India’s TRIPS-Compliant Patent Decade – The Tumultuous Journey in Search of a Pragmatic Equilibrium

  • V. K. UnniEmail author


During the first decade of India’s TRIPS compliance (2005–2015), the country witnessed numerous patent-related disputes, mostly from the pharmaceutical sector on various issues pertaining to patent protection, enforcement of patent rights and compulsory licensing of granted patents. Even the non-pharmaceutical sector saw an increase in the number of various patent disputes. India, while enacting its three amendments, had tried to leverage the flexibility provided by the TRIPS Agreement to its member states, and to a great extent these amendments have resulted in an increase in patent-related disputes. This paper focuses on the patent disputes which have come up in the last ten years in order to analyse the approach of the Indian Patent Office and other quasi-judicial bodies such as the Intellectual Property Appellate Board and the higher judiciary.


Indian patent law Patent infringement TRIPS compliance Evergreening the Novartis case 



  1. Ali F, et. al. (2018) Pharmaceutical patent grants in India: how our safeguards against evergreening have failed, and why the system must be reformed,
  2. Arup C, Plahe J (2010) Pharmaceutical patent networks: assessing the influence of India’s paragraph 3(d) Internationally, I.P.Q. pp 1, 15–43, at 27–28Google Scholar
  3. Basheer S (2005) “Policy style” reasoning at the Indian patent office. Intell Prop Q 3(309):310Google Scholar
  4. Burk DL, Lemley MA (2005) Inherency. Wm Mary L Rev 47(371):373Google Scholar
  5. Chalmers R (2006) Evergreen or deciduous? Australian trends in relation to the “Evergreening” of patents. Melbourne U L Rev 20:29Google Scholar
  6. Chaudhuri S (2005) The WTO and India's pharmaceuticals industry: patent protection, TRIPS and developing countries (OUP 2005) Google Scholar
  7. Chisum DS (2004) Chisum on patents. § 3.03. LexisNexis, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  8. Claeys ER (2015) The conceptual relation between IP rights and infringement remedies, 22 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 825, 825 Google Scholar
  9. Dalhman C, Utz A (2005) The World Bank, India and the knowledge economy: leveraging strengths and opportunities. pp 1–2
  10. Fyan S (2010) Pharmaceutical patent protection and Sec. 3(d): a comparative look at India and the U.S. VA. J.L. & Tech. 15, 199, 207Google Scholar
  11. Ghoshray S (2014) 3(D) view of India’s patent law: social justice aspiration meets property rights in Novartis v. Union of India & Others. J Marshall Rev Intell Prop L 13:719, 733Google Scholar
  12. Greene W (2007) The emergence of India’s pharmaceutical industry and implications for the U.S. generic drug market 19 (U.S. Int’l Trade Comm’n, Office of Econ., Working Paper No. 2007-05-A)Google Scholar
  13. Ho CM (2009) Unveiling competing patent perspectives. Hous L Rev. 46:1047, 1049Google Scholar
  14. Ho CM (2015) Should all drugs be patentable? A comparative perspective. Vand J Ent Tech L 17(295):325Google Scholar
  15. Kesan JP (2002) Carrots and sticks to create a better patent system, 17 Berkeley Tech. L.J. pp 763, 776 Google Scholar
  16. Lee L (2008) Trials and TRIPS-ulations: Indian patent law and Novartis AG v. Union of India, 23 Berkeley Tech. L.J. pp 281, 296 (2008)Google Scholar
  17. Mossoff A (2001) Rethinking the development of patents: an intellectual history, 1550–1800, 52 Hastings L.J. pp 1255, 1255Google Scholar
  18. Mueller J (2007) The tiger awakens: the tumultuous transformation of India’s patent system and the rise of Indian pharmaceutical innovation. U Pitt L Rev 68(491):502Google Scholar
  19. Mueller JM, Chisum DS (2008–2009) Enabling patent law’s inherent anticipation doctrine. Hous L Rev 45:1101, 1106Google Scholar
  20. Okediji RL (2003) Public welfare and the role of the WTO: reconsidering the TRIPS Agreement. Emory Int’ll Rev 17:819, 890–893Google Scholar
  21. Ragavan S (2003) Can’t we all get along? The case for a workable patent model. Ariz St LJ 35(117):144Google Scholar
  22. Ragavan S (2006) Of the inequals of the Uruguay round. Marq Intell Prof L Rev 10(273):279Google Scholar
  23. Rajagopala Ayyangar N (1959) Report on the Revision of the Patents Law (Ministry of Commerce and Industry 1959)Google Scholar
  24. Reddy P, Chandrasekharan S (2017) Create, copy, disrupt India’s intellectual property dilemmas, pp 1–16 (OUP 2017)Google Scholar
  25. Sagar R (2007) Introduction of exclusive privileges/patents in colonial India: why and for whose benefit, 2 Intell. Prop. Q. pp 164, 166Google Scholar
  26. Sharma D (2005) When death becomes cheap. Herald D (16 April 2005),
  27. Sikka HS (2005) Is the new patents bill good for us? (23 March 2005)
  28. Singh M (2005) India’s patent law-is it TRIPS compliant? Managing intell. Prop 67:69Google Scholar
  29. Thomas JR (2005) Pharmaceutical patent law. Bureau of National Affairs, Arilington, pp 609–610Google Scholar
  30. Unni VK (2015) India’s tryst with pharma patent settlements: whether a turbulent decade of litigations would give way to meaningful compromises? 6 W.I.P.O.J. (2) pp 165,169Google Scholar
  31. Vishwanathan M (2014), It’s raining injunctions: novartis granted injunctions against four other generic makers over Galvus,
  32. Wertheimer AI, Santella TM (2005b) Pharmacoevolution: the benefits of incremental innovation. IPN Working Paper on Intellectual Property, Innovation and Health, p 8Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition, Munich 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Ph.D; Professor at the Public Policy and Management GroupIndian Institute of ManagementCalcuttaIndia

Personalised recommendations