LEPM Report

On

Intellectual Properties Rights and Business Interest

Under the Guidance Of

Prof. Deva Prasad

IIM Kozhikode

Submitted By

Agnimitra Anand (PGP/26/370)

Hitesh Kumar (PGP/26/383)

Kaaviya Ganesan (PGP/26/386)

Simran Kerni (PGP/26/412)

Puja Goyal (PGP/26/400)

Rushikesh Kshirsagar (PGP/26/405)

LEPM Project Report Submitted as a part of the credit requirements Of LEPM in Term II

1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 4
1. Copyright and rights related to copyright:........................................................................................ 4
2. Industrial property: ........................................................................................................................... 4
Need for IPR .................................................................................................................................................. 5
Intellectual property encourages the growth of high-paying industries: ................................................. 5
IPR is the driving force behind economic growth and maintaining competitiveness: ............................. 5
IPR work The Need to Shield Families and Shoppers: .............................................................................. 5
Intellectual property is a key enabler of innovation: ................................................................................ 5
IPR reward entrepreneurs and foster innovation:.................................................................................... 6
IPR Impact on Businesses.......................................................................................................................... 6
Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. TVS Motors Comp. Ltd. (2010) Madras HC: .................................................................. 6
Novartis v. Union of India (2013) SC: ........................................................................................................ 6
ISKON v. Iskon Apparel Pvt. Ltd. (2020) Bombay HC: ............................................................................... 7
Yahoo! Inc. v. Akash Arora &Anr(1999) Delhi HC: .................................................................................... 7
Marico Limited v. Abhijeet Bhansali(2020) Bombay HC: .......................................................................... 7
TRIPS ............................................................................................................................................................. 8
Domestic Policy and TRIPS .......................................................................................................................... 10
Impact on Business ..................................................................................................................................... 11
Other IP Challenges during COVID-19..................................................................................................... 11
Future of IPRs .............................................................................................................................................. 12
Indian Scenario........................................................................................................................................ 12
1) Maintain a balance between National interest and IPR policies .................................................... 12
2) National IPR Policies ....................................................................................................................... 12
3) Increasing the Awareness of IPR ..................................................................................................... 12
4) Stronger enforcement of IPR policies across the country .............................................................. 12
Global Scenario ....................................................................................................................................... 13
1) Global vs National ........................................................................................................................... 13
2) Data Driven IPR ............................................................................................................................... 13
3) One Size Doesn’t Fit all ................................................................................................................... 13
4) Common Law terms and technological Advancements ................................................................. 13
IPR clauses in Free Trade Agreements: ............................................................................................... 13
Access to medicines: ........................................................................................................................... 14
Impact on public health: ..................................................................................................................... 15

2
 Impact on innovation: ......................................................................................................................... 15
Transparency:...................................................................................................................................... 15
Balancing Interests: ............................................................................................................................. 15
Flexibilities: ......................................................................................................................................... 15
Lack of Harmonization: ....................................................................................................................... 15
Others: ................................................................................................................................................ 15
Work Allocation .......................................................................................................................................... 16

3
INTRODUCTION
Individuals have the legal right to certain benefits for the creations of their own minds, known as
intellectual property rights. Typically, they grant the creator an exclusive period during which no
one else can profit from the work. Conventionally, there are two primary categories of intellectual
property rights:

1. Copyright and rights related to copyright: Copyright is a legal system that

ensures creators of literary and artistic works (including books and other writings, musical
compositions, paintings, sculptures, computer programs, and films) compensation for at
least fifty years after their death. Performers (including actors, singers, and musicians),
phonogram (sound recording) producers, and broadcasting organizations all have rights
protected by copyright and related (sometimes referred to as "neighbouring") rights. The
primary social objective of copyright and related rights protection is to inspire and reward
originality.

