Traditional Knowledge and Biological Resources — Intellectual Property Rights II Notes

Traditional Knowledge and Biological Resources

For centuries Indian communities knew that neem repels pests and turmeric heals wounds. That knowledge was free, oral and undocumented — and that is exactly why foreign companies could patent it abroad. Protecting traditional knowledge is about giving legal weight to what communities have always known.

Biological resources and traditional knowledge

A. Biological resources — s.2(c)

Section 2(c): “biological resources means plants, animals and micro-organisms or parts thereof, their genetic material and by-products (excluding value added products) with actual or potential use or value, but does not include human genetic material.”

Biological resources are the living things and their genetic material (excluding human genetic material and value-added products). They are the raw material the Act regulates access to.

B. Traditional knowledge (TK)

Traditional knowledge is the knowledge, innovations and practices of local and indigenous communities, built up over generations, about the uses of biological resources — which plant cures fever, which seed resists drought. The Act protects TK because:

it is valuable (the starting point for drugs, crops, cosmetics);
it is vulnerable (oral, undocumented, easily appropriated); and
the communities that hold it deserve recognition and a share of the benefits.

C. How the Act protects them

Access control — accessing a biological resource or associated knowledge needs NBA/SBB clearance (ss.3, 7).
Benefit-sharing — s.21 ensures the knowledge-holders share in the benefits.
Anti-bio-piracy — s.18(4) lets the NBA oppose wrongful patents abroad.
Documentation — the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL) (by CSIR and the Ministry of AYUSH) records Indian TK so patent offices worldwide can reject wrongful claims; the BMC’s PBR documents it locally.

In Simple Terms: Biological resources are the stuff (plants, microbes, genes); traditional knowledge is the know-how about using them. The Act guards both by controlling access, sharing benefits, documenting the knowledge (TKDL/PBR), and fighting wrongful foreign patents.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — documenting to defeat a patent

Facts. A foreign applicant tries to patent the fever-curing use of a plant long known to an Indian community.

Rule. Documented traditional knowledge is prior art; a known use is not novel and cannot be patented (and the NBA may oppose it under s.18(4)).

Apply. Because the use is recorded (TKDL/PBR), the patent office sees the knowledge is old and public.

Conclusion. The patent should be refused/revoked for lack of novelty — exactly how turmeric and neem patents were defeated.

flowchart TD
    ROOT["Protecting resources + knowledge"]:::root
    ROOT --> A["Biological resources (s.2(c)) — plants, microbes, genes"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> B["Traditional knowledge — community know-how"]:::leaf
    ROOT --> C["Tools: access control, benefit-sharing, TKDL/PBR, s.18(4)"]:::leaf
    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#000,stroke-width:1px,color:#000;
    classDef leaf fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

Case Laws

Turmeric patent case (USPTO, 1997) — US patent on turmeric’s wound-healing use revoked as known Indian TK.
Neem patent case (EPO, 2000/2005) — European patent on neem’s fungicidal use revoked; the knowledge was traditional and public.

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All Intellectual Property Rights II topics