Biopiracy & Traditional Knowledge: The Neem, Turmeric & Basmati Cases

The classic example is the turmeric case. In 1997 the US Patent and Trademark Office revoked a patent on using turmeric to heal wounds, after India’s Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) showed the use was already known. The neem patent in Europe, revoked in 2000, is the other textbook example.

Key takeaways

• Biopiracy means patenting or using traditional knowledge or biological material without the consent of, or a fair return to, the communities it came from.
• The turmeric patent (US 5,401,504) was revoked in 1997 after the CSIR filed 32 prior-art documents.
• The neem patent at the European Patent Office was revoked in 2000, a result confirmed on appeal in 2005.
• The basmati patent held by RiceTec was narrowed, not cancelled outright.
• Each win depended on dated, written prior art: proof the knowledge existed before the patent was filed.
• Nepal has no dedicated traditional-knowledge law. Its 1965 Act only grants patents for inventions that are new and useful.

What is biopiracy?

Biopiracy is the unfair taking of biological resources or traditional knowledge for research, patents or trade. Traditional knowledge is know-how a community has developed and passed down, often by word of mouth, such as how a plant is prepared as medicine.

A patent is only meant for something new. The problem arises when old knowledge looks new to a patent examiner, because it was never written down in a place the examiner searches. A patent office mainly checks earlier patents and publications, so a healer’s oral teaching can be invisible to it.

What happened in the turmeric patent case?

Two researchers at the University of Mississippi Medical Center filed a US application in December 1993 for using turmeric to heal wounds, taken by mouth or put on the skin. The patent, US 5,401,504, was granted in March 1995.

In October 1996 the CSIR asked the US Patent and Trademark Office to re-examine it, filing 32 prior-art documents, including old texts, showing that turmeric had long been used on wounds in India. The office rejected all six claims and revoked the patent by an order of 20 November 1997. WIPO’s case study sets out the steps.

The patent owner fought back. It argued that its claims covered turmeric powder, not the paste described in the old texts, and then narrowed the claims to surgical wounds that would not heal. The office rejected both arguments as covered by what was already known, and the patent was revoked when the owner did not respond to its final notice.

This is why the turmeric case is the standard answer to “which biopiracy patent on a traditional Indian plant was cancelled”. It worked because the evidence was written, dated and could be translated.

What happened in the neem patent case?

The European Patent Office granted a patent in the 1990s to W.R. Grace and the US Department of Agriculture for a method of controlling fungi on plants using an extract of neem oil. Campaigners and farming groups opposed it, arguing that neem’s use against fungi and pests was already known in India.

According to published accounts of the case, the patent was revoked in 2000, and the European Patent Office’s appeal board confirmed the revocation in 2005, finding no inventive step over what was already known. WIPO describes both the neem and turmeric revocations as successful but costly and slow.

The dispute was never about owning the neem tree. It was about whether one process using neem was new enough to deserve a patent.

Why is the basmati case different?

In September 1997 the US office granted RiceTec, a Texas company, a patent titled “Basmati rice lines and grains”. India challenged it in 2000. Published accounts say RiceTec withdrew several claims, the examiner rejected many others, and the patent survived only in a much narrower form covering particular rice lines.

So basmati was a partial result, not a clean cancellation. It also raised a different question: who may call rice “basmati” at all. That is a question about a product name and its origin, the territory of geographical indications, not patents.

Why did these challenges take so long?

Because they came after the patents were granted. A challenge after grant needs experts, translations and old documents gathered from scratch. WIPO Magazine reports that such post-grant oppositions take five to seven years on average.

India’s answer was prevention. It built the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library, which lets patent examiners find traditional medicine as prior art before they grant a patent. WIPO reports that evidence from the library has led to many applications being withdrawn in Europe.

What do the cases mean for Nepali plants?

Nepal’s hills hold a great deal of plant knowledge that is used at home and passed on by word of mouth: how timur is used, how chiraito is prepared, which roots are dried for which illness. Much of it has never been written down in a form a patent examiner in Europe or the United States would find.