2. Industrial property: There are two primary classifications that can be applied to
industrial property:

2.1. The protection of distinctive signs such as trademarks (which identify the source of
goods or services) and geographical indications is an illustration of this (which designate a
product as being from a particular region based on a characteristic that can be traced back
to that region). The goal of consumer protection through the promotion of fair competition
and the maintenance of distinctive signs is to enable consumers to make informed
decisions about the available products and services. As long as the sign in question is
unique, it can be protected indefinitely.

2.2. As with intellectual property, the primary objective of protecting other types of
industrial property is to promote the creation of new ideas, products, and technologies.
This category includes patentable inventions, industrial designs, and confidential business
information. This policy aims to encourage and facilitate increased funding for R&D by
protecting the fruits of entrepreneurs' labour as they develop cutting-edge technologies.
A robust intellectual property regime should encourage foreign direct investment, joint
ventures, and licencing as mechanisms for the transfer of technology. Generally, the
security will only last for a brief period (typically 20 years in the case of patents).

4
NEED FOR IPR
Consumers rely on intellectual property to ensure that they are purchasing guaranteed, safe
products, while dozens of industries rely on the enforcement of patent, trademark, and copyright.

Intellectual property encourages the growth of high-paying industries:

• Over 55 million Americans and hundreds of millions of people globally are employed in IP-
intensive industries, and this number is projected to increase at a faster rate than the
national average over the next decade.
• The average annual salary in IP-intensive industries is $50,576, compared to the national
average of $37,776. This represents a 30% salary increase for the average employee in IP-
intensive industries.

IPR is the driving force behind economic growth and maintaining

competitiveness:

• Compared to the nominal GDP of any other nation, the United States' intellectual property
is worth $5.8 trillion. IP-intensive industries in the United States are responsible for a
significant portion of the country's economic success, accounting for 38% of GDP.
• Seventy-four percent of all U.S. exports consist of intellectual property, totaling nearly $1
trillion and over 40% of economic growth and employment in the United States can be
attributed to the positive effects of innovation.

IPR work The Need to Shield Families and Shoppers:

• When IP rights are robust, consumers can make more informed decisions regarding the
safety, dependability, and efficacy of products.
• When IP rights are upheld, products are authentic and of the quality that consumers have
come to expect.
• The protection of intellectual property fosters the confidence and security upon which
consumers and markets rely.

Intellectual property is a key enabler of innovation:

• The R&D-intensive pharmaceutical industry that relies on patent protections produced

nearly all of the 300 life-saving or life-improving drugs on the Essential Drug List of the
World Health Organization.
• Innovative agricultural businesses are developing new tools for farmers in order to feed
the world's hungry and reduce the negative environmental impacts of agriculture.

5
 • IP-driven discoveries in this field will be indispensable for mitigating climate change and
ensuring a steady supply of clean energy.

IPR reward entrepreneurs and foster innovation:

• The economy of innovation thrives on risk-taking and occasional failure. Intellectual

property rights encourage risk-takers to continue working toward breakthroughs despite
roadblocks, and they facilitate the free flow of information by allowing inventors to disclose
non-public information about their patented inventions. This procedure generates brand-
new innovations and improves existing ones.

IPR Impact on Businesses

Here are five cases involving intellectual property rights that illustrate how intellectual property
law may operate:

Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. TVS Motors Comp. Ltd. (2010) Madras HC:
At issue in this case is the unauthorized use of the patent-protected DTS-i technology. Bajaj Auto,
as the plaintiff in this case, demanded that TVS Motors be permanently enjoined from using the
disputed patented technology and also sought damages from TVS Motors. In this case, the use of
twin spark plug technology in an internal combustion engine by the defendant was at issue.
In this instance, the doctrine of pith and marrow, also known as the doctrine of equivalents, was
applied. The doctrine applies when there is no clear case of literal infringement, but an
infringement nonetheless occurs because the infringing product or process has a structure or
performs a function that is highly similar and analogous to an element already claimed in the
patented invention, and therefore achieves the same results in the same manner as the patented
element. To determine whether or not the 'novel feature' constitutes 'pith and marrow,' i.e.
whether or not the 'novel feature' claimed by the plaintiff in their patent is an essential feature of
the invention, a purposive interpretation was applied.

