Published On: October 14th 2025
Authored By: Drishti Shukla
Indore Institute of Law
Introduction
One of the greatest legal tools used in the intellectual property rights (IPR) sphere is patents. They work at the thinnest border of the need to encourage innovation and the need of the society to access information and vital products. Although a patent gives an exclusive privilege to inventors, the rationale of patents in society is not in the compensation of individual geniuses but the advance in the technological development and the common good. The modern discussion of patents is based on the twofold necessity of protecting the rights of inventors and eliminating the risk of monopoly that can kill the competition or block the access to vital resources e.g., medicines, food, and sustainable technologies.
This issue is especially pronounced in developing countries such as India where economic growth, population health and social justice are among the issues on the table concomitant with need to promote the use of technology. Reflecting the globalization trend, the TRIPS agreement[1] on the trade-related aspects of intellectual property rights and the rise of knowledge-based economies, the debate about patents can now be found not just in the hands of lawyers and scientists but in the arena of economics, human rights and the policy community.
The historical development of the patent law in India and internationally, the consequences of the patent on innovation and societal well being has been discussed and some landmark court rulings have been looked at. Recommendations regarding changes towards an equal balance between individual protection and common good have been given.
Evolution of Patent Law in India
The Indian patent regime can be dated back to the colonial times where the Indian Patents and Designs Act, 1911[2] was governing the framework. This statute was based strongly on the British model, and was not aimed particularly at encouraging domestic innovation but rather to protect foreign monopolies. It gave wide patent on products in various industries, which allows multinational companies to dominate some sectors where there is hardly any domestic competition in such spheres as pharmaceuticals and chemicals.
After independence, the policymakers realized that such structure of colonialism was inappropriate in a newly developing economy. Modern patent policy in India developed with the assistance of the Justice Rajagopala Ayyangar Committee Report (1959)[3]. They noted that the result of high product patenting in drugs and food was causing excessive pricing and low production in the home country as highlighted by the Committee. These recommendations were followed by the introduction of Patents Act, 1970[4] that came into action in 1972.
The Act of 1970 was a paradigm. It eliminated product patent in several areas of high importance like in food, chemicals, pharmaceuticals and limited process patents to a brief period. This practically gave a legal provision to Indian companies to reverse-engineer drugs by establishing alternative procedures. This led to the sprouting of the domestic pharmaceutical industry in India making the country the pharmacy of the Global South. Cheap generic drugs manufactured in India became an essential factor to the health of masses in the developing world.
Nevertheless, with the introduction of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and the signing of India to the TRIPS Agreement (1995)[5], great modifications were necessary. India modified its patent law in 1999, in 2002 and 2005 to achieve phase wise conformity with the TRIPS. The 2005 Amendment restored the product patenting in pharmaceuticals, food and chemicals. This shift of gears in the patent debate signaled a new era in the patent debate, with India trying to balance international commitments against national agenda of access and affordability.
Accordingly, the history of the Indian patent law depicts a paradoxical pattern: the desire to stimulate innovation by offering a more substantial level of protection on the one hand, and the risk of monopoly-provoking practices that may negatively affect the interest of the population on the other hand.
The Rationale of Patents: Incentives versus Monopoly
Patent system is supported by the social contract theory: the innovators share information about their idea with people in exchange of limited exclusiveness. This exclusivity is a stimulus on research and development (R&D), as the innovators get to recover expenses and make profits in the course of protection.
However, the exclusivity accorded brings about a state sponsored monopoly as well. Unrestrained, it may result in the abusive conduct like unreasonable price, so-called evergreening (inconsequential changes that allow patents to be prolonged), and licensing that inhibits competition. The validity of patents, therefore, lies in the quest to balance two extremes; on the one hand providing the inventors with rewards and on the other hand making the fruits of innovation finally permeate into the society.
Comparative Perspectives: Global Approaches to Patents
United States: Innovation and the Patent Troll Problem
The US patent protection regime is considered as the strongest. The very U.S. Constitution[6] authorizes the Congress to encourage science and useful arts by granting of patents. Technological revolutions have taken place because of strong patents – pharmaceuticals to information technology.
