The Centre for Internet and Society
https://cis-india.org
These are the search results for the query, showing results 41 to 55.
Leading Up To The GCIP: A Chat With Michael Geist
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/leading-up-to-the-gcip-a-chat-with-michael-geist
<b>Continuing the lead-up to the GCIP, the following discussion is with Dr. Michael Geist.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Click to read the blog post originally published on <a class="external-link" href="http://global-congress.org/blog/leading-up-to-the-gcip-a-chat-with-michael-geist">Global IP Congress website</a> on December 12, 2015.</p>
<hr style="text-align: justify; " />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Profile: </b>Dr. Michael Geist is a law professor at the University of Ottawa, where he holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law. He will be giving a keynote address during the inaugural plenary session scheduled for December 15<sup>th</sup>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><i>JMM: The UK recently made a major push towards open access after the recommendations of the Finch Report dealing with expanding access to research publications. The major thrust of the Finch Report is towards sustaining an open access model through Article Processing Charges (APC) as opposed to other alternatives such as Advertisement/Sponsorship based model or the subsidy-based model. This has raised concerns over predatory open access journals using APC which are said to undermine peer review and privilege wealthy universities and grant holding scholars. What do you think are the implications of following such a model for the open access movement at large?</i></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>MG</b>: I have real concerns about the APC model, which may price open access out of the hands of many scholars. We need experimentation with different open models, recognizing the economic uncertainty of switching away from high priced subscriptions. However, APC may entrench much of the current model and is among the least desirable (though increasingly common) publisher approaches to OA.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>JMM: <i>One of the barriers to open access in Canada was the lack of campus support towards open access. You have written that even as many of the world’s top universities adopt open access strategies, universities in Canada remain reluctant to follow open access mandates. What explains this reluctance to open access among universities and is it something found in other parts of the world as well?</i> </b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>MG:</b> We are starting to see more movement towards OA in Canada. Part of this is driven by our federal granting councils, which have emphasized OA requirements within their guidelines. I think there is also a growing recognition of the scholarly benefits of OA. That said, there are still many scholars who pay little attention to the publishing contracts they sign and the restrictions that may be imposed on their work through their choice of journal. This is an ongoing education issue, particularly for senior scholars, who may still be unfamiliar with OA issues.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>JMM:<i> In early 2013, the University of Ottawa Press released “The Copyright Pentalogy: How the Supreme Court of Canada shook the foundations of Copyright Law” in open access. The book was one of the most accessed on the University of Ottawa Press website and in less than 6 months of release was top among 35 books on page views. Writing about the book, you noted that the book was also a top seller in the University webpage in spite of being available for free. Over the last few years, many more of such examples have surfaced. Is open access actually not at odds with commercial sales as commonly understood?</i></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>MG:</b> I think open access works hand-in-hand with commercial sales. Indeed, in some instances, it may increase sales. I have long come from the position that there are three potential purchasers of my books. The first group – librarians, people focused on digital issues, etc. – will buy the book regardless of whether it is freely available online. There is a second group that might have purchased the book, but chooses not to do so because there is a free version available. This group represents a financial loss. There is a third group, however, who would not have purchased the book or even been aware of it, but find it through open access. This group may decide it likes what it has read and will buy the book. If group three is larger than group two, the publisher ends up ahead. In fact, the third group doesn’t even need to be larger, because the publisher may be able to use OA to cross-sell other publications. Note that the fourth group – those that would not buy the book but choose to download it – do not factor into this analysis because this group would never have been purchasers.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><i>JMM: Recently you wrote about an Ottawa Court ruling asking a man to pay damages amounting to $13,470 for circumvention of a digital lock. The case involved a man who received from his friend an online publication that he had not subscribed to himself. Apart from Canada, United States of America has strict anti-circumvention rules under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) which makes it illegal to circumvent technological protection measures irrespective of whether or not the reasons for doing so are perfectly legal or non-infringing. Further the TPP under Article 18.68 provides for legal protection against circumvention of effective technological measures without reference to any exception for legal or non infringing use just as in the DMCA. In the light of active endorsement of such measures from certain quarters of the developed world do you think such measures could become a global norm that developing countries may soon be forced to adopt?</i></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>MG: </b>There is a real danger of this occurring. The US has aggressively pressured others to implement restrictive anti-circumvention rules. These rules often go well beyond those required by the WIPO Internet treaties. This is a significant problem that cuts across all economies, both developed and developing.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><i>JMM: Almost a year back, there were reports indicating that Canada was the leading opponent of the IP chapter in the Trans-Pacific Partnership. However a year later the negotiations have been completed and parties have agreed to the same text. According to you, what helped quell the Canadian dissent to contentious areas such as extension of the term of copyright protection, criminal liability for copyright infringement among others? Further do you think the victory of the Liberal Party in the just concluded elections will force a rethink on the TPP?</i></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>MG</b>: Earlier leaks did indeed indicate that Canada opposed many provisions in the IP text, reflecting differences between Canadian and U.S. copyright law. On several issues, Canada caved (such as term extension). Given the secrecy associated with the negotiations, it is hard to know precisely why certain provisions ended up the way they did. However, the final text suggests that IP was not a top Canadian priority, other than preserving the notice-and-notice system.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As for the change in government, I think Canada will sign the TPP alongside other signatories, but conduct an extensive review of the treaty before deciding whether to implement it. Whether it moves forward likely depends more on what happens in the U.S., where there appears to be significant opposition from some presidential candidates and members of Congress</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b><i>JMM: Article 18.66 of the TPP deals with Balance in Copyright and Related Rights system. The article allows countries to achieve a balance in copyright and related rights system by crafting exceptions or limitations ‘giving due consideration to legitimate purposes such as, but not limited to: criticism; comment; news reporting; teaching, scholarship, research, and other similar purposes; and facilitating access to published works for persons who are blind, visually impaired or otherwise print disabled’. Do you think this article is drafted broadly enough to allow meaningful fair use? Further, article 18.65, to which 18.66 is subject to, states that exceptions permitted under the TRIPS, Berne Convention, WIPO Copyright Treaty and WIPO Performance and Phonograms treaty shall apply to TPP as well. The Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works for Persons who are Blind, Visually Impaired, or Otherwise Print Disabled is absent in Article 18.65 but is present in a footnote referencing to the exception of ‘facilitating access to published works for persons who are blind, visually impaired or otherwise print disabled’ in Article 18.66. What do you think explains this treatment of Marrakesh Treaty and what will its implications be?</i></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>MG:</b> I do think that the TPP allows for fair use. However, it does not require fair use, which suggests that many other countries may not implement it.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There is definitely a double standard with respect to international copyright treaties in the TPP. Where the treaty is viewed as a rights-oriented treaty, it is a requirement. Where it is a user-oriented treaty such as Marrakesh, it is optional.</p>
<hr size="1" style="text-align: justify; " width="33%" />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="http://global-congress.org/blog/leading-up-to-the-gcip-a-chat-with-michael-geist#_ftnref1">[1]</a> Dr. Geist has written numerous academic articles and government reports on Internet and Technology and is a syndicated columnist on technology law issues with his regular columns appearing on the Hill Times, the Tyee and the Toronto Star.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">He is the editor of several copyright law books including “The Copyright Pentalogy: How the Supreme Court of Canada Shook the Foundations of Canadian Copyright Law”, “From “Radical Extremism” to “Balanced Copyright”: Canadian Copyright and the Digital Agenda”, and “In the Public Interest: The Future of Canadian Copyright Law” along with being the editor of several monthly technology law publications and author of a popular blog on internet and intellectual property rights.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Dr. Geist serves an the director and on advisory boards of several Internet and IT law organizations including the Canadian Internet Registration Authority, the dot-ca administrative agency, the Canadian IT Law Association, Watchfire, and Verifia. He is Chair of a global Internet jurisdiction project for the American Bar Association and International Chamber of Commerce. He is regularly quoted in the national and international media on Internet law issues and has appeared before government committees on e-commerce policy</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">More information can be obtained at <i>http://www.michaelgeist.ca/.</i></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/leading-up-to-the-gcip-a-chat-with-michael-geist'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/leading-up-to-the-gcip-a-chat-with-michael-geist</a>
</p>
No publisherJob Michael MathewIntellectual Property RightsAccess to Knowledge2016-01-31T05:37:58ZBlog EntryLeading Up To The GCIP: A Chat With Susan K. Sell
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/leading-up-to-the-gcip-a-chat-with-susan-k-sell
<b>After Mr. Zakir Thomas and Dr. Michael Geist, our third discussion is with Prof. Susan K. Sell.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Click to read the blog post published on <a class="external-link" href="http://global-congress.org/blog/leading-up-to-the-gcip-a-chat-with-susan-k-sell">Global Congress</a> page on December 12, 2015.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Profile: Susan Sell is a Professor of Political Science and International Affairs at George Washington University where her teaching focuses on theories of international politics, international political economy and relations between the North and South. She will be giving a keynote address during the inaugural plenary session scheduled for December 15th.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>JMM:</b> <b><i>The Australian Government’s plain packaging legislation is being challenged by Philip Morris International under the Investment State Dispute Settlement provisions under the Australia-Unites States of America Bilateral Investment Treaty. The treaty under question is a purely investment treaty with no references to public interest or health pre-dating the TRIPS. What do you think will be the implications of adjudicating an intellectual property enforcement dispute at an investment tribunal? Further, such provisions are present in the recently concluded TPP as well even though an exception is carved out for tobacco. However TPP vide Article 18.6 affirms the party’s commitment to TRIPS and public health and explicitly states that parties have the right to determine what constitutes a national emergency and take measures to protect public health even if it conflicts with the obligations under the IP chapter. Do you think the presence of such an explicit undertaking will fundamentally alter the power dynamics within an investor State dispute settlement tribunal which is generally seen as a pro-corporate body?</i></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>SS: </b>I think the implications are very troubling. One thing I have looked at a lot and continue to look at is the practice of forum shifting, where parties shift to different forums to try to get what they want and I look at Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) as another forum that raises troubling implications. ISDS has become extremely popular over the last few years; in 1982 there was only one ISDS case, it rose to 50 in 2012 and now in 2015 we are up to 500 cases in 50 different countries. To me this is troubling because it represents a trend of deal making behind closed doors that circumvents democratic deliberation and public scrutiny.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">IP is now being defined as an investment asset under the ISDS provisions. In 2014, Susy Frankel and R Dreyfuss wrote about this redefinition of intellectual property. In 2012 a multinational law firm Jones Day published a report arguing that ISDS was a new way forward for pharmaceutical firms to address the assault on their patents in the developing world. So this is a new strategy of intellectual property owners.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The ISDS provisions, by identifying intellectual property as an investment asset, are like getting a camel’s nose inside a tent. Once these issues get adjudicated under ISDS provisions it will open the floodgates for much more ISDS activity focused on IP. Now there is some interesting pushback against these provisions since ISDS is getting more scrutiny in Europe. Germany has gotten less excited about it, the EU is openly debating it and the Eli Lily case against Canada is gaining a lot of notoriety. A number of developing countries, especially in Latin America, who have been very hard hit by ISDS provisions in a number of sectors have requested that ISDS provisions, that they are party to, be formally annulled. Now that’s not going to happen but it is an important symbolic groundswell against ISDS provisions because they override sovereignty, they override decisions of the highest courts of the land, and they are not transparent and there is no appeals process.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">To answer the second part of the question, I would love it if states could use the flexibilities in the TPP as a defense of their public health laws but I am a little skeptical about that happening. We have had the Doha Declaration for many years and it has not really stopped pharmaceutical companies from pushing for further protection and enforcement of intellectual property and intellectual property obligations. Therefore even though the language is in there, I doubt if it will change a lot of things in terms of power dynamics on the ground.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>JMM:</b> <b><i>In one of your papers you make the claim that non-governmental organizations (NGOs) working towards lowering intellectual property standards in movements such as access to medicine are not all that different from big businesses that these organizations are fighting. The claim proceeds to argue that both parties are influenced by normative as well as instrumental objectives as opposed to belief that NGOs are only informed by normative objectives. Yet, how important do you think it is for the NGO movements such as Access to Medicine to maintain a distinction from the pharmaceutical companies they are fighting considering the fact that one of the major victories of the Access to Medicine movement was in relation to the HIV/AIDS crisis where the whole issue was framed as a moral life or death question?</i></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>SS: </b>I think it is extremely important for the movement to maintain the distinction and the life or death framing of the issue was important too. I want to clarify that the comparison in the piece ‘Using ideas strategically’ between pharmaceutical companies and NGOs is only at the level of strategy. Both parties are very different in terms of resources, structural power, etc. Pharmaceutical companies have access to more resources and are more powerful structurally. Therefore the framing of issues becomes very important for the structurally weaker party.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There are big differences between NGOs in the access to medicine movement and pharmaceutical companies. However, that said, I think there are many representatives of pharmaceutical firms that really believe in the morality of their position – that you need protection to innovate the next generation of drugs. People from Monsanto, many of whom advocate for patents for seeds feel this is important because they believe that this can increase food security. They sincerely believe that the development of drought-resistant plants is something that is good for the world. So these people also make a moral claim whether or not you agree with it. The point is such claims are not purely cynical or instrumental on the part of such actors.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>JMM:</b> <b><i>One of the major criticisms against the TPP has been the lack of transparency in negotiations with even Congressmen not being allowed to see the text till it was released earlier this month. You have spoken about how this is troubling from a legitimacy and accountability standpoint and insulates private players from scrutiny while pushing unpopular articles within the agreement. Yet, in the case of tobacco, an industry which is quite powerful in the US, the TPP has carved out an exception in relation to ISDS. Article 29.5 gives parties the right to elect to deny the benefits of ISDS in relation to tobacco control measures. The statement of United States Trade Representative Michael Froman explaining the exception reads “Developed following extensive consultations with Congress and with a wide range of American stakeholders – from health advocates to farmers, representing many views on whether and how to address tobacco-related health policy measures in a trade agreement”. Even as criticism abound on lack of transparency there seems to have been a surprising amount of transparency as far as this particular provision is concerned. What do you think explains this anomaly?</i></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>SS: </b>First of all, I am not very sure that there has been a lot of transparency in the tobacco discussions. I would need to find out more about the process. That statement alone from Michael Froman is not much to go by considering the fact that Stan McCoy before Michael Froman and now Michael Froman himself have always maintained that they have been consulting a wide range of stakeholders during the entire process of TPP negotiations. However the consulted stakeholders have only been their cleared advisors, most of whom are IP owners, major corporations, Wall Street players and the like. Consumers and public interest NGO’s have been shut out of this process. Therefore I am not aware, despite what Froman has said, that there has been an open public deliberation about tobacco provisions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In fact right now, in the United States, there is a lot of pushback against the carve-out for tobacco in ISDS. This is a sticking point for Obama getting the deal through Congress. Tobacco firms are very upset about the carve-out. Similarly pharmaceutical companies are very upset that they did not get the 12 year data exclusivity on biologics. Senators and Congressmen from states that have a big pharmaceutical presence are saying that the deal must be renegotiated and the higher standards be put in place. So there is an interesting process going on now, but I am not aware of any open and public negotiations.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>JMM:</b> <b><i>An exception to the global movement towards stricter IP regimes as evidenced by deals such as ACTA, TPP among others has been India. The patent law has set the bar pretty high for granting of patents and the Government hasn’t shied away from using tools such as compulsory licenses. What explains the Indian isolation to pressures of the western world, particularly the United States, and what are the lessons the Indian model has to offer to other developing countries?</i></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>SS: </b>India is a really interesting case and I am a little nervous about recent statements made by Narendra Modi referencing the need to be open to stronger IP protection. India has a long history of standing up to pressure, for example being the leader of the Non-Aligned Movement, so it has a history of carving out its own path. It has been a pioneer with the passing of the Indian Patent Act, 1970, which allowed it to develop a highly robust and successful generic industry. The adoption of Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, which prevents the evergreening of patents, has been emulated by the Philippines in its Patent Act and is totally TRIPS compliant.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Some of the lessons of the Indian model are to use flexibilities under TRIPS and tailor IPR regimes to suit one’s national needs. Of course India has a large economy and that gives it a more power than some of the smaller developing countries. I think it is important that countries support each other’s rights to use these flexibilities and I would like to see more South-South corporation in drafting laws and offer some pushback against the relentless pressure to go over and above what is required by TRIPS.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>JMM:</b> <b><i>At the turn of the 21<sup>st</sup> century there was a move to evolve minimum standards of protection for IP which culminated in the TRIPS agreement. There was a feeling that that the TRIPS agreement was an unbalanced agreement with respect to the interests of the developing world and it was hoped that the Doha Declaration on Public Health and TRIPS would make the agreement more balanced. Added to this, the US trade policy of 2007 marked a shift in the approach of the United States towards IP by lowering standards of protection for the first time. However, recently agreements such as ACTA and TPP tip the balance in favour of developed countries and its MNCs by dismantling many of the inherent flexibilities in the TRIPS agreement. What, according to you, explains this latest shift to a more restrictive IP regime evident from bilateral and plurilateral agreements?</i></b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>SS: </b>I would argue that if you look back historically, the May 2007 amendment to the Trade Policy to allow for more flexibility in the area of public health is an anomaly. It is this anomaly that needs to be explained rather than the pressure for higher standards. The pressure for higher standards has been ongoing ever since the TRIPS negotiations were concluded. For right-holders the provisions in the TRIPS were always a floor, a bare minimum of protection whereas other parties saw it as ceiling considering their level of development and capacity. So when we see agreements like ACTA and TPP, they are consistent with what US trade policy has been and increasingly Europe as well in its bilateral and regional agreements. Firms have never stopped pushing for stricter standards and they are never going to.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">I think one of the most concerning things is firms engaging in what I would call Private Power 2.0. We saw how private power was very instrumental in crafting and achieving the TRIPS agreement. What we see now, however, is less transparency and more anti-competitive conduct flourishing behind closed doors as evidenced by deals such as TPP and ACTA. I just read a manuscript by Natasha Tusikov titled ‘Choke Points’ in which she talks about the fact that even though the Stop Online Piracy Act and Protect Intellectual Property Act were shelved as a result of online activism and mobilization of opposition, that helped to unravel ACTA abroad and seemed like a very big victory. People were celebrating it as a David and Goliath story as it was the first time rights holders did not get what they wanted in a big way. However in reality the provisions of SOPA and PIPA are in practice after having been adopted through private contracts between Internet Service Providers and content owners. These contracts are entered into behind closed doors and the public is not privy to this. So if you are watching a 12 episode show on Netflix and after 8 episodes it is no longer available then you begin to wonder what happened. What happened is these private agreements behind closed doors where companies like eBay and Google are increasingly policing the rights of the right-holders and increasingly enforcing wishes of right-owners online. These are some of the worrying trends that need to be addressed.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">One other issue is that the firms are still making the argument that they have always tried to get higher standards of protection and that this is about competitiveness and creating jobs. However recently, Irish company Amgen acquired Pfizer which was based in New York. It will be interesting to see how compelling the larger competiveness and jobs argument will be given that Pfizer will now be based in Ireland and no longer paying the United States tax revenue. The Pfizer spokesperson was saying that the acquisition is good for the United States and that’s a real puzzler. So this is a really interesting move that has happened and it undercuts the rationale these firms have been using to get the support of the US Government behind their preferences.</p>