Novartis v. Union of India (2013) SC:

The Indian Patents Office recently denied Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation's patent
application for the drug Gleevec. Every denial was appealed to the Supreme Court by Novartis.
The Supreme Court ruled that the contested Novartis substance was not novel because it was
merely a tweaked version of a drug that had been freely available since 1993. In addition, as
required by subsection (d) of section 3 of the 1970 Patents Act, Novartis has not provided evidence
that its improved medicine is more effective than the original drug.

6
According to the reasoning of the court, the fact that a drug existed prior to its discovery does not
make its discovery an invention. Therefore, the court ruled that the application was denied.

ISKON v. Iskon Apparel Pvt. Ltd. (2020) Bombay HC:

The plaintiff, ISKON, has filed a trademark infringement lawsuit against the defendant, who has
been selling counterfeit goods under the name "ISKON." Equally important to the plaintiff is the
recognition of their trademark as a famous mark.
By causing consumer confusion between its products and those of the plaintiff, the court
determined that the defendant committed trademark infringement and passing off. In addition,
the court determined that the plaintiff's trademark fulfils all the requirements for a famous mark.

Yahoo! Inc. v. Akash Arora &Anr(1999) Delhi HC:

The issue at hand is cyber squatting, which occurs when a domain name is registered online that
is confusingly similar to an already existing trademark or service mark.
In this case, the defendant registered the domain name "Yahoo India," which was confusingly
similar to the plaintiff's "Yahoo!" As was determined in this case, Internet users may be confused
and misled into believing that the defendant's 'Yahoo India' and the original 'Yahoo!' are identical.
According to the court, the fact that "Yahoo" is a dictionary word is irrelevant because Yahoo! has
acquired the "distinctiveness" and "uniqueness" required to be protected as a trademark over
time. In addition, the Supreme Court has ruled that corporations may use domain names for the
same purposes as trademarks and service marks, and that they do so.

Marico Limited v. Abhijeet Bhansali(2020) Bombay HC:

The defendant, a social media influencer and YouTuber, has used the bottle of Parachute Hair Oil
in a video in which he makes offensive and disparaging remarks about the product. The brand's
owner, Marico Ltd., has filed a takedown request, alleging that the uploader has harmed the
company's reputation and violated its trademark with the video.
Based on its interpretation of Section 29 of the 1999 Trademarks Act, the court has ordered the
removal of the video because it violates the plaintiff's exclusive trademark rights.

7
TRIPS
Numerous intellectual innovations and inventiveness have a significant impact on the
contemporary world. As the popularity and success of these innovations and ideas grows, so does
the importance of the inventor's efforts to promote and defend them. Beyond simply transporting
goods across international borders, the concept of commerce and what makes trade
advantageous for nations has evolved. Innovation, creativity, and branding account for a
significant portion of the value exchanged in international trade today. How to increase this value
and facilitate the cross-border flow of commodities and services rich in innovation have become
crucial factors in development and trade policy. To cater to all these needs, TRIPs was born.

• TRIPS went into effect in 1995 as part of the agreement establishing the World Trade
Organization (WTO)

• During the Uruguay Round of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1986–1994,
TRIPS was negotiated, also known as a "Berne and Paris-plus" agreement.

