In light of India featuring (again) in the “Priority Watch List” of the 2025 USTR Special 301 Report, Dr. Anson CJ explores the idea of whether India should come up with its own watch list to monitor biopiracy? Dr. Anson is an Assistant Professor at Madras Christian College, Chennai. His previous post can be accessed here.
Why Should the U.S. Have All the Fun? India Must Consider Publishing a Biopiracy Watch List
By Dr. Anson C J
Each year, the release of the United States Trade Representative’s (USTR) Special 301 Report becomes a routine diplomatic flashpoint. The report, which unilaterally evaluates the adequacy and effectiveness of intellectual property (IP) protection and enforcement among U.S. trading partners, has once again placed India on its Priority Watch List. According to the USTR, India “remains one of the world’s most challenging major economies with respect to protection and enforcement of IP.”
However, this recurring criticism raises an important question: Why does only one side get to scrutinize? In a global IP system that is increasingly asymmetrical, India too has legitimate concerns — especially in the realm of biopiracy, undisclosed access to genetic resources, and the growing use of Digital Sequence Information (DSI) in foreign patent applications (see here for a report by Chetali Rao and Gopakumar Report).
It is time India considered a strategic countermeasure — one rooted not in retaliation, but in accountability and equity: a Biopiracy Watch List.
Biopiracy and the Global IP Blind Spot
India is one of the world’s most biologically and culturally rich countries. From Ayurveda and folk healing to agricultural biodiversity and tribal ecological knowledge, the country holds centuries of innovation in the public domain. Yet, this knowledge has frequently been mined by foreign corporations and research institutions, who convert it into proprietary products — often through patent filings in jurisdictions with no mandatory disclosure of origin.
The cases of Neem, Turmeric, and Basmati rice are only the most well-known examples. Numerous other instances remain buried in global patent databases, unchallenged either due to resource constraints or a lack of timely identification. In this context, biopiracy is not just a theoretical concern; it represents a systemic failure of international IP systems to recognize and protect traditional and indigenous innovation (see here).
The weak disclosure requirements regarding Traditional Knowledge related patent applications across most jurisdictions — including the United States — facilitates this silent misappropriation. As long as inventors are not legally compelled to reveal the origin of biological resources or traditional knowledge used in an invention, benefit-sharing obligations under the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) and the Nagoya Protocol become difficult, if not impossible, to enforce.
Making the Case for a Biopiracy Watch List
India has taken important steps to protect its traditional knowledge, most notably through the creation of the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL) and the Biological Diversity Act, 2002. However, its responses remain largely defensive — designed to oppose wrongful patents after the fact, rather than prevent or deter their filing in the first place.
A Biopiracy Watch List, published annually by the Indian government or an independent agency, could shift this dynamic by:
Publicly identifying international patents or patent applications that involve Indian genetic resources or traditional knowledge, particularly where disclosure is missing or benefit-sharing obligations have been bypassed. Highlighting recurring violators, including foreign corporations and research institutions, that consistently fail to comply with Indian biodiversity laws. Drawing international attention to the growing concern of DSI-based biopiracy, wherein genetic information is used in digital form without accessing physical material or adhering to any domestic regulations. Supporting India’s positions at international fora, including WIPO, CBD, and WHO, where negotiations around disclosure of origin and DSI governance are currently underway. This list would not be an act of retaliation, but rather a tool for transparency and evidence-building. Much like the USTR’s Special 301 Report, it would reflect India’s national interests, focusing on protecting biodiversity, indigenous innovation, and equitable access.
Conclusion: Turning the Tables
The annual placement of India on the USTR’s watch list may feel routine, but it reflects a larger imbalance in how IP concerns are prioritized globally. While developed countries press for stricter enforcement of their IP rights, they remain largely unaccountable for the misappropriation of biodiversity and traditional knowledge from the Global South.
Publishing a Biopiracy Watch List would allow India to set its own agenda — one that champions disclosure, fairness, and sovereign control over natural and cultural resources. In doing so, India would send a clear message: that intellectual property protection must not come at the cost of biodiversity exploitation or cultural erasure.
After all, if a country can unilaterally publish an IP watch list every year, why should the US have all the fun?