Relevance: GS III (IPR & Economy) & GS II (Health) | Source: The Hindu / Indian Express

1. The Human Context: Innovation or Monopoly?

India walks a tightrope. On one side, we must respect global patent laws (TRIPS) to encourage innovation. On the other, we must protect the lives of millions who cannot afford expensive western medicines.

  • The Conflict: Global pharma giants often try to extend their 20-year monopoly by making tiny, insignificant changes to old drugs—a practice called “Evergreening” (or “Old wine in a new bottle”).
  • India’s Stance: Our law says NO. A new patent is only granted for a genuine scientific breakthrough, not for a marketing tweak.

2. The Legal “Arsenal” (Government Powers)

The Patents Act, 1970 gives the Indian State powerful tools to override corporate monopolies when public health is at stake:

  • The Shield (Section 3d): The most famous clause. It prevents patents for “new forms of known substances” unless they show significantly better results (Therapeutic Efficacy). This stops companies from repatenting the same drug endlessly.
  • The Override (Section 47): The Government has the right to import or make any patented drug for its own use (e.g., for distribution in government hospitals) without asking the patent holder.
  • The Global Duty (Section 92A): India can issue a Compulsory License to make a patented drug specifically to export it to countries that can’t make it themselves (e.g., sending cheap HIV drugs to Africa).

3. Strategic Autonomy

The article argues that India should not be bullied by “tariff threats” from the West. We have the statutory right to use these powers (like Revocation under Section 66) to ensure that essential medicines remain a public good, not just a luxury product.

UPSC Value Box

Concept / Term

Relevance for Prelims

EvergreeningA strategy to keep a patent “fresh” indefinitely by filing new patents for minor variations (e.g., changing a tablet to a capsule) just as the old patent expires.
Novartis vs. Union of IndiaA landmark Supreme Court judgment that upheld Section 3(d), ruling that “incremental inventions” without improved efficacy cannot be patented.
Compulsory Licensing (CL)An authorization granted by the government to a third party to produce a patented product without the consent of the patent owner, usually during health emergencies.

Q. With reference to the Indian Patents Act, 1970, consider the following statements:

  1. Section 3(d) was introduced to prevent the practice of “evergreening” by restricting patents on new forms of known substances.
  2. The Government of India has no legal power to revoke a patent once it has been granted, even if it is prejudicial to the public interest.
  3. Under the TRIPS Agreement, countries are barred from issuing Compulsory Licenses for pharmaceutical products.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

(a) 1 only

(b) 1 and 2 only

(c) 2 and 3 only

(d) 1, 2 and 3

Correct Answer: (a)

Share This Story, Choose Your Platform!

Recent Posts

Start Yours at Ajmal IAS – with Mentorship StrategyDisciplineClarityResults that Drives Success

Your dream deserves this moment — begin it here.