NBA Approval for Patent Application – What, When, Who, Why, and How?

NBA Approval for Patent Application - What, When, Who, Why, and How - Intellect Vidhya

What is NBA?

NBA stands for National Biodiversity Association which is a statutory body that was established in 2003 by the Central government for the purpose of the Biological diversity Act, 2002 to regulate access and equitable sharing of benefits arising from any biological resources.

What is a Biological Resource?

As per Section 2(c) of the Biological Diversity (Amendment) Act (BDA), 2023, “biological resources” includes plants, animals, micro-organisms or parts of their genetic material and derivatives (excluding value added products) with actual or potential use or value but does not include human genetic material wherein “derivative” means a naturally occurring biochemical compound or metabolism of biological resources, even if it does not contain functional units of heredity.

When Do We Need NBA Approval?

It is mandatory to apply for NBA approval under BDA 2002 through Form 3 with appropriate fee (INR 500) before patent application in or outside India under the following condition:

  • If the invention that is to be patented is based on any research or information on a biological resource wherein the source and geographical origin of the biological material is from India.
  • If the biological resource is a plant, before applying for plant breeders right in any country other than India.

The NBA approval shall be obtained prior to the grant of the Patent provided that the NBA shall dispose of the application for permission made to it within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt thereof. In case of foreign jurisdiction, NBA approval shall be granted only to those countries that are intimated in the Form 3.

Relevant Sections

  • As per Section 10 (4)(ii) of The Patent act, 1970, an applicant must disclose the source and geographical origin of the biological material in the specification, when used in an invention.
  • Section 6 of BDA act, 2023:

(1A) Any person applying for any intellectual property right, by whatever name called, in or outside India, for any invention based on any research or information on a biological resource which is accessed from India, including those deposited in repositories outside India, or traditional knowledge associated thereto, shall register with the National Biodiversity Authority before grant of such intellectual property rights.

(1B) Any person who has obtained intellectual property right, by whatever name called, in or outside India, for any invention based on any research or information on a biological resource which is accessed from India, including those deposited in repositories outside India, or traditional knowledge associated thereto, shall obtain prior approval of the National Biodiversity Authority at the time of

commercialization.

  • As per section 19 of BDA act, 2023, Any person who intends to apply for a patent or any other form of intellectual property rights, whether in India or outside India, referred to in of section 6 (1), may make an application to the National Biodiversity Authority in such form, on payment of such fee, and in such manner, as may be prescribed.

When Do We Not Need NBA Approval?

NBA approval is not required in following cases:

  • If the biological resource is neither obtained from India or sources from India
  • If the invention does not relate to a biological resource defined under the BDA act, 2002 such as Value-added products, Biowaste and synthetically prepared biological material.

Relevant Section & Definitions

  • As per Section 2(p) of the BDA, 2002 “value added products” means products which may contain portions or extracts of plants and animals in unrecognizable and physically inseparable form.
  • Biowaste – Waste that is generated after the exhaustive economic use of the biological resource.
  • Synthetically prepared biological material includes secondary metabolites from microbes, synthetic sugars, synthetic biomaterials, nanomaterials and so on.

Why Should Apply For NBA Approval?

The following applicants should apply for NBA approval before patent application disclosing biological resources from India:

  • Indian Citizen
  • Non-Indian
  • Non-Resident Indian (NRI)
  • Entities registered or incorporated in India.
  • Entities not registered or incorporated in India.

Why To Disclose Biological Resource & Apply For NBA Approval?

The National Biodiversity Authority may, while granting the approval under section 6(2) of BDA, 2002, impose benefit sharing fee or royalty or both or impose conditions including the sharing of financial benefits arising out of the commercial utilization of such rights from biological resources.

The Biological Diversity Act, 2002 has a penal provision in this regard under section 55 (1) which provides that “whoever contravenes or attempts to contravene or abets the contravention of the provisions of the section 3 or section 4 or section 6 shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to five years, or with fine which may extend to ten lakh rupees and where the damage caused exceeds ten lakh rupees such fine may commensurate with the damage caused, or with both.”

If the complete specification does not disclose or wrongly mentions the biological material source and geographical origin, then, according to clause (j) of Sections 25(1) and 25(2) respectively of the Patents Act, 1970, it will create a ground for pre and post-grant opposition.

