resourcestripsanita ramanna
TRANSCRIPT
7/25/2019 ResourcesTRIPSanita Ramanna
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/resourcestripsanita-ramanna 1/34
India’s Patent Policy and Negotiations in TRIPs:
Future Options for India and other Developing Countries
Dr. Anitha Ramanna•
It is an opportune moment for India and other developing countries to review
and consolidate their strategies on intellectual property rights in the WTO. Recent
developments relating to TRIPs have witnessed some important gains for developing
countries. In the Doha WTO Ministerial, developing countries were ale to ensure
that a Declaration on TRIPs and Pulic !ealth was passed. In "##$ within the %&O,
countries agreed on the International Treaty on Plant 'enetic Resources for %ood and
&griculture that aims to promote access to crops important for food security and
transfer of enefits from the commercialisation of crops ac( to farmers. Within and
outside the WTO, there is a greater acceptance that TRIPs must e implemented in
accordance with the )onvention on *iological Diversity +)*D, and that the
importance of traditional (nowledge should e recogni-ed. These developments
provide the momentum upon which developing countries can uild future strategies.
Indias domestic policy and international negotiations on one aspect of IPRs,
patents, provides important lessons for formulating a comprehensive negotiating
strategy on TRIPs. Indias negotiating history shows that while trade threats were
important in leading India to initiate changes in its policy gloally, domestic level
policy change too( place only with the moili-ation of a domestic constituency that
favoured change. /upport from developing countries, disunity among advanced
nations and the role of 0'Os were also factors that enaled India to promote its
interests in the negotiations. Indias position in the field of patents, in terms of patent
applications reveals that few domestic firms have the capacity to transform potential
into patent activity at least in the short1term. Policy and negotiating strategies must 2isiting Research &ssociate, Indira 'andhi Institute of Development Research, Mumai
7/25/2019 ResourcesTRIPSanita Ramanna
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/resourcestripsanita-ramanna 2/34
therefore focus on ensuring access for the ma3ority. This potential for promoting
Indias interests e4ists currently for re1evaluating TRIPs. There is a strong domestic
constituency that would enefit from lin(ing the right to health with TRIPs. /upport
also e4ists from important developing countries and 0'Os. In addition, there is
disunity among advanced nations on these issues.
This paper attempts to point out that India and other developing countries
currently have the opportunity to scale ac( the negative implications of TRIPs on
their economies. They should negotiate for a restriction of IPRs y lin(ing the right to
health with TRIPs, argue for provisions for price control and not rely only on
compulsory licenses, and restrictions on the scope of patentaility rather than
narrowing the field to 'I e4tension, recognition of T5, and enefit sharing.
The paper is divided into the following sections6 Part I provides a history of
Indias patent policy and its position on patents y studying recent patent applications.
Part II reviews Indias negotiations in the 7ruguay Round and attempts to analy-e the
scope for promoting Indias interests. Part III outlines strategy options for India and
other developing countries for future TRIPs negotiations.
I.
India’s Patent Policy
India has a long history of patent policy which was defined after enormous
study. Indias approach to patents differs from those of industriali-ed countries in that
India sees patents as a tool of pulic policy. Indias policy is eing challenged y the
demand to reform IPR laws to conform to TRIPs. This section provides an overview
of Indias patent policy.
7/25/2019 ResourcesTRIPSanita Ramanna
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/resourcestripsanita-ramanna 3/34
India’s Patent Policy preTRIPs
Indias patent policy focused on alancing developmental concerns with the
need for promoting innovations. India viewed patents as a tool for economic
development and restricted the scope and term of patents. The sentiment in India on
the issue of patents, especially on pharmaceuticals, is illustrated y an oft18uoted
statement made y Indira 'andhi at the World !ealth &ssemly in $9:"6
;The idea of a better-ordered world is one in which medical discoveries will be
free of patents and there will be no profiteering from life and death”.1
Patent policy has a long history in India, dating ac( to $:<=, ut the actual
attention of policyma(ers towards patents egan right after Independence. Two e4pert
committees were estalished in independent India to study patents and provide
suggestions on the type of patent system that India should implement. These
committees conducted an e4tensive survey of patents in India. The Patent >n8uiry
)ommittee +$9?:1<# reported that, ;the Indian patent system has failed in its main
purpose, namely to stimulate inventions among Indians and to encourage the
development and e4ploitation of new inventions for industrial purposes in the country
so as to secure the enefits thereof to the largest section of the pulic.@ " The second
committee (nown as the &yyangar )ommittee +$9<A1<9 noted that foreign patentees
were ac8uiring patents not ;in the interests of the economy of the country granting the
patent or with a view to manufacture there ut with the o3ect of protecting an e4port
mar(et from competition from rival manufacturers particularly those in other parts of
the world@. Thus India, ;is deprived of getting, in many cases, goodsBat cheaper
prices from alternative sources ecause of the patent protection granted in India. C The
reports concluded that foreigners held :#19# of the patents in India and were
e4ploiting the system to achieve monopolistic control of the mar(et?
. The committees
7/25/2019 ResourcesTRIPSanita Ramanna
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/resourcestripsanita-ramanna 4/34
therefore suggested that a patent system that focused on access to resources at lower
prices would e eneficial to India. This was in tune with the science and technology
mission of developing indigenous technology and fostering RED activities in areas of
national significance. The Patent &ct of $9A#, the current legislation on patents in
India, was ased on the recommendations of these committees. The main aim in India
was to ensure that patents did not lead to monopoly y foreign companies nor lead to
high prices for medicines and food items. The patent law of $9A# +the current law
restricts the field of patentaility, only grants process and not product patents in food,
pharmaceutical and chemical fields, restricts the term of patents and has an elaorate
system of licenses to ensure that patents are wor(ed in India. The act found support
among domestic firms and various political parties in India.
The Indian Patents !ct" #$%&
The Indian patents &ct has een hailed as model legislation for developing
countries. It see(s to alance oth the need for granting rewards for inventors while
ensuring that IndiaFs developmental needs are not ignored.
The following essential features of the &ct reveal the asic patents policy of
India6<
$. 'eneral Principle of Patent 'rant +a that patents are granted to encourage
inventions and to secure that the inventions are wor(ed in India on a commercial
scale and to the fullest e4tent that is reasonaly practicale without under delayG
and + that they a not granted merely to enale patentees to en3oy a monopoly
for the importation of the patented articleH.
". Principle of 0ational Treatment 1 no limitations or restrictions on foreigners in
applying for or otaining patents in India.
