Who gains from saving nature
Ledger 1 : 33 — For each dollar financing nature-based solutions in 2023, about $33 financed activities harmful to nature. (UNEP)
Cases / Genetic resources and benefit-sharing · India · 2004–2022

Turmeric, neem, basmati, Nap Hal patent revocations

Nature's voice · report
No measurement of the harm done to me here is on record.
Did nature suffer? Not measured.
Not on record
  • The record does not name which of my species, waters, soils or forests were harmed.
What the record lacks: 2 none on record · 5 insufficient · 1 not measured · 1 disputed See the gaps

Evidence from India's Traditional Knowledge Digital Library is reported to have stopped 265 patent applications by March 2022, and the Nap Hal wheat patent was revoked at the European Patent Office in 2004. Several other revocations are reported but not independently verified. The sources reviewed record no payment returning to the source communities.

265Patent applications stopped with evidence from India’s Traditional Knowledge Digital Library, to March 2022
Withdrawn, modified or rejected, as stated by CSIR TKDL.

Status As of the latest source (March 2022): the Nap Hal wheat patent was revoked in 2004, and CSIR TKDL reported 265 patent applications stopped with its evidence; other revocations are reported but not independently verified.

What?
CSIR TKDL says evidence from its database stopped 265 patent applications; the Nap Hal wheat patent was revoked at the EPO in 2004; no payment to source communities is recorded. CSIR TKDL
Where?
India, the United States and Europe (EPO).
When?
The Nap Hal wheat revocation in 2004; the TKDL count is to 25 March 2022. CSIR TKDL
Who?
Gained
None on record
Lost
  • RAGT — Holder of the Nap Hal wheat patent, which was revoked in 2004 at its own request. Reason
Harmed
None on record
Why?
The patents drew on plants or traditional knowledge from other countries; TKDL evidence was used against 265 applications. CSIR TKDL
How?
In the Nap Hal wheat case the patent holder itself asked for revocation. Reason
6 of 6 questions answered from the record

What happened

The record, in order.

CSIR TKDL says that, as of 25 March 2022, evidence from the database had led to 265 patent applications being withdrawn, modified or rejected.

The Nap Hal wheat patent was revoked at the European Patent Office (EPO) in 2004. RAGT, which had taken over the patent, had itself requested revocation on 10 September 2004, and Greenpeace declared victory, according to Reason.

Revocations of patents on turmeric, neem, basmati rice and Pelargonium, and the history of the ayahuasca plant patent, are reported in sources that could not be checked against the originals; they are listed under what is unknown.

  1. 2004Nap Hal wheat patent revoked at the EPO; RAGT asked for revocation on 10 September
  2. 2022CSIR TKDL: 265 patent applications stopped with TKDL evidence (25 March)

What was said

Claims, in the words of those who made them.

Where accounts differ

Each party's account, side by side, with its source. The record does not settle these points; it shows them.

Who won the Nap Hal wheat revocation?
Communities and civil society
Greenpeace

Declared victory after the patent was revoked.

Reason
Company or project
RAGT

As holder of the patent, requested its revocation on 10 September 2004.

Reason

How it looked

What was shown, beside what was recorded.

Shown

    Recorded

    • 265 patent applications withdrawn, modified or rejected with TKDL evidence, as of 25 March 2022 (CSIR TKDL).
      CSIR TKDL
    • Nap Hal wheat patent revoked at the EPO in 2004 after RAGT, the holder, asked for revocation on 10 September 2004 (Reason).
      Reason

    Who gained

    Money that reached nature, beside money that stayed elsewhere.

    Reached nature or the ground

    Not published
    No figure published.

    Gained elsewhere

    Not totalled
    Currency: EUR · Window: . All figures cover the same period. * Estimate built from cited figures.

    Responses on record

    • ragt (10 September 2004): Requested revocation of the Nap Hal wheat patent it had taken over. · Reason
    • greenpeace (December 2004): Declared victory after the Nap Hal wheat patent was revoked. · Reason

    In court and with insurers

    Every proceeding and every insurer decision on record.

