Articles by Dr. Shiva

Chronology Of Events Of Basmati Battle

By Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology

8th July 1994 - RiceTec Inc filed a generic patent on basmati rice lines and grains in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) with 20 broad claims designed to create a complete rice monopoly patent which included planting, harvesting collecting and even cooking. Though the RiceTec claimed to have "invented" the Basmati rice, yet they accepted the fact that it has been derived from several rice accessions from India.

2nd September 1997- USPTO granted Patent No. 5663484 to RiceTec Inc.

4th March 1998 -Research Foundation for Science, Technology and Ecology (RFSTE) filed a Public Interest Litigation in the Supreme Court of India to put pressure on the Government of India to challenge the Basmati Patent in the USPTO as well as before the Dispute Settlement Body under the World Trade Organization (W.T.O.).

February 1998- Newspaper reported about the patenting of the Basmati Rice by RiceTec Inc.

March 1998 -RFSTE started the campaign against the Basmati Patent and mobilised several farmer unions and citizens groups to oppose the patent

3rd April 1998- Thousands of farmers gathered in front of the American Embassy in Delhi to protest against the patenting of Basmati Rice by US firm

More than 20 framer Unions along with Research Foundation gave a memorandum to the US Ambassador to withdraw the Basmati patent

May 1998- Conference of Parties IV at Convention on Biological Diversity - Citizens' groups raised the issue of Basmati Biopiracy and most governments called for action through both CBD and FAO.

16th November 1998- The Supreme Court, in view of the assurance given to the apex court, by the Government through the Attorney General that "the government is fully alive to the situation and its gravity and is taking all possible steps to protect the interest of the nation" disposed off the Writ Petition no. 212 of 1998.

November 1999- At Seattle, during the WTO Ministerial Meeting, RFSTE launched the Global Campaign against Biopiracy with International Centre for Technology Assessment, US, to fight the Basmati piracy and other biopiracy cases

December 1999- The BJP coalition government has rushed with the implementation of the WTO agenda, GATS and has passed four Intellectual Property Rights Related Acts which would have far reaching consequences for the basic needs, employment and civil liberties. These are Protection of Geographical Indications Act, Trademarks Act, Design Act and Copyrights Act, and introduced the Amended Patents Act and the Plant Variety Protection Act, both of which are now being examined by respective Select Committees in the Parliament.

27th January 2000- In connection to the Basmati Case, the RFSTE brought to the notice of the Supreme Court the inaction by the Government of challenging the grant of the patent in the USPTO till date and also remaining indifferent to the continued acts of piracy of Indian knowledge and genetic resources in this case the patenting of Karela (bittergourd), Jamun (blackberry), Gurmar and Brinjal by Cromak Research Inc. of USA for anti diabetic properties as well as Indian Curry in Japan.

27th April 2000- In response to the Supreme Court direction in the Basmati case, the Government of India filed petition in the USPTO for re-examination of the grant of patent to RiceTec in respect of the its "claims from 15 to 17" which were related to grain. Though the background research done by CFTRI and ICAR provide enough evidence of prior art to get a cancellation of all generic claims related to Basmati seed & rice lines. These were broadly worded claims and encompasses in its scope all types of rice grains irrespective of their origin, hence threatening Indian exports of Basmati and other rice grains to US. However the Government did not filed challenge against the other 17 claims which were on the plants, seeds and its progeny. RiceTec not only claimed to have invented a novel rice lines but also its cultivation and cooking method which was an blatant attack on the innovations of Indian farmers who had developed Basmati. Surprisingly Indian government completely ignored the challenging of RiceTec claims on seeds, plants, cultivation method and cooking methods. It seems India government compromised the rights of millions of Indian farmers to save the rights of few Basmati traders. Even the claim by RiceTec on the use of term "Basmati" was not challenged and the Union of India accepted, in its affidavit to the Supreme Court that its limited challenge if successful will not prevent RiceTec from continuing to call its strain a "basmati-like" or a "basmati strain" though the fact is that Basmati is not a generic term and is associated only with a long grain rice of a unique aroma and flovour peculiar to the Indian subcontinent. The government is a way accepted that the patent as a whole ( which would cover seed and plant ) could not be challenged.

