The rise in Ayush-related patent filings reflects a shift from protecting traditional knowledge to commercialising it. Critically examine, with reference to biopiracy safeguards.
New · District CollectorCan you hold the district for 72 hours?Floods, a heatwave, an outbreak, a grievance queue. Take the decisions, see the consequences.Play →The CGPDTM's Status Report on Ayush Related Inventions (2014–2026) records 4,077 filings and 711 grants, with annual filings rising from 63 to 590 [1]. India's approach has moved beyond defending traditional knowledge (TK) towards making products from it. That shift is real, but it is partial and still bounded by safeguards.
Signs of a shift towards commercialisation
- Post-COVID surge: 70% of filings and 92.4% of grants came after FY 2020–21 [1].
- TKDL opened up: in 2022 the Cabinet opened the TKDL to users beyond patent offices on a paid subscription [5]. Codified TK is now treated as a resource for research and products.
- Privatisation concern: patents turn knowledge held by communities into exclusive rights. The report has no data on benefit-sharing from the 711 grants [1].
- Weak global safeguard: WIPO's GRATK Treaty makes source disclosure mandatory. But apart from fraud, a patent cannot be revoked just for failing to disclose [3]. The rule ensures the source is named, not that the community is paid.
- Limited reach: only a few patent offices can access the TKDL, and only under non-disclosure agreements [2]. This leaves gaps for biopiracy abroad.
Signs that protection remains intact
- Legal bar: Section 3(p), Patents Act 1970 says TK, or a mere aggregation or duplication of known traditional properties, cannot be patented [2]. So grants must cover something new.
- Disclosure and NBA link: applicants must disclose the source of biological material, and this is passed to the National Biodiversity Authority [2].
- TKDL as a shield: 375 applications have been refused, amended or withdrawn on TKDL evidence. CSIR also files pre-grant oppositions [2].
- Examination discipline: the CGPDTM's Ayush examination guidelines require a TKDL prior-art search [6].
- Modest scale: the grant rate is about 17%, and educational institutions secured only 88 grants from 995 filings [1]. More filings do not mean more products on the market.
Overall, the trend is protection plus commercialisation, not one replacing the other. The way forward:
- publish pendency data (how long applications wait for a decision);
- report benefit-sharing outcomes through the NBA;
- sign up more foreign patent offices to the TKDL;
- create demand through the insurance cover for Ayush recommended in the National Ayush Mission review [4].
Done together, these would let innovation respect the communities that hold Ayush knowledge and advance SDG 3's goal of affordable healthcare.
Sources
- 1Status Report on Ayush Related Inventions in India (2014–2026), CGPDTM: PIB release, 16 Oct 2026filings and grants, post-COVID share, applicant-wise data, no benefit-sharing figures
- 2Rajya Sabha Unstarred Question 1724, 13 Mar 2025 (Ministry of Science & Technology)Section 3(p), source disclosure and NBA, 375 applications stopped on TKDL evidence, limited patent-office access, pre-grant oppositions
- 3WIPO: Summary of the GRATK Treaty (2024)mandatory disclosure, no revocation for non-disclosure except fraud
- 4PRS Legislative Research: Review of National Ayush Missionrecommendation that private insurers cover Ayush treatment
- 5Cabinet approves widening access of TKDL database beyond patent offices: PIB, 2022paid-subscription, phased opening of TKDL
- 6CGPDTM Guidelines for Examination of Ayush-Related Inventionsmandatory TKDL prior-art search