resourcestripsanita ramanna

7/25/2019 ResourcesTRIPSanita Ramanna

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/resourcestripsanita-ramanna 1/34

India’s Patent Policy and Negotiations in TRIPs:

Future Options for India and other Developing Countries

Dr. Anitha Ramanna•

It is an opportune moment for India and other developing countries to review

and consolidate their strategies on intellectual property rights in the WTO. Recent

developments relating to TRIPs have witnessed some important gains for developing

countries. In the Doha WTO Ministerial, developing countries were ale to ensure

that a Declaration on TRIPs and Pulic !ealth was passed. In "##$ within the %&O,

countries agreed on the International Treaty on Plant 'enetic Resources for %ood and

&griculture that aims to promote access to crops important for food security and

transfer of enefits from the commercialisation of crops ac( to farmers. Within and

outside the WTO, there is a greater acceptance that TRIPs must e implemented in

accordance with the )onvention on *iological Diversity +)*D, and that the

importance of traditional (nowledge should e recogni-ed. These developments

provide the momentum upon which developing countries can uild future strategies.

Indias domestic policy and international negotiations on one aspect of IPRs,

patents, provides important lessons for formulating a comprehensive negotiating

strategy on TRIPs. Indias negotiating history shows that while trade threats were

important in leading India to initiate changes in its policy gloally, domestic level

policy change too( place only with the moili-ation of a domestic constituency that

favoured change. /upport from developing countries, disunity among advanced

nations and the role of 0'Os were also factors that enaled India to promote its

interests in the negotiations. Indias position in the field of patents, in terms of patent

applications reveals that few domestic firms have the capacity to transform potential

into patent activity at least in the short1term. Policy and negotiating strategies must 2isiting Research &ssociate, Indira 'andhi Institute of Development Research, Mumai



therefore focus on ensuring access for the ma3ority. This potential for promoting

Indias interests e4ists currently for re1evaluating TRIPs. There is a strong domestic

constituency that would enefit from lin(ing the right to health with TRIPs. /upport

also e4ists from important developing countries and 0'Os. In addition, there is

disunity among advanced nations on these issues.

This paper attempts to point out that India and other developing countries

currently have the opportunity to scale ac( the negative implications of TRIPs on

their economies. They should negotiate for a restriction of IPRs y lin(ing the right to

health with TRIPs, argue for provisions for price control and not rely only on

compulsory licenses, and restrictions on the scope of patentaility rather than

narrowing the field to 'I e4tension, recognition of T5, and enefit sharing.

The paper is divided into the following sections6 Part I provides a history of

Indias patent policy and its position on patents y studying recent patent applications.

Part II reviews Indias negotiations in the 7ruguay Round and attempts to analy-e the

scope for promoting Indias interests. Part III outlines strategy options for India and

other developing countries for future TRIPs negotiations.

I.

India’s Patent Policy

India has a long history of patent policy which was defined after enormous

study. Indias approach to patents differs from those of industriali-ed countries in that

India sees patents as a tool of pulic policy. Indias policy is eing challenged y the

demand to reform IPR laws to conform to TRIPs. This section provides an overview

of Indias patent policy.



India’s Patent Policy preTRIPs

Indias patent policy focused on alancing developmental concerns with the

need for promoting innovations. India viewed patents as a tool for economic

development and restricted the scope and term of patents. The sentiment in India on

the issue of patents, especially on pharmaceuticals, is illustrated y an oft18uoted

statement made y Indira 'andhi at the World !ealth &ssemly in $9:"6

;The idea of a better-ordered world is one in which medical discoveries will be

free of patents and there will be no profiteering from life and death”.1

Patent policy has a long history in India, dating ac( to $:<=, ut the actual

attention of policyma(ers towards patents egan right after Independence. Two e4pert

committees were estalished in independent India to study patents and provide

suggestions on the type of patent system that India should implement. These

committees conducted an e4tensive survey of patents in India. The Patent >n8uiry

)ommittee +$9?:1<# reported that, ;the Indian patent system has failed in its main

purpose, namely to stimulate inventions among Indians and to encourage the

development and e4ploitation of new inventions for industrial purposes in the country

so as to secure the enefits thereof to the largest section of the pulic.@ " The second

committee (nown as the &yyangar )ommittee +$9<A1<9 noted that foreign patentees

were ac8uiring patents not ;in the interests of the economy of the country granting the

patent or with a view to manufacture there ut with the o3ect of protecting an e4port

mar(et from competition from rival manufacturers particularly those in other parts of

the world@. Thus India, ;is deprived of getting, in many cases, goodsBat cheaper

prices from alternative sources ecause of the patent protection granted in India. C The

reports concluded that foreigners held :#19# of the patents in India and were

e4ploiting the system to achieve monopolistic control of the mar(et?

. The committees



therefore suggested that a patent system that focused on access to resources at lower

prices would e eneficial to India. This was in tune with the science and technology

mission of developing indigenous technology and fostering RED activities in areas of

national significance. The Patent &ct of $9A#, the current legislation on patents in

India, was ased on the recommendations of these committees. The main aim in India

was to ensure that patents did not lead to monopoly y foreign companies nor lead to

high prices for medicines and food items. The patent law of $9A# +the current law

restricts the field of patentaility, only grants process and not product patents in food,

pharmaceutical and chemical fields, restricts the term of patents and has an elaorate

system of licenses to ensure that patents are wor(ed in India. The act found support

among domestic firms and various political parties in India.

The Indian Patents !ct" #$%&

The Indian patents &ct has een hailed as model legislation for developing

countries. It see(s to alance oth the need for granting rewards for inventors while

ensuring that IndiaFs developmental needs are not ignored.

The following essential features of the &ct reveal the asic patents policy of

India6<

$. 'eneral Principle of Patent 'rant +a that patents are granted to encourage

inventions and to secure that the inventions are wor(ed in India on a commercial

scale and to the fullest e4tent that is reasonaly practicale without under delayG

and + that they a not granted merely to enale patentees to en3oy a monopoly

for the importation of the patented articleH.

". Principle of 0ational Treatment 1 no limitations or restrictions on foreigners in

applying for or otaining patents in India.

