Intellectual property rights, in general, and patents, in particular, are associated with innovation, economic growth, jobs creation and higher wages. In fact, IPR-intensive companies amount to a much higher percentage of the GDP of a country than companies that do not own IPRs. Recognising the many pro-competitive effects of IPRs, in recent years, India has driven several initiatives to promote IP and, thus, innovation. However, some challenges remain. For instance, India faces low levels of R&D investment, insufficient domestic patenting, slow process to obtain and enforce patents, a too-small percentage of commercialised patents, and no national companies contributing to cellular standardisation, which is responsible for driving the digitalisation globally. This article examines several measures that would help India reach its full innovative potential: 1) further increasing the overall IP awareness in society by embarking on training judges, lawyers, and entrepreneurs on IP matters; 2) improving the efficiency of Indian patent system by focusing more on patent quality, which includes hiring more patent examiners at national patent office and providing them with more resources, as well as increasing the number of judges that would be specialised in IP matters; 3) providing direct financial support and tax incentives for domestic R&D and innovation; 4) introducing a centralised approach to support innovative MSMEs, start-ups and universities, especially when they choose to commercialise their IPRs and 5) the government could actively support domestic companies to participate in international technical standardisation and invest in the development of the next generation of standards in order to catch up with Chinese, US and European companies. Taken together, with the right policy measures, India would be one step near its goal of being one of the leading knowledge-based economies to the benefit of Indian society.
| Published in | Science, Technology & Public Policy (Volume 5, Issue 2) |
| DOI | 10.11648/j.stpp.20210502.15 |
| Page(s) | 105-114 |
| Creative Commons |
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, provided the original work is properly cited. |
| Copyright |
Copyright © The Author(s), 2021. Published by Science Publishing Group |
Patents, Commercialisation, Technology Transfer, Standardisation, Intellectual Property, India
| [1] | EPO-EUIPO, ‘IPR-intensive Industries and Economic Performance in the European Union’, (September 2019), 8, available at: https://euipo.europa.eu/tunnel-web/secure/webdav/guest/document_library/observatory/documents/IPContributionStudy/IPR-intensive_industries_and_economicin_EU/WEB_IPR_intensive_Report_2019.pdf |
| [2] | US Economics & Statistics Administration and the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), ‘Intellectual Property and the US. Economy: 2016 Update’ (2016) |
| [3] | Otero, B., Chopra, S., (2018) Intellectual Property and Standardisation: Key Aspect for an Innovative India, Science, Technology & Public Policy 3(2) 14. |
| [4] | Indian Ministry of Finance, Economic Survey 2020-2021, ‘Chapter 8, Innovation: Trending Up But Needs Thrust, Especially from the Private Sector’ available at https://www.indiabudget.gov.in/economicsurvey/doc/vol1chapter/echap08_vol1.pdf |
| [5] | OECD, ‘Licensing of IP Rights and Competition Law’ Background Note by the Secretariat (6 June 2019) DAF/COMP(2019)3. |
| [6] | The US Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission, ‘Antitrust Guidelines for the Licensing of Intellectual Property (2017); European Commission, ‘Guidelines on the Application of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to Technology Transfer Agreements’ (2014) C 89/03. |
