Forecasting the Evolution of Technology Transfer Practices

Technology transfer – moving innovations from labs, universities, and R&D centres to real-world commercial use – has always been a moving target. But over the next decade, the pace of that movement is set to accelerate dramatically. Driven by artificial intelligence, green technology mandates, evolving intellectual property laws, and shifting geopolitical alliances, the future of technology transfer is being rewritten. For Indian law students and IP practitioners, understanding where this is all heading is not just academic – it is essential preparation for a profession that will sit at the very centre of global innovation policy.

The evolving IPR landscape and what it signals 🔗

Intellectual property law is not static, and the next wave of reforms will directly shape how technology moves between entities and borders. In India, the signs are already visible. IP filings in India increased by 44% over the five-year period from 2020-21 to 2024-25, with patent applications alone rising by 180%. The Indian Patent Office crossed a historic milestone by granting over 100,000 patents in a single financial year for the first time ever in 2024. These figures are not merely statistical; they indicate that India is rapidly transitioning from a country that primarily absorbs foreign technology to one that generates and exports it.

The 2024 amendments to the Patent Rules reduced the timeline for requesting examination from 48 to 31 months, introduced the Certificate of Inventorship, and simplified procedural requirements – all of which make the patent system faster and more inventor-friendly. At the same time, revised guidelines for Computer Related Inventions now provide frameworks for emerging technologies including AI, machine learning, blockchain, and quantum computing. These legal updates are not cosmetic. They directly affect how quickly an inventor can establish rights and begin licensing or commercialising a technology – which is the core of technology transfer.

Globally, WIPO’s work on frontier technologies recognises that IP administration itself must evolve. Blockchain, the Internet of Things, and generative AI are changing not just what gets patented but how IP offices process, verify, and manage rights. Future technology transfer agreements will increasingly involve IP assets that don’t fit neatly into traditional patent or copyright categories, demanding legal innovation alongside technical innovation.

AI and the ownership question at the heart of future transfers 🔗

Artificial intelligence poses the most structurally disruptive question for the future of technology transfer: who owns an invention when the inventor is a machine? As AI systems become capable of generating inventions, designs, and creative outputs autonomously, legal systems are being forced to decide whether existing IP frameworks – built around human inventors – are adequate. Countries like New Zealand and Thailand are already making legislative adjustments, and many more jurisdictions are expected to follow.

For technology transfer specifically, the AI ownership question matters enormously. If a pharmaceutical company uses an AI platform to develop a new drug compound, who transfers what to whom? The owner of the AI system? The entity that trained it on proprietary data? The scientist who framed the research question? These are not theoretical puzzles – they will define licensing terms, royalty structures, and due diligence obligations in future technology transfer agreements. Indian IP law currently requires a human inventor on patent applications, but that position will face sustained pressure as AI-generated inventions multiply.

Green technology transfer: where climate meets commerce 🔗

One of the most consequential areas for future technology transfer is green and clean technology. The global push toward net-zero emissions has created enormous demand for renewable energy systems, sustainable manufacturing processes, and climate adaptation technologies – but much of this technology currently resides in developed countries while the need is concentrated in the developing world.

From the perspective of developing countries, industrialised nations must provide relevant technologies – or at least the rights to use them – if they expect developing nations to join global climate commitments. This has created a politically charged debate. Developed country IP holders argue that weakening patent protections on green technologies removes the commercial incentive that drives R&D investment in the first place. Developing countries counter that mandatory licensing or patent pools are necessary to make these technologies accessible at scale.

The 2024 International IP Index notes that pressure for IP waivers has expanded beyond pandemic pharmaceuticals to now include green technology and climate solutions – a development that major industry bodies view with concern. The future is likely to involve negotiated middle paths: voluntary patent pools, differential pricing in licensing agreements, and co-development frameworks where technology is transferred in exchange for market access or shared R&D contributions. Collaborative licensing models and open licensing for green technologies are increasingly being discussed as mechanisms to maximise adoption while still allowing innovators to recover development costs.

Global collaboration and the rise of bilateral technology councils 🔗

The architecture of international technology transfer is shifting from purely multilateral frameworks to strategic bilateral arrangements. India is at the centre of several of these. The India-EU Trade and Technology Council, launched in 2023, is directly focused on joint research and innovation in green technologies, digital sectors, and clean energy, with both sides committing in February 2025 to deepen engagement on trusted technology partnerships. Separately, India and the United States have established joint quantum coordination mechanisms, research agency partnerships, and innovation bridges connecting defence and technology startups through initiatives like INDUS-X.

These bilateral arrangements are significant for technology transfer because they create structured, government-backed channels for moving IP across borders – with built-in provisions for IP protection, revenue sharing, and co-ownership of jointly developed innovations. Rather than leaving technology transfer entirely to private licensing markets, states are increasingly acting as brokers and guarantors. For future IP practitioners, this means understanding not just contract law and patent law but also trade agreements, diplomatic frameworks, and export control regulations that govern what technology can flow where and under what conditions.

A strong legal and regulatory environment, robust IP protection, and well-developed national infrastructure are what developing-country businesses engaged in technology transfer consistently identify as their primary requirements. This points to a future where countries that invest in building credible IP institutions will attract more inbound technology transfer – making legal reform and institutional capacity-building as important as any licensing deal.

