What is the present world scenario of intellectual property rights with respect to life materials? Although, India is second in the world to file patents, still only a few have been commercialized. Explain the reasons behind this less commercialization.

Life materials and world IPR

After Diamond v. Chakrabarty in the United States, a genetically engineered bacterium could be patented. TRIPS Article 27.3(b) lets members exclude plants and animals other than microorganisms, and biological processes for their production, while still requiring some protection for plant varieties. The Budapest Treaty deposits microorganisms. The Convention on Biological Diversity and the Nagoya Protocol insist on access and benefit-sharing when genetic resources and traditional knowledge are used. The European debate on stem cells and on animal patents remains tighter than the US. Gene patents were cut back in the US after Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics: a mere isolated natural sequence is not an invention. India, under Section 3(j) of the Patents Act, excludes plants and animals (other than microorganisms) and essentially biological processes; Section 3(d) blocks evergreening of known substances; Section 3(c) blocks the mere discovery of a scientific principle. Plant breeders use the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act, 2001, which also protects the farmer’s right to save seed. Traditional Knowledge Digital Library is a defensive database against misappropriation. The world scene is therefore split: patents on microbes and biotech tools in many offices, no patent on plants and animals in India, and a running fight over genes, CRISPR and digital sequence information.

• Peg: Novartis v. Union of India showed that a patent on a life-related medicine still has to clear Section 3(d).
• Peg: CBD/Nagoya sit beside TRIPS: a patent office grant does not erase a biodiversity permit.

Why so little commercialisation

Filing is a count. Commercialisation is a firm, a trial, a factory and a buyer. Indian patents are often academic or CSIR/ICAR filings with weak industry liaison. Many specifications are thin, so they do not survive opposition or attract a licensee. Technology transfer offices in universities are still young. Venture capital for deep biotech is thinner than for software. Regulatory paths for GM crops, biologics and diagnostics are slow and politically contested, so even a valid patent may never become a product. Firms import licences rather than scale a domestic file. Quality versus quantity: a rush to file for ranking, without freedom-to-operate searches, produces paper that cannot be sold. The missing piece is governance of the last mile — incubation, public procurement of innovation, and a farm or hospital that will use the thing.

• Peg: A patent without a technology-readiness path is a certificate, not a commercial asset.
• Peg: Software-style filing culture does not transfer to wet-lab products that need years of trial.