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


  • 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.


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 on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on whatsapp
Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on linkedin
Share on whatsapp

Related Posts

Micro Copyright in India: Protecting Small-Scale Creative Works

In the digital age, the creation and sharing of content have reached unprecedented heights. With the proliferation of user-generated content, short-form media, and the increasing significance of individual contributions to larger works, the concept of “micro copyright” has emerged. Micro copyright refers to the protection of smaller, often more granular, creative expressions. In the context of Indian copyright law, this concept presents unique challenges and opportunities. This article explores the intricacies of micro copyright and the conundrums surrounding its protection in India. Understanding Micro Copyright Micro copyright encompasses the rights associated with smaller creative works such as social media posts, memes, short videos, gifs, and even individual elements within larger works, like specific phrases or designs. These forms of content, while often brief and seemingly inconsequential, can hold significant value and can be the subject of copyright protection. The Legal Framework of Copyright in India The Indian Copyright Act, 1957, primarily governs copyright protection in India. The Act provides protection to original literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works, cinematograph films, and sound recordings. For a work to be protected, it must be original and expressed in a tangible form. Challenges in Protecting Micro Copyright 1. Originality and Fixation One of the fundamental requirements for copyright protection is that the work must be original and fixed in a tangible medium. This can be challenging for micro content, where the line between original creation and common expression is often blurred. Determining the originality of a tweet, meme, or short video clip can be subjective and contentious. 2. De Minimis Doctrine The de minimis doctrine, which means “about minimal things,” can pose a significant challenge for micro copyright. This doctrine suggests that the law does not concern itself with trivial matters. Small snippets of content might be considered too insignificant to warrant protection, leaving creators without legal recourse for unauthorized use. 3. Fair Use The concept of fair use allows for limited use of copyrighted material without requiring permission from the rights holders. In the context of micro copyright, determining what constitutes fair use can be particularly tricky. For instance, sharing a meme or a short clip might be considered fair use, but if it goes viral and gains commercial value, the original creator might seek protection and compensation. 4. Enforcement and Attribution Even if micro content is eligible for copyright protection, enforcing these rights can be challenging. Monitoring the vast expanse of the internet for unauthorized use of small-scale content is a daunting task. Additionally, the ease with which digital content can be shared and altered complicates the process of ensuring proper attribution and compensation. The Way Forward 1. Clearer Guidelines and Definitions To address the challenges of micro copyright, clearer guidelines and definitions are needed within the Indian Copyright Act. Defining what constitutes a protectable micro work and setting standards for originality can provide better clarity for creators and users alike. 2. Digital Rights Management (DRM) and Technology Leveraging technology, such as digital rights management (DRM) systems and content recognition algorithms, can help creators monitor and enforce their copyright more effectively. These technologies can automate the process of identifying unauthorized uses and facilitate easier enforcement. 3. Education and Awareness Increasing awareness among creators about their rights and the mechanisms available for protecting their content is crucial. Educational campaigns and resources can empower creators to navigate the complexities of copyright law and safeguard their micro creations. 4. Legal Reform and International Cooperation Given the global nature of digital content, international cooperation and harmonization of copyright laws can play a significant role in addressing the challenges of micro copyright. Legal reforms that consider the unique nature of digital content and micro works can provide a more robust framework for protection. Conclusion The rise of micro copyright in the digital era presents a unique conundrum under Indian copyright law. While the current legal framework provides a foundation for protecting creative works, the nuances of micro content require more specific attention and adaptation. By addressing the challenges of originality, fair use, enforcement, and attribution, and by leveraging technology and education, India can better protect the rights of creators in the evolving landscape of digital content.