The open innovation model: complement or competitor to IP protection? 🔗

Open innovation – the model where organisations share knowledge and collaborate with external parties rather than keeping R&D entirely internal – presents a nuanced challenge to traditional IP-based technology transfer. The open innovation paradigm treats innovation as something to be shared with all interested parties, with the potential to generate new forms of knowledge production that provide both public goods and viable commercial models simultaneously.

The tension between open innovation and IP protection is not binary. In practice, the future will see more sophisticated hybrid models. A company may openly publish foundational research (building goodwill and attracting collaborators) while retaining strong patent protection over specific commercial applications. Universities may adopt tiered licensing – charging commercial entities while allowing free use by non-profits and public health entities. Patent pools in sectors like semiconductors and telecommunications already demonstrate that competitors can pool certain IP while competing fiercely on others.

Strong IP protection encourages growth more effectively in economies that are open to international trade and investment – and that combining open markets with robust IPRs produces measurably better outcomes. The implication for technology transfer policy is that IP protection and open trade are complements, not substitutes. The future will reward countries and institutions that understand this and build frameworks that allow both.

India’s position and the path ahead 🔗

India’s trajectory in the global technology transfer landscape has shifted markedly. The WIPO World Intellectual Property Report 2024 identifies India as one of the economies that has seen significant growth in both scientific and technological capabilities over the past two decades, with India’s technological specialisation doubling from 9% to 21% of all measured technological capabilities. India now ranks sixth globally in patent filings.

Going forward, India faces a specific balancing act that will define its technology transfer posture. On one hand, as a growing innovator, it has increasing commercial interests in protecting its own IP internationally. On the other hand, as a country that supplies approximately 20% of global generic drugs and has historically used TRIPS flexibilities like compulsory licensing to protect public health, it cannot abandon the policy space that serves its population. India’s pharmaceutical exports reached USD 30.47 billion in FY 2024-25, demonstrating the continued commercial importance of that balance.

The future scenario for Indian technology transfer is one where India plays both sides of the licensing table with increasing sophistication – as both a technology exporter in IT, pharmaceuticals, and agritech, and as a technology importer in semiconductors, advanced manufacturing, and frontier energy systems. The 2024 amendments to India’s Patent Rules reflect a proactive approach to strengthening the IP system to make it more competitive on the global stage while maintaining core public interest provisions. The Global Innovation Index ranking improvement – from 81st in 2015 to 38th in 2025 – illustrates how systematically improved IP infrastructure translates into tangible innovation outcomes.

What the future of technology transfer demands from legal professionals 🔗

The convergence of AI, green technology imperatives, bilateral trade agreements, and open innovation models means that the next generation of technology transfer agreements will be substantially more complex than anything that came before. Future IP lawyers will need to be comfortable with cross-border licensing structures that implicate multiple jurisdictions simultaneously, valuation frameworks for intangible assets like algorithms and datasets, and dispute resolution mechanisms that can keep pace with technology that changes faster than litigation does.

The WIPO framework for knowledge and technology transfer emphasises that effective commercialisation requires a dynamic innovation ecosystem – one where academia, industry, and government collaborate and where technology transfer offices play an active role in IP management, licensing, and commercialisation strategy. India is building this ecosystem, but the legal and institutional infrastructure needs to keep pace with the rapid growth in innovation activity.

The fundamental logic of technology transfer – that moving knowledge from inventor to user creates value for both – will not change. But the mechanisms, the legal frameworks, the geopolitical considerations, and the technologies involved will look substantially different by the end of this decade than they do today.

What do you think? As India evolves from a primarily technology-importing country to one that both imports and exports innovations, how should Indian patent law balance protecting domestic innovators with ensuring that technologies developed with public funding remain accessible to the public? And given the pressure to waive IP rights for green technologies, do you think compulsory licensing is a viable long-term tool for climate technology transfer, or does it ultimately undermine the incentives that drive innovation in the first place?

References

1. https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleasePage.aspx?PRID=2146928
2. https://cplan.in/indias-national-intellectual-property-rights-policy-a-comprehensive-framework-for-innovation-and-development/
3. https://www.wipo.int/en/web/frontier-technologies
4. https://iamip.com/ip-trends-in-2025-what-to-expect-and-how-to-prepare/
5. https://energypedia.info/wiki/The_Role_of_Intellectual_Property_Rights_(IPR)_in_Technology_Transfer_/_Technology_Cooperation
6. https://www.uschamber.com/intellectual-property/2024-ip-index
7. https://research-and-innovation.ec.europa.eu/strategy/strategy-research-and-innovation/europe-world/international-cooperation/bilateral-cooperation-science-and-technology-agreements-non-eu-countries/india_en
8. https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/stories/int_tech_transfer.html
9. https://itif.org/publications/2019/04/25/way-forward-intellectual-property-internationally/
10. https://intellectual-property-helpdesk.ec.europa.eu/news-events/news/world-intellectual-property-report-2024-india-experienced-growth-scientific-and-technological-2024-05-03_en
11. https://intellectual-property-helpdesk.ec.europa.eu/news-events/news/year-review-major-intellectual-property-developments-india-2025-02-13-0_en
12. https://www.wipo.int/en/web/technology-transfer