That is exactly the gap the turmeric and neem cases exposed. If a foreign patent one day claims a use that Nepali households have known for generations, the question will be the same as in 1996: can anyone produce dated, written proof? The answer depends on records made now, not after a patent is granted.

The risk runs both ways. A Nepali company turning a family remedy into a product should know where the knowledge came from, and whether the people who hold it agreed to its use.

Does Nepal’s law protect traditional knowledge?

Not directly. Nepal’s industrial property law is the Patent, Design and Trade Mark Act 1965, and WIPO’s list of Nepal’s IP laws shows no separate law on traditional knowledge or genetic resources.

The Act does give some protection indirectly. Under Sec. 5, the Department of Industry (DoI) investigates whether an invention is new and useful before registering it. Sec. 6 lets it refuse a patent that harms public health or the national interest, or conflicts with Nepali law. Under Sec. 7A, patents are published and anyone may object within 35 days, an opposition period much shorter than the 90 days used for trademarks.

What the Act does not do is require consent from, or benefit-sharing with, a community whose knowledge is used. Press reports describe a draft Industrial Property Bill that would give communities a say when their knowledge is used in a patent application. We could not confirm its text on an official site, and a draft is not law.

Can a traditional remedy be patented in Nepal?

A remedy that is already known cannot meet the “new” test just because someone writes it down or sells it. A genuinely new process, formulation or technical improvement is different, and needs careful claims.

A Nepali patent lasts seven years from registration and is renewable twice, for 21 years at most. Our patent registration service starts with a patentability assessment and a prior-art search, which is exactly where traditional-knowledge questions come up.

How can a Nepali community protect its knowledge?

1. Make a community record. Note the local name, the use, how it is prepared, the place, who holds the knowledge and the date. Get the contributors’ agreement.
2. Decide what is public. Publishing a use can stop a later patent, but it also gives up control. Keep sacred or commercially sensitive details in a controlled record.
3. Sign before sharing. Before samples or recipes leave the community, agree in writing on permitted use, confidentiality, ownership of results and benefit-sharing.
4. Watch patent filings. Nepal publishes patents with a 35-day objection period. Foreign offices have their own deadlines.
5. Act fast on a worrying filing. Keep the evidence and get advice on objection, observations or revocation in that country.

What evidence helps in a biopiracy challenge?

Evidence that ties the earlier knowledge to the exact patent claim. The turmeric case turned on dated texts, not on general statements that “everyone knew”. Photographs and interviews help, but they are stronger with a reliable date and a written source beside them.

Common mistakes with traditional knowledge

• Assuming oral knowledge is safe. An examiner abroad may never find it.
• Publishing everything. It can block patents but hands the know-how to anyone.
• Sharing on a handshake. Verbal promises are hard to enforce.
• Using a trademark to protect a method. A brand protects a name, not a formula.
• Waiting for a grant. Objecting before grant is far cheaper than revoking after.

What might a Nepali dispute look like?

Here is an illustration, not a real case. A cooperative in Dolpo shares its method for a herbal salve with a research partner. A year later the partner files a patent abroad for the same method.

Because the cooperative kept dated records and a signed sharing agreement, it can show the method was known and that permission was limited. The remedy depends on the country where the patent was filed. Separately, the cooperative can register its salve’s brand name as a trademark in Nepal, in the right NICE class; that protects the name on the jar, not the method. Our trademark conflict checker and NICE class finder are free first steps for the name.

In short

The turmeric patent, revoked in 1997, is the classic biopiracy case, with neem close behind and basmati a partial result. All three turned on written, dated prior art. Nepal has no traditional-knowledge law yet, so communities should keep records, sign agreements before sharing, and watch patent filings.

People also search for

• How can Nepal protect traditional knowledge and genetic resources?
• How are Nepali handicrafts protected?
• What are notable patent cases in Nepal?
• What are the famous trademark cases in Nepal?

Working with traditional knowledge or a new herbal product? Tell us what you are developing and we will explain your options in Nepal. This article is general information, not legal advice.