1. Pre-Grant Opposition under Section 25.(1) of Indian Patent Act 1970

TKDL Pre-Grant Opposition under Section 25.(1) brought to the notice of examination division the prior art references on the use of Glycyrrhiza glabra (licorice) for the treatment of Osteoarthiritis , Fracture, Stiffness of Joints, Bones related Disease, Dislocation, Joints Pain, Arthritis and Arthralgia from the books – Vrndamadhava by Madhavah (Ayurveda, Exhibit 1), Ikseer Azam, Vol. IV by Mohammad Azam Khan (Unani, Exhibit 2), Rasakamadhenu Samhita by Cudamani (Ayurveda, Exhibit 3), Yogaratnakarah - Commentary by Laksmipatisastri (Ayurveda, Exhibit 4), Basavarajiyam by Basavaraja (Ayurveda, Exhibit 5), Therayar by Therayar (Siddha, Exhibit 6), Rasayoga Sagara - Compiled and Translated by Vaidya Pandita Hariprapanna Ji, Vol.II (Ayurveda, Exhibit 7), Astanga Hrdaya by Vagabhata (Ayurveda, Exhibit 8), Bhavaprakasa by Bhavamisra (Ayurveda, Exhibit 9) and Qaraabaadeen Najm-al-Ghani by Mohammad Najmul Ghani Khan (Unani, Exhibit 10).

2. Relevant Extract of CGPDTM Examination report

CGPDTM Patent Examiner(s) took cognizance of TKDL references. Extract of examination report at Para 5 & 6 are reproduced below.



“Claims 1-16 are not patentable u/S 3(p) of the Act as they pertain to traditional knowledge. Use of Glycyrrhiza glabra for treatment of bone related disorders like osteoarthritis, fracture, dislocation is traditionally known. Refer enclosed TKDL documents D5: AK/2759, D6: RS/256. Claims lack novelty/inventive step in view of cited prior art documents.
D5: AK/2759, D6: RS/256.
Claims 1-16 lack inventive step u/S 2(1)(ja) of the Act in view of cited prior art documents. The use of extracts of Glycyrrhiza glabra for treating bone related disorders like osteoarthritis, fracture would have been obvious to a person skilled in the art from the teachings of the cited prior art documents. If the subject-matter as claimed relates to extracts/alkaloids and/or isolation of active ingredients of plants, which are naturally/inherently present in plants, such claims cannot be considered as novel and/or inventive when use of such plants is pre-known as part of teachings of Traditional Knowledge (TK). When the subject-matter of claims relate to extracts of plant materials containing undefined active ingredients, such claims cannot be said to be novel if the use of such plants or plant materials is pre-known as a part of teaching of TK. However, if the claims relate to alkaloids and/or active principles obtained from the plant materials and structures of the said alkaloids and/or active principles are characterized, which do not form the part of the prior art, such claims cannot be said to involve an inventive step, since the use of said plant materials and their therapeutic effects are known from the teaching of TK. Thus, the prior art motivates the person skilled in the art to isolate the individual ingredients such as alkaloids, flavonoids, phyto-steroids, etc..”

Full examination report can be referred at 1197_CHE_2006.pdf

3. Outcomes of Pre-Grant Opposition & Examination Report

As the outcome of TKDL references and other documents cited in examination report, the Application is Abandoned U/S 21(1).