<hr size="1" style="text-align: justify; " width="33%" />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="http://global-congress.org/blog/leading-up-to-the-gcip-a-chat-with-susan-k-sell#_ftnref1">[1]</a> Prof. Sell has written extensively on the politics behind the international IP rights regime most notably in her book “Private Power, Public Law, The Globalization of Intellectual Property Rights”. She is also the author of “Intellectual Property Rights: A Critical History” and “Power and Ideas: North South Politics of Intellectual Property and Antitrust”. Apart from the books, she has a number of publications dealing with and describing the forces that shape IPR regimes, the implications of the present IPR regime in relation to access to medicine, importance of developing a humanitarian conception of IPR among others.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/leading-up-to-the-gcip-a-chat-with-susan-k-sell'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/leading-up-to-the-gcip-a-chat-with-susan-k-sell</a>
</p>
No publisherJob Michael MathewIntellectual Property RightsAccess to Knowledge2016-01-31T08:36:57ZBlog EntryIntellectual Property Rights & TRIPS: An Overview
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/intellectual-property-rights-trips-an-overview
<b>The Uruguay Round of multilateral trade negotiations of the General Agreement on Trade and Tariff began in 1986 with a Ministerial Deceleration in Punta del Este.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">One of the 13 subjects for negotiation in Part I of the declaration dealing with trade in goods was the mandate on Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). The essence of the mandate was to develop an effective and adequate standard of protection of intellectual property rights and a multilateral framework of principles, rules and disciplines dealing with international trade in counterfeit goods. The agreement laid the architecture for a uniform global treatment of IPR by providing for minimum standards of IP protection, national enforcement mechanisms and dispute settlement mechanisms.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">GATT and IPR</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Article IX: 6 was the only provision in the GATT that specifically dealt with the protection and promotion of IP. The Article dealt with distinctive regional or geographical names and did not lay down any standards of protection but rather called on States to corporate with each other on its protection. The first attempt at addressing questions of IPR within the GATT framework was made by the United States in 1978 towards the end of the Tokyo Round of multilateral trade negotiations. The focus at this point of time was to develop a plurilateral agreement on trade in counterfeit goods. No progress was made on this front due to lack of support from any country/bloc apart from the EC.The matter was raised again in the 1982 Ministerial meeting and the Ministerial Declaration included an instruction to the GATT council to look into the question of counterfeit goods and the appropriateness and modalities of joint action within the GATT framework to counter the same. The expert group constituted pursuant to the Ministerial Declaration called for enhanced international action to tackle the problem of trade in counterfeit goods but stopped short of agreeing that GATT was the right forum for this. The preparations for the Uruguay Round in 1986 arrested any further progress by the expert group, even as active efforts were made to include IP in the Round.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">IPR in the Uruguay Round</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The United States was the major force behind the inclusion of IP in the Uruguay Round. Ineffective protection of US IP abroad was thought to be undermining the competitiveness of the US industry by both the US Government and industry. The objective was to evolve substantial standards of protection of IP in other countries along with effective enforcement mechanisms. This objective had earlier found expression in the US Trade and Tariff Act of 1984 which states explicitly that adequate foreign IP protection is a major US objective in trade negotiations.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In the initial stages of the Uruguay Round it was only US and Japan that were at the forefront for the inclusion of IPR’s in the mandate of negotiations. As a consequence of this, the first two years of the TRIPS Negotiating Group was an effort towards clarifying its negotiating mandate. The United States wanted the mandate to extend to substantive standards of protection of IP and internal enforcement; other developed countries were measured in their response. In particular, EC had an ambivalent stand at the beginning due to the added complication of distribution of competences between member states as EC institutions now had exclusive competence in GATT related matters. However as negotiations proceeded industrialized countries including Australia, Canada, Switzerland, New Zealand and the Nordic countries joined the pro IP bandwagon recognizing their shared interests in the deal. Even as industrialized countries were on one page in relation to the need for substantial IP protection to be part of multilateral trade rules there were still differences among them on the scope of protection of certain IPRs and with respect to special measures for developing countries such as transition periods , ‘pipeline protection’ and compulsory licensing. The underlying consensus on the need for IP protection within the GATT framework among these countries ensured that differences as noted above did not end up derailing the agreement.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Developing countries on the other hand were apprehensive about the inclusion of IPR within the GATT framework. The reasons for such a stand include, the belief that the mandate of GATT should not extend beyond ‘goods’, that such an inclusion will intrude into the domestic policy space of these countries and adversely affect their sovereignty in pursuing socio-economic policies according to their own needs and finally that there was nothing to be gained from undertaking obligations when 99% of the global patents and other forms of IP are owned by industrialized countries. However in the midterm review meeting held at Montreal in 1988 it started to appear that some of these developing countries shifted their stand in favour of inclusion of IPR in the GATT framework. This change in stand was not due to any new found clarity on the need for stricter and stronger IP protection at a global level. The future of multilateral trading system and the market access it secured came to be linked with the success of the Uruguay Round and a successful completion of TRIPS agreement was increasingly seen as a prerequisite for such an outcome. This belief was buttressed by the fact that the WTO agreement created new trade rights and did not incorporate pre-existing rights of the GATT with the result that any Government not joining it would lose the rights they enjoyed prior to the agreement. There was growing acceptance that refusing to deal with IP within the GATT will lead to a situation where developing countries will have to address it through bilateral agreements where the balance of power is further skewed in favour of developed countries. Further the potential benefits the agreement could bring in, in the fields of agriculture and textile was becoming clearer. Most importantly developing countries believed that using their collective bargaining power they could build into the agreement adequate flexibilities which will achieve a better balance of the interests of the developed and developing world.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Inherent Flexibilities in TRIPS</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Although the mandate of TRIPS was to evolve a uniform global IP system with minimum standards of protection and effective enforcement mechanisms it does include a number of flexibilities that facilitate development and protection of public interest. In 1990 even as negotiations were in full swing to iron out differences between developed and developing countries , a draft TRIPS agreement was tabled by industrialized countries the focus of which was minimum protection , enforcement mechanisms and dispute settlement measures. In response to this draft, developing countries proposed their own draft legal text which aimed to maintain some flexibility in the agreement to allow countries to implement economic and social development objectives. The idea that was being emphasized was that intellectual property is not an end in itself and its objective should be the overall benefit of society as opposed to mere private benefit. These concerns of the developing countries found expression in Article 7 and 8 of the TRIPS of the agreement.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Article 7 and 8 of the agreement explicitly provide the important objectives and principals that need to be considered in the interpretation of the Agreement. Article 7 sets out the objective of the agreement to be promotion of technological innovation, transfer and dissemination of technology, production and use of technological knowledge while giving due attention to social and economic welfare. Article 8 gives countries the freedom to amend their laws to protect public health, nutrition and to promote public interest. Further, the preamble of the agreement recognizes underlying public policy objectives of countries in the protection of intellectual property rights which include developmental and technological objectives. A combined reading of Article 7, 8 and the Preamble of the agreement ‘<i>in good faith in accordance with the ordinary meaning given to the terms of the treaty’</i> reveals that the agreement shows due deference to the domestic policy considerations of member countries. Thus even though TRIPS had its genesis in the strategic interests of the developed world , by the time the agreement was agreed and entered into , the developing world by virtue of its collective bargaining power had managed to incorporate certain flexibilities to make the agreement a more balanced framework for the protection and promotion of intellectual property.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/intellectual-property-rights-trips-an-overview'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/intellectual-property-rights-trips-an-overview</a>
</p>
No publisherJob Michael MathewIntellectual Property RightsAccess to Knowledge2016-01-31T05:54:02ZBlog EntryIndia - Europe Conference on Building a Sustainable IPR - ICT Ecosystem for Promoting Innovation
https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/india-europe-conference-on-building-a-sustainable-ipr-ict-ecosystem-for-promoting-innovation
<b>Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC), Pune organized a one-day conference in Bangalore on November 20, 2015. Rohini Lakshané attended this event. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Intellectual property is at the core of business ventures and critical to successfully compete internationally. However, skills to commercialize technological innovations remain a crucial impediment to innovative entrepreneurs and innovators aspiring to become world leaders in global ICTE markets. A robust IPR-ICT ecosystem can help capitalize on the growth-enhancing effects of innovation vis-à-vis ICTE. In order to fulfill the aspiration of its stakeholders, the IPR-ICT ecosystem has to be global in geographic scope, spearhead shaping appropriate framework conditions for innovation and assist in charting out policy roadmaps for sustainable and inclusive growth.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">With this in mind Deity and EPO is working together in developing a close cooperation to promote IPR in ICTE domain, especially with respect to sharing of best practices and procedures for filing and processing ICTE patents in India and Europe by Indian and European firms.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The one day conference on “India-Europe Conference on Building a Sustainable IPR-ICT Ecosystem for Promoting Innovation” organised by Centre for Development of Advanced Computing (C-DAC), a premier R&D organisation, aims to address the challenges in building a sustainable global IPR-ICT ecosystem, discuss IP policy issues relevant to Indian and European ICTE industries and concord on various nuances of patenting technology and activities with an ICTE perspective.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Sessions</h3>
<p><b>Parallel 1</b></p>
<p>11.00 - 13.00: Challenges and Opportunities in Building a Sustainable Global IPR Ecosystem for Promotion of Innovation in ICTE Sector<br />14.00 - 15.30: IPR Policy Perspective for Promoting Innovation -India and Europe</p>
<p>Parallel 2</p>
<p>14.00 - 15.30: Standard Essential Patent Issues and Perspective with regard to ICTE<br />15.45 - 17.15: Patent Information and Analysis: A Tool for Building Business Strategies</p>
<hr />
<p>For more information and brochure of the event, <a class="external-link" href="http://ict-ipr.in/sipeit/conference">visit this website</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/india-europe-conference-on-building-a-sustainable-ipr-ict-ecosystem-for-promoting-innovation'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/india-europe-conference-on-building-a-sustainable-ipr-ict-ecosystem-for-promoting-innovation</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIntellectual Property RightsAccess to Knowledge2015-12-22T02:48:04ZNews ItemNational IPR Policy: Mapping the Stakeholders’ Response
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-mapping-the-stakeholders2019-response
<b>The first draft of the National IPR Policy was released last December. Following that, a plethora of comments and suggestions was submitted to the DIPP on the same. In this post, I will focus on the comments that were available online and analyse the trends that I was able to find in the same and also highlight the many suggestions put forth by the stakeholders.</b>
<p>Nehaa Chaudhari provided inputs and feedback and also edited this post.</p>
<hr />
<h3>I. Introduction</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On 24<sup>th</sup> December 2014, the IPR Think Tank constituted by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (DIPP) officially released the <a href="http://dipp.nic.in/English/Schemes/Intellectual_Property_Rights/IPR_Policy_24December2014.pdf">first draft</a> of the National IPR Policy. Following this, in a <a href="http://dipp.nic.in/English/acts_rules/Press_Release/pressRelease_IPR_Policy_30December2014.pdf">press release</a> dated 30<sup>th</sup> December, 2014, the DIPP called for comments and suggestions on the draft from all stakeholders. CIS, through an RTI, asked the DIPP to disclose all the comments received by it. However, the DIPP’s reply, rather vague, stated that it is not in the position to provide the same. (Further details <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-series-rti-requests-by-cis-to-dipp-dipp-responses">here</a>).</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">II. Research Methodology</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In this post, I have compiled and compared the various submissions that I was able to find online in a <a href="http://spicyip.com/2015/03/more-submissions-on-the-draft-ip-policy.html">SpicyIP post</a> and will provide an analysis of the same.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/ipr-policy-comments" class="internal-link">spreadsheet</a> that I have created contains a compilation of the many issues that were raised by 15 stakeholders of various affiliations (organisations/scholars/unions). This spreadsheet was put together after reading each submission carefully, and summarizing the same. After dividing the contents of the submissions into the various issues, they were put under certain heads in this sheet. Though there were a few ideas covered by certain submissions that have not been tabulated, all the major and important ones have been covered, in my opinion.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On the basis of this spreadsheet, the following observations have been made on the feedback of the many stakeholders on the various aspects of the draft.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">III. Stakeholders - A Statistical Analyis</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A total of 15 submissions were taken into consideration for the purpose of this post, and all of them applauded the government for recognizing of the need for a comprehensive policy on IP and the DIPP’s efforts to give the public a chance to play a role in the process of formation of a policy that would affect the country and its economy significantly. However, each submission had its own set of criticisms and suggestions to the various aspects dealt with by the policy. In my analysis there are three broad categories that the stakeholders can be divided into:</p>
<ul>
<li>Research organisations/NGOs.</li>
<li>Industrial representative bodies/Political organisations.</li>
<li>Scholars/Academia. </li>
</ul>
<p>A representation of the stakeholders and the categories that they belong to has been produced below.</p>
<table class="plain">
<tbody>
<tr>
<th>Categories</th><th>Stakeholders</th>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Research organisations/NGOs</td>
<td>Centre for Internet and Society (CIS); Consumer Unity & Trust Society (CUTS); Software Freedom Law Centre (SFLC); Centre for Law & Policy Research (CLPR).</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Industrial representative bodies/Political organisations</td>
<td style="text-align: justify; ">Intellectual Property Owners Association (IPO); National Association of Manufacturers (NAM); International Trademark Association (INTA); IP Federation – UK; ICC’s Business Action to Stop Counterfeiting and Piracy (BASCAP); Swadeshi Jagaran Manch (SJM); American Chamber of Commerce (AmCham – India).</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>Scholars/Academia</td>
<td style="text-align: justify; ">Centre for Intellectual Property and Technology Law – O.P. Jindal Global University (CIPTEL); S. Ragavan, B. Baker, S. Flynn; Adv. Ravindra Chingale – NLU Delhi; Prof. N.S. Gopalakrishnan & Dr T.G. Agitha – CUSAT.</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/copy_of_Flowchart.png" alt="Flowchart" class="image-inline" title="Flowchart" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Out of the comments studied, the largest chunk of stakeholders (46.67%) belonged to the industrial/manufacturing sector, with the other two categories comprising only 26.67% each. This could be attributed to the fact that a country’s IPR policy has a very vital role to play in influencing an industrial firm’s strategy and an unsatisfactory policy could have a serious and adverse effect on the profit-making abilities of an industry.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">IV. IP - Innovation / Growth Nexus</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">There are a total of 13 themes that have been identified in the spreadsheet, and out of these 13, the one that the largest number of stakeholders has commented on is the question of there being nexus between intellectual property, innovation and growth. Eleven out of the fifteen stakeholders have given their opinion on this issue.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The opinion on this theme is not very uniform. Some organisations are of the opinion that there is a strong correlation between robust IPR protection mechanisms and innovation in a country, and thus there is a resultant benefit to the economy of the country. For example, the IP Federation of UK claimed that with a strong IPR regime, there is a greater inflow of FDI and R&D expenditure in countries, thus benefitting the country’s economy. On the other hand, there are some stakeholders who believe that there is no nexus and that the underlying assumption made by the draft policy is not backed by any research or evidence. The Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), for example, even cites evidence in its submission to oppose this assumption. The smallest chunk of stakeholders suggests to the Think Tank that in the current draft, there is not enough authority cited by them, and thus, there should be some research that must be done in order to give this assumption some backing. CIPTEL, a research centre based in OP Jindal Global University, stated that there should be a transparent survey conducted on this issue by a neutral agency.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The figure below would give the reader a comparative analysis of the responses from the stakeholders on this particular theme.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/copy2_of_Flowchart.png" alt="Assumption" class="image-inline" title="Assumption" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">All the research organisations/NGOs that presented their views on this assumption are in opposition to the same and have proposed to the Think Tank that it should amend the contents of the policy after taking this incorrectly-made assumption out of the mix.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A majority of the industrial bodies have supported the existence of a nexus and have stated that by enforcing stronger IPR protection laws, the innovative/inventive environment of a country develops and this in turn encourages investors, which culminates into a rise in the growth of the economy.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Scholars and academia have a difference of opinion amongst themselves and there is no uniform pattern that can be seen in their responses to this issue.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The only political organisation in this analysis, the Swadeshi Jagaran Manch opposes the assumption and states that the policy has turned a blind eye to the development of the country and that there is no analysis on whether there is any effect of the proposed strengthening of IP protection on the various sectors of the economy.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">V. International Treaties</h3>
<p>The policy, in its introduction states the following stance on negotiation of international treaties and agreements – “<i>In future negotiations in international forums and with other countries, India shall continue to give precedence to its national development priorities whilst adhering to its international commitments and avoiding TRIPS plus provisions.”</i></p>
<p>On this general theme, 9 out of 15 stakeholders have submitted their comments to the Think Tank. <i> </i>Out of these 9, the category-wise division of the stakeholders is represented by the diagram below.<img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/copy3_of_Flowchart.png" alt="" class="image-inline" title="" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The opinion of the stakeholders on this issue varied and there were broadly 3 kinds of responses that were found in the analysis. More than half of these responses (56%) suggested that all negotiations of treaties must be done transparently, with proper consultation of all stakeholders. CUTS, for example, recommended that to increase the confidence of the people in the country’s IP regime, the negotiations must be done with the opinion of all stakeholders being taken into consideration. They also cautioned the government to make sure that any future agreements do not contain any TRIPS-plus provisions. The second category applauded the policy’s pro-global stance towards IPR developments, and has recommended certain treaties that India must sign in order to strengthen its regime (details in spreadsheet). Only one stakeholder, the National Association of Manufacturers of the USA suggested that India’s stance of avoiding TRIPS-plus agreements is in contravention to its objective of keeping up with global IP developments. This point of view is clearly in favour of the USA as TRIPS-plus provisions have always been more beneficial to developed countries than developing countries like India.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Thus, it can be said that almost 90% of stakeholders, from across categories, are satisfied with India’s pro-international stance, and only want the government to be cautious and consult the public before signing treaties on IPR.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">VI. Utility Models</h3>
<p>A provision to legalise utility model protection was also a part of the draft policy. Utility models or petty patents are suggested by the policy in order to protect parties like MSMEs and their many innovations which may not satisfy the requirements of regular patent protection and thus losing out from IPR protection, leading to benefits not being reaped properly from these inventions.</p>
<p>This provision was commented on by eight of the 15 stakeholders, making it a little above half of the total. A category-wise division can be found below.</p>
<p><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/copy4_of_Flowchart.png" alt="Utility Models" class="image-inline" title="Utility Models" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The opinion on utility models was majorly negative across categories, with 75% of the stakeholders believing that utility model protection must be given a second thought and many drawbacks were pointed out such as frivolous litigation, uncertainty in the market, and a drop in the quality of innovation registered in the country. A review of how effective utility model laws are in other countries was suggested before making any final decision. Only 2 out of the 8 stakeholders supported the provision for petty patents and stated that this would give a good means of protection to ‘<i>jugaad</i>’ innovations that are very popular in India and thus believed that such laws would help increase the innovation levels in the country.</p>
<h3>VII. Public Funded Research Labs and Universities</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Only four stakeholders had a say on the issue of grants to Government labs and universities, these organisations being Indian research organisations and academia. The opinion varied from party to party and the Centre for Internet and Society argued that if there was a rise in IP protection for government funded research, it would be against the vision of free and open access to research funded by taxpayers’ money.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The other three stakeholders, namely CIPTEL, CUTS and Adv. Ravindra Chingale emphasised on the importance of merit-based funding instead of funding on the basis of whether an organisation is Government-owned or not. Two of these also suggested that there must be a system of contact between industry and academia to incentivise and utilize innovation properly.</p>
