By Kshitij Rajoo


Is the World Trade Organization (WTO) concession to exchange related licensed innovation rights (TRIPS) the key peaceful accord for advancing the harmonization of public licensed innovation right (IPR) systems or does it only ensure least norms more than harmonization? There are various perspectives. The current examination is a little endeavour to measure the effect of TRIPS on drug little and medium ventures (SMEs). The reason for TRIPS, as expressed in the introduction, is to present new guidelines and orders for worldwide exchange concerning the arrangement of sufficient norms and standards concerning the accessibility, degree and utilization of TRIPS, for viable and fitting methods for the authorization of TRIPS and powerful and speedy methodology for the multilateral avoidance and settlement of debates between governments. The current investigation attempts to dissect the IPR situation and variables for advancing IPR culture in the post-TRIPS time frame through a review of drug firms.

A concise impression of the Indian drug industry (IPI) is important to comprehend the changing situation and pertinence of TRIPS for IPRs. The IPI has been to a great extent influenced by different alternatives and procedures accessible in Indian Patent Act 1970 zeroing in on the cycle licenses. Hence, the homegrown firms had the option to present items protected by global organizations (MNCs) by rolling out some minor improvements in the assembling interaction. This demonstration likewise confined the import of completed definitions and forced high duty rates.

The progression of the Indian economy has been the main thrust for new innovation and new items. Prevalently innovation was imported, and just some dissipated instances of firms putting resources into R&D to increase the value of the current items were apparent. The marking of TRIPS under WTO on 15 April 1994 changed the situation. As a component of this understanding, India has carried out an item patent with impact from January 2005 suggesting a rigid IP climate. Hence, by the progression of the Indian economy and the record of new commitments attempted by India under the TRIPS arrangement, the reception of innovation has gotten vital for the drawn-out development of the drug business. The Indian drug area developed by legitimately figuring out universally protected medications. These progressions at the worldwide stage and the public level have initiated the drug business to receive meticulousness to improve its intensity and efficiency. Before the reception of TRIPs, the patent demonstration of 1970 was a critical driver in the development of the generics market specifically, and numerous organizations were set up to figure out new medications licensed in different provinces and foster another technique for creation. The medications could be created at lower costs.

India's patent insurance was frail and effects affected worldwide drug and substance firms. It is assessed that yearly misfortunes to the US drug industry are $450 million, however, Indian specialists have an alternate point of view. Cycles for making drugs were patentable, yet the patent term was restricted to a long time from the award of a patent or seven years from the documenting date of the patent application, whichever was more limited. Item licenses in different territories were allowed for a long time from the date of documenting. According to the commitments under the WTO understanding, the Patents (Amendments) Act 1999 was passed in March 1999 to accommodate selective advertising rights. The Patents (Second Amendment) Bill 1999 further alter the patent Act 1970 and settle on it consistent with the TRIPS consent to push towards item licensing and India presented an extensive arrangement of item licenses in Jan 2005.

The prior focal point of distributing or die is presently on patent or die (Bhanot and Kiran, 2013). Licenses accordingly give private area financial backers impetuses to improve their ventures and subsequently help in their development and advancement. The immaterial idea of the licensed innovation and the overall irregularity of standard practices make difficulties for those organizations wishing to ensure their developments, brands, and business strategies in unfamiliar business sectors. Licenses are similarly helpful for little assembling endeavours (for example SMEs). Licenses are by and large felt benefits the proprietor of the IP and increases the value of business concerns. Subsequently, all business companies, regardless of whether SMEs or enormous, ought to have free innovative work (R&D) units. Giving free R&D offices should be kept away from. Legitimate documentation and upkeep of mystery are viewed as prime issues.

In this change, there is a need to comprehend the innovation the board procedures received by little and medium drug firms in India to prepare for a harder protecting system. It is similarly essential to distinguish the variables for advancing the IPR climate. Under Section 7 of the Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises Development (MSMED) Act, 2006, the Indian government characterized a little endeavour as where the interest in plant and apparatus is more than 25 lakh rupees yet doesn't surpass 5 crore rupees; and a medium undertaking is a place where the interest in plant and hardware is more than five crore rupees yet doesn't surpass ten crore rupees. Numerous examinations are covering the ramifications of TRIPs on huge drugs, yet techniques embraced by little and medium firms should be dissected to acquire experiences into the effect of TRIPS on the Pharmaceutical area all in all. The current investigation is a stage toward this path concealing the accompanying exploration questions.

I. Is there a distinction in licensing situation of medications and the drug business in contrast with different areas in the post-TRIPs time frame?

ii. Is there a shift towards the reception of innovation in the executive’s techniques after the execution of TRIPs by little and medium drug firms?

iii. What are the components that advance IPR culture in little and medium pharma firms?