If NBA approval is not obtained/submitted, a controller can file an objection in the examination report. Even if one did not raise the complaint during the examination process, it could be brought subsequently.

How To Apply For NBA Approval?

For the sake of patent application, a person seeking approval from the NBA must make an application on NBA Form 3 through ABS (Access and Benefit Sharing) e-filing with INR 500 as a fee. The particulars that are required for Form 3 application is given below:

1. Full particulars of the applicant including

(a) Name of the applicant (s) as indicated in the IPR application submitted to the Patent Office.

(b) Complete address of the applicant (s) with state/province name/country and PIN code/zip code, Telephone/ Fax Number (Land line with code), Mobile Number and Email address.

(c) Complete professional profile or bio-data of the applicant (s) not exceeding one page.

(d) Bona fide letter in original from the institution or organisation with whom the applicant (s) is affiliated.

2. Details of the invention on which IPRs sought including

(a) Full and exact title and abstract of IPR on which application is made.

(b) Patent office reference number, if application is filed before the Patent Office.

3. Details of the biological resources and or/associated knowledge used in the invention including

(a) Scientific name(s) of the biological resource(s)

(b) common name(s) of the biological resource(s)

(c) Details of associated knowledge used and source of such information, if applicable.

(d) Provide copy of approval of NBA for access to biological resources and/ or associated knowledge (if the applicant is covered under Section 3(2) of BD Act)

4. Geographical location from where the biological resources used in the invention are collected

(a) Indicate the name of village, panchayat, block, taluk, district and state from where the biological resource(s) were collected.

(b) If the biological resource(s) were collected or procured from the Institute/ Organization/ Company/local trader/individual, provide exact contact details (address and phone number) of such supplier and invoice/evidence for such purchase.

(c) Indicate whether the material was sourced from wild/cultivated

5. Details of any traditional knowledge used in the invention and any identified individual/ community holding the traditional knowledge

(a) Provide full details of individual/communities holding such traditional knowledge (b) In case, this knowledge sourced from texts provide source of such information (photocopies of relevant information may be attached wherever applicable)

6. Details of Institution where Research and Development Activities carried out

(a) Name and address of the institute where research was carried out.

(b) Please provide details of collaboration with other institutions/organization/company, if any, during the course of research activities.

7. Details of economic, biotechnological, scientific or any other benefits that are intended or may accrue to the applicant due commercialization of the invention

(a) Nature of benefits envisaged

(b) Investment in Research and Development, in the current invention.

8. Declaration by the applicant(s).

9. Authorization letter from the applicant (s) to any agent or representatives.

Conclusion

Any patent applicant should be mindful while using biological resources from India for their research and innovation. It is mandatory to apply for NBA approval before any patent application in or outside India and the respective details should be disclosed in the description part of the specification.

Share:

Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
WhatsApp

Categories

Search

    Categories

    Recent Posts

    • All Post
    • Copyright
    • Design Patents
    • Patent Filing
    • Patent Search
    • Trademark
    • Uncategorized