<h3>VIII. Limitations and Flexibilities</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A very important aspect of any IPR regime is the presence of limitations, exceptions and flexibilities on the rights protected by IP laws, as it allows for the appropriate amount of information being shared for free or at reasonable costs, for furtherance of public interest.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On this vital issue, most stakeholders had a say and the trends of the feedback on the limitations and flexibilities on IP protection were as expected. There were two broad sets of opinions that could be gathered from the analysis, and while there was a majority (62.5%) of organisations and people who believed that the government must keep up its efforts of providing a good framework for exceptions to IPR protection with measures like compulsory licensing being put in place in order to protect broader interests of the country such as access to reasonably priced medicines and other necessities. The only recommendation that they had was that these measures should be decided after a careful analysis of what the economy really needed in order to develop further.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The opposition, quite understandably came from international industrial bodies representing manufacturers and intellectual property owners who argued that the policy of limitations to IPR protection is discouraging those who want to invest in the country and that it hurts the business of foreign-based companies that operate in India or want to do so in the near future as their intellectual property may not be protected adequately with such a policy in place.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="https://cis-india.org/Flowchart.png" alt="Limitations and Flexibilities" class="image-inline" title="Limitations and Flexibilities" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The figure above clearly points out that none of those against limitations being placed on IP protection had an Indian background and all those in favour of the same were primarily Indian-based organisations and academics, with the exception of the American scholars – S. Ragavan, B. Baker, and S. Flynn.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">IX. Trademarks</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Only a single stakeholder, the International Trademark Association, was interested in the issue of trademarks. This can be attributed to the fact that this is the only association out of all the stakeholders having a direct interest in trademark law and policy. The organisation suggested that there should be a greater amount of clarity in the trademark examination process and also suggested that there should be an increase in the number of examiners to make the process of trademark registration quicker.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">X. Trade Secrets</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In objective 3 of the draft policy, the Think Tank suggests that to strengthen the IP framework of the country, trade secret protection must be introduced as a formal law. India, today, does not have a law to protect sensitive trading information and there needs to be a formalised contract for there to be any relief for leaking of such information.</p>
<p>The stakeholders supporting the enactment of trade secret legislation were interestingly all industrial bodies representing international companies and firms. Only 2 parties expressed their worries about such a law, and argued that there must be more backing to make this recommendation more convincing. A graphical representation of the stakeholders is given below to provide a clearer picture of the responses.</p>
<p><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/copy5_of_Flowchart.png" alt="Trade Secret Protection" class="image-inline" title="Trade Secret Protection" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This chart portrays clearly that international bodies are insistent on the enactment of a trade secret law as this would help incentivise knowledge sharing in the country. In many countries, trade secret protection is formalised legally and these stakeholders argue that for foreign multinationals to feel confident while sharing sensitive information with others in India, the government must follow in the footsteps of such countries and legislate on this matter soon.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">XI. On Specialised Courts</h3>
<p>A common suggestion found across 5 of the 15 stakeholder responses was for the creation of a specialised IP judiciary that would be formed by widening the patent bench that was proposed in the draft policy. Such a court would deal only with issues of intellectual property and would consist of judges having special knowledge in the various branches of IP law.</p>
<h3>XII. Conclusion</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The draft policy was released almost a year ago, and since then, much discussion has taken place on the same, with many contradictory opinions and suggestions on the various aspects of the policy. It can be observed from this compilation that industrial bodies have been insistent on stronger IP protection and more incentives to multinationals to invest in India in the form of trade secret legislations, keeping limitations such as compulsory licensing to a minimum, et al.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On the other hand, a trend could be seen of research organisations and academia having a view that was more in the interest of the public and with the Indian scenario taken into consideration, with the criticism of utility models, TRIPS-plus agreements, and by raising the question of whether the assumption underlying the draft of there being a link between IP protection and a rise in innovation had any basis whatsoever. This post, however, is only a glimpse of the stakeholders’ responses owing to the fact that the DIPP has not officially released the submissions made to it and only the ones that were available online have been taken into consideration.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It is only a matter of time that the Think Tank releases the final policy and one shall hope that this tedious process of seeking comments and suggestions will bear any fruit with the policy being a balanced one and being aimed ultimately towards the benefit of the country as a whole.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-mapping-the-stakeholders2019-response'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-mapping-the-stakeholders2019-response</a>
</p>
No publisherAkshath MithalIntellectual Property RightsCopyrightAccess to Knowledge2015-11-24T15:02:17ZBlog EntryMHRD IPR Chair Series: Information Received from IIT Roorkee
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mhrd-ipr-chair-series-information-received-from-iit-roorkee
<b>This post provides a factual description about the operation of Ministry of Human Resource Development IPR Chair’s Intellectual Property Education, Research and Public Outreach (IPERPO) scheme in IIT Roorkee.</b>
<p>Nehaa Chaudhari provided inputs, analysed, reviewed and edited this blog post.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The author has analysed all the data received under various heads such as income, grants from MHRD, planned and non planned expenditure, nature and frequency of programmes organised and the allocation of funds for the same. Throughout the course of observation and presentation of the analysed data, the author seeks to trace the presence of unjustified underutilisation of funds by the aforementioned university as provided by the MHRD during the period of 2003-2014.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">To collect the information for the given study, an RTI application was filed to the Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee on 6/02/2015 by the Centre for Internet and Society. The reply to RTI application was received on 16/02/2015.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">These are the documents received by CIS from IIT Roorkee:</p>
<ul>
<li>For RTI Response <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/iit-roorkee-receipt-of-rti" class="internal-link">click here</a> (IIT Roorkee -Receipt of RTI- 20.4.15)</li>
<li>For complete supporting documents <a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/iit-roorkee-response-and-report" class="internal-link">click here</a> (IIT Roorkee – Response and Report)</li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Hereinafter, in order to receive any information about IIT Roorkee’s RTI reply, kindly refer to the above mentioned links.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Following are the queries mentioned in the RTI application along with their replies.</p>
<ol>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>Reports on the implementation of the IPERPO scheme of the Ministry of Human Resource Development and the implementation of the MHRD IPR Chair funded under the scheme at IIT Roorkee from 2003-20014<br /></b>Reply: The University documented the minutes of the Departmental Faculty Committee Meeting where proposals for forming Departmental Administrative Committee, syllabus for new institute electives, duties of Departmental Research Committee, forming Institute Time Table Committee, conversion of existing LR1 computer lab and teaching scheme of autumn semester 2013 were deliberated upon. The University also organised various events such as Training of Trainers programme and International Conclave on Innovation and Entrepreneurship. </li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>Documents indicating the date on which such an IPR Chair was set up at your institution and a copy of the application made by IIT Roorkee to the MHRD for instituting such an IPR Chair and documents received by IIT Roorkee from the MHRD approving the same<br /></b>Reply: According to the Office Memorandum (dated 04 May 2012) of IIT Roorkee, Dr P.K. Ghosh had been appointed on the position of Professional Chair on IPERPO with effect from April 27 2012. A suitable financial grant of Rs. 208.02 lakhs was demanded for a period of five years. </li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>Documents detailing the release of grants to the MHRD IPR Chairs under the IPERPO Scheme</b><br />Reply: As it appears from the reply filed by IIT Roorkee to the RTI filed by the CIS, Rs. 30,00,000.00 of the Grant in aid was sanctioned to the University by the MHRD during the financial year 2010-2011 and nil amount was utilized for the purpose of it. At the end of the year, the balance sum of Rs. 30,27,041 (including the interest) was surrendered to the Government.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>Documents relating to receipts of utilisation certificates and audited expenditure statements and matters related to all financial sanctions with regard to funds granted to the MHRD IPR Chair established under the IPERPO scheme at IIT Roorkee</b><br />Reply: IIT Roorkee has replied with a series of Statement of Expenditure ranging from 2010-2014 that explains its rate of expenditure and amount of interest accumulated and surrendered to the Government along with the unutilized amount. In the financial year 2011-2012 the unutilized expenditure was 3,105,159.00 which came down to 11,74, 026.00 in 2012-2013 due to which a grant of Rs. 24,00,000.00 was extended to the University by MHRD for the financial year 2013-2014.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>Documents regarding all matters pertaining to finance and budget related the MHRD IPR Chair under the IPERPOs scheme established at IIT Roorkee</b><br />Reply: CIS did not receive any sort of clarity on matters pertaining to finance and budget related to MHRD IPR Chair under the IPERPO scheme as the response for this question was coupled with the previous question on utilization certificates.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify; "><b>Details of the IPR Chair’s salary under the IPERPO Scheme indicating whether this amount is paid over and above the professional’s usual salary</b><br />Reply: According to the RTI reply, the position of Chair Professor is awarded for a period of three years or upto 68 years of age, whichever is earlier. The pay of Chair Professor is fixed as per the rules and guidelines of Professional Chair in the institute.</li>
</ol>
<p>2.0 Comparative Analysis between University Response and the guidelines of MHRD Scheme Document</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a class="external-link" href="http://copyright.gov.in/Documents/scheme.pdf">The Scheme Document of MHRD</a> is a comprehensive document which consists of guidelines regarding Intellectual Property Education, Research and Public Outreach. It talks about a list of objectives, purposes, conditions and eligibility criteria for a University to ensure in order to implement IPERPO in a truest sense. This document provides the procedural as well as qualifying conditions for an Institute to ensure or fulfil before applying for the MHRD grant. Some of these conditions include maintenance of utilization certificates, audit reports, expenditure statements and event information which would be open to access on demand by MDHR or Comptroller and Auditor General of India.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A. Objectives:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As it appears from the reply statement of IIT Roorkee, each and every event organised after the establishment of IPR Chair in 2012, where the funds from the grant have been utilized, is done to promote the scholarly as well as academic interests in the field of Intellectual Property. Even before applying for the MHRD grant, the University has organised many National Seminars and has started various short term courses in order to encourage research and excellence in Intellectual Property. This fact completely resonates with the core objective of MHRD scheme document, i.e. strengthening the academic and research discourses in the field of Intellectual Property.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">B. Eligibility: <br />IIT Roorkee is recognized by the University Grants Commission. Therefore, it fulfils the eligibility criteria mentioned in the scheme document.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">C. Conditions for Grant of Assistance <br />There are several conditions laid down in the scheme document which need to be fulfilled by the concerned University in order to successfully receive the grant. The underlying condition is the dissemination and development in the field of Intellectual Property Rights.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">According to the documents available with CIS, IIT Roorkee has organised at least 27 events in the field of IPR ranging from introduction of new electives, National Workshops and Symposiums, Expert Lectures, Infrastructure Development, Online portals for IP Administration and awareness and infrastructure development.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">3.0 Financial Analysis of IIT Roorkee’s IPR Grant</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">According to the RTI reply, the IPR Chair at IIT Roorkee was established in the forenoon of 27th April 2012 with Dr P.K. Ghosh as its Chairman. Dr Ghosh was promised an Honorarium payment of Rs. 30,000 per month and a Contingency payment of Rs. 20,000 per month.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">3.1 Financial Year 2010-2011</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/GrantUtilization.png" alt="null" class="image-inline" title="Grant Utilization" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In this financial year, the IPR Chair was not established at IIT Roorkee. The total grant received by the University was Rs. 30, 00,000.00 out of which Rs.0 was utilized for the purpose of it was sanctioned.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/copy_of_GrantUtilization.png" alt="null" class="image-inline" title="Grant Utilization" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">At the end of the financial year, the remaining amount of Rs. 30,00,000, (due to Nil utilisation) along with the interest of Rs. 27041 was either surrendered to the government or adjusted towards the grants-in-aid payable during the next financial year.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">3.2 Financial Year 2011-2012</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/copy2_of_GrantUtilization.png" alt="null" class="image-inline" title="Grant Utilization" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The IPR Chair was still not established at the University. The opening balance was the amount carried forward from the previous year (30,27,041) upon which interest of Rs. 1,17,117 was received making the total receipt to be 31,144,158. Out of this, a total of Rs. 38,999 was utilised for travelling and miscellaneous expenditure. At the end of the year, the remaining of amount of Rs. 3,105,159 was either surrendered to the government or adjusted towards the grant-in-aid payable during the next financial year 2012-2013. As per the documents available with CIS, the statement of expenditure for this financial year has not been submitted by the university.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">3.3 Financial Year 2012-2013</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/copy3_of_GrantUtilization.png" alt="null" class="image-inline" title="Grant Utilization" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In this financial year the IPR Chair was established with Dr. P.K. Ghosh as its Chairman. The Opening balance was the amount carried forward from the previous financial year (31,05,159) upon which an interest income of Rs.1,25,376 was received along with a refund of advance amounting to Rs. 42,968. Out of the total receipt of Rs. 32,73,503 the total expenditure of the University on the current financial year was Rs. 20,99,477. The remaining amount of Rs. 11,74,026 was either surrendered to the government or adjusted towards the grants-in-aid payable during the next financial year 2013-2014.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">3.4 Financial Year 2013-2014</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/copy5_of_GrantUtilization.png" alt="null" class="image-inline" title="Grant Utilization" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In this financial year, the University received a grant of Rs. 24,00,000 from the government along with the amount carried forward from the previous financial year (Rs.11,74,026) upon which an interest income of Rs. 55,892 was received. Out of this, a sum of Rs. 24,01,045 was utilised as contingency expenditure. The remaining amount of Rs. 12,28,873 has been either surrendered to the government or adjusted towards the grants-in-aid payable during the next financial year 2014-2015.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><img src="https://cis-india.org/home-images/copy6_of_GrantUtilization.png" alt="null" class="image-inline" title="Grant Utilization" /></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In this financial year, the expenditure on library (5,00,979) is the only sum which exceeded the sanctioned amount (5,00,000). Moreover, there has been no expenditure on Outreach Program and Clinics. The honorarium payment to the IPR Chair Professor is similar to the sanctioned amount (3,60,000) but there’s a difference in his contingent payment (1,39,645 instead of 2,40,000). The total amount of expenditure in this financial year is Rs. 24,01,045.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mhrd-ipr-chair-series-information-received-from-iit-roorkee'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/mhrd-ipr-chair-series-information-received-from-iit-roorkee</a>
</p>
No publisherKaran Tripathi and Nehaa ChaudhariIntellectual Property RightsCopyrightAccess to KnowledgePervasive Technologies2015-11-21T07:26:45ZBlog EntryInternational Workshop on the Impact of the TRIPS Agreement on key sectors and its continuing relevance in the context of Regional and Bilateral Trading Agreements
https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/international-workshop-on-the-impact-of-the-trips-agreement-on-key-sectors-and-its-continuing-relevance-in-the-context-of-regional-and-bilateral-trading-agreements
<b>On the occasion of 20 years of TRIPS Agreement, Centre for WTO Studies and Indian Institute of Foreign Trade is holding a workshop at Naland, Indian Institute of Foreign Trade, New Delhi on October 26 and 27, 2015. Pranesh Prakash is a speaker in the concluding session.</b>
<table class="grid listing">
<tbody>
<tr>
<td colspan="2">
<p><b>26<sup>th</sup> October 2015</b></p>
<p><b>(Monday)</b></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p><b>1000-1030 hrs</b></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><b>Registration</b></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p><b>1030-1100 hrs</b></p>
<p>1030-1035hrs</p>
<p>1035-1045 hrs</p>
<p>1045-1055 hrs</p>
<p>1055-1100 hrs</p>
</td>
<td>
<p><b>Inaugural Session </b></p>
<p>Welcome Remarks by Prof. Abhijit Das, Professor & Head, Centre for WTO Studies, Indian Institute of Foreign Trade</p>
<p>Remarks by Dr. V. Bhaskar, Former Special Chief Secretary Government of Andhra Pradesh and Joint Secretary Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Government of India</p>
<p>Inaugural Address by Shri Rajeev Kher, Former Commerce Secretary*</p>
<p>Vote of Thanks by Ms Chandni Raina, Professor, Centre for WTO Studies, Indian Institute of Foreign Trade</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2">
<p><b>1100-1130 hrs Tea</b></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p><b>1130-1330 hrs</b></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><b>Session 1</b></p>
<p><b>Implementation of the TRIPS Agreement by developing countries and the growth of the Regional and Bilateral Trading Agreement</b></p>
<p><i>The TRIPS Agreement placed on the developing countries onerous commitments with respect to protection of IPRs leading to a complete overhaul of their legislations. In the process more than half of the LDCs implemented their obligations under TRIPS even before the timelines set for them for compliance. Many developing countries have moved beyond TRIPS in their legal regimes. At the same time, further tightening of the regime as part of the FTA commitments is also a concern. </i></p>
<p><i>The session discusses the manner in which countries met their commitments under TRIPS and the pulls and pressure that led to the TRIPS plus positions adopted by many. The plethora of FTAs and BITs has set additional commitments. The lessons learnt from recent arbitration proceeding and the positions adopted by countries such as South Africa, Indonesia, Thailand and India need to be examined. In the context of increasing pressure to harmonize enforcement standards, the reasonableness of this given the differing domestic priorities and developmental goals also needs to be studied. </i></p>
<p><i>Questions for discussion:</i></p>
<p><i>What were the pulls and pressures faced by the developing countries as they sought to comply with the TRIPS Agreement? Have the developing countries largely accepted TRIPS Plus commitments in their IPR regimes including on crucial issues such as public health and enforcement? What are the areas in which the FTA and RTAs are further enhancing protection? Are the developed countries seeking commitments that are even beyond the protection provided in their own jurisdiction? What are the various mechanisms of influence exercised by the developed countries?</i></p>
<p><b>Chair: Shri Jayant Dasgupta, Former Permanent Representative of India to the WTO</b></p>
<p><b>Speakers:</b></p>
<p>Prof. Peter Drahos, Australian National University</p>
<p>Prof Carlos Correa, University of Buenos Aries</p>
<p>Prof Frederick Abbott, Florida State University</p>
<p>Shri R. Saha, Senior Advisor, Confederation of Indian Industry</p>
<p>Shri KM Gopa Kumar, Third World Network</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p><b>1330-1430 hrs</b></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><b>Lunch</b></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p><b>1430-1630 hrs</b></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><b>Session 2</b></p>
<p><b>IP and Economic Development </b></p>
<p><i>The reasonableness of high level IPR protection is often explained in the context of the beneficent impact it has on economic growth and development. The session will examine the strength, if any, of this correlation. Is the level of IP protection alone responsible for higher growth? What are the preconditions if any and empirical evidence on the level of development when this correlation really sets in? </i></p>
<p><i>An important factor in development is the ability of countries to access technology and knowhow. What has been the experience of the developing countries in getting new technology? </i></p>
<p><i>The session will discuss cross country studies with a view to gain clarity on this issue. </i></p>
<p><i>Questions for discussion:</i></p>
<p><i>Most developed countries have benefitted from fairly lax IPR regime, but the argument being given now for a high level of IPR protection is the beneficent impact it is likely to have on economic growth. Are the developed countries seeking to ‘kick away the ladder’ with which they climbed up to the top? Or is there a basis for the argument extended by them? What is the empirical evidence of the correlation of enhanced IPR protection on economic growth and development of a country? How important is IPR as a factor in economic growth? What is the evidence on the extent of technology transfer from the developed to the developing countries in the past two decade?</i></p>
<p><b>Chair: Shri Sudhansh Pant, Joint Secretary, Department of Pharmaceuticals, Government of India </b></p>
<p><b>Speakers: </b></p>
<p>Prof. Peter Drahos, Australian National University</p>
<p>Prof Sunil Mani, Centre for Development Studies, Thiruvananthapuram</p>
<p>Prof Sunil Kanwar, Delhi School of Economics, Delhi University</p>
<p>Mr Bobby Bedi, Film Producer and Director, Chairman, FICCI committee on Film and Industry</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p><b>1630-1700 hrs</b></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><b> Tea </b></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2"></td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td colspan="2">
<p><b>27<sup>th</sup> October 2015</b></p>
<p><b>(Tuesday)</b></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p><b>0945-1300 hrs</b></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><b>Session 3</b></p>
<p><b>TRIPS and Public Health</b></p>
<p><i>Pharmaceutical and biotech sectors had the maximum divergence in IP protection regimes across countries prior to the TRIPS Agreement. The TRIPS Agreement was therefore a watershed for these sectors. However the flexibilities and subsequently the Doha declaration on TRIPS and Public Health have allowed countries to model the laws taking into account their developmental and societal objectives. </i></p>
<p><i>Questions for discussion:</i></p>
<p><i>Pharmaceuticals and the biotech sectors were possibly the most impacted by the TRIPS Agreement. However, the flexibilities allowed countries to take into account their public health concerns while formulating the Patent regimes. How did the Agreement impact access to medicines? Does this remain an unfinished agenda for the developed countries? What would be the areas where further action could be seen? </i></p>
<p><b>Chair: Justice (retd.) Prabha Sridevan, Former Chairperson of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board </b></p>
<p><b>Speakers: </b></p>
<p>Mr D.G Shah, Secretary General, Indian Pharmaceutical Alliance</p>
<p>Mr. Bhaskar Bhattacharya, Partner, Corporate Law Group</p>
<p>Ms Leena Menghaney, Access Campaign India Co-ordinator at Médecins Sans Frontières</p>
<p>Prof Frederick Abbott, Florida State University</p>
<p>Mr Anand Grover, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India*</p>
<p>Prof Sudip Chaudhuri, Indian Institute of Management, Kolkata</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p><b>1300-1400 hrs</b></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><b> Lunch</b></p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p><b>1400-1530 hrs</b></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><b>Concluding Session</b></p>
<p><b>Shape of things to come</b></p>
<p><i>The twenty years since the TRIPS Agreement came into existence, saw widespread changes in the legislative framework of most developing countries. While they grappled with fulfilling the obligations of the Agreement, the developed world has looked towards further strengthening these norms. The FTA/RTA’s with their tighter IPR chapters are but an outcome of this exercise. </i></p>
<p><b><i>Questions for discussion:</i></b></p>