Ramifications of TRIPs on the IPI:

There are different suppositions concerning the ramifications of a solid patent system on the presentation of the IPI. Dhar and Gopakumar (2006) uncover that the patent arrangements in the TRIPS Agreement fortified the current exchange restraining infrastructures and antagonistically compress innovation dissemination between the north and the south. Kumar (2002) secures that reinforcing the IPR system is probably going to influence the costs of countless significant medications antagonistically and he believes that the fortifying of the IPR system may restrict the entrance of innovation by agricultural nation undertakings. The presentation of item licenses is probably going to build drug costs and a fortified IPR system may in reality hinder the speed of innovative advancement by smothering the progression of R&D overflows that are significant contributions to explore.

Then again, Lanjouw (1998) communicated that adherence to solid IPRs is acceptable. More grounded IPRs may make the Indian climate more interesting to MNCs as an area for R&D. Mascus (2010) believes that reinforcing the patent system in agricultural nations with an innovatively imitative country, for example, India would bring about a net development of OECD trades. Smith (2000), with more dissimulative industry-wise fare information at the state level, has affirmed the generous fare extension impact on account of the US economy. Salazar, Falconi, Komen, and Cohen (2000) likewise fortified the perspectives communicated by Lanjouw (1998) and believe it would help research organizations to foster the methods for security and commercialisation of their advancements and items. The examination by Grace (2004) uncovers that 33% of all FDA applications came from India in 2003 and would become further.

Tancer (1999) feels that the licensed innovation climate in a nation influences the progression of the unfamiliar venture, especially in those businesses intensely reliant upon licensed innovation assurance. Following the TRIPS arrangement, India is committed to giving patent insurance to the Pharmaceutical Industry by 2005. Gupta (2000) stresses that in the post-WTO protecting movement in the U.S.A the private area firms in the space of medications and drugs have shown the greatest interest to get licenses. Smith (2000) has contended that India has now arrived at a phase in drug creation where more grounded IPRs would prompt more prominent development by nearby firms. Athreye and Kapur (2009) likewise embrace this contention.

The examination by Lalitha (2002) uncovers that the much-praised IPI's aptitude in measure advancement abilities was accomplished by sure changes made to the Indian Patents Act 1970. This strength ought to be used to will profit by promising circumstances that emerge from vertical deterioration of exploration, clinical preliminaries and assembling by multinationals. Kiran and Mishra (2009) report that the insurance of IPR assumes a prevailing part in improving creation and development in the economy. The analysts investigate the patent situation in India, particularly after the TRIPS arrangement. The investigation additionally looks at the protection in India in the time of the 1990s and examines that India actually has far to proceed to find China and the US. In the light of these discoveries, the accompanying speculation is proposed

Plan and philosophy:

Information assortment:

The example was gathered from upper east India. The North-west district essentially includes extract free zones and non-extract free zones since the time the focal government reported the extract free zones in 2003 intending to help the improvement of reverse and bumpy spaces of northwest India. The current exploration covers the extract free zones of Badi and Kala Amb in Himachal Pradesh and non-extract free zones of Mohali, Dehra Bassi, Lalru in Punjab. A survey has been created to consider the post-TRIPS situation in the drug business of India regarding states Punjab, Haryana and Himachal Pradesh. An irregular delineated inspecting technique has been embraced for the choice of drug organizations. The organizations with a yearly deals turnover of somewhere in the range of 100 and 300 crores as medium-scale firms and with a yearly deals turnover of not as much as Rs. 100 crores have been delegated to limited scope firms. Such firms are roughly 1000 in number. Along these lines, the review covers 1% of the organizations. These SMEs have been browsed northern India, a developing locale of India. The justification for taking these undertakings is that the majority of them are sent out arranged units and should be pioneers and it is a great idea to comprehend their innovation the board methodologies and know whether they are putting resources into IPRs too.

Significant discoveries of the investigation:

The outcomes portray that little and medium-scale drug firms are gradually expanding their item development, measure advancement and R&D force. These outcomes are confirmed by Kiran and Mishra (2010) and Nair (2008). ANOVA results show a huge distinction in item development, measure advancement, expanded scope of labour and products, R&D power and new innovation appropriation and innovation transformation based on types of business association, viz. sole-ownership/association, private restricted and public restricted organizations. This examination demonstrates that even limited scale firms are into patent recording and they are contending with others in brand names. Prior writing upholds this as is famous from prior examinations (Chaudhuri, 2007; Grace, 2004). Blundell, Griffiths, and Van Reenen (1999) track down a strong and beneficial outcome of a piece of the pie on discernible headcounts of developments and licenses albeit expanded item market rivalry in the business will, in general, invigorate inventive action. Besides, the effect of advancement on market esteem is bigger for firms with higher pieces of the pie. As per Hanel (2006), as a patent-accommodating climate is currently pervasive in India, licenses are progressively utilized for shielding advancements from impersonation. In any case, the aftereffects of the current examination feature the low documenting of IPRs by assembling SMEs. These perspectives are a differentiation to those of Mosey, Clare, and Woodcock (2002) who recommend that the bigger association oversees information and data all the more methodically. Creating IPRs, mechanical measures and promoting rehearses clarified 80.256% of the variety. Out of these, creating IPRs has arisen as the main factor that clarifies the most extreme variety. Despite the fact that mechanical measures should be centred more around improving efficiency as this will diminish the expense of creation and upgrade the seriousness of firms. These musings are resounded by Salazar et al. (2000) and Nair (2008). Strategy drive factors had higher mean score and higher loadings, implying that the organizations are yet not zeroing in on hierarchical approaches to upgrade their intensity and as yet depending upon Govt. Strategies. In the hierarchical components, recording of IPRs (licenses, brand names, copyrights, proprietary advantages) got the most elevated stacking and pool protecting the least stacking. SMEs are yet to foster a culture for pool protecting.

The result of the examination has been introduced in Figure 1. The examination utilized respondents from the limited scope and medium scale to discover factors fundamental for creating IPR Conducive climate. These partners helped in understanding innovation the board procedures followed by SMEs. These three systems distinguished are: (I) creating IPRs; (ii) innovative measures and (iii) promoting rehearses.


1. Aggarwal, A. (2004). A strategic approach to strengthening the international competitiveness in knowledge-based industries: The Indian pharmaceutical industry, RIS-DP 80. Retrieved from http://www.ris.org.in/sites/default/files/pdf/Dp80_pap.pdf [Google Scholar]

2. Athreye, S., & Kapur, S. (2009). The internationalization of Chinese and Indian firms-trends, motivations and strategy industrial & corporate change. Introduction,18, 209–221. [Google Scholar]

3. Bayona, C., Garcı́a-Marco, Teresa, & Huerta, E. (2001). Firms’’ motivations for cooperative R&D: An empirical analysis of Spanish firms. Research Policy, 30, 1289–1307.10.1016/S0048-7333(00)00151-7 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]

4. Belwal, R., Belwal, S., & Al-Jabri, O. (2014). Training needs assessment of fishermen in Oman through concept mapping technique. European Journal of Training and Development, 38, 673–688.10.1108/EJTD-11-2013-0120 [Crossref], [Google Scholar]

5. Bhanot, A., & Kiran, R. (2013). Patent or Perish: Is the Indian pharmaceutical sector geared up for the new stronger patenting regime. Australian Journal of Basic and Applied Sciences, 7, 245–245. [Google Scholar]

6. Blundell, R., Griffiths, R., & Van Reenen, J. V. (1999). Market share, market value and innovation in a panel of British manufacturing firms. The Review of Economic Studies,66, 529–554.10.1111/roes.1999.66.issue-3 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]

7. Brouwers, C. A., Silverstein, M. B., & Wolff, T. (2004, July). Adverse consequences of OECD government interventions in pharmaceutical markets on the U.S. economy and consumer. New York, NY: The Boston Consulting Group Inc. [Google Scholar]

8. Chadha, A. (2006). Destination India: The right choice for the pharmaceutical industry. Delhi Business Review, 7(1), 1–8. [Google Scholar]

9. Chaturvedi, K., & Chataway, J. (2006). Innovation in the post-TRIPS regime in Indian pharmaceutical firms: Implications for pharmaceutical innovation model. International Journal of Business Innovation and Research, 1, 27–50.10.1504/IJBIR.2006.011087 [Crossref], [Google Scholar]

10. Chaudhuri, S. (2007). Is product patent protection necessary in developing countries for innovation? R&D by Indian pharmaceutical companies after TRIPS (Working Paper Series, No. 614/ September 2007). Retrieved from http://www.iimcal.ac.in/res/upd/Sudip%20Wp%20614.pdf [Google Scholar]

11. Chen, L. Y., Hwa, M. Y., Lee, Y. C., Yu, T. Y., & Wu, C. T. (2008). Particle size distribution of exhaust stream from in-use motorcycles. Journal of Environmental Engineering and Management, 18, 397–402. [Google Scholar]

