Ipr neem patent

Ipr neem patent
Intellectual Property Rights

1. Assignment Presentation on Neem Patent Presented By: Patel Savankumar G. 04-AGRMA-01808-2018 Dept. of Agronomy, C.P.C.A. , Sardarkrushinagar Submitted to: Dr. K. K. Tiwari Assistant Professor, Dept. of Genetics & Plant Breeding, C.P.C.A. , Sardarkrushinagar

2. THE PROBLEM For centuries the Western world ignored the neem tree and its properties: the practices of Indian peasants and doctors were not deemed worthy of attention by the majority of British, French and Portuguese colonialists. In 1971, US timber importer Robert Larson observed the tree's usefulness in India and began importing neem seed to his company headquarters in Wisconsin. Over the next decade he conducted safety and performance tests upon a pesticidal neem extract called Margosan-O and in 1985 received clearance for the product from the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

3. Three years later he sold the patent for the product to the multinational chemical corporation, W R Grace and Co. Since 1985, over a dozen US patents have been taken out by US and Japanese firms on formulae for stable neem-based solutions and emulsions and even for a neem-based toothpaste. In 1992, W.R. Grace secured its rights to the formula that used the emulsion from the Neem tree's seeds to make a powerful pesticide. It also began suing Indian companies for making the emulsion.

4. DISPUTE The controversy over who has the rights to the Neem tree raised many questions. India claims that what the US Companies are calling discoveries are the actual stealing and pirating of the indigenous practices and knowledge of its people. The Indians and members of the Green Party in the European Union oppose big businesses owning the rights to living organisms, because they believe that the rights of poor farmers in developing countries will be harmed.

5. THE NEEM CAMPAIGN: The neem campaign consists of group of NGOs, individuals was initiated in India in 1993. This was done to mobilize worldwide support to protect indigenous knowledge systems and resources of the Third World from piracy by the West, particularly in light of emerging threats from intellectual property rights regimes under WTO and TRIPS. The Neem patent became the first case to challenge European and US patents on grounds of Biopiracy.

6. CASE JUDGEMENT On the 30th September 1997, the European Patent Office (EPO) delivered a favorable interim judgment on the challenge of a European patent on the fungicidal effects of neem oil (Patent No. 436 257 B1) owned by W. R. Grace & Co. Th e Eu r ope a n P a t e n t s O f fic e ac c e p t ed the arguments offered by Indian scientists and rejected the order of the US patents office to award the patent to W R Grace, a US-based company, at the last hearing of the case. The Indian scientists argued that the people of India have known the medicinal properties of neem for thousands of years and hence no other company can patent its properties. The EPO accepted the argument.

7. Th e v ic t o r y i s a r e su l t o f f o u r - y ea r - l o n g e f f or t b y the R e s ear c h Foundation for Science, T e c h n ol o g y and E n v i r onme n t . P r o f es so r U P Singh, an agricultural scientist at the Banaras Hindu University represented the Indian side. Th e E u r opea n P a t e n t O f fic e ag r e e d t o w ithd r a w the p a t e n t i n M a y 2000, the Patent was revoked however. The US also needs to change its patent laws which allow Biopiracy by non-recognition of foreign prior art. Patents are supposed to satisfy three criteria - of novelty, non- obviousness and utility.

8. THANK YOU