Sahayak workspace
One continuous thread: ask, classify, determine
Nothing here is a route change. Tabs, drawers and citations all resolve in place, so the determination stays on screen.
Ask the corpus
Every clause is either tied to a quoted span from the corpus or marked as system derived. When the corpus cannot ground an answer, the engine abstains and says why.
Asking the backend...
Demo: pick a fact pattern to see the state it produces
You asked
I make a churna exactly as given in the Bhaishajya Ratnavali and I want to sell it with a therapeutic claim. Can I patent it, and what else do I owe?
Verascribe determined
Axis 1, composition facts
Appears as-is in a First Schedule text
Axis 2, claim posture
Therapeutic claim elected
Statutory identity
Classical ASU medicine
Claim posture is user-asserted and one slot is unresolved.
Indiaemphasised
- Patentability
- Barred on the composition as describedSystem derived
- Licensing route
- ASU drug licence, Form 24-D via the State Licensing AuthorityCurated table
- Access and benefit sharing
- NBA prior approval required before filingVerified span
- Advertising limits
- Therapeutic claims constrainedVerified span
- Geographical indication route
- Not assertedNot asserted
International
Pointer tier. International sources are named and routed, never quoted as if verified against a domestic source.
- WIPO GRATK, Article 3 (disclosure of origin)Implementation gap
Adopted May 2024. No Indian implementing amendment located in the current corpus version.
- Nagoya Protocol, Article 5 (benefit sharing)Implemented domestically
- TRIPS, Article 27.3(b)Partially implemented
Plant variety protection implemented separately; the sui generis route is not reflected in the Patents Act itself.
A formulation whose composition, ingredients and method appear as-is in a First Schedule authoritative text engages the traditional-knowledge bar at Section 3(p), not the new-form provision at Section 3(d). The access and benefit-sharing duty follows the composition and does not change with the claim you elect.
Electing a therapeutic claim does not create patentability. It changes which licensing and advertising regimes bind you, and it does so independently of the patent analysis.
This answer is provisional until the date shown.
Searched: Patents Act 1970, Patents Rules 2003 (as amended 2024), Biological Diversity Act 2002, Drugs and Cosmetics Act 1940, Drugs and Magic Remedies Act 1954, CGPDTM AYUSH Examination Guidelines 2025. 11 provisions evaluated, 6 applicable.
11 provisions evaluated, 6 applicable · provisional until 2026-09-28
Next step
Confirm whether this is a standardised extract
One unresolved slot changes whether Section 3(d) enters the analysis at all.
Obtain NBA prior approval before any filing
Section 6 binds before the application, not after.
Information, not legal advice.
Cross-regime findings
- Patents Act 1970 against Biological Diversity Act 2002total-partial · power / disability
The general power to file a patent application collides with the Section 3(p) disability against traditional-knowledge-based claims, while the Biological Diversity Act adds a prior approval duty that binds regardless of which claim posture you elect.
- WIPO GRATK Treaty against Indian domestic lawpartial-partial · duty / no-right
The treaty disclosure duty has no corresponding domestic implementing provision yet, so an international obligation exists with no Indian enforcement route.