Representative image of a law school.
Credit: Reuters Photo
The Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks (CGPDTM), India’s apex body for intellectual property rights (IPRs), faces allegations of irregularities and inefficiencies. Concerns range from delays in processing applications to corruption allegations, raising serious questions about the office’s integrity and effectiveness
One pressing issue is the excessive backlog of patent applications, caused by the sheer volume of applications, bureaucratic hurdles, and inadequate staffing. This not only frustrates inventors and businesses but also hampers innovation and economic growth. Long wait times can discourage potential inventors, as the time and financial resources required to navigate the patent process can be prohibitive.
Furthermore, persistent corruption allegations, ranging from bribery to favouritism, have undermined public trust in the office. Such unethical practices distort the patent system and create an unfair playing field for inventors and businesses. The CGPDTM must address these allegations and restore public confidence.
Another area of concern is the quality of examination and grant decisions. Instances of granting patents for inventions lacking novelty or inventive steps while rejecting legitimate applications without proper justification can create legal uncertainty and discourage innovation. The CGPDTM must implement stricter quality control measures and ensure that patent examiners are
adequately trained and equipped to make accurate and consistent decisions.
In addition to these issues, the CGPDTM has faced criticism for its outdated infrastructure and lack of technological advancements. The office’s reliance on manual processes and paper-based records has hindered efficiency and transparency. To modernise the patent system, the CGPDTM must invest in technology upgrades and implement digital solutions that streamline application processing, examination, and grant procedures. Recent judgements like Tiger Foods are a reflection of the increasingly critical attitude of the courts toward the inefficiencies of CGPDTM by the Madras High Court. The Delhi High Court has been strict on CGPDTM in Lupin Ltd vs Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trademarks (2015), criticising the CGPDTM for its refusal to grant a patent for a drug, stating that the office had adopted an “erroneous approach.”
To address these challenges, the CGPDTM must undertake a comprehensive reform agenda, and what better than the nursery of lawyering, the law schools? Law schools can engage in policy advocacy to promote the development of a strong IPR regime. By participating in public consultations, submitting briefs, and advocating for reforms, law schools can influence the policy-making process and ensure that the interests of inventors, businesses, and the public are adequately represented. Moreover, law schools can collaborate with government agencies, industry associations, and other stakeholders to develop innovative solutions to the challenges facing the IPR system. Law schools can conduct research on various aspects of IPR law and policy, including patent law, copyright law, trademark law, and design law. This research can help identify gaps and inconsistencies in the existing legal framework and propose recommendations for reform. By providing evidence-based insights, law schools can inform policy decisions and contribute to the development of more effective IPR laws. Furthermore, law schools can play a crucial role in educating future IP professionals. Through specialised courses and programmes, law schools can equip students with the knowledge and skills necessary to navigate the complexities of IPR law. By producing well-trained IP lawyers, law schools can help ensure that the CGPDTM has access to qualified professionals who can assist in examining applications, resolving disputes, and providing legal advice. A dedicated IPRC (Intellectual Property Rights Clinic) fostered and made compulsory at law schools, with a scheme by the Department of Promotion of Industry and Industrial Trade, Government of India, to provide additional trainers and working hands to promote the IPRs.
In conclusion, law schools have the potential to make a significant contribution to the strengthening of the CGPDTM and the improvement of the IPR regime in India. By conducting research, educating future IP professionals, and engaging in policy advocacy, law schools can help to create a more efficient, effective, and equitable IPR system that benefits both inventors and businesses.
(The writer is Associate Dean at School of Law, GD Goenka University, Gurugram)