    Related Posts

    Design or Patent? Securing Your Auto Innovations the Right Way

    In the automobile industry, intellectual property (IP) is of utmost important in order to protect new ideas and technologies. Two key types of IP that are often discussed in the context of the automotive sector are design protection and patents. While these two serve different purposes, they often overlap, especially in the automobile sector. In this article, we will cover what design and patent protections are, how they work, where they overlap, and what challenges businesses face. What is Design Protection? Design refers to the look or aesthetics of a product. In the field of automobile industry, design protection can cover the external shape of a car, the design of its parts, or its internal features. Design protection aims to stop others copying the distinctive look of a product. The Design Act and Eligibility In India, design protection is governed by the Design Act, 2000. To qualify for design protection, the design must meet these requirements: What Can Be Protected as a Design in the Automobile Industry? In the automobile sector, you can protect many things as a design, including: For example, the shark fin antenna on luxury cars or the unique grille of sports cars are examples of designs that can be protected. What is a Patent? A patent protects inventions—novel, useful products or processes. In the automobile industry, patents typically protect technological innovations and mechanical systems that make a vehicle work better. The Patent Act and Eligibility In India, patents are governed by the Patents Act, 1970. To get a patent, the invention must meet these criteria: Protection Time for Patents Patents last for 20 years from the filing date, as long as you pay maintenance fees. After that, anyone can use the invention freely. What Can Be Patented in the Automobile Industry? In the automobile sector, patents can cover things like: For example, Tesla’s electric powertrain or BMW’s advanced braking systems are patented technologies. Overlap Between Design and Patent Protection Design and patent protections have different purposes, but they often overlap in the automobile industry. A single product, like a car, can be protected by both design and patent. Here’s how: Challenges of Overlapping Design and Patent While having both design and patent protection can be helpful, it also comes with challenges: How to File for Design and Patent Protection? Filing for both design and patent protection requires careful planning and understanding of the legal process. It’s important to work with a lawyer who knows how to handle both types of protection. Conclusion The interplay between design and patent protection in the automobile industry provides opportunities and challenges for companies that want to protect their innovations. However, it also comes with challenges like complexity and costs. By understanding the differences between design and patent protection, and with the help of expert legal guidance, businesses can better protect their innovations and stay ahead in the competitive automobile market. Contact Intellect Vidhya Solutions—your partner in protecting intellectual property for any questions or needed support in navigating the complexities of design and patent law.

    Read More »
    February 7, 2025 No Comments

    AI Voice Cloning and Its Copyright Legalities: The Arijit Singh Case

    The fast developments in AI voice synthesis led to in a revolutionary era in technology: immediate voice cloning. Modern algorithms can now produce a nearly identical replica of an individual’s voice using just a few minutes of their voice recording. Most of us probably have heard a number of songs that include the voice of our Prime Minister; these recreated tracks are a clear example of AI voice cloning. Such technology has allowed creators and businesses to create things like songs, speeches, etc., in the unique yet identifiable voices. It could enhance creative and personalized media but, in doing so, also creates complex ethical and legal difficulties, particularly with respect to copyright, privacy, and personality rights. AI Voice Cloning: Understanding the Technology Voice cloning is dependent on the cutting-edge of deep learning and machine learning algorithms to analyze an individual’s voice frequencies, tone, and accents. Once those specific characteristics are recorded, they can be reproduced digitally in order to create audio that as closely as possible resembles the original speaker. This feature, when paired up with Speech Synthesis Markup Language (SSML), enables users to personalize aspects like pronunciation, pitch, and speed, making it as realistic and lively a voice as possible, closely identifying with a natural human voice. These are great possibilities, but there is a flip side where this technology can be abused if used without the knowledge of the person whose voice it matches. The Arijit Singh Case: A Significant Decision on Personality Rights The recent ruling by the Bombay High Court in favour of Bollywood singer Arijit Singh brought attention to the legal issues surrounding AI voice cloning. The court, in the present case, provided interim relief to Arijit Singh, recognising that his voice, name, and likeness are essential components of his identity, referred to as “personality rights.” Arijit Singh initiated legal action against Codible Ventures LLP, a firm that allowed users to generate content using his voice without obtaining consent. The court’s decision to define the unauthorised use of Singh’s voice as a violation of his rights sets an important precedent. It emphasises that an individual’s voice, much like their name or image, is an integral aspect of their identity and is protected under personality rights.  The court acknowledged Singh’s status as a well-known and influential artist, pointing out his reputation and goodwill in India. The court highlighted that previous cases concerning personality rights indicate that using a celebrity’s voice or personal traits for commercial gain without permission constitutes a clear violation of those rights. This ruling clearly suggests that tools that allow for the generation of content in a celebrity’s voice without their permission infringe upon their rights and pose risks to their economic and public standing. Legal Considerations: Copyright, Personal Rights, and More The decision involving Arijit Singh carries major consequences for several legal concepts, such as copyright, intellectual property, and personality rights. 1. Personality Rights: This case highlights that a celebrity’s name, voice, and likeness are integral parts of their personal brand and identity. Protecting these rights stops illicit third parties from profiting off someone else’s identity and plays a crucial role in protecting their career and livelihood. 2. Copyright and Ownership: The complexities of ownership arise when dealing with AI-generated content that utilises cloned voices. Is the voice model subject to copyright protection, and who holds the legal rights to the content generated with that voice? When a voice model originates from a public figure, the boundaries of copyright law can become vague. It raises questions about who actually holds the rights: the creator, the individual whose voice is replicated, or the developer of the AI. 3. Economic and Reputational Concerns: The unauthorised use of a prominent voice can have adverse impacts on the person’s professional life. In Singh’s situation, his reputation and popularity render his voice a crucial element of his personal brand. The court’s decision recognises the potential harm that unauthorised use of his voice may pose to his professional standing and revenue. 4. Right to Publicity: This case expands the idea of an individual’s control over the commercial use of their identity. With the growing ease of AI voice cloning, it is becoming more vital to safeguard individuals against the unauthorised use of their identity. This acknowledgement offers a foundation for protecting people’s identities and personal characteristics in the era of AI. Setting Standards for AI Voice Cloning The Arijit Singh case highlights the pressing need for well-defined and thorough regulations concerning the commercial application of AI voice cloning technology. Considering the possibility of misuse, here are some suggestions to tackle these challenges:  Explicit Consent Requirements: The use of an individual’s voice or likeness must obtain clear, documented consent, especially when it pertains to commercial purposes. Transparency: Informing consumers about the use of an AI-generated voice is crucial to prevent any potential misunderstanding, particularly when the cloned voice closely resembles a well-known individual. Defining Usage Boundaries: Setting clear boundaries between personal and commercial applications can help prevent misuse while allowing individuals to utilise the technology for their own non-commercial purposes. Conclusion This ruling by the Bombay High Court, giving practical effect to Arijit Singh’s right over his voice, is a positive balancing act between harnessing the modern technology of AI voice cloning and protecting individual rights. Considering the new technology of voice synthesis, society must develop legal protections against the appropriation of one’s voice, name, and likeness. This ruling is a landmark case in that it shows how the law can adapt to emerging technology and preserve innovation while ensuring the protection of individual rights against invasive practices. Such frameworks will be critical to ensure the responsible use of this powerful tool, prevent misuse, and safeguard individual identities as we explore its potential further.

