Indian Ambassador to the US Nirupama Rao has strongly defended the country’s record on honouring patent laws, asserting the Indian intellectual property laws passed over forty years have extensively protected patents, designs and trademarks.
Rao’s defence comes in the wake of trenchant criticism lately from US lawmakers and corporations that have sought to question certain Indian judicial pronouncements and executive decisions. “India’s rigorous patent laws and adherence to international trade treaties are helping its 1.2 billion people deal with many challenges. We understand that economic growth and job creation are irrevocably linked to the rule of law. India is proud to be a prodigious incubator of innovation and to have gained the confidence of foreign investors,” Rao wrote in an Op-Ed for The Hill, a prominent journal devoted to Congressional affairs.
Dealing with the American corporate furore over the Supreme Court of India’s pronouncement, turning down the request by the pharmaceutical firm Novartis to retain the patent on a cancer drug, Rao argued that this much-touted example of alleged patent “infringement” is actually a case study in patent protection. Explaining that the apex court judged the cancer drug in question to be an extension of existing medications, and not a groundbreaking advancement, Rao noted that the court had only reinforced the premium that should rightly be placed on truly valid patents.
The Indian Patent Office, she stressed, treated the nationals of other countries in the same manner in which it treated Indian companies. From 2005 to 2011, more than 4,000 patents for pharmaceutical inventions were issued by the Patent Office. Of those, some 20-30 per cent were awarded to US-based companies each year, while more than 85 per cent of the patents were owned by foreign companies in India.
Rao also pointed out that international treaties permitted countries in developing nations that are struggling with poverty to make affordable, life-saving drugs available to the needy. And India has done this in a way that is both legal and sensitive to the principle of patent protection, she said.
“We have also worked hard to balance the rights of patent holders with our civic imperative to protect public health. Compulsory licensing has been an integral part of the patent regime of many countries for years. Fifteen countries, both developed and developing countries alike, have issued more than 35 compulsory licences,” Rao wrote.
Pointing out that India has issued just one compulsory license on a compound pharmaceutical in more than six decades, she stressed: “This is hardly evidence of a climate hostile to either innovation or US-based companies. The provisions for compulsory licensing are not meant to hamper the process of innovation, but to ensure a fair balance between the interests of innovators and the urgent need for improved health care.”