C. Inventions 0ot Patentale 1 The following are not patentale6
7/25/2019 ResourcesTRIPSanita Ramanna
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/resourcestripsanita-ramanna 5/34
+a &n invention which is frivolous or which claims anything oviously contrary
to will estalished natural lawsG
+ &n invention the primary or intended use of which would e contrary to law
or morality or in3urious to pulic health
+c The mere discovery of a scientific principle or the formulation of an astract
theory
+d The mere discovery of any new property or new use for a (nown sustance or
of the mere use of a (nown process, machine or apparatus unless such (nown
process results in a new product or employs at last one new reactant
+e & sustance otained y a mere admi4ture resulting only in aggregation of
the properties of the compounds thereof or a process for producing such
sustanceG
+f The mere arrangement or re1arrangement or duplication of (nown devices
each functioning independently of one another in a (nown wayG
+g & method or process of testing applicale during the process of manufacture
for rendering the machine, apparatus, or other e8uipment more efficient or for
the improvement or control of manufactureG
+h & method of agriculture or horticulture
+i &ny process for the medicinal, surgical, curative, prophylactic or other
treatment of human eings or any process for a similar treatment of animals or
plants to render them free of disease or to increase their economic value or that
of their productsH.
?. /earch for 0ovelty 1 compulsory search is re8uired e4tending to prior
pulications not only in India ut also in any other part of the world.
7/25/2019 ResourcesTRIPSanita Ramanna
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/resourcestripsanita-ramanna 6/34
<. Patentaility of Inventions in the &rea of )hemicals, %ood and Drugs 1 In case of
inventions relating to sustances intended for use as food, drug or medicines or
sustances produced y chemical process, Patentaility will e limited to claims
for the methods or processes of manufacture only.
=. Term of Patent 1 The term of the patent in $? years from the date of patenting,
i.e., the date of filling the complete specification. In the case of inventions in the
field of food, drug or medicine, the term will e A years from the date of filing or
< years from the date of sealing, whichever is shorter.
A. icensing Provisions 1 " types of licenses6 compulsory licenses and license of
rights. )ompulsory licenses enaling another party to wor( the patent can e
applied for any time after the e4piry of three years from the date of sealing of the
patent.
In the area of food, drug, medicine or chemical, after the e4piry of three years
from the date of patent grant, they shall e endorsed with the word Hicense of
RightH. These enale any interested person as a matter of right to e entitled to
wor( such patents.
:. Royalties 1 In the case of patents related to food, drug or medicines the royalty
reserved to the patentee under a license shall not e4ceed ? of the net e41factory
sale price in ul( of the patented article.
9. 7se of Patented Inventions y the 'overnment 1 In order to ensure that scarcity
of a patented article doesnFt arise and lead to high prices, the government is
vested with powers to ma(e use of or e4ercise any patented invention merely for
its own purpose.
$#. &ppeals 1 In all cases, appeals will e only with the !igh )ourt.
7/25/2019 ResourcesTRIPSanita Ramanna
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/resourcestripsanita-ramanna 7/34
India’s Patent Policy and TRIPs
The philosophy of Indias Patent &ct of $9A# varies enormously from the
framewor( eing estalished under TRIPs. There are several (nowledge and
information areas which India considers unpatentale. India has a large community of
scientists and researchers among whom pulication rather than gaining patents has
een a concern. '.2. Rama(rishna, )hairman of the Disinvestment )ommission
points out that in India, ;We +Indians are accustomed to the notion that (nowledge is
free. Our whole orientation has to change from one that stresses intellectual
attainment to one that protects intellectual property.@= Industrialised nations conceive
of patents as a fundamental right comparale to the right of physical property, whereas
developing nations view it as ;fundamentally as an economic policy 8uestion.@A %rom
the perspective of developed countries, intellectual property is a private right that should
e protected as any other tangile property, ut for developing nations, intellectual
property is a pulic good that should e used to promote economic development.: The
following tale illustrates the asic differences etween Indias patent system and TRIPs6
7/25/2019 ResourcesTRIPSanita Ramanna
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/resourcestripsanita-ramanna 8/34
Tale $J
)omparison of Indias Patent &ct and TRIPs
Indian Patent &ct of $9A# TRIPs
Only process not product patents in food,medicines, chemicals
Process and product patents in almost all fields of technology
Term of patents $? yearsG <1A in chemicals, drugs Term of patents "# years
)ompulsory licensing and license of right imited compulsory licensing, no license of right
/everal areas e4cluded from patents +method of
agriculture, any process for medicinal surgical or other treatment of humans, or similar treatment of
animals and plants to render them free of disease or increase economic value of products
&lmost all fields of technology patentale. Only
area conclusively e4cluded from patentaility is plant varietiesG deate regarding some areas in
agriculture and iotechnology
'overnment allowed to use patented invention to prevent scarcity
2ery limited scope for governments to use patentedinventions
J/ource6 &dapted from Patent Office Technical /ociety, Indian Patent Act, 1!" and R#les,
$99$ and M2IRD), $ATT Agreements% Res#lts of the &r#g#a' Ro#nd, World Trade )entre,Kanuary $99<
These differences in patent systems led to disputes in the '&TT negotiations on
the inclusion of IPRs in the WTO. The type of patent system that India estalished was
clearly against the gloal IP regime promoted y the 7/. The main o3ection of the 7/
is to the provision in IndiaFs patent law that allows for process ut not product patents in
the area of food, drug or medicine. The 7nited /tates terms the activities of India to find
alternative processes as ;piracy@. &ccording to the 7/, Indian firms are copying
technology developed y advanced nations. This is leading to large1scale losses for the
7/. The Pharmaceutical industry in the 7/ has een especially vocal on this issue.
Phrma, the association that represents 7/ ased pharmaceutical companies points out,
;*ased on the refusal of the 'overnment to provide pharmaceutical patent protection,
7/25/2019 ResourcesTRIPSanita Ramanna
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/resourcestripsanita-ramanna 9/34
India has ecome a haven for ul( pharmaceutical manufacturers who pirate the
intellectual property of the worlds research1 ased pharmaceutical industry.@9
II.
India’s Negotiations on TRIPs
Indias negotiating position within TRIPs and its policy on patents have
undergone enormous shifts. India was one of the most vocal opponents of TRIPs and
there was strong domestic support for Indias restricted system of patents for decades.
Recently, India has revised its patent policy to conform to TRIPs and agreed to
include IPR in the WTO. >4ternal trade threats were one of the factors that promoted
this change, ut the policy shift too( place only with changes among actors within
India. &n interplay of domestic and international factors influence Indias aility to
promote its interests in international negotiations. In order to formulate strategies for the
future, it is important to analy-e the role of these factors in prior negotiations. When was
India ale to put forth its position in the TRIPs negotiations and when did it fail to do soL
This section traces the history of Indias negotiations on intellectual property rights
eginning with the 7ruguay Round and attempts to draw lessons for future policy.
Opposing IPRs in '!TT
India and *ra-il played a (ey role in the initial stages in preventing the
inclusion of IPRs in '&TT. The 7nited /tates had attempted to promote the inclusion of
intellectual property rights through a proposal for an anti1counterfeiting code within the
'&TT framewor( right from $9:". India along with *ra-il was ale to counter this
move to some e4tent y arguing that '&TTs 3urisdiction was limited to tangile goods
and that '&TT lac(ed the legal competence to address an issue within the IP area. They
contended that counterfeit goods elonged to the e4clusive 3urisdiction of WIPO.
