PATENTS AND INNOVATION: STRIKING A BALANCE BETWEEN PROTECTION AND PUBLIC INTEREST

Introduction

Innovation has been a core principle of the economic growth and societal progress. The emergence of intellectual property rights, particularly the patent law, emerged as a key mechanism that fosters innovation by granting inventors exclusivity over their inventions for a specific period of time. This exclusivity, though, operates within a delicate framework where the protection of private inventors’ interests is dealt with. It must be balanced against the broader public good. The intersection between patent law and public policy often presents a complex, evolving discussion in which the question of how best the patent systems can protect inventors while ensuring the social benefits of technological advances are equitably realized is sprouting.

Defining Patents and Their Role in Innovation

Patent law grants inventors time-limited monopolies over their inventions, intended to arouse creative activity and economic investment in research and development (R&D). Patents are justified by two principal theories: the Incentive Theory and the Public Interest Theory.

The incentive theory posits that creators will devote time and resources for uncertain, high-risk ventures when assured temporary market exclusivity.[1] The disclosure theory ensures that, while inventors have a private benefit, society gains access to the technical details of the invention, allowing researchers to build upon and eventually freely use the knowledge post-patent expiration.[2] However, critics point out that disclosures in patents can be intentionally vague, sometimes limiting true knowledge transfer.[3]

The Economic Rationale Behind Patents

Economic theorists have long argued that intellectual property operates as a public good: non-rivalrous and non-exclusive, making it prone to freeriding. Without protection, inventors risk losing out on the fruits of their labour, discouraging further innovation. A patent, therefore, is seen as a legal measure preventing undersupply by allowing inventors to charge more than the marginal cost, thereby incentivizing continued investment in R&D[4].

Yet the evidence on patents driving general innovation and growth remains debated. Empirical data shows increased patent applications and R&D investment in certain countries and industries with stronger patent regimes, but not universally[5]. The correlation between patents and genuine innovation is further contested, as not all increased patent activity equates to meaningful technological advancement.

The Public Interest: Disclosure and Accessibility

Disclosure Theory

Patents require inventors to publish details of their inventions, fostering the dissemination of knowledge. In theory, such disclosure serves dual functions: it informs competitors, who may innovate further, and ensures that at the end of a patent’s term, the invention is available for public use and improvement[6].

However, many critics argue that patent specifications are often incomplete, vague, or intentionally obscure, limiting the utility of disclosed information[7]. Patent systems can inadvertently perpetuate secrecy, with inventors opting for trade secrets where possible, and patent specifications rarely offering truly replicable insights.

Public Health and Essential Innovations

The intersection of patents with public health, particularly concerning pharmaceuticals and essential technologies, demonstrates how exclusivity can undermine accessibility[8]. Patent protection allows firms to recoup R&D costs but can also drive up prices, making essential drugs inaccessible to large swaths of the population. Governments must often intervene, employing mechanisms like compulsory licensing or price controls, to ensure life-saving treatments are affordably available[9].

These tensions have prompted international debate, particularly in the context of global pandemics, where rapid innovation and widespread access to solutions are equally critical. Flexible IP laws and policies targeting local needs are crucial for projecting a balance that prioritizes both innovation and humanitarian goals[10].

Compulsory Licensing and Patent Exceptions

Compulsory licensing demonstrates how countries can strike a public interest balance; it enables governments or courts to intervene if patented inventions are not widely available or priced excessively. India is renowned for its willingness to grant compulsory licenses in pharmaceuticals, unlike the rarity of these measures in the United States and Europe[11].

Monopoly versus Competition: A Fundamental Debate

Monopoly Incentives

Patent systems deliberately grant monopolies, although temporary. This approach assumes that monopolies incentivize investment and innovation by guaranteeing potential profitability[12]. Yet research suggests that in many sectors, true innovation is driven not by monopoly profits but by the competitive pressure to improve. The competitive market remains a powerful engine for continual advancement, often generating significant innovation even absent patent protection[13].

Moreover, the distinction between “invention” and “innovation” must be considered. While patents may boost the number of inventions and associated applications, this does not necessarily translate into broader innovation—improvements that reshape markets or impact society. Patent systems tend to encourage innovation aimed at commercial exploitation, sometimes at the expense of incremental or complementary advances, especially those arising in small-scale industries or from individual artisans[14].

The Anticommons Problem

The “Tragedy of The Anticommons” describes a scenario where multiple overlapping patent rights create barriers to the development and commercialization of new products[15]. The proliferation of exclusive rights can lead to fragmentation and higher costs, stifling innovation through unnecessary duplication of effort and creating hurdles for inventors seeking to build upon prior work.