    Read More »
    December 11, 2024 No Comments

    What is Trademark Squatting? Insights into the Legal Battle Over Brand Rights

    Trademark squatting refers to the practice where individuals or entities register popular brand names, trademarks, or domain names with the aim of making a profit from them. This practice can pose legal difficulties for legitimate brand owners, as opportunists frequently try to sell these assets back to companies at inflated prices, anticipating that the demand for these names will result in a substantial profit. This issue may not be new, but the evolving digital landscape and the growing significance of online branding have amplified its effects. Understanding Trademark Squatting Trademark squatting involves the unauthorised registration or use of a trademark that closely resembles a well-known brand or business name, with the aim of capitalising on the brand’s reputation. This practice typically takes place in two areas: Trademark Squatting Under Indian Law The Trademarks Act, 1999 regulates trademark matters in India. While it doesn’t directly mention “trademark squatting,” it sets up the legal structure for safeguarding registered trademarks. Indian law provides two primary legal remedies to address the issue of squatting: 1. Trademark Infringement: When a squatter utilises a registered trademark, the legitimate owner has the option to initiate a lawsuit alleging trademark infringement. Courts evaluate aspects such as similarity, the purpose of registration, and any damage inflicted on the original brand. 2. Passing Off: When a brand owner has not registered their trademark, they may pursue a claim of passing off, which is a remedy recognised by common law. The brand owner must show their goodwill and establish that the squatter’s use of the brand leads to confusion for consumers.  Furthermore, in situations concerning domain names, India’s .IN Dispute Resolution Policy (INDRP) directly deals with disputes related to .IN domain names, whereas international cases involving generic domains typically come under the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP). Trademark Squatting and Cybersquatting Trademark squatting and cybersquatting are interconnected concepts, yet they vary in their extent. Trademark squatting involves the misuse of trademarks across various market segments, whereas cybersquatting is focused specifically on internet domain names. Both, however, seek to gain from unauthorised registration, often expecting that the rightful brand owner will repurchase the asset to prevent possible confusion among consumers. Recent Judgment on Trademark Squatting In a recent case involving the domain name JioHotstar.com, the registrant claimed they purchased the domain thinking that Jio (the telecom brand owned by Reliance Industries) and Disney+ Hotstar were likely to come together, based on speculation in various industry circles. They even registered this domain name, assuming that if Jio and Disney merged, Jio could brand it as JioHotstar. The registrant confessed that the aim was to sell the domain to Reliance, stating, “It was a money-making venture to pay for education at Cambridge.” The above explanation notwithstanding, the nature of this cybersquatting case was so textbook (cybersquatting being a specific type of trademark squatting, where instead of a traditional trademark, the focus is on the domain name) that the legal outcome was predictable. In recent years, the judgment of courts globally, including in India, has increasingly emphasized intent in matters related to trademark and cybersquatting disputes. In this case, the registrant’s objective was clearly to profit from a potential merger by flipping the domain back to the brand itself—a motive devoid of any legitimate business interest. This leans towards bad-faith registration, a significant factor that courts examine in cybersquatting cases. In this instance, because JioHotstar.com was not intended to host a legitimate business or service but to be resold for profit, it was categorized as bad faith under section 4(b)(ii) of the policy. Courts generally view such intentions negatively, and if the legitimate brand owner challenges the domain, the domain owner is likely to face difficulty defending their position. The example of *JioHotstar.com* highlights the need for courts to take a firm stand: domains registered with the intent of exploiting brand equity should be invalidated, even if the challenge by the trademark owner is based on their interests. Strategies to Prevent and Address Trademark Squatting Brands can implement proactive measures to steer clear of the difficulties associated with squatting: Conclusion Trademark squatting remains a significant legal challenge for global brands, impacting brand integrity in both online and offline environments. With courts increasingly focused on protecting the rights of trademark owners, cases like JioHotstar.com illustrate how the legal framework discourages attempts to exploit recognised brands for personal gain. Companies can protect their brand and prevent squatters from taking advantage of their intellectual property by actively registering trademarks and monitoring domain names.

