Abstract

It has a become a fad of some sort to copy Indian culture, design and practices that have been going on for centuries, the practices, techniques and traditions that are written in our upanishads, repurposing them to fit into western standards is the new craze, so we thought but its been going on for ages,  the case of CSIR vs. University of Mississippi highlights exactly that. In recent times there has been a lot of exploitation with traditional knowledge or practice. This case highlights how a patent was granted to a simple household spice like turmeric, that has been used in Indian households for ages, The trend is always the same the west discovers something very late and then tries to legally protect the same. This blog doesn’t talk about textiles or accessories but a very available and desi fact- turmeric has healing properties and the attempt to unethically patent it.  

Introduction: When Tradition Met Patent Law 

The story begins in October 1995, when CSIR- the council for scientific and industrial research filed for a re-examination of a patent filed at the USPTO, for the invalidation of  a patent for the use of turmeric in wound healing. The patent was granted to two researchers at the University of Mississippi that claimed that administration of locally available turmeric would enhance the wound healing process. This case became a global debate on traditional knowledge systems and the importance of  protecting them. 

The CSIR took various defences- the patent lacked novelty, there exists prior art in relation to turmeric, and the use of turmeric does not amount to non obvious use. The three prerequisites needed for filling of a patent

Role of CSIR

The funny part is that India had to prove that the knowledge is not novel and pre-existing, and amounts to traditional knowledge and has been in use since centuries. The USPTO overlooked all the requirements. The three prerequisites for a patent are- novelty, non obviousness and utility. CSIR submitted in evidence 32 references that included ayurvedic texts, historic documents, it mainly relied on Charak Samhita, sushruta samhita and a 1953 paper published by the Indian Medical Association highlighting the medicinal properties of turmeric. The references were in Sanskrit, Hindi and Urdu.

All the references pointed in only one direction- the existence of prior art, patent ensures that the inventions, discovery or solution should be meritorious to preserve the extraordinary skill of the researcher. 

Can ancient knowledge be patented? 

Ancient knowledge getting patented would be disastrous for the traditional system, them  getting patented is far from possible because they lack the basic requirements that are needed to be considered as patents. 

• The first prerequisite for an invention to be considered as a patent is the test of novelty- Novelty states that the invention must be completely new and does not exist in public domain before the filling of the patent. However this was not true in the case of Turmeric. 

• The second test is of  non obviousness: the turmeric being a spice that is used in households of poor and wealthy, not only has one function but has many functions- turmeric is used to heal wounds, applied over rashes, used in face masks, the tradition of haldi does not stop at homes but extends to festivals and weddings. Where separate events are celebrated only with the use of turmeric, hence the patent failed this test as well. 

• The third test is of utility: the patent however had a functional use, and was not merely theoretical and has industry use in various fields of science, cosmetics, medicine and pharma, but it is not new for India that takes ‘haldi ki goli’ for cough and cold. The third test even though it holds merit, the failure of the first two tests render the patent as common and nothing extraordinary. 

BIOPIRACY

My frustration as an IP enthusiast and a proud  Indian at the same time, lies in the duplication of our culture; inclusive of textiles, embroidery, footwear, spices, techniques, without due credit to the artisans behind it.  Biopiracy is the same thing- It is the unauthorized appropriation of genetic resources and traditional knowledge from indigenous or local communities by individuals or corporations, often through unethical patents. In the case above, CSIR dealt with the same, proving to a country that discovers that turmeric has wound healing properties after many decades.

The rise in application of patents for traditional knowledge as seen in the  W.R Grace neem dispute, suggest more protection of traditional knowledge. 

DECISION of USPTO

The USPTO revoked the patent granted to University of Mississippi, In 1997 the USPTO on the arguments of CSIR revoked the patent on the basis that it lacks novelty. The USPTO is here at fault as it failed to consider the three main important qualifications needed for a patent. While the respondents argued that there is a difference between powder and paste and they carry different medicinal properties and mixing with honey would enhance the healing property- which again is a known fact. Hence the patent was revoked. 

IMPORTANCE of the case FOR PATENTS

1. The case highlights the shortcomings of the western patent system- that relies on the scientific documentation, ignoring orally transmitted knowledge and culture.
2. Clarified patentability standards: reinforced inventions must satisfy the novelty and non -obvious standard. 
3. Empowered developing countries in IP: acts as a precedence for developing countries to fight against exploitation
4. Creation of traditional knowledge digital library: India developed a digital library to document ayurvedic practice for accessing prior knowledge. 
5. Influenced IP discussions: debates regarding ethical parenting became a booming issue, often talked in IP conferences. 

CONCLUSION

The patent dispute between CSIR vs. University of Mississippi, medical center became a landmark in patent law that novel and non obvious inventions deserve patents. The revocation highlighted the importance of prior art and exposed the unethical patenting involved, in the absence of legal documents. This case strengthens the discussions of biopiracy, patentability and protection of indigenous knowledge, and the establishment of a traditional knowledge digital library to safeguard traditional systems. 

References

The Turmeric Effect R Gupta and L Balasubrahmanyam, ‘The Turmeric Effect’ (1998) 20(3–4) World Patent Information 185 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0172-2190(98)00045-3 accessed 9 May 2026.

Aishwarya Ambardekar, ‘The Turmeric Battle’ (SpicyIP, 30 March 2017) accessed 10 May 2026. (spicyip.com)

TaxTMI, ‘Turmeric Patent Case – A Case of Bio-Piracy’ https://www.taxtmi.com/article/detailed?id=14431 accessed 10 May 2026. (ndcebios.in)

Traditional Knowledge Digital Library and Patents
‘Traditional Knowledge Digital Library and Patents’ https://www.birac.nic.in/webcontent/dib.pdf accessed 10 May 2026.