Projecting the Balance: Policy Mechanisms and Global Perspectives

Administrative Flexibility and Public Policy

The evolution of patent law reflects a constant tug-of-war between private and public interests. Policymakers must ensure that the regime protects inventors while preventing monopolies from unduly restricting access to essential goods. Properly designed administrative and legal mechanisms should allow for exceptions in times of public need, such as public health emergencies, where compulsory licensing or government intervention is justified by overriding public interest[16].

A robust patent system includes checks and balances: competition laws, price and advertising regulations, and provisions for government use or compulsory licensing. These systems enable innovation, drive economic growth, and protect public welfare[17]. International bodies and governments must reinforce policies that guarantee equitable access, promote inclusive development, and encourage both local and global technological progress[18].

The tension between patent protection and public interest is managed differently worldwide, often shaped by local priorities:

• India’s regime actively balances innovation with access, especially in pharmaceuticals, by enabling interventions like compulsory licensing.
• The US and EU focus more on commercial incentives and strongly enforced monopoly rights, with limited public interest exceptions.
• China and Japan have rapidly evolved their systems, but both are increasingly responsive to global demand for broader, more affordable access to technology.

India’s Patent System

India’s patent regime is governed by the Patents Act, 1970, amended most recently in 2025 and harmonized with global standards after joining TRIPS[19]. Key features include:

• Compulsory Licensing: Strong provisions enable the government or third parties to manufacture patented goods in the public interest, especially medicines[20].
• Exclusions from Patentability: India excludes algorithms, business methods, and medical procedures from patent protection to ensure broad accessibility and avoid undue monopolization of abstract ideas[21]
• Decriminalization of Minor Offenses: The latest 2025 amendments make minor violations liable for monetary penalties rather than imprisonment, emphasizing administrative efficiency over punishment[22].
• Digital Proceedings: All filings, hearings, and appeals are conducted online, streamlining patent management[23]
• Startups and MSME Support: Government programs and international reimbursement schemes encourage domestic innovation and patent filings, especially by small firms and grassroots inventors. Domestic patent filings now constitute over half of total applications—reflecting India’s rising innovation prowess and policy focus on inclusive growth[24].

COMPARISON TABLE [25]
Criteria	India	United States	European Union	China	Japan
GOVERNING LAW	Patents Act, 1970	Patent Act (Title 35 USC)	European Patent Convention (EPC)	Patent Law (2010, 2020)	Patent Act, 1959
PATENT TERM	20 years from filing	20 years from filing	20 years from filing	20 years from filing	20 years from filing
NOVELTY STANDARD	Absolute; global prior art	Absolute; global prior art	Absolute; global prior art	Absolute; global prior art	Absolute; global prior art
EXAMINATION	Substantive, pre-grant opposition	Substantive, post-grant opposition	Substantive, post-grant opposition	Substantive, pre/post grant opposition	Substantive; opposition available
GRACE PERIOD	No grace period	12 months	6 months (limited applicability)	6 months	6 months
PATENTABLE SUBJECT MATTER	Excludes algorithms, business methods, medical methods[1]	Includes software, business methods, medical methods (with limits)	Excludes business methods/discoveries	Recent restrictions on software; broad coverage	Technical requirement for software
COMPULSORY LICENSING	Strong orientation for public interest	Rare, limited (mainly federal use)	Available, rarely implemented	Available, used for pharma	Rare; voluntary licenses more common
ENFORCEMENT	Courts, civil penalties, digital hearings	Courts, jury trials, high damages	Courts, damages by judges	Courts, criminal penalties possible	Courts, injunctions possible

International Collaboration

The global nature of modern innovation necessitates harmonized approaches to patent law. International treaties, like the TRIPS Agreement[26], establish minimum standards for protection yet inclue flexibilities allowing nations to tailor IP policy to local needs—particularly important for developing countries wrestling with access to medicines and technology[27]. Collaborative efforts enable knowledge exchange, facilitate cross-border innovation, and promote competition, thereby balancing exclusivity with accessibility.

Case Studies and Judicial Review

National courts and administrative agencies often play a pivotal role in mediating the balance between patent rights and public interest. The Indian Patents Act, for example, includes rules for compulsory licensing intended to make drugs more accessible while still recognizing the innovator’s contribution[28]. Judicial review has been used to ensure that patent provisions safeguard non-discriminatory accessibility, equitable affordability, and equal availability[29].