+/tewart, p. ""=$ <hough in $9:= India and *ra-il could not prevent the inclusion of
7/25/2019 ResourcesTRIPSanita Ramanna
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/resourcestripsanita-ramanna 10/34
IPRs in the Ministerial Declaration, until $9:: they could ensure that no sustantive
IPRs were part of '&TT.
/everal developing countries argued vehemently that not only were counterfeit
trademar(ed goods eyond the '&TTs authority, ut also '&TT could not e4tend itself
to issues regarding copyrights and patents ecause these protections covered intangile
o3ects. *ra-il sumitted a proposal on ehalf of nine other countries$# including India
for the new round of negotiations specifically e4cluding IPRs and /ervices. Their
inaility to prevent the inclusion of IPRs in the Ministerial Declaration arose from the
fact the 7/ and Kapan egan promoting IPRs even more strongly and the 7/ also also
egan to use ilateral pressure to wea(en developing country opposition. In $9:< 7/
first initiated action against 5orea, and according to one author, one o3ective of this was
to separate 5orea from 3oining developing country opposition to the '&TT initiative on
IPRs. +Ryan In addition as recounted y Kayashree Watal, a negotiator for India, the "<
hardliner developing countries shran( to $#. Developing nations agreed to the
Ministerial Declaration with the e4pectation that they could limit negotiations to trade in
counterfeit goods and other trade1related aspects.
*ut right until $9:: India and other developing countries were ale to prevent a
ma3or role for IPRs in '&TT. India, *ra-il and other developing nations continued to
assert that only trade in counterfeit goods should e the focus of discussions in the
'&TT meetings in $9:A and $9::. Right up till this mid1term meeting, India and *ra-il
were the leading opponents against negotiation of sustantive aspects of IPRs. Infact,
India and *ra-il were (ey actors in loc(ing an agreement on discussing sustantive
intellectual property rights at the Mid1Term Meeting. Much(und Duey, a memer of
the Indian delegation during these meetings, e4plained the stance of India and
developing nations in the following manner, ;During the initial years India played a
7/25/2019 ResourcesTRIPSanita Ramanna
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/resourcestripsanita-ramanna 11/34
leading role in resisting the move to launch the new round and withstanding 0orthern
pressure. The tenuous unity of the developing countries was maintained almost until the
end of the mid1term review in Montreal in Decemer $9::. India until the last days of
the resumed mid1term review session firmly adhered to the position that '&TT wasnt
the forum to discuss norms and standards of IPR protection nor could higher level of IPR
e part of a lieral multilateral trading system.@$$
It is important to understand how developing countries were ale to some e4tent
to assert their interests in these years. One factor was the unity among developing
countries at this time. ¬her important factor that one must focus on is that in Indias
case there was a strong domestic constituency that supported Indias Patent &ct of $9A#.
Indian Industry to a great e4tent wanted to retain the essential features of Indias Patent
&ct and even opposed India 3oining the Paris )onvention inspite of trade pressure. India
resisted attempts in the :#s y the 7/ to place pressure on India to 3oin the Paris
)onvention and industry odies were of the view that India should not 3oin the
)onvention. In $9:= India deated the option of 3oining the Paris )onvention. &t this
time reportedly IDM& +Indian Drug Manufacturers &ssociation played an important
role in pointing out the negative impact of the )onvention on India. $" In $9:: a
reference to India 3oining the Paris )onvention provo(ed reactions in Parliament on
the negative implications for industrial development if India ecame a party to the
treaty.$C The stance of industry odies was also made clear in Parliament when the
Minister of /tate for Industrial Development pointed out that %I))I +%ederation of
India )hamers of )ommerce and Industry, the most influential representative of
Indian industry at the time, had ta(en the position in $9:= that India should not 3oin
the Paris )onvention.$? &//O)!&M +&ssociated )hamers of )ommerce and
Industry, another industry ody in India, however, too( the view in $9:= that India
7/25/2019 ResourcesTRIPSanita Ramanna
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/resourcestripsanita-ramanna 12/34
should 3oin the Paris )onvention reflecting internal changes that too( place within
&//O)!&M. In $9:=, &//O)!&M underwent enormous transformations from
eing a representative not only of industry ut also trade interests and opened itself up
for the first time to overseas memership.$< The eginning of such fissures to some
e4tent could e4plain a wea(ing of Indias position in $9:=.
(hift in India’s Negotiating Position
In $9:9 India made a suprising move gave up its opposition to including IPRs in
the negotiations. In an &pril meeting in 'eneva in $9:9, India made a shift in policy and
agreed to include IPRs in the negotiations. IndiaFs aout turn on the issues was due
largely in part to pressure from the 7/. &nalysts have drawn lin(ages etween the threat
of 7/ special C#$ law against India and IndiaFs charge of stance on the issue in '&TT. .$=
&t the time when India made the switch the Times of India reported that HIndia
reportedly decided against ta(ing a firm stand on issue lest the 7nited /tates invo(ed
&rticle C#$ to retaliate.H$A *M in the >conomic and Political wee(ly wrote that India
compromised its position on IPR in the hope that it would case the direct 7/ pressure on
which India food eing designated Hunfair traderH in the super C#$ process.$: >ric
Wolfhard writes that HIn retrospect IndiaFs &pril accession seems merely strategic. $9
>laorating on the reasons for IndiaFs change of position he points out that at the time
India was a victim of a series of unilateral measures introduced y the 7/ to deal with
some of the ma3or developing countries."# !e also notes that India re8uired support from
7/ to orrow from IM% and World *an( to meet the depleting foreign e4change crises
caused during the 'ulf war."$
Trade pressure through /pecial C#$ is an important factor that e4plained Indias
shift in position. 7/ trade pressure also led to divisions within developing coutnries.