| [7] | See https://www.4ipcouncil.com/4smes/4-reasons-patent also on the benefits of a patent system Levin, R. et al. (1987) ‘Appropriating the Returns from Industrial Research and Development’ Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 3, 783; Burk, D. and Lemley M., The Patent Crisis and How the Courts Can Solve It (University of Chicago Press 2009); Hall, B. and Harhoff, D (2012).’ Recent Research on the Economics of Patents’ Annual Review of Economics 4, 541. |
| [8] | A design right applies to a design that is new and has individual character, see Article 3 of the Directive 98/71/EC of 13 October 1998 on the Legal Protection of Designs OJ L 289/28. |
| [9] | The US Economics & Statistics Administration and the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), ‘Intellectual Property and the US. Economy: 2016 Update’ (2016). |
| [10] | The European Patent Office and European Union Intellectual Property Office, ‘IPR-Intensive Industries and Economic Performance in the European Union: Industry-Level Analysis Report’ (3rd edition, September 2019) IPR-intensive industries in the study are defined as covering trademarks, designs, patents, copyrights, geographical indications and plant variety rights. |
| [11] | The European Patent Office and European Union Intellectual Property Office, ‘High-growth Firms and Intellectual Property Rights: IPR Profile of High-Potential SMEs in Europe’ (May 2019); European Patent Office and European Union Intellectual Property Office, ‘Intellectual Property Rights and Firm Performance in the European Union: Firm-level Analysis Report’ (February 2021). |
| [12] | Cooper, D. et al., (March 2021) ‘Survey of Mobile Cellular 5G Essentiality Rate’ Les Nouvelles - Journal of the Licensing Executives Society, Volume LVI No. 1, Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3771397 |
| [13] | McKinsey Global Institute, ‘The Internet of Things: Mapping the Value Beyond the Hype’ (June 2015); IHS Economics & HIS Technology, ‘The 5G Economy: How 5G Technology Will Contribute to the Global Economy’ (January 2017). |
| [14] | Ohlhausen, M. (2016)Patent Rights in a Climate of IPR Skepticism Harvard Journal of Law & Technology 30 available at: https://jolt.law.harvard.edu/assets/articlePDFs/v30/30HarvJLTech103.pdf |
| [15] | The European Patent Office and European Union Intellectual Property Office, ‘IPR-Intensive Industries and Economic Performance in the European Union: Industry-Level Analysis Report’ (3rd edition, September 2019). |
| [16] | The European Patent Office and European Union Intellectual Property Office, ‘Intellectual Property Rights and Firm Performance in the European Union: Firm-level Analysis Report’ (February 2021). |
| [17] | The European Patent Office and European Union Intellectual Property Office, ‘High-growth Firms and Intellectual Property Rights: IPR Profile of High-Potential SMEs in Europe’ (May 2019). |
| [18] | Teece, D. (1986) Profiting From Technological Innovation Research Policy 15, 285; Teece, D., (2018) Profiting from Innovation in the Digital Economy Research Policy 47, 1367. |
| [19] | Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations (ICRIER) and European Business & Technology Centre (EBTC), ‘India as an Innovation Economy: The Role of IP and ICT’ (2018) 32-33. |
| [20] | The Department of Industry Policy & Promotion, ‘National Intellectual Property Rights Policy’ (2016). |
| [21] | The Controller General of Patents, Designs, Trademarks and Geographical Indications (CGPRT), ‘Annual Report 2018-2019’ available at https://ipindia.gov.in/writereaddata/Portal/Images/pdf/IP_India_Annual_Report_2019_Eng.pdf |
| [22] | See The Commercial Courts Commercial Division and Commercial Appellate Division of High Courts Act 2015, 3. December 2015, available at: https://prsindia.org/files/bills_acts/acts_parliament/2015/commercial-courts-act,-2015.pdf and Amendment Act 2018, available at: https://clpr.org.in/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Commercial-Courts-in-India-Three-Puzzles-for-Legal-System-Reform.pdf; also George, M., ‘Examining the Patent Enforcement Landscape in India Through the Lens of Indian Judicial Framework’ (2021) Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice forthcoming |
