In April 2025, the United States Trade Representative (USTR) released its annual Special 301 Report, once again placing India on its “Priority Watch List” for intellectual property (IP) concerns. The report highlights persistent issues, particularly in the pharmaceutical sector, citing challenges such as potential patent revocations, discretionary application of patentability criteria under the Indian Patents Act, and prolonged patent grant processes.

While the USTR acknowledges India’s efforts to modernize its patent system—such as the finalization of the Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2024, aimed at reducing burdens on patent applicants—it maintains that significant concerns remain. These include high customs duties on IP-intensive products and inadequate IP enforcement mechanisms.

India, however, defends its stance, emphasizing that its IP regime is fully compliant with the World Trade Organization’s TRIPS Agreement and is designed to balance innovation incentives with public health needs. The country asserts that its legal provisions, particularly Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, are crucial in preventing “evergreening” – a practice where pharmaceutical companies make minor modifications to existing drugs to extend patent monopolies without significant therapeutic benefits.

Balancing Innovation and Access:

India’s approach to pharmaceutical patents is rooted in its commitment to public health. The Patents Act, 1970, particularly Section 3(d), prevents the patenting of new forms of known substances unless they result in enhanced efficacy. This provision aims to curb “evergreening,” where minor modifications are used to extend patent monopolies without significant therapeutic benefits.

India’s patent regime also includes mechanisms like pre-grant opposition, allowing stakeholders to challenge patent applications, ensuring that only genuine innovations receive protection.

Some Recent Case Studies: Upholding the Balance:

1. Johnson & Johnson’s Bedaquiline Patent Rejection (2023):
The Indian Patent Office rejected J&J’s attempt to extend its patent on bedaquiline, a critical tuberculosis drug, citing lack of enhanced efficacy. This decision paved the way for generic versions, improving access for patients.

2. Novartis’ Entresto Application Denied (2022):
Novartis’ patent application for the heart failure drug Entresto was denied due to lack of inventive step, preventing potential market monopolization.

3. Roche’s Trastuzumab (Herceptin) Patent Lapse:
Facing legal challenges, Roche allowed its patent on the breast cancer drug Herceptin to lapse in India, enabling the production of affordable biosimilars by Indian companies.

Global Pressures vs. Domestic Realities:

Despite international pressure, India’s IP policies prioritize access to affordable medicines. The country’s stance is not anti-innovation but seeks to prevent monopolistic practices that hinder public health.

India’s role as a major supplier of generic medicines globally underscores the importance of its balanced IP approach. Diluting these safeguards could adversely affect access to essential medicines worldwide.

The Way Forward:

To strengthen its position, India should:

• Enhance R&D Investment: Boost funding for pharmaceutical research, particularly in neglected diseases.
• Streamline Patent Processes: Implement measures to reduce patent grant delays while maintaining rigorous examination standards.
• Maintain Legal Safeguards: Preserve provisions like Section 3(d) to prevent patent evergreening. It ensures that only real therapeutic advances get patents, preserving access to affordable medicines while still rewarding meaningful R&D.
• Engage Internationally: Continue constructive dialogues with global partners to address IP concerns without compromising public health priorities.

Conclusion:

Let me reemphasize here that Section 3(d) does not prohibit incremental innovation – it simply filters out superficial tweaks that offer no therapeutic benefit and are aimed primarily at extending monopolies and delaying broader patient access to medicines.

Thus, in my view, India’s pharmaceutical IP regime exemplifies a pragmatic approach that balances the protection of genuine innovations with the imperative of public health. By resisting patent abuses and ensuring access to affordable medicines, India sets a precedent for equitable healthcare globally.

By: Tapan J. Ray

Disclaimer: The views/opinions expressed in this article are entirely my own, written in my individual and personal capacity. I do not represent any other person or organization for this opinion.