<p><i>With FTAs/RTAs a norm, where are we headed? Will TRIPS lose its relevance? Or will the TRIPS be renegotiated? What are the new issues that will figure prominently in any prospective negotiations? What are the likely implications? </i></p>
<p><b>Chair: Dr. V. Bhaskar, Former Special Chief Secretary Government of Andhra Pradesh and Joint Secretary Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion, Government of India </b></p>
<p><b>Speakers:</b></p>
<p>Prof Frederick Abbott, Florida State University</p>
<p>Mr Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director, Centre for Internet Society</p>
<p>Ms. R V Anuradha, Partner, Clarus Law Associates</p>
<p>Ms Sanya Reid Smith, Legal Adviser, Third World Network</p>
</td>
</tr>
<tr>
<td>
<p><b>1530-1600</b></p>
</td>
<td>
<p><b> Tea</b></p>
</td>
</tr>
</tbody>
</table>
<p><b>*- </b><i>tbc</i></p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/international-workshop-on-the-impact-of-the-trips-agreement-on-key-sectors-and-its-continuing-relevance-in-the-context-of-regional-and-bilateral-trading-agreements'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/international-workshop-on-the-impact-of-the-trips-agreement-on-key-sectors-and-its-continuing-relevance-in-the-context-of-regional-and-bilateral-trading-agreements</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIntellectual Property RightsAccess to Knowledge2015-10-28T02:57:33ZNews ItemNational IPR Policy Series: Quick Observations on the Leaked Draft of the National IPR Policy
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-series-quick-observations-on-the-leaked-draft-of-the-national-ipr-policy
<b>Earlier this week, the “Don’t Trade Our Lives Away” blog leaked the supposed final draft of India’s National IPR Policy (“leaked draft”). This article presents quick comments on this leaked draft.</b>
<p> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The leaked draft (which is <a href="http://www.livemint.com/Politics/hFpH9YGm7HnlR01AhXj5PI/Leaked-draft-only-an-input-to-national-IPR-policy-Amitabh-K.html">not final</a>) is available <a href="https://donttradeourlivesaway.wordpress.com/2015/10/12/indias-national-ipr-policy-leaked-final-draft-is-it-really-the-finest/">here</a>. The only official document that the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion (“DIPP”) has released so far is the <a href="http://www.dipp.nic.in/English/Schemes/Intellectual_Property_Rights/IPR_Policy_24December2014.pdf">First Draft of the National IPR Policy</a> (“First Draft”).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">CIS has tracked these developments since the <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/the-development-of-the-national-ipr-policy">beginning</a>. We have submitted <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-on-proposed-ip-rights-policy-to-dipp">preliminary comments</a>, critical <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-series-cis-comments-to-the-first-draft-of-the-national-ip-policy">comments to the First Draft</a>, sent <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/rti-requests-dipp-details-on-constitution-and-working-of-ipr-think-tank">multiple</a> <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-series-follow-up-rti-to-dipp-on-ipr-think-tank">requests</a> under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (“RTI requests”) to the DIPP and published their <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-series-rti-requests-by-cis-to-dipp-dipp-responses">responses</a>, discussed the <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-series-who-is-a-public-authority-under-rti-act">IPR Think Tank as a public authority</a> under the RTI Act, analysed the process compared to <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-series-indias-national-ipr-policy-what-would-wipo-think">recommendations</a> by the World Intellectual Property Organization (“WIPO”), <a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comparison-of-national-ipr-strategy-september-2012-national-ipr-strategy-july-2014-and-draft-national-ip-policy-december-2015">compared the First Draft</a> to an earlier National IPR Strategy<a href="#_msocom_1">[N1]</a> , written a <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-series-cis-letter-to-ipr-think-tank">letter</a> to the Think Tank and have now <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-series-what-have-sectoral-innovation-councils-been-doing-on-ipr">begun to track</a> the work being done by the Sectoral Innovation Council on IPR, also established under the DIPP. At the time of writing this post, we have been unable to locate comments to the First Draft made available by the DIPP.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Since the release of the First Draft in December, 2014, this leaked document has been the first look at an updated IPR Policy for India. Not much seems to have changed since December, 2014 and this new leaked draft (which is dated April, 2015), barring the inclusion of some <em>Special Focus Areas.</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Perhaps one of the strongest criticisms of the First Draft had been that it supposed a nexus between IP and innovation, and various stakeholders had been quick to <a href="http://spicyip.com/2015/02/academics-and-civil-society-submits-critical-comments-to-dipp-on-draft-national-ipr-policy-by-ip-think-tank-part-i.html">point this out</a> as problematic, and fallacious. Unfortunately, since the language of the new draft has barely changed (I have managed to count only two-three additions), this remains the underlying issue in the new draft as well.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">What continues to be worrying in both drafts is sweeping references of benefits of IP to India’s socio-economic development. What constitutes this development and how IPR, and specifically the IPR Policy will achieve it is anyone’s guess, given that there are no references to studies undertaken to assess how IPR contributes to socio-economic development, specifically in India.</p>
<p>Here are some other quick comments:</p>
<ol></ol>
<ol>
<li style="text-align: justify;">In the first objective on IP Awareness and Promotion, the new draft includes an additional recommended step – that of engaging with the media to ‘sensitize them on IP issues’ (sic.). Given that this is under a broader objective of encouraging IP promotion, I am inclined to believe that this could be interpreted as telling the media to print positive things about intellectual property and refrain from criticizing intellectual property (that seems to be the theme of this entire document!). What does it mean to ‘sensitize’ the media about intellectual property?</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">In the second objective, on IP creation, the leaked draft contains a recommendation to conduct a study to assess the contribution of various IP based industries to the economy – including employment, exports and technology transfer. No other details have been provided in the draft. </li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Also in the second objective, the new draft makes a mention of improving the IP output of universities, national laboratories etc. The new draft proposes to encourage and facilitate the acquisition of intellectual property rights by these labs and institutions, whereas the earlier draft recommended the protection of IPRs created by them.</li>
<li>In the covering letter to the leaked draft, Justice Sridevan states that the final draft includes a discussion on key focus areas – creative industries, biotechnology, ICT, energy, agriculture, health, geographical indications (“GIs”) and traditional knowledge (“TK”). These have been discussed at the end of the new draft.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">Limitations and exceptions remain confined to an area of future study/research for future policy development. The ‘Creative Industries’ section of the leaked draft makes a mention of the significance of limitations and exceptions to safeguard access to knowledge and information; and the need to balance user rights and property rights. One would have liked to see this discussed more substantively in the policy and not confined only to a paragraph in the section on ‘Creative Industries’.</li>
<li style="text-align: justify;">In a welcome move, the policy draft (new) seeks to promote the adoption of free and open standards and free and open software in the ‘Information and Communication Technology and Electronics’ section.</li></ol>
<p style="text-align: justify;">With the DIPP Secretary’s latest update that the new policy draft will be released in about a month’s time, one will have to wait and see what the final draft looks like.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-series-quick-observations-on-the-leaked-draft-of-the-national-ipr-policy'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-series-quick-observations-on-the-leaked-draft-of-the-national-ipr-policy</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaIntellectual Property RightsAccess to KnowledgePervasive Technologies2015-11-19T05:13:14ZBlog EntryComparison of National IPR Strategy September 2012, National IPR Strategy July 2014 and Draft National IP Policy, December 2014
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comparison-of-national-ipr-strategy-september-2012-national-ipr-strategy-july-2014-and-draft-national-ip-policy-december-2015
<b>This is an analysis of the first draft of India's National IPR Policy with an earlier document "India's National IPR Strategy".</b>
<p>Nehaa Chaudhari provided inputs, analysed, reviewed and edited this blog post.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As part of our IPR Policy Series, we have so far CIS has submitted comments to the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion on the <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-on-proposed-ip-rights-policy-to-dipp">proposed IPR Policy</a> and the <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-series-cis-comments-to-the-first-draft-of-the-national-ip-policy">first draft of the National IPR Policy</a>, traced the <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/the-development-of-the-national-ipr-policy">development of the National IPR Policy</a>, <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-series-indias-national-ipr-policy-what-would-wipo-think">evaluated</a> how the IPR Policy holds up to WIPO’s suggestions , filed RTI’s regarding the <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/rti-requests-dipp-details-on-constitution-and-working-of-ipr-think-tank">formation of the IPR Think Tank</a> and the <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-series-what-have-sectoral-innovation-councils-been-doing-on-ipr">functioning of the Sectoral Innovation Council</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In this blog post Amulya.P compares the National IPR Strategy September 2012 prepared by the Sectoral Innovation Council,<a name="_ftnref1"></a> the National IPR Strategy July 2014 <a name="_ftnref2"></a> and the Draft National IP Policy, December 2014 <a name="_ftnref3"></a> to understand the commonalities and differences between the three.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Vision/ Mission</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The vision stated in the IPR Strategy, July 2014 is “To develop India during the decade of Innovation into a major Innovative competitive and knowledge based economy by strategic utilization of IP as an engine for accelerated growth and sustainable and inclusive development.”<a name="_ftnref4"></a> This is comparable to the vision statement laid out in the Draft National IP Policy, December 2014 (Draft Policy) that states as follows: “An India where IP led growth in creativity and innovation is encouraged for the benefit of all; an India where IPRs promote advancement in science and technology, arts and culture, traditional knowledge and bio-diversity resources; an India where knowledge is the main driver of development, and knowledge owned is transformed into knowledge shared.”<a name="_ftnref5"></a> The Mission Statement laid out in the Draft Policy reads as follows “Establish a dynamic vibrant balanced intellectual property system in India to : foster innovation and creativity in a knowledge economy, accelerate economic growth, employment and entrepreneurship, enhance socio-cultural development and protect public health, food security and environment among other areas of socio-economic importance”<a name="_ftnref6"></a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Clearly the Draft Policy strives for more balance and envisions IPRs as not only a tool to ensure social welfare alongside economic growth, but also envisions IPR as a tool to ensure the sharing of knowledge.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Objectives/ Approaches</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The objectives of both the September 2012 National IPR Strategy and the July 2014 National IPR Strategy are more or less to “ Transform India into an innovative economy that would be reflected in high rankings in development and innovation indices from a global standpoint and develop, sustainable and innovation-promoting IPR management system in India while ensuring that the IP system continues to have appropriate checks and balances conducive to social and economic welfare and to a balance of rights and obligations. Besides measures that need to be taken, the strategy also needs to have an implementation matrix and a time bound schedule.”<a name="_ftnref7"></a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In addition to this, the September 2014 IPR Strategy Document lays down a four pronged approach- to promote respect for IP, to simulate creation of IPRs ,creation of new IP regimes to address needs of the country and strengthening protection of IP, and to facilitate commercialization of IP.<a name="_ftnref8"></a> The IPR Strategy of July 2014 expands on this to include the establishing of cost effective, efficient, service oriented administration, institutional capacity building and development of human capital and the integrating of IP components of national sectoral policy and the Addressing of IP issues in international fora.<a name="_ftnref9"></a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Draft Policy though has enumerated seven objectives throughout the report. They are: a) “To create public awareness about economic social and cultural benefits of IP among all sections of society for accelerating development, promoting entrepreneurship, enhancing employment and increasing competitiveness”.<a name="_ftnref10"></a>b) “To stimulate creation of growth of IP through measures that encourage IP generation.”<a name="_ftnref11"></a>c) “To have strong and effective laws with regard to IPRs that are consistent with national priorities and international obligations which balance the interests of rights owners with public interest.”<a name="_ftnref12"></a> d) “To modernize and strengthen IP administration for efficient, expeditious and cost effective grant and management of IP rights and user oriented services.”<a name="_ftnref13"></a> e) “To augment the commercialization of IP rights, valuation licensing and technology transfer.”<a name="_ftnref14"></a> f)”To strengthen the enforcement and adjudicatory mechanisms for combating IP violations, piracy and counterfeiting, to facilitate effective and speedy adjudication of IP disputes to promote awareness and respect for IPRs among all sections of society.”<a name="_ftnref15"></a> f) “To strengthen and expand human resources, institutions and capacities for teaching, training, research and skill building in IP.”<a name="_ftnref16"></a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Clearly the Draft Policy lays more emphasis on raising public awareness about the benefits of IP, strengthening the enforcement and adjudicatory mechanisms to combat violations and on balancing different interests during the creation of new IP laws and regulations.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Raising Awareness</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">While the September 2012 IPR Strategy speaks of raising awareness as a tool in encouraging creation of IP<a name="_ftnref17"></a> and facilitating commercialization of IP,<a name="_ftnref18"></a> the Draft Policy envisions an elaborate awareness raising and publicity program. Some of the schemes suggested in the Draft Policy include: Adoption of the slogan “Creative India: Innovative India” and launching an associated campaign on electronic , print and social media by linking IPRs and other national initiatives such as Make in India, Digital India, Skill India and Smart Cities. Reaching out to industry, MSMEs, R&D institutions, science and technology institutes, universities, colleges, inventors, creators, farmers/plant variety users, traditional knowledge holders, designers and artisans through campaigns tailored to their needs and concerns. Promoting the idea of high quality and cost effective innovation as a particularly Indian competence leading to competitive advantage, Involving of eminent personalities as ambassadors to spread awareness of India’s IP, Using audio visual material in print/electronic/social media for propagation, Creating moving exhibits that can travel to all parts of the country, Establishing Innovation and IPR museums, announcing a National IPR day and celebrating world IPR day etc.<a name="_ftnref19"></a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Draft Policy has a much more elaborate program for awareness raising and publicity and this is reflected throughout the document with almost every stakeholder and department being involved in the awareness programme.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">MSMEs</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The July 2014 IPR Strategy and the September 2012 IPR strategy both call for very similar policies with regard to MSMEs. Both lie emphasis on educating and incentivizing MSMEs to create new IP and formalize existing ones, on government intervention in setting up IP facilitation centers to bring about collaboration between the facilitation centers and the activities of existing industrial clusters, provision of access to databases on patent and non-patent literature to enable prior art research to IITs and NITs free of cost so that they can assist MSMEs or individuals with determining novelty in their inventions free of cost and other provide assistance with the patent application for a fee. While the September 2014 strategy called for identifying such institutions, the July 2014 Strategy does. Both of these strategies however, call for favorable tax treatments toward MSMEs for R&D Expenditures. Both also call for support mechanisms to offset IP costs and facilitate technology transfer through in-licensing from publicly funded research.<a name="_ftnref20"></a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Draft Policy discusses MSMEs in less detail, but still calls for creation of educational materials for MSMEs and highlighting special mechanisms for them to develop and protect IP, encouraging IP creation by establishing and strengthening IP facilitation centers especially in industrial and innovation university clusters, Introducing “first-time patent” fee waiver and support systems for MSMEs and reduce transaction costs in other ways (e.g. prior art search).<a name="_ftnref21"></a> It does not specifically mention favorable tax treatment to MSMEs or access to databases to determine novelty or provision of assistance with patent application or call for government intervention to better the IP facilitation centers.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Academia and Research Organisations</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The July 2014 IPR Strategy and the September 2012 IPR strategy again recommend similar strategies when it comes to academia and research organisations. They both recommend some sort of education/awareness rising targeted at researchers and innovators regarding precautions to be exercised before patent application such as not selling inventions to company at early stages / not publishing research to public etc. they also recommend promoting university startups to motivate scientists to take up technology ventures. They both promote encouraging IITs and other similar institutions to undertake research on national issues like poverty, health, food, security, energy, information technology, bio-technology etc. They both recommend that IP creation be a key performance indicator for universities and institutions that participate in publicly sponsored/collaborative research and development and that this be gradually introduced in Tier 1 and Tier 2 institutions. And finally they both recommend that basic concepts of IP creation and respect for IP as part of formal education at school/college/university/vocational level including a course on IPR that is to be included in the curriculum of all technical programmes recognized by AICTE and in post grad/research programme in science and applied fields in universities.<a name="_ftnref22"></a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Draft Policy recommends all this and more. It recommends the formulation of institutional IP policy/strategy in higher education, research and technical institutions. Even though it recommends educating researchers and innovators regarding IP and precautions to be taken with respect to protecting their invention before publishing, it doesn’t go into detail or state that there is a need to protect against inventions being sold prematurely to companies. The Draft Policy also recommends that public funded research organisations and private sector are to be tapped to create campaigns highlighting the process of IPR creation and the value generated therefrom. It also recommends that IITs NITs etc. be encouraged to focus on research in areas such as nanotechnology, data analytics and ICT in addition to areas such as food security, healthcare and agriculture. Further in addition to creating educational material about IPR at school and university levels, the Draft Policy also calls for online and distance learning programs for all categories of users that focus on IPR. And for IP courses/modules to be introduced in all major training institutes such as judicial academies, National Academy of Administration, Police and Customs Academies, IIFT, Institute of Foreign Service Training, Forest Training Institutes etc., creating IPR cells and technology development and management units in such institutes. The Draft Policy also recommends that IPR be a compulsory subject in all legal educational institutions, NIDs NIFTs, agricultural universities and management institutes, and making IP teaching a part of accreditation mechanism in institutes under the purview of UGC, AICTE MCI as well as IITs and IIMs.<a name="_ftnref23"></a></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Large Organisations</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The September 2012 IPR Strategy recommends that the government encourage large organisations to take a long term view of R&D and make research investments to create strong self-reliant tech portfolio and also acquire the scale to build strategic global positions, it recommends that the government encourage these organisations to share their expertise and resources for national benefit through PPPs, development of high technology base requires strategic relationships with overseas players, it recommends that it be made mandatory for MNCs to align with innovation strategy and the National Innovation systems and that the MNCs be encouraged by the state to leverage their standing and reach to ensure inflow of best practices and investments.it also recommends sops and preferential treatment in public contracts to large Indian organisations with a strong culture of IP creation. And that these organisations be encouraged to tap open innovation platforms and tie ups with academia. The July 2014 IPR Strategy recommends more or less the same strategies with regard to large organisations. <a name="_ftnref24"></a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Draft Policy recommends that public funded research organisations and private sector be encouraged to create campaigns highlighting the process of IPR creation and its value, that MNCs and large organisations develop IPR programs for their employees, that government encourage large organisations to create, protect and utilize IP in India and that the government create an industry-academia interface for encouraging cross-fertilization of ideas and IPR driven research and innovation in jointly identified areas.<a name="_ftnref25"></a> It makes no mention of requiring large organisations to align with the National IPR Policy, to ensure best practices but also doesn’t particularly mention tax cuts or other sops to encourage large organisations with a strong IP culture. The Draft Policy makes no mention at all of open innovation platforms. In large parts the Draft Policy is vague and lacks specifics with regard to strategies toward large organisations.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Startups and Individuals</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The September 2012 IPR Strategy and the July 2014 IPR Strategy both make separate recommendations aimed at startups and individuals. They both recommend that information on the delivery mechanism for support services including things like venture capital funding should be made expedient and that identified public institutions should offer end to end support for creation, protection and commercialization of IP.<a name="_ftnref26"></a> The September 2012 Strategy also recommends that procedural mechanisms adopted for giving financial support for patent filing should be made smoother and that the assistance provided should be improved.<a name="_ftnref27"></a> The Draft Policy does not include any specific recommendations with regard to start ups or individuals apart from involving them in the publicity/awareness campaigns. In this measure the Draft Policy seems to fall short.</p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Strengthening IP Protection/ Creating New IP Regimes</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The September 2012 IPR strategy generally called for improvement in institutions that grant IPRs and in institutions that are responsible for its enforcement and expansion of rights to include new IPRs.<a name="_ftnref28"></a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The July 2014 IPR Strategy had a significant advance to this and recommended periodic review and streamlining procedures and process and guidelines for search, grant examination, maintenance and registration of IPRs in consultation with relevant stakeholders and benchmarked with best practices. It also recommended that full benefit be taken of global protection systems of WIPO, Patent Cooperation Treaty, Madrid System for International Registration of Marks etc. and that consequent upon amendment in 2012 of the Copyright Act, 1957, consideration be given to acceding to the Marrakesh Treaty for the blind, that avenues for international cooperation in IPR be studied. And finally it recommended that with respect to traditional knowledge and grant of patents in other countries, the Nagoya protocol is a step in the right direction and while the Patents Act, 1970, Biological Diversity Act, 2002 and the Plant Variety Protection and Farmers Rights Act, 2001 address the issue, a sui generis system of protection to check misappropriation is required at the international level.