The paradigm shifts in the manner global enterprises carry out knowledge business have transformed how intellectual property (IP) is being created, valued, protected and exploited. It is estimated that, in 2013, US international trade in technology-embedded products crossed $8 trillion. A huge gamut of opportunities has opened up for companies to be part of the global supply-chain for advanced technology.

However, in order to operate in this lucrative, but also tightly regulated, market, Indian companies must establish global quality benchmarks, stringent standards of intellectual property rights (IPR) trade management and regulatory compliances from countries they wish to import/transfer IPRs, products and services. The technology trade also envisages meeting India’s exports of items under SCOMET and other licensing conditions to export their dual-use commodities globally. The Indian high-technology market is estimated to be worth $550 billion by 2020, in the areas of electronic system design and manufacturing (ESDM), aerospace & defence (A&D), environmental technologies and alternate energy. This translates into investments of over $140 billion into the Indian hitech (read IP-intensive) industry and the creation of over 30 million high-value jobs in the next 5 years.

Having acceded to the TRIPS accord in 1994, India has come a long way in establishing a solid foundation of IPR governance. Recent political and regulatory changes suggest India’s willingness to adopt globally competitive and collaborative policies, inviting global corporations for investing and manufacturing in India under various programmes like Make-in-India, allowing 100% FDI in defence, executing the preferential market access (PMA) and ESDM policy. India’s openness to have a review of its IPR law/policy, establishment of a think-tank and a highly-empowered inter-ministerial group on IPR reflects its serious intentions on transforming its attitude towards IPRs.

While the outcome of these policies would be matched with proportionate groundwork, a recent survey of 30 economies by GIPC ranks India 29th. The recent skirmishes with the USTR, over its special review of India under the Super 301 norm, for the controversial compulsory licensing policy followed by India in an attempt to stem ever-greening of patents US drug majors, has caused much upheaval among the global IPR-watchers. Secondary data and interviews with global hitech OEMs clearly indicate their unwillingness to transfer technologies to Indian companies unless there is substantial improvement in the IPR and technology safety environment in India. Another important factor that has influenced the OEMs’ reluctance to transfer critical technologies to India is the US, European and Japanese technology export experiences with China. Today, all technology and IPR transfers are viewed with a China-hued lens despite the right intention India projects and the existence of strong and responsive legal frameworks here.

As per a study of the World Intellectual Property Rights Bank, foreign OEMs believe that Indian companies lack capability and process maturity in handling sensitive IP and technologies. The survey rated IPR risks as one of the most potent risks for technology transfer to offset partners and technology companies in developing countries. Some of IPR risks rated highest by the OEM are:

* illegal sharing of software codes, blueprints, specifications, industrial designs, trade secrets and confidential know-how,
* patent and design infringement,
* piracy and copyright violations,
* counterfeiting of products and components manufactured from blueprints, algorithms of OEMs,
* indiscriminate production of licensed technologies,
* indiscriminate copying of processes and proprietary frameworks,
* and non-payment of royalties and licence fees.

The survey indicates that the reasons for technology and IPR thefts in developing countries could be the physical impossibilities of proactive monitoring by Tier I, Tier II and Tier III suppliers, the lack of IPR capability and process maturity in HR/IPR milestones in product or software development life cycle processes, the lack of necessary policy and regulation towards IPR and technology exports, poor sub-contractor management processes, poor revenue and licence compliances, the lack of common platform to asses IP process maturity and IPR safety-policing, protection and enforcement, the lack of automation and computer security infrastructure, and the lack of industrial security classification for handling classified technological data.

In order to realise the goal of an industrialised India, policymakers, the legal community and industry must prepare a synchronous blueprint to align the objectives of our nation building with a responsive IPR regime. Such a regime must lay down the minimum IP capability and process maturity standards for government institutions, industry, education system, judiciary and legal environment. A policy unaccompanied by necessary execution framework and authority would produce the same results as our past policies. There has to be a goal for a national IPR portfolio for at least a decade, and to feed into these goals, a national IP-HR policy would be needed. A national IP and technology valuation standard needs to be instituted as well. As for industry, it must look at structural CSR initiatives to foster IPR education through educational and research institutions. This will need it to partner the government, academia and judiciary. Lastly, for IP commerce to be estimated with precision, an IP commercialisation policy and a national IP safety (carrying out policing, protection and enforcement functions) organisation are needed.

The author is CEO, World Intellectual Property Rights Bank

For Updates Check Editorials and Columns; follow us on Facebook and Twitter