C. Inventions 0ot Patentale 1 The following are not patentale6



+a &n invention which is frivolous or which claims anything oviously contrary

to will estalished natural lawsG

+ &n invention the primary or intended use of which would e contrary to law

or morality or in3urious to pulic health

+c The mere discovery of a scientific principle or the formulation of an astract

theory

+d The mere discovery of any new property or new use for a (nown sustance or

of the mere use of a (nown process, machine or apparatus unless such (nown

process results in a new product or employs at last one new reactant

+e & sustance otained y a mere admi4ture resulting only in aggregation of

the properties of the compounds thereof or a process for producing such

sustanceG

+f The mere arrangement or re1arrangement or duplication of (nown devices

each functioning independently of one another in a (nown wayG

+g & method or process of testing applicale during the process of manufacture

for rendering the machine, apparatus, or other e8uipment more efficient or for

the improvement or control of manufactureG

+h & method of agriculture or horticulture

+i &ny process for the medicinal, surgical, curative, prophylactic or other

treatment of human eings or any process for a similar treatment of animals or

plants to render them free of disease or to increase their economic value or that

of their productsH.

?. /earch for 0ovelty 1 compulsory search is re8uired e4tending to prior

pulications not only in India ut also in any other part of the world.



<. Patentaility of Inventions in the &rea of )hemicals, %ood and Drugs 1 In case of

inventions relating to sustances intended for use as food, drug or medicines or

sustances produced y chemical process, Patentaility will e limited to claims

for the methods or processes of manufacture only.

=. Term of Patent 1 The term of the patent in $? years from the date of patenting,

i.e., the date of filling the complete specification. In the case of inventions in the

field of food, drug or medicine, the term will e A years from the date of filing or

< years from the date of sealing, whichever is shorter.

A. icensing Provisions 1 " types of licenses6 compulsory licenses and license of

rights. )ompulsory licenses enaling another party to wor( the patent can e

applied for any time after the e4piry of three years from the date of sealing of the

patent.

In the area of food, drug, medicine or chemical, after the e4piry of three years

from the date of patent grant, they shall e endorsed with the word Hicense of

RightH. These enale any interested person as a matter of right to e entitled to

wor( such patents.

:. Royalties 1 In the case of patents related to food, drug or medicines the royalty

reserved to the patentee under a license shall not e4ceed ? of the net e41factory

sale price in ul( of the patented article.

9. 7se of Patented Inventions y the 'overnment 1 In order to ensure that scarcity

of a patented article doesnFt arise and lead to high prices, the government is

vested with powers to ma(e use of or e4ercise any patented invention merely for

its own purpose.

$#. &ppeals 1 In all cases, appeals will e only with the !igh )ourt.



India’s Patent Policy and TRIPs

The philosophy of Indias Patent &ct of $9A# varies enormously from the

framewor( eing estalished under TRIPs. There are several (nowledge and

information areas which India considers unpatentale. India has a large community of

scientists and researchers among whom pulication rather than gaining patents has

een a concern. '.2. Rama(rishna, )hairman of the Disinvestment )ommission

points out that in India, ;We +Indians are accustomed to the notion that (nowledge is

free. Our whole orientation has to change from one that stresses intellectual

attainment to one that protects intellectual property.@= Industrialised nations conceive

of patents as a fundamental right comparale to the right of physical property, whereas

developing nations view it as ;fundamentally as an economic policy 8uestion.@A %rom

the perspective of developed countries, intellectual property is a private right that should

e protected as any other tangile property, ut for developing nations, intellectual

property is a pulic good that should e used to promote economic development.: The

following tale illustrates the asic differences etween Indias patent system and TRIPs6



Tale $J

)omparison of Indias Patent &ct and TRIPs

Indian Patent &ct of $9A# TRIPs

Only process not product patents in food,medicines, chemicals

Process and product patents in almost all fields of technology

Term of patents $? yearsG <1A in chemicals, drugs Term of patents "# years

)ompulsory licensing and license of right imited compulsory licensing, no license of right

/everal areas e4cluded from patents +method of

agriculture, any process for medicinal surgical or other treatment of humans, or similar treatment of

animals and plants to render them free of disease or increase economic value of products

&lmost all fields of technology patentale. Only

area conclusively e4cluded from patentaility is plant varietiesG deate regarding some areas in

agriculture and iotechnology

'overnment allowed to use patented invention to prevent scarcity

2ery limited scope for governments to use patentedinventions

J/ource6 &dapted from Patent Office Technical /ociety, Indian Patent Act, 1!" and R#les,

$99$ and M2IRD), $ATT Agreements% Res#lts of the &r#g#a' Ro#nd, World Trade )entre,Kanuary $99<

These differences in patent systems led to disputes in the '&TT negotiations on

the inclusion of IPRs in the WTO. The type of patent system that India estalished was

clearly against the gloal IP regime promoted y the 7/. The main o3ection of the 7/

is to the provision in IndiaFs patent law that allows for process ut not product patents in

the area of food, drug or medicine. The 7nited /tates terms the activities of India to find

alternative processes as ;piracy@. &ccording to the 7/, Indian firms are copying

technology developed y advanced nations. This is leading to large1scale losses for the

7/. The Pharmaceutical industry in the 7/ has een especially vocal on this issue.

Phrma, the association that represents 7/ ased pharmaceutical companies points out,

;*ased on the refusal of the 'overnment to provide pharmaceutical patent protection,



India has ecome a haven for ul( pharmaceutical manufacturers who pirate the

intellectual property of the worlds research1 ased pharmaceutical industry.@9

II.

India’s Negotiations on TRIPs

Indias negotiating position within TRIPs and its policy on patents have

undergone enormous shifts. India was one of the most vocal opponents of TRIPs and

there was strong domestic support for Indias restricted system of patents for decades.

Recently, India has revised its patent policy to conform to TRIPs and agreed to

include IPR in the WTO. >4ternal trade threats were one of the factors that promoted

this change, ut the policy shift too( place only with changes among actors within

India. &n interplay of domestic and international factors influence Indias aility to

promote its interests in international negotiations. In order to formulate strategies for the

future, it is important to analy-e the role of these factors in prior negotiations. When was

India ale to put forth its position in the TRIPs negotiations and when did it fail to do soL

This section traces the history of Indias negotiations on intellectual property rights

eginning with the 7ruguay Round and attempts to draw lessons for future policy.

Opposing IPRs in '!TT

India and *ra-il played a (ey role in the initial stages in preventing the

inclusion of IPRs in '&TT. The 7nited /tates had attempted to promote the inclusion of

intellectual property rights through a proposal for an anti1counterfeiting code within the

'&TT framewor( right from $9:". India along with *ra-il was ale to counter this

move to some e4tent y arguing that '&TTs 3urisdiction was limited to tangile goods

and that '&TT lac(ed the legal competence to address an issue within the IP area. They

contended that counterfeit goods elonged to the e4clusive 3urisdiction of WIPO.