12. Dhar, B., & Gopakumar, K. M. (2006, November). Post-2005 TRIPS scenario in patent protection in the pharmaceutical sector: The case of the generic pharmaceutical industry in India. The UNCTAD/ICTSD Project on Intellectual Property Rights and Sustainable Development. Retrieved from http://www.iprsonline.org/unctadictsd/docs/Dhar%20Indian%20Pharma%20November06.pdf [Google Scholar]

13. Export-Import Bank of India. (2007). Indian pharmaceutical industry: Surging globally (Occasional Paper No. 119). Quest Publications. Retrieved from http://s3.amazonaws.com/zanran_storage/www.eximbankindia.com/ContentPages/17162160.pdf [Google Scholar]

14. Fink, C. (2000). How stronger patent protection in India might affect the behaviour of transnational pharmaceutical industries (pp. 1–45) (World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 2352). Washington, DC: The World Bank, Development Research Group. [Google Scholar]

15. Gopalakrishnan, S. (2000). Unravelling the links between dimensions of innovation and organizational performance. The Journal of High Technology Management Research, 11, 137–153.10.1016/S1047-8310(00)00024-9 [Crossref], [Google Scholar]

16. Grace, C. (2004). The effect of changing an intellectual property on pharmaceutical industry prospects in India and China: Considerations for access to medicines. London: DFID Health System Resource Centre. [Google Scholar]

17. Gunasekaran, A., Okko, P., Martikainen, T., & Yli-Olli, P. (1996). Improving productivity and quality in small and medium enterprises: Cases and analysis. International Small Business Journal, 15, 59–72. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]

18. Gupta, V. K. (2000). Trends in post-WTO patenting by India in the USA. Current Science, 78, 955–966. [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]

19. Gupta, D. B. (2007). Exciting opportunities for the Indian pharmaceutical industry. Indian Chemical Engineer, 49, 154–157. [Google Scholar]

20. Haakon. (2004). Innovation and IPR. Retrieved from http://www.telenor.com/telektronikk/volumes/pdf/2.2004/Page_058-059.pdf [Google Scholar]

21. Hagedoorn, J., & Cloodt, M. (2003). Measuring innovative performance. Is there an advantage in using multiple indicators? Research Policy,32, 1365–1379. [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]

22. Hagedoorn, J., Link, A., & Vonortas, N. (2000). Research partnerships. Research Policy, 29, 567–586.10.1016/S0048-7333(99)00090-6 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]

23. Hanel, P. (2006). Intellectual property rights business management practices: A literature review. Technovision, 24, 895–931.10.1016/j.technovation.2005.12.001 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]

24. Jain, V., & Kiran, R. (2012). Technology management strategies and small and medium enterprises of Punjab manufacturing. Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, 17, 64–72. [Google Scholar]

25. Kavida, V., & Sivakoumar, N. (2008). Intellectual property rights-the new wealth of knowledge economy: An Indian perspective. Electronic Journal of Social Science. Retrieved from SSRN-id 1159080 [Google Scholar]

26. Khalil Darwish, T. K., & Singh, S. (2013). Do strategic human resource involvement and devolvement enhance organisational performance?: Evidence from Jordan. International Journal of Manpower, 34, 674–692.10.1108/IJM-01-2012-0003 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]

27. Kiran, R., & Mishra, S. (2009). Changing pragmatics of the Indian pharmaceutical industry in pre and post-TRIPS period. International Journal of Business & Management, 4, 206–220. [Crossref], [Google Scholar]

28. Kiran, R., & Mishra, S. (2010). New IPR regime and challenges of the small pharma industry. Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 11, 42–60. [Google Scholar]

29. Koellinger, P. (2008). The relationship between technology, innovation, and firm performance: Empirical evidence from e-business in Europe. Research Policy, 37, 1317–1328.10.1016/j.respol.2008.04.024 [Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]

30. Kubo, K. (2004). Product patents and vertical integration in the post TRIPS Indian pharmaceutical industry. Retrieved from http://are.berkeley.edu/jobmarket/ken.pdf [Google Scholar]

31. Kumar, N. (2002). Intellectual property rights, technology and economic development: Experiences of Asian countries (RIS-DP 25/2002). Retrieved from http://www.ris.org.in/images/RIS_images/pdf/dp25_pap.pdf [Google Scholar]

32. Lalitha, N. (2002). Indian pharmaceutical industry in WTO regime: A SWOT Analysis. Economic and Political Weekly, 37, 3542–3555. [Google Scholar]

33. Lanjouw, J. (1998). The introduction of Pharmaceutical product patent in India: Heartless exploitation of the poor and suffering? (NBER Working Paper No. 6366). Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w6366 [Crossref], [Google Scholar]

Author: Kshitij Rajoo

BA LLB, Year 1st Year

M.S. Ramaiah Law College Bangalore

12 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All