Challenges: Inequality, Monopolies, and Local Impact

The Risk of Monopolies

Monopolistic practices resulting from patent protection can exacerbate economic inequality, especially across nations and sectors with disparate access to technology. Powerful industries may entrench barriers, inhibiting local development and innovation in less affluent regions[30]. If patents become tools for rent-seeking rather than genuine advancement, they lose legitimacy as instruments of public good[31].

Addressing Local Needs

For patent regimes to truly serve the public interest, they must accommodate the needs of small and medium enterprises and local innovators, not just multinational corporations. Socially oriented innovation—such as in healthcare, education, and sustainable technology—should be prioritized via policy intervention, streamlined administrative processes, and targeted funding.

Conclusion

There are issues and complications concerning the relationship between patents and innovation. Finding the right balance requires, at least, a legal, economic and ethical perspective. Patents must allow for the incentive to create something original while at the same time, they must not place the objects of innovation beyond the reach of those who will benefit from it. The balancing of the two sides is a continuing challenge and one that shapes the course of intellectual property law across the world. This is an ongoing challenge that, no matter the challenges faced, must continue to be reviewed and will require adjustments in light of the changing needs of the world’s response to innovation.

References

[1] LawTeacher.net, Patent Technology Devices, lawteacher.net, July 2025 (Aug 17, 2025, 9:05 PM), https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/copyright-law/patent-technology-devices.php.

[2] Dr Uday Shankar, Prioritising public interest in patent law of India, SCC Online, June 14, 2021(Aug 17, 2025, 9:05 PM), https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/06/14/patent-law/#:~:text=The%20provisions%20that%20allow%20the,the%20public%20over%20private%20interest..

[3] Supra note 1.

[4] Supra note 1.

[5] Supra note 1.

[6] Supra note 1.

[7] Supra note 1.

[8] Supra note 2.

[9] Bao Tran, Patent Law and Public Policy: Balancing Innovation and Access, PatentPC Blog, July 15, 2024, (Aug 17, 2025, 9:16 PM), https://patentpc.com/blog/patent-law-and-public-policy-balancing-innovation-and-access; Ms Pooja Negi, Global Perspectives on Intellectual Property: Balancing Innovation and Public Interest, Vol 1 Issue 1, CUSB Law Journal, 2025, (Aug 17, 2025, 9:05 PM), https://www.cusb.ac.in/images/dept/law/Journal_vol_1/Ms.%20Pooja%20Negi_Global%20Perspectives%20on%20IP.pdf.

[10] Ms Pooja Negi, Global Perspectives on Intellectual Property: Balancing Innovation and Public Interest, Vol 1 Issue 1, CUSB Law Journal, 2025, (Aug 17, 2025, 9:05 PM), https://www.cusb.ac.in/images/dept/law/Journal_vol_1/Ms.%20Pooja%20Negi_Global%20Perspectives%20on%20IP.pdf.

[11] Ms Pooja Negi, Global Perspectives on Intellectual Property: Balancing Innovation and Public Interest, Vol 1 Issue 1, CUSB Law Journal, 2025, (Aug 17, 2025, 9:05 PM), https://www.cusb.ac.in/images/dept/law/Journal_vol_1/Ms.%20Pooja%20Negi_Global%20Perspectives%20on%20IP.pdf.; Patents Laws and Regulations Report 2025 India, ICLG.com, (Aug 17, 2025, 9:30 PM) https://iclg.com/practice-areas/patents-laws-and-regulations/india; Patent Act (Title 35, United States Code)(Aug 18, 2025, 5:11 PM), https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/35; European Patent Convention

(Aug 18, 2025, 5:13 PM) https://www.epo.org/en/legal/epc.

[12] LawTeacher.net, Patent Technology Devices, lawteacher.net, July 2025 (Aug 17, 2025, 9:05 PM), https://www.lawteacher.net/free-law-essays/copyright-law/patent-technology-devices.php.

[13] Supra note 2.

[14] Supra note 1.

[15] Supra note 1.

[16] Dr Uday Shankar, Prioritising public interest in patent law of India, SCC Online, June 14, 2021(Aug 17, 2025, 9:05 PM), https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/06/14/patent-law/#:~:text=The%20provisions%20that%20allow%20the,the%20public%20over%20private%20interest.; Directorate of Distance Education NALSAR University of Law, General Principles of Law (2017); Scope of Patent Law in India: Balancing Innovation and Public Interest, The Legal School, July 2025, (Aug 18, 2025,5:20 PM). https://thelegalschool.in/blog/scope-of-patent-law-in-india.

[17] Directorate of Distance Education NALSAR University of Law, General Principles of Law (2017). (Aug 18, 2025, 5:35 PM), https://nalsarpro.org/Portals/23/1_1_1_%20GENERAL%20PRINCIPLES%20OF%20LAW.pdf.

