Recently, a committee to revise Kerala’s 2008 IP and TK policy was formulated. The Committee will work on the draft 2025 policy and revise the policy for the state after 17 years. Looking at the draft version of the 2025 Policy, SpicyIP Intern Advika Singh Malik highlights its key recommendations and compares it with the previous policy from 2008. Advika is a third-year law student at Symbiosis Law School, Noida. She is interested in pursuing IP and tech litigation. Her previous posts can be accessed here and here.
Strengthening Innovation: Kerala’s Vision for IPR and TK
By Advika Singh Malik
17 years after the 2008 policy, Kerala is set to revise its IP and TK policy. To prepare the revised version of the policy, recently, the State government formed a committee comprising Dr. N, Anilkumar, Prof. A Sabu, Dr. K. C. Sunny, Mr. R.S Praveen Raj, Dr. Narendran Tiruthy, Dr. Binuja Thomas. In this post, I’ll take a look at the key features of the draft 2025 policy that might replace the existing policy for the state.
Recognizing the essential contribution of IPRs in the knowledge economy, the draft Policy is designed to promote industrial development, research, and public-private partnership. At the same time, it reaffirms an earnest commitment towards the protection of Kerala’s traditional knowledge systems, particularly those that are associated with biological resources. Proposed to revise its previous IPR policy of 2008, the State aims to institutionalize IPR literacy in education, set up an IPR Academy, make IPR Cells compulsory in institutions, and encourage equitable benefit-sharing from GIs, broadening the scope of policy in line with National IPR policy. The Policy envisages protection of individual and community creations as well as empowerment of knowledge holders through innovation, inclusivity, and balance.
IPR for All: Building Kerala’s Innovation Ecosystem from Classrooms to Communities
- Integration of IPR Education in the Academic System– The policy seeks to create mass awareness of Intellectual Property Rights and integrating IPR education at all stages of the academic system. Citing a general awareness and misinformation regarding IPR, it is proposed that the Government incorporate IPR as an obligatory subject at school and higher education levels with special focus on motivating science and commerce students to pursue IPR related careers.
- Creation of a Statutory IPR Academy– For the purpose of providing a formalized environment for innovation, the draft policy suggests the establishment of a statutory IPR Academy to provide training to students and scientific staff. The Academy will be a statutory body. The administrative mechanism of the IPR Academy shall include Director with full administrative as well as financial powers, Academic Council and Management Committee.
- Establishment of IPR Cells and IP Management Committees– The draft policy also proposes to establish IPR Cells and IP Management Committees in every educational (including schools) and research institution to create institutional policies, assist in the filing of patents, encourage commercialization, and settle disputes. As prescribed under paragraphs 15 and 16, IPR Cells are proposed to inculcate a culture of creativity in institutions and counsel the protection of Intellectual Property using proper legal tools. IP Management Committees on the other hand, are tasked with managing and commercializing IP assets. These committees are proposed to monitor the licensing of intellectual property and know-how, and can also approve the outright sale of IP to other parties for a lump sum, immediate financial gains that can be reinvested in research or institutional growth.
- Uncertainty in IP Ownership from Externally Funded Research-On the ownership of IP for the inventions funded by external sources other than state funds, the draft policy proposes that IP shall ordinarily rest with public research institutions generating it, however, it also allows for partial or full transfer to funding agencies in exchange for higher compensation.
- Fortification of Economic and Social Effect of GIs– To make sure that the geographical indications from the state (GIs) fetch higher prices after the grant of the GI tag and improves the standard of living of the producers, the draft policy suggests evaluating the socio-economic impacts of GI from Kerala by studying the market conditions, prior to and subsequent to the grant of GI to the product.