    Read More »
    November 28, 2024 No Comments

    Food Plating and Copyright Protection in India

    Food plating — the positioning and presentation of food on a plate has matured into its own craft; showcasing chefs around the globe serving up more than just taste alone. In addition to aesthetics, it sets up your dining experience and reflect the brand identity of a restaurant. Chefs and restaurateurs have resorted to intellectual property (IP) law in different countries around the world, for protecting their unique forms of plating. But in India, copyright law does not allow for food plating to be protected easily: the same is because of two key reasons; firstly, food being highly perishable items and secondly primary purpose of using dishes as they serve a functional role. This article takes a closer look at the intersection of Indian copyright law and food plating, covering eligibility requirements and mechanisms for protection as well as some significant challenges. Copyright Eligibility for Food Plating in India Under the Copyright Act of 1957, copyright protection in India applies to original works of art, literature, music, and more. For a work to be eligible, it generally must meet two main requirements: However, Indian Copyright Law does not automatically deem the plating of food copyrightable. Chefs have no immediate legal protection for their plating, but by photographing it they can at least preserve the creative arrangement in a fixed medium. This approach means the copyright is granted to the photograph or video itself—not the plated arrangement—which still presents some limitations but can deter unauthorized reproduction of the image. Protecting Food Plating in India: Alternative Approaches Despite the challenges, several IP options could provide indirect protection for food plating in India: Key Challenges in Achieving Copyright Protection for Food Plating Even with these alternatives, protecting food plating remains challenging in India for several reasons: Practical Recommendations for  Chefs and Restaurateurs For chefs and restaurant owners in India interested in protecting their food plating styles, here are some practical steps that can help: Conclusion Food presentation does not enjoy copyright protection in India, as food is transient (disappearing after a meal), functional, and perishable. Although food plating does not fall under the traditional copyright regime, chefs or restaurateurs can explore other methods—such as photographic copyright, branding protections, contractual protections, and trade dress—to safeguard their culinary creations’ presentation. While these solutions provide some level of protection, they ultimately highlight the issue that, in the Indian legal context, food plating lacks force under copyright law. If chefs hope to protect their plating artistry in India, the key is to focus on brand-building and be inventive with alternative IP protections.

    Read More »
    November 11, 2024 No Comments