Yet, the U.S. is no exception of demonstrating the dark-side of patents. There is a litigation crisis in recent decades in the form of the patent trolls – actors that purchase patents to sue rather than to invent. There are huge lawsuits against technology companies based on imprecise software patents and thus divert resources to be spent on actual R&D. The U.S. experience shows how one can go wrong with all the protection, as it may hurt innovation, instead of helping it thrive.
European Union: Balancing Innovation and Competition
The European Union attempts to find equilibrium between strong patent protection and the competition law. European Patent Convention (EPC)[7] has offered a uniform system to member states whereas the European Court of Justice has made sure that intellectual property rights are governed by competition laws. The EU policy shows that it is understood that patents cannot be used in a vacuum; they have to exist side by side with the greater common good.
Japan: Collaborative Innovation Culture
Another educative example is Japan. Although patents are treated with due respect, the Japanese innovation system works on the principles of cooperation between the firms, universities, and the government. Cooperative R&D and cross-licensing is common and any form of knowledge, once generated, does not exist within a monopoly, but circulates. It has played a key role in making Japan successful in industries like the electronics and auto industries and this proves that patents do not always mean it can lead to exclusivity but can be used to encourage innovation.
Global South: Flexibilities and Public interest
Patent protection is a rather complicated regulatory axis in the context of a developing country. Although the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and corollary multilateral action familiarizes policymakers with the need to sustain substantive protections, prohibitive patenting regimes may still suppress the supply of basic commodities. A major reaction to this tension came in the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health (2001)[8] stating that the TRIPS agreement should be interpreted in a manner that promotes public health, and to facilitate the use of policy tools like compulsory licensing. Over the subsequent years India, Brazil, and South Africa have been the leaders of implementing these policy latitudes in order to strengthen access to medicines.
Patents and the Pharmaceutical Sector: What the Debate is all about
There is no area that demonstrates a conflict between the patent protection and the interest of the public more clearly than pharmaceuticals. The process to develop a drug is costly and risky, which often requires billions of dollars in expenditure and years in experimentation. The right to exclusivity provided in the form of patents allows companies to recover their invested funds.
However, ethical justification of patents becomes questionable when the cost of life saving drugs becomes unaffordable to the patients. This becomes especially important in the developing world, where the needs of the people in terms of health are enormous, and resources are low.
Landmark Case: Novartis AG v. Union of India (2013)[9]
This landmark case by the Supreme Court of India refused patent protection to Novartis on one of its cancer drugs Glivec. The Court noted that the alteration that Novartis claimed would not qualify under the standard of enhanced efficacy under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. This was aimed at discouraging practices of evergreening.
This ruling was an indication of India taking serious concerns in protecting the health of its citizens and not its businesses. It also gave assurances to the global South that TRIPS-compliant flexibilities could be exercised to oppose monopoly in the pharmaceutical industry.
Compulsory Licensing: Bayer v. Natco (2012)[10]
Here, Controller General of Patents issued the first compulsory license in India to Natco Pharma to manufacture Bayer cancer drug, Nexavar. Bayer was selling the drug costing around Rs. 2.8 lakh a month and the company Natco was willing to sell a generic one at Rs. 8,800 a month. The license has been supported by the reason of non-availability to the masses and their unaffordability.
The ruling demonstrated a delicate balance of the Indian patent system which respects patents and at the same time does not allow illogical monopolistic behavior to leave patients deprived of important medicines.
Roche v. Cipla (2008 & 2015)[11]
These litigations on lung cancer drug Erlotinib brought to the fore the mixed judicial approach in India. The judges always made it clear that patent rights are supposed to be weighed against aspects of public interest, affordability of patents and accessibility.
Patents and Emerging Sectors: Green Technology
Pharmaceuticals aside, patents also have dire consequences on upcoming industries such as climate change mitigation technologies. Green technologies – including solar panels, carbon capture, and energy-efficient technologies – are crucial to sustainable growth. Nevertheless, when over patented, they might be inaccessible to the developing countries that require them the most.
India has made the case in international fora[12] that climate technologies must be considered similar to essential medicines where forced licensing and technology transfer is actively promoted. The climate crisis afflicting the world today necessitates that the patent rights do not affect the survival of all humanity in a negative manner.
Judicial Approach in India: SEP/FRAND Disputes
The growing popularity of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) and the concomitant Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) licensing regime is a development that is recent and should receive scholarly consideration. Specifically, the rapid growth of the telecommunications sector has witnessed multinational companies, Ericsson being on the forefront, filing lawsuits against native companies, including Micromax and Intex, on the basis of SEP infringement.
