‘’Helps decide on right of monopoly to innovation’

Priyanka Gupta

The primary objective of any patent system is to foster the nation’s economic and technological development by creating an opportunity for monopolistic exploitation of inventions for a limited period of time in return for public disclosure of the invention. Although the potential of the patent system has been widely recognised in the context of dynamic innovation activities, critics often suggest that the current Indian patent system stifles R&D and technological advances. However, in my opinion, India’s patent system has been successful in disseminating technical information and increased productive and healthy competition in the market.

In 2005, India introduced product patenting as a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and a signatory to the agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). Prior to that, India had developed a world-class generic drug industry. Global extension of pharmaceutical patents, the effect of TRIPS, fuelled concerns about prices of lifesaving medicines. One of the landmark cases closely watched by the world and on which the Indian Supreme Court will soon hear final arguments is a challenge raised by pharma company. Novartis against the Indian Patent Office’s (IPO) rejection of a patent for the leukemia drug, Glivec. The outcome of this case is likely to have a significant effect on patent terms and access to drugs in the developing world.

With poverty and public health crises as some of the developing world’s biggest challenges, the product patent regime has created a plethora of controversies. However, one thing has remained central to the Indian patent system – its ‘mosaic view’ with numerous factors deciding on the right of monopoly to innovation. These include the need to maintain affordable prices for a billion people in India, the importance of promoting indigenous innovation, and continuing to strengthen India’s strong national commitment towards innovation in comparison to its Asian neighbours.

In view of complex and dynamic social and economic challenges, the purpose and impact of any patent system needs to be constantly reviewed, adjusted and implemented so that the optimal balance between the monopoly holder, new entrants, and the public is achieved. In order to foster R&D in new technologies, such as information and communication technologies and biotechnology, the patent system needs to be shaped to strategically respond to new challenges while remaining robust.

To this end, it is essential to strengthen public R&D activities and promote better collaboration between the private and public sectors. An example of this is ‘Open Source Drug Delivery’ (OSDD), an initiative of the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR). It is becoming increasingly essential to launch policies which provide a balance by offering incentives to the key stakeholder ‘inventor’ to stimulate R&D and ensuring a competitive environment for pioneers, for down-stream researchers and for suppliers and producers at the end of the value-added chain.

In conclusion, the Indian patent regime, when wisely implemented, will see a blend of TRIPS-enforced laws and laws addressing the concerns and challenges of the Indian public; this can lay a strong foundation for the future of India’s evolving patent system – to nurture innovation and maintain economic growth.

Priyanka Gupta is Solution Consultant with the IP & Science business of Thomson Reuters. She provides intellectual property management training, specifically patent education, to professionals in academic universities, technology transfer offices, pharmaceutical companies, and R&D centers of top corporations in India and other countries of Asia.