The Expanding Realm of Intellectual Property Rights

Every time you use a branded medicine, stream a film, or see a logo on a product, intellectual property law is quietly at work in the background. Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) are the legal rights that protect creations of the human mind – from inventions and literary works to brand names and software. But why does the law grant exclusive rights over something as intangible as an idea? And how do we make sure those rights don’t end up restricting the very progress they are meant to encourage? These questions sit at the heart of modern IP law, and they are more relevant today than ever.

What intellectual property rights actually protect 🔗

At its core, intellectual property covers creations of the mind – inventions, literary and artistic works, designs, symbols, names, and images that are protected by law from unauthorized use. These protections are not physical in the way land or a building is. You cannot fence off an idea. Yet the law treats these intangible creations as property because, without legal protection, anyone could freely copy and profit from another person’s work, removing the economic incentive to create in the first place.

In India, IP is broadly protected across several categories. Patents protect new inventions and processes. Copyrights protect original literary, dramatic, musical, and artistic works automatically upon creation. Trademarks protect brand identifiers – names, logos, and slogans. Geographical Indications (GIs) protect products tied to a specific region, such as Darjeeling tea or Kanchipuram silk. Industrial designs protect the aesthetic appearance of products, while trade secrets protect confidential business information. Together, India’s IPR framework encompasses patents, designs, trademarks, copyrights, and geographical indications, each governed by its own statute.

Why society grants exclusive rights over ideas 🔗

The justification for IPR is not simply about rewarding creators. It rests on a deeper social logic – one that has been debated by philosophers for centuries. The most influential framework in modern IP law is the utilitarian approach.

Jeremy Bentham, the founder of utilitarian theory, argued that authors, inventors, and artists should enjoy exclusive rights to their work for a limited period and receive proper remuneration for it. The idea is that these temporary monopolies function as incentives – they motivate creators to invest time, money, and effort into producing something new. This is why the theory is also called the incentive theory of intellectual property.

The utilitarian logic is consequentialist: exclusive rights are not granted because creators inherently deserve them, but because granting such rights produces a better outcome for society. If creators cannot protect their work, the rational response is to either keep innovations secret or not invest in them at all. Neither outcome benefits society. Legal protection solves this problem by giving creators a window of exclusivity during which they can recover their investment and profit from their work.

The incentive-access tension 🔗

The utilitarian framework immediately raises a problem: exclusive rights, by definition, restrict access. A patent gives its holder the right to stop others from using, manufacturing, or selling the patented invention – even if that invention is an essential medicine or a critical technology. This creates what scholars call the incentive-access paradigm.

In today’s knowledge-driven economy, the question of how to balance the protection of creators’ rights with the need for public access to knowledge and technology has sparked a global debate. The tension is especially sharp in areas like pharmaceuticals, where the cost of developing a new drug can run into billions of rupees but the cost of copying it can be negligible. A patent gives the innovator a 20-year monopoly to recoup that investment – but it also means the drug may be priced out of reach for ordinary people.

This tension is not merely theoretical. About 55 million Indians were pushed into poverty in a single year because of out-of-pocket healthcare spending, primarily on medicines, according to data published in the British Medical Journal. This staggering figure underscores why the access side of the equation cannot be ignored.

How India navigates the balance 🔗

India’s legislative approach to IP is designed to hold both sides of this tension in check. The framework draws from international obligations while retaining flexibilities that reflect the country’s developmental priorities.

Section 83 of the Patents Act, 1970 🔗

Section 83 of the Patents Act, 1970 clarifies that patents are granted to encourage innovation, ensure inventions are commercially worked in India, and made available to the public at affordable prices. The section further specifies that patent rights should promote technological innovation and contribute to social and economic welfare – not be used to hinder public health or unreasonably restrain trade. This statutory statement of purpose is a clear reflection of the utilitarian rationale: exclusive rights exist for a public benefit, not merely a private one.

Section 3(d) and preventing evergreening 🔗

One of India’s most distinctive and debated IP provisions is Section 3(d) of the Patents Act. It prevents the practice of evergreening – where a pharmaceutical company makes minor modifications to an existing drug just before its patent expires, in order to obtain a fresh 20-year monopoly without any real therapeutic improvement. Section 3(d) prevents patent claims for a new form of a known substance unless it demonstrates significantly enhanced efficacy.

This provision became globally significant through the landmark case of Novartis AG v. Union of India (2013). Novartis sought a patent for Gleevec (imatinib mesylate), a cancer drug, arguing it was an improved version of an earlier compound. The Supreme Court rejected the application, holding that the modified form did not show enhanced therapeutic efficacy as required under Section 3(d). The judgment encouraged NGOs and health advocates in countries like South Africa and Thailand to push for similar standards in their own jurisdictions, establishing India as an important voice in the global debate on access to medicines.

