The Centre is needlessly apologetic about our IPR laws. It set up an IPR ‘think tank’ in October 2014, perhaps responding to a view that our IPRs are not strong enough to invite foreign investment. Last January, Prime Minister Modi and President Obama issued a joint statement which “committed to establish an annual high-level Intellectual Property Working Group”. In November, Modi said in Singapore that “India is committed to protect the intellectual property rights of all innovators”. And now, the Cabinet is expected to discuss a ‘new IPR policy’ in a month.

It appears that MNCs have lobbied with world governments after two setbacks in 2013. In April that year, the Supreme Court struck down a patent for Novartis’ leukemia drug, Glivec, citing Section 3 (d) of the Patents Act which disallows superficial innovation. In March 2013, the Intellectual Property Appellate Board awarded Natco Pharma a compulsory licence to make and sell a cheaper version of Bayer’s anti-cancer drug, Nexavar. The MNCs’ gripe against India’s patent law is unjustified. In the book, Politics Trumps Economics , Sunil Mani points out that the share of foreign companies in business enterprise R&D expenditure increased from 10 per cent in 2003 to 29 per cent in 2011. What’s more, “with tighter TRIPS-compliant IPR regime put in place by India, from 2005 onwards, the possibility of spill-overs to the domestic economy from the R&D done by these foreign companies stands greatly diminished”, he says. In other words, the MNCs are doing pretty well for themselves.

Our patent law merely deploys the safeguards allowed in TRIPS to protect domestic consumers and industry. It is considered a model for the developing world. It enabled India to supply cheap anti-HIV drugs to South Africa. Why dismantle this system? India arguably conceded enough at the Nairobi ministerial. Our IPRs laws should be non-negotiable.

Senior Deputy Editor

Related Topics