In the drive for innovation and economic supremacy, there lies a subtle form of theft that is often overlooked, one that quietly strips and deprives indigenous communities of their invaluable traditional knowledge. At its core, biopiracy entails the use of biological resources and traditional knowledge tied to native communities without providing them with fair compensation or recognition. When this exploitation is wrapped in the guise of international patent laws, it prompts a troubling question: Have modern legal systems effectively sanctioned the theft of rich biodiversity?

WHAT CONSTITUTES BIOPIRACY?

Biopiracy refers to the practice where corporations, research institutions, or individuals patent genetic resources or indigenous knowledge, usually taken from developing countries without securing prior informed consent or ensuring fair benefit-sharing. India's incredible bio-heritage, which includes treasures like neem, turmeric, and basmati rice, has been repeatedly appropriated and turned into commodities through foreign patent systems. It’s a painful irony: the very local communities that have cared, nurtured and preserved these resources for generations frequently find themselves cut out of the profits and erased from the narrative. What starts as an ethnobotanical research ultimately leads to fuel global monopolies.

CASE STUDIES ON BIOPIRACY:

Back in the 1990s, the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) awarded a patent to the University of Mississippi Medical Center for the wound-healing benefits of turmeric. However, turmeric has been a staple in Indian Ayurvedic medicine for centuries. After a lot of pushback and legal battles, that patent was eventually revoked.

Similarly, W.R. Grace and the US Department of Agriculture received a European patent for neem-based fungicides, causing indignation among Indian environmentalists and farmers. That too was later reversed and overturned but only after years of litigation and international advocacy.

These cases are not isolated incidents, they are part of a greater trend of commodifying traditional knowledge under the pretense of innovation.

GAPS IN PATENT SCHEME:

On an international scale, Article 27 of the TRIPS Agreement (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) permits member states to issue patents for microorganisms and biotechnological processes. However, it doesn’t require them to reveal the provenance of the biological materials or traditional knowledge that went into these inventions. This ambiguity in the law gives businesses a convenient way to:

i. Avoid benefit-sharing obligations

ii. Bypass local consent procedures

iii. Assume ownership of knowledge that was never intended to be commercialized.

INTERNATIONAL EFFORTS TO CURB BIOPIRACY:

The neglected victims of international intellectual property laws are often developing countries, which are rich in biodiversity but frequently lack strong patent opposition mechanisms. In many ways, the international intellectual property rights favour those who draft the laws over those who hold the knowledge. Although, over the years significant advancements have been made on a global scale.

In 2001, during the Doha WTO Ministerial, members tasked the TRIPS Council to investigate the relationship between TRIPS and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), particularly with regard to disclosure requirements.

Countries such as India, Brazil, Peru, and Mexico have also suggested changes to TRIPS that would introduce compulsory disclosures. This means patent applicants would need to disclose the origin of resources, prior informed consent (PIC) and details about benefit-sharing.

Since 2001, WIPO’s Intergovernmental Committee (IGC) has been working towards similar objectives. In May 2024, member states in Geneva adopted the WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge (GRATK Treaty). Although it’s not yet in force, it represents the first international agreement that mandates disclosure in patents that come from traditional or genetic resources.

[Image Sources: Shutterstock]

INDIA’S STEPS TO COMBAT BIOPIRACY:

The Indian government launched the "Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL)," an initiative that catalogs ancient Indian medicinal knowledge in formats that are compatible with patent applications. This has been crucial in preventing unapproved patent claims from other nations.

The Biological Diversity Act, 2002 also requires foreign entities to get prior approval and establish benefit-sharing agreements before they can access India's biological resources.

Nonetheless, enforcing these regulations is no easy feat. Monitoring foreign patent applications, negotiating benefit-sharing agreements, and involving local communities are all processes that require substantial resources, which are often underfunded and overlooked.

NEED FOR A NON-EXPLOITATIVE PATENT SYSTEM:

Those in favour of the existing patent regime argue that we must incentivize innovation. However, when that innovation is built on traditional knowledge that hasn’t been compensated, can we honestly say it’s innovative or is it simply exploitative? The ethical lines are not only blurred, they’re frequently redrawn to benefit Western pharmaceutical and biotech giants. In permitting this kind of appropriation, we run the risk of turning theft into a form of progress.

What we truly need is a radical rethink of intellectual property law, wherein:

i. Community stewardship of traditional knowledge is valued

ii. Disclosure of resource origins is mandated in patent applications

iii. Access and Benefit-Sharing (ABS) frameworks are bolstered worldwide

Even more crucially, the law should shift from being a tool for extraction to a cornerstone of justice, amplifying the voices of indigenous tribes instead of drowning them out.

Beyond merely being a legal issue, biopiracy is a moral critique of the ongoing exploitation of developing countries in the name of progress. The silent appropriation of traditional knowledge will continue, approved by legal procedures but without justice, unless we reform international patent laws to be inclusive, transparent, and equitable.

Author :- Jiya Parag Parekh, in case of any query, contact us at Global Patent Filing or write back us via email at support@globalpatentfiling.com.

References:

1. https://www.unescap.org/sites/default/d8files/knowledge-products/trips2012-wu2.pdf?

2. https://www.wipo.int/export/sites/www/tk/en/docs/use-of-turmeric-in-wound-healing-e.pdf?

3. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/abs/protection-of-biodiversity-and-traditional-knowledge-in-international-law-of-intellectual-property/relationship-between-the-trips-agreement-and-treaties-protecting-genetic-resources-and-traditional-knowledge

4. https://www.iprsonline.org/ictsd/docs/wto_IPCW403.pdf?

5. https://www.iprsonline.org/ictsd/docs/tripsBridgesYear7N5.pdf?