Facts of the Case
A U.S.-based pharmaceutical company recently discovered a traditional herbal formulation used for generations in Telangana to treat chronic joint pain. The medicine, made using locally available plants and practiced by native healers, has no recorded inventor or single point of origin. Recognizing the therapeutic potential of this remedy, the company extracted the active ingredients, conducted clinical trials, and filed a patent application in the United States and India, claiming novelty and inventive steps.
However, local communities, Ayurveda practitioners, and state government authorities raised objections. They argued that the formulation is part of the region’s traditional knowledge (TK), collectively inherited and culturally preserved. Civil society groups and intellectual property (IP) experts further questioned the company’s right to monopolize a remedy that belongs to the public domain under Indian law.
Issues of the Case
- Can a foreign company patent knowledge that originates from indigenous communities and is already in public use?
- Does the U.S. company’s isolation and scientific analysis of active ingredients qualify as an “invention” under Indian patent law?
- How does the Indian legal system protect traditional knowledge from bio-piracy or unauthorized patents?
- Are there existing precedents where traditional Indian remedies were protected against foreign patent claims?
Principles Related Case
The leading case relevant to this matter is The Turmeric Patent Case (1995). In this landmark case, two non-resident Indians were granted a U.S. patent (Patent No. 5,401,504) for using turmeric in wound healing—a use already well-known in India for centuries. The Indian Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) challenged the patent by presenting ancient Sanskrit texts and modern scientific literature proving prior use. As a result, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office revoked the patent on the grounds of lack of novelty.
Another significant case is the Neem Patent Case, where the European Patent Office (EPO) granted a patent for the antifungal properties of neem seed extract. India successfully fought the case by demonstrating that the knowledge was already in the public domain. The patent was ultimately revoked.
These cases led to the creation of the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL) in India, which documents traditional medicinal knowledge in multiple languages and serves as a reference for patent offices worldwide to prevent bio-piracy.
Judgement
In light of the above principles and the framework of the Indian Patents Act, 1970, the U.S.-based company cannot succeed in patenting the traditional medicine unless it demonstrates substantial novelty and non-obvious inventive step beyond what is already known or practiced in Telangana. Under Section 3(p) of the Act, inventions that are based on traditional knowledge or aggregation or duplication of known properties of traditionally known components are not patentable in India.
Furthermore, even if the company tries to patent a modified version, Indian law demands a high threshold of innovation. If the core of the product relies on a traditional formulation, it must be proven that the invention is significantly distinct from prior public use, which is unlikely in this case.
In conclusion, India’s robust IP laws, judicial precedents, and international safeguards such as the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) protect indigenous knowledge and biodiversity. The Telangana remedy, being collectively held traditional knowledge, cannot be privately patented by a foreign entity without falling foul of Indian patentability criteria.
