Evolution Of Patent Laws In India: With Special Reference To The Trips Agreement
- IJLLR Journal
- 1 hour ago
- 2 min read
Adv. Harsha Binth Saif, National University of Advanced Legal Studies
ABSTRACT
Patent law has long been reflective of the opposites and the conflicts that they generate, viz. the preservation of innovation and simultaneously the protection of the public interest. The chronology of India's post-colonial shift away from the colonial Patents Act 1911, followed by the Patents Act 1970, and subsequently to the TRIPS-compatible amendments of 1999, 2002, and 2005, demonstrates the battle of wits between national priorities and global commitments.
With the Patents Act of 1970, the biggest relief went to the general public as it made access to essential goods, especially drugs, easier by blocking product patents and supporting generic drug manufacturers. However, after India became a member of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and committed itself to the TRIPS Agreement, things went to the opposite extreme. The post-TRIPS reforms restored product patents, exceeded enforcement, and granted with India world standards, and thus the crucial controversies regarding access to medicines, compulsory licensing, and public health.
The path of evolution of the Indian patent law has been followed in this study, which has been focused primarily on the problems emerging out of compliance with TRIPS. It encompasses legislative reforms, judicial rulings, for instance, Novartis AG v. Union of India and Bayer Corporation v. Union of India, and the measures taken by India to strike a balance between innovation and social justice.
In conclusion, the research recognizes that India had no choice but to meet TRIPS but attempted to create a system that would remain responsive to the needs of developing nations. Although, from the ongoing worldwide debates on patent evergreening, access to medicines, and the future of pharmaceutical innovation, it can be gathered that the problem of intellectual property and public health is not going to be resolved anytime soon and that it is going to continue to be a contested ground.