Read More »
Importance of Trademarking your Restaurant Name - Intellect Vidhya

Importance of Trademarking your Restaurant Name

Have you ever walked into a restaurant, drawn by its catchy name or eye-catching logo, only to discover that it’s not the establishment you thought it was? In the bustling food and hospitality industry of India, this scenario is becoming increasingly common. As more and more eateries pop up, it’s crucial for restaurant owners to protect their brand’s identity through trademark registration. A trademark is like a unique fingerprint that sets your goods or services apart from the competition. It’s a legal stamp that says, “This is ours, and no one else can use it.” And in the world of restaurants, where first impressions can make or break your business, a strong trademark can be a game-changer. Why Trademarks Matter for Restaurateurs? Success Stories of Trademarked Restaurant Brands The Consequences of Neglecting Trademark Protection In the vibrant culinary landscape of India, trademarking your restaurant brand is more than just a formality – it’s a strategic move that can safeguard your business identity, maintain brand recognition, and provide legal recourse against infringement. By understanding the importance of trademarks and understanding the appropriate registration process under Indian trademark law, you can protect your valuable intellectual property and pave the way for a future as bright as a perfectly cooked dish, fresh out of the kitchen.

Read More »
The Significance Of Prior Use In The Trademark Law Vans V Ivans - Intellect Vidhya

The Significance of Prior Use in the Trademark Law: Vans v. Ivans

In the complex realm of intellectual property rights, few principles hold as much significance as the concept of “prior use” in Indian trademark law. The recent ruling by the Delhi High Court in the Vans v. Ivans case has brought attention to the fundamental concept of giving precedence to the first user of a trademark in the market. The Vans v. Ivans Case: The case centred on a disagreement between Vans Inc., a well-known American footwear and apparel company, and FCB Garment Tex, an Indian company that used the “IVANS” trademark. Vans Inc. filed a request to invalidate FCB Garment Tex’s trademark registration in India, claiming that their “VANS” mark had recently gained recognition as a well-known trademark in the country. Nevertheless, the Delhi High Court ruled in favour of FCB Garment Tex, citing the prior use principle. Important Factors in the Court’s Decision The court’s ruling was influenced by several crucial elements. Firstly, it emphasised that FCB Garment Tex had been using the “IVANS” mark in India for years before Vans Inc. entered the market, applying the “first in the market” principle. Furthermore, the court made it clear that simply declaring a trademark as well-known does not automatically give the owner the authority to cancel other marks that were used earlier in India. Finally, the court determined that FCB Garment’s utilisation of the marks was both sincere and simultaneous, granting them protection under Section 12 of the Trade Marks Act. Supporting the Principle of Prior Use This landmark ruling is a strong affirmation of the prior use principle in Indian trademark law. This principle emphasises that the initial user of a trademark in the market holds greater rights compared to later users, regardless of their registration status. This concept is deeply embedded in the Indian Trade Marks Act, 1999, and aims to safeguard businesses that have dedicated significant time and resources to establish their brand identity in the market. The Reasoning Behind Prior Use There are several reasons behind the prior use principle. It strives to recognise and safeguard businesses that have proactively built their brands in the marketplace. By prioritising the initial user, the law recognises the dedication and resources required to establish a strong brand presence and cultivate customer loyalty. This principle also helps to prevent unfair competition by ensuring that well-known brands are not replaced by new ones with similar marks, thus maintaining consumer trust and market stability. Territorial Nature of Trademark Rights In addition, the principle of prior use acknowledges the territorial nature of trademark rights. The Vans v. Ivans case clearly illustrates that having a worldwide reputation is not enough to establish legal rights in a particular jurisdiction. The principle highlights the significance of establishing a tangible market presence and utilising a trademark within India, rather than solely relying on international recognition or registration in other nations. Engaging with well-known Trademarks The prior use principle also has implications for other aspects of trademark law, including the recognition of well-known trademarks. The ruling by the Delhi High Court provides clarity on the advantages of having a well-known trademark status, while also acknowledging the rights of prior users in the market. This delicate equilibrium ensures the safeguarding of well-known local brands while acknowledging the prestige and recognition of globally renowned trademarks. Practical Considerations for Trademark Owners In practice, trademark owners are faced with a significant burden of maintaining proper documentation of their trademark use due to the prior use principle. This encompasses sales records, advertisements, and proof of customer recognition. Consistent and authentic use of the mark is essential, as any substantial gaps in usage can undermine a prior use claim. Conclusion Ultimately, the verdict of the Delhi High Court in the Vans v. Ivans case serves as a strong affirmation of the prior use principle within Indian trademark law. It emphasises the significance of having a strong market presence and building a reputable brand in order to establish and safeguard trademark rights in India. As the country continues to attract global brands while nurturing its own business ecosystem, this principle will undoubtedly have a significant impact on the development of trademark strategies and dispute resolutions.