    Lawsuits and rulings

    1. 2004-09-10 (revocation requested by the patent holder)–2004Claimant won
      Nap Hal wheat patent revocation
      European Patent Office · Administrative · → RAGT

      The Nap Hal wheat patent was revoked at the EPO in 2004. RAGT, which had taken over the patent, asked for revocation on 10 September 2004; Greenpeace declared victory. Reason

    Insurers

    No insurer decision on record.

    What nature saw

    Outcomes measured on the ground, and nature's note.

    Nature's report opens this page. Below: further outcomes measured on the ground.

    Patent applications stopped with TKDL evidence
    265
    Withdrawn, modified or rejected, to 25 March 2022 (CSIR TKDL)
    Payments to source communities from revoked patents
    None recorded
    None found in the sources reviewed

    What we don't know

    Undisclosed, unproven, untried: recorded as data.

    Nature

    • Not measured Harm to nature: The record holds no measurement of harm to nature.

    Figures

    • Insufficient Revenue: Reported sales of Schwabe's Pelargonium syrup in 2006 (Mail & Guardian).

    Accounts

    • Disputed Who won the Nap Hal wheat revocation?

    Record

    • Insufficient Reported but not independently verified: that the turmeric patent was revoked at the US Patent and Trademark Office in 1997 and the neem patent at the EPO in 2000, final in 2005 (WIPO presentation on the TKDL).
    • Insufficient Reported but not independently verified: that claims in RiceTec's basmati patent were withdrawn and rejected by the US Patent and Trademark Office in 2001 (Public Eye).
    • Insufficient Reported but not independently verified: that the EPO revoked Schwabe's Pelargonium patent on 22 January 2010 after an opposition filed on behalf of the Alice community in South Africa, that sales of Schwabe's Pelargonium syrup were EUR 80 million in 2006, and that the Alice community received no share (Mail & Guardian).
    • Insufficient Reported but not independently verified: that the ayahuasca plant patent was revoked in 1999 after an objection by COICA, reinstated in 2001 and expired in 2003 (GRAIN).
    • None on record The sources reviewed record no payment returning to the source communities in any of these revocations.
    • None on record The sources reviewed give no details of the Enola, teff and Kakadu plum objections.

    Did the harm stop?

    Not applicable in the sources reviewed: no harm to nature is described in them.

    Who paid?

    The sources reviewed record no payment to source communities from any of the revoked patents.

    Sources

    Voices on record: — Company or project✓ Government and regulators— Courts✓ Press and investigations✓ Communities and civil society— Researchers✓ International bodies

    Government and regulators

    1. About TKDL
      CSIR TKDL · 2022-03-25

    Press and investigations

    1. Greenpeace Declares Victory
      Reason · 2004-12-08

    Communities and civil society

    International bodies

    Connected cases

    Related matters, and cases linked to this one through the same organisations, with the role each played in both.
    Terms used on this page

    Science and environment

    Hectare (ha)
    A unit of area equal to 10,000 square metres, about 2.5 acres. 100 hectares make one square kilometre.
    Similar cases
    Genetic resources and benefit-sharing · South Africa · 2020
    Rooibos benefit-sharing agreement (South Africa)
    Same type: Genetic resources and benefit-sharingSame countryHarm to nature not measured
    Genetic resources and benefit-sharing · India · 2017–2025
    Red sandalwood funds made up most of India's benefit-sharing payouts
    Same type: Genetic resources and benefit-sharingSame countryHarm to nature not measured
    Genetic resources and benefit-sharing · Protected area / relocation · Kenya · 1970–2026
    Endorois and Lake Bogoria enzyme extraction (Kenya)
    Same type: Genetic resources and benefit-sharingSame regionCourt: won by claimant
    Genetic resources and benefit-sharing · Indonesia · 2007–2026
    Indonesia's H5N1 sample withholding and the WHO PIP Framework
    Same type: Genetic resources and benefit-sharingSame regionHarm to nature not measured
    Genetic resources and benefit-sharing · Morocco · 2019–2025
    MoroccanOil and argan (Israel/Morocco)
    Same type: Genetic resources and benefit-sharingSame regionHarm to nature not measured
    Genetic resources and benefit-sharing · Protected area / relocation · Global · 2024–2026
    Cali Fund (digital sequence information)
    Same type: Genetic resources and benefit-sharingSame regionHarm to nature not measured