Traditional Medicines and Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Issues

Has been developed from experience gained over the centuries and have been adapted to local culture and environment, traditional knowledge and traditional medicinal practices transmitted orally from generation to generation. It tends to be shared in the form of stories, songs, folklore, proverbs, etc. related to cultural values, beliefs, rituals, community laws and the local language. Research in traditional medicine will be used to promote a better understanding of the scale of the molecule, a chemical reaction occurs during processing by the body, the active ingredients, the special effect of drugs and identification of molecules responsible for the reduction of toxicity, etc. Potential research portfolio includes the standardization of various drugs, changes in the “form” and “route” of drug administration, improving the sustainability of drugs, quality of drug production and innovations in processing, packaging, storage, transportation, delivery, etc. There is no bar for researchers to obtain a patent on the much improved version of traditional knowledge and development new drugs on the principles of traditional medicine. However, the misappropriation of TK by private companies held widely today, because of the fragility of it as “past” as inventions. Although “intellectual property”, not “know” in the strict sense, a large number of patents already on traditional knowledge (especially the old drug is withdrawn). Of course, there are some success stories of the withdrawal of some of these patents, but at the expense of the exchequer. Patent examiners are not a choice but to grant a patent for an “invention” to reach his desk “as a document” when it “suits his logic,” it is d an innovation of the industry and not left in the public domain. Many companies now leave “traditional knowledge” as if it were an invention made by them and many times it is easy for them, the formalities, because this knowledge is not sufficiently codified and made available to the auditor received in a database. In the recent past, CSIR India by creating a digital library of traditional knowledge (TKDL), a database that will serve as “prior art” to any attempt to patent assets based on the records of traditional knowledge. ” State of the art is “anything that has been published, presented or otherwise disclosed to the public on the date of the patent (prior art include contains foreign language text in any format to any country in the world announced ). Digital Library of India TK (TKDL) contains about 08 lakh 2nd formulations based on Ayurveda, Unani, Siddha and Yoga. The formulations were in five languages, namely, reading the transcript. English, French, German, Spanish and Japanese, in order to avoid misuse of traditional medical knowledge in the International Patent Office. India has already TKDL jointly with the European Patent Office (EPO) and the USPTO to an agreement, the EPO and the USPTO database for search and examination and may only use communication to Third, except for giving a copy of the term the inventor / applicant as a quotation. The Access Agreement entered into with such patent offices TKDL clearly stated that “the state of the art”. I wonder, can receive as “confidential” if TKDL is treated to an art “screening.” While codification of traditional knowledge digital libraries and share them with the patent offices is a viable solution for the direct diversion of funds, it is feared that such digital libraries as a plate for the capitalists in search of ownership private improvements in the TK, which could be used are not accessible otherwise. TKDL course is the right strategy to prevent the diversion of direct TK already in the public sector and a large cross-section of the population is known ( healing property of turmeric for example). However, we learn that the concept of TKDL developed (jointly with the “prior informed consent” and “access and benefit-sharing” to enable tools) to codify the common property and TK. If it is a gross injustice to those communities where this type of traditional knowledge are shared with the patent offices. It is difficult for patent offices, the content of third TKDL keep secret because a patent may be rejected without disclosure of traditional knowledge related to the invention encoded by the applicant. Patent Examiner, is the scope of patent claims for TK-limit (or dismiss it altogether) if he / she provides the relevant extract of the inventor TKDL show that there is a “state of the art.” Predators can look purely conceptual, file patent applications (like when she was led to the invention) just to see what she could get information on real practice carrier / product. It is doubtful that TKDL stop bio-piracy or relieved. TKDL Instead, a “Traditional Knowledge Docketing System (TKDS) [such a thing as a system of management information (MIS)] can be created and maintained by the authorities. TKDS contains the point where the traditional knowledge available, the community as traditional knowledge, a brief description of the nature of TK and protocols and by