Reengineer India's IPR Framework: Sunil Mani

Achieving the government’s goal of transforming India into a developed nation by 2047 hinges critically on increasing the share of manufacturing and service-providing industries in GDP. This necessitates comprehensive, yet meticulously specific, reforms to the intellectual property (IP) regime.

Historically calibrated for access to essentials like medicines and food, the IP framework must evolve into a strategic engine for innovation-led growth across high-tech sectors. Key to this is fulfilling two non-negotiable conditions: jettisoning “one-size-fits-all” reforms for nuanced, technology-specific rules that acknowledge industry differences (eg., semiconductors versus pharma); and striking a trade-off between IP strength to attract multinational capital/expertise and flexibility to cultivate domestic capabilities and self-reliance.

India must create a proactive, sector-driven IP governance model. This approach is indispensable for converting IP from a defensive shield into a catalyst for industrial transformation and global competitiveness.

In pharma, India’s leadership in generics must evolve towards novel drug discovery. While retaining crucial safeguards like Section 3(d) of the Patents Act to prevent frivolous evergreening, significant enhancements are needed. This involves refining patentability criteria and upgrading the expertise of examiners in complex chemistry and biotechnology to ensure rigorous yet predictable assessments.

However, the potential for marginally extended market exclusivity for breakthrough drugs necessitates vigilant price monitoring and a robust, readily deployable compulsory licensing framework to safeguard access to essential medicines, alongside managing initial adaptation challenges for the generic sector.

For telecom, the transition from assembly-led manufacturing to deep-tech innovation requires modernising design protection and resolving the chronic uncertainty around Standard Essential Patents (SEPs). Explicitly extending the Designs Act to cover graphical user interfaces, icons, and the evolving aesthetics of wearable tech and IoT devices is imperative. Crucially, India must establish a transparent national policy framework for SEP licensing, firmly embedding Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) principles. Rather than separate SEP tribunals, a more feasible interim solution is to create specialised IP benches within existing tribunals. This would significantly reduce royalty disputes and litigation uncertainty. Implementation, however, demands considerable investment in IP office capacity.

The semiconductor industry wants tailored approaches due to astronomical capital requirements and incremental innovation. India should consider calibrating patent protection durations for process improvements and ensure clarity on exceptions for reverse engineering. Establishing a National Semiconductor Patent Pool or Repository, particularly for foundational and process patents arising from publicly funded research, offering access under reasonable licensing terms to domestic fabs and design houses, is a key strategic intervention.

However, recognising the hurdles, a phased or hybrid model should be considered, beginning with government-funded IP repositories that permit licensing under predefined terms. Full-fledged pools involving private rights holders can follow.

In renewable energy and green technologies, patent thickets and high licensing costs hinder the scaling up of domestic manufacturing. Reforms should include implementing targeted, accelerated opposition mechanisms to challenge overly broad or weak green tech patents, exploring the creation of specialised patent pools or licensing platforms for critical climate mitigation technologies, and introducing calibrated research exemptions to foster experiments and incremental innovation. These efforts should be aligned with global climate negotiations.

In agricultural biotechnology and seed technologies, balancing food security, farmer welfare, and innovation is complex. Reforms must ensure strict application of patentability criteria (eg., excluding naturally occurring genes or traits) while protecting legitimate inventions. Strengthening the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act is crucial to safeguard farmers’ rights to save and exchange seeds while incentivising private development of high-yielding, climate-resilient varieties suited to Indian conditions.

A cautious approach to data exclusivity for agrochemicals, strictly limiting its scope and duration beyond the TRIPS minimum, is essential. India can explore a tiered exclusivity model, offering longer exclusivity only to innovations with substantial local trial data or domestic manufacturing commitments.

Aerospace and defence technologies demand clear IP policies. India needs a framework governing ownership and exploitation of IP generated through publicly funded R&D and defence offset partnerships. Facilitating easier licensing and spin-off of dual-use technologies to the civilian sector, strengthening trade secret protection for sensitive processes, promoting collaborative R&D with clear IP sharing frameworks, and streamlining patenting procedures are critical.

In addition, broader trade secret and copyright frameworks need strengthening, particularly to protect know-how in manufacturing, aerospace simulation software, and digital control systems. This necessitates meticulous handling of national security concerns and complex international regulations.

The success of this reform agenda lies in fostering a symbiosis between self-reliance and global integration. For MNCs, predictability, efficient enforcement, transparent FRAND frameworks, strong protection for designs, trade secrets, and clear rules for collaborative IP ownership signal a mature ecosystem. Concurrently, strategic deployment of TRIPS-compliant flexibilities empowers Indian firms to transition from replicators to creators and owners.

India’s 2047 vision of technological sovereignty and developed nation status demands nothing less than a holistic re-engineering of its IP framework. This blueprint moves beyond isolated fixes to propose a cohesive strategy. A phased, prioritised road map is essential to manage institutional capacity and funding constraints.

The time for decisive, strategic IP reform is unequivocally now.

 

Views are personal.