by admin | May 25, 2021 | Opinions
By Amit Kapoor: India’s first and recently initiated national IPR policy is a culmination of the ongoing process of improving India’s IP regime globally. The national IP policy underscores the need to promote creativity and innovation and protect IP.
There are seven broad objectives which the policy enumerates for stimulating a “dynamic, vibrant and balanced intellectual property rights system” in India. The objectives can also be looked at from the perspective of a lifecycle approach to IP. It starts from IP awareness and ends with the implementation of the policy. Following are the primary objectives of the IP policy:
First, to create public awareness (economic, social and cultural benefits) of IPRs among all sections of society. The policy plans to do so with the adoption of the slogan “Creative India; Innovative India). The policy also enumerates how to create awareness and promotion of strengths by conveying to all stakeholders the value and benefits of IP. It is to be pursued through various measures some of which include specific programmes for MSME sector, engaging with media, helping develop school curriculum, etc. The objective of creating public awareness seems well thought through.
Second, to stimulate the generation of IPRs. For this, the policy seems to focus on undertaking studies as well as encouraging individual innovators, researchers, universities, national labs, corporations and other organisations for filing IP. At present India is one of the top filers of trademarks. In this context, the finance minister at the press conference on the release of policy also mentioned the need to reduce the time to a month from the date of filing of the trademark in India by 2017.
Third, the policy aims at strong and effective IPR laws, which balance the interests of rights’ owners with larger public interest. The policy proposes to do this by a consensus-driven approach to protecting Traditional Knowledge (TK), Genetic Resources (GR) and Traditional Cultural Expressions (TCE).
The policy also touches on the issue of illegal duplication of films and changes to the particular Act with the incorporation of penal provisions. For future scope, the policy aims to look at the issues of intersection with the Competition Act and protection of trade secrets. All these are beneficial and visionary steps because the policy seems to foresee significant challenges that may arise in due course of time.
Fourth, the policy looks towards strengthening service-oriented IPR administration. The policy here seeks to examine in parallel the twin goals of making operations efficient, streamlined and cost-effective and also enhancing user friendliness and providing value-added services to users. Along with this, another significant change is bringing the administration of the Copyright Act and Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout-Design Registry under the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP). Also, the policy proposes the creation of a Cell for IPR Promotion and Management (CIPAM) under DIPP. Also with this, there is an overall focus on increasing cooperation and coordination between various offices and authorities administering IP in India.
Fifth, the policy aims at realising the value of IPRs through commercialisation. The view here is to promote entrepreneurship and finding effective ways of synergising IP facilitation centres with industry. The policy also tries to leverage commercialisation by building a database of IPRs for connecting potential users, buyers and funding institutions.
The sixth objective deals with the adjudicating and enforcement mechanisms for combining IPR infringements. Here the policy lays stress on an aspect of adjudication through specialised IP courts and alternative dispute settlement mechanisms. Also, the policy talks about checking counterfeiting and piracy through various measures. Here, capacity building of judicial officers and other people dealing with enforcement is to be looked at and improved.
This leads us to the final objective of strengthening and expanding human institutions and capacities for teaching, training, research and skill building in IPRs. Here, the focus is on doing public policy research and improving the functioning of the Rajiv Gandhi National Institute of Intellectual Property Management (RGNIIPM), Nagpur, as well as the introduction of multidisciplinary courses in IP at various levels.
Overall the first National IP rights policy looks comprehensive in scope and intent. The policy may help improve India’s image on ease of doing business and competitiveness constructs; however much will depend on implementation. Under the implementation aspect, the policy recognises the need for a coordinated and integrated development of the IP system in India. The policy has also done well to identify and bestow the responsibility of IP largely on a single department, namely, DIPP. Over the next few decades, the implementation of the policy will decide the standing of India’s IP regime globally.
(17.05.2016 – This article is co-authored with Sankalp Sharma, Senior Researcher at the Institute for Competitiveness, India. Amit Kapoor is Chair, Institute for Competitiveness & Editor of Thinkers. The views expressed are personal.)
by admin | May 25, 2021 | Interviews
Patrick Kilbride,( Photo Credit channel5belize)
As Prime Minister Narendra Modi prepares for his US visit from Sep 23 to 28, industry there is keenly awaiting to hear from his Team India’s stand on intellectual property rights (IPR). This has been a major irritant in boosting economic ties between the two nations, says Patrick Kilbride, executive director of the US Chamber’s Global Intellectual Property Center, which seeks to safeguard intellectual property rights.