<a name="_ftnref29"></a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Draft Policy generally recommends that there be a review of existing IP laws to update and improve them and remove any inconsistencies, a review of IP related rules and procedures etc. to ensure clarity, simplification, streamlining, transparency and time bound process in administration and enforcement of IP rights. The Draft Policy also recommends that the government actively engage in negotiating international treaties and agreements in consultation with stakeholders, examine accession to some multilateral treaties that are in the countries interest and become a signatory to those treaty that India has defacto implemented so that India can participate in their decision making process.<a name="_ftnref30"></a> The central problem here is of course that what is in the countries interest may be open to debate, the Draft Policy does not at any point for example indicate whether or not the Government would consider taking on TRIPS plus obligations, the Draft Policy does not clarify what the Governments general stance on such issues would be.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Draft Policy further recommends that important areas of study and research for future policy development be identified, some examples provided are: a) Interplay between IP laws and other laws to remove ambiguities or inconsistencies, b) Interface between IP and competition law and policy, c) Protection of undisclosed information not extending to data exclusivity, d) Guidelines for authorities whose respective jurisdictions impact the administration or enforcement of IPRs such as patents and bio-diversity, e) Exceptions and limitations and f) Exhaustion of IP rights.<a name="_ftnref31"></a> A prominent concern here would be data exclusivity, while the policy uses vague language and only wants these issues to be studied, Data exclusivity among others are demands made by the EU and others in Free Trade Agreements that go beyond our obligation under TRIPS and could harm the public interest.<a name="_ftnref32"></a></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Establishing Cost Effective, Efficient and Service Oriented IP Administrative Infrastructure</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The July 2014 IPR Strategy recommends that IPOs be restructured to aim for ISO 9002 model to increase efficiency, quality and cost effectiveness; that after a review of the need of human resources to enable IPOs to discharged workload efficiently the required amount of manpower be employed; that recruitment training and career development of officials has to be reviewed to recruit and retain best personnel in the IPO; that the possibility of providing advisory services and value added products be studied; and recommends that there should be cooperation with IPOs in other countries in the area of capacity building, human resource development and awareness.<a name="_ftnref33"></a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Draft Policy recommends that IPOs be restructured, upgraded and be granted greater responsibility and autonomy taking into account the rapid growth and diversity of IP users and services, it also recommends an increase in manpower according to findings after a review to ensure speedy liquidation of backlog, requirements of global protection systems and productivity parameters. And that the process of recruitment training, cadre structure and career development of officials be studied and reviewed to retain the best talent to enhance efficiency and productivity. The Draft Policy also recommends that the government collaborate with R&D institutions universities, funding agencies, chambers of industry and commerce in providing advisory services which will improve IP creation and management and utilization, promote cooperation with IP offices in other countries in areas of capacity building, HRD, training, access to databases, best practices in search and examinations, use of ICT and user oriented services, enhance international and bilateral cooperation and post IP attaches in select countries to follow IP developments and advice on IP related matters.<a name="_ftnref34"></a></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Office of CGPDTM</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The September 2012 IPR Strategy recommended that Grant/registration procedure to be quickened through recruitment and increasing human resources, that the functioning of IPOs be improved by measures such as: complete digitization of IP records and uploading for public view to improve transparency, communication with applicant/agents to be improved to bring in transparency meticulousness, database to be made searchable so that researchers can conduct effective searches to identify state of the art technology, electronic filing of applications and subsequent examination through electronic mode to be mandatory, Increase in filing fee with specific discounts for identified sectors such as MSEs.<a name="_ftnref35"></a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The 2012 IPR Strategy observed that the quality of examination of IP applications needs to be improved and suggested reassessment of procedures followed in IPO to reduce timelines toward statutory actions.<a name="_ftnref36"></a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The July 2014 IPR Strategy recommended that the grant and registration procedure be quickened through recruitment and increasing human resources, and that there be regular meetings between the CGPDTM and the National Biodiversity Authority to resolve issues that arise from implementing guidelines about grant of patents on inventions using genetic resources and TK.<a name="_ftnref37"></a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Draft Policy recommended that the government establish close cooperation between IPOs and create a common web portal for ease of access to statutes regulations, guidelines, databases and for better coordination.<a name="_ftnref38"></a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Draft policy also recommended that the CGPDTM examine joining centralized access for search and examination (CASE) and WIPO digital access services (DAS), that the CGPDTM fix and adhere to timelines for grant of registration and disposal of opposition matters, create a service oriented culture, include appointing public relations officers who would make the IP office user friendly, that the CGPDTM conduct periodic audits of processes being adopted in IP administration for efficient grant and management of IP rights. <a name="_ftnref39"></a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Draft Policy also recommended that the CGPDTM implement quality standards at all stages of operations with the aim to obtain ISO certification and adopt best practices with respect to filing and docketing of documents, maintenance of records and digitizing the same including document workflow and tracking systems, and take steps to expedite digitization of the design office and enable online search and filing in the design office<a name="_ftnref40"></a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Draft Policy also recommended that the CGPDTM ensure that public records in IP office are easily available and accessible both online and offline and establish effective coordination between its office and NBA to enable harmonious implementation of guidelines relating to grant of patents on inventions using genetic resources and associated TK, that the CGPDTM remove disparities among different branches of the trademark registries and patent offices and adopt standardized procedures in examination/grant of applications including maintenance of rights, implement centralized priority field wise on a national basis and provide value added services in form of helpdesks, awareness and training materials, patent mapping, licensing and technology transfer support services, ease of remote access of the international patent search mechanisms and other IP related databases. And that the CGPDTM implement incentives for MSMEs to encourage filing by the said sector like waiver of official fee, support of examiners and pro-bono legal help for the first time filing.<a name="_ftnref41"></a></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Administrative Departments of Other IP Institutions</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The September 2012 IPR Strategy and the July 2014 IPR Strategy both generally recommended that the administrative departments of other IP institutions also take up similar actions as the CGPDTM.<a name="_ftnref42"></a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Draft Policy however, goes into this with some detail. The Draft Policy recommends that with regard to the office of Registrar of Copyright, the Government take measures to expedite modernization of the office both in terms of office space and infrastructure and in terms of introducing e filing facility including e- applications, electronic processing and issuance of final extracts of registrations etc. It also recommends that all copyright records be digitized and that the government introduce an online search facility and provide necessary manpower and adequate training facilities to personnel in the copyright office. It further recommends that the government take urgent measures for the effective management and administration of copyright societies to ensure transparency and efficiency in the collection and disbursement of royalties in the best interests of rights holders and that the government provide user friendly services in the form of help desks, awareness raising and training materials.<a name="_ftnref43"></a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Draft Policy recommends that the registrar of Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout Design study the reasons for lack of interest in filings under the Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout Design Act, 2000 and suggest appropriate measures.<a name="_ftnref44"></a> The Draft Policy also recommends that the government formalize a consultation and coordination mechanism between the National Biodiversity Authority and the IPOs with a view to harmonious implementation of guidelines for grant of IP rights and access to biological resources and associated traditional knowledge and benefit sharing.<a name="_ftnref45"></a></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Institutional Capacity Building</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The July 2014 IPR Strategy recommended that the RGNIIPM act as a think tank, carry out research on IP matters, formulate and deliver training courses and develop teaching curricular for academic institutions, develop linkages with other national and international institutions involved in similar fields and develop joint training programs and conduct joint research studies on IPRs including programs for plant variety protection and issues related to traditional knowledge and bio resources. And establish IP institutes with state governments for raising awareness and training and teaching.<a name="_ftnref46"></a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It also recommended that the MHRD IPR chairs provide support to all ministries and departments in policy making law making and negotiations under bilateral or multilateral frameworks.<a name="_ftnref47"></a> The Strategy also recommended that institutes responsible for training customs, police, judiciary, forest research institutes have IP training as an essential part of the curriculum, that National level institutes associated with creation enforcement or commercialization should be encouraged to incorporate IP training and capacity building in their operations and finally that industry, business, IP professional bodies, inventers associations, venture capital funds etc. should be encouraged to develop IP training modules for their members as well.<a name="_ftnref48"></a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Draft Policy recommends all this and more and suggests that RGNIIPM Nagpur conduct training for IP administrators , managers in the industry, academicians, R&D institutions, IP professionals, inventors, civil society apart from training the trainers, developing training modules and links with other similar entities at the international level and set up state level institutions.<a name="_ftnref49"></a> Further it recommended that the MHRD IPR Chairs provide high quality teaching and research, develop teaching capacity and curricula and evaluate their work on performance based criteria.<a name="_ftnref50"></a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Draft Policy also recommends that the CGPDTM provide continuous training to the IPO staff and update them with developments in procedures, substantive laws and technologies along with the RGNIIPM.<a name="_ftnref51"></a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Draft policy also recommends that the government establish national level institutes of excellence to provide leadership in IP, conduct policy and empirical research, examine trends and developments in the field of IP at the national and international level, support the government in strategic development of IP systems and international negotiations, establish links with similar institutes and experts in other countries for exchange of ideas, information and best practices and suggest approaches and guidelines for inter-disciplinary human capital development.<a name="_ftnref52"></a> And that the government facilitate industry associations, inventors and creators associations and IP support institutions to raise awareness of IP issues for teaching, training and skill building.<a name="_ftnref53"></a></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Strengthening Institutional Set-up to Improve Enforcement of IPRs and Create Respect for IPRs</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The September 2012 IPR Strategy and the July 2014 IPR Strategy both recommend that the government encourage small and niche businesses to protect their products through trademarks, the September 2012 Strategy also adds that these businesses should be encouraged to seek international protection to participate in global competition and contribute to international trade activities.<a name="_ftnref54"></a> The Draft Policy recommends increasing awareness of international mechanisms and treaties (e.g. PCT, Madrid and The Hague) to encourage creation and protection of IP in global markets.<a name="_ftnref55"></a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The 2012 IPR Strategy and the July 2014 Strategy go into further detail, they recommend that the service sector be encouraged to adopt strategies for registration of trademarks to ensure competitiveness and to leverage the goodwill of strong indigenous brands that have acquired traction in international markets. They also recommend that SME clusters be encouraged to develop a comprehensive database of their products to ensure that a parent isn’t issued on unprotected innovations.<a name="_ftnref56"></a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As far as GI is concerned, both the July 2014 and the September 2012 IPR Strategy recommend that central public bodies such as the development commissioner for handicrafts and handlooms etc. partner with the suitable state, district and Panchayat level entities to educate communities on the benefits of registering GIs, to put in place examination protocols to ensure GI owners comply with quality standards. They further recommend that these bodies develop a roadmap to build brands for better market presence for products registered as GIs and coordinate with relevant state authority on enforcement and provide periodical updates to enforcement taskforce on issues that need redressal.<a name="_ftnref57"></a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Draft Policy only recommends that the government encourage registration of GI through support institutions and assist GI producers to define and maintain acceptable quality standards and providing better marketability.<a name="_ftnref58"></a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">As far as designs are concerned, both the July 2014 IPR Strategy and the September 2012 IPR Strategy recommend that the government encourage a move from informal to formal practices of protecting designs by administrative intervention,<a name="_ftnref59"></a> while the Draft Policy recommends the encouraging of creation of design related IP rights by identifying, nurturing, and promoting aspects of innovation protectable under the design law and educating designers to utilize and benefit from their designs , involve the NIDs , NIFTs and other institutions in sensitization campaigns.<a name="_ftnref60"></a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">With regard to plant varieties, both the 2014 and 2012 IPR Strategies recommend awareness generation programmes to encourage filings of new extant and essentially derived varieties.<a name="_ftnref61"></a> While the 2012 IPR Strategy further stated that there was a need to evaluate whether restructuring institutions/merging all IP issues under one umbrella would improve efficiency and a need for centrally managed National IP Enforcement Taskforce that could :a) Maintain database on criminal enforcement measures instituted for trademark infringement and copyright piracy, civil cases filed to be collated also, b) Mandated to deliberate upon operational issues of enforcement with the concerned Central and State agencies, c) Conduct periodic industry wise infringement surveys d) Coordinate capacity building programmes for the central and state enforcing agencies.<a name="_ftnref62"></a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Draft Policy recommends that the protection of plant varieties and farmers rights authority should: a) Support increased registration of new, extant and essential derived varieties and streamline procedures, b) Facilitate development of seeds and their commercialization by farmers., c) Establish links with agriculture universities, research institutions, technology development and management centers and Krishi Vikas Kendras, d) Coordinate with other IPOs for training sharing expertise and adopting best practices, e) Augment awareness building, training and teaching programs and modernize office infrastructure and use of ICT.<a name="_ftnref63"></a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">With regard to Traditional Knowledge, the Draft Policy also recommends that the government create a sui generis system for protecting TK which will safeguard misappropriation of traditional knowledge as well as promote further research and development in products and services based on traditional knowledge.<a name="_ftnref64"></a></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Creation of New IP Rights to Address Gaps</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The September 2012 IPR Strategy recommended protection of utility models, utility patents as they have Protection of utility model. Utility patents / models proposed as they have less stringent patentability criteria, faster examination/grant, shorter term of protection as a cost effective way to incentivize incremental innovation and encourage creation of IPRs, with sector specific exemptions to ensure TRIPS compliance. And included a proposal for a predictable recognizable trade secret regime to improve investor confidence and facilitate flow of information.<a name="_ftnref65"></a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Draft Policy also recommended that the government facilitate creation and protection of small inventions through a new law on utility models, enact laws to address national needs to fill gaps in protective regimes of IPRs such as utility models and trade secrets to keep up with advancements in science and technology to strengthen IP and innovation ecosystem from example IP created from public funded research, to protect and promote traditional knowledge.<a name="_ftnref66"></a> As pointed out in the CIS Submission to the IPR Think Tank, the creation of utility models should by no means be assumed to be completely uncontroversial, many countries that had this system have now given it up, further this could lead to granting of frivolous patents and thereby harming development.<a name="_ftnref67"></a></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Facilitating Commercialization of IPRs</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Both the July 2014 and the September 2012 IPR Strategies have similar recommendations with respect to facilitating commercialization of IPRs; they both recommend policy interventions to create strong and transparent national strategies to encourage: licensing of rights to another entity for commercialization, cross licensing agreements, leveraging the intellectual assets for future R&D growth and improved services, sale merger acquisition of either IPR or entire business distinguished and appropriately valued by their intellectual capital, patent pooling, reinforcing stability of IP license contracts.<a name="_ftnref68"></a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">And they both recommend that National research laboratories and academia and public institutions to stimulate commercialization of research resultants: intervention in building strengthening institutional capacity of research led organisations to enable utilization of IP.<a name="_ftnref69"></a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The 2012 IPR Strategy also recommends national level policy changes to encourage development of indigenous technologies, that government fund (grants/loans) demonstration projects of new technologies that require large investment, suitable tax breaks for indigenously developed and commercialized products till attainment of some maturity levels, that qualification requirements during tendering process to accord acceptance to indigenously developed products where heavy development investments have been incurred, strengthening the indigenous R&D ecosystem policy frameworks should provide for flexibility in outsourcing technical expertise in niche areas and type testing of prototypes. Further it visualizes the emergence of open innovation systems and the role of voluntary SSOs.<a name="_ftnref70"></a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Draft Policy does all this and more. It recommends that the government establish an IP Promotion and Development Council (IPPDC) as a nodal organization for promotion and commercialization of IPR, the IPPDC is supposed to, among other things, promote licensing and technology transfer of IP, devise suitable contractual and licensing guidelines to enable commercialization of IP, promoting patent pooling and cross licensing to create IP based products and services and also establishing links with similar organisations for exchange of information and ideas as also to develop promotional educational products and services for promotion and commercialization, to facilitate access to databases on Indian IP and global databases of creators/innovators, market analysts, funding agencies, IP intermediaries, to study and facilitate implementation of best practices for promotion and commercialization of IP within the country and outside. IPPDC to establish IP Promotion and Development Units (IPPDU) in various regions<a name="_ftnref71"></a> The IPPDC is also tasked with identifying opportunities for marketing Indian IPR based products and services to a global audience.<a name="_ftnref72"></a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The government is also recommended to provide statutory incentives like tax benefits linked to IP creation for the entire value chain from IP creation to commercialization, to support financial aspects of IP commercialization by: a)Enabling valuation of IP rights by application of appropriate methodologies including for better accounting as intangible assets, b) Facilitating investments in IP driven industries and services through the proposed IP exchange for bringing investors/funding agencies and IP owners /users together, c) Providing financial support to less empowered groups of IP owners or creators like farmers weavers, artisans, craftsmen etc. through financial institutions like rural banks or cooperative banks offering IP friendly loans, d) Taking stock of all IP funding by the government and suggesting measures to consolidate the same to the extent possible generating scale in funding and avoiding duplication, enhancing the visibility of IP and innovation related funds so that utilization is increased, performance based evaluation for continued funding, c) Regulating IP created through publicly funded research by a suitable law.<a name="_ftnref73"></a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Draft policy also recommends that the government promote going to market activities by: a) Creating mechanisms to help MSMEs and research institutions to validate scale and pilot through market testing, b) Providing seed funding for market activities such as participating in trade fairs, industry standards bodies and other forums, c) Providing guidance and support to IPR owners about commercial opportunities of e commerce through internet and mobile platforms.<a name="_ftnref74"></a> And that the government study the role of IPRs in setting standards in various areas of technology, actively participate in standards setting processes at national, international and industry SSO levels and to encourage the development of global standards that are influenced by technologies and IP generated in India<a name="_ftnref75"></a></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Facilitating and Encouraging Commercialization of IP Assets</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The July 2014 IPR Strategy had specific recommendations to make in this regard. It recommended that the government forge links between creators and inventors , universities, industry and financial institutions for commercialization, that the government establish an IP exchange to stimulate trading of IP and creating markets for IP assets, to facilitate MSMEs to identify protect and commercialize their IP, creations through facilitation centers by providing package of services, to encourage technologies acquired under the patent pool of the Technology Acquisition and Development Fund (TADF) and licensed as per provision in manufacturing policy.<a name="_ftnref76"></a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Draft IP policy recommends all of these, tasking the IPPDC with most of these tasks and also recommends that the government improve awareness of the value of copyright for creators, the importance of their economic and moral rights and the rationalization of payment mechanisms for them, and to support initiative taken by public sector research entities to commercialize their IPRs for commercialization and lastly to develop skills among scientists to access , interpret and analyze the techno-legal and business information contained in IP documents.<a name="_ftnref77"></a></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Enforcement and Adjudication</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Draft Policy makes very specific recommendations with regard to enforcement and adjudication, apart from suggestions that go toward creating awareness and sensitizing the public, students, industry and inventors about IP, the policy also recommends that the government establish a Multi-Agency Task Force for coordination between various agencies and providing direction and guidance on enforcement measures, creating a nationwide database of known IP offenders, coordination and sharing intelligence and best practices at the national and international levels, studying the extent of IP violations in various sectors, examining the implications of jurisdictional difficulties among enforcement authorities and introducing appropriate technology based solutions for curbing digital piracy.<a name="_ftnref78"></a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The government is also tasked with working with state governments in establishing IP cells and including IP crimes under their special laws, increasing manpower and infrastructure of the enforcement agencies and building capacity to check proliferation of digital crimes, providing regular training for officials in enforcement agencies, encouraging application of tech-based solutions in enforcement of IP rights, initiating fact finding studies in collaboration with stakeholders concerned to assess the extent of counterfeiting and piracy and the reasons behind it as well as the measures to combat it and taking up the issue of Indian works and products being pirated and counterfeited abroad with countries concerned.<a name="_ftnref79"></a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">On improving IP dispute resolution, the Draft Policy recommends the designation of specialized patent bench in the High Courts of Bombay, Calcutta, Delhi and Madras, the designation of one IP court at the district level depending on the number of IP cases filed, working with judicial academies to conduct regular workshops for judges, promoting ADRs in the resolution of IP cases by strengthening mediation and conciliation centers and developing ADR capabilities, creating regional benches of the IPAB in all five regions where IPOs are located, increasing the powers of IPAB in its administration including autonomy in financial matters and selection of technical and judicial members and providing necessary infrastructure for its effective and efficient funding and also taking urgent steps to make the copyright board function effectively and efficiently and provide adequate infrastructure and manpower to it.<a name="_ftnref80"></a></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Work Plans</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In addition to all of the above, the July 2014 IPR Strategy also recommends a work plan which includes commissioning a study on schemes and programs financed by the government including under the PP mode for innovation, signing and acceding to the Marrakesh Treaty, the NICE agreement on international classification of goods and services for the purpose of registration of trademarks, assessing the Hague Agreement regarding registration of industrial design vis a vis India’s Designs Act with a view to accede to the treaty, assessing the possibility of accepting facilitation centers run by universities/academic institutions/departments of science and technology as receiving offices for patent applications where there are no patent offices.<a name="_ftnref81"></a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Draft IP Policy also makes recommendations to integrate IP with other government Initiatives like Make in India and Digital India,<a name="_ftnref82"></a> and plans to integrate into these government initiatives the different schemes of the Department of Electronics, and IT for IP promotion and global protection.<a name="_ftnref83"></a> It further recommends the establishing of a high-level body in the government to co-ordinate, guide and oversee the implementation and development of IP in India in accordance with the National IP Policy. The body will be responsible for bringing cohesion and coordination among different ministries and departments with regard to how they deal with IP matters, laying down priorities for IP development and preparing plans of action for time bound implementation of national and sector specific IP policies, strategies and programs, monitoring the progress and implementation of the National IP policy linked with performance indicators, targeted results and deliverables, annual evaluation of the overall working of the policy and a major review of the policy ever three years.<a name="_ftnref84"></a></p>