/everal related e4planations have also een forwarded as reasons for Indias change in
7/25/2019 ResourcesTRIPSanita Ramanna
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/resourcestripsanita-ramanna 13/34
7/25/2019 ResourcesTRIPSanita Ramanna
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/resourcestripsanita-ramanna 14/34
position has een maintained y India. & discussion in the 7ruguay Round does not
commit us to anything. There has not een a shift in our position, ut there has een a
shift in the negotiating stand.@"? On Kuly ":, $9:9 the India 'overnment issued a Press
statement HIntellectual Property Rights1/tandards and Principles concerning "<
&vailaility, scope and 7se 1 The India 2iew.H In order to e4plain its stance on the
7ruguay round negotiations, the Indian government too( the position in this paper that
tal(s in 7ruguay would e listed to Htrade1related intellectual property rightH which
comprises only the restrictive and anti1 competitive practices of the 1111 of intellectual
property rights."<
Inspite of IndiaFs turn around in '&TT India attempted to ensure that there would
only e a narrow focus on IPRs. India was the first developing country to sumit views
on each of the sustantive issues and in this document attempted to stress that only trade
related aspects would e discussed. It emphasised that only restrictive and anti1
competitive practices could e considered trade related. The sumission e4pressed the
view that only those practices that distorted international trade should e the su3ect to
negotiation."= India emphasi-ed the need for more favourale treatment for developing
countries in the area of patents and trademar(sG and proposed that such countries should
remain free to adapt their domestic legislation to their economic development and pulic
interest needs."A India also argued that concepts such as most favoured nation and
national treatment could not apply to intellectual property ecause these concepts were
applicale to goods rather than the right of persons, rights that the intellectual property
conventions protect.": /umissions were made y several other developing and
developed countries, resulting in numerous proposals y the end of $9:9. Developing
nations were ale to gain one concession at this time as consensus was reached that less
developed countries should e allowed time to ma(e transitions to conform to TRIPs."9
7/25/2019 ResourcesTRIPSanita Ramanna
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/resourcestripsanita-ramanna 15/34
Inspite of ilateral and multilateral trade pressure, India did not revise its
patent laws according to TRIPs from $99?1$99: due to opposition from actors that
enefited from the e4isting patent structure. The government, under e4ternal pressure
and the force of actors that favored change, attempted to pass a legislation at this time
to raise patent protection in India in the form of a Patent &mendment *ill in $99?19<.
!owever, this move failed due to the enormous resistance that emerged against patent
reform. Domestic industry in India egan to moili-e to counter Indias policy shift in
gloal negotiations on IPRs. Pharmaceutical companies and other interests estalished
an organi-ation to loy the government against changing patent laws. In $9::, the
0ational Wor(ing 'roup on Patent aws was estalished in India.C# )omposed of
e4perts from science, law and health industries, the loy was supported y certain
industry groups and was influential at the governmental level in fostering resistance
against change. It effectively pointed out the implications of raising patent standards
on drug prices, health care and domestic industrial development. India therefore
conformed to 7/ trade pressure in terms of negotiating on IPR in '&TT, ut there
was no ma3or domestic constituency that favored change at this time.
Do)estic Policy Change
& domestic policy shift enaled India to revise its patent laws in $99:199. The
change occurred on various levels. %irstly, the impact of lieral ideas regarding
economic reforms slowly led to a greater westerni-ed notion of intellectual property
rights on the part of political parties and industry groups. With the initiation of
economic lierali-ation in $99$, sections of the )ongress Party egan favoring
changes in patent laws. The *KP after coming to power in $99:, aandoned its
opposition to patent reform and adopted a pro1patent position. <hough opposition to
reform e4isted within oth the parties, the *KP and the )ongress eventually ensured
7/25/2019 ResourcesTRIPSanita Ramanna
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/resourcestripsanita-ramanna 16/34
the dominance of groups within their parties and affiliations that favored change on
patents.C$
)losely related to this pro1reform element with political parties was the rise of
a more ;modern@ and professionally managed segment of industry in India. The
gradual emergence of a technologically more advanced segment among industrial
companies was an important factor in promoting economic lierali-ation in India. C" In
tune with this pro1reform policy, important industry odies in the $99#s egan to
advocate the need for greater patent protection in India. The )onfederation of Indian
Industry +)II too( the position in its statements efore the 'u3ral )ommittee +a
committee estalished y the Indian Parliament to solicit views and prepare a report
on the impact of the WTO &greement on India that India was not ale to get relevant
technology due to the asence of product patents.CC &//O)!&M +&ssociated
)hamers of )ommerce and Industry stressed efore the 'u3ral )ommittee that
India needed to strengthen patent laws in order to attract foreign direct investment.C?
The industry odies egan to support the ill to amend patent laws in conformity with
TRIPs. The )II, placed on its wish list for the government the passing of the patent
ill to conform to TRIPs.C< In $99A, the %ederation of Indian )hamers of Industry
and )ommerce +%I))I estalished the International Institute of Intellectual Property
Development +IIPD. This institute aims at promoting the patenting culture amongst
the scientific and technical community and use IPR as a strategic tool in forwarding
usiness interests. It loudly promotes the slogan ;Patent or [email protected]=
& component of this change within industry odies arose from some domestic
firms who prospered under the e4isting patent structure, ut came to visuali-e significant
avenues for profit from the new patent regime. Dr. Reddys laoratories, which has een
preparing for the change in patent policy since $9:?, elieves that it has a competitive
7/25/2019 ResourcesTRIPSanita Ramanna
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/resourcestripsanita-ramanna 17/34
edge in new drug discovery which will lead to its growth under the revised policy. CA
Industry heads from Rana4y, a ma3or pharmaceutical firm e4pressed that, ;India
currently has a deficient system as far as providing intellectual protection goes, therefore
we see the need for a radical changeB.It is a myopic view that multinationals will
dominate the industry, as players are emerging at all [email protected]: Interviews with several
Indian and M0) susidiary firms and two industry associations conducted y an3ouw
revealed a shift in the deate on patents in India around $99A19:. )ompared to 3ust a
year efore she notes, ;0o one any longer e4pressed dout that India would, in fact, e
in compliance with WTO intellectual property re8uirements when deadlines were
reachedBB.@, and that, ;recent interviews indicated that there was an entirely new
deate underway in the country on whether India should voluntarily s(ip the end of the
period under >MR and go straight for product patents.@C9
¬her domestic constituency promoting change emerged from top Indian
research and scientific institutes that felt they could enefit from patents rather than
pulications. The )ouncil of /cientific and Industrial Research +)/IR with its chain of
?# laoratories reflects this more gloally mar(et oriented position focusing on ac8uiring
patents. Prime Minister &tal *ehari 2a3payee in Kanuary $999 stated, ;I compliment
)/IR for creating an intellectual climate supportive of the early passage of the ill to
amend the Patents &ct@.?# This atmosphere emerged oth from )/IRs role in promting
patent activity and from countering the io1piracy argument against increasing patent
protection in India. &n3i Reddy, chairman of Dr. Reddys as, states that Mashel(ar,
head of )/IR, ;Bnot only inspired scientists in )/IR to create wealth y harnessing
intellectual property, ut was also an inspiration for all of us in the industry.@?$ The
)/IRs instrumental role in defeating the 7/ patent on turmeric turned around the deate
on the implications of patents on traditional (nowledge, and this was crucial for
7/25/2019 ResourcesTRIPSanita Ramanna
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/resourcestripsanita-ramanna 18/34
promoting changes in patent policy. ?"
Present6 This shift enaled various domestic policy changes. India also
changed its negotiating strategy within TRIPs.
III.