+/tewart, p. ""=$ &lthough in $9:= India and *ra-il could not prevent the inclusion of



IPRs in the Ministerial Declaration, until $9:: they could ensure that no sustantive

IPRs were part of '&TT.

/everal developing countries argued vehemently that not only were counterfeit

trademar(ed goods eyond the '&TTs authority, ut also '&TT could not e4tend itself

to issues regarding copyrights and patents ecause these protections covered intangile

o3ects. *ra-il sumitted a proposal on ehalf of nine other countries$# including India

for the new round of negotiations specifically e4cluding IPRs and /ervices. Their

inaility to prevent the inclusion of IPRs in the Ministerial Declaration arose from the

fact the 7/ and Kapan egan promoting IPRs even more strongly and the 7/ also also

egan to use ilateral pressure to wea(en developing country opposition. In $9:< 7/

first initiated action against 5orea, and according to one author, one o3ective of this was

to separate 5orea from 3oining developing country opposition to the '&TT initiative on

IPRs. +Ryan In addition as recounted y Kayashree Watal, a negotiator for India, the "<

hardliner developing countries shran( to $#. Developing nations agreed to the

Ministerial Declaration with the e4pectation that they could limit negotiations to trade in

counterfeit goods and other trade1related aspects.

*ut right until $9:: India and other developing countries were ale to prevent a

ma3or role for IPRs in '&TT. India, *ra-il and other developing nations continued to

assert that only trade in counterfeit goods should e the focus of discussions in the

'&TT meetings in $9:A and $9::. Right up till this mid1term meeting, India and *ra-il

were the leading opponents against negotiation of sustantive aspects of IPRs. Infact,

India and *ra-il were (ey actors in loc(ing an agreement on discussing sustantive

intellectual property rights at the Mid1Term Meeting. Much(und Duey, a memer of

the Indian delegation during these meetings, e4plained the stance of India and

developing nations in the following manner, ;During the initial years India played a



leading role in resisting the move to launch the new round and withstanding 0orthern

pressure. The tenuous unity of the developing countries was maintained almost until the

end of the mid1term review in Montreal in Decemer $9::. India until the last days of

the resumed mid1term review session firmly adhered to the position that '&TT wasnt

the forum to discuss norms and standards of IPR protection nor could higher level of IPR

e part of a lieral multilateral trading system.@$$

It is important to understand how developing countries were ale to some e4tent

to assert their interests in these years. One factor was the unity among developing

countries at this time. &nother important factor that one must focus on is that in Indias

case there was a strong domestic constituency that supported Indias Patent &ct of $9A#.

Indian Industry to a great e4tent wanted to retain the essential features of Indias Patent

&ct and even opposed India 3oining the Paris )onvention inspite of trade pressure. India

resisted attempts in the :#s y the 7/ to place pressure on India to 3oin the Paris

)onvention and industry odies were of the view that India should not 3oin the

)onvention. In $9:= India deated the option of 3oining the Paris )onvention. &t this

time reportedly IDM& +Indian Drug Manufacturers &ssociation played an important

role in pointing out the negative impact of the )onvention on India. $" In $9:: a

reference to India 3oining the Paris )onvention provo(ed reactions in Parliament on

the negative implications for industrial development if India ecame a party to the

treaty.$C The stance of industry odies was also made clear in Parliament when the

Minister of /tate for Industrial Development pointed out that %I))I +%ederation of

India )hamers of )ommerce and Industry, the most influential representative of

Indian industry at the time, had ta(en the position in $9:= that India should not 3oin

the Paris )onvention.$? &//O)!&M +&ssociated )hamers of )ommerce and

Industry, another industry ody in India, however, too( the view in $9:= that India



should 3oin the Paris )onvention reflecting internal changes that too( place within

&//O)!&M. In $9:=, &//O)!&M underwent enormous transformations from

eing a representative not only of industry ut also trade interests and opened itself up

for the first time to overseas memership.$< The eginning of such fissures to some

e4tent could e4plain a wea(ing of Indias position in $9:=.

(hift in India’s Negotiating Position

In $9:9 India made a suprising move gave up its opposition to including IPRs in

the negotiations. In an &pril meeting in 'eneva in $9:9, India made a shift in policy and

agreed to include IPRs in the negotiations. IndiaFs aout turn on the issues was due

largely in part to pressure from the 7/. &nalysts have drawn lin(ages etween the threat

of 7/ special C#$ law against India and IndiaFs charge of stance on the issue in '&TT. .$=

&t the time when India made the switch the Times of India reported that HIndia

reportedly decided against ta(ing a firm stand on issue lest the 7nited /tates invo(ed

&rticle C#$ to retaliate.H$A *M in the >conomic and Political wee(ly wrote that India

compromised its position on IPR in the hope that it would case the direct 7/ pressure on

which India food eing designated Hunfair traderH in the super C#$ process.$: >ric

Wolfhard writes that HIn retrospect IndiaFs &pril accession seems merely strategic. $9

>laorating on the reasons for IndiaFs change of position he points out that at the time

India was a victim of a series of unilateral measures introduced y the 7/ to deal with

some of the ma3or developing countries."# !e also notes that India re8uired support from

7/ to orrow from IM% and World *an( to meet the depleting foreign e4change crises

caused during the 'ulf war."$

Trade pressure through /pecial C#$ is an important factor that e4plained Indias

shift in position. 7/ trade pressure also led to divisions within developing coutnries.