Compulsory licensing 🔗

A compulsory license is an authorization granted by the government to a third party to use a patent without the patent owner’s consent, typically when the owner is exploiting exclusive rights in a way that harms the public interest. Under Section 84 of the Patents Act, a compulsory license can be granted if a patented drug is not reasonably available to the public at an affordable price. A notable instance was the Bayer v. NATCO case, where NATCO Pharma was granted a compulsory license to manufacture the cancer drug Nexavar at a fraction of Bayer’s price, making it accessible to far more patients. India’s government has retained these compulsory licensing provisions despite international pressure from multinational corporations, prioritizing public health over patent exclusivity.

India’s IP framework and TRIPS 🔗

India’s IP landscape was substantially transformed when it became a signatory to the TRIPS Agreement (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) under the WTO in 1995. TRIPS established minimum global standards for IP protection. The 2005 amendment to the Patents Act introduced product patents in pharmaceuticals and agrochemicals – a major shift from the earlier process-patent regime – bringing India into full TRIPS compliance. However, India simultaneously used TRIPS flexibilities to retain provisions like Section 3(d) and compulsory licensing, ensuring that compliance with global norms did not come at the expense of public welfare.

In 2016, India adopted the National IPR Policy, a comprehensive framework aimed at stimulating IP generation, building a strong legislative environment, and raising public awareness about the economic and cultural benefits of intellectual property. The policy also emphasized the importance of IP for farmers, artisans, and other marginalized groups – a recognition that IP is not just a corporate concern.

Protecting what cannot be seen: traditional knowledge and GIs 🔗

One of the more distinctive challenges in India’s IP landscape is protecting traditional knowledge – the centuries-old practices, medicines, and agricultural know-how that belong to communities rather than individual inventors. To prevent foreign entities from patenting India’s traditional knowledge as their own discovery, the government established the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL). The TKDL prevents multinational companies from obtaining patents on traditional knowledge by making this knowledge accessible to patent offices worldwide as prior art. Cases involving Basmati rice and the use of turmeric (haldi) for wound healing are prominent examples of India successfully defending its traditional knowledge against biopiracy claims.

Geographical Indications serve a related purpose. India’s GI regime is regulated by the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act, 1999, which protects products that derive their quality or reputation from their geographic origin – ensuring that only authentic Darjeeling tea or Alphonso mangoes from Ratnagiri can legally carry those names.

IPR in a market-driven world 🔗

In today’s market-driven economy, IP is increasingly recognized as a strategic asset. A stable IPR regime is considered the foundation of a globally competitive nation, drawing in investment including foreign direct investment (FDI). Startups rely on patents and trademarks to attract funding. Software companies depend on copyright protection. The pharmaceutical sector is shaped almost entirely by the patent system. Even the entertainment industry – from Bollywood to Indian classical music – depends on copyright law to sustain its creators.

Yet the growing importance of IP has also intensified scrutiny of how these rights are used. The rise of open-source software, creative commons licensing, and collaborative knowledge platforms like Wikipedia shows that innovation can also flourish in models that deliberately limit exclusivity. These collaborative models demonstrate that the incentive-access balance is not a fixed formula – it must be recalibrated as technology and society evolve. For India, the challenge is to keep strengthening its IP ecosystem for innovation while ensuring that the benefits of that innovation reach beyond corporate boardrooms and into everyday life.

What do you think? Should the duration of patent protection be shortened in sectors like pharmaceuticals to improve public access – even if that means lower incentives for research and development? And as digital collaboration increasingly drives innovation without relying on exclusive rights, do you think the traditional justifications for intellectual property still hold the same force they once did?

References

1. https://kankrishme.com/the-power-of-innovation-and-creativity-a-guide-to-intellectual-property-in-india/
2. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3312695/
3. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3842429
4. https://law.shodhsagar.com/index.php/j/article/view/66
5. https://www.khuranaandkhurana.com/2020/01/23/an-analysis-of-the-indian-patents-act-with-respect-to-the-pharmaceutical-industry/
6. https://kanoonpedia.com/intellectual-property-rights-post-trips-agreement/
7. https://intellectual-property-helpdesk.ec.europa.eu/news-events/news/compulsory-licensing-india-and-changes-brought-it-trips-agreement-2021-10-12_en
8. https://www.pmfias.com/national-ipr-policy/
9. https://www.studyiq.com/articles/national-ipr-policy-2016/
10. https://www.nbr.org/wp-content/uploads/pdfs/programs/iIndiaip_workingpaper_070815_reduced.pdf
11. https://academic.oup.com