<h3 style="text-align: justify; ">Concluding Observations</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The National IPR Strategies of 2012 and 2014 contain more or less similar recommendations, the key differences being that the 2014 IPR Strategy emphasizes the need to address IP issues in international fora and in establishing cost effective, efficient and service oriented IP administrative infrastructure. It does not, in contrast to the 2012 IPR Strategy, recommend the introduction of laws on utility models or protection of trade secrets, policy changes to encourage development of indigenous technologies, but it does more specifically address facilitating commercialization of IP.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The Draft Policy is an important advance over the National IPR Strategy of July 2014 and September 2012. It places makes important new recommendations with regards to publicity and awareness raising, creation of legal regime with regard to traditional knowledge, utility patents and trade secrets, enforcement and adjudication- including the setting up of new courts, creation of the IPPDC and of a new high-level government body to oversee the implementation of the policy. It does however miss out on the chance to help start-ups, MSMEs and individuals in contrast to recommendations of the previous IPR Strategies. And in context of its avowed aim to turn knowledge owned into knowledge shared does little to encourage open access and focuses heavily on IP creation assuming that increase in IP would promote innovation and thereby lead to national development.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><strong><a href="https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comparison-of-national-ipr-strategy-september-2012-national-ipr-strategy-july-2014-and-draft-national-ip-policy-december-2015-1.pdf" class="external-link">Table - Comparison of National IPR Strategy September 2012, National IPR Strategy July 2014 And Draft National IP Policy, December 2014</a><br /></strong></p>
<hr style="text-align: justify; " />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn1"></a> Sectoral Innovation Council, National IPR Strategy, September 2012, Available at: <a href="http://dipp.nic.in/english/Discuss_paper/draftNational_IPR_Strategy_26Sep2012.pdf">http://dipp.nic.in/english/Discuss_paper/draftNational_IPR_Strategy_26Sep2012.pdf</a> (Hereafter : National IPR Strategy, September 2012)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn2"></a> National IPR Strategy, July 2014, Available at: <a href="http://dipp.nic.in/English/Schemes/Intellectual_Property_Rights/national_IPR_Strategy_21July2014.pdf">http://dipp.nic.in/English/Schemes/Intellectual_Property_Rights/national_IPR_Strategy_21July2014.pdf</a> (Hereafter: National IPR Policy, July 2014)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn3"></a> IPR Think Tank, Draft National IP Policy, December 2014, Available at: <a href="http://dipp.nic.in/English/Schemes/Intellectual_Property_Rights/IPR_Policy_24December2014.pdf">http://dipp.nic.in/English/Schemes/Intellectual_Property_Rights/IPR_Policy_24December2014.pdf</a> (Here after: Draft Policy)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn4"></a> National IPR Strategy, July 2014, p.5</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn5"></a> Draft Policy, p.5</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">[5] National IPR Strategy, July 2014, p.5</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn6"></a> Draft Policy, p.5</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn7"></a> National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp.11 and Draft Policy, December 2014, pp.5</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn8"></a> National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp.11</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn9"></a> National IPR Strategy, July 2014, pp.5-6,</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn10"></a>Draft Policy, p.6,</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn11"></a> Draft Policy, p.8.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn12"></a> Draft Policy, p.11.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn13"></a> Draft Policy, p.13.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn14"></a> Draft Policy, p.17.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn15"></a> Draft Policy, p.20.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn16"></a> Draft Policy, p.23.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn17"></a> National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp. 7, 11, 12, 19 20</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn18"></a> National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp. 21</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn19"></a> Draft Policy, p.6-8</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn20"></a> National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp.6-7 , 12-13 and National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.6-8</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn21"></a> Draft Policy, p.5, 9-10, 15,18-19</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn22"></a> National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp. 7, 13-14 and National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.8-9.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn23"></a> Draft Policy, p.8,11,24</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn24"></a> National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp.6, 14-15 and National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.9-10</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn25"></a> Draft Policy, p.7-8, 10</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn26"></a> National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp. 7, 15 and National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.10</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn27"></a> National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp. 7, 15</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn28"></a> National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp. 15</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn29"></a> National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.10-12</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn30"></a> Draft Policy, p.12-13,</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn31"></a> Draft Policy, p.13</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn32"></a> Swaraj Paul Barooah, Data Exclusivity back on the table for India, SpicyIP, March 27, 2015, Available at: <a href="http://spicyip.com/2015/03/data-exclusivity-back-on-the-table-for-india.html">http://spicyip.com/2015/03/data-exclusivity-back-on-the-table-for-india.html</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn33"></a> National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.11-12</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn34"></a> Draft Policy, p.14</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn35"></a> National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp. 15-16</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn36"></a> National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp. 16</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn37"></a> National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp. 12-14</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn38"></a> Draft Policy, p. 15-16</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn39"></a> Draft Policy,p. 16</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn40"></a> Draft Policy, p.15</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn41"></a> Draft Policy, p. 15-16</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn42"></a> National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp.16 and National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.14</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn43"></a> Draft Policy, p.16</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn44"></a> Draft Policy, p.17</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn45"></a> Draft Policy, p.17</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn46"></a> National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.14-15</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn47"></a> National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.15</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn48"></a> National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.15</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn49"></a> Draft Policy, p.24</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn50"></a> Draft Policy, p.24</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn51"></a> Draft Policy, p.24</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn52"></a> Draft Policy, p.23</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn53"></a> Draft Policy, p.24</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn54"></a> National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp.18 and National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.15-16</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn55"></a> Draft Policy, p.11</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn56"></a> National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp.17-18 and National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.16-17</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn57"></a> National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp.19 and National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.16</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn58"></a> Draft Policy, p. 11</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn59"></a> National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp.19-20 and National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp. 17-18</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn60"></a> Draft Policy, p.11</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn61"></a> National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp. 20 and National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.18</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn62"></a> National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp. 18</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn63"></a> Draft Policy, p.11</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn64"></a> Draft Policy, p. 12</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn65"></a> National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp. 20-22</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn66"></a> Draft Policy, p.12</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn67"></a> See, CIS Comments to the First Draft of the National IP Policy, Available at: <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-series-cis-comments-to-the-first-draft-of-the-national-ip-policy">http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-series-cis-comments-to-the-first-draft-of-the-national-ip-policy</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn68"></a> National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp. 22 and National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp. 18-19</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn69"></a> National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp.22 and National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.18</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn70"></a> National IPR Strategy, September 2012, pp.23</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn71"></a> Draft Policy, p. 18-19</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn72"></a> Draft Policy, p.19</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn73"></a> Draft Policy, p.10,19</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn74"></a> Draft Policy, p.19-20</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn75"></a> Draft Policy, p. 12-13</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn76"></a> National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.19</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn77"></a> Draft Policy, pp. 10, 18-19.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn78"></a> Draft Policy, pp. 20-22</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn79"></a> Draft Policy, p. 22</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn80"></a> Draft Policy, p.22-23</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn81"></a> National IPR Strategy, July 2014 , pp.22</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn82"></a> Draft Policy, pp. 25-26.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn83"></a> Draft Policy, p.26</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a name="_ftn84"></a> Draft Policy, p.27-28</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comparison-of-national-ipr-strategy-september-2012-national-ipr-strategy-july-2014-and-draft-national-ip-policy-december-2015'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comparison-of-national-ipr-strategy-september-2012-national-ipr-strategy-july-2014-and-draft-national-ip-policy-december-2015</a>
</p>
No publisheramulyaIntellectual Property RightsPatentsAccess to Knowledge2016-03-08T01:49:07ZBlog Entry4th Annual US - China IP Conference: Best Practices for Innovation and Creativity
https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/4th-annual-us-china-ip-conference-best-practices-for-innovation-and-creativity
<b>Bhairav Acharya attended this conference organized by Berkeley Law, University of California on October 6, 2015. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>WHAT:</b> The 4th Annual U.S.-China IP Conference: Best Practices for Innovation and Creativity</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>WHEN:</b> Thurs. Oct. 8, 9:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. and Fri. Oct. 9, 9:00 a.m.—noon</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>WHO:</b> Lawyers, government officials, scholars, and corporate counsel from China and U.S.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Participants include:</p>
<ul style="text-align: justify; ">
<li><b>Chuntian Liu</b>, dean of China Renmin University</li>
<li><b>Ping Liu</b>, dep. director-general, Music Copyright Society of China</li>
<li><b>Robert Merges</b>, co-dir. of the Berkeley Center for Law & Technology at Berkeley Law</li>
<li><b>Maria Strong</b>, deputy dir. of the U.S. Copyright Office</li>
<li><b>Duane Valz</b>, sr. patent counsel, Google</li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">For a full list of speakers and bios, go <a href="https://www.law.berkeley.edu/centers/bclt/upcoming-events/october-2015-us-china-ip-conference/speakers/">here</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>WHERE:</b> The Claremont Hotel, 41 Tunnel Road, Berkeley, CA 94705.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>DETAILS:</b> Last year marked the first in which Chinese investment in the United States—heavily weighted toward technology—exceeded U.S. investment in China. With companies in each country increasingly seeking joint ventures in the other, intellectual property (IP) issues that lie at the core of these investments have taken on even greater importance.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Participants will compare the latest trends and developments in IP creation, protection and cross-border enforcement in China and U.S.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Panel topics include:</p>
<ul style="text-align: justify; ">
<li>Opportunities and Challenges in U.S.-China Film Co-Production and Other Media</li>
<li>New Trends and Legal Issues in Transnational Technology Investment</li>
<li>Specialized IP Courts</li>
<li>Recent Developments in Copyright: Legislation and Cases</li>
<li>Recent Developments in Patents: Legislation and Cases</li>
<li>Cross-border IP Enforcement</li>
</ul>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">For a complete agenda, go <a href="https://www.law.berkeley.edu/centers/bclt/upcoming-events/october-2015-us-china-ip-conference/agenda/">here</a>. Read a preview story about the conference <a href="https://www.law.berkeley.edu/article/us-china-ip-conference-to-examine-best-practices-for-global-innovation/">here</a>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Event co-sponsors: The UC Berkeley School of Law’s Berkeley Center for Law & Technology (BCLT); Loyola Law School, Los Angeles; and Renmin University of China Law School.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">For more information or to schedule interviews contact: Jim Dempsey, exec. dir. BCLT, 510-643-6960; or Louise Lee, assoc. dir., <a href="mailto:llee@law.berkeley.edu">llee@law.berkeley.edu</a>, 510-642-9353.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/4th-annual-us-china-ip-conference-best-practices-for-innovation-and-creativity'>https://cis-india.org/internet-governance/news/4th-annual-us-china-ip-conference-best-practices-for-innovation-and-creativity</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIntellectual Property RightsAccess to Knowledge2015-11-29T13:51:15ZNews ItemIPEX 2015
https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/ipex-2015
<b>Rohini Lakshané attended IPEX 2015 organized by the Confederation of Indian Industry, APTDC and TDPC on September 25 - 26, 2015 at Hotel Westin in Chennai. </b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The sixth edition of IPEX 2015 "Think Local-Act Global: Interfacing IP in a globalized world" aimed to strengthen the participation of Indian companies in current knowledge based economy. The conference was designed with an objective that Indian startups and companies should lay a solid IP foundation in order to maximise future value, and ensure success in a longer run.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">For more details see the <a class="external-link" href="https://www.mycii.in/image/eventimages/eventmainimages/E000026563_IPEX%202015%20Brochure.pdf">brochure</a>. For presentations click <a class="external-link" href="https://onedrive.live.com/?cid=919127fac5d42c54&id=919127FAC5D42C54!194&authkey=!AFU08QQl76nEVOU">here</a>.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/ipex-2015'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/ipex-2015</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIntellectual Property RightsAccess to Knowledge2015-10-25T15:06:50ZNews ItemOpen letter from CIS to PM Modi on Intellectual Property Rights issues on his Visit to US
https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/live-law-apoorva-mandhani-september-23-2015-open-letter-from-cis-to-pm-modi-on-intellectual-property-rights-issues-on-his-visit-to-us
<b>Centre for Internet and Society, through its Policy Director Mr. Pranesh Prakash and Programme Officer Nehaa Chaudhari has addressed an open letter to Prime Minister Narendra Modi on the intellectual property right issues concerning his visit to the United State of America in September, 2015.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The article by Apoorva Mandhani was <a class="external-link" href="http://www.livelaw.in/open-letter-from-cis-to-pm-modi-on-intellectual-property-rights-issues-on-his-visit-to-us/">published by LiveLaw</a> on September 23, 2015. CIS Open Letter <a class="external-link" href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/open-letter-on-intellectual-property-rights-issues-during-your-visit-to-the-united-states-of-america-in-september-2015">here</a>.</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The letter makes a two-fold request: first<i>, </i>that the Government of the USA be requested to ratify the Marrakesh Treaty for visually impaired persons and second,<i> </i>that the Indian Government should not enter into any negotiations around the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The letter relies on the statistics released by the <a href="http://www.worldblindunion.org/English/our-work/our-priorities/Pages/right-2-read-campaign.aspx">World Blind Union</a>, according to which 90% of all published material is not accessible to blind or print disabled people. The severity of the ‘book famine’, it says, was highlighted by India in its Closing Statement at the Diplomatic Conference convened to conclude the Marrakesh Treaty.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">India was the <a href="http://cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/indias-ratification-of-marrakesh-treaty-celebrated">first country</a> to ratify the Marrakesh Treaty in June, 2014. However, the Marrakesh Treaty will come into effect only after 20 Member States have ratified it or acceded to it. As per information available from the <a href="http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ShowResults.jsp?lang=en&treaty_id=843">World Intellectual Property Organization</a>, only 9 countries have ratified or acceded to the treaty and USA is not one of it. The letter therefore requests Mr. Modi to request USA ratify the Marrakesh Treaty at the earliest.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">It says, <i>“The USA is home to some of the largest publishers of both academic and other/leisure material including Penguin Random House, Harper Collins, John Wiley & Sons, the RELX Group, McGraw-Hill Education, Scholastic and Cengage Learning to name a few. It accounts for a large volume of the world’s book and other print material export. The active participation of the USA through the ratification of the Marrakesh treaty is critical if the treaty is to be truly effective.”</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">With regard to the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, the letter communicates its concern regarding the secrecy of negotiations as well as the content of the chapter on intellectual property in the TPP.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Provisions sought to be imposed through the TPP mandate the inclusion of TRIPS plus provisions in national laws, envisage possible extensions in term of protection on patents, restrict copyright exceptions and limitations, extend copyright protection terms and impose a higher liability on intermediaries. All these provisions, it says, <i>“would be disastrous for an emerging economy such as India’s, which is a heavy user of intellectual property and not a heavy producer of the same.”</i></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Highlighting CIS’s concerns, the letter requests that any engagement in TPP negotiations be preceded by national consultations on the same, soliciting input from various stakeholders with diverging interests, including academia, civil society, industry associations, large Indian corporations, small and medium enterprises and multi- national corporations, rights holders associations and other interest groups.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/live-law-apoorva-mandhani-september-23-2015-open-letter-from-cis-to-pm-modi-on-intellectual-property-rights-issues-on-his-visit-to-us'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/news/live-law-apoorva-mandhani-september-23-2015-open-letter-from-cis-to-pm-modi-on-intellectual-property-rights-issues-on-his-visit-to-us</a>
</p>
No publisherpraskrishnaIntellectual Property RightsAccess to Knowledge2015-09-24T02:48:32ZNews ItemOpen Letter to PM Modi on Intellectual Property Rights issues on His Visit to the United States of America in September, 2015
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/open-letter-on-intellectual-property-rights-issues-during-your-visit-to-the-united-states-of-america-in-september-2015
<b>This is an open letter by CIS to the Prime Minister, Shri Narendra Modi in light of his impending visit to the USA. This letter asks the Prime Minister to urge the USA to ratify the Marrakesh Treaty; and asks that India not be a party to TPP negotiations, in light of recent reports on a study encouraging India to join the TPP.