/everal related e4planations have also een forwarded as reasons for Indias change in



position has een maintained y India. & discussion in the 7ruguay Round does not

commit us to anything. There has not een a shift in our position, ut there has een a

shift in the negotiating stand.@"? On Kuly ":, $9:9 the India 'overnment issued a Press

statement HIntellectual Property Rights1/tandards and Principles concerning "<

&vailaility, scope and 7se 1 The India 2iew.H In order to e4plain its stance on the

7ruguay round negotiations, the Indian government too( the position in this paper that

tal(s in 7ruguay would e listed to Htrade1related intellectual property rightH which

comprises only the restrictive and anti1 competitive practices of the 1111 of intellectual

property rights."<

Inspite of IndiaFs turn around in '&TT India attempted to ensure that there would

only e a narrow focus on IPRs. India was the first developing country to sumit views

on each of the sustantive issues and in this document attempted to stress that only trade

related aspects would e discussed. It emphasised that only restrictive and anti1

competitive practices could e considered trade related. The sumission e4pressed the

view that only those practices that distorted international trade should e the su3ect to

negotiation."= India emphasi-ed the need for more favourale treatment for developing

countries in the area of patents and trademar(sG and proposed that such countries should

remain free to adapt their domestic legislation to their economic development and pulic

interest needs."A India also argued that concepts such as most favoured nation and

national treatment could not apply to intellectual property ecause these concepts were

applicale to goods rather than the right of persons, rights that the intellectual property

conventions protect.": /umissions were made y several other developing and

developed countries, resulting in numerous proposals y the end of $9:9. Developing

nations were ale to gain one concession at this time as consensus was reached that less

developed countries should e allowed time to ma(e transitions to conform to TRIPs."9



Inspite of ilateral and multilateral trade pressure, India did not revise its

patent laws according to TRIPs from $99?1$99: due to opposition from actors that

enefited from the e4isting patent structure. The government, under e4ternal pressure

and the force of actors that favored change, attempted to pass a legislation at this time

to raise patent protection in India in the form of a Patent &mendment *ill in $99?19<.

!owever, this move failed due to the enormous resistance that emerged against patent

reform. Domestic industry in India egan to moili-e to counter Indias policy shift in

gloal negotiations on IPRs. Pharmaceutical companies and other interests estalished

an organi-ation to loy the government against changing patent laws. In $9::, the

0ational Wor(ing 'roup on Patent aws was estalished in India.C# )omposed of

e4perts from science, law and health industries, the loy was supported y certain

industry groups and was influential at the governmental level in fostering resistance

against change. It effectively pointed out the implications of raising patent standards

on drug prices, health care and domestic industrial development. India therefore

conformed to 7/ trade pressure in terms of negotiating on IPR in '&TT, ut there

was no ma3or domestic constituency that favored change at this time.

Do)estic Policy Change

& domestic policy shift enaled India to revise its patent laws in $99:199. The

change occurred on various levels. %irstly, the impact of lieral ideas regarding

economic reforms slowly led to a greater westerni-ed notion of intellectual property

rights on the part of political parties and industry groups. With the initiation of

economic lierali-ation in $99$, sections of the )ongress Party egan favoring

changes in patent laws. The *KP after coming to power in $99:, aandoned its

opposition to patent reform and adopted a pro1patent position. &lthough opposition to

reform e4isted within oth the parties, the *KP and the )ongress eventually ensured



the dominance of groups within their parties and affiliations that favored change on

patents.C$

)losely related to this pro1reform element with political parties was the rise of

a more ;modern@ and professionally managed segment of industry in India. The

gradual emergence of a technologically more advanced segment among industrial

companies was an important factor in promoting economic lierali-ation in India. C" In

tune with this pro1reform policy, important industry odies in the $99#s egan to

advocate the need for greater patent protection in India. The )onfederation of Indian

Industry +)II too( the position in its statements efore the 'u3ral )ommittee +a

committee estalished y the Indian Parliament to solicit views and prepare a report

on the impact of the WTO &greement on India that India was not ale to get relevant

technology due to the asence of product patents.CC &//O)!&M +&ssociated

)hamers of )ommerce and Industry stressed efore the 'u3ral )ommittee that

India needed to strengthen patent laws in order to attract foreign direct investment.C?

The industry odies egan to support the ill to amend patent laws in conformity with

TRIPs. The )II, placed on its wish list for the government the passing of the patent

ill to conform to TRIPs.C< In $99A, the %ederation of Indian )hamers of Industry

and )ommerce +%I))I estalished the International Institute of Intellectual Property

Development +IIPD. This institute aims at promoting the patenting culture amongst

the scientific and technical community and use IPR as a strategic tool in forwarding

usiness interests. It loudly promotes the slogan ;Patent or [email protected]=

& component of this change within industry odies arose from some domestic

firms who prospered under the e4isting patent structure, ut came to visuali-e significant

avenues for profit from the new patent regime. Dr. Reddys laoratories, which has een

preparing for the change in patent policy since $9:?, elieves that it has a competitive



edge in new drug discovery which will lead to its growth under the revised policy. CA

Industry heads from Rana4y, a ma3or pharmaceutical firm e4pressed that, ;India

currently has a deficient system as far as providing intellectual protection goes, therefore

we see the need for a radical changeB.It is a myopic view that multinationals will

dominate the industry, as players are emerging at all [email protected]: Interviews with several

Indian and M0) susidiary firms and two industry associations conducted y an3ouw

revealed a shift in the deate on patents in India around $99A19:. )ompared to 3ust a

year efore she notes, ;0o one any longer e4pressed dout that India would, in fact, e

in compliance with WTO intellectual property re8uirements when deadlines were

reachedBB.@, and that, ;recent interviews indicated that there was an entirely new

deate underway in the country on whether India should voluntarily s(ip the end of the

period under >MR and go straight for product patents.@C9

&nother domestic constituency promoting change emerged from top Indian

research and scientific institutes that felt they could enefit from patents rather than

pulications. The )ouncil of /cientific and Industrial Research +)/IR with its chain of

?# laoratories reflects this more gloally mar(et oriented position focusing on ac8uiring

patents. Prime Minister &tal *ehari 2a3payee in Kanuary $999 stated, ;I compliment

)/IR for creating an intellectual climate supportive of the early passage of the ill to

amend the Patents &ct@.?# This atmosphere emerged oth from )/IRs role in promting

patent activity and from countering the io1piracy argument against increasing patent

protection in India. &n3i Reddy, chairman of Dr. Reddys as, states that Mashel(ar,

head of )/IR, ;Bnot only inspired scientists in )/IR to create wealth y harnessing

intellectual property, ut was also an inspiration for all of us in the industry.@?$ The

)/IRs instrumental role in defeating the 7/ patent on turmeric turned around the deate

on the implications of patents on traditional (nowledge, and this was crucial for



promoting changes in patent policy. ?"

Present6 This shift enaled various domestic policy changes. India also

changed its negotiating strategy within TRIPs.

III.

