Journal of Intellectual Property Rights Law

Intellectual Property Challenges in Indian Herbal and Ayurvedic Formulations: A Pharmaceutical Jurisprudence Perspective

Varnika — 2026-06-21

Globalisation and commercialisation of traditional medicine originating in new challenges for the complicated nature of the issue, emerging in pharmaceutical jurisprudence. Globalisation and commercialisation of traditional medicine has ushered in new challenges to the complicated nature of dispute in pharmaceutical jurisprudence[1]. While conventional community-based Traditional Knowledge Systems (TKS) have been developed over centuries and based on community formulations that are non-individualistic and collective, traditional Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) systems focus on individual invention and novelty. This essay assesses the legal protections and regulatory roadblocks pertaining to Ayurvedic and herbal remedies in India.

The importance of important statutory provisions is discussed in this paper, including the Indian Patents Act, 1970, section 3(p) and the Biological Diversity Act, 2002 with a legal-doctrinal perspective[2]. It also reviews the achievements of the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL) in combating unapproved patent claim and along with the regulatory demands of the Ministry of AYUSH.

The findings reveal that in spite of the successful implementation of the defensive procedures such as TKDL, indigenous Ayurvedic innovators continue to face restrictions by patents that previously had been granted under the positive/offensive patenting regime. Despite these strides, various regulatory challenges remain, particularly the stringent standards to prove an "inventive step" in multi-herbal products, the convoluted administration requirements imposed by the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) for Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) and the troubles of harmonizing traditional alternative products with modern requirements for generic approval[3]. With the existing IPR regime in India being much more defensive, it implies that the proactive innovation of drug and medicine in the AYUSH industry is suppressed unintentionally with some extent by biopiracy. A viable herbal industry can be promoted by adapting the legislation in practice and creating 'sui generis (unique, specialised) models of how the means community ownership or applying a conventional patent standard to the new system of jurisprudence, which moves from clinical science towards the present.

[1] Leonti, M., & Casu, L. (2013). Traditional medicines and globalization: current and future perspectives in ethnopharmacology. Frontiers in pharmacology, 4, 92.

[2] Boruah, J. (2019, March). Access and Benefit Sharing: A Status Under Indian Legal Regime. In Seminar Paper submitted to National Law University and Judicial Academy Assam.

[3] Nomani, M. Z. M., Rahman, F., Rauf, M., & Khan, S. A. (2020). Access and benefit sharing models of biodiversity conservation in international and comparative Law perspective. Advances in Natural and Applied Sciences, 14(1), 1-14.

Artificial Intelligence and the Future of Music Copyright Protection

Bhupinder Singh — 2026-04-12

The rapid advancement of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies has introduced transformative possibilities and unprecedented challenges for the field of music copyright protection. AI systems capable of generating original musical compositions, imitating the styles of existing artists, and manipulating copyrighted recordings have destabilized the foundational assumptions of copyright law, which was designed to protect the creative expressions of human authors. This article critically examines the implications of AI-generated music for copyright law, evaluating the adequacy of existing legal frameworks in addressing questions of authorship, originality, ownership, and infringement in the AI era. Drawing upon comparative analysis of copyright legislation in the United States, the European Union, and the United Kingdom, as well as recent judicial decisions and scholarly discourse, this paper argues that the current copyright regime is insufficiently equipped to address the novel challenges posed by AI music generation. The article proposes a reformed copyright framework that balances the promotion of innovation with the protection of human creators, incorporating concepts of algorithmic transparency, equitable licensing, and the recognition of a sui generis category of AI-generated works.

The ‘Per Se’ Exclusion under Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970: Patentability of Computer-Related Inventions in India

Adarsh Yadav — 2026-06-21

The rapid growth of digital technologies has raised important questions regarding the patentability of computer-related inventions in India. Section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970 excludes “a mathematical or business method or a computer programme per se or algorithms” from patent protection. However, the expression “computer programme per se” has remained unclear and has resulted in inconsistent interpretation by the Indian Patent Office and courts. This paper examines the doctrinal and practical difficulties surrounding the application of Section 3(k), particularly in the context of modern technological innovations that combine software and hardware components.

The paper analyses the legislative framework of Section 3(k), the role of the Computer Related Inventions (CRI) Guidelines, and the evolving judicial approach toward software-related inventions. Particular attention is given to the decision of the Delhi High Court in Ferid Allani v Union of India (2019), where the Court recognised that inventions demonstrating a technical effect or technical contribution should not be rejected merely because they involve computer programs. The paper argues that the original purpose of Section 3(k) was to exclude pure software and abstract ideas from patentability, not to deny protection to genuine technological innovations involving software.

The study further identifies doctrinal concerns such as inconsistent examination standards, lack of statutory definitions, and uncertainty regarding the concepts of “technical effect” and “technical contribution.” It concludes that a clearer and more consistent interpretation of Section 3(k), focused on the technical contribution of an invention rather than the mere presence of software, is necessary to balance innovation incentives with the statutory objective of preventing monopolisation of abstract ideas.