The Traditional Knowledge Digital Library

In one line

The Traditional Knowledge Digital Library is not a statute and confers no right; it is a database built so that a foreign patent examiner can find Indian prior art before granting a patent.

In exam wording: the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library is a documentation initiative of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research with the Ministry of Ayush, which converts documented Indian traditional medical knowledge from Ayurveda, Unani, Siddha, Sowa Rigpa and Yoga into a classified, searchable electronic form in several international languages, mapped to international patent classification, and makes it available to patent offices under access agreements so that it can be used as prior art; it operates as defensive protection, and it is the practical instrument by which the National Biodiversity Authority exercises its power under section 18(4) of the Biological Diversity Act 2002 to oppose the grant of intellectual property rights outside India.

The problem it was built to solve

Turmeric and neem showed that Indian traditional knowledge was already written down. The trouble was that it was written down in Sanskrit, Urdu, Tamil and Persian, in texts a European or American patent examiner had no way of searching, and classified by concepts no patent classification system recognised.

An examiner who cannot find the prior art grants the patent. So the answer was not a new right but a translation and a classification.

What it does

It is defensive, not proprietary. It does not give anybody a right in traditional knowledge. Its whole function is to make sure a right is not granted to somebody else.

It converts and classifies. Documented knowledge from the classical texts is rendered into a structured electronic form, in several languages, and mapped onto the classification system patent offices actually use.

It is made available under access agreements. Patent offices are given access on terms that allow examiners to search it for prior art while restricting wider dissemination of the content.

Its relationship to the statutes

Section 18(4) of the Biological Diversity Act 2002 allows the Authority to take measures to oppose the grant of intellectual property rights outside India. The Library supplies the evidence those measures need.

Sections 25(1)(k), 25(2)(k) and 64(1)(q) of the Patents Act 1970 make anticipation having regard to knowledge, oral or otherwise, available within any local or indigenous community in India or elsewhere a ground of opposition and revocation. The Library supplies the documentary form of that knowledge.

Section 3(p) of the Patents Act 1970 excludes an invention which in effect is traditional knowledge. The Library helps an examiner see that it is.

Section 36(5) of the Biological Diversity Act 2002 requires the Central Government to endeavour to respect and protect the knowledge of local people, through measures which may include registration of that knowledge at local, State or national levels, and other measures including a sui generis system. The Library is the national end of that registration idea; the People's Biodiversity Register under section 41 is the local end.