India’s Patent Position

Recent changes in Indias patent policy have led to some review of Indias

position on patents. In determining how India and other developing countries should

negotiate in the WTO, it is important to understand where India stands in terms of

patents. The recent surge in patent applications in India in the post1$99< period, which

has not received attention in policy analysis, provides important data for evaluating

the potential for domestic actors to ad3ust to the new patent regime. The numer of

patent applications filed in the Indian Patent Office has risen appro4imately $<# in

$99A19: from $99C19?, crossing the $#,### mar( for the first time in $99A19: ?C. &

focus on these patent applications reveals that some domestic actors would e ale to

gain from the new regime y increasing their patent activity, while a ma3ority of the

actors would not e ale to raise their patent filings, at least in the short term. Policy

must therefore e redirected from a focus on increasing the patent activity of the few,

to ensuring access for the ma3ority.

Patent applications in India in the post1$99< period provide important, if not

comprehensive, indicators of the li(ely impact of the policy reforms. There has een a

significant increase in patent applications in India since $99?19< as a result of the

policy changes ta(ing place in tune with the WTO.

%igure $ denotes patent applications in India from $9A#1"##$6



(ig#re 1% Patent Applications in India 1!"-)""1J

Patent Applications in India

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

1 9 7 0

1 9 7 1

1 9 7 2

1 9 7 3

1 9 7 4

1 9 7 5

1 9 7 6

1 9 7 7

1 9 7 8

1 9 7 9

1 9 8 0

1 9 8 1

1 9 8 2

1 9 8 3

1 9 8 4

1 9 8 5

1 9 8 6

1 9 8 7

1 9 8 8

1 9 8 9

1 9 9 0

1 9 9 1

1 9 9 2

1 9 9 3

1 9 9 4

1 9 9 5

1 9 9 6

1 9 9 7

1 9 9 8

1 9 9 9

2 0 0 0

2 0 0 1

Year

N o . o f P a t e n t s

/ource6 Prauddha 'anguli, 'earing 7p for Patents the Indian /cenario+$99:,p."$Gand for the years9:1"##$ fromTI%&) +$99: updated "##",Dataase on Patent &pplications filed in India.

%rom $9A# till aout $99?19<, patent applications in India were steady

averaging aout C,<## per year. Patent applications declined from <$## patents filed

in $9A#1A$ to an average of aout C<## applications filed annually etween $9:<1

$99". In the post1$99< period patent applications are more than doule than those of

previous years. The increase in patent applications is the result of changes in Indias

patent policy. The provision in Indias Patent &ct of $9A# that no product patents on

food and drugs could e granted in India had discouraged foreign applicants from

filing in India.?? India has now revised its law to allow applications on product

patents. 7nder TRIPs India must grant product patents in agrochemical and

pharmaceutical fields y "##<. The increase in patent applications in this period

represents, to some e4tent, the interest of firms in filing patents in India in fields that

were not patentale under the $9A# &ct. This is clear from the fact that applications



have egun coming into India under the new provisions of the Patent &mendment &ct

of $999 that allowed applications for product patents. These applications were to e

put into a mailo4 and were to e e4amined in "##? to determine whether product

patents should e granted on them in "##<. These applications are designated as

WTO applications y the Indian Patent Office and are eing listed in the 'a-ette as

regular patent applications. &lthough no pulic figures are availale on the numer of

applications that have come into India through this route, unofficial estimates put the

figure at over C,###?<. The Mumai office alone has received over C## such

applications to date?=.

)onvention applications have also increased and are li(ely to further increase

with India 3oining the Patent )ooperation Treaty +P)T. India e4tended the numer

of convention countries from A: to $A# in $99: and =$?9 convention applications

were filed in $99:199?A. The &nnual Report of the Patent Office points out that

according to availale records from Decemer $99: to C$ March $999, out of "C,$"$

international applications received y WIPO the numer of international applications

in which India was designated was =,9:A contriuting appro4imately C#."$ of the

total numer during this period.?: It also e4plains the fact that although patent

applications decline from $#,$<< in $99A19: to :,9<? in $99:199 this is due to the

time period provided y the P)T and not due to a decline in interest in patent filing in

India. &ccording to the &nnual Report of the Patent Office, ;the reduction in the

numer of applications is most proaly due to accession to the P)T@, ?9 indicating

that once the waiting period under the P)T e4pires, there would e a rise in the patent

applications in India.

The first aspect of this rise in patent applications is that there is a significant

increase in the ratio of foreign to domestic applications in the post1$99< period as



compared to previous years. The rise in patent applications in the post1$99< period is

largely due to the increase in patent applications y foreign rather than domestic

applications. %igure " shows domestic and foreign applications in India etween

$9A#1$9996

(ig#re )% Domestic and (oreign Patent Applications in India, 1!"-1J

/ource6 )ompiled from )ontroller 'eneral of Patents, Designs and Trademar(s +various years,

Ann#al Reports and &. R. Ra3eshwari, Indian Patent *tatistics+An Anal'sis, /cientometrics, vol. C=,

no.$, $99=, p. $$#.

It is clear that foreign actors would e ale to ta(e advantage of the new patent

scenario on a much larger and much faster scale than domestic actors. While

arguments are made that India has time to ad3ust to the new scenario ecause product

patents dont have to e granted until "##<, the reality is that foreign firms have

egun rapidly increasing their patent applications in India since $99<. In the years

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

19

70-

71

19

75-

76

19

80-

81

19

84-

85

19

85-

86

19

86-

87

19

87-

88

19

98-

89

19

89-

90

19

90-

91

19

91-

92

19

92-

93

19

93-

94

19

94-

95

19

95-

96

19

96-

97

19

97-

98

19

98-

99

Year

N u m b e r o f A p p l i c a t i o n s

Domestic

Foreign



immediately following implementation of reforms, these applications would already

e in line to ta(e advantage of the new regime. &ny policy strategy must ta(e into

account this difference in foreign and domestic patent activity in the years shortly

following the reforms and must focus not only on raising patent applications ut also

on ensuring access. Domestic actors would re8uire access to technology and

resources, more of which would come under patent protection, particularly y foreign

firms in the period immediately following reforms.

While foreign patent applications far outweigh Indian patent applications,

there is a rising trend in domestic patent applications. %igure C represents the trends in

Indian patent applications from $9A#1$999. Indians filed ","?A patent applications in

$99:199 as compared to $,9"= applications in $99A19:, representing aout a $A

increase<#. Proponents of the current strategy point to this increase as evidence of the

aility of domestic actors to ta(e advantage of the new patent regime. This, however,

ignores the disparity etween domestic firms that e4ists within this overall rise in

patent activity.

