THE INDIAN INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS REGIME UNDER SCRUTINY - PATENT PROTECTION, PUBLIC INTEREST SAFEGUARDS, AND THE LIMITS OF TRIPS COMPLIANCE
Keywords:
Intellectual Property Rights, TRIPS Agreement, Compulsory Licensing, Access to Medicines, Indian Patents ActAbstract
The Indian intellectual property rights (IPR) system is an innovative approach to protecting both public welfare and innovation incentives, particularly in sectors such as pharmaceuticals and agriculture. As a member state of the TRIPS Agreement, India has made significant changes to its patent-related legislation, especially the amendments of the Patents Act of 1970. These changes have arguably increased the number of patents available, providing India with the ability to adjust its legislation to fit the other major economies of the world, but have also increased the criticism surrounding this policy change, including the accessibility of the right to technology and medicine, the right to protect traditional knowledge, and right to own and control the technology. This paper critically evaluates India’s patent framework, focusing on its use of TRIPS flexibilities, including compulsory licensing and strict patentability standards under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. This research focuses on India’s ability to remain neutral or pro-development in the realm of patents in a world where developed nations and large corporations have significant power and influence. Using the legal framework and applicable rulings, this research analyzes the gaps between the control of the developed world and needs of the developing world. This research acknowledges that India has developed a sophisticated, flexible patent system, but has not yet developed an effective patent system that balances equitable access, technology adaptation, and circumvention of TRIPS-plus requirements. India affords an important example of developing countries managing international obligations and domestic welfare concerns. The paper argues that while India has successfully leveraged TRIPS flexibilities, structural inefficiencies and geopolitical pressures continue to limit its effectiveness. The COVID-19 pandemic further exposed structural inequities in global access to medicines, reinforcing the importance of TRIPS flexibilities.
References
Agnihotri, U. (2025). Indian Perspective on Cyber Law and IPR Issues. In Intellectual Property Rights: Issues and Challenges (p. 401). https://doi.org/10.51767/c250624
Balamurugan, R., & Radhakrishnan, R. (2010). Protection of Intellectual Property Rights: An Indian Perspective. International Journal of Management Studies. https://doi.org/10.32890/ijms.17.1.2010.9981
Bayer Corporation v. Union of India, Writ Petition No. 1323 of 2013.
Bayer Corporation v. Natco Pharma Ltd. (2012). Compulsory Licence Order.
Bindusha, H. C. (2021). Intellectual Property Rights Issues in Indian Pharmaceutical Industry. Journal of Pharmaceutical Research International, 33, 281. https://doi.org/10.9734/jpri/2021/v33i38b32124
Ganapathi, J., & Pulla, V. (2015). Intellectual Property Rights and the Ancient Indian Perspective. Space and Culture, India, 3, 15. https://doi.org/10.20896/saci.v3i2.147
Hatch-Waxman Act, 21 U.S.C. § 355.
Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd., 2015 SCC OnLine Del 10203.
Hughes, J. (1988). The Philosophy of Intellectual Property. Georgetown Law Journal, 77, 287.
Kuyper, J. (2015). Deliberative Capacity in the Intellectual Property Rights Regime Complex. Critical Policy Studies, 9, 317–336. https://doi.org/10.1080/19460171.2015.1032991
Kumar, A. (2020). Patents as a Yardstick for Economic Growth: Case of Indian R&D System. In Intellectual Property Rights – Patent. https://doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.92605
Locke, J. (1690). Two Treatises of Government (Book II, Chapter V).
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd., (2015) 61 PTC 1 (Del).
Novartis AG v. Union of India, (2013) 6 SCC 1.
Prud’homme, D., & Zhang, T. (2019). Administration of IP Rights. In Intellectual Property Regime for Innovation (pp. 115–137). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-10404-7_6
Ranga Rao, K. V. (2002). Indian Designs Act 1911. SEDME (Small Enterprises Development, Management & Extension Journal), 29, 31. https://doi.org/10.1177/0970846420020304
Singh, K. K. (2014). Patentability of Biotechnology Under the International Patent Regime: Differentiation v. Harmonisation. In Biotechnology and Intellectual Property Rights (pp. 111–130). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-81-322-2059-6_3
Singh, R. (2002). Implementation of Intellectual Property Rights Regime: The Justification Question. Social Scientist, 30, 61–75. https://doi.org/10.2307/3518245
Shilpi, T., & Nauriyal, D. K. (2016). Determinants of Profitability in Indian Pharmaceutical Firms in the New Intellectual Property Rights Regime. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1125675
Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v. Intex Technologies, 2015 SCC OnLine Del 11069.
Vig, S. (2022). Intellectual Property Rights and the Metaverse: An Indian Perspective. Journal of World Intellectual Property. https://doi.org/10.1111/jwip.12249
World Trade Organization. (2001). Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Vartika Goyal (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
Authors retain copyright of their work and grant the International Journal of Law, Culture & Society (IJLCS) the right of first publication. All published articles are distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, adaptation, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and source are properly credited. Authors are responsible for ensuring that submitted work is original and does not infringe the rights of others.