The TRIPS Agreement makes the protection of intellectual property rights an integral component
of the WTO's multilateral trading system. The other two are trade in goods (the traditional domain
of the GATT) and trade in services. The agreement is often referred to as one of the three "pillars"
of the WTO. Prior to TRIPS, the degree of protection and enforcement of intellectual property
rights varied widely across nations, and as the importance of intellectual property in international
trade grew, these disparities became a source of tension in international economic relations.
Therefore, it was deemed prudent to establish new trade rules for IP rights in order to increase
predictability and order, as well as to settle disputes in an orderly fashion.
TRIPS is the most comprehensive international agreement on intellectual property, and it plays a
significant role in facilitating trade in creativity and knowledge, resolving trade disputes over
intellectual property, and assuring WTO members the freedom to pursue their domestic policy
goals.
• TRIPS establishes minimum standards for the availability, scope, and use of seven forms of
intellectual property: trademarks, copyrights, geographical indications, patents, industrial
designs, layout designs for integrated circuits, and confidential information or trade
secrets.
• It applies fundamental international trade principles regarding intellectual property to
member states. It applies to all WTO members.
• TRIPS Agreement establishes exceptions and limitations for balancing the interests of
intellectual property with those of public health and economic development.
• It defines the IP system in terms of innovation, technology transfer, and public welfare.
• The TRIPS Council is responsible for administering and monitoring the operation of the
TRIPS Agreements.

8
The agreement governs the following three key issues:
• Standard - All member states must provide a minimal set of criteria for the protection of
IPRs in each IP category covered by the Agreement. The major aspects of protection,
including the subject matter sought to be protected, the rights to be granted, and possible
exceptions to such rights, as well as the minimum period of protection, are stated explicitly
for each area of intellectual property.
• Enforcement - The second set of clauses focuses on domestic procedures and remedies
for the enforcement of intellectual property rights. The Agreement establishes a
comprehensive set of rules applicable to all IPR enforcement actions. In addition, it
includes rules on civil and administrative processes and remedies, provisional measures,
specific border requirements, and criminal proceedings, all of which outline the
procedures and remedies that must be provided for the successful exercise of rights by
their holders.
• Dispute resolution - Disputes arising between WTO members regarding TRIPS-related
obligations are subject to the WTO's dispute resolution procedures. Conflict prevention
and resolution resulting from the provisions of the TRIPS Agreement. The TRIPS Council is
responsible for the dispute resolution and prevention provisions. To this end, the
integrated dispute settlement procedure of the WTO Agreement will apply to TRIPS issues.

9
DOMESTIC POLICY AND TRIPS
The provisions of the TRIPS agreement provide some flexibility measures for national governments
to be able to utilize medical and technological intellectual property during times of emergency.
This comes under article IX.3 of the Marrakesh agreement, which has been used to provide waivers
in two situations before COVID:
1. Waiver of certain GATT provisions was provided in 2003 to non-participant
countries under the Kimberley Certification Scheme for them to prevent and
prohibit the export and import of blood diamonds.
2. Article 31(f) was waived to allow export of medicines to least developed countries
through compulsory licensing by producer countries.

As instanced in the latter case, compulsory licensing has been an instrumental provision under the
WTO IP agreements during situations which make it infeasible for members to abide by them. It
allows domestic governments the right to issue a license under which an active IP can be used
without the patent holder’s consent. At the same time, however, it also imposes restrictions which
make dissemination of critical medicines through trade impracticable. For example, if a
compulsory license is issued for export of a life-saving drug to a country without manufacturing
capabilities, only a pre-determined amount can be supplied, even if the situation is dynamic.
Additional shipments would require another round of authorization.

Thus we come to the detriments of the international IP regime:

1. During COVID, manufacturing of leading Covid-19 vaccines, such as Pfizer and
Moderna, was concentrated in higher-income economies in Europe and North
America. In March 2021, the WHO said there were fewer than ten African
manufacturers with any vaccine production. Most carry out packing and labelling
of doses, rather than manufacture.
2. Encourages Vaccine Nationalism, by fostering scarcity and leading to restrictions
on necessary medicinal trade in drugs and technology. For instance, companies
were compelled to fulfill US govt. contracts ahead of others.
3. Licensing has not delivered, as the EU and USA, in their bilateral trade relations, put
significant pressure on countries that put compulsory licenses into action. Case in
point, Bayer's cancer drug Nexavar.