The domestic patent applications clearly point to a disparity etween domestic firms

that increase their patent applications and those that do not increase their patent filings

significantly. While pro1patent and anti1patent loies in India have een divided on

whether domestic firms have the capacity to file patent applications or not, the data

shows that some firms would e ale to transform their potential into greater patent

activity, while a ma3ority may not. %igure ? focuses on patent applications y

selected<$ domestic firms. The firms include susidiaries of foreign companies and

some of these firms do have foreign collaorations. This figure represents the top :firms out of ?< that were selected. Their patent applications from $99<1$999 are

shown.

(ig#re % Patent Applications b' Domestic (irms, 1-)""1



Figure 4: Patent Applications by Selected Dome stic Firm s, !!"#$%%

666

113

4161

95

41

105

54

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Hindus tan L Ranba! "i#$a Dabur %ata Lu#in Lab &anacea

'io

La(s)mi *

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

%ota$

J/ource6 )alculated from TI%&) +$99: updated "##", Database on Patent Applications (iled in India

The graph indicates that !industan ever is the only firm with a large numer of patent

applications with the other firms far ehind in terms of total numers.

%igure <6 Patent &pplications y /elected Multinational %irms,

$99<1"##$J



Figure ": Patent Application by Selected &ultinational Firms , !!"#$%%

139

903

261

222

448

342

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

1000

Nestle Siemens Du Pont Dow Bayer Pfzer

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

otal

J/ource6 )alculated from TI%&) +$99: updated "##", Database on Patent Applications (iled in India

&nother study y the Technology Information and %orecasting &ssessment

)ouncil +TI%&), an autonomous ody under the Department of /cience and

Technology, confirms that few firms account for the rise in domestic patent

applications. In a study of $$$A R E D units +e4cluding pulic sector underta(ings

recogni-ed under the Directory of Recogni-ed In1!ouse R E D units y the

Department of /cientific and Industrial Research, TI%&) found that $<C units held all

the $$"A patent applications filed y these units<". &ppro4imately $C.A of the R E D

units have filed patent applications with the rest of the :=.C not having shown much

interest in patenting.<C

The policy strategy must not only e ased on the increase in patent activity of

domestic actors, ut must also ta(e into account the fact that few firms are ale to

ma(e this transition. The aility of domestic firms to raise their patent activity is

dependent on several factors including6 the aility to shift focus from domestic to

gloal mar(ets, the capaility to collaorate with foreign firms, the capital to invest in

research for innovation and access to legal s(ills necessary to file patents. Initiatingresearch for innovation is ris(y, and the ma3ority of Indian firms dont have the aility

to ma(e the enormous investment and s(ills necessary for patenting. To point to 3ust

one indicator, while the worlds leading firms spend an average of $< of their

turnover on RED, the average RED intensity of Indian firms is aout ". <?& strategy

aimed at developing such capacity in a large numer of domestic actors would e

unrealistic. It would e more practical to focus on access for the ma3ority.

In patent applications among Indian pulic sector and government research

institutions, one institution has een ale to increase its patent applications, with few

others eing ale to follow. The )ouncil of /cientific and Industrial Research +)/IR



which has een active in the patent field in India for several years, has increased its

share of patent applications oth in India and aroad.

%igure = shows )/IRs patent applications etween $99"199<<.

(ig#re /% Patent Applications b' 0*IR, 1)-

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

1992-93 1993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99

Year

N u m b e r o f A p p l i c a t i o

n s

J/ource6 &dapted from 2i3ay 5. Kolly, ;)/IR Profiting from RED@ in 'hosal et al,

World )lass in India6 & )ase of )ompanies in Transformation +Penguin6 India, "##$, p. C#"

The following tale illustrates patent applications y some ma3or pulic sector

institutions gathered from TI%&)s >(aswa dataase on patent applications in

India.

Tale ?J

Patent &pplications y Ma3or Pulic /ectorN'overnment Research Institutions

Institution &pplications in >(aswa Dataase

$99<1"##$

I)&R C#

D*T "A

*&R) $: DRDO #



I)MR $$

I/RO "A

0RD) $=

JThis tale is not comprehensive, as patent applications may have een filed y theseinstitutions under different heads. Many of these institutions are in the process of increasingtheir patent filings. Department of *iotechnologys annual report notes that the *iotechnologyPatent /creening )ommittee considered $C new applications, has so far received =$ patent

applications, and C# applications are at different stages of processing.

I)&R6 Indian )ouncil of &gricultural Research, D*T6 Department of *iotechnology, *&R)6*haha &tomic Research )entre, DRDO6 Defense Research and Development Organi-ation,

I)MR6 Indian )ouncil of Medical Research, I/RO6 Indian /pace Research Organi-ation,

0RD)6 0ational Research and Development )orporation

& study y TI%&) also found that only a few P/7s were actually involved in

filing patent applications. The study was ased on "?# pulic sector underta(ings

listed in Pulic >nterprises /urvey, $99:199. These units filed a total of CA"

applications in $99<199. Twenty1four units filed all the applications and out of the "?,

si4 units had $# or more applications. The following tale depicts the top = P/7s in

the study.

Tale <

P/7s with largest numer of patent applications $99<1$999J

/teel &uthority of India $?C

*harat !eavy >lectricals td. A:Indian Oil )orporation ?:

Indian Petrochemicals ":

!industan &ntiiotics $9

'as &uthority of India td :

J &dapted from TI%&), ;!ow Innovative are P/7sL@ Intellectual Property Rights *ulletin,

vol. =, no. :, &ugust "###, p. $

Pulic sector institutions in India have focused on uilding indigenous

capailities and disseminating it cheaply to industry rather than patenting inventions



and e4ercising ownership rights. This was in tune with the Indian governments policy

that prevailed for decades. The technology statement of $9:C, for e4ample, pointed to

the need for development of indigenous technology, and efficient asorption and

adaptation of imported technology appropriate to national priorities and resources.<=

/cientists and research institutions focused more on pulications than on patents.

The )/IR, founded in $9?", operated for years under this framewor( to uild

indigenous capacity in science and technology, ut made a delierate shift that

enaled it to increase its patent activity. The emergence of economic reform in India

led )/IR las egan to change their outloo(. &fter lierali-ation in $99$, one of the

las initiating the change cut all pro3ects that wouldnt survive in a lieral

environment and focused on how to ecome more self1financing. )/IR laoratories

egan increasing their patent filings after $99:199 coinciding with the shift in )/IR

policy that re8uired the las to earn a significant portion of their udgets through

research sponsored y industries<A. *etween $99"19A the )/IR filed 9"# patents in

India and $"# aroad, filing $$# applications aroad in $99:199 <:. )/IRs aility to

increase its patent activity as compared to other pulic sector institutions arose

ecause it adopted a gloal mar(et focus rather than a domestic oneG initiated a

numer of collaorations with foreign companiesG and promoted a cultural shift away

from pulications and social o3ectives towards patents and commercial goals.

