By Advocate Joydeep Chowdhury
Where Patents Muzzle the Plough
Innovation in South Asia has emerged not via rapid industrialization but via subtle advancements in technology, chemistry, and cultural knowledge. As Bangladesh traverses the tumultuous waters of techno-capitalism, it remains bound to colonial frameworks of intellectual property (IP)—frameworks that do not necessarily adequately accommodate indigenous knowledge or digital sovereignty. The implications are no longer merely legal—they may be existential to indigenous knowledge Prospectively; therefore, will our legislation adequately safeguard and elevate knowledge creators?
The Colonial Lattice of IP in Bangladesh
Bangladesh’s intellectual property regime—traced back to colonial-era laws like the Indian Patents and Designs Act of 1911—still bears the blueprint of imperial economies. While the Bangladesh Patents Act, 2023, and Copyright Act, 2023, attempt modernization, they remain structurally reactive, primarily oriented towards compliance with TRIPS obligations rather than necessarily fostering endogenous innovation. Unlike India, which has actively utilized Section 84 of its Patents Act to issue compulsory licenses in public health emergencies—as exemplified in Natco Pharma Ltd. v. Bayer Corporation (2012), where a license was granted for a generic version of a life-saving cancer drug—Bangladesh has not issued a single compulsory license despite its legal capacity to do so.
This reluctance may be partly due to apprehensions over trade retaliation and reputational concerns. Reports by the South Centre and Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) note that LDCs like Bangladesh often face diplomatic pressure from developed countries and pharmaceutical lobbies when considering TRIPS flexibilities, especially in the pharmaceutical sector. For example, Bangladesh’s pharmaceutical industry, although legally permitted to produce generic drugs under the WTO LDC waiver (valid until 2033), exercises extreme caution in exporting to high-income markets, fearing potential legal and trade repercussions.
Techno-Capitalism and the Patent Hunger
In today’s digital and pharmaceutical landscapes, it can be argued that patents may have become tools of monopoly rather than just protection for inventors. Large corporations are able to use patents not only to reward innovation but also to block competition— where filing claims or making minor tweaks to existing drugs might extend exclusivity. This practice, known as “patent evergreening” has been criticized by health and development agencies for playing a role in keeping life-saving medicines less affordable. As Amy Kapczynski puts it, this is the “enclosure of the intellectual commons,” where knowledge that could benefit many is fenced off for profit. In this environment, patents can serve more to concentrate power than to promote public good.
Look to South Korea—a nation that strategically integrated its IP regime into industrial policy, encouraging university spin-offs and local tech firms through reforms like the 1987 Technology Transfer Promotion Act and the Bayh-Dole–style legislation that enabled universities to commercialize research. In contrast, Bangladesh does not appear to have followed suit. Its Department of Patents, Designs, and Trademarks (DPDT) has faced chronic underfunding, with limited digital infrastructure and staffing issues documented in WIPO technical assistance reports. Moreover, Bangladesh lacks a comprehensive legal framework for technology transfer, and no equivalent of Bayh-Dole legislation exists to guide university–industry collaboration. Local start-ups, particularly in the health tech and ICT sectors, have reported difficulties in navigating patent filing and licensing procedures, as highlighted in studies by the Access to Information (a2i) program and regional entrepreneurship assessments.
Traditional Knowledge: From Sacred Soil to Foreign Shelves
It can be argued that the current IP paradigm may not be adequately respectful of traditional knowledge. Today’s intellectual property (IP) model requires information to be documented and owned to be protected. Traditional knowledge—like folk medicine or indigenous rice strains—is frequently shared, oral, and culturally rooted. IPcan in some instances not fully recognize these traditions by eliminating such knowledge from legal protection patenting them, arguably, should require authorization and benefit-sharing. Bangladesh’s vast of folk medicine, textile designs, rice strains, and herbal formulas regrettably remain largely outside formal protection.Patents canbe filed abroad for what communities have known for generations, and Bangladesh should seek to avoid any dispossession which may result from it.
In contrast, India has documented over 200,000 formulations in multiple languages to preempt foreign misappropriation. Thailand’s Traditional Thai Medicine Wisdom Act provides robust legal protection to community-held medical knowledge.
