CASE STUDIES ON PATENTS

History of Turmeric
• Historically, turmeric has been co-opted in Ayurveda and other traditional Indian medical systems owing to its rich
medicinal benefits.
• Turmeric, a plant in the ginger family, is native to Southeast Asia and is grown commercially in the region,
primarily in India.
• Its rhizome (underground stem) is used as a principal culinary spice and traditional medicine, namely for treatment
of disorders of the skin, upper respiratory tract, joints, and digestive system, as well as a dietary supplement for a
variety of conditions, including arthritis, digestive disorders, respiratory infections, allergies, liver disease,
depression, and many others.
• Turmeric is a plant that has been used for curative purposes for since four thousand years.
• In Southeast Asia, turmeric is also used as a component in religious ceremonies.
• Turmeric is also referred to as "Indian Saffron" due to its bright yellow colour.
• Modern medicine has become to realize its significance as discussed by around three thousand publications
dealing with turmeric in last 25 years.
• Turmeric is used as a blood purifier, anti-parasitic for many skin diseases, as well as used for healing wounds.
• A common household remedy for treating the common cold, known to almost every household in India, is a glass
of warm ‘Haldi Doodh' or 'Turmeric Milk’.
• In the early 90s, India fought and won a patent battle against two US-based scientists who had discovered the
wound-healing qualities of turmeric.
 Case Study of the Turmeric Patent (1997, USPTO)
• In 1995, the University of Mississippi Medical Centre was granted a US Patent on use of turmeric for its
wound healing property.
• The claim covered a method of promoting healing of a wound by administering turmeric to a patient
afflicted with the wound.
• This patent also granted them the exhaustive right to sell and distribute turmeric worldwide.
• The question arose whether "Use of Turmeric in Wound Healing developed by the American researchers
constituted prior art or not?
• According to the Indian Patent Act, 1970, an invention is: “a new product or process that involving an
inventive step and capable of industrial application”….. Novelty is a requirement for a patent claim to
be patentable that means an invention or technology which has not been anticipated by publication in
any document or used in the country or elsewhere in the world before the date of filling of patent
application with complete specification, i.e., the subject matter has not fallen in public domain or that it
does not form part of the state of the art.
• Since the subject matter of the patent application, i.e., 'Use of Turmeric in Wound Healing had already
been published in ancient Indian texts, and turmeric preparations had been in use in India to treat
wounds since ancient times, the purported developments by the American researchers had no novelty in
invention.
• The Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) of India in 1996, filed an application
for re-examination against the patent which was given to the University, citing enough
documentary evidence of traditional knowledge, including an ancient Sanskrit text and a paper
published in the Journal of the Indian Medical Association in 1953.
• The Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR) argued that turmeric was known in
India and had been used for thousands of years for healing wounds alongside use as a food
ingredient, and argued that its medicinal use was not a novel invention.
• Their claim was supported by 32 references written in different languages such as ancient
Sanskrit. Urdu and Hindi texts, a paper published in 1953 in the Journal of the Indian Medical
Association.
• The USPTO, after ascertaining that there was indeed no novelty in their purported invention,
revoked the patent granted to the University of Mississippi Medical Centre in 1997, and
acknowledged that use of turmeric and its medicinal properties had been known to India for
thousands of years.
• In this particular case of grant of a foreign patent, the traditional knowledge indigenous to India
was thankfully rescued from foreign monopoly.
 History of Neem
• The neem tree (Azadirachta indica) has been used in India for over 4,500 years.
• The earliest documentation of neem mentions its fruit, seeds, oil, leaves, roots, and bark for
their medicinal properties.
• Indian Ayurvedic texts describe the neem tree's healing properties from as far back as 5000
BC.
• In Indian mythology, the Vedas call neem "SARVA ROGA NIVARINI", which means "one that
cures all ailments and ills".
• The neem tree is also often associated with the god Vishnu, who is said to have rested on a
neem tree during his incarnation as the dwarf Vamana.
• The exact origin of the neem tree is uncertain, but some say it is native to the whole Indian
subcontinent. Others attribute it to dry forest areas throughout all of South and Southeast Asia,
including Pakistan, Sri Lanka, Thailand, Malaysia, and Indonesia.
• Neem is used as the main component in some toothpaste and mouthwashes.
• It is also commonly used in shampoos for treating dandruff and in soaps or creams for skin
allergies and infections.
 Case Study of the Neem Patent
• For centuries the Western world ignored the neem tree and its properties, the practices of
Indian peasants and doctors were not deemed worthy of attention by the majority of British,
French and Portuguese colonialists.
