Concerns over IPR

Gaps in Indian intellectual property rights need to be plugged

The US Chamber of Commerce's Global Intellectual Property Centre (GIPC) has ranked India second to last among the 38 countries included in its fourth annual intellectual property rights (IPR) index. In other words, it holds the patent protection regime in India as not being in line with the international best practices. Among the limitations mentioned in India's IPR environment are the absence of specific IP rights for the life sciences sector; weak enforcement environment; lack of mechanisms to effectively combat online piracy; flawed data protection norms; and non-participation in the international IPR-related treaties referenced in the index. Besides, it has cited the usual objections raised by US industry and the office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) concerning the patent requirements and the provision for compulsory licensing in the Indian patent law.

The GIPC's ranking uses statutory, regulatory and enforcement criteria that are, naturally, based on the IPR perceptions of the developed countries - which occupy the top positions in the ranking, too. There are complaints that small, yet significant, steps being taken by various countries to improve their IPR enforcement and grievance redressing systems are not captured in the index. It is true that India has poor enforcement mechanisms. But it has strengthened its patent office by hiring more people, and is reforming the system of seeking judicial remedies to commercial disputes. That has not been reflected in the rankings. Another possible step forward is the country's long-promised new IPR policy. Much depends upon the quality of the policy - will it allay major concerns about Indian IPR without changing the basic tenets of Indian patent law? After all, while aspects of the Indian patent law are outliers in the global discourse, they have not been challenged in the relevant international forums, and so India's claim that its law is TRIPs-compliant is difficult to counter. Certainly, both precedent and the Doha declaration protect compulsory licensing on the ground that there is a pressing public health need. It is, therefore, futile to object to the Indian patent law on this ground.

However, many genuine concerns remain to be addressed, especially in matters related to online piracy and copyright infringements in the information technology, knowledge and entertainment sectors. The patent regime must become more transparent and effective, and patent-holders who feel their intellectual property has been trespassed upon must be able to find redress in India much quicker than they do now. Once the policy is suitably reformed and such lacunae in the IPR regime are removed, it is to be hoped that India will be able to make the case that it no longer needs to be on a watch-list for IPR issues.