India’s Patent Position
Recent changes in Indias patent policy have led to some review of Indias
position on patents. In determining how India and other developing countries should
negotiate in the WTO, it is important to understand where India stands in terms of
patents. The recent surge in patent applications in India in the post1$99< period, which
has not received attention in policy analysis, provides important data for evaluating
the potential for domestic actors to ad3ust to the new patent regime. The numer of
patent applications filed in the Indian Patent Office has risen appro4imately $<# in
$99A19: from $99C19?, crossing the $#,### mar( for the first time in $99A19: ?C. &
focus on these patent applications reveals that some domestic actors would e ale to
gain from the new regime y increasing their patent activity, while a ma3ority of the
actors would not e ale to raise their patent filings, at least in the short term. Policy
must therefore e redirected from a focus on increasing the patent activity of the few,
to ensuring access for the ma3ority.
Patent applications in India in the post1$99< period provide important, if not
comprehensive, indicators of the li(ely impact of the policy reforms. There has een a
significant increase in patent applications in India since $99?19< as a result of the
policy changes ta(ing place in tune with the WTO.
%igure $ denotes patent applications in India from $9A#1"##$6
7/25/2019 ResourcesTRIPSanita Ramanna
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/resourcestripsanita-ramanna 19/34
(ig#re 1% Patent Applications in India 1!"-)""1J
Patent Applications in India
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
1 9 7 0
1 9 7 1
1 9 7 2
1 9 7 3
1 9 7 4
1 9 7 5
1 9 7 6
1 9 7 7
1 9 7 8
1 9 7 9
1 9 8 0
1 9 8 1
1 9 8 2
1 9 8 3
1 9 8 4
1 9 8 5
1 9 8 6
1 9 8 7
1 9 8 8
1 9 8 9
1 9 9 0
1 9 9 1
1 9 9 2
1 9 9 3
1 9 9 4
1 9 9 5
1 9 9 6
1 9 9 7
1 9 9 8
1 9 9 9
2 0 0 0
2 0 0 1
Year
N o . o f P a t e n t s
/ource6 Prauddha 'anguli, 'earing 7p for Patents the Indian /cenario+$99:,p."$Gand for the years9:1"##$ fromTI%&) +$99: updated "##",Dataase on Patent &pplications filed in India.
%rom $9A# till aout $99?19<, patent applications in India were steady
averaging aout C,<## per year. Patent applications declined from <$## patents filed
in $9A#1A$ to an average of aout C<## applications filed annually etween $9:<1
$99". In the post1$99< period patent applications are more than doule than those of
previous years. The increase in patent applications is the result of changes in Indias
patent policy. The provision in Indias Patent &ct of $9A# that no product patents on
food and drugs could e granted in India had discouraged foreign applicants from
filing in India.?? India has now revised its law to allow applications on product
patents. 7nder TRIPs India must grant product patents in agrochemical and
pharmaceutical fields y "##<. The increase in patent applications in this period
represents, to some e4tent, the interest of firms in filing patents in India in fields that
were not patentale under the $9A# &ct. This is clear from the fact that applications
7/25/2019 ResourcesTRIPSanita Ramanna
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/resourcestripsanita-ramanna 20/34
have egun coming into India under the new provisions of the Patent &mendment &ct
of $999 that allowed applications for product patents. These applications were to e
put into a mailo4 and were to e e4amined in "##? to determine whether product
patents should e granted on them in "##<. These applications are designated as
WTO applications y the Indian Patent Office and are eing listed in the 'a-ette as
regular patent applications. <hough no pulic figures are availale on the numer of
applications that have come into India through this route, unofficial estimates put the
figure at over C,###?<. The Mumai office alone has received over C## such
applications to date?=.
)onvention applications have also increased and are li(ely to further increase
with India 3oining the Patent )ooperation Treaty +P)T. India e4tended the numer
of convention countries from A: to $A# in $99: and =$?9 convention applications
were filed in $99:199?A. The &nnual Report of the Patent Office points out that
according to availale records from Decemer $99: to C$ March $999, out of "C,$"$
international applications received y WIPO the numer of international applications
in which India was designated was =,9:A contriuting appro4imately C#."$ of the
total numer during this period.?: It also e4plains the fact that although patent
applications decline from $#,$<< in $99A19: to :,9<? in $99:199 this is due to the
time period provided y the P)T and not due to a decline in interest in patent filing in
India. &ccording to the &nnual Report of the Patent Office, ;the reduction in the
numer of applications is most proaly due to accession to the P)T@, ?9 indicating
that once the waiting period under the P)T e4pires, there would e a rise in the patent
applications in India.
The first aspect of this rise in patent applications is that there is a significant
increase in the ratio of foreign to domestic applications in the post1$99< period as
7/25/2019 ResourcesTRIPSanita Ramanna
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/resourcestripsanita-ramanna 21/34
compared to previous years. The rise in patent applications in the post1$99< period is
largely due to the increase in patent applications y foreign rather than domestic
applications. %igure " shows domestic and foreign applications in India etween
$9A#1$9996
(ig#re )% Domestic and (oreign Patent Applications in India, 1!"-1J
/ource6 )ompiled from )ontroller 'eneral of Patents, Designs and Trademar(s +various years,
Ann#al Reports and &. R. Ra3eshwari, Indian Patent *tatistics+An Anal'sis, /cientometrics, vol. C=,
no.$, $99=, p. $$#.
It is clear that foreign actors would e ale to ta(e advantage of the new patent
scenario on a much larger and much faster scale than domestic actors. While
arguments are made that India has time to ad3ust to the new scenario ecause product
patents dont have to e granted until "##<, the reality is that foreign firms have
egun rapidly increasing their patent applications in India since $99<. In the years
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
7000
8000
9000
19
70-
71
19
75-
76
19
80-
81
19
84-
85
19
85-
86
19
86-
87
19
87-
88
19
98-
89
19
89-
90
19
90-
91
19
91-
92
19
92-
93
19
93-
94
19
94-
95
19
95-
96
19
96-
97
19
97-
98
19
98-
99
Year
N u m b e r o f A p p l i c a t i o n s
Domestic
Foreign
7/25/2019 ResourcesTRIPSanita Ramanna
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/resourcestripsanita-ramanna 22/34
immediately following implementation of reforms, these applications would already
e in line to ta(e advantage of the new regime. &ny policy strategy must ta(e into
account this difference in foreign and domestic patent activity in the years shortly
following the reforms and must focus not only on raising patent applications ut also
on ensuring access. Domestic actors would re8uire access to technology and
resources, more of which would come under patent protection, particularly y foreign
firms in the period immediately following reforms.
While foreign patent applications far outweigh Indian patent applications,
there is a rising trend in domestic patent applications. %igure C represents the trends in
Indian patent applications from $9A#1$999. Indians filed ","?A patent applications in
$99:199 as compared to $,9"= applications in $99A19:, representing aout a $A
increase<#. Proponents of the current strategy point to this increase as evidence of the
aility of domestic actors to ta(e advantage of the new patent regime. This, however,
ignores the disparity etween domestic firms that e4ists within this overall rise in
patent activity.
