A foggy Intellectual Property Rights Policy

Thiruvananthapuram: The country now has a National Intellectual Property Rights Policy – the Cabinet approved it on May 12. While the vision statement envisages, “An India where creativity and innovation are simulated by Intellectual Property for the benefit of all,” experts find the policy foggy. They say it reveals little about the government’s stand on various IPR issues. “I feel that it looks less like a policy document and more like a booklet of guidelines they issue to government departments. A policy document is meant to declare the position of a Government (Central /state) on an important subject of Government Business. Government of India’s Science and Technology Policy in 2003 and Kerala IPR Policy, 2008 are good examples, though the latter revealed the left government’s policy,” says R. S. Praveen Raj, a scientist at CSIR-NIIST who has served as a former patent examiner in the Government of India.

The document’s executive summary, which should reflect the government’s stance, does not make any major recommendations for a change in the existing patent act, according to A. Damodaran, former director of CSIR-NIIST and a veteran in the field of patents. He says, “Executive summary is totally a general outline of the line of action contemplated by the government. Since all possible actions are controlled by the existing patent act, unless the act itself is amended, such generalised policy many not really serve any useful purpose.”

The policy under the header ‘Legal and Policy Framework’ does talk about a review of existing IP laws in consultation with stakeholders. “I don’t see a reason to review the existing act. One cannot help wonder whether such a review will lead to the government succumbing to international pressure on amending Section 3d of Indian Patent Act. This section deals with issues like ever-greening among companies in the US,” says Mr Raj.

Pharmaceutical companies used to resort to adding salts, esters, ethers and such ingredients to a drug only to claim that it was different from an already existing drug, just so that they can file patents. This practice, referred to as evergreening, was reined in by Section 3d, though there is resistance to it from developed countries like the US.

The policy also states as its objective expanding the ambit of Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL) “to include other fields besides Ayurveda, Yoga, Unani and Siddha.” The origin of Traditional Knowledge Database Library starts with an interesting story. Two Indian-origin researchers in the US claimed they 'discovered' the healing properties of turmeric, and were awarded a
patent. Later India challenged the decision and won the case. It was then that the government thought of having a TKDL.

However, expanding its ambit would mean including the knowledge of traditional healers, which they hold as a secret. “Should someone get a whiff of their knowledge and file a patent, the government will have to reveal the secret only to prove they are wrong. This is dangerous,” says Mr Raj. Mr Damodaran adds, “It is a little surprising that the policy statement does not mention anything about issues connected with our strategic sectors some of which are already included under the Make in India programme, nor agriculture and agrochemical sectors.”

On the bright side, experts point out that the policy lays emphasis on spreading awareness of IPR and generation of more IPR. Mr Raj says, “The policy recommends that IPR should be introduced in the school curriculum. Then it says that there should be specialised commercial courts to adjudicate on IPR disputes. It promises changes in enforcement and measures to streamline the patenting process. There are many good things about it,” he says.