| [23] | Pandey S., ‘Delhi High Court Establishes Intellectual Property Division to Deal With Intellectual Property Cases’ (7 July 2021) Livelaw.in available at https://www.livelaw.in/news-updates/delhi-high-court-establishes-ipds-for-ipr-matters-176999 |
| [24] | https://ec.europa.eu/growth/single-market/european-standards/policy/benefits_en |
| [25] | McKinsey Global Institute, ‘The Internet of Things: Mapping the Value Beyond the Hype’ (June 2015). |
| [26] | Ericsson Mobility Report (June 2021). |
| [27] | WTO, Second Triennial Review of the Operation and Implementation of the Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, WTO Doc. G/TBT/9 [Six Principles for International Standardisation] (13 November 2000), Annex 4. |
| [28] | Gupta, K., (2017) The Role of SMEs and Startups in Standards Development available at: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3001513 |
| [29] | https://tsdsi.in/about/ The TSDSI is a member of the 3GPP and thus participates in the development of 5G standard. |
| [30] | Ericsson v. Best IT World (India), I. A. No. 17351/2015 in CS (OS) 2501/2015 (Delhi High Court);Ericsson v. Intex Technologies (India), I. A. No. 6735/2014 in CS (OS) No. 1045/2014 (Delhi High Court); Ericsson v. Lava International Ltd., I. A. Nos. 5768/2015 & 16011/2015 in CS (OS) No. 764/2015 (Delhi High Court), Interdigital v Xiaomi, I. A. 8772/2020 in CS(COMM) 295/2020 (Delhi High Court, October 2020); Interdigital v Xiaomi, I. A. 8772/2020 in CS(COMM)295/2020 (Delhi High Court, May 2021). |
| [31] | Otero, B., Chopra, S. (2019) Intellectual Property and Standardisation: Key Aspect for an Innovative India Science, Technology & Public Policy 3 (2), 14. |
| [32] | Department of Industry Policy & Promotion, ‘National Intellectual Property Rights Policy’ (2016). |
| [33] | https://www.agnii.gov.in/about |
| [34] | https://www.makeinindia.com/ |
| [35] | https://www.startupindia.gov.in/ |
| [36] | Saha, S., Shaw, P., (2018) A Review of R&D and Sectoral Incentives in Manufacturing in Industrialised and Emerging Economies: Lessons for ‘Make in India” RIS-DP 233 available at: http://ris.org.in/sites/default/files/DP%20233%20Sabyasachi%20Saha%20and%20Prativa%20Shaw-T.pdf |
| [37] | Demis H. et al. (2019) World Corporate Top R&D Investors: Shaping the Future of Technologies and of AIJRC and OECD Report). |
| [38] | WIPO, ‘World Intellectual Property Indicators 2020’ (2020). |
| [39] | Feroz, A., Sudarsan, R., Venkata, R., Roshan, J., (2018) Pharmaceutical Patent Grants in India: How our Safeguards Against Evergreening Have Failed, and Why the System Must be Reformed available at: https://www.accessibsa.org/media/2018/04/Pharmaceutical-Patent-Grants-in-India.pdf |
| [40] | Farrel, J., Shapiro, C. (2008) How Strong Are Weak PatentsAmerican Economic Review 98 (4), 1347; Atal, V., Bar, T., (2014) ‘Patent Quality and a Tw-Tiered Patent System’ The Journal of Industrial Economics 62, 503. |
| [41] | ‘Innovation and Patenting in India and Why It’s Not Among the Top 5 Yet’ (2020) available at https://www.fastscience.tv/insights/india-innovation-patents/ |
| [42] | The European Patent Office, ‘Social Report 2020’ (2020) available at: https://documents.epo.org/projects/babylon/eponet.nsf/0/66A405546212DDF4C12586FC00330A90/$FILE/social_report_2020_en.pdf |
| [43] | http://ipindia.gov.in/writereaddata/Portal/Images/pdf/Report_on_Pendency_in_IPO_upto_January_2020.pdf |
| [44] | Reddy, P. (5 June 2017) ‘143 Patent Infringement Lawsuits Between 2005 and 2015: Only 5 Judgments’ SpicyIP available at: https://spicyip.com/2017/06/143-patent-infringement-lawsuits-between-2005-and-2015-only-5-judgments.html |
| [45] | Schubert, T., Schweinsbber, E., Zapp, C-L., Forster, F., (2020) ‘Germany: Patent Litigation’ available at: https://www.vossiusandpartner.com/fileadmin/Redakteure/PDFs/The_Legal_500_Patent_Litigation_Country_Comparative_Guide_2019_Vossius_Partner.pdf |