The domestic patent applications clearly point to a disparity etween domestic firms
that increase their patent applications and those that do not increase their patent filings
significantly. While pro1patent and anti1patent loies in India have een divided on
whether domestic firms have the capacity to file patent applications or not, the data
shows that some firms would e ale to transform their potential into greater patent
activity, while a ma3ority may not. %igure ? focuses on patent applications y
selected<$ domestic firms. The firms include susidiaries of foreign companies and
some of these firms do have foreign collaorations. This figure represents the top :firms out of ?< that were selected. Their patent applications from $99<1$999 are
shown.
(ig#re % Patent Applications b' Domestic (irms, 1-)""1
7/25/2019 ResourcesTRIPSanita Ramanna
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/resourcestripsanita-ramanna 23/34
Figure 4: Patent Applications by Selected Dome stic Firm s, !!"#$%%
666
113
4161
95
41
105
54
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
Hindus tan L Ranba! "i#$a Dabur %ata Lu#in Lab &anacea
'io
La(s)mi *
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
%ota$
J/ource6 )alculated from TI%&) +$99: updated "##", Database on Patent Applications (iled in India
The graph indicates that !industan ever is the only firm with a large numer of patent
applications with the other firms far ehind in terms of total numers.
%igure <6 Patent &pplications y /elected Multinational %irms,
$99<1"##$J
7/25/2019 ResourcesTRIPSanita Ramanna
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/resourcestripsanita-ramanna 24/34
Figure ": Patent Application by Selected &ultinational Firms , !!"#$%%
139
903
261
222
448
342
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Nestle Siemens Du Pont Dow Bayer Pfzer
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
otal
J/ource6 )alculated from TI%&) +$99: updated "##", Database on Patent Applications (iled in India
¬her study y the Technology Information and %orecasting &ssessment
)ouncil +TI%&), an autonomous ody under the Department of /cience and
Technology, confirms that few firms account for the rise in domestic patent
applications. In a study of $$$A R E D units +e4cluding pulic sector underta(ings
recogni-ed under the Directory of Recogni-ed In1!ouse R E D units y the
Department of /cientific and Industrial Research, TI%&) found that $<C units held all
the $$"A patent applications filed y these units<". &ppro4imately $C.A of the R E D
units have filed patent applications with the rest of the :=.C not having shown much
interest in patenting.<C
The policy strategy must not only e ased on the increase in patent activity of
domestic actors, ut must also ta(e into account the fact that few firms are ale to
ma(e this transition. The aility of domestic firms to raise their patent activity is
dependent on several factors including6 the aility to shift focus from domestic to
gloal mar(ets, the capaility to collaorate with foreign firms, the capital to invest in
research for innovation and access to legal s(ills necessary to file patents. Initiatingresearch for innovation is ris(y, and the ma3ority of Indian firms dont have the aility
to ma(e the enormous investment and s(ills necessary for patenting. To point to 3ust
one indicator, while the worlds leading firms spend an average of $< of their
turnover on RED, the average RED intensity of Indian firms is aout ". <?& strategy
aimed at developing such capacity in a large numer of domestic actors would e
unrealistic. It would e more practical to focus on access for the ma3ority.
In patent applications among Indian pulic sector and government research
institutions, one institution has een ale to increase its patent applications, with few
others eing ale to follow. The )ouncil of /cientific and Industrial Research +)/IR
7/25/2019 ResourcesTRIPSanita Ramanna
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/resourcestripsanita-ramanna 25/34
which has een active in the patent field in India for several years, has increased its
share of patent applications oth in India and aroad.
%igure = shows )/IRs patent applications etween $99"199<<.
(ig#re /% Patent Applications b' 0*IR, 1)-
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99
Year
N u m b e r o f A p p l i c a t i o
n s
J/ource6 &dapted from 2i3ay 5. Kolly, ;)/IR Profiting from RED@ in 'hosal et al,
World )lass in India6 & )ase of )ompanies in Transformation +Penguin6 India, "##$, p. C#"
The following tale illustrates patent applications y some ma3or pulic sector
institutions gathered from TI%&)s >(aswa dataase on patent applications in
India.
Tale ?J
Patent &pplications y Ma3or Pulic /ectorN'overnment Research Institutions
Institution &pplications in >(aswa Dataase
$99<1"##$
I)&R C#
D*T "A
*&R) $: DRDO #
7/25/2019 ResourcesTRIPSanita Ramanna
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/resourcestripsanita-ramanna 26/34
I)MR $$
I/RO "A
0RD) $=
JThis tale is not comprehensive, as patent applications may have een filed y theseinstitutions under different heads. Many of these institutions are in the process of increasingtheir patent filings. Department of *iotechnologys annual report notes that the *iotechnologyPatent /creening )ommittee considered $C new applications, has so far received =$ patent
applications, and C# applications are at different stages of processing.
I)&R6 Indian )ouncil of &gricultural Research, D*T6 Department of *iotechnology, *&R)6*haha &tomic Research )entre, DRDO6 Defense Research and Development Organi-ation,
I)MR6 Indian )ouncil of Medical Research, I/RO6 Indian /pace Research Organi-ation,
0RD)6 0ational Research and Development )orporation
& study y TI%&) also found that only a few P/7s were actually involved in
filing patent applications. The study was ased on "?# pulic sector underta(ings
listed in Pulic >nterprises /urvey, $99:199. These units filed a total of CA"
applications in $99<199. Twenty1four units filed all the applications and out of the "?,
si4 units had $# or more applications. The following tale depicts the top = P/7s in
the study.
Tale <
P/7s with largest numer of patent applications $99<1$999J
/teel &uthority of India $?C
*harat !eavy >lectricals td. A:Indian Oil )orporation ?:
Indian Petrochemicals ":
!industan &ntiiotics $9
'as &uthority of India td :
J &dapted from TI%&), ;!ow Innovative are P/7sL@ Intellectual Property Rights *ulletin,
vol. =, no. :, &ugust "###, p. $
Pulic sector institutions in India have focused on uilding indigenous
capailities and disseminating it cheaply to industry rather than patenting inventions
7/25/2019 ResourcesTRIPSanita Ramanna
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/resourcestripsanita-ramanna 27/34
and e4ercising ownership rights. This was in tune with the Indian governments policy
that prevailed for decades. The technology statement of $9:C, for e4ample, pointed to
the need for development of indigenous technology, and efficient asorption and
adaptation of imported technology appropriate to national priorities and resources.<=
/cientists and research institutions focused more on pulications than on patents.