The Data Dilemma and AI’s Legal Blindspot
As Bangladesh accelerates digitalization, new legal vacuums emerge. What happens when an algorithm invents a vaccine? Who owns the patent on data-driven crop models developed using state-funded datasets? The Bangladesh Patents, 2023 offers, arguably, no answers.
The Bangladesh Patents Act, 2023, modernizes various procedural elements of patent law but lacks explicit provisions regarding inventions conceived, designed, or generated by artificial intelligence (AI) systems. It also does not address the ownership or patentability of data-driven models developed using government-collected datasets. The Act is unclear about who is considered the inventor, who gets the rights, and how to assess applications when an algorithm “creates” a vaccine or a data-driven farming model is made using government resources.
In comparison, jurisdictions like Singapore and Japan have proactively adapted their IP frameworks to meet the challenges posed by artificial intelligence. Singapore has initiated consultations on how IP law should treat AI-generated content, while Japan amended its Copyright Act in 2020 to explicitly permit data mining for AI training purposes. These developments reflect a growing global recognition that traditional IP regimes may not adequately address emerging technologies. Bangladesh, by contrast, has yet to initiate a structured policy dialogue on issues like data ownership, AI-authored works, or the limits of protection in automated creativity.
The world is not waiting. Artificial intelligence is becoming the new frontier of economic power, and countries that lag behind in legal adaptation may soon find themselves technologically dependent and digitally colonized.
TRIPS Flexibilities: A Right Unused is a Right Erased
Bangladesh, as a least developed country (LDC), enjoys extended TRIPS flexibilities, including exemption from pharmaceutical patents until 2033. Yet this right remains underutilized. Local drugmakers could produce affordable generics for cancer, hepatitis, and rare diseases—but most hesitate, perhaps over concerns about pushback from global pharma lobbies orexport restrictions.
For example, despite TRIPS exemptions, Bangladesh has not produced generic Trastuzumab for breast cancer or Sofosbuvir for Hepatitis C.
In contrast, Malaysia and Indonesia have granted government-use permits to protect public health. Bangladesh’s internationally acclaimed pharmaceutical industry warrants not just WTO concessions but also governmental endorsement and civil society advocacy to assert these rights with assurance.
Regional Synergies: Learning from Asian Neighbors
Asia holds both warnings and blueprints. The Philippines’ Indigenous Peoples Rights Act legally acknowledges community IP rights, offering protection to languages, rituals, and land-linked knowledge. Vietnam’s IP Law (2022 revision) strengthens protection for domestic R&D while remaining TRIPS-compliant.
Even Bhutan, guided by its “Gross National Happiness” philosophy, has ensured that IP supports sustainable development rather than corporate extraction. Bangladesh can initiate a SAARC-level or BIMSTEC-wide “Asian Knowledge Commons”—a regional digital repository of shared traditional knowledge and preemptive IP defenses.
Knowledge is not zero-sum. By building regional solidarity, countries can jointly resist extractive patents, support local innovators, and protect cultural integrity. Collective legal infrastructures are one way smaller economies can push back against the possibility of global monopoly power.
Conclusion: In the Garden of Law, Let Knowledge Bloom Wild
A seed does not ask permission to grow. It seeks soil, sunlight, and the dignity to flourish, needs which could possibly be denied by colonial statutes and market monopolies. Colonial-era patent laws arguably prioritized foreign interestsover local innovation, limiting access to essential medicines—a pattern which can still perpetuate. The Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health (2001) explicitly acknowledges how patent regimes have hindered affordable access to life-saving drugs in developing countries. As we stand on the cusp of a biotech and AI revolution, Bangladesh should craft an IP system not only for the inventors of today, but for the storytellers, weavers, coders, and healers of tomorrow.
Let us not carve rivers with rulers. Let us, instead, craft rain for every root.
The writer, Joydeep Chowdhury, is a Lecturer in Law and Assistant Course Coordinator at Sonargaon University (SU), Dhaka. He is also an aspiring Advocate at the District and Sessions Judge Court, Dhaka, and a researcher in Bangladesh dedicated to advancing legal reforms for labour justice and promoting digital rights for a just society. He also regularly writes legal blog-articles and op-eds in various national English dailies.
Related
