Date: 01/09/2022

Relevance: GS-3: Science and Technology- Developments and their Applications and Effects in Everyday Life.

Key Phrases: Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister, intellectual property (IP) regime, Indian Patent Act of 1970, Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), Global Innovation Index, Budapest Treaty, Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property.

Why in News?

• Recently, the Economic Advisory Council to the Prime Minister released a report on the current status of India’s intellectual property (IP) regime.

Key Highlights of the report:

• It noted a marked increase in the number of patents filed in the country over the past decade (from only 39,400 patents filed in 2010-11 to as many as 66,440 in 2021-22).
• 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.
• The report credits this improvement to a series of reforms that have been carried out over the years which include measures such as progressive simplification of procedures, the electronic delivery of certificates, and expedited examination for certain categories of applicants.
• India still lags far behind countries that set global benchmarks in innovation.
• 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.
• India also lags in patents granted, with just under 27,000 in 2020 compared to 530,000 obtained in China and 350,000 in the US.
• The time taken to process a patent application is 58 months on average in India as compared to 20 months in China and 23 in the US.

The primary reason for the delay in patents:

• Poorly staffed patent offices:
  • In comparison with China, which has 13,704 examiners and controllers, and the US which has 8132, India employs just 860 people in its patent office.
  • Given these low numbers, it is no wonder patents take so long to be processed and we lag so far behind our peers in patents granted.

Reforms to improve the efficiency of the patent application process:

• Adequate staffing:
  • The report has recommended the addition of 2,000 more staff at India’s patent office over the next two years to address this.
  • This will help dispose of the backlog of applications and free the office up to accept fresh applications in greater numbers.
  • This will give reluctant inventors the confidence to re-engage with the Indian patent system by filing for patents in greater numbers.
• Procedural reforms:
  • Introduction of fixed timelines:
    • The report has suggested the introduction of fixed timelines at various stages in the patent process, to eliminate some of the delays that currently dog the system.
  • Elimination of onerous compliance obligations:
    • It has recommended the elimination of 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.
  • Introduction of utility model patents for minor innovations:
    • The report recommends the introduction of utility model patents for minor innovations that allows for a less stringent process, albeit with a shorter term of protection.
    • If introduced, utility model patents will be particularly relevant for innovations emerging from projects under the country’s Atal Innovation Mission.
  • Easy enforceability:
  • As important as it is to improve procedural efficiency, it is just as important to ensure that patent holders can easily enforce their patents once granted.
  • That has more to do with the effectiveness of our judicial system and enforcement machinery than with patent-office efficiency.

Long patent protection:

• 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.
• But our patent system was designed before the age of digital innovation and the duration of this monopoly was set at a generous 20 years.
• While this period of time might have made sense for more traditional inventions, it is disproportionately long in the digital context.
• Modern technologies evolve rapidly, often in a matter of months.
• Digital businesses have no choice but to innovate at a pace dictated by this time scale, or else risk being rendered irrelevant by their competition.
• In the digital context, 20 years of patent protection makes little sense.
• Rather than encouraging digital inventors to innovate, patent protection over a period of 20 years just encourages them to rest on their laurels-relying on legal protection to stay ahead in the market instead of pushing themselves to invent new ways to remain competitive.

Way forward:

• If India really wants to incentivize innovation, it needs to reduce the period of protection for inventions in sectors where innovation can and does take place at a faster pace.
• Since the true purpose of the patent regime is to encourage innovation, it is more important to ensure that inventors keep coming up with new ideas than it is to afford them the opportunity to recover their investments in R&D.
• India should consider a patent regime that offers different periods of protection based on the nature of the innovation sought to be protected.
• Drugs and pharmaceuticals, for example, could continue to enjoy 20 years of protection, while patents for digital innovation could be limited to 5 years or less, based on the rate at which technology evolves.
• Rather than our current one-size-fits-all approach, perhaps the time has come for something more bespoke.

Source: Live-Mint

Mains Question:

Q. "Despite the increase in the number of patents filed in the country over the past decade, India still lags far behind countries that set the global benchmarks in innovation." In light of the statement, discuss the challenges in the Indian patent regime and suggest some measures to improve the situation.