- Mission IPR’s role in developing Kerala’s IP ecosystem- The draft policy also proposes to set up and IP administration mechanism for the state. Titled as “Mission IPR“, the mechanism is proposed to be the centralized infrastructure for intellectual property administration in Kerala. The proposed set up will be a registered society with the aim to extend non-monetary, procedural, and technical assistance for IPR protection and management in the state. The mandate of the mission are enhancing innovation, promoting IP protection and sharing of benefits, incorporating IPR education within academics, and facilitating commercialization of inventions. It also seeks to protect traditional knowledge, primarily Ayurveda, by digitizing manuscripts and avoiding misappropriation. Mission IPR assists IP owners in litigation, has centralized IPR databases, conducts awareness and training programs, and coordinates with government departments for legal agreements and policy implementation creating a strong IP ecosystem in Kerala.
Preserving Wisdom, Empowering Custodians: Kerala’s Sui Generis Path to Traditional Knowledge Protection
- Introduction of Traditional Knowledge Docketing System (TKDS) – As a reaction to earlier misappropriations of indigenous knowledge such as Neem and Turmeric, India established the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL) to record and protect commonly known medicinal and cultural practices. However, the policy states that TKDL, while useful in avoiding incorrect patents, may also expose vulnerable community knowledge to exploitation. In order to deal with this, the draft policy proposes to establish a Traditional Knowledge Docketing System (TKDS) that informs the custodians, locations, and nature of TK with prudence without the registration of exclusive rights in order to guard against without inducing stiffness and trap of conventional IPR. The draft policy also proposes setting up knowledge societies or trusts by TK holding people or communities that will allow them to conserve, manage, and benefit from their traditional knowledge.
- Establishment of “Knowledge Societies”– The draft policy, based on an understanding that it is difficult to recognize TK as a community right, suggests establishment of different societies or trusts for protecting TK. These societies can provide permission for commercial and non-commercial use of TK on the condition of fair benefit sharing arrangements such that any enrichment finds its way back to the original custodian.. The societies will be democratically governed, with protection against private monopolization and provision of sustainable livelihoods to the custodians.
- Sui Generis Law and International Ethical Recognition- The draft policy also proposes to enact sui generis legislation, an independent, tailor-made law that respects the dynamic, collective, and cultural nature of TK. It will officially declare custodians state TK trustees, allow them to establish societies, and accord them negotiating rights over use and fair return.
Comparison: The Old and New Policy
The 2025 draft policy seems to touch upon numerous aspects which weren’t covered by the previous editions. The IPR Policy 2008 (discussed by Prof. Basheer and Dr. Kochupillai here and here respectively), pursuing double ownership paradigm, aims at legalizing recognition and ownership of traditional knowledge (TK) by family and community-based groups through the Kerala Traditional Knowledge Authority (KTKA). It takes a “Commons License” approach, prioritizing non-commercial use, avoiding privatization of TK, and promoting communal access. This policy resists the neoliberal commodification of heritage by promoting a non-patenting model, especially for traditional knowledge. The state’s focus on community based governance and benefit sharing seeks to empower local custodians and protect indigenous knowledge from corporate appropriation. Though, it recognizes the enforcement difficulties and documentation of heterogeneity of TK in the state.
Conversely, the draft IPR 2025 Policy proposes a non-IPR, community-based model to safeguard Traditional Knowledge by establishing a Traditional Knowledge Docketing System (TKDS) and enabling TK-holding communities to form societies for preservation. It aims to create an ecosystem of innovation in Kerala by establishing extensive education on IPR in academic institutions. It focuses on developing a professional environment of patent agents, IP attorneys, and researchers, placing heavy importance on commercialization and branding, especially under Geographical Indications (GIs). Though it promotes innovation, it is based on formal IPR frameworks, like patenting and institutional IP management. The policy promotes market oriented innovation, with an emphasis on developing a competitive, IPR sensitive environment in Kerala.
The one focuses on preserving the community heritage within non-IPR institutions, whereas the other aims at making Kerala a front runner in the formal IPR education and commercialization. Both of them are two contrasting but convergent strategies for pursuing innovation and heritage protection within Kerala’s development strategy.