The )/IR, founded in $9?", operated for years under this framewor( to uild
indigenous capacity in science and technology, ut made a delierate shift that
enaled it to increase its patent activity. The emergence of economic reform in India
led )/IR las egan to change their outloo(. &fter lierali-ation in $99$, one of the
las initiating the change cut all pro3ects that wouldnt survive in a lieral
environment and focused on how to ecome more self1financing. )/IR laoratories
egan increasing their patent filings after $99:199 coinciding with the shift in )/IR
policy that re8uired the las to earn a significant portion of their udgets through
research sponsored y industries<A. *etween $99"19A the )/IR filed 9"# patents in
India and $"# aroad, filing $$# applications aroad in $99:199 <:. )/IRs aility to
increase its patent activity as compared to other pulic sector institutions arose
ecause it adopted a gloal mar(et focus rather than a domestic oneG initiated a
numer of collaorations with foreign companiesG and promoted a cultural shift away
from pulications and social o3ectives towards patents and commercial goals.
Other pulic sector institutions in India may lac( the capacity to ma(e this
shift not only in terms of RED investment, ut also in possessing sufficient resources
to attract the private sector. The promotion of this strategy also leads to douts aout
the pulic sectors o3ectives. The )DRI, one of the )/IR institutes, for e4ample, is
revising its decades of research on control of parasitic diseases and family planning
towards areas that have greater international mar(et potential, raising 8uestions aout
7/25/2019 ResourcesTRIPSanita Ramanna
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/resourcestripsanita-ramanna 28/34
its mission.<9 It is important to ensure that the pulic sector intervenes in areas where
the private sector may under1invest due to various mar(et failures. & focus only on
transforming the pulic sector to increase patent activity would ignore this goal and
would re8uire attention towards ensuring access to resources and technology.
Teaching and Research Institutes
/ome teaching and research institutions have een ale to increase their patent
applications to some e4tent in the $99<1$999 period. The patent applications y
research and teaching institutions show an increase of aout ?# from $99< to
$99:=#, ut few institutions account for this increase. &ppro4imately =# of the
applications were filed y < of the "9 total institutions surveyed. The following tale
depicts the patent applications filed y Indian research institutions and universities
including IITs6Tale =
Patent &pplications y ResearchNTeaching InstitutionsJ
ear 0umer of &pplications
$99< C<
$99= "9
$99A C:
$99: <#
Total $<"
J/ource6 &dapted from TI%&), ;7niversities %orge &head in Patent %iling@ IPR *ulletin, vol.
<, no. :, &ugust $999, Tale $.
Tale = shows the top < institutions with $< or more applications. The
ma3ority of other institutions had " applications or less.
Tale AJ
Research Institutions with argest 0umer of &pplications
Institution 0umer of &pplications
IIT Madras "=
IIT, 5aragpur ""
II/c $=
IIT Mumai $<
IIT Delhi $<
J &dapted from TI%&), ;7niversities %orge &head in Patent %iling@, Intellectual Property Rights
*ulletin, vol. <, no. :, &ugust $999, p. $.
7/25/2019 ResourcesTRIPSanita Ramanna
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/resourcestripsanita-ramanna 29/34
The academic institutions that have een ale to raise their patent filings have
initiated foreign collaorations, have special cells for relations with industry, and have
some operational mechanisms to ensure patent filings. Teaching institutions face
similar prolems of the pulic sector in general regarding raising patent activity.
(ig#re !% &* patents assigned to India 1"-)"""2
/ource6 &dapted from /u3it *hattacharya E Pradosh 0athG 7sing Patent /tatistics &s a Measure of Techonological &ssertiveness6 & )hina India )omparison
)urrent /cience, 2ol.:C,0o.$,$# Kul "##".
Indias patent position shows that India must focus on ensuring access for the
ma3ority of actors that would not e ale to compete. Indias vast scientific and
research capaility may not translate into patent activity in the short term. & scaling
ac( of TRIPs would e in Indias est interests.
I*.
The review of Indias patent policy and negotiations point to the need for
promoting a rela4ation of TRIPs for India and other developing countries. The current
scenario provides the right moment for India and other developing countries to
promote their interests internationally. The time is right not 3ust for calling for a
modification of TRIPs ut actually demanding a scaling ac( of TRIPs. The
favourale factors include6
$ There is some support from >urope. Differences etween developed countries
have enaled developing countries to ma(e headway. One ma3or factor is the
recent report issued y the 75 commission that clearly points out that raising
7/25/2019 ResourcesTRIPSanita Ramanna
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/resourcestripsanita-ramanna 30/34
IPRs may e detrimental to developing countries. Developing countries can
ta(e advantage of these differences within advanced nations.
" The Doha Declaration provides room for lin(ing concerns outside of IPRs
such as health, human rights and other issues to intellectual property.
C & domestic constituency that could enefit from such lin(ages and rela4ations
in IPR rules now e4ists.
? 7nity etween developing countries and also etween D)s and developing
countries now e4its.
< 0'Os are now in a position to influence the shape of international
negotiatons.
Options for Future Negotiations:
The option of trying to modify TRIPs to suit developing countries interests y
etc. has limited potential. There are various ways in which developing countries
are attempting to do this6
)ompulsory licensing6
>4tension of 'eographical Indications6 India and other developing countries
have een trying to ensure that 'Is are e4tended to products other than wines and
spirits as a means of protecting products such as asmati rice. While this may
provide some mechanism for registering such uni8ue products it is not a strategy
that would protect a large numer of resources. In addition, legal s(ills and money
would e re8uired to ensure the registration of such products and fight cases that
infringe on these names. It also appears that this strategy would re8uire some
argaining in agriculture negotiations. >) and /wit-erland have e4plicitly lin(ed
the 'I discussions to the agriculture negotiations in oth the TRIPs )ouncil and
the )ommittee on &griculture. +*RID'>/ Trade *ioRes, 2ol. " 0o. $?. *ra-il
7/25/2019 ResourcesTRIPSanita Ramanna
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/resourcestripsanita-ramanna 31/34
has also pointed out that 'Is are su3ect to the same limitations as any other IPR
right and that they would not help against preventing io1piracy as they only
protected the product ut not the genetic resources and associated T5 and would
not thus prevent their use and patenting. Others have also e4pressed the concern
that 'Is will only ring new oligations for developing countries while the
enefits will mainly go to developed countries that are etter prepared at the
national level to ta(e advantage of 'I e4tensions that might use 'Is as a trade
arrier against developing countries e4ports. +*RID'>/ Trade *ioRes, 2ol. " 0o.
$?.
Patent Disclosure6 The >) is now willing to discuss this issue ut emphasi-es
that failure to disclose should lie outside patent law and should e regulated y
civil or administrative law. The 7/ has so far strongly opposed the inclusion of
disclosure re8uirements in patent applications, saying it would e incompatile
with TRIPs since it would add another sustantive condition on patentaility
eyond those already provided. +*RID'>/ Trade *ioRes, 2ol. " 0o. $?. The
patent disclosure route would only e a limited measure to chec( iopiracy, ut
would not go far in mitigating the negative implications of IPRs on developing
countries.
*enefit1sharingNprior informed consent6 While preventing negative acts
would not do much for positive protection of resources. The record hasnt een
very encouraging on this.
Recognition of T56 >4tending the IPR logic could have its own implications
especially on sharing of resources.