</b>
<p> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Shri Narendra Damodardas Modi<br />Hon’ble Prime Minister of India<br />152, South Block, Raisina Hill<br />New Delhi-110011</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">22 September, 2015</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Dear Sir,</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">We write on behalf of the Centre for Internet and Society, India <a name="_ftnref1" href="#_ftn1">[1]</a>, a Bangalore and New Delhi based not-for-profit organization engaging in research on among others, accessibility for persons with disabilities, intellectual property rights, openness and access to knowledge. Over the past fifteen months, we have welcomed and support certain initiatives of our government as being in line with some of our research interests, specifically, the "Make in India" and "Digital India" initiatives, and your vision of a digitally empowered India, as we have noted in an earlier open letter to you. <a name="_ftnref2" href="#_ftn2">[2]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">This letter is in light of your visit to the United States of America (“USA”) this month, to articulate a two-fold request:<em> first, </em>that during the course of your visit you request the government of the USA to ratify the Marrakesh Treaty for visually impaired persons (“Marrakesh Treaty”); <a name="_ftnref3" href="#_ftn3">[3]</a> and <em>second, </em>that the Indian government not enter into any negotiations around the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement (“the TPP”).</p>
<h3>On the Marrakesh Treaty</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify;">According to figures by the World Blind Union, approximately 90% of all published material is not accessible to blind or print disabled people. <a name="_ftnref4" href="#_ftn4">[4]</a> The severity of the ‘book famine’ experienced by the world’s estimated 300 million blind or otherwise print or visually disabled people (of which an estimated 63 million are in India) was highlighted by India in its Closing Statement at the Diplomatic Conference convened to conclude the Marrakesh Treaty. <a name="_ftnref5" href="#_ftn5">[5]</a> India has historically been a strong advocate of the spirit of the Marrakesh Treaty, becoming the first country to ratify it in June, 2014. <a name="_ftnref6" href="#_ftn6">[6]</a> Amendments in 2012 to India’s copyright law predated the signature to the Marrakesh Treaty. These amendments created disability and works neutral exceptions to our copyright law, well beyond the mandate of the Marrakesh Treaty.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The true realization of the promise of the Marrakesh Treaty however will remain a distant dream until the treaty comes into effect (three months) after 20 Member States have ratified it or acceded to it. <a name="_ftnref7" href="#_ftn7">[7]</a> According to information available from the World Intellectual Property Organization <a name="_ftnref8" href="#_ftn8">[8]</a>, this number is currently only 9, and the USA is not one of the countries to have done so. The USA is home <a name="_ftnref9" href="#_ftn9">[9]</a> to some of the largest publishers of both academic and other/leisure material including Penguin Random House, Harper Collins, John Wiley & Sons, the RELX Group, McGraw-Hill Education, Scholastic and Cengage Learning to name a few. It accounts for a large volume of the world’s book and other print material export. The active participation of the USA through the ratification of the Marrakesh treaty is critical if the treaty is to be truly effective.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">During your visit, we urge you request the government of the United States of America to ratify the Marrakesh Treaty at the earliest. This will bring us one important step closer to eradicating the book famine.</p>
<h3>On the TPP</h3>
<p style="text-align: justify;">We are concerned after reports <a name="_ftnref10" href="#_ftn10">[10]</a> of a recent study authored by C Fred Bergsten that encourages India to join the TPP. On this front, we are in complete agreement with the reported statement of the Hon’ble Ambassador Shri Arun K. Singh, where he disagrees with some of the findings and analysis of this recent report. <a name="_ftnref11" href="#_ftn11">[11]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The TPP has come into severe criticism <a name="_ftnref12" href="#_ftn12">[12]</a> over the years <a name="_ftnref13" href="#_ftn13">[13]</a> from a vast multitude <a name="_ftnref14" href="#_ftn14">[14]</a> of sources <a name="_ftnref15" href="#_ftn15">[15]</a> (including a group of 30 law professors in 2012) <a name="_ftnref16" href="#_ftn16">[16]</a> across the various countries that are a party to the negotiations. Among others and most relevant to us as an organization is the criticism around the secrecy of negotiations <a name="_ftnref17" href="#_ftn17">[17]</a> as well as the content of the chapter on intellectual property in the TPP. It is our belief that eventually, India stands to lose as a result of the TPP <a name="_ftnref18" href="#_ftn18">[18]</a> with its possible adverse impact on our economy. <a name="_ftnref19" href="#_ftn19">[19]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The rigid intellectual property protections (including criminal penalties for unintentional copying) <a name="_ftnref20" href="#_ftn20">[20]</a> sought to be enforced through the TPP would benefit only US pharmaceutical and entertainment industries. <a name="_ftnref21" href="#_ftn21">[21]</a> These provisions (among others) mandate the inclusion of TRIPS plus provisions in national laws, envisage possible extensions in term of protection on patents, restrict copyright exceptions and limitations, extend copyright protection terms and impose a higher liability on intermediaries; <a name="_ftnref22" href="#_ftn22">[22]</a>all of which would be disastrous for an emerging economy such as India’s, which is a heavy user of intellectual property and not a heavy producer of the same.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Historically, India has been a supporter of a transparent, multilateral decision making process, a commitment to which was also reiterated recently by the Hon’ble Minister of State for Commerce and Industry, Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman. <a name="_ftnref23" href="#_ftn23">[23]</a>India has also raised many of its concerns (on the secrecy of the negotiations as well as substantive provisions themselves) around the TPP and its close cousin, the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (“ACTA”) in 2011 <a name="_ftnref24" href="#_ftn24">[24]</a> and 2012 <a name="_ftnref25" href="#_ftn25">[25]</a> at the World Trade Organization (“WTO”) TRIPS Council and on the ACTA in 2010, also at the WTO Trips Council. <a name="_ftnref26" href="#_ftn26">[26]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">In light of the above, we strongly urge the Indian government to not engage in negotiations on the TPP. At a minimum, we would request that any engagement in TPP negotiations be preceded by national consultations on the same, soliciting input from various stakeholders with diverging interests, including academia, civil society, industry associations, large Indian corporations, small and medium enterprises and multi- national corporations, rights holders associations and other interest groups.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">We thank you for the opportunity to present these views to you. We do hope that you will consider these suggestions favourably, in the interests of India’s economic and social development. We welcome any opportunity to assist you with any queries you may have with regard to these submissions.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Thank you.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Yours truly</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">(For the Centre for Internet and Society, India)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Pranesh Prakash, Policy Director<br />Nehaa Chaudhari, Programme Officer</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Copies to:</p>
<ol style="text-align: justify;" type="1">
<li>Smt. Smriti Zubin Irani, Minister for Human Resource Development, Government of India.</li>
<li>Prof. (Dr.) Ram Shankar Katheria, Minister of State for Human Resource Development (Higher Education), Government of India.</li>
<li>Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman, Minister of State for Commerce and Industry, Government of India.</li>
<li>Shri Vinay Sheel Oberoi, Secretary (Department of Higher Education), Ministry of Human Resources Development, Government of India, Government of India.</li>
<li>Shri Amitabh Kant, Secretary (Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion), Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Government of India.</li></ol>
<p> <br /><br />(Edit - 25 September, 2015) - The following people have reached out to us in support of this letter and have expressed a desire to have their signatures placed on record as support. We wish to acknowledge the same. </p>
<ol><li>Prof. Dinesh Abrol - Convenor, National Working Group on Patent Laws and WTO<br /></li><li>Dr. B. Ekbal - President, Democratic Alliance for Knowledge Freedom, Kerala</li><li>T.C. James - President, NIPO</li><li>Dr. Suman Sahai - Chairperson, Gene Campaign</li><li>Dr. Biswajit Dhar - Professor, Centre for Economic Studies and Planning, School of Social Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University</li></ol>
<div> </div>
<p> </p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn1" href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a>See generally <a href="http://cis-india.org/">http://cis-india.org/</a> (last accessed 22 September, 2015).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn2" href="#_ftnref2">[2]</a>Rohini Lakshane, Open Letter to Prime Minister Modi, available at <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/open-letter-to-prime-minister-modi">http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/open-letter-to-prime-minister-modi</a> (last accessed 22 September, 2015); Centre for Internet and Society/Rohini Lakshane, Digital India & Make in India : Form a patent pool of critical mobile technologies – CIS India, available at <a href="http://www.medianama.com/2015/03/223-digital-india-make-in-india-form-a-patent-pool-of-critical-mobile-technologies-cis-india/" rel="noreferrer">http://www.medianama.com/2015/03/223-digital-india-make-in-india-form-a-patent-pool-of-critical-mobile-technologies-cis-india/</a> (last accessed 22 September, 2015).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn3" href="#_ftnref3">[3]</a>The Marrakesh Treaty to Facilitate Access to Published Works by Visually Impaired Persons and Persons with Print Disabilities adopted on June 27, 2013. Treaty text and other official documentation available at <a href="http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/marrakesh/" rel="noreferrer">http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ip/marrakesh/</a> (last accessed 22 September, 2015).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn4" href="#_ftnref4">[4]</a>World Blind Union, Marrakesh Treaty – Right to Read Campaign, available at <a href="http://www.worldblindunion.org/English/our-work/our-priorities/Pages/right-2-read-campaign.aspx" rel="noreferrer">http://www.worldblindunion.org/English/our-work/our-priorities/Pages/right-2-read-campaign.aspx</a> (last accessed 22 September, 2015).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn5" href="#_ftnref5">[5]</a>Pranesh Prakash, India’s Closing Statement at Marrakesh on the Treaty for the Blind, available at <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/india-closing-statement-marrakesh-treaty-for-the-blind">http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/india-closing-statement-marrakesh-treaty-for-the-blind</a> (last accessed 22 September, 2015).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn6" href="#_ftnref6">[6]</a>Nehaa Chaudhari, India’s Ratification of the Marrakesh Treaty Celebrated; Accessible Books Consortium Launched, available at <a href="http://cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/indias-ratification-of-marrakesh-treaty-celebrated">http://cis-india.org/accessibility/blog/indias-ratification-of-marrakesh-treaty-celebrated</a> (last accessed 22 September, 2015).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn7" href="#_ftnref7">[7]</a>Article 18 of the Marrakesh Treaty.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn8" href="#_ftnref8">[8]</a>World Intellectual Property Organization, WIPO Administered Treaties: Contracting Parties > Marrakesh VIP Treaty (Treaty not yet in force), available at <a href="http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ShowResults.jsp?lang=en&treaty_id=843" rel="noreferrer">http://www.wipo.int/treaties/en/ShowResults.jsp?lang=en&treaty_id=843</a> (last accessed 22 September, 2015).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn9" href="#_ftnref9">[9]</a>Publishers Weekly, The World’s 57 Largest Book Publishers, 2015, available at <a href="http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/international/international-book-news/article/67224-the-world-s-57-largest-book-publishers-2015.html" rel="noreferrer">http://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by-topic/international/international-book-news/article/67224-the-world-s-57-largest-book-publishers-2015.html</a> (last accessed 22 September, 2015).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn10" href="#_ftnref10">[10]</a>S Rajagopalan, US Report Pushes India to Join the Trans-Pacific Partnership, available at <a href="http://www.dailypioneer.com/world/us-report-pushes-india-to-join-trans-pacific-partnership.html" rel="noreferrer">http://www.dailypioneer.com/world/us-report-pushes-india-to-join-trans-pacific-partnership.html</a> (last accessed 22 September, 2015); Indo-Asian News Service on NDTV, India Can Boost Exports by $500 Billion with Trade Liberalization: Study, available at <a href="http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/india-can-boost-exports-by-500-billion-with-trade-liberalization-study-1218887" rel="noreferrer">http://www.ndtv.com/india-news/india-can-boost-exports-by-500-billion-with-trade-liberalization-study-1218887</a> (last accessed 22 September, 2015); Raghavendra M., India can boost exports by $500 billion with trade liberalization: study, available at <a href="http://www.americanbazaaronline.com/2015/09/18/india-can-boost-exports-by-500-billion-with-trade-liberalization-study/" rel="noreferrer">http://www.americanbazaaronline.com/2015/09/18/india-can-boost-exports-by-500-billion-with-trade-liberalization-study/</a> (last accessed 22 September, 2015); Press Trust of India in the Business Standard, India can boost exports by USD 500 bn by joining the TPP: report, available at <a href="http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/india-can-boost-exports-by-usd-500-bn-by-joining-tpp-report-115091701149_1.html" rel="noreferrer">http://www.business-standard.com/article/pti-stories/india-can-boost-exports-by-usd-500-bn-by-joining-tpp-report-115091701149_1.html</a> (last accessed 22 September, 2015); Seema Sirohi, India must expand its trade before it gets left behind in the race, available at <a href="http://blogs.economictimes.indiatimes.com/letterfromwashington/india-must-expand-its-trade-before-it-gets-left-behind-in-the-race/" rel="noreferrer">http://blogs.economictimes.indiatimes.com/letterfromwashington/india-must-expand-its-trade-before-it-gets-left-behind-in-the-race/</a> (last accessed 22 September, 2015).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn11" href="#_ftnref11">[11]</a>S Rajagopalan, US Report Pushes India to Join the Trans-Pacific Partnership, available at <a href="http://www.dailypioneer.com/world/us-report-pushes-india-to-join-trans-pacific-partnership.html" rel="noreferrer">http://www.dailypioneer.com/world/us-report-pushes-india-to-join-trans-pacific-partnership.html</a> (last accessed 22 September, 2015)</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn12" href="#_ftnref12">[12]</a>Natasha Lennard, Noam Chomsky: Trans-Pacific Partnership is a “neoliberal assault”, available at <a href="http://www.salon.com/2014/01/13/chomsky_tpp_is_a_neoliberal_assault/" rel="noreferrer">http://www.salon.com/2014/01/13/chomsky_tpp_is_a_neoliberal_assault/</a> (last accessed 22 September, 2015); Zach Carter and Ryan Grim, Noam Chomsky: Obama Trade Deal a ‘Neoliberal Assault’ to ‘Further Corporate Domination’, available at <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/13/noam-chomsky-obama-trans-pacific-partnership_n_4577495.html?ir=India&adsSiteOverride=in" rel="noreferrer">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/01/13/noam-chomsky-obama-trans-pacific-partnership_n_4577495.html?ir=India&adsSiteOverride=in</a> (last accessed 22 September, 2015); Sean Flynn;, Margot E Kaminski, Brook K Baker and Jimmy H Koo., "Public Interest Analysis of the US TPP Proposal for an IP Chapter" (2011). PIJIP Research Paper Series. Paper 21. <a href="http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/research/21" rel="noreferrer">http://digitalcommons.wcl.american.edu/research/21</a> (last accessed 22 September, 2015).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn13" href="#_ftnref13">[13]</a>BBC News, TPP: What is it and why does it matter?, available at <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/business-21782080" rel="noreferrer">http://www.bbc.com/news/business-21782080</a> (last accessed 22 September, 2015);</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn14" href="#_ftnref14">[14]</a>For a compilation on writing on the TPP <em>see</em> James Love, Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP also known as the TPPA), available at <a href="http://keionline.org/tpp" rel="noreferrer">http://keionline.org/tpp</a> (last accessed 22 September, 2015); <em>see also </em>American University Program on Information Justice and Intellectual Property, Trans-Pacific Partnership, available at <a href="http://infojustice.org/tpp" rel="noreferrer">http://infojustice.org/tpp</a> (last accessed 22 September, 2015).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn15" href="#_ftnref15">[15]</a>Zach Carter, Alan Grayson on Trans-Pacific Partnership: Obama Secrecy Hides ‘Assault on Democratic Government’, available at <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/18/alan-grayson-trans-pacific-partnership_n_3456167.html?ir=India&adsSiteOverride=in" rel="noreferrer">http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/06/18/alan-grayson-trans-pacific-partnership_n_3456167.html?ir=India&adsSiteOverride=in</a> (last accessed 22 September, 2015); James Love, KEI analysis of Wikileaks leak of TPP IPR text, from August 30, 2013, available at <a href="http://keionline.org/node/1825" rel="noreferrer">http://keionline.org/node/1825</a> (last accessed 22 September, 2015); Ian Verrender, The TPP has the potential for real harm, available at <a href="http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-16/verrender-the-tpp-has-the-potential-for-real-harm/6321538" rel="noreferrer">http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-16/verrender-the-tpp-has-the-potential-for-real-harm/6321538</a> (last accessed 22 September, 2015).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn16" href="#_ftnref16">[16]</a>Sean Flynn, Law Professors Call for Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) Transparency, available at <a href="http://infojustice.org/archives/21137" rel="noreferrer">http://infojustice.org/archives/21137</a> (last accessed 22 September, 2015).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn17" href="#_ftnref17">[17]</a>Sachie Mizohata, "The Trans-Pacific Partnership and Its Critics: An introduction and a petition," The Asia-Pacific Journal, Vol. 11, Issue 36, No. 3, available at <a href="http://japanfocus.org/-Sachie-MIZOHATA/3996/article.html" rel="noreferrer">http://japanfocus.org/-Sachie-MIZOHATA/3996/article.html</a> (last accessed 22 September, 2015).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn18" href="#_ftnref18">[18]</a>Vijay Rajamohan, Trans-Pacific Partnership – Should India Join this Mega Trade Deal?, available at <a href="http://swarajyamag.com/world/trans-pacific-partnership-should-india-join-this-mega-trade-deal/" rel="noreferrer">http://swarajyamag.com/world/trans-pacific-partnership-should-india-join-this-mega-trade-deal/</a> (last accessed 22 September, 2015).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn19" href="#_ftnref19">[19]</a>Sylvia Mishra, How will the Trans-Pacific Partnership affect India?, available at <a href="http://www.observerindia.com/cms/sites/orfonline/modules/analysis/AnalysisDetail.html?cmaid=85684&mmacmaid=85685" rel="noreferrer">http://www.observerindia.com/cms/sites/orfonline/modules/analysis/AnalysisDetail.html?cmaid=85684&mmacmaid=85685</a> (last accessed 22 September, 2015).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn20" href="#_ftnref20">[20]</a>Gabrielle Chan, Trans-Pacific Partnership: a guide to the most contentious issues, available at <a href="http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/10/trans-pacific-partnership-a-guide-to-the-most-contentious-issues" rel="noreferrer">http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/10/trans-pacific-partnership-a-guide-to-the-most-contentious-issues</a> (last accessed 22 September, 2015).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn21" href="#_ftnref21">[21]</a>James Love, New leak of TPP consolidated text on intellectual property provides details of pandering to drug companies and publishers, available at <a href="http://www.keionline.org/node/2108" rel="noreferrer">http://www.keionline.org/node/2108</a> (last accessed 22 September, 2015); Vijay Rajamohan, Trans-Pacific Partnership – Should India Join this Mega Trade Deal?, available at <a href="http://swarajyamag.com/world/trans-pacific-partnership-should-india-join-this-mega-trade-deal/" rel="noreferrer">http://swarajyamag.com/world/trans-pacific-partnership-should-india-join-this-mega-trade-deal/</a> (last accessed 22 September, 2015) referencing Paul Krugman.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn22" href="#_ftnref22">[22]</a>William New, Leaked TPP Draft Reveals Extreme Rights Holder Position Of US, Japan, Outraged Observers Say, available at <a href="http://www.ip-watch.org/2014/10/17/leaked-tpp-draft-reveals-extreme-rights-holder-position-of-us-japan-outraged-observers-say/" rel="noreferrer">http://www.ip-watch.org/2014/10/17/leaked-tpp-draft-reveals-extreme-rights-holder-position-of-us-japan-outraged-observers-say/</a> (last accessed 22 September, 2015).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn23" href="#_ftnref23">[23]</a>Lalit K Jha, India not being left out of global trade pacts: Minister, available at <a href="http://www.thestatesman.com/news/business/india-not-being-left-out-of-global-trade-pacts-minister/91679.html" rel="noreferrer">http://www.thestatesman.com/news/business/india-not-being-left-out-of-global-trade-pacts-minister/91679.html</a> (last accessed 22 September, 2015).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn24" href="#_ftnref24">[24]</a>Thirukumaran Balasubramaniam, WTO TRIPS Council: India raises concerns on ACTA and TPPA on discussion of “Trends in the Enforcement of IPRs”, available at <a href="https://donttradeourlivesaway.wordpress.com/2011/10/29/wto-trips-council-india-raises-concerns-on-acta-and-tppa-on-discussion-of-trends-in-the-enforcement-of-iprs/" rel="noreferrer">https://donttradeourlivesaway.wordpress.com/2011/10/29/wto-trips-council-india-raises-concerns-on-acta-and-tppa-on-discussion-of-trends-in-the-enforcement-of-iprs/</a> (last accessed 22 September, 2015).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn25" href="#_ftnref25">[25]</a>Thirukumaran Balasubramaniam, 28 Feb 2012: Intervention delivered by India at WTO TRIPS Council on IP Enforcement Trends noting concerns with ACTA and TPPA, available at <a href="http://keionline.org/node/1376" rel="noreferrer">http://keionline.org/node/1376</a> (last accessed 22 September, 2015).</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn26" href="#_ftnref26">[26]</a>Kanaga Raja, ACTA comes in for criticism at the TRIPS council, available at <a href="http://www.twn.my/title2/wto.info/2010/twninfo100606.htm" rel="noreferrer">http://www.twn.my/title2/wto.info/2010/twninfo100606.htm</a> (last accessed 22 September, 2015).</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/open-letter-on-intellectual-property-rights-issues-during-your-visit-to-the-united-states-of-america-in-september-2015'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/open-letter-on-intellectual-property-rights-issues-during-your-visit-to-the-united-states-of-america-in-september-2015</a>
</p>
No publisherPranesh Prakash and Nehaa ChaudhariAccess to KnowledgeIntellectual Property RightsAccessibilityFeaturedHomepage2015-09-25T06:43:12ZBlog EntryComments on the Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions (CRIs)
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-on-the-guidelines-for-examination-of-computer-related-inventions-cris
<b>Recently, the Indian Patents Office released the Guidelines for Examination of Computer Related Inventions (“2015 Guidelines/ Guidelines”) in an attempt to clarify examination of software related patents in India. This post is a pure analysis of the 2015 Guidelines. The new Guidelines, essentially, narrow the exclusions of secttion 3(k), thereby enlarging the scope of software related applications eligible for a patent grant. More alarmingly, there is low emphasis on the application of the subject matter test, increased ambiguity on the nature of subject matter and an exclusionary list of examples appended to the document. In the following post, CIS highlights these concerns and presents solutions, and also proposes a definition of "computer programme per se".