• In 1971, US timber importer Robert Larson observed the tree's usefulness in India and began
importing neem seed to his company headquarters in Wisconsin.
• Over the next decade he conducted safety and performance tests upon a pesticidal neem
extract called Margosan-O and in 1985 received clearance for the product from the US
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
• Three years later he sold the patent for the product to the multinational chemical corporation,
W R Grace and Co.
• Since 1985, over a dozen US patents have been taken out by US and Japanese firms on
formulae for stable neem-based solutions and emulsions and even for a neem-based
toothpaste.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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 NGOs 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.
• On the 30th September 1997, the European Patent Office (EPO) delivered a favorable 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 victory is a result of a four-year-long effort by the Research Foundation for Science,
Technology and Environment.
• The European Patent Office agreed to withdraw the patent in May 2000, the Patent was
revoked however, the Patent of US Patent Office of 1992 is still valid.
• 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.
 History of Basmati Rice
• Rice is an important aspect of life in the Southeast and other parts of Asia.
• For centuries, it has been the cornerstone of their food and culture.
• Basmati has been grown in the foothills of the Himalayas for thousands of years.►
• Basmati rice is being grown in subcontinent for centuries.
• Its flavor and aroma has been developed through selective breeding for thousands of years.
• It is common knowledge that what Champagne is to France, Basmati is to subcontinent
(Pakistan and India).
• Basmati means the "queen of fragrance or the perfumed one“.
• Origin: Pakistan and India
• Indian varieties are Safidon, Haryana, Kasturi (Baran, Rajasthan), Basmati 198, Basmati 217,
Basmati 370, Kasturi, Mahi Suganda.
• Pakistani varieties Basmati 370, Super Basmati, Pak (Kernal) Basmati, Basmati 386, Basmati 385
and Basmati 198.
 Case Study of the Basmati Rice Patent
• In the late 1997, when an American company RiceTec Inc. was granted a patent by the US
patent office to call the aromatic rice grown outside India "Basmati", India objected to it.
• India has been one of the major exporters of Basmati to several countries and such a grant by
the US patent office was likely to affect its trade.
• Since Basmati rice is traditionally grown in India and Pakistan, it was opined that hat granting
patent to RiceTec violated the Geographical Indications Act under the TRIPS agreement.
• A geographical indication (sometimes abbreviated to GI) is a name or sign used on certain
products which corresponds to a specific geographical location or origin (e.g.. a town, region,
or country).
• The use of a GI may act as a certification that the product possesses certain qualities, or enjoys
a certain reputation, due to its geographical origin.
• RiceTec's usage of the name Basmati for rice which was derived from Indian rice but not grown
in India, and hence not of the same quality as Basmati, would have lead to the violation of the
concept of Gl and would have been a deception to the consumers.
• RiceTec Company Details owned by Prince Hans-Adam of Liechtenstein, 120 company
employees. Annual sales 10 million US Dollars. Rice developed by RiceTec are: Bas 867, RT
1117, RT 112.
• Company's Words "We are absolutely confident in our patent and viability and legality. There is
no basis for challenging the patent.
• RiceTec Inc. Patent Claims RiceTec put 20 claims about their product from which few ones are:
·Semi-dwarf in stature substantially photoperiod insensitive.
·High yield.
·Having characteristics similar or superior to those of good quality basmati rice.
·The invention provides a method for breeding these novel lines.
·Starch index (SI) of a rice grain can predict the grain's cooking and starch properties.
·Claiming that "Aroma" has been developed by RiceTec Inc. is misleading.
·RiceTec Inc. claimed that it tool them 10 years to develop the Aroma in their rice line.
·Branding a Basmati lookalike as Basmati.
·They used inbreeding of ordinary American rice with sub continental Basmati rice and
patented this hybrid as Basmati.
• Government of India Response to Patent.
• Government of India under severe pressure from its exporters and farmers logged an appeal
with USPTO.
• They submitted the evidence to USPTO.
• Due to the objection filed by the Indian government and the uprising protests by the farmers in
India, RiceTec voluntarily agreed to revoke its rights on several of the claims.
• However, USPTO held several other claims of RiceTec as questionable and issued a Re-
examination certificate cancelling claims 1 to 7, 10, and 14 to 20 which were related to Basmati
rice grown in India.
• All this resulted in RiceTec holding a patent specific to few claims which could not cause any
detrimental effect to Basmati rice harvested in India and Rice Tec losing the right to use the
term 'Basmati' while advertising the rice varieties developed by them through their research.