Professional Documents
Culture Documents
DSTC 1586861568
DSTC 1586861568
Pest Management
• 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 for making the emulsion.
DISPUTE:
• The controversy over who has the rights to the Neem tree raised many questions.
• India claims that what the US Companies are calling discoveries are the actual
stealing and pirating of the indigenous practices and knowledge of its people
• 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 will be harmed.
• The United States, on the other hand, states that what they are doing will help the Indian economy.
• Another issue is whether the neem tree is patenable, since it is a product of nature.
• The problem is that W.R. Grace does not have a patent on the tree itself, but rather on the
process of making the emulsion.
THE NEEM CAMPAIGN:
• The Neem Campaign consisting of a group of NGO and individuals, was initiated in
1993 in India.
• 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 WTO and TRIPS.
• The Neem patent became the first case to challenge European
• and US patents on grounds of biopiracy.
CASE JUDGEMENT
• On the 30th September 1997, the European Patent Office (EPO) delivered a favourable
interim judgement 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 the case.
• 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.
• 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.
Properties of Colorants:
Examples of Colorants :
Diluents:
Ans- 6 What is nutraceuticals? Explain Alfalfa and chicory herb as health food.
Ginger
INTRODUCTION:
Turmeric (Curcuma longa) is a plant of the ginger family yielding saffron-coloured rhizomes used as a
spice for flavouring Indian cooking. It also has properties that make it an effective ingredient in medicines,
cosmetics and as a colour dye.
As a medicine, it is traditionally used to heal wounds and rashes. Turmeric is a plant that grows
widely throughout India and Pakistan. The commercial value of the plant is in the rhizome, or roots, of the
plant, from which a yellow powder is extracted through boiling.
The powder is used as a dye, often in conjunction with other dyes, for leather goods, cotton,
confectionary, and calico. It is also used as a cosmetic, condiment, and as an ant repellent.
In 1995, the USPTO granted a US patent no. 5,401,504 to Dr. Suman Cohly and Hari Har P, two Indian-
American scientists at The University of Mississippi for “the use of turmeric in wound healing.” The patent
covered the following six claims:
2. The method according to claim 1, wherein said turmeric is orally administered to said patient.
3. The method according to claim 1, wherein said turmeric is topically administered to said patient.
The inventors describe turmeric as “a yellow powder developed from the plant Curcuma longa, which is
commonly used as a food colorant in many Indian dishes and imparts a bitter taste.
The two scientists discuss their ability to isolate the active agent inturmeric and their
experiments in determining the healing power of the powder on ulcers and wounds when applied
topically or orally.
All patent applications must be accompanied by a statement of prior art, and Dr. Suman Cohly and
Hari Har‟s, application discussion of prior attempts to isolate the active agent and to test the healing powers
of turmeric.
The Indian Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) asked the US Patent and
Trademark Office (USPTO) to re-evaluate the patent. There is no novelty in the patent as India from
generations was using this as a medicine for healing wounds and rashes argued CSIR.
This could easily be proved as there was ample documentary evidence available of
traditional knowledge, including an ancient Sanskrit text and a paper published in 1953 in the Journal of the
Indian Medical Association.
In 1998, after a challenge by the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research in India, the USPTO
cancelled all six claims in the patent on the healing power of turmeric.
The Council challenged the validity of the patent on the grounds that the patent was not
novel, citing the prior art in the traditional knowledge of India and despite arguments by the patentees, the
USPTO upheld the CSIR objections and revoked the patent, although there is no written opinion of the
office .