Read on to understand how the new guidelines will potentially lead to an increase in software patenting activity by expanding the scope of patentable subject matter – in negation of the legislative intent of section 3(k) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify;">(Prepared with comments from Pranesh Prakash)</p>
<hr />
<p style="text-align: justify;">The <a class="external-link" href="http://www.ipindia.nic.in/iponew/CRI_Guidelines_21August2015.pdf">2015 Guidelines</a> were stuck in the pipeline for a long time. The first draft was released in 2013 and a round of public consultation later, it paved the way for the current guidelines. The guidelines exist to supplement the practices and procedures followed by the Patent Office (as prescribed in the Indian 'Manual of Patent Office Practice and Procedure')<a name="_ftnref1" href="#_ftn1">[1]</a>, with the specific objective of ensuring consistent and uniform examination of CRI applications.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">To begin with, the Guidelines have been significantly trimmed down from their draft version. CIS had <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-on-draft-guidelines-for-computer-related-inventions">commented on the Draft Guidelines in 2013</a> and broadly observed/recommended the following:</p>
<ul style="text-align: justify;">
<li>That the explanation to section 3(k) (Para 2.4) include the subject matter test.</li>
<li>That the Guidelines clarify that section 3(k) intending to exclude “<em>computer programs per se</em>” means excluding computer programs <strong>by themselves</strong>.</li>
<li>Supplying clarifications to the meaning of Inventive Step </li></ul>
<p style="text-align: justify;"> Para 5.3 stated: <em>(ja) "inventive step" means a feature of an invention that involves technical advance as compared to the existing knowledge or having economic significance or both and that makes the invention not obvious to a person skilled in the art;</em></p>
<em> </em>
<p>Ambiguity around the terms “technical advance” and “person skilled in the art” persists.</p>
<p> </p>
<ul style="text-align: justify;">
<li>The Guidelines place CRIs in the same pool as other inventions, to the extent of suggesting that CRIs be evaluated on same standards of novelty, non-obviousness and industrial applicability as other inventions. This is problematic, because CRIs are inventions with features such as obsolence and being largely incremental innovations.</li>
<li>That the guidelines prescribing dictionary meanings for undefined terms (in Indian statutes) – was a dangerous prescription to make because the words “firmware”, “software”, “hardware” and “algorithm” have different meanings in different contexts.</li>
<li>That the guidelines had a misguided sense of ordering the paragraphs. The subject matter test (which should be undertaken first) was mentioned after the narrower test for <em>computer programs per se. </em>To ensure correct examination re CRIs the application of the subject matter test should precede all other patent criterion evaluations.<a name="_ftnref2" href="#_ftn2">[2]</a></li></ul>
<p style="text-align: justify;">All the above observations/recommendations still hold true – unfortunately, none of them have been incorporated into the 2015 Guidelines. The few <em>unwanted</em> changes that eventually made their way have nullified the progress the 2013 draft made in terms of providing clarity to section 3(k) and narrowing down the scope of software patents. For instance-</p>
<ul style="text-align: justify;">
<li>Instead of supplying clarity to terms such as “technical effect”, “technical advancement”, the 2015 Guidelines removethe definition of these terms. However, section 6 lists six questions that must be addressed by the examiner to determine the technical advancement of the invention.</li>
<li>Similarly, the explanation to section 3(k) has been deleted in the 2015 text.</li>
<li>The explanation to “inventive step” made reference to the <em>Enercon case</em> (thereby <em>Windsurfing International Inc.</em> and <em>Pozzoli case)</em>, for the determination of inventive step. The explanation has also been discarded in the 2015 Guidelines.</li>
<li>Other changes include providing better definition of Algorithms, making thescope of mathematical model and business method claims under section 3(k) more expansive.</li></ul>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">Narrowing down excluded subject matter relating to CRIs</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Under the crucial section “<strong>Determination of excluded subject matter relating to CRIs</strong>” (section 5.4 in the draft Guidelines; section 4.5 in 2015 Guidelines), the 2013 draft deemed inventions consisting of computer programmes combined with general purpose computers as non-patentable. However, a computer programme couple with novel hardware was deemed possibly patentable subject matter. That version stated <em>“5.4.6....In cases where the novelty resides in the device, machine or apparatus and if such devices are claimed in combination with the novel or known computer programmes to make their functionality definitive, the claims to these devices may be considered patentable, if the invention has passed the triple test of novelty, inventive step and industrial applicability. ” </em>In the 2015 Guidelines, however, section 4.5 does not shed substantive light on the matter of patentability of software combined with novel hardware. Instead a new section titled “Determinants” has been introduced:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong><em>5. Determinants</em></strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em> 5.1 For being considered patentable, the subject matter should involve either</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em> - a novel hardware, or</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em> -a novel hardware with a novel computer programme, or</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em> -a novel computer programme with a known hardware which goes beyond the normal interaction with such hardware and affects a change in the functionality and/or performance of the existing hardware.</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em> A computer program, when running on or loaded into a computer, going beyond the “normal” physical interactions between the software and the hardware on which it is run, and is capable of bringing further technical effect may not be considered as exclusion under these provisions.</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">And,</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong> </strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><strong><em> 6. Indicators to determine technical advancement</em></strong></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em>6.1 While examining CRI applications, the examiner shall confirm that the claims have the requisite technical advancement. The following questions should be addressed by the examiner while determining the technical advancement of the inventions concerning CRIs:</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em> (i) whether the claimed technical feature has a technical contribution on a process which is carried on outside the computer;</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em> (ii) whether the claimed technical feature operates at the level of the architecture of the computer;</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em> (iii) whether the technical contribution is by way of change in the hardware or the functionality of hardware.</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em> (iv) whether the claimed technical contribution results in the computer being</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em> made to operate in a new way;</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em> (v) in case of a computer programme linked with hardware, whether the programme makes the computer a better computer in the sense of running more efficiently and effectively as a computer;</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em> (vi) whether the change in the hardware or the functionality of hardware amounts to technical advancement.</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em> If answer to ANY of the above questions is in affirmative, the invention may not be considered as exclusion under section 3 (k) of the Patents Act, 1970.</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">It is evident from section 5 that the Patent Office intends to expand the scope of patentable subject matter, and narrow down applicability of section 3(k). The clause “<em>a novel computer programme with a known hardware which goes beyond the normal interaction with such hardware and affects a change in the functionality and/or performance of the existing hardware.” </em>contributes to the expansion. There is no definition as to what will constitute<em>“...normal interaction with such hardware...” </em>Neither do the Guidelines set a standard for assessment of “normal interaction.” Should “normal interaction” be determined from the definition/perspective supplied by the vendor, or from the known universe of interactions possible from that device?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Further, as a stakeholder (<a href="http://ipindia.nic.in/iponew/CRI_Comments_Feedbacks/related_doc/Comments%20to%20Guidelines%20for%20Examination%20of%20CRIs%20-%20Anand%20and%20Anand.pdf">Anand and Anand</a>) in their <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/guidelines-for-examination-of-computer-related-inventions">comments on the 2013 draft</a> pointed out, increasing the threshold to a novel hardware (and not just a general purpose computing machine) would go against the legislative intent as the requirement of a novel hardware was not mentioned anywhere in the Act.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">These gaps may pave the path for a rather broad scope of patentable software inventions.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">Secondary application of the subject matter test</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em>“...Therefore, if a computer programme is not claimed by “in itself” rather, it has been claimed in such manner so as to establish industrial applicability of the invention and fulfills all other criterion of patentability, the patent should not be denied. In such a scenario, the claims in question shall have to be considered taking in to account whole of the claims. ”</em></p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The way 3(k) functions is that it's a subject matter test for what an invention is (with non-inventions excluded, since an application that has not been found to be in order may not be granted a patent <br /> under s.43, and to be 'in order', the application has to be "for an invention" (s.6, s.10, etc.)). The tests for novelty, inventive step, and industrial applicability have to in any case be applied, regardless of the subject matter test. So what the above-quoted sentence does is removes the subject matter test, as it uses "in itself" to mean to the exclusion of patentability tests other than subject matter.</p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">Proposed definition of “computer programme per se”</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify;">Further, CIS suggests a definition to "computer programme per se":</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em>"Computer programme per se in the relevant clause means (a) any computer programme in the abstract, (b) any computer programme expressed in source code form, including source code recorded on an information storage medium, or (c) any computer programme that can be executed or executes on a general purpose computer, including computer programme object code designed for execution on a general purpose computer that is recorded on an information storage medium." </em><br /> <br /> Furthermore, since the inclusion of computer programmes in a broader application should not render the application ineligible subject matter, CIS previously proposed an addition to the test:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><em>"We propose a new part to the above test to make the clause clearer. The Manual should specify that “the computer programme portions of any claimed invention should be treated as if it were covered by prior art and patentability should thus be determined with respect to the other features of the invention”. This way, we can ensure that an invention which merely uses or implements a computer programme is not granted patent on the basis of the inventiveness of the computer programme </em>per se<em>." </em></p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">Issues with illustrative examples</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify;">CIS observes that most of the examples provided in the document are things that should <strong>*not*</strong> be awarded patents as per section 3(k). <br /> <br /> 8.2 describes a computer programme per se, and awarding a patent to this would (additionally has no novelty, no inventive step) <br /> 8.4 describes a computer programme per se. General Purpose Computer. (additionally has no novelty, no inventive step) <br /> 8.5 describes a computer programme per se. The "repeaters", etc., are software. General Purpose Computer. (additionally has no novelty, no inventive step) <br /> 8.6 describes a computer programme per se. (additionally has no novelty, no inventive step) <br /> 8.8 describes a computer programme per se. It can be implemented on any general purpose computer. (additionally has no novelty, no inventive step) <br /> 8.1 is a simple algorithm, and forms the basis of parallel processing in a computer, of which a wireless device is a subset. (additionally has no novelty, no inventive step) <br /> 8.1, 8.3, 8.7 have no novelty, no inventive step, despite not being computer programmes per se.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">This issue was also raised by stakeholders in their <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/guidelines-for-examination-of-computer-related-inventions">comments to the IPO on the 2013 draft. </a></p>
<h2 style="text-align: justify;">Conclusion</h2>
<p style="text-align: justify;">The 2015 Guidelines have narrowed the exclusions in section 3(k) – which does not bode well for innovation, especially innovation by startup enterprises. The new guidelines will permit a larger scope of applications to be granted, which will lead to bigger players in the market amassing huger patent portfolios. There is also an urgent need for clarification on “ novel hardware”.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;">On a broader level, CIS has <a href="http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/arguments-against-software-patents">repeatedly argued for discarding patent protection</a> for software inventions, because of the unique nature of such inventions and the repercussions software patenting has on subsequent innovative activity. The 2015 Guidelines disappoint on rolling back and clarifying software patenting in India.</p>
<hr style="text-align: justify;" />
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn1" href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a>Chapter 08.03.05.10 of the Manual, containing provisions pertaining to section 3(k) of the Patents Act, 1970 shall stand deleted with coming into force of these Guidelines for examination of CRIs.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify;"><a name="_ftn2" href="#_ftnref2">[2]</a>The flow chart in the 2013 draft guidelines show a step by step process of examining CRIs. However, the subject matter determination is done towards the end. There is debate on whether there should be a set order for examining patents. However, in the case of CRIs there must be an exception as the statute explicitly prohibits certain types of patents (business method, algorithm etc). As argued earlier, in order to reduce transaction costs, the subject matter test must be made at the very beginning. There should at least be a preliminary determination as to Section 3(k) to reject patent applications for those inventions that can easily be classified under this provision.</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-on-the-guidelines-for-examination-of-computer-related-inventions-cris'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/comments-on-the-guidelines-for-examination-of-computer-related-inventions-cris</a>
</p>
No publishersinhaSoftware PatentsAccess to KnowledgeIntellectual Property RightsIndian Patents Act Section 3(k)Patents2015-10-27T14:46:24ZBlog EntryNational IPR Policy Series: What Have the Sectoral Innovation Councils Been Doing on IPR
https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-series-what-have-sectoral-innovation-councils-been-doing-on-ipr
<b>In this post, Nehaa Chaudhari and Varun Baliga delve into the question of what the mandate of the Sectoral Innovation Councils is, what its activities are, and what vision for IPR development in India has it put forth. An RTI Application has been filed by CIS to attain information on these issues.</b>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Thanks to Amulya.P for her support on this.</i></p>
<hr style="text-align: justify; " />
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The National Innovation Council [“NIC”] was constituted by the Prime Minister’s Office “to create a roadmap for innovation for the ‘Decade of Innovation - 2010-2020’ focussing on five key parameters namely Platform, Inclusion, Eco-system, Drivers and Discourse”.<a href="#_ftn1" name="_ftnref1">[1]</a> Pursuant to the creation of the NIC, Sectoral Innovation Councils [“SIC”]<a href="#_ftn2" name="_ftnref2">[2]</a> were established in order to promote innovation in particular sectors.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The focus of this post is on the SIC established by the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion [“DIPP”] – a 12 member body on Intellectual Property Rights [“IPR”]. What is the mandate of this body? What have been its activities over the few years of its existence? What vision does it have of the development of IPR in India over the course of this critical decade?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In 2012, the body drafted a strategy document that did three things: an overview of the contemporary IP system, stakeholders’ involved in the protection and commercialization of IPRs and recommendations for an IPR Strategy.<a href="#_ftn3" name="_ftnref3">[3]</a> This ambitious document merits significant work in order for actionable recommendations that will form the basis for a coherent IPR Strategy. The body has the burden to show how its work will be consistent with that of the IPR Think Tank and the National IPR Policy. In light of the circulation of the 2012 first draft of the strategy, Ajay Dua, former Secretary of the DIPP commented that the strategy would help in improving trade and capital flows. CIS has noted the increasingly trade-oriented approach to IPR in a previous comment on the US 301 Report.<a href="#_ftn4" name="_ftnref4">[4]</a> However, the work and action that the SIC has taken does not reflect any of these ambitious documents or statements. In limbo for the past three years, we know very little about its functioning.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>First</i>, we know the Terms of Reference of the SIC.<a href="#_ftn5" name="_ftnref5">[5]</a> The SIC has the mandate to formulate the National IPR Strategy to “address key concerns of sustainable development, inclusive growth and food security”. Further, formulation of medium term policy objectives that would provide the proper context to the strategy itself. Significantly, the SIC is required by the Terms of Reference to submit a roadmap within six months of its establishment.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">The IPR Think Tank constituted by the DIPP also has a similar mandate, in so far as the Terms of Reference for the IPR Think Tank includes tasks such as drafting the National IPR Policy, identifying areas in IPRs that require further studying, creating views on the implications of demands by various negotiating partners, keeping the government informed about developments in IPR law, advising the government on best practices to be followed in different government offices that work with IPRs, advising the Ministry on solutions to any anomalies in IPR legislation, examining issues raised by industry associations and those that may have appeared in the media and providing suggestions to the Ministry on the IPR issues of the day.<a href="#_ftn6" name="_ftnref6">[6]</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This raises questions of whether the SIC is required at all and what if any purpose it serves that is not already covered by the National IPR Think Tank.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><i>Second</i>, we know the minutes of the meeting of the SIC on IPRs dated 30 April 2013.<a href="#_ftn7" name="_ftnref7">[7]</a> No further information of any other meetings, if any, is provided by the DIPP or the NIC. The minutes are an insightful window into the functioning of this body. Of the 12 members of the SIC, only 6 were present at the meeting. Of these 6 individuals, 2 – Mr. Sushil Kumar Jain and Professor Surendra Prasad – were not present in person but sent representatives instead. This was noted in a slightly disapproving tone by the body: “It was agreed that in future since members have been nominated by name, they may not send representatives and may instead provide their valuable views in the meeting”. We do not know whether future meetings, if any, witnessed better attendance.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">In conclusion, the dormant nature of the SIC can only be probed further using the tools of the Right to Information Act [“RTI”]. What, however, is the harm of an institution like the SIC that is doing nothing. At a pragmatic level, it is a drain on public resources and time. More egregiously, on a principled level, such bodies serve to only legitimize contemporary trends in IP discourse. We have explored some of these trends in past blog posts.<a href="#_ftn8" name="_ftnref8">[8]</a> Whether it is its trade-oriented nature or the undue emphasis on rights-holders, bodies like the SIC serve to entrench the alienation of the <i>raison d’etre</i>, the founding principles, of IP – innovation and creativity for <i>all</i>.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Annex I</b> – RTI filed by CIS with the DIPP seeking information on the functioning of the NIC</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">26 June 2015</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">To,</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Central Public Information Officer,<br />IPR I, II, III, IV, V and VI Sections,<br />Room No. 260,<br />Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><b>Subject: Request for Information under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005 regarding Functioning of the Sectoral Innovation Council on Intellectual Property Rights under the National Innovation Council</b></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Dear Sir/Ma’am,</p>
<ol>
<li><b>Full Name of the Applicant</b>: Nehaa Chaudhari</li>
<li><b>Address of the Applicant</b>: Centre for Internet and Society, G-15 Top Floor, Hauz Khas, New Delhi - 110016.<b> Mailing Address</b>: nehaa@cis-india.org</li>
<li><b>Information Required: Context</b></li>
</ol>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Please consider this an application for information under Section 6 of the Right to Information Act, 2005.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Therefore, I seek information on the following:</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">a) How many meetings has the Sectoral Innovation Council [“SIC”] of the DIPP on Intellectual Property Rights [“IPR”] held since its establishment?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">b) Please supply minutes and all related documents of all its meetings?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">c) How much are members of the SIC paid? Are members paid on the basis of time or number of meetings held?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">d) Has the SIC done any work or produced any outputs other than the 2012 draft of the National IPR Strategy?</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">This is to certify that I, Nehaa Chaudhari, am a citizen of India.</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">A fee of Rs. 10/- (Rupees Ten Only) has been made out in the form of a demand draft drawn in favour of “Public Information Officer, ..................................................”</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; ">Please provide me this information in electronic form, via the email address provided above.</p>
<hr style="text-align: justify; " />
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref1" name="_ftn1">[1]</a> http://innovationcouncilarchive.nic.in/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=74&Itemid=47</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref2" name="_ftn2">[2]</a> http://innovationcouncilarchive.nic.in/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=25&Itemid=18</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref3" name="_ftn3">[3]</a> http://dipp.nic.in/english/Discuss_paper/draftNational_IPR_Strategy_26Sep2012.pdf</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref4" name="_ftn4">[4]</a> http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/us-301-report-a-myopic-view-of-ip-rights</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref5" name="_ftn5">[5]</a> http://innovationcouncilarchive.nic.in/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=74&Itemid=47</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref6" name="_ftn6">[6]</a> <a href="http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=110790">http://pib.nic.in/newsite/PrintRelease.aspx?relid=110790</a></p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref7" name="_ftn7">[7]</a>http://innovationcouncilarchive.nic.in/images/stories/sectoral/minutes/IPRs%20-%20Minutes%20of%20the%20meeting%20-%2020April2013.pdf</p>
<p style="text-align: justify; "><a href="#_ftnref8" name="_ftn8">[8]</a> http://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/us-301-report-a-myopic-view-of-ip-rights</p>
<p>
For more details visit <a href='https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-series-what-have-sectoral-innovation-councils-been-doing-on-ipr'>https://cis-india.org/a2k/blogs/national-ipr-policy-series-what-have-sectoral-innovation-councils-been-doing-on-ipr</a>
</p>
No publishernehaaIntellectual Property RightsAccess to Knowledge2015-08-13T01:36:35ZBlog Entry