An intellectual property regime must boost innovation

Source: The post is based on an article “An intellectual property regime must boost innovation” published in the Live Mint on 31^st August 2022.

Syllabus: GS 3 – Intellectual Property Rights

News: Two weeks ago, the Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister of India released a report on the current status of India’s Intellectual Property (IP) regime.

Patents were designed to offer inventors a monopoly over their inventions for a limited duration so that they had time to recover their investments in research and development (R&D) and make some profit to boot.

The Findings of the report

The number of patents filed in the country has increased from only 39,400 patents filed in 2010-11 to as many as 66,440 in 2021-22, over the past decade.

There has also been a steady increase in patents filed by Indian residents, accounting for nearly 44% of all patents filed last year.

All this has resulted in India rising from 81st in the Global Innovation Index in 2016 to 46th last year.

What are the causes behind the innovation boost in India?

The government has undertaken a series of reforms that have been implemented over the past few years.

There has been a progressive simplification of procedures, the electronic delivery of certificates, and expedited examination for certain categories of applicants.

What are the issues that are still causing problems in innovation boost in India?

(1) Despite these reforms, India lags far behind countries that set global benchmarks in innovation. For example, the total number of patents filed in India last year was less than 5% of those filed in China and 10% of those filed in the US.

(2) India lags in patents granted, with just under 27,000 in 2020 compared to 530,000 obtained in China and 350,000 in the US.

(3) The time taken to process a patent application is problematic, i.e., on average 58 months are taken to process the patent application in India as compared to 20 months in China and 23 in the US.

(4) Problems in Digital Innovation

India’s patent system was designed before the age of digital innovation, and the duration of this monopoly was set at a generous 20 years.

Such a long period makes sense for more traditional inventions, but it is disproportionately long in the digital context. It does not encourage digital inventors to innovate and invent new ways to remain competitive. Instead, they rely on patent protection over a period of 20 years to stay ahead in the market.

What are the underlying causes behind various issues that plague the innovation ecosystem in India?

India’s patent office is poorly staffed. Around 860 people are working in the Indian patent office, 13,704 examiners and controllers are working in the Chinese office, and, 8132 employees are working in the US Patent offices.

What are the recommendations in the report?

(1) The report has recommended the addition of 2,000 more staff at India’s patent office over the next two years to address this.

(2) Various procedural reforms, like the introduction of fixed timelines at various stages in the patent process, must be introduced to improve the efficiency of the patent application process.

(3) The onerous compliance obligations, such as the requirement to submit information on the prosecution of foreign patent applications even though this information can be easily accessed from the PCT portal, must be eliminated.

(4) The utility model patents for minor innovations must be introduced. This would allow for a less stringent process. The innovations emerge from projects under the country’s Atal Innovation Mission.

Other reforms required -Not mentioned in the report

(1) Reforms in Judiciary and Enforcement Machinery: This would ensure that patent holders can easily enforce their patents once granted.

(2) Different periods of protection: This should be awarded based on the nature of the innovation which is sought to be protected. For example, Drugs and pharmaceuticals could continue to enjoy 20 years of protection, while patents for digital innovation could be limited to 5 years or less.