Other pulic sector institutions in India may lac( the capacity to ma(e this

shift not only in terms of RED investment, ut also in possessing sufficient resources

to attract the private sector. The promotion of this strategy also leads to douts aout

the pulic sectors o3ectives. The )DRI, one of the )/IR institutes, for e4ample, is

revising its decades of research on control of parasitic diseases and family planning

towards areas that have greater international mar(et potential, raising 8uestions aout



its mission.<9 It is important to ensure that the pulic sector intervenes in areas where

the private sector may under1invest due to various mar(et failures. & focus only on

transforming the pulic sector to increase patent activity would ignore this goal and

would re8uire attention towards ensuring access to resources and technology.

Teaching and Research Institutes

/ome teaching and research institutions have een ale to increase their patent

applications to some e4tent in the $99<1$999 period. The patent applications y

research and teaching institutions show an increase of aout ?# from $99< to

$99:=#, ut few institutions account for this increase. &ppro4imately =# of the

applications were filed y < of the "9 total institutions surveyed. The following tale

depicts the patent applications filed y Indian research institutions and universities

including IITs6Tale =

Patent &pplications y ResearchNTeaching InstitutionsJ

ear 0umer of &pplications

$99< C<

$99= "9

$99A C:

$99: <#

Total $<"

J/ource6 &dapted from TI%&), ;7niversities %orge &head in Patent %iling@ IPR *ulletin, vol.

<, no. :, &ugust $999, Tale $.

Tale = shows the top < institutions with $< or more applications. The

ma3ority of other institutions had " applications or less.

Tale AJ

Research Institutions with argest 0umer of &pplications

Institution 0umer of &pplications

IIT Madras "=

IIT, 5aragpur ""

II/c $=

IIT Mumai $<

IIT Delhi $<

J &dapted from TI%&), ;7niversities %orge &head in Patent %iling@, Intellectual Property Rights

*ulletin, vol. <, no. :, &ugust $999, p. $.



The academic institutions that have een ale to raise their patent filings have

initiated foreign collaorations, have special cells for relations with industry, and have

some operational mechanisms to ensure patent filings. Teaching institutions face

similar prolems of the pulic sector in general regarding raising patent activity.

(ig#re !% &* patents assigned to India 1"-)"""2

/ource6 &dapted from /u3it *hattacharya E Pradosh 0athG 7sing Patent /tatistics &s a Measure of Techonological &ssertiveness6 & )hina India )omparison

)urrent /cience, 2ol.:C,0o.$,$# Kul "##".

Indias patent position shows that India must focus on ensuring access for the

ma3ority of actors that would not e ale to compete. Indias vast scientific and

research capaility may not translate into patent activity in the short term. & scaling

ac( of TRIPs would e in Indias est interests.

I*.

The review of Indias patent policy and negotiations point to the need for

promoting a rela4ation of TRIPs for India and other developing countries. The current

scenario provides the right moment for India and other developing countries to

promote their interests internationally. The time is right not 3ust for calling for a

modification of TRIPs ut actually demanding a scaling ac( of TRIPs. The

favourale factors include6

$ There is some support from >urope. Differences etween developed countries

have enaled developing countries to ma(e headway. One ma3or factor is the

recent report issued y the 75 commission that clearly points out that raising



IPRs may e detrimental to developing countries. Developing countries can

ta(e advantage of these differences within advanced nations.

" The Doha Declaration provides room for lin(ing concerns outside of IPRs

such as health, human rights and other issues to intellectual property.

C & domestic constituency that could enefit from such lin(ages and rela4ations

in IPR rules now e4ists.

? 7nity etween developing countries and also etween D)s and developing

countries now e4its.

< 0'Os are now in a position to influence the shape of international

negotiatons.

Options for Future Negotiations:

The option of trying to modify TRIPs to suit developing countries interests y

etc. has limited potential. There are various ways in which developing countries

are attempting to do this6

)ompulsory licensing6

>4tension of 'eographical Indications6 India and other developing countries

have een trying to ensure that 'Is are e4tended to products other than wines and

spirits as a means of protecting products such as asmati rice. While this may

provide some mechanism for registering such uni8ue products it is not a strategy

that would protect a large numer of resources. In addition, legal s(ills and money

would e re8uired to ensure the registration of such products and fight cases that

infringe on these names. It also appears that this strategy would re8uire some

argaining in agriculture negotiations. >) and /wit-erland have e4plicitly lin(ed

the 'I discussions to the agriculture negotiations in oth the TRIPs )ouncil and

the )ommittee on &griculture. +*RID'>/ Trade *ioRes, 2ol. " 0o. $?. *ra-il



has also pointed out that 'Is are su3ect to the same limitations as any other IPR

right and that they would not help against preventing io1piracy as they only

protected the product ut not the genetic resources and associated T5 and would

not thus prevent their use and patenting. Others have also e4pressed the concern

that 'Is will only ring new oligations for developing countries while the

enefits will mainly go to developed countries that are etter prepared at the

national level to ta(e advantage of 'I e4tensions that might use 'Is as a trade

arrier against developing countries e4ports. +*RID'>/ Trade *ioRes, 2ol. " 0o.

$?.

Patent Disclosure6 The >) is now willing to discuss this issue ut emphasi-es

that failure to disclose should lie outside patent law and should e regulated y

civil or administrative law. The 7/ has so far strongly opposed the inclusion of

disclosure re8uirements in patent applications, saying it would e incompatile

with TRIPs since it would add another sustantive condition on patentaility

eyond those already provided. +*RID'>/ Trade *ioRes, 2ol. " 0o. $?. The

patent disclosure route would only e a limited measure to chec( iopiracy, ut

would not go far in mitigating the negative implications of IPRs on developing

countries.

*enefit1sharingNprior informed consent6 While preventing negative acts

would not do much for positive protection of resources. The record hasnt een

very encouraging on this.

Recognition of T56 >4tending the IPR logic could have its own implications

especially on sharing of resources.



