WIPO TREATING PROTECTING GENETIC RESOURCES AND TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE
Traditional knowledge includes the skills and practices of indigenous people, and genetic resources involve valuable biological materials. Protecting both helps ensure that traditional knowledge is respected and that any use of genetic resources is fair and benefits the original communities. The treaty came from a proposal by the President, which was almost the same as the original draft. It aims to balance two groups' interests: those wanting more disclosure for fair access and benefit-sharing of genetic resources, and those wanting to protect patent holders' rights and improve the global patent system's stability.

INTRODUCTION
The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) members have introduced a new regulation requiring patent applicants to disclose the source of genetic resources if their inventions are derived from these materials or linked to traditional knowledge. This treaty aims to protect genetic resources and traditional knowledge in countries like India, ensuring stricter regulation and safeguarding these aspects, even though misuse continues in other regions without such rules.
Previously, there was no requirement for applicants to disclose the origin of genetic resources, and only 35 out of 120 countries had any form of disclosure measures, which were often informal or not enforced. Adopted on May 24 after a two-week conference in Geneva with representatives from 192 countries and 86 observers, the treaty mandates that all participating countries, including developed nations, amend their existing laws to include these new disclosure requirements.
Relevant Articles under Treaty
Article 3 of the treaty is a big win for those who want more transparency. Patent applications are required to include disclosures of any genetic resources and traditional knowledge that were utilized. This rule is binding, so all countries that agree to the treaty must follow it.
The treaty offers important protections for patent holders by preventing their patents from being cancelled just because they didn’t disclose genetic resources (GR) and traditional knowledge (TK). Under Article 5, patent holders have the opportunity to correct any missing information before facing penalties, which helps ensure they don’t lose their patents over minor mistakes in disclosure.
Article 5.2 requires that countries must give patent holders a chance to fix any errors or omissions in their disclosures before imposing penalties. However, Article 5.2(bis) and 5.4 state that if there is fraudulent behaviour, countries can skip the chance to rectify and impose penalties right away. For example, Romania’s law only allows for patent revocation in cases of fraud. Article 5.3 explicitly states that patents cannot be revoked, invalidated, or rendered unenforceable solely because of the non-disclosure of genetic resources (GR) and traditional knowledge (TK). Sanctions are only allowed if there is clear evidence of fraud. This approach balances protecting patent holders from severe penalties with ensuring accountability for deliberate non-disclosure.
The treaty’s goal is to make patent holders more willing to comply with disclosure requirements by offering them a chance to correct mistakes without facing harsh penalties.
Article 17 specifies that the treaty will take effect three months after 15 countries ratify it. At the end of the conference, 30 countries signed the treaty, showing broad support. Many of these countries don’t yet have laws requiring GR or TK disclosures, suggesting the treaty might encourage new laws. Notably, India has not signed the treaty yet.
What Are Traditional Knowledge, Traditional Cultural Expressions, and Genetic Resources?
Traditional Knowledge (TK) is the wisdom and skills that communities pass down through generations. This knowledge helps them manage their lives and their environment. Examples include:
- Traditional Medicines: Natural remedies used by indigenous healers.
- Hunting Methods: Techniques for catching animals.
- Environmental Practices: Knowledge about animal movements or water conservation.
Traditional Cultural Expressions (TCEs) are the ways communities show their culture and heritage. These can be:
- Songs and Dances: Traditional music and dance routines.
- Crafts and Art: Handmade items like pottery or weaving.
- Stories and Ceremonies: Oral stories or rituals that are important to the community.
Genetic Resources (GRs) are natural materials from plants, animals, or microbes used in research and development. They help create new products and understand biodiversity.
Understanding these helps us appreciate the cultural and practical importance of these elements in community life and ensures they are used fairly and respectfully.
Key Legislation and Institutions Related to Biological Resources and Traditional Knowledge
1. Patents (Amendment) Act, 2005 This law mandates patent applicants to disclose the origin of biological resources and traditional knowledge (TK) used in their inventions. Failure to provide this information can lead to the refusal of the patent application, ensuring that indigenous communities' rights are protected.
