Abstract

Genetically Modified Organisms (GMOs) have revolutionized agriculture by increasing crop durability and output, but their patenting as immaterial property presents intricate legal, moral, and international challenges. This paper explores GMO patents, which award creators sole property rights over genetically modified features, and their transfer via licensing contracts. These licenses, typified by Monsanto's Technology/Stewardship Agreement, place restrictions such as banning seed saving, affecting farmers' customary practices. The research delves into the legal basis of GMO patents, specifically Diamond v. Chakrabarty (1980), which confirmed their patentability, and cases such as Bowman v. Monsanto (2013), affirming corporate dominance over seed use. Patent regimes differ across the world, with India's Patents Act restricting seed patentability under Section 3(j), while the TRIPS Agreement has a minimum standard. Ethical issues present are corporate control by companies such as Bayer, decreased biodiversity, and farmers' economic costs from expensive seed prices. The paper also discusses the Nagoya Protocol's requirements for benefit-sharing and the European Patent Office's subtle approach towards patents on GMOs. Through an examination of licensing frameworks, juridical precedents, and international frameworks, this study points out the dilemma between incentives for innovation and fair access. It advocates for balanced intellectual property governance to promote food security, farmer independence, and sustainable agriculture, suggesting open-source models and public-private partnerships to counteract corporate control. This holistic analysis highlights the imperative of adaptive legal frameworks that reconcile biotechnological progress with global social and environmental objectives.

Keywords