municipalities or TK holder has access to TK. The traditional knowledge of their rights to be informed on the PBX and must be empowered to negotiate fair share of monetary benefits from commercialization of traditional knowledge held by them. However, documentation of TK in the public domain can be conducted in the national interest (as TKDL). This must be established in the public domain. Since the words “prior informed consent”, “Access and Benefit Sharing ‘, etc., to be the right tool to apply this knowledge in the care of a traditional practitioner for further research, while respecting their interests. A sui generis legislation for protection of TK is the need of the hour. Sui generis legislation for the “rights” on Traditional Knowledge: Policy ImperativeIPR stresses Kerala IPR Policy of Kerala that the government is very much about protecting its rich wealth of traditional knowledge and traditional practices, tribal medicines, the practice of the Ayurveda and biodiversity. Politics June 27 were published in 2008, states that are considered as possible solution to recognize the rights of holders of TK and they were informed of their rights. The strategy document proposes to commit all traditional knowledge, including traditional medicine, the practice has the existence of many people in the area of “shared knowledge” and not in the public domain. “Knowledge Commons” refers to knowledge that is collectively produced sphere of ideas and the left is not used for the benefit of all. The property is attributable to the State or the Crown, given that traditional knowledge is accumulated wealth and preserve the traditional long kept its practitioners, tribal communities and families, and all as the act as “agents” of the state / crown. Therefore, for the proposed rule “is not only the creation of rights on TK, but the transfer of rights of some (not) all the rights that the state” are in a fiduciary capacity, in turn, their commitment to traditional knowledge in the field of “common knowledge” knowledge in digital form offers unprecedented access to information via the Internet, but at the same time more and more restricted by legislation on intellectual property through patents, licensing, billing, and lack of conservation. According to recent reports, many of the digital library is now on the path of “pooling of knowledge.” The “common knowledge” is a living installation, user-centered education is an integral part of university life for students. The camp will be to integrate scientific resources, information technology, software, expertise, teaching and working language of space. Although the policy provides for the ownership of traditional knowledge, all rights holders are classified as operating license of their rights under a commons license “, but owners are different, the use of knowledge in their possession for non-commercial. It is also envisaged that any development of this knowledge by that obligation, should be allowed back to the realm of “common knowledge”, the cure can be told: “Traditional Knowledge Commons” and thus deny the scope of patentability. The fundamental concept of “Creative Commons” [some rights reserved, and not all rights reserved] was adopted in Kerala IPR policy of the concept of “Commons License Form” that use knowledge Moots for non-commercial. To quote Lawrence Lessig, founder of Creative Commons is “a culture in which creators get to create only with the permission of the powerful or the creator of the past.” Contribute Creative Commons’ free tools authors, scientists, can artists and educators easily mark their creative work with the freedoms they want it. It can copy, distribute and work or work only to adjust for non-commercial. If you change, modify and build the basis of this work, you can use the resulting work only under a license identical to this one. dismissed in May distribute derivative works only under a license identical to the license, which the original works. Although the term “commons license”, the subject of politics on the idea of “Creative Commons” used to open-source advocates, their scope differs considerably from that of the “Creative Commons License. This “Commons License” is not known with the concepts of free software (or open source) and “Creative Commons” licenses like the GNU GPL, latex, etc., which applies mainly to the “expression” protected under of “copyright will be confused.” special provisions for such a “Traditional Knowledge Commons License” should be designed to ensure free, non-commercial reproduction and codification of TK. There must be some kind of ‘as a license, which comes into effect immediately for users of TK, yet he decides to use it for other purposes. The provisions of the license as in law to ensure free, non-commercial reproduction and codified set of TK. According to the strategy document, the custodian banks / custodians of TK to be (ie tribal community, family, etc.), how to identify the holders rights, but they are required to submit TK in their possession for non-commercial use by all. Therefore, knowledge of the literature revealed, and then apply new research. However, these owners