Skip to main content

Archana Shanker and Vidisha Garg explore the protection of therapeutic substances used under folk medicine practices as ‘traditional knowledge’ by special provisions of the patent law.

In October 2012, the government of India exercised its powers conferred under Section 66 of the act to revoke Avesthagen’s patent IN252093, on the grounds that the patent or the mode in which it is exercised is prejudicial to the state or the public.

The recent guidelines seem to extend the government’s sentiments. They aim to provide strict procedures for the screening, allotment and examination of applications relating to traditional knowledge so as to ensure that patents are not granted to inventions relating to traditional knowledge.

This article was published in LSIPR April 2013.

To continue reading, please contact us at email@anandandanand.com

Most Recent

News & Insights

VIEW ALL
News & Updates, Thought Leadership
Sep 05, 2026

Written by: Dr. Ajai Garg and Siddhant Chamola As Artificial Intelligence has now emerged as a disruptive ecosystem reshaping Global economy,  India’s

India’s Pursuit for Global South AI Leadership through Agentic AI Systems: Navigating Intellectual Property Challenges
News & Updates, Thought Leadership
Sep 02, 2026

Author: Lakshmidevi Somanath The law currently provides creators exclusive rights over their creation for a limited time, which gives a human inventor

From Innovation Incentives to Technology Diffusion – Protection of Intellectual Property Created by Agentic Artificial Intelligence
News & Updates, Thought Leadership
Aug 30, 2026

I. The Infringer’s Privacy Paradox The Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (“DPDP Act”) is built around a clear rule. Personal data

The DPDP Act’s Unanswered Question: Can Privacy Law Block a Software Piracy Investigation?
News & Updates, Thought Leadership
Aug 28, 2026

‘First published on India Business Law Journal’ By: Pravin Anand, Ajai Garg and Siddhant Chamola The Supreme Court of India’s Artificial Intelligence

Keeping the ‘judge’ in judgment