Intellectual property laws, especially in the case of medicine, tend to privatize profits and transfer
costs on to national governments. COVID stands as a prominent case in point, as during the
pandemic, the United States and Germany invested over $3.5 billion in the vaccine R&D effort.
Out of the total $5.9 billion investment (up to march 2021), 98.12% was public funding. The bulk
of these funds went to Moderna, Janssen, Pfizer and BioNTech, all receiving upwards of $800
million each. And yet, when it came to the distribution of the benefits of their overwhelmingly
public-funded research, these firms were less than willing. Moderna refused to share its mRNA
vaccine technology with WHO and the South African Afrigen Biologics lab, while BioNTech
representatives hed up WHO’s initiatives to manufacture COVID-19 vaccines in Africa, citing patent

10
infringement. As a result, the situation in 2021 February was such that only 15% of the African
population had received even one dose of a COVID vaccine, a dismal figure when compared to
77% in North America.

IMPACT ON BUSINESS
The Biden administration declared in May that it would support the World Trade Organization's
Agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights' waiver of intellectual property
protections for COVID-19 vaccines (TRIPS). Unsurprisingly, drug corporations slammed the action
with ferocious outrage. Additionally, many uninterested observers derided the support for a TRIPS
waiver as meaningless symbolism, contending that vaccine patents are not the primary barrier
impeding the current, sluggish effort to make vaccines accessible to everyone. Patent protections
cannot be waived in all cases. To align vaccine supply with global demand, there was an urgent
need for a significant drive in technology transfer, capacity development, and supply line
coordination. The necessity for governments to support and regulate this effort was not
eliminated by doing away with patents.
Ensuring that incentives are set up so that pharma company profit-seeking and global public
health are effectively linked is the key to developing effective pandemic response policies. That
entails choosing generous but well-targeted direct government assistance over the default,
decentralized patent bargain.

The biggest problem during Covid-19 was the lack of accessible, licensed medications and
immunizations.
One of the primary functions of IP is to provide an incentive framework to promote innovation
through various phases from invention to commercial product or service. Before analyzing the
current laws to adapt them to the current situation, governments should first identify the barriers
to effective and efficient management of the crisis between health, human welfare, and safety.

Other IP Challenges during COVID-19

• Following the COVID-19 outbreak, the employees used available tools to complete their
work remotely. Given that certain procedures and regulations are typically in place when
employees work from an office environment, it's possible that they didn't pay enough
attention to upholding the IP agreement requirements.
• Fast-tracking new licensing, research, manufacturing, supply, and other IP agreements, to
suit the needs of the ongoing pandemic, can prove to be troublesome if important IP
provisions are not taken into consideration.
• If adequate security measures are not put in place to protect information's secrecy and
confidentiality, especially when personnel is working remotely, there could be a loss of
trade secret protection.
• Another problem in this regard was the failure to prosecute cases of intellectual property
infringement when they were brought to a company's attention during the epidemic (due
to insufficient resources and skills).

11
 • The worst-case scenario in this circumstance is undoubtedly the bankruptcy of either the
licensee or the licensor.

FUTURE OF IPRS

Indian Scenario
1) Maintain a balance between National interest and IPR policies
It is essential for a country to find a balance between national interests and IPR policies. When it
comes to science and technology, industry, agriculture, and culture, India has a lot of promise.
Stronger intellectual property policies are required to further support innovation and creativity.
At the same time, it is critical to prioritize the national interest.

Some people are opposed to enhanced IPR protection because they believe it will harm India's
interests. For example, it could raise the cost of life-saving pharmaceuticals, putting them out of
reach for significant segments of the Indian population.

2) National IPR Policies

The National IPR Policy was introduced in 2016. The goal behind the National IPR Policy is to
encompass the many processes for filing IPRs through a single channel and generate synergies
across all IPRs. It also aims to shorten the time it takes to grant a patent, allowing businesses to
invest more in R&D and the development of new products.

3) Increasing the Awareness of IPR

According to Einfolge, an international patent analytics and market research firm, the majority of
respondents from over 200 educational institutions in South India, including students, scholars,
professors, and managers, were not completely aware of the benefits of IP and other connected
concerns.

