Bio-Piracy - International Patent Problem

Biopiracy is the illegal appropriation of life -- microorganisms, plants and animals (including humans) -- and the traditional cultural knowledge that accompanies it. Biopiracy is illegal because, in violation of international conventions and (where these exist) corresponding domestic laws, it does not recognize, respect or adequately compensate the rightful owners of the life forms appropriated or the traditional knowledge related to their propagation, use and commercial benefit. Biopiracy commonly operates through the application of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) (primarily patents) to genetic resources and traditional knowledge.

Turmeric Patent : 

The turmeric patent had been granted in March 1995 to two non-resident Indians associated with the University of Mississippi Medical Centre, Jackson, USA for “"Use of Turmeric in Wound Healing." Turmeric is scientifically Curcuma longa.
It was revoked on the grounds of lacking the novelty requirement.

Its no surprise that this patent came to be revoked – what’s surprising is that it was even accepted. Let us list the many uses of turmeric shall we?
• When applied to an open wounds, functions a painless antiseptic – there you go, their patent goes down the drain
• Used as kumkum in all Hindu temples and as a sign of matrimony
• We use it in so many foods – rarely is Benarasi or South Indian dish seen without it. Why? Simply because it is a wonderful digestive.
• Many women across the country use it a natural epilator
• Treatment of diarrhoea, arthritis and many skin diseases
• Some of the newly discovered facts about it:
o As an astounding anti-cancer agent.
o COX-2 inhibitor drugs have been known to block an enzyme called cyclooxygenase-2 which aggravates arthritis. Turmeric contains curcumin which inhibits this enzyme.

CSIR challenged the patent on the ground that it lacked novelty. The US Patent Office upheld the objection and cancelled the patent.

The WTO dispute ruling is an attempt to put pressure on India to adopt US-style patent laws. However, as the turmeric patent case makes it evident, the US patent system has its own weaknesses which allow bio-piracy to be practised as a rule. The withdrawal of the turmeric patent is only a first step in reversing biopiracy.

Patents on Neem, Amla, Jar Amla, Anar, Salai, Dudhi, Gulmendhi, Bagbherenda, Karela, Rangoon-ki-bel, Erand, Vilayetishisham, Chamkura all need to be revoked.

The US needs to revoke all the above patents based on Indian indigenous knowledge and 'prior art'. In addition, the US also needs to change its patent laws which sanction biopiracy by its non-recognition of foreign 'prior art'. Patents are supposed to satisfy three criteria of: Novelty, Non-obviousness, and Utility.

Novelty implies that the innovation must be new. It cannot be part of 'prior art' or existing knowledge. Non-obviousness implies that someone familiar in the art should not be able to achieve the same step. Most patents based on indigenous knowledge appropriation violate the criteria of novelty combined with non-obviousness because they range from direct piracy to minor tinkering involving steps obvious to anyone trained in the techniques and disciplines involved.

The phenomenon of biopiracy makes clear that it is not just Indian patent laws that need changing. The US laws also need to be changed to fit into a fair and honest global Intellectual Property Right (IPR) system. The WTO, which has been established to set up a multilateral rule-based system, has a role in ensuring that the inequity and injustice that biopiracy exhibits is removed from the IPR regimes of all member countries.

TRIPs: Trade Related Intellectual Property

WTO : World Trade Organisation

GATT: General Agreement on Tariff and Trades

IPR : Intellectual Property Rights.

Below is an excerpt from Suman Sahai’s article.

The basmati rice patent

It is certainly not a misunderstanding…

white basmati

There has been a lot written about the basmati patent controversy. 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”. Two nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) — Centre for Food Safety, an international NGO that campaigns against biopiracy, and and the Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology, an Indian environmental NGO — have filed legal petitions in the United States. They seek trade protection for basmati rice of the Indian subcontinent and jasmine rice of Thailand.

They have 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 challeged the patent in June 2000.

Many have been the questions asked so far, and many are being asked. Is RiceTec guilty of

biopiracy? Yes, say some. No, say others. Should the basmati patent be revoked in the light of protests from India? Again, yes… and no. Was India right in raising a hue and cry over this? Is the term ‘basmati’ a generic one, or does it refer specifically to rice long aromatic rice grown in India and Pakistan?

In all this, where does the rice farmer stand? 

“The rice farmer…unfortunately most people are quite unware of what is happening and what the patent means. When the Texmati issue happened, the basmati people were quite unaware of what was at stake and when contacted by us, took the whole matter very casually. This would be unheard of any where else. Special interest groups are normally very aggressive about protecting their specialty products. Try and touch the interest of Champagne producers and see what they do to you!

So where does the farmer stand? If the patent is revoked, India’s basmati exports can

continue as before. Our farmers will continue to benefit. If the patent is not revoked,

Indian farmers stand to lose a great deal. .