Why CSIR won the battle of Haldi

US Patent no 5401504 was granted for the use of turmeric powder as a wound healing agent on 28 March, 1995. On 28 October, 1996, CSIR challenged this patent and asked for the re-examination for the purpose of cancellation of the patent. Specifically it asked for the complete cancellation of all six claims present in the patent. After protracted techno-legal arguments, the US Patent and Trade Mark office has unequivocally rejected all the six claims of this patent on 13 August, 1997 ruling out finally that the invention is not patentable.

This is a significant development of far-reaching consequences for the protection of the traditional Indian knowledge base... which has been an emotional issue for not only the people of India, but also for those of other Third World countries.

Some of the far-reaching consequences of this development are as follows:

• This appears to be the first case where the use of traditional knowledge base from a third world country, patented through a US patent, has been successfully challenged with the US PTO, leading to complete cancellation. Earlier efforts made by several interested groups to challenge the neem patent were not even entertained for admission by the US patent office.

• This success story strongly sends signals that if patent cases are fought on well-argued and well-supported techno-legal grounds, then there is nothing to fear about protecting our traditional knowledge base.

• This case also demonstrates that CSIR and other Indian institutions are now acquiring capabilities to fight the complex techno-legal issues of IPR, both defensively and aggressively, to meet the challenges under the WTO regime.

• More specifically the six claims present in the patent are as follows:
  • 1. A method of promoting healing of a wound in a patient, which consists essentially of administering a wound-healing agent consisting of an effective amount of turmeric powder to said patient.
  • 2. The method according to claim 1, wherein said turmeric is orally administered to said patient;
  • 3. The method according to claim 1, wherein said turmeric is topically administered to said patient;
  • 4. The method according to claim 1, wherein said turmeric is both orally and topically administered to said patient;
  • 5. The method according to claim 1, wherein said wound is a surgical wound;
  • 6. The method according to claim 1, wherein said wound is a body ulcer.
• All the six claims have been rejected by the US patent office under 35 U.S.C. 102(b) and 35 U.S.C. 103(a) of the US patent statute.

RELATED REPORT: The Turmeric Triumph

EARLIER REPORT:

Major victory for India as US refuses to patent turmeric