4) Stronger enforcement of IPR policies across the country

In India, institutes such as the Centre for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) have made
important contributions to scientific innovation. However, due to a lack of adequate intellectual
property protection, they have been unable to commercialize numerous products.

Stronger intellectual property rules will benefit the private sector as well. According to the Center
for American Entrepreneurship's 2018 report, 'Rise of the Global Start-up City,' India is one of the
world leaders in start-up activity, trailing only China and the United Kingdom. The same year, five
Indian firms were named to Forbes' list of the world's most innovative companies. Companies like
these will also benefit from enhanced product and process protection.

12
Global Scenario
1) Global vs National
Over the last 50 years, laws and treaties have prioritized global IP protection over national IP
protection. To name a few, the Madrid Protocol, ICANN's UDRP process, WIPO's Patent
Cooperation Treaty, and the European Union's Intellectual Property Directives. They all aspire to
facilitate the global protection of intellectual property rights (IPRs) in a world where businesses
are not restricted by national borders, and this will ultimately help businesses run smoothly.
Stronger intellectual property protection will aid in the development of the global economy and
improve international collaboration among nations.

2) Data Driven IPR

Artificial intelligence (AI) will improve IP practices over the next decade by analyzing the value of
IPRs, evaluating patent prosecution effectiveness using algorithms, improving predictability, and
lowering costs for IPR owners. This is especially true in the field of patent prosecution and filing,
where expenses have historically been greater.

3) One Size Doesn’t Fit all

While moving forward with the harmonisation of national and global interests in intellectual
property rights, we must recognise that each country has its own cultural and technological
characteristics. Again, there is a disparity in countries' levels of development. For example, the IPR
rules of the United States or the United Kingdom cannot be immediately applied to countries such
as Ghana or Afghanistan.

4) Common Law terms and technological Advancements

In the United States, reliance on common law theories is an essential component of intellectual
property practices. Many of these common law phrases, however, are no longer consistent with
technological norms since the introduction of the internet. For example, copyright law grants the
owner the right to reproduce a work. One of the earliest common law copyright principles, the
theory of exhaustion, asserts that the copyright owner's rights are exhausted at the first sale of
the protected item. Purchases of works over the internet, on the other hand, practically negate
the first sale defenses because purchasers have rights to use and resell the copyrighted work.

IPR clauses in Free Trade Agreements:

“The commons is based on the notion that knowledge (and the freedom to share and reproduce
knowledge) is a fundamental human right that combines three distinct elements: a community of
users gathered around a common pool of resources, and the rules and standards established by
that community. Free trade agreements are obviously opposed to this system of resource

13
management and governance. FTAs are essentially contemporary methods for enclosing the
commons since they impose private intellectual property rights on community knowledge and
resources”

In this context, Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) clauses are typically included in Free Trade
Agreements (FTAs) to ensure that the parties to the agreement respect and protect each other's
intellectual property. These clauses may include provisions on patents, trademarks, copyrights,
trade secrets, and geographical indications. For example, an IPR clause in an FTA may require that
the parties to the agreement provide a certain level of protection for patents and trademarks. This
may include provisions on the length of time for which a patent or trademark is protected, and
the procedures for obtaining and enforcing such protection. Additionally, IPR clauses in FTAs can
also include provisions on the enforcement of IPR, such as measures to prevent counterfeiting and
piracy, and procedures for resolving disputes related to IPR.

Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) clauses are typically included in Free Trade Agreements (FTAs)
for several reasons- IPR provisions in FTAs ensure that the parties to the agreement respect and
protect each other's intellectual property. This helps to create a level playing field for businesses
operating in the countries that are party to the agreement, and can promote innovation and
creativity and access to knowledge and technology by providing a framework for the protection
and enforcement of IPR. IPR provisions in FTAs can also promote trade and investment and can
encourage the transfer of technology and the sharing of knowledge between countries. This can
increase the confidence of businesses in investing in the countries that are party to the agreement,
as they know their intellectual property will be protected. IPR provisions in FTAs can also help to
prevent counterfeiting and piracy, which can harm businesses and consumers. By including
provisions on the enforcement of IPR in FTAs, countries can work together to combat these
activities and promote a fair and competitive environment for businesses operating in the
countries that are party to the agreement.