The cases in the High Court of Delhi in both Ericsson v. Micromax[13] and Ericsson v. Intex[14] have highlighted the need of FRAND undertakings in restraining anticompetitive practices. At the same time, the Competition Commission of India (CCI)[15] has stepped in, stressing that the owners of SEPs cannot use their market power to exercise excessive royalties. Together, the above conflicts demonstrate how the patent jurisprudence in India is being shifted to suit the emerging technology and at the same time safeguard the wider greater interest of the general population.
Critiques of the Patent System
Critics state that the patent system is inclined to focus on corporate wealth, to the detriment of the general society. The issues of great concern are:
- Evergreening- Multiple patents are applied by companies to make slight changes to products to extend exclusivity.
- Expensive Litigation Costs- Small firms and nonprofessional inventors cannot normally afford to defend themselves.
- Knowledge Enclosure -Too much patenting may result in patent thickets with rights that can become obstacles to entry.
- Global Inequality- the developing world goes through difficulty in getting necessary technologies as the licensing charges are high or their practice is limited.
Policy Recommendations: Towards a Balanced Patent Regime
- To enhance public interest protection it is important to note that the instruments like Section 3(d) and compulsory licensing be continued and used vigorously. They constrain misuses without hindering the real innovation.
- Greater use of patent pools and open innovation, especially in such areas as green technology and pharmaceuticals, has the potential to decrease prices and increase access.
- Innovators are urged to use the differential pricing methodologies that will make saving drugs affordable in poor countries and enable them to keep profit in the richer markets.
- There should also be a way in which the patent right is aligned with the antitrust principles to deter abuse of power and institution like the Competition Commission of India should have its roles reinforced.
- India needs to develop local research and development with the help of public-private partnerships, tax breaks, and academic research and collaboration and reduce dependence on foreign technology.
- Moreover, the principle of use-it-or-lose it should be extended to patents where the innovations that are just hoarded can be lost.
Conclusion
The debate about patents and technology has been all about one question: How do we encourage innovation activity without undermining the common good? Despite the importance of patents in the activation of research and development, they will be legitimate only when guaranteed that the innovation has an eventual benefit to the greater interests of the society.
Patent regime in India provides a model example: vulnerable enough to satisfy the global standards but flexible enough to concentrate access and equity. Through judicial creativity, legislative protection, and specific policy interventions, India has risen to the status of being a model of balancing individual rights and the public good.
With the increasing modern challenges (pandemics, climate change, and digital transformations), which continuously transform the international environment, the patent system should also be changing according to the needs of humankind in general. This is not about scrapping the patent institution but re-visioning the role of patents as a tool to promote inclusive progress. By doing that, India and other such countries have a crucial role to play in creating a more fair and balanced international intellectual property regime.
References
[1] Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (adopted 15 April 1994, entered into force 1 January 1995) 1869 UNTS 299.
[2] Indian Patents and Designs Act 1911.
[3] Report on the Revision f the Patents Law (Government of India 1959).
[4] The Patents Act 1970 (Act No 39 of 1970).
[5] Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (adopted 15 April 1994, entered into force 1 January 1995) 1869 UNTS 299.
[6] US Constitution art l, s 8, cl 8.
[7] European Patent Convention (adopted 5 October 1973, entered into force 7 October 1977).
[8] WTO, ‘Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health’ (14 November 2001) WT/MIN(01)/DEC/2.
[9] Novartis AG v Union of India (2013) 6 SCC 1 (SC).
[10] Bayer Corporation v Union of India & Natco Pharma Ltd (2014) 60 PTC 277 (Del).
[11] F Hoffman-La Roche Ltd v Cipla Ltd (2015) 225 DLT 391 (Del).
[12] United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (adopted 9 May 1992, entered into force 21 March 1994) 1771 UNTS 107.
[13] Telefonakteibolaget LM Ericsson v Micromax Informatics Ltd (2015) 62 PTC 90 (Del).
[14] Telefonakteibolaget LM Ericsson v Intex Technologies (2015) 61 PTC 90 (Del).
[15] Competition Commission of India Act 2002 (Act No 12 of 2003).