are of the license Telecommunications under its possession for commercial purposes on such terms and conditions negotiated in accordance with the provisions of the GNU “” May Compared to traditional knowledge, where the existence of many practitioners sprinkled throughout Kerala, l ‘State will be deemed to have rights over traditional knowledge. Although the state retains ownership of traditional knowledge, all current members of the TC with a separate license for the right to commercial use of the state. But these owners are not entitled to sublicense this right of commercial use to anyone, and a right to transfer licenses will be granted exclusively by the state. creation of rights and obligations of BCE mechanism for the recognition of rights Owner requires respect for human rights and recommend legal action against violators of rights and the common license. Therefore, policy advice, constitute a body called the Kerala Traditional Knowledge Authority (KTKA) than those entitled to be registered. KTKA is widespread attention in public relations on all applications made after him by the practitioners of the public to bring to the attention of KTKA, all deny the applicant’s claims or to contest the claims of uniqueness, the prevalence of similar practices in more than one place or community, etc. Invite Lupe after all these cases, disputes and resolve the issue of ownership / possession, which would ultimately save KTKA a community / group / individual as custodian “knowledge” of this unique collection of traditional knowledge practices. It is also important that the law – interest groups and is careful to give full rights to the theft possible. Therefore, it is recommended that all stakeholders come together and form provides “Knowledge Societies”. “Users of traditional knowledge” Cooperatives in the political developments and share legislationThough Back on traditional knowledge in the field of “knowledge Commons is to “promote innovative inventions such as the development of a new drug molecule, or process, including a significant development costs should not be part of” common knowledge “in the strict sense, even if the knowledge Traditional can form the basis of their origin. The real objective of the scheme is not to protect the financial interests of holders of traditional knowledge, but to benefit society at large, as in the case of the basic concept of patents. Patents provide monetary reward for revealing technological innovation Welcoming the inventor. issuance of patents for inventions, investment is picking up as the commercial exploitation of the invention, it is possible, for the full term of the patent. The policy does not extend “trade secret” protection of traditional knowledge and the state is strictly against the creation of a monopoly on knowledge. Therefore Kerala IPR policy provides the means to detect TK for the benefit of society. sacredness of the proposed constitutional legislationWhile there is no bar in Kerala with a policy in the field of intellectual property rights of intellectual property (IPR) on its position relative to its culture, proclaiming geography, people, biodiversity, etc., the sanctity of constitutional law to policies, protection of intellectual property is dubious about the merger. However, it is imperative that we must find ways to avoid this bottleneck constitutional and enforce these laws. I have the following arguments on the sanctity of the proposed constitutional legislation1) The terms “traditional knowledge”, “Intellectual Property” has “biological diversity”, etc. are not explicitly anywhere in the Union list, and entry 49 is limited to: patents, inventions, designs, copyrights, trade – marks and trademarks of goods “[Using" spinal "rule] May limit of that range. 2) The property of TK can be attributed to government / Crown, given that traditional knowledge is an accumulated wealth and the long held traditional conservation practitioners, tribal communities and families to work with each them as a “trustee” State / Crown. Thus, traditional knowledge is very much a “treasure” (No. 44 heads of state list), if the State has the power to enact laws. 3) Section 26 List No country can be used to regulate trade in knowledge. “Article 64 provides for sanction mechanisms. 4) Item No. 7 (contracts)) and Concurrent List Item No. 6 (transfer of ownership is also relevant. 5) of section 300A of the intellectual property extends. Section 304 (b) and section 19 (6) gives a surplus of benefits to deal with traditional knowledge as property, and thus regulate their Trading6) The proposed system does not intend to touch the Patent Act in general, a Union subject. “But a few provisions in the Law on Biological Diversity ( using the latest central government authorities) must be supplemented by additional provisions, but also addresses the provisions of Articles 258 and 258 (2). 7) It is the state support guidelines in section 38, 39 ( b) and 39 (c) Above all, the proposed rule “is not only for production rights to TK, but also for allocating these rights to” trust “in their turn, their willingness to TK in the area of “common knowledge could”