| [46] | Balleny, C., Antcliff, J., Llewellyn, S., Johnson, S., ‘United Kingdom: Patent Litigation’ available at: https://www.legal500.com/guides/chapter/united-kingdom-patent-litigation/ |
| [47] | Jarvis, T. Frelinghuysen, C., Rader, R., Christoff, B. (2020), ‘The Patent Litigation Law Review: USA’ available at: https://thelawreviews.co.uk/title/the-patent-litigation-law-review/usa |
| [48] | Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy, ‘Commercial Courts Act 2015: An Empirical Impact Evaluation (2019) p. 32-36. |
| [49] | UNIINDIA, ‘Commercialisation of Patents Poor in India’ (22 September 2017) available at: http://www.uniindia.com/commercialisation-of-patents-poor-in-india-dipp/business-economy/news/997544.html |
| [50] | Webster, E., Jenson, P., (2011) ‘Do Patents Matter for Commercialisation’ Journal of Law & Economics 54(2) 431. |
| [51] | Nagaoka S., Walsh J.,(2009) ‘Commercialisation and Other Uses of Patents in Japan and the US: Major Findings from the REITI-Georgia Tech Inventor Survey’ RIETI Discussion Paper No. 09-E-011. |
| [52] | Amesse, F., Desrenleau, C., Etemad, H., Fortier, Y., Seguin-Dulude, L., (1991) ‘The Individual Inventor and the Role of Entrepreneurship: A Survey of the Canadian Evidence’ Research Policy 20,13. |
| [53] | Ravi, R., and Janodia, M.(2021) ‘Factors Affecting Technology Transfer and Commercialization of University Research in India: a Cross-Sectional Study’ Journal of the Knowledge Economy available at https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13132-021-00747-4 |
| [54] | European Patent Office, ‘Valorisation of Scientific Results’ (November 2020). |
| [55] | Caviggiolio, F., de Marco, A., Montobbio, F., Ughetto, E., (2020) ‘The Licensing and Selling of Inventions byUSS Universities’ Technological Forecasting & Social Change 159, 120189. |
| [56] | Bekkers, R., Raiteri, E., Martinelli, A., Tur, E., ‘Landscaping Study of Potentially Essential Patents Disclosed to ETSI’ (Publication office of the European Union 2020). |
| [57] | Chopra, S., Chawla, P., (2018) ‘Innovation, Growth and Intellectual Property: A Study of the Indian Telecom Sector and the Way Forward’ Journal of National Law University of Delhi 5(1), 40. |
| [58] | Koni Philips v. Rajesh Bansal, Sole Proprietor, Manglam Technology, CS (COMM) 24/2016 (Delhi High Court). |
| [59] | See https://www.epo.org/about-us/services-and-activities/quality/QMS.html |
| [60] | George, M., (2021) ‘Examining the Patent Enforcement Landscape in India Through the Lens of Indian Judicial Framework’ Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice forthcoming. |
| [61] | https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/GB.XPD.RSDV.GD.ZS?locations=DE |
| [62] | Federal Ministry of Education and Research, available at: https://www.datenportal.bmbf.de/portal/en/research.html |
| [63] | https://www.bmwi.de/Redaktion/EN/Dossier/financing-for-start-ups-company-growth-and-innovations.html |
| [64] | Becker, B. (2015) ‘Public R&D Policies and Private R&D Investment: A Survey of the Empirical Evidence’ Journal of Economic Surveys 2(5), 917; Bloom, N. et al. (2019) ‘A toolkit of Policies to Promote Innovation’ Journal of Economic Perspectives 33(3), 163; Dechezleprêtre, A. et al. (2016) ‘Do Tax Incentives for Research Increase Firm Innovation? An R&D Design for R&D’ National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 22405. |
| [65] | Tax Foundation, ‘Tax Subsidies for R&D Spending and Patent Boxes in OECD Countries’ (March 2021). |
| [66] | Malde, R., Webb, S., (25 November 2020) ‘How Intellectual Property Can Lead to Tax Reliefs?’ Deloitte blog, available at: https://www2.deloitte.com/uk/en/blog/deloitte-private/2020/how-intellectual-property-can-lead-to-tax-reliefs.html |
| [67] | https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/innovate-uk/about |
| [68] | Enterprise Ireland, ‘Inventions & Innovations: The Positive Impact of Ideas from Research in Irish Industry and Society’ (2012). |