Read More »
The Ethical and Legal Dilemma of AI Voice Cloning in the Music Industry - Intellect Vidhya

The Ethical and Legal Dilemma of AI Voice Cloning in the Music Industry

In recent years, artificial intelligence (AI) has made remarkable progress in various fields, including music production. Voice cloning in music has been a subject of intense debate, raising questions about copyright infringement, moral rights, and the preservation of artistic integrity. The recent criticism voiced by legendary Indian playback singer Kumar Sanu against AI voice duplication brings attention to the mounting concerns within the music industry. Power and Potential of AI Voice Cloning AI voice cloning technology has made significant progress in recreating the voices of singers with outstanding precision. This ability has resulted in the development of new songs that utilise the voices of artists who have passed away, as demonstrated in the recent example of “Pehle Hi Main.” This song was created using an AI-generated voice that mimics the late Mohammed Rafi, who sadly passed away in 1980. Although this technology presents fascinating opportunities for music production and preservation, it also brings up important ethical and legal concerns. Dealing with Copyright Infringement Copyright infringement is a significant legal concern when it comes to AI voice cloning. A singer’s voice is regarded as their valuable asset, safeguarded by copyright laws in numerous jurisdictions. When AI is employed to imitate a singer’s voice without authorization, it may potentially infringe upon copyright protections. This encompasses violations of reproduction rights, distribution rights, and the unauthorised creation of derivative works. Moral Rights and Personality Rights In addition to copyright concerns, AI voice cloning also brings up ethical and legal questions surrounding moral rights and personality rights. It is important for singers to safeguard their work from any alterations or manipulations that may negatively impact their reputation. Additionally, there is a potential for confusion and misrepresentation when AI-generated voices are not explicitly identified. Furthermore, in numerous legal systems, people possess the authority to regulate the commercial exploitation of their identity, appearance, or voice. Voice cloning might be perceived as a violation of these rights. Cloning the Voices of Deceased Artists Using AI to replicate the voices of deceased artists, such as Mohammed Rafi, brings about a whole new set of challenges. Although copyright protection usually lasts for many years after an artist’s passing, the ethical considerations surrounding the use of a deceased artist’s voice without their permission are quite substantial. There are concerns regarding the preservation of the legacy and artistic intentions of deceased musicians. Industry Response Kumar Sanu’s decision to pursue legal protection against AI voice cloning demonstrates a rising recognition of these concerns within the music industry. Other artists and industry professionals are also advocating for the establishment of regulatory frameworks to oversee the utilisation of AI in music production. There are several potential solutions being discussed to address the challenges posed by AI in music. These include establishing licencing protocols for the use of AI-cloned voices, requiring clear disclosure when AI voice cloning is used in a production, and developing specific laws to tackle these unique challenges. The Path Forward As AI technology advances, it is essential for the legal system to stay up to date. Collaboration between the music industry, legislators, and AI developers is crucial in establishing a framework that balances the protection of artists’ rights with the promotion of innovation. This could potentially include the need to revise copyright laws to specifically tackle AI-generated content, setting industry norms for the ethical application of AI in music production, and devising methods for artists to maintain control over and profit from the utilisation of their AI-replicated voices. Conclusion The emergence of AI voice cloning technology brings forth a range of possibilities and complexities for the music industry. Although it presents exciting opportunities for creativity, it also raises serious concerns regarding artists’ rights and the authenticity of their work. As evidenced by Kumar Sanu’s case, it is clear that there is a pressing requirement for the establishment of legal and ethical frameworks to regulate the utilisation of this technology. As we move forward with the more enhanced versions of AI, it’s crucial to find a harmony between technological advancement and safeguarding artists’ rights. It is crucial to establish thoughtful regulation and foster industry cooperation to ensure that AI positively impacts the creative ecosystem of the music industry.

Read More »