In an e-mail interview with Aparajita Gupta, Kilbride says USA Inc was particularly interested in some movement forward in India on issues such as legislative changes, pharmaceuticals patenting, enforcement and compulsory licensing.
Excerpts from the interview:
Q: What are the key things in IPR-related issues that will be watched during Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s visit to the US?
A: The upcoming visit of Prime Minister Modi to the US and his interactions with our innovative industries will provide him with a better understanding of the importance of IPR to US industries. We hope that this appreciation will be reflected in the policies India adopts and implements to promote innovation and manufacturing in India.
We are hopeful a dialogue between the US and Indian government on IPR issues yields positive, definitive outcomes in the near future and that the resolution of issues will provide significant opportunities for collaboration and engagement between US and Indian industries.
Q: What are the three key things India should do in the IPR space to make it more flexible?
A: We urge the Indian government to take the necessary steps to create an IPR environment which provides innovators and creators with the ability to effectively protect and enforce their intellectual property rights. A predictable system will ultimately encourage the investments required to grow India’s innovative industries.
A credible first step to achieving a strong and flexible IPR system is to address gaps or deficiencies in the existing legal framework which would include, for example, addressing deficiencies in the current Indian Copyright Act to combat online piracy, circumvention of technological protection measures and the illegal cam-cording of films.
Likewise, India can put itself in a global leadership position on an issue that will be critical to its own competitiveness by enacting meaningful legislation to protect trade secrets. Innovation in high technology industries must be supported, and not discouraged, by the Indian Patents Act. The recent release of the patent examination guidelines, confirming the scope of patentability for computer-related inventions, was a welcome development and will catalyze innovation in the ICT sector.
To further encourage innovation, the Indian government can clarify the scope and application of the Patents Act, especially in relation to Section 3(d). It continues to deny patents for innovative and beneficial pharmaceutical products — the same products which enjoy patent protection around the world. To drive innovation in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology sectors India will want to bring its patentability requirements in line with the rest of the international community.
Finally, India must address the weaknesses in its enforcement system which is routinely described as ineffective. Credible enforcement is required as a deterrent to infringement, piracy, and counterfeiting. The implementation of judicial reform proposals recommending specialized courts or benches and the imposition of deterrent penalties will greatly improve the effectiveness of the current enforcement system.
Q: What do you think of India’s position regarding compulsory licensing, under which governments can allow someone else to produce a patented product or process without the consent of its owner?
A: We respect the right of India to exercise its right to use compulsory licences under appropriate circumstances under multilateral pacts. However, India’s grant of its first compulsory licence in 2012 followed by extensive internal discussions to expand the use of compulsory licences to access the newest generation of cancer drugs sent a very negative signal to all innovative industries.
Compulsory licences should only be used in exigent, or the rarest of, circumstances — not as a matter of course. The Indian government’s policy on the use of compulsory licencing has negatively impacted the US-India bilateral relationship and made US industries, which rely on patents as key business assets, hesitant to enter or make further investments in the Indian market. To achieve the broad goals of the “Make in India” campaign and make India a research and development hub, the Indian government must once and for all remove the looming spectre of compulsory licences as a routine policy tool.
Q: India’s norms on clinical trials are not always liked in the US. Do you think it is going to change with the new draft policy?
A: While a clinical trials policy is not a part of the IPR discussions, this policy has also negatively impacted the industry. Both domestic and foreign companies are aligned in their concerns about the policy and the delays in its announcement and implementation. In real terms, India has lost ground as a site for clinical trials and it will be difficult to make it up. The unpredictability of the clinical trial system in India and the indecisiveness of the Indian government have shaken the confidence of the industry. This is yet another area where clarity in policy could yield positive results.
Q: Is the awareness of IPR enough in India?
A: Awareness of IPR is rarely enough. However, efforts to raise IPR awareness are critical to creating a positive IPR culture. IPR systems empower a society in many ways which are underappreciated. In the US, with a system that is widely perceived to be very supportive of innovators, more than one-third of the GDP, and a similar percentage of employment, is based in IP-intensive industries. While we don’t have a similar study in India, we can logically assume that the media, entertainment and software industries equally contribute to India’s economic competitiveness and job growth. As public awareness of IPR continues to grow, we would anticipate two outcomes: A) it will stimulate innovation and creativity in India and (B) it will discourage counterfeiting and piracy as the public accepts and respects intellectual property rights.
(Aparajita Gupta can be reached at aparajita.g@ians.in)