10th May 2000- Neem patent was revoked by the European Patent Office (EPO) on the grounds of "prior art" in response to a challenge filed by RFSTE, European Green Party and IFOAM against the patent on the fungicidal properties of Neem (patent no. 436257) owned by United States Department of Agriculture and W.R. Grace and Co.

September 2000- RiceTec withdraws claims 4 and 15 to 17 related to the grain.

24th November 2000- The Solicitor General of India in a statement apprised the Apex Court about the withdrawal of four claims by the Rice Tec and also stated that there is no immediate necessity to challenge the surviving 16 claims of the patent on Basmati rice lines and grains. It said "the threat posed by claims 15-17 to the export of rice grown from India or from any part of the world to the US has been successfully averted" and hence "there is no necessity to challenge the surviving claims". It shows the Indian government looked the challenge to the Basmati patent only from the angle of "export" and not from the angle of protection of biodiversity and biodiversity based knowledge with includes the rights of the farmers. Unfortunately, the statement by the government of India to the apex court wrongly proceeds on the assumption that RiceTec has a legitimate claim to have "invented" a new Basmati rice.

November 2000- In order to ensure full re-examination of the remaining 16 biopiracy claims of the RiceTec in the Basmati patent, RFSTE worked with groups across the world to launch campaigns against RiceTec Basmati Patent. An email letter writing campaign was directed to the examiners and officials of the USPTO which asked them to strike down the patent in its entirety. RFSTE, European NGO and several US citizens groups sent email letter to the USPTO to strike down the RiceTec patent in its entirety.

8th January 2001- RFSTE in a fresh affidavit to the Supreme Court said that the Union of India must challenge the surviving 16 claims of the RiceTec's basmati patent. Since the government of India has accepted in its request for the re-examination that RiceTec's Basmati grain is not novel and therefore the plant and seed derived from it are not novel. If the characteristics of grain are not unique as accepted by the government of India, then rice lines and seeds from which the grains are derived can not be unique. On this pretext, RFSTE said that if the claim to having invented a unique rice grain does not exist (after the withdrawal of claim 15 to 17), there can be no legitimate claim to have invented a unique rice seed, rice plant and rice lines.

25 Jan 2001- GOI represented by APEDA informed the Supreme Court that they are satisfied with the withdrawal of 4 claims and do not intend to fight the patent any longer

27th March 2001- The Citizen's Movement against RiceTec has impact. As a result of global citizens' pressure the USPTO initiates full re-examination of RiceTec Patent and sent a 46 page letter to the RiceTec's representatives rejecting all but three of the remaining 16 claims. RiceTec was given a chance to respond.

28th April 2001- RiceTec sent its response to the USPTO. RiceTec reconsidered all the claims in light of the USPTO action and accepted the following: Cancel claims 1-3, 5-7, 10, 14, and 18-20; Amend Claim 12. Needless to mention that RiceTec has already withdrawn Claims 14, and 15-17. Therefore only Claims 8, 9, and 11-13 of the Basmati patent have been left. RiceTec also submitted that the remaining 5 Claims satisfy all of the criteria for patentability and in condition for allowance and requested for a quick response from USPTO in its favour. Quite surprisingly RiceTec even renamed the title of the patent to "Rice Lines Bas 867, RT 1117, and RT 1121".

14 August 2001- USPTO finally struck down Claims 1-7, 10, 14-20 of the Basmati patent. USPTO also issued the "Notice of Intent to Issue Re-examination certificate" and (unfortunately) confirmed the patentability of the Claims 8, 9, and 11 of the original patent relating to specific varieties bred by RiceTec BAS 867, RT 1117 & RT 1121. Claims 12 & 13 has also been amended for a narrow scope.

NO NEW PATENT HAS BEEN GRANTED. RATHER THE THREE ORIGINAL CLAIMS ON THE THREE VARAIETIES DEVELOPED BY RICETEC HAS BEEN CONFIRMED. And Indian peoples in solidarity with the people worldwide succeeded in freeing the Indian Basmati from the clutches of monopoly, colonialism and seed terrorism.