The Implications of India's Amended Patent Regime: stripping away food security and farmers' rights?

Abstract

This paper analyses the Indian government's policy response to the Trade-related Intellectual Property Rights Agreement (trips) and examines the implications of this response for food security and farmers. trips has become one of the most controversial agreements of the wto. This is because of its wide and far-reaching mandate and its complex socioeconomic implications. It is argued that the changes made to the Indian Patents Act in response to trips will compromise the food sector and the rights of small farmers by conferring strong rights on upstream agents who produce proprietary agricultural inputs using biotechnology. Not only are these agents able to exert monopoly price control over agricultural inputs for 20 years, they also have the right to determine the conditions under which farmers and researchers use patented processes and products. The paper outlines policy options available to the Indian government to tighten the scope of patentability in the food sector.

Notes

The author is indebted to Tapobrata Pakrashi for his assistance in compiling data from the Patent Journal of India, to KM Gopakumar from Third World Network (India) for his many useful comments and suggestions and to the Centre for Trade and Development (New Delhi) for practical support for the project.

1 S Sell, Private Power, Public Law: The Globalisation of Intellectual Property Rights, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003, p 7.

2 P Drahos, Global Intellectual Property Rights: Knowledge, Access and Development, Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002, p 1.

3 M Dubey, An Unequal Treaty: World Trading Order After gatt , New Delhi: New Age International, 1996, pp 6–7.

4 BK Keyala, ‘Amended Patents Act: a critique’, Combat Law, 4 (2), 2005, p 1.

5 Government of India, ‘Patent Enquiry Committee Interim Report’, Ministry of Industry and Supply, August 1949, New Delhi.

6 L Liang, ‘Patently objectionable’, Alternative Law Forum, 2004, p 1, at http://www.altlawforum.org/PUBLICATIONS/document.2004-12-18.4458143318, accessed 3 August 2006.

7 Government of India, The Patents Act, 1970, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Controller General of Patents Designs and Trade Marks.

8 Ibid, emphasis added.

9 A Ramanna, ‘India's patent policy and negotiations in trips: future options for India and other developing countries’, 2002, p 10, at http://www.iprsonline.org/ictsd/docs/ResourcesTRIPSanita_ramanna.doc

10 TP Stewart, The gatt Uruguay Round: A Negotiating History (1986–1992), Vol II, Commentary, Denventer, The Netherlands: Kluwer, 1993, p 2258.

11 United States Trade Representative, ‘Foreign Trade Barriers: India’, 2001, at www.ustr.gov/assets/Documents_Library/Reports_Publications/2001/2001_NTE_Report/asset_upload_file786_6575.pdf.

12 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, ‘Trade Negotiations Committee, Mid–Term Review of the Uruguay Round’, gatt Document Number: MTN.TNC/11, Geneva, April 1989, pp 1–2.

13 J Watal, Intellectual Property Rights in the wto and Developing Countries, The Hague: Kluwer, 2001, p 27.

14 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, ‘Standards and Principles Concerning the Availability Scope and Use of Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights: Communication From India’, gatt Document Number: MTN.GNG/NG11/W/37, Geneva, 10 July 1989, p 1.

15 Ibid, p 7.

16 Watal, Intellectual Property Rights in the wto and Developing Countries, p 2.

17 S O'Carroll, ‘Importing Indian generic drugs following trips: case studies from Zambia and Kenya’, 2005, p 2, at http://www.law.utoronto.ca/accesstodrugs/documents/TRIPS%20ocarroll%20TRIPS.doc.

18 World Trade Organization, ‘India—Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical Products’, Report of the Panel, wto Document Number WT/DS50/R, 5 September 1997, p 2.

19 Ibid, p 2.

20 World Trade Organization, ‘Dispute Settlement, Dispute DS50—India, Patent Protection for Pharmaceutical and Agricultural Chemical Products’, 1997, p 1, at http://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/dispu_e/cases_e/ds50_e.htm.

21 Ibid, pp 1–2.

22 Ibid, p 2.

23 CM Correa, Intellectual Property Rights, the wto and Developing Countries: The trips Agreement and Policy Options, Penang: Zed Books, 2000, p 176.

24 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 10 July 1989.

