The long-awaited national intellectual property rights (IPR) policy approved by the Cabinet last week tries to address some - albeit not all - of the major concerns of the global innovation-based industry and India's large trading partners like the US. Its stipulation to revamp and expand the institutional framework to protect IPRs, speed up approvals of patents and trademarks and put in place an overall IPR system largely on a par with global standards keep this end in view. Yet, going by their initial reactions, many of the pharmaceutical companies and other intellectual property stakeholders do not seem to be fully satisfied with the policy, though they have welcomed the stress laid on better administration and enforcement.
Their discontent, in large measure, is the result of New Delhi sticking to the measures meant to safeguard the interests of local entrepreneurs and investors by capitalising on the flexibility laid down in the international agreement on the trade related intellectual property rights (TRIPs). Two of these stand out. The first relates to the provision for compulsory licensing for local production of unaffordable pharmaceutical products to meet health emergencies and serve the national interests. The second is the strict definition of patentability in clause 3(d) of the amended Indian patent law that disallows evergreening of patents on grounds such as "insignificant" incremental innovation or minor tweaking of the formula. India argues that these are fully compliant with the TRIPs agreement.
This policy, notably, has come at a time when India, along with some other rapidly developing countries like China are under considerable pressure to reform their IPR systems. New Delhi has, for long, been engaged in international negotiations on IPR reforms. This engagement has duly been acknowledged by the US Trade Representative in its annual report called Special 301 issued last month - but the US has retained India on a trade watch list anyhow. The situation may change now. The government expects at least the World Bank to enhance India's ranking in its Ease of Doing Business index. The international angle apart, the IPR policy also has several positives which should promote indigenous research and development and commercialisation of research outcomes. For instance, the average time for the clearance of patent applications is intended to be brought down to 18 months from the present five to seven years. Similarly, the time for registering trademarks is sought to be slashed to one month from 13 months at present. Besides, the policy moots specific incentives for innovations and a loan guarantee scheme for start-ups. This aside, the scope of the copyright law is also sought to be expanded with the inclusion of music, cinema and industrial designs in it. This, as also the proposal to amend the cinematography Act to make duplication of films a penal offence, may help curb film and music piracy. Thus, on the whole, the IPR policy seems fairly comprehensive and should, if implemented well, lead to perceptible improvements in the country's IPR regime.
