Blog Details

Despite India's achievements in a variety of fields, including science, literature, and technology, intellectual property rights (IPR) protection has come under criticism. Over the last few decades, India's intellectual property rules have remained mostly unaltered and unreviewed. The parliamentary standing committee on commerce presented a report to the Rajya sabha titled Review of the Intellectual Property Rights Regime in India. The report focused on reform, recommendations, and challenges in strengthening the IP rights regime in India.  

The recommendation that is most focused on by the committee is regarding the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB). Committee states that abolition of IPAB was a mistake and should re-establish IPAB. 

The committee also suggested some changes in the Patent Act, 1970. Procedural changes suggested by the committee that brings some flexibility and revised petition and penalty may be allowed in the Patent Act for minor errors and issues. The committee recommended exploring the opportunities to establish the patent prosecution highway (PPH) with other countries. The committee has also recommended that the department should explore the way to incorporate the practice of making products or processes with patents pending in India. 

The Path 一

India's National IPR Policy was enacted in May 2016. Raising awareness, enacting laws, and upgrading IPR-related services were all part of the policy. The report examined the policy's successes and failings and offered several changes suggestions to the Department of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT). Officials in charge of revising IPR legislation have endorsed the Policy in recent years but have made no meaningful modifications. The report reveals a wide range of issues, including funding, restricted legislation, and accessibility. 

When comparing the IPR regimes of India, the United States, and China, some alarming facts emerge. In 2019, the United States issued over 350,000 patents and China granted over 450,000 patents, as seen in the first table (under the title “Patents”). India issued fewer than 25,000 patents in the same time period. In 2019, India's trademark filings accounted for roughly 5% of China's total trademark filings, according to the second table (under the title "Trademarks"). The third table (with the title "Designs") reveals that Indian designs registered in 2019 accounted for less than 2% of all Chinese designs filed. These pitiful figures are inexcusable coming from the world's most powerful democracy. According to the report, “the rate of rising in the number of patents in India over the previous four years has not been particularly spectacular when compared to that witnessed in the United States and China.” The DPIIT informed the Committee that India's poor research and development spending was the cause of the imbalanced statistics (R&D).

According to a second report performed by the Department of Science and Technology, India spends barely 0.7 percent of its GDP on research and development. The Committee suggested that the Indian government boost R&D expenditure in the budget since there is a strong link between R&D spending and the number of patent applications. China also offers incentives to firms and individuals who file for additional patents, such as tax breaks, bolstering its IPR framework. The Committee was informed about China's practices and recommended that India follow suit by encouraging patent applications in the same way. With this strategy, a virtuous cycle would form: more patents should lead to greater invention, which would lead to more patents.

Economic Gains 一

Due to greater innovation resulting from more patent approvals, IPRs also promote economic growth by boosting foreign currency and commerce. In addition, the report cites a study by the International Trademark Association that shows the “contribution of trademark industries to Gross Domestic Product varies between 20 and 33 percent,” as well as a study by the World Intellectual Property Organization that shows copyright industries contribute between 2 and 10% to a country's GDP. According to the reports multinational corporations and businesses, particularly those involved in science and technology, look at IPR regimes when deciding where to invest. As a result, the Committee acknowledged that strengthening India's IPR policy would attract more international investment.

The way forward 一

There is a pressing demand for IPAB re-establishment 一

The committee declares that the IPAB's elimination was a mistake in quite harsh words. The decision "should be reconsidered in light of its pivotal role in the adjudication of IPR appeals and cases," it says, adding that the opposite should happen: "The overall scrapping of IPAB, which efficiently dealt with proceedings involving complex IPR issues, may create a void in the appellate resolution of cases, leading to their shift to Commercial Court."

Rather than being dissolved, the IPAB, according to the report, should be empowered and reinforced with more structural autonomy, infrastructure, and administrative changes, as well as the prompt appointment of officials and experienced people. The absence of any judicial effect assessment or active stakeholder engagements prior to the abolishment of several tribunals, including the IPAB, under the Tribunals Reforms Ordinance, was also observed with dismay by the Committee.

Changes to the Patent Act are recommended 一

The Patents Act should be modified to provide a safety mechanism against the Controller's arbitrary use of power when rejecting patent applications. The Committee has advised the Department to look into the possibility of issuing patents to non-living natural substances. prohibits the patenting of plants, seeds, varieties, species, and essentially biological processes for the production or propagation of plants, the Committee was of the opinion that the Department should conduct an analysis on approving patents on plants and seeds that are beneficial to the agriculture sector, with the condition that the Government of India be made a participant in the process of a patent. 

The Committee believes that the rules for the acceptance of small mistakes and lapses should be more flexible in order to avoid patents being rejected entirely. It has been argued that under the Patents Act, a revised petition with a penalty or charge may be allowed for small or genuine errors. 

Politicians have incorrectly stated in recent years that India's patent system is highly well-functioning and efficient. Thankfully, the tide has turned, and the Report reveals the reality about India's IPR policy. The conclusions of the Committee accurately show that the existing Indian IPR regime has several flaws. It has suggested a slew of adjustments that must be done, as well as a strategy for implementing those changes. In countries that value intellectual property rights, IP has shown to be helpful to the economy, research, and the general public. With the United States and China years ahead of India in this field, India's viewpoint and policies on IPR should hopefully change.