| [69] | Zhang T., Prud’homme D., Lutze O., (2017) ‘China’s New Patent Commercialization Strategy’ Journal of Intellectual Property Law & Practice 12(6), 474. |
| [70] |
Notice by the China National Intellectual Property Administration of Further Strictly Regulating Patent Application Activities, No. 1 [2021] of the China National Intellectual Property Administration, published on 28 January 2021, available at: |
| [71] | Art. 1, Announcement of the State Administration of Taxation on Issues concerning the Implementation of the Preferential Income Tax Policies regarding High-Tech Enterprises, Instrumentalities of the State Council [Announcement No. 24 [2017] of the State Administration of Taxation], effective from 19 June. 2017, available at: http://lawinfochina.com/display.aspx?id=24036&lib=law. |
| [72] | Tsilikas, H. and Tapia, C. ‘SMEs and Standard Essential Patents: Licensing Efficiently in the Internet of Things’ (September 2017) les Nouvelles - Journal of the Licensing Executives Society, Volume LII No. 4, Available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3009039 |
| [73] |
Bekkers, R., Raiteri, E., Martinelli, A., Tur, E., ‘Landscaping Study of Potentially Essential Patents Disclosed to ETSI’ (Publication office of the European Union 2020), also see Notice of the General Office of the State Council on Issuing the Plan for Deepening the Reform of Standardization Work, No. 13 [2015] of the General Office of the State Council, published on 26 March 2015, available at: < http://www.gov.cn/zhengce/content/2015-03/26/content_9557.htm>; and Notice of the General Office of the State Council on Issuing the Action Plan on Implementation of the Plan for Deepening the Reform of Standardization Work (2015-2016), No. 67 [2015] of the General Office of the State Council, published on 30 August 2015, available at: |
| [74] | C-170/13, Huawei v ZTE ECLI:EU:C:2015:477. |
| [75] | Unwired Planet v Huawei; Huawei and ZTE v Conversant [2020] UKSC 37. |
| [76] | Sivel v Haier, KZR 36/17 Federal Court of Justice (05 May 2020). |
| [77] | Kahn D, Gurnaney T, (27 August 2019) ‘Stalemate Continues Over Local 5G Standards: Telcos, Vendors Say Harmonization With Global Standards Mus’' ET Telecom, available at: https://telecom.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/stalemate-continues-over-local-5g-standards-telcos-vendors-say-harmonization-with-global-standards-must/70842705 |
APA Style
Igor Nikolic. (2021). Incentivising Innovation and Technology Commercialisation in India. Science, Technology & Public Policy, 5(2), 105-114. https://doi.org/10.11648/j.stpp.20210502.15
ACS Style
Igor Nikolic. Incentivising Innovation and Technology Commercialisation in India. Sci. Technol. Public Policy 2021, 5(2), 105-114. doi: 10.11648/j.stpp.20210502.15
AMA Style
Igor Nikolic. Incentivising Innovation and Technology Commercialisation in India. Sci Technol Public Policy. 2021;5(2):105-114. doi: 10.11648/j.stpp.20210502.15
Share This Article
Twitter
Linked In
Facebook
Copy
Download@article{10.11648/j.stpp.20210502.15,
author = {Igor Nikolic},
title = {Incentivising Innovation and Technology Commercialisation in India},
journal = {Science, Technology & Public Policy},
volume = {5},
number = {2},
pages = {105-114},
doi = {10.11648/j.stpp.20210502.15},
url = {https://doi.org/10.11648/j.stpp.20210502.15},
eprint = {https://article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.stpp.20210502.15},
