of yoga have been embroiled in long standing
litigation . India scored a significant victory in the Basmati
case by successfully contesting 15 out of the 20 claims of the
patent.
Though technically another 2000 such existing patents based on
traditional knowledge can be challenged, lack of financial and
other resources is a deterrent. CSIR has therefore taken a step
in the right direction with the TKDL. The TKDL will provide the
EPO access to a larger database to identify prior art and reduce
the transgression of rights in traditional knowledge mentioned
above.
Conclusion
At the EPO, around 100 patent applications per year are related
to such medicinal preparations based on traditional knowledge,
but not all of them relate to subjects covered by TKDL.
Moreover, critics have cautioned that the government should also
think about negotiating access rights to the TKDL to private
parties and other non-governmental entities. The Indian
government is also in talks with the US Patents and Trademark
Office, or USPTO, to extend the initiative to US.
This sharing of information with the EPO and hopefully with
others will increase the cooperation between India and foreign
patent offices and other organizations in a manner that has
never happened before. This will undoubtedly lead to more
protection of traditional knowledge and reduce litigation.
|
|
|
You can direct your queries or
comments to the authors
|
|