[18] Dr Uday Shankar, Prioritising public interest in patent law of India, SCC Online, June 14, 2021(Aug 17, 2025, 9:05 PM), https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/06/14/patent-law/#:~:text=The%20provisions%20that%20allow%20the,the%20public%20over%20private%20interest..: Balancing Innovation and Public Interest, The Legal School, July 2025.

[19] Dr Anju Khanna and Ms Manika Arora, Publication of Draft Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2025 – Lall & Sethi, (Aug 18, 2025, 5:36 PM), https://www.indiaip.com/news/dtl/77/Publication-of-Draft-Patent-Amendment-Rules-2025.

[20] Ms Pooja Negi, Global Perspectives on Intellectual Property: Balancing Innovation and Public Interest, Vol 1 Issue 1, CUSB Law Journal, 2025, (Aug 17, 2025, 9:05 PM), https://www.cusb.ac.in/images/dept/law/Journal_vol_1/Ms.%20Pooja%20Negi_Global%20Perspectives%20on%20IP.pdf.; Patents Laws and Regulations Report 2025 India, ICLG.com, (Aug 17, 2025, 9:30 PM) https://iclg.com/practice-areas/patents-laws-and-regulations/india.

[21] Decoding CRI Guidelines 2025, AIPPI, (Aug 18, 2025, 5:41 PM), https://www.aippi.org/news/decoding-cri-guidelines-2025/; Draft CRI Guidelines Publication March 2025 – IP India, (Aug 18, 2025, 5:42 PM), https://www.ipindia.gov.in/writereaddata/Portal/Images/pdf/Draft_CRI_Guidelines_Publication_March2025.pdf; A Detailed Analysis Of India’s New CRI Guidelines, 2025 – Mondaq, (Aug 18, 2025, 5:43 PM), https://www.mondaq.com/india/patent/1663246/a-detailed-analysis-of-indias-new-cri-guidelines-2025.

[22] Singhania Law – India IP Updates, (Aug 18, 2025, 5:44 PM), https://singhanialaw.com/india-ip-newsletter-june-2025/.

[23] Supra note 2.

[24] Harnessing Innovation: How Patent Filings in India Fuel Economic Growth and Global Competitiveness, IBEF Blog, June 20, 2025, (Aug 18, 2025, 5:45 PM), https://www.ibef.org/blogs/harnessing-innovation-how-patent-filings-in-india-fuel-economic-growth-and-global-competitiveness.

 

[25] Decoding CRI Guidelines 2025, AIPPI, (Aug 18, 2025, 5:41 PM), https://www.aippi.org/news/decoding-cri-guidelines-2025/; Draft CRI Guidelines Publication March 2025 – IP India, (Aug 18, 2025, 5:42 PM), https://www.ipindia.gov.in/writereaddata/Portal/Images/pdf/Draft_CRI_Guidelines_Publication_March2025.pdf

[26] World Trade Organization (WTO), Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS)(Aug 17, 2025, 9:22 PM), https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips_01_e.htm.

[27] Dr Uday Shankar, Prioritising public interest in patent law of India, SCC Online, June 14, 2021(Aug 17, 2025, 9:05 PM), https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/06/14/patent-law/#:~:text=The%20provisions%20that%20allow%20the,the%20public%20over%20private%20interest.

[28] Indian Patents Act, 1970; compulsory licensing provisions and judicial review, SCC Online, (Aug 18, 2025, 6:03 PM), https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/tag/compulsory-license/.

[29] Dr Uday Shankar, Prioritising public interest in patent law of India, SCC Online, June 14, 2021(Aug 17, 2025, 9:05 PM), https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/06/14/patent-law/#:~:text=The%20provisions%20that%20allow%20the,the%20public%20over%20private%20interest..

 

[30] Ms Pooja Negi, Global Perspectives on Intellectual Property: Balancing Innovation and Public Interest, Vol 1 Issue 1, CUSB Law Journal, 2025, (Aug 17, 2025, 9:05 PM), https://www.cusb.ac.in/images/dept/law/Journal_vol_1/Ms.%20Pooja%20Negi_Global%20Perspectives%20on%20IP.pdf.

[31] Dr Uday Shankar, Prioritising public interest in patent law of India, SCC Online, June 14, 2021(Aug 17, 2025, 9:05 PM), https://www.scconline.com/blog/post/2021/06/14/patent-law/#:~:text=The%20provisions%20that%20allow%20the,the%20public%20over%20private%20interest..