Including Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) clauses in Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) can raise a
number of issues, depending on the specific provisions included and how they are interpreted and
implemented. Some of the key issues that have been raised with respect to including IPR clauses
in FTAs include:

Access to medicines:

Some critics argue that strong IPR protections in FTAs, such as data exclusivity and patent linkage
provisions, can lead to higher prices for medicines, making them less accessible for people in
developing countries. One of the most controversial IPR clauses that have been included in FTAs
is the requirement for countries to provide longer terms of protection for patents. this can limit
access to essential medicines, particularly in developing countries, as it can prolong the time
during which a medicine is protected by a patent, making it more expensive and less accessible to
those who need it. Another controversial IPR clause that has been included in FTAs is the
requirement for countries to provide stronger protection for pharmaceutical test data. Critics
argue that this can limit the ability of generic drug manufacturers to enter the market, which can
make medicines more expensive and less accessible to those who need them.
14
Impact on public health:

Strong IPR protections may limit the ability of governments to take measures to protect public
health, such as issuing compulsory licenses for drugs in times of public health emergency.

Impact on innovation:

Some argue that strong IPR protections in FTAs can stifle innovation by making it more difficult for
generic drug manufacturers to enter the market.

Transparency:

There may be concerns that the inclusion of IPR clauses in FTAs can lack transparency in the
negotiation process, especially for developing countries.

Balancing Interests:

There may be concerns that the inclusion of IPR clauses in FTAs may not be balanced in terms of
protecting the rights of the IP holders and the rights of the public.

Flexibilities:

Some critics argue that the inclusion of IPR provisions in FTAs can limit the ability of countries to
use flexibilities provided in international IP agreements, such as the TRIPS Agreement, to protect
public health and access to medicines.

Lack of Harmonization:

Some provisions of IPR in FTAs may not be harmonized with the international IP agreements and
thus may create confusion and uncertainty for IP holders.

Others:

Other debatable IPR clauses that have been included in FTAs include those related to criminal
penalties for copyright infringement, which have been criticized for being too harsh and for
potentially violating freedom of expression and access to information, and the inclusion of
Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism, which allows companies to sue governments
over alleged breaches of the agreement, which has been criticized for undermining national
sovereignty and undermining democratic decision-making.

It's worth noting that these issues are subject to ongoing debate about the appropriate balance
between protecting IPR and promoting access to knowledge and technology and the specific
language and provisions of an FTA can greatly affect how these issues are handled. Ultimately,
whether or not an FTA should include IPR clauses and how they should be structured is a matter
of debate and can depend on a variety of factors, such as the specific provisions of the agreement

15
and the interests of the countries involved and how they wish to balance the interests of creators
and owners of intellectual property with those of the general public

WORK ALLOCATION

Introduction Hitesh

TRIPS Simran

Domestic policy Agnimitra

IPR clauses in FTA Kaaviya

Future of IPR Rushikesh

Impact on business Pooja

REFERENCES

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41587-022-01485-x

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/up-front/2021/06/03/why-intellectual-property-and-pandemics-dont-mix/

https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=11ac72f9-7a09-474c-af9d-f6a14b284ea5

https://www.worldipreview.com/article/ip-in-the-future

Loft, P. (2022). Covax and global access to Covid-19 vaccines. House of Commons Library.

Ranjan, P. (2021). The Case for Waiving Intellectual Property Protection for Covid-19 Vaccines.

The TRIPS Agreement and COVID-19, WTO Information Note, 15th October, 2020.

Waiver from certain provisions of the TRIPS Agreement for the Prevention, Containment and Treatment of COVID-19
- Responses to Questions, WTO,15th January, 2021.

https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/trips_e.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIPS_Agreement

https://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips.pdf

16
17