25 N Rao, ‘Indian seed system and plant variety protection’, Economic and Political Weekly, 39 (8) 2004, pp 845–852.

26 V Shiva, ‘The Indian Seed Act and Patent Act: sowing the seeds of dictatorship’, Znet Activism, 2005, p 3, at http://www.zmag.org/content/showarticle.cfm?ItemID=7249.

27 CM Correa, ‘Access to plant genetic resources and intellectual property rights’, in P Drahos & M Blakeney (eds), ip in Biodiversity and Agriculture: Regulating the Biosphere, London: Sweet and Maxwell, 2001, p 117.

28 World Trade Organization, ‘Review of Article 27.3(b)’, Communication from Brazil, wto Document Number: IP/C/W/228, 24 November 2000, p 2.

29 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 10 July 1989, p 6.

30 World Trade Organization, ‘Review of the Provisions of Article 27.3(b)’, Communication from India, wto Document Number: IP/C/W/161, 3 November 1999, p 3.

31 Shiva, ‘The Indian Seed Act and Patent Act’, p 8.

32 Emphasis added. According to Section 3(d) ‘for the purposes of this clause, salts, esters, ethers, polymorphs, metabolites, pure form, particle size, isomers, mixtures of isomers, complexes, combinations and other derivatives of known substance shall be considered to be the same substance, unless they differ significantly in properties with regard to efficacy’.

33 Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy, London, 2002, p 63.

34 K Aoki, ‘Weeds, seeds & deeds: recent skirmishes in the seed wars’, Cardozo Journal of International and Comparative Law, 11 (Summer), 2003, pp 247–261.

35 AB Sharma, ‘New amendments to Patents Act, 1970 to affect farm sector in India’, Financial Express, 3 January 2005, p 2.

36 Ibid, p 2.

37 Genetic Resources Action Foundation, ‘Ten reasons not to join upov’, Global Trade and Biodiversity in Conflict, 2, Barcelona, 1998, p 3.

38 P Cullet, ‘Seeds regulation, food security and sustainable development’, Economic and Political Weekly, 40 (32), 2005, p 4.

39 United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, ‘Tracking the trend toward market concentration: the case of the agricultural input industry’, study prepared by the unctad secretariat, Geneva, 20 April 2006, p 19.

40 Correa, Intellectual Property Rights, the wto and Developing Countries, p 181.

41 Ibid, p 179.

42 See, for example, the full specifications of the following patents: IN212010: A dna consisting of a promoter capable of driving expression of an associated coding sequence; and IN209197: Synthetic nucleotide sequence that encodes a hybrid bacillus thuringiensis.

43 Now called Aventis

44 E Binenbaum, C Nottenburg, PG Pardey, BD Wright & P Zambrano, ‘South–North trade, intellectual property jurisdictions, and freedom to operate in agricultural research on staple crops’, Economic Development and Cultural Change, 51 (2), 2003, pp 309–335.

45 B Lindner, ‘Prospects for public plant breeding in a small country’, mimeo, Food Marketing Policy Centre, University of Connecticut, 2000, p 574.

46 unctad, ‘Tracking the trend toward market concentration’, p 25.

47 Ibid, p 587.

48 Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy, p 65.

49 Ibid, p 26.

50 DE Schimmelpfennig, CE Pray & MF Brennan, ‘The impact of seed industry concentration on innovation: a study of US biotech market leaders’, Agricultural Economics, 30 (2), 2004, p 166.

51 Commission on Intellectual Property Rights, Integrating Intellectual Property Rights and Development Policy, p 65.

52 unctad, ‘Tracking the trend toward market concentration’, p 19.

53 G Dutfield, ‘Intellectual property rights, trade and biodiversity: the case of seeds and plant varieties’, Background Paper for the iucn Project on the Convention on Biological Diversity and the International Trade Regime, 1999, p 31.

54 unctad, ‘Tracking the trend toward market concentration’, p 19.

55 N Zerbe, ‘Seeds of hope, seeds of despair: towards a political economy of the seed industry in Southern Africa’, Third World Quarterly, 22 (4), 2002, p 668.

56 Centre for Food Safety, ‘Monsanto vs US farmers’, 2005, pp 4–3, at http://www.centerforfoodsafety.org/pubs/CFSMOnsantovsFarmerReport1.13.05.pdf.

57 Correa, Intellectual Property Rights, the wto and Developing Countries, p 186.

58 Ibid.