7/25/2019 ResourcesTRIPSanita Ramanna
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/resourcestripsanita-ramanna 32/34
Rather than calling for a modification of TRIPs, developing countries must
focus on ensuring that the negative impact of TRIPs is dealt with. The strategy can
focus on the following6
• in(ing TRIPs with the Right to !ealth and !uman Rights. )alling for
price control rather than only compulsory licensing
• %ocusing on a strategy that lin(s domestic industries in developing
countries
• >stalishing mechanisms to lin( industry and 0'Os in developing
country processes
• %orming an alternative to the uad in the WTO
• 7tili-ing %&Os new treaty
• Ta(ing larger view of )*D
• in(ing up with developed countries who support the issues
• 7tili-ing the power of 0'Os
7/25/2019 ResourcesTRIPSanita Ramanna
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/resourcestripsanita-ramanna 33/34
$ uoted in Kean an3ow, ;The Introduction of Pharmaceutical Product Patents in India6 !eartless >4ploitation of thePoor and /ufferingL, >conomic 'rowth )enter, ale 7niversity, &ugust "=, $99A, p. $" 'overnment of India +$9?9.'overnment of India, Ministry of Industry and /upply, Patent >n8uiry )ommittee, Interim
Report, &ugust $9?9.C Dhavan, et al +$9:<? %I))I +$99=, p.:.< This section ta(en from /. 2edaraman, no.", pp.?C1<?.
= Ru(mini Parthasarthy, ;The )>Os 'uide to The 0ew Patents Regime@*usiness Today +*omay, /eptemer "", $99:, p.<:A R. 'adow and Richards, eds., Intellectual Property Rights6 'loal )onsensus, 'loal )onflictL, +*oulder, $9::, p. ": Terence P. /tewart, ed., The '&TT 7ruguay Round6 & 0egotiating !istory $9:=1$99", vol. " )ommentary +0etherlands,$99C, p. ""<<9 http6NNwww.phrma.orgNissuesNintlNindia.html$# &rgentina, )ua, >gypt, 0icaragua, 0igeria, Peru, Tan-ania, ugoslavia and India.$$ Much(und Duey, &n 7ne8ual Treaty6 World Trading Order &fter '&TT, +0ew Delhi, $99=, pp. =1A$" Pravin &nand, ;In India, IP %alls on !ard Times@, IP Worldwide MayNKune $99:, www.ipcenter.comN#<#=QIndia.html$C 'overnment of India, Ra3ya /aha Deates, Official Reports, Ra3ya /aha /ecretariat, 0ew Delhi, < Decemer $9::, p.
$$?..$? Iid., p. $$<.$< www.assocham.org, !istory, p. 9.$=
Iid.
$A Times of India +0ew Delhi $A &pril $9:9.
$: uoted in Rit- Manchanda, 0.?9., p. $:.
$9 uoted in Kagdish 5. Patnai(, HIndia and TRIPs 6 some 0otes on the 7ruguay Round 0egotiationsH India 3#arterl'vol. 2III no.? Oct1Dec1$99", p.C".
"# Iid.
"$ Iid.
""
Interview with Kayashree Watal, &pril A, $999"C Duey, n. ?:, p. A"? India, Ra3ya /aha Deates, Official Reports, &pril "A, $9:9"< Kustice 2.5. Iyer et at, n. <$, p. CC1C?.
"= /tandards and Principles )oncerning the &vailaility /cope and 7se of Trade1Related Intellectual Property Rights,
)ommunication from India, '&TT Doc. 0o. MT0.'0'N0'$$NWNCA Kuly $#, $9:9, p. $"A Iid. p. "1$C": /tewart, n. , p. ""A$"9 Iid.,p. ""A"C# Iid., p. A.C$ /ee ;Parties undecided on Patents *ill@, >conomic Times, Decemer "$, $99:G ;*KP >ases /tand on /wadeshi Plan(,*ac(s 'overnment Policy@, Deccan !erald, Kanuary <, $999G ;)ongress /upport to >nsure Passage of Patents *ill@,
>conomic Times, Decemer "C, $99:.C" /ee Pedersen +"###, pp. "=<1":".CC /hri /uodh *hargava of the )II deposing efore the )ommittee stated, ;0oody gives us the right type of technology
ecause of the fear of not getting product patent [email protected]? &//O)!&M gave a written sumission to the )ommittee on the need for phased introduction of product patents in India
and pointed out that it was of the view that in order to attract increasing flow of %oreign Direct Investment, it is important
for India to strengthen the patent system. This will ensure higher interaction in R E D as well as flow of foreign capital.C< ;)IIs Wish ist for the 'overnment@, www.cii.orgC= www.iprindia.orgCA /ee /mith +"###.C: uoted in Pra(ash +$99:.
7/25/2019 ResourcesTRIPSanita Ramanna
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/resourcestripsanita-ramanna 34/34
C9 an3ouw +"##$, p."=9.?# uoted 5anavi +$999, p.<".?$ Iid.?" /ee Ramanna +forthcoming and 5anavi +$999.?CS0ote6 I would li(e to gratefully ac(nowledge the International %ood Policy Research Institute +I%PRI for proving mewith a fellowship that enaled me to underta(e research for this paper. I would especially li(e to than( Phil Pardey and
/uresh *au at I%PRI. I am grateful to &3it 5arni( and /usan /ell for providing insightful comments. I remain solely
responsile for any inconsistencies. &ny opinions e4pressed here personal and are not meant to reflect positions of I%PRI.
TI%&) +%eruary $999, p. =.?? Ra3eshwari +$99=, p.$$#.?< Kustice 5rishna Iyer et al +$99:, p."<.?= Personal )ommunication, Mumai Patent Office?A )ontroller 'eneral of Patents, Designs and Trademar(s, )! th Ann#al Report, $99:199, p. C.?: Iid.?9 )ontroller 'eneral of Patents, Designs and Trademar(s, )! th Ann#al Report, $99:199,p.".<# TI%&) +Decemer $999, p. $.<$ These firms were selected from >conomic Times <## ist of Indias Most 2aluale )ompanies. Out of the top <# firms,
the ones with the largest numer of applications in the TI%&) Dataase on Indian Patent &pplications are shown.<" TI%&) +/eptemer "###, p.$.<C Iid.<?
&lam +$99=, p. "C.<< 0ote6 These figures contrast with figures gathered from TI%&)s >(aswa dataase. )/IR applications calculated
according to this dataase show figures elow the "## mar( in $99<199 and even indicate a decline from $99<1$99A. The
reasons for this discrepancy are not clear. The figures here also include patent applications through consultancy and R E Dthat may not have een included in TI%&)s dataase.<= Iid., p. $:.<A 'anguli +$99:, p. "<.<: Kolly +"##$, p. C#$ and *usiness India, ;)atalyst for )hange@ Kune ":1Kuly $$, $999, p. <$.<9 /ee Kolly +"##$=# TI%&) +&ugust $999, p. $.