Rather than calling for a modification of TRIPs, developing countries must

focus on ensuring that the negative impact of TRIPs is dealt with. The strategy can

focus on the following6

• in(ing TRIPs with the Right to !ealth and !uman Rights. )alling for

price control rather than only compulsory licensing

• %ocusing on a strategy that lin(s domestic industries in developing

countries

• >stalishing mechanisms to lin( industry and 0'Os in developing

country processes

• %orming an alternative to the uad in the WTO

• 7tili-ing %&Os new treaty

• Ta(ing larger view of )*D

• in(ing up with developed countries who support the issues

• 7tili-ing the power of 0'Os



$ uoted in Kean an3ow, ;The Introduction of Pharmaceutical Product Patents in India6 !eartless >4ploitation of thePoor and /ufferingL, >conomic 'rowth )enter, ale 7niversity, &ugust "=, $99A, p. $" 'overnment of India +$9?9.'overnment of India, Ministry of Industry and /upply, Patent >n8uiry )ommittee, Interim

Report, &ugust $9?9.C Dhavan, et al +$9:<? %I))I +$99=, p.:.< This section ta(en from /. 2edaraman, no.", pp.?C1<?.

= Ru(mini Parthasarthy, ;The )>Os 'uide to The 0ew Patents Regime@*usiness Today +*omay, /eptemer "", $99:, p.<:A R. 'adow and Richards, eds., Intellectual Property Rights6 'loal )onsensus, 'loal )onflictL, +*oulder, $9::, p. ": Terence P. /tewart, ed., The '&TT 7ruguay Round6 & 0egotiating !istory $9:=1$99", vol. " )ommentary +0etherlands,$99C, p. ""<<9 http6NNwww.phrma.orgNissuesNintlNindia.html$# &rgentina, )ua, >gypt, 0icaragua, 0igeria, Peru, Tan-ania, ugoslavia and India.$$ Much(und Duey, &n 7ne8ual Treaty6 World Trading Order &fter '&TT, +0ew Delhi, $99=, pp. =1A$" Pravin &nand, ;In India, IP %alls on !ard Times@, IP Worldwide MayNKune $99:, www.ipcenter.comN#<#=QIndia.html$C 'overnment of India, Ra3ya /aha Deates, Official Reports, Ra3ya /aha /ecretariat, 0ew Delhi, < Decemer $9::, p.

$$?..$? Iid., p. $$<.$< www.assocham.org, !istory, p. 9.$=

Iid.

$A Times of India +0ew Delhi $A &pril $9:9.

$: uoted in Rit- Manchanda, 0.?9., p. $:.

$9 uoted in Kagdish 5. Patnai(, HIndia and TRIPs 6 some 0otes on the 7ruguay Round 0egotiationsH India 3#arterl'vol. 2III no.? Oct1Dec1$99", p.C".

"# Iid.

"$ Iid.

""

Interview with Kayashree Watal, &pril A, $999"C Duey, n. ?:, p. A"? India, Ra3ya /aha Deates, Official Reports, &pril "A, $9:9"< Kustice 2.5. Iyer et at, n. <$, p. CC1C?.

"= /tandards and Principles )oncerning the &vailaility /cope and 7se of Trade1Related Intellectual Property Rights,

)ommunication from India, '&TT Doc. 0o. MT0.'0'N0'$$NWNCA Kuly $#, $9:9, p. $"A Iid. p. "1$C": /tewart, n. , p. ""A$"9 Iid.,p. ""A"C# Iid., p. A.C$ /ee ;Parties undecided on Patents *ill@, >conomic Times, Decemer "$, $99:G ;*KP >ases /tand on /wadeshi Plan(,*ac(s 'overnment Policy@, Deccan !erald, Kanuary <, $999G ;)ongress /upport to >nsure Passage of Patents *ill@,

>conomic Times, Decemer "C, $99:.C" /ee Pedersen +"###, pp. "=<1":".CC /hri /uodh *hargava of the )II deposing efore the )ommittee stated, ;0oody gives us the right type of technology

ecause of the fear of not getting product patent [email protected]? &//O)!&M gave a written sumission to the )ommittee on the need for phased introduction of product patents in India

and pointed out that it was of the view that in order to attract increasing flow of %oreign Direct Investment, it is important

for India to strengthen the patent system. This will ensure higher interaction in R E D as well as flow of foreign capital.C< ;)IIs Wish ist for the 'overnment@, www.cii.orgC= www.iprindia.orgCA /ee /mith +"###.C: uoted in Pra(ash +$99:.



C9 an3ouw +"##$, p."=9.?# uoted 5anavi +$999, p.<".?$ Iid.?" /ee Ramanna +forthcoming and 5anavi +$999.?CS0ote6 I would li(e to gratefully ac(nowledge the International %ood Policy Research Institute +I%PRI for proving mewith a fellowship that enaled me to underta(e research for this paper. I would especially li(e to than( Phil Pardey and

/uresh *au at I%PRI. I am grateful to &3it 5arni( and /usan /ell for providing insightful comments. I remain solely

responsile for any inconsistencies. &ny opinions e4pressed here personal and are not meant to reflect positions of I%PRI.

TI%&) +%eruary $999, p. =.?? Ra3eshwari +$99=, p.$$#.?< Kustice 5rishna Iyer et al +$99:, p."<.?= Personal )ommunication, Mumai Patent Office?A )ontroller 'eneral of Patents, Designs and Trademar(s, )! th Ann#al Report, $99:199, p. C.?: Iid.?9 )ontroller 'eneral of Patents, Designs and Trademar(s, )! th Ann#al Report, $99:199,p.".<# TI%&) +Decemer $999, p. $.<$ These firms were selected from >conomic Times <## ist of Indias Most 2aluale )ompanies. Out of the top <# firms,

the ones with the largest numer of applications in the TI%&) Dataase on Indian Patent &pplications are shown.<" TI%&) +/eptemer "###, p.$.<C Iid.<?

&lam +$99=, p. "C.<< 0ote6 These figures contrast with figures gathered from TI%&)s >(aswa dataase. )/IR applications calculated

according to this dataase show figures elow the "## mar( in $99<199 and even indicate a decline from $99<1$99A. The

reasons for this discrepancy are not clear. The figures here also include patent applications through consultancy and R E Dthat may not have een included in TI%&)s dataase.<= Iid., p. $:.<A 'anguli +$99:, p. "<.<: Kolly +"##$, p. C#$ and *usiness India, ;)atalyst for )hange@ Kune ":1Kuly $$, $999, p. <$.<9 /ee Kolly +"##$=# TI%&) +&ugust $999, p. $.

resourcestripsanita ramanna

Documents