Context
India must strengthen its intellectual property rights infrastructure without giving in to US pressure to do away with the flexibility granted by WTO regulations.
Backdrop
National Intellectual Property Rights Policy was released in 2016
Balancing interests
Author states that weaknesses in India’s IPR regime need to be smoothened out while taking care of India’s trade and public interest
Issues with India’s IPR regime
- Pending patent applications: When the Patents Act, 1970, was amended in 2005 to bring it in line with WTO requirements, there were a little over 56,000 pending applications. By the end of 2015—a decade later—India had close to 250,000 pending applications for patents and over 500,000 pending applications for trademarks. The bottleneck this creates has real economic costs. A UN Industrial Development Organization review of almost 200 studies on the link between IPR and economic growth found a strong consensus on a positive relationship. While the degree of benefits accrued may vary, that relationship holds true for both developed and developing economies. It has gained particular relevance in India now. Initiatives like Make In India and Start-Up India—require a strong IPR framework
Addressing concerns
Author states that policy has addressed following concerns
- Lack of patent examiners leading to pendency and prolonged application examination periods
- The lack of effective enforcement of existing regulations
The Problem
American pharmaceutical companies in particular take exception to following section of the Patents Act
- Sections 3(d):It prevents new formulations of existing medicines from being patented unless they improve therapeutic efficiency. Big pharmaceutical firms have used this method, called evergreening, to maintain market dominance and keep prices high
- Section 84: It provides for compulsory licences to meet the reasonable requirements of the public. Abuse of these provisions may well disincentivize research and development spending and doing business in India, as American companies claim
Author suggests
Author points out that India should maintain its stand and should not relinquish or dilute its public interest clauses in the face of pressure from US. This pressure is bound to increase now as the new president elect Trump has won riding on a protectionist sentiment.
Conclusion
Boosting bilateral trade will mean concessions and compromises on both sides. New Delhi must be flexible where it can. But on IPR it must strengthen its infrastructure while holding firm on the flexibility TRIPS grants it. It will not be an easy balance to maintain
