For a new IPR regime

The Prime Minister’s recent observation that India should align its intellectual property (IPR) laws with global standards is open to varied interpretations. It chimes with Commerce Minister Nirmala Sitharaman’s earlier remark that “we need an integrated IPR policy”, prompting many to wonder if the Centre intends reviewing its laws on patents, trademarks, copyrights, plant varieties and geographic indicators. The government has, however, put out a draft IPR policy in the public domain, which takes a considered approach. It says that India’s laws seek to protect the rights and incentives of innovators on the one hand and the public interest on the other, and that this framework would remain. However, it also points to the need for legislative changes in keeping with economic and technological developments. The global focus on India’s IPR laws increased after 2013 (with the US expressing its reservations from time to time) when the patents office rubbed two pharma MNCs the wrong way. Novartis was not awarded a patent for its anti-cancer molecule on the ground that it amounted to ‘evergreening’, or mere tweaking and not innovation, while Natco was allowed a compulsory licence to sell Bayer’s anti-cancer drug at a much lower price. While the debate still rages over whether India’s IPR laws discourage pharma innovation, it is remarkable that the 2013 rulings have not been challenged at the WTO — an indication that the law makes use of TRIPS ‘flexibilities’ without crossing the line. Meanwhile, the IPR furore has polarised world opinion. While India is on the Priority Watch List of the US, its laws are admired in emerging economies such as South Africa and Brazil.

However, as the draft points out, there are gaps in India’s IPR laws that need to be addressed. These include creating IPRs for “utility models”, or “petty patents” for “inventions that may not satisfy the criteria of patentability but are novel, utilitarian and inventive in their own spheres”. This will help small industries, many of whose improvisations would qualify for petty patent protection. It will also enable the patents office to adopt a middle-of-the-road approach in the case of exaggerated claims. IPR procedures should be reviewed for clarity, transparency and wider dissemination of data.

But more than fine-tuned laws, India needs an ecosystem to spur both innovation and technology transfer. If R&D spending has not picked up despite tax breaks, one of the reasons is the sorry state of scientific research. In terms of the number and quality of scientific personnel, India fares poorly compared to China, Japan, Korea and Brazil. While China has 863 researchers per million people, India has just 164. China’s SEZs have not just been successful in attracting about $60 billion FDI annually, but have also become clusters where technology transfers to SMEs take place. Foreign investment has not produced similar results here, except in the auto sector. India needs to learn a few things from China — which perhaps has the busiest patent office in the world — while creating its sui generis IPR laws.

COMMENT NOW