Ipr In Ip In Indigenous Innovations.
IPR in Indigenous Innovations
1. Introduction
Indigenous innovations refer to inventions, traditional knowledge, or cultural expressions developed by indigenous communities, often based on centuries of cultural practices, local resources, and traditional knowledge (TK).
Key IPR Concerns:
Protection of Traditional Knowledge (TK) – Prevent misappropriation by third parties.
Patents on Indigenous Innovations – Address novelty and ownership issues.
Geographical Indications (GI) – Protect products linked to a community or region.
Benefit Sharing – Ensure communities receive economic or social benefits from commercialization.
Bio-piracy & Ethical Considerations – Prevent exploitation without consent.
2. Legal Framework
International
Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), 1992 – Recognizes sovereignty of nations over biological resources.
Nagoya Protocol (2010) – Access and benefit-sharing for genetic resources.
WIPO – Intergovernmental Committee on IP and TK (IGC) – Drafts guidelines for protecting TK, folklore, and genetic resources.
National (India as an example)
The Biological Diversity Act, 2002 – Regulates access to biological resources and associated knowledge.
The Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration & Protection) Act, 1999 – Protects community-linked products.
Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL) – Converts traditional medicine knowledge into a searchable format to prevent wrongful patenting.
3. Key Challenges
Patentability: Many indigenous innovations are traditional or already in public knowledge, raising novelty issues.
Ownership: Patents are granted to individuals or organizations, not communities.
Documentation: Traditional knowledge is often oral, making protection under conventional IP law difficult.
Commercial Exploitation: Ensuring benefit-sharing and recognition for the community.
4. Case Laws Illustrating IPR in Indigenous Innovations
Case 1: The Neem Patent Case (EPO / India, 1995–2000)
Facts:
US and European companies filed patents for the antifungal properties of neem extract, traditionally used in India.
Indian CSIR challenged these patents.
Judgment:
European Patent Office (EPO) revoked the patent, citing prior knowledge in India.
Relevance:
Demonstrates the use of Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL) to prevent misappropriation.
Highlights the challenge of bio-piracy.
Case 2: Turmeric Patent Case (US Patent No. 5,401,504, 1995–1997)
Facts:
US company patented use of turmeric for wound healing.
India challenged, claiming traditional knowledge existed for centuries.
Outcome:
Patent revoked after prior art evidence from TKDL.
Relevance:
Protecting indigenous medicine and knowledge from unauthorized commercialization.
Case 3: Basmati Rice – Geographical Indication (GI) Case (India, 2010)
Facts:
Several foreign companies tried to register Basmati rice patents abroad.
India claimed GI rights for Basmati rice, linking it to Punjab, Haryana, and other regions.
Outcome:
US Patent Office revoked certain patents; India registered Basmati rice as a GI.
Relevance:
GI protects community-linked innovations, ensures economic benefits, and prevents misappropriation.
Case 4: Hoodia Plant (South Africa & San Community, 2003–2006)
Facts:
Pharmaceutical company sought to commercialize appetite suppressant from Hoodia cactus.
Knowledge originated from San indigenous people.
Outcome:
South African San Council negotiated benefit-sharing agreements.
Company had to pay royalties to the community.
Relevance:
Example of access and benefit-sharing under CBD and Nagoya Protocol.
Recognizes community rights in commercialization.
Case 5: Enola Bean Case (USA, 1999–2005)
Facts:
Mexican indigenous beans were genetically modified and patented in the US by a private company.
Mexican communities and farmers protested, claiming traditional knowledge ownership.
Outcome:
Patent was revoked after legal challenges citing prior art and indigenous knowledge.
Relevance:
Highlights the importance of documenting indigenous innovations to prevent bio-piracy.
Case 6: Basundi/Handmade Crafts GI Case (India, 2016)
Facts:
Artisans from Himachal Pradesh sought GI registration for traditional woolen textiles.
Outcome:
GI registration granted, allowing community economic recognition and IP protection.
Relevance:
Shows the role of GI in protecting indigenous cultural heritage.
Case 7: Kani Tribe & JEEVANI Plant (India, 2000s)
Facts:
Kerala’s Kani tribe shared knowledge of medicinal plant use.
Kerala government developed JEEVANI herbal products and ensured royalty sharing with the tribe.
Relevance:
Demonstrates community-IP collaboration and benefit-sharing.
5. Key Takeaways
Preventing Bio-piracy: TKDL and GI registration prevent unauthorized patenting.
Community Ownership: Traditional knowledge is increasingly recognized as communal IP.
Benefit Sharing: Ethical commercialization requires royalties or social benefits to indigenous communities.
Integration with National Laws: India’s Biological Diversity Act and GI Act provide strong protection frameworks.
International Recognition: CBD, Nagoya Protocol, and WIPO initiatives enforce global compliance and protection.
6. Conclusion
IPR in indigenous innovations is critical for:
Protecting cultural heritage and traditional knowledge
Ensuring economic benefits to communities
Preventing biopiracy and unethical commercialization
Encouraging innovation while respecting heritage
Case laws demonstrate that documentation, GI registration, and international treaties are essential tools to protect indigenous innovations.
RELATED Blog
comments