2. Biological Diversity Act, 2002 The Act aims to conserve biological diversity, ensure sustainable use of biological resources, and promote fair and equitable sharing of benefits arising from their use. It supports the protection of indigenous knowledge and the equitable distribution of benefits from biological resources.
4. Geographical Indications (GI) labels identify products originating from particular regions, connecting their qualities or reputation to their geographic location. This system safeguards traditional products from specific areas and bolsters local economies.
5. Genetic Resources
- National Gene Bank (1996): Established to conserve seeds of plant genetic resources (PGR), the National Gene Bank preserves about one million germplasm samples for future generations.
- Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights (PPV&FR) Act, 2001: This Act recognizes plant breeders' and farmers' rights, ensuring fair compensation for those providing genetic resources used in developing new plant varieties. It includes provisions for access and benefit-sharing.
CASE STUDIES ON TRADITIONAL KOWLEDGE
1. The Turmeric Patent Case
In 1995, two Indian scientists were awarded a U.S. patent for using turmeric to heal wounds. However, turmeric had been used for this purpose in India for centuries. The Indian Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) contested the patent, claiming that this knowledge was not novel but rather a part of India's traditional practices. They presented old texts and scientific evidence showing that turmeric’s healing properties were already known.
In 1997, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office agreed with CSIR and canceled the patent. This case highlighted the need for patent applicants to disclose traditional knowledge and for patent offices to recognize and respect existing traditional practices. It showed that patents should not be granted for ideas that are already well-known.
Zero Brand Zone Pvt Ltd v Controller of Patents (2024)
In the case of Zero Brand Zone Pvt Ltd v Controller of Patents, the court upheld the rejection of a patent application for an "Eco-friendly lamp made of panchagavya and herbal leaves." The court determined that the invention lacked the required inventiveness, as it simply combined known traditional components. The key issue was whether the combination of these ingredients, which were already used in other products, represented a genuine new invention. The court ruled that the invention was obvious and did not meet the patentability criteria, which require both novelty and an inventive step.
The appellant argued that their invention was new and different from prior art, which included documents on herbal mosquito repellents and eco-friendly lamps. However, the court found that these documents collectively made the invention obvious. It emphasized that using traditional components and adjusting their proportions through routine experimentation did not qualify as an inventive step. This case underscored the importance of demonstrating true innovation rather than simply combining existing knowledge in new ways.
CASE STUDY ON GENETIC RESOURCES
1. Basmati Rice Case (2000)
In 2000, a U.S. company secured a patent for Basmati rice from the U.S. Patent Office, asserting that they had developed a new variety of this rice. This caused a conflict with Indian and American agricultural groups since Basmati rice has been grown in India for centuries.
Eventually, the company admitted they hadn't actually invented Basmati rice. As a result, their patent was limited to a much narrower scope. This case showed the importance of making accurate patent claims and respecting traditional agricultural knowledge.
CONCLUSION
Requiring patent applicants to disclose the sources of their traditional knowledge ensures fairness in the patent process. Patents can’t be granted for ideas already known, and indigenous communities get recognized and possibly rewarded. Patent examiners should also thoroughly search existing records to avoid giving patents for old ideas. Aligning patent laws with international agreements like the CBD makes sure genetic resources are used legally and benefits are shared fairly. The Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL) has been crucial in protecting India's traditional medicinal knowledge from wrongful patents and misappropriation. By providing a comprehensive database of medicinal formulations, it helps prevent the erroneous patenting of traditional remedies and supports the preservation of India’s rich heritage.
Updating the International Patent Classification (IPC) system to include categories for traditional knowledge helps examiners find and respect existing knowledge more easily. This prevents patents from being granted on ideas that are not truly new. These steps protect traditional knowledge and ensure fair use of resources, respecting the contributions of indigenous communities.