abstract = {Intellectual property rights, in general, and patents, in particular, are associated with innovation, economic growth, jobs creation and higher wages. In fact, IPR-intensive companies amount to a much higher percentage of the GDP of a country than companies that do not own IPRs. Recognising the many pro-competitive effects of IPRs, in recent years, India has driven several initiatives to promote IP and, thus, innovation. However, some challenges remain. For instance, India faces low levels of R&D investment, insufficient domestic patenting, slow process to obtain and enforce patents, a too-small percentage of commercialised patents, and no national companies contributing to cellular standardisation, which is responsible for driving the digitalisation globally. This article examines several measures that would help India reach its full innovative potential: 1) further increasing the overall IP awareness in society by embarking on training judges, lawyers, and entrepreneurs on IP matters; 2) improving the efficiency of Indian patent system by focusing more on patent quality, which includes hiring more patent examiners at national patent office and providing them with more resources, as well as increasing the number of judges that would be specialised in IP matters; 3) providing direct financial support and tax incentives for domestic R&D and innovation; 4) introducing a centralised approach to support innovative MSMEs, start-ups and universities, especially when they choose to commercialise their IPRs and 5) the government could actively support domestic companies to participate in international technical standardisation and invest in the development of the next generation of standards in order to catch up with Chinese, US and European companies. Taken together, with the right policy measures, India would be one step near its goal of being one of the leading knowledge-based economies to the benefit of Indian society.},
year = {2021}
}
TY - JOUR T1 - Incentivising Innovation and Technology Commercialisation in India AU - Igor Nikolic Y1 - 2021/11/17 PY - 2021 N1 - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.stpp.20210502.15 DO - 10.11648/j.stpp.20210502.15 T2 - Science, Technology & Public Policy JF - Science, Technology & Public Policy JO - Science, Technology & Public Policy SP - 105 EP - 114 PB - Science Publishing Group SN - 2640-4621 UR - https://doi.org/10.11648/j.stpp.20210502.15 AB - Intellectual property rights, in general, and patents, in particular, are associated with innovation, economic growth, jobs creation and higher wages. In fact, IPR-intensive companies amount to a much higher percentage of the GDP of a country than companies that do not own IPRs. Recognising the many pro-competitive effects of IPRs, in recent years, India has driven several initiatives to promote IP and, thus, innovation. However, some challenges remain. For instance, India faces low levels of R&D investment, insufficient domestic patenting, slow process to obtain and enforce patents, a too-small percentage of commercialised patents, and no national companies contributing to cellular standardisation, which is responsible for driving the digitalisation globally. This article examines several measures that would help India reach its full innovative potential: 1) further increasing the overall IP awareness in society by embarking on training judges, lawyers, and entrepreneurs on IP matters; 2) improving the efficiency of Indian patent system by focusing more on patent quality, which includes hiring more patent examiners at national patent office and providing them with more resources, as well as increasing the number of judges that would be specialised in IP matters; 3) providing direct financial support and tax incentives for domestic R&D and innovation; 4) introducing a centralised approach to support innovative MSMEs, start-ups and universities, especially when they choose to commercialise their IPRs and 5) the government could actively support domestic companies to participate in international technical standardisation and invest in the development of the next generation of standards in order to catch up with Chinese, US and European companies. Taken together, with the right policy measures, India would be one step near its goal of being one of the leading knowledge-based economies to the benefit of Indian society. VL - 5 IS - 2 ER -
Information
Email: