The recent collaboration between India’s CSIR and Brazil’s National Institute of Industrial Property (INPI) on access to the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL) marks an important development in the evolving governance of traditional knowledge and biodiversity. While framed as a patent examination initiative, Achyuth B Nandan explains that the agreement may have implications extending far beyond prior-art searches, particularly for disclosure obligations, user-country compliance, and the emerging architecture of global GRATK governance. Achyuth is a PhD candidate at Rajiv Gandhi School of Intellectual Property Law, IIT Kharagpur, specialising in intellectual property law. He is also a registered advocate with the Bar Council of Kerala. His previous posts can be accessed here.
India–Brazil TKDL Access Collaboration: The Next Phase of Global Biodiplomacy?
By Achyuth B Nandan
India’s establishment of the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL) marked a significant contribution to the global intellectual property framework for safeguarding traditional knowledge. Conceived as a defensive protection mechanism against biopiracy and erroneous patent claims, TKDL functions as a prior-art repository documenting India’s codified medicinal knowledge systems. By providing controlled access to major patent offices through Access (Non-Disclosure) Agreements, it was intended to facilitate prior-art searches and improve the quality of patent examination relating to traditional knowledge.
However, although TKDL was envisioned to strengthen patent scrutiny and disclosure-linked compliance, its practical outcomes have remained modest in fully realising that objective. In this context, the collaboration entered into on 21 February 2026 between the National Institute of Industrial Property and the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research marks a distinct shift. While formally aimed at improving Brazil’s patent examination through better assessment of novelty and prior art, the collaboration may carry implications beyond routine patent-office cooperation, raising broader questions concerning disclosure-based governance, user-country compliance obligations, and the domestic operationalisation of the disclosure-oriented framework reflected in the 2024 WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge (WIPO GRATK Treaty).
In this background, this piece examines whether the India-Brazil collaboration reflects a meaningful step towards strengthening disclosure measures and user country measures within the evolving global governance of genetic resources and associated traditional knowledge (GRATK), or whether it merely extends an existing defensive protection model whose practical contribution to disclosure, compliance, and biodiversity governance has historically remained limited.
Revisiting TKDL: Aspirations and Practical Realities
The TKDL has documented numerous patent applications that were modified, withdrawn, or rejected following challenges based on traditional knowledge prior art across multiple jurisdictions. These outcomes demonstrate the utility of systematically documenting traditional knowledge and making it available for patent examination and opposition proceedings. However, the broader implications of these outcomes warrant careful scrutiny. Patent rejections and withdrawals are rarely attributable to a single factor, making it difficult to determine the precise extent to which particular outcomes result solely from TKDL interventions. Moreover, the operation of TKDL has not been free from controversy.
Instances such as the opposition mounted against the Tufty the Cat application have raised concerns regarding the breadth of certain opposition strategies and whether defensive protection mechanisms may, at times, impede legitimate attempts to commercialize traditional knowledge-based innovations, thereby creating tensions between protection and innovation objectives. The sporadic withdrawal of opposition proceedings in some cases has similarly generated questions regarding institutional consistency and strategic coherence. These concerns have been further compounded by criticisms relating to the analytical foundations of certain interventions, raising broader questions regarding the rigour with which traditional knowledge claims are evaluated and asserted within opposition proceedings.
Accordingly, while TKDL has undoubtedly contributed to prior-art verification and patent scrutiny, its practical contribution to addressing biopiracy and the broader challenge of translating disclosure into meaningful compliance and benefit-sharing outcomes appears more limited than is sometimes assumed. Its significance is perhaps better understood in terms of its role as an information repository supporting patent examination and opposition mechanisms rather than as a standalone solution to the broader challenges at the biodiversity–intellectual property interface. Hence, distinguishing between these aspirations and practical realities is essential when assessing the significance of newer initiatives built upon the TKDL model.
India and Brazil in Global Biodiplomacy
India, along with other biodiversity-rich developing countries across Asia, Latin America, and Africa, has consistently engaged with the World Trade Organization General Council and the TRIPS Council to address the long-standing TRIPS–CBD interface, particularly the need to reconcile patent protection with obligations relating to GRs/ATK. In 2006, India, Brazil, and Peru, along with other like-minded countries, advocated for the proposed Article 29bis amendment to the TRIPS Agreement, seeking the introduction of mandatory disclosure requirements relating to the source and origin of genetic resources (GRs)/ associated traditional knowledge (ATK), reflecting their proactive effort to embed biodiversity justice within global patent governance.
Both countries have developed strong domestic Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS) frameworks and have established dedicated Competent National Authorities (CNAs) beyond mere formal compliance to protect and manage traditional knowledge, reflecting a serious implementation-oriented approach. They also rank among the leading issuers of Internationally Recognised Certificates of Compliance (IRCCs), which serve as legal evidence of lawful access to GRs/ATK under the Nagoya Protocol. Yet, these countries are rarely reflected in checkpoint communiques issued as part of user-country compliance monitoring, with India reportedly appearing only once and global references remaining exceptionally limited. This reveals a significant information disjunction within the global ABS–IP interface and exposes the weakness of existing user-country measures.
Both countries have consistently supported approaches recognising the informational value embedded in GRs, associated traditional knowledge, and DSI. Their interventions in CBD negotiations have sought to preserve regulatory flexibility for governing DSI, reflecting a broader commitment to biodiversity value governance. Furthermore, India has consistently aligned with developing-country coalitions and the African Group in pushing for stronger disclosure-based obligations and safeguards against the misappropriation of GRs/ATK. Its position at IGC 18 that mandatory patent disclosure is indispensable, and its 2023 Draft Text Proposal for the international instrument on GRs/ATK demonstrates sustained efforts to translate biodiversity governance concerns into enforceable intellectual property norms. Brazil has similarly maintained a strong disclosure-oriented approach within international biodiversity diplomacy.
India–Brazil TKDL Collaboration: Implications for Global GRATK Governance and Patent Disclosure Frameworks
The India–Brazil TKDL collaboration cannot be assessed solely by reference to TKDL’s limitations or its modest practical outcomes. It is true that if considered merely as an arrangement facilitating access to a traditional knowledge repository, its practical implications would remain limited. India and Brazil are not only biodiversity-rich countries with extensive traditional knowledge systems but are also among the most consistent proponents of disclosure-based approaches for GRATK governance in international negotiations. Domestically, both jurisdictions maintain comparatively robust disclosure mechanisms within their patent frameworks, provide pre-grant and post-grant opposition mechanisms, and have enacted substantive access and benefit-sharing regimes administered by dedicated competent authorities. Although India’s 2024 amendments to the Patent Rules have introduced higher opposition fees and additional procedural requirements that may affect the practical accessibility of such mechanisms, both jurisdictions nevertheless continue to retain opposition frameworks as integral components of their patent systems.
Importantly, the traditional distinction between provider and user countries has become increasingly blurred, with India and Brazil increasingly occupying both roles within the global bioeconomy. This development assumes significance under the Nagoya Protocol, which, following disagreements over patent disclosure requirements and designation of patent offices as checkpoints, ultimately adopted a broader user-country compliance framework under Article 15, 16 and 17. While Article 15 addresses compliance relating to genetic resources generally, Article 16 is particularly significant as it requires Parties to ensure that traditional knowledge associated with genetic resources utilised within their jurisdiction has been accessed in accordance with the provider country’s domestic requirements. Article 17 complements these obligations through monitoring and transparency mechanisms, including checkpoints intended to track and verify utilisation.
Against this backdrop, India has recently introduced measures that move towards recognising its responsibilities as a user country, reflecting an emerging effort to internalise user-country compliance obligations within its domestic biodiversity framework. Brazil, by contrast, has not adopted similarly explicit user-country compliance measures. Furthermore, neither country has formally designated a checkpoint under Article 17, leaving an important gap in the monitoring and verification architecture contemplated under the Nagoya Protocol.
It is precisely at this juncture that the India–Brazil collaboration may acquire greater significance. Standing alone, access to a traditional knowledge repository is unlikely to materially alter existing compliance deficits. However, the collaboration may provide an institutional starting point for deeper integration between patent administration and biodiversity governance. In particular, by equipping Brazil’s patent administration with structured access to TK-related information, the collaboration may create an opportunity for the gradual development of monitoring and verification functions broadly aligned with the objectives underlying Article 17 of the Nagoya Protocol. While such access does not itself transform the patent office into a checkpoint, it may provide a foundation upon which more substantive compliance-oriented functions could be developed without fundamentally altering the patent office’s traditional role or requiring significant amendments to Brazil’s patent framework. Equally, for India, the continued internationalisation of TKDL may provide an opportunity to leverage diplomatic engagement with like-minded jurisdictions to strengthen disclosure-oriented governance and user-country compliance practices.
At the same time, such collaboration must be approached with caution. Both countries house vast and sensitive traditional knowledge systems, and any exchange of TK-related information must remain strictly confined to patent examination, opposition proceedings, and prior art verification. Since traditional knowledge databases involve culturally sensitive and legally significant information, stronger safeguards against misuse, unauthorised dissemination, and extractive access remain equally essential. The success of this collaboration, therefore, lies not merely in broader access but in ensuring that defensive protection evolves into a secure, disclosure-oriented, and benefit-sharing compliant framework for global GRATK governance.
Concluding Thoughts
The India–Brazil collaboration should therefore be viewed with both interest and caution. Standing alone, access to a traditional knowledge repository is unlikely to substantially address the longstanding challenges relating to disclosure, user-country compliance, or ABS governance, and its value will ultimately depend on whether it contributes meaningfully to transparency, accountability, and compliance within the evolving GRATK framework. However, where information systems such as TKDL are situated within broader frameworks of patent scrutiny, disclosure verification, and compliance-oriented biodiversity governance, they may assume greater practical significance. In this sense, the collaboration may offer a modest step towards a broader “GRATK-plus” approach that seeks to strengthen the relationship between information systems, disclosure, and compliance beyond the minimum framework reflected in the WIPO GRATK Treaty. At the same time, robust safeguards against misuse and unauthorised dissemination remain essential. This assumes significance in the realm of global GRATK governance, particularly alongside parallel developments under the CBD, including the establishment of the permanent subsidiary body under Article 8(j).
At a time when biodiversity-rich middle-income countries continue to face scrutiny regarding intellectual property implementation, including through mechanisms such as the USTR Special 301 process, calibrated South–South biodiplomacy may strengthen their collective ability to advance disclosure-oriented positions and encourage more balanced compliance with obligations across both provider and user jurisdictions. In this sense, the India–Brazil collaboration could form part of a wider effort to amplify the voice of biodiversity-rich countries in evolving debates on intellectual property and biodiversity governance, a possibility I have previously explored through my blog on the proposed “Biopiracy Watchlist”. Otherwise, it risks remaining another defensive protection initiative with limited impact beyond its traditional prior-art function.
