The Use of Compulsory Licensing as a Policy to Combat the Monopoly Problem Associated with the Patent System

Although the need to protect R & D investment is recognized, there appears to be a need to modernize the laws around intellectual property. What if the original patent owner is unable to continue development in a timely fashion, or chooses to withhold development of a product? Should the patent remain with the owner for the full amount of time if they are unable or choose not to produce an item that has a significant potential to improve lives, public safety or advance technology? What about

It is intended both to provide thumbnail descriptions of the various intellectual property regimes to economists working in this area and to indicate where additional economic research might be useful. The other papers in this symposium provide important examples of ongoing research on the economics of intellectual property. Suzanne Scotchmer analyzes the complex effects of patent protection when innovation is cumulative. Rather than analyzing situations in which several firms vie to develop the same innovation-the approach of the "patent race" literature-her analysis examines circumstances in which only one firm can develop an initial innovation but others can also build upon it. She focuses on how the incentive to develop both the initial and subsequent inventions may be affected by the scope of patent protection. Janusz Ordover considers ways of adjusting the patent system that may help to both provide returns to the inventor, and encourage the diffusion of the innovation in the economy. His paper is part of a line of work that explores the place of the intellectual property system among the large number of institutions that affect the amount and nature of research and development that takes place. In the final paper, David

In the United States, patent-eligible subject matter includes four statutory categories as defined by 35 U.S.C. § 101 of the U.S. Code. Specifically, these four categories include “any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof.” In 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l further expanded

the asserted claims are eligible for patent. The District Court held that the claims are patent ineligible

Technology enriches our society by making widely available new and useful goods, services, and technical information . Clearly, as a society, we would want to encourage the development of technology so that we can reap the benefits they offer us. Innovators require an incentive to invent and share these technologies with the rest of society. This incentive is achieved by granting intellectual property rights (IPR) to inventors . More specifically, the incentive is usually achieved by granting patents to inventors .

Their evidence suggests two conclusions, the effects of patents on follow-on innovation appear to be quantitatively small, and patent protection on human genes does not appear to have hindered follow-on innovation,

The second form of intellectual property that must be implemented is Patent. We must protect

Paragraph 5 of the Preamble of the TRIPS Agreement provides that “the underlying public policy objectives of national systems for the protection of intellectual property, including developmental and technological objectives” Accordingly, the Preamble is not an operative provision. Therefore, Professor Grosse Ruse-khan suggests that the position of the Preamble “merely opens a door” for other national interest to be taken into consideration, nonetheless the interest would not necessarily prevail. He contends that non-economic interest would be only considered as an “exception” to the right. Through the use of the flexibilities embedded in TRIPS, Professor Gervais contends the Preamble recognizes developing countries’ need to realize their developmental objects, such as innovation policy. However, he also stresses that the flexibility should be used in a manner that “[creates] a sound and viable technological

-One can achieve a high level of innovation in some areas of the modern economy without the intellectual property protection – “excessive, unbalanced or poorly designed IP protections may be counterproductive”

“ The Court looked to Gottschalk v. Benson and Parker v. Flook, and noted that both had explicitly refused to rely on the machine-or-transformation test as the sole test for patent eligibility.[4][5]

Patents cover new inventions such as process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement to an existing invention . Patents represent a contract between an inventor and society. By granting 20 years market exclusivity, patents create the potential for inventors to generate high monetary returns on their successful innovations and discoveries. In exchange, the inventor provides a complete

While each type of patent serves a purpose, utility patents are most commonly used by inventors for their technological inventions.

A patent is an exclusive right granted for an invention, product or process that provides a new way of doing something, or that offers a new technical solution to a problem. An invention in general must fulfill certain criteria in order to be protected by a patent. For example, the Patents Act, 1970 in S. 2(1) (j) defines invention as a new product or process involving an inventive step and capable of industrial application. In other words, an invention in order to be patentable must show an element of novelty, must show “an inventive step”, and must be of practical use. Particularly, the Patents Act, 1970 defines “inventive step” as a feature of an invention that involves technical advance as compared to the existing knowledge or having economic significance or both and that makes the invention not obvious to a person skilled in the art. In other words, patent rights are not available for new advances that are merely obvious extensions or modifications of prior designs. Besides, the requirement of difference over prior art, there is a requirement to establish the extent of common general knowledge that exists while

Therefore, protection of patents is one of the key conditions necessary for further development of the pharmaceutical industry. At the same time, non-efficient legislation that does not provide the necessary level of patent protection is one of the factors that hamper expansion of “Big Pharmaceutical” companies to the developing countries8.

India must seriously examine its Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) position and see how best TRIPS (Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights) can be interpreted, as IPR laws are national laws. India should cull the best points from various laws to suit her future needs.