“Originality in research emerges when scholars think independently, free from the constraints of existing literature.”
“IP law must strike a balance between incentivizing creators and ensuring public access to knowledge and innovation.”
1. Please tell our readers about your journey in academia, from studying History to specialising in intellectual property law.
History has always been my favourite subject, as I have a deep passion for exploring the past. While studying History, I came to understand a profound truth: A thriving society can only emerge when its rulers are virtuous and prioritise the welfare of their people. The foundation of a good society is laid when the authority’s laws are just and embraced by its citizens. History offers numerous examples of this — kingdoms achieved greatness only when their rulers were wise, benevolent, and committed to the upliftment of their people.
This realisation shaped my understanding of the importance of order and governance in building a prosperous society. However, during the final year of my undergraduate studies, I recognised that History as a discipline offered limited career prospects. My academic background and interest in governance naturally drew me towards the field of law, which soon became my primary focus.
While pursuing my Bachelor of Laws (LLB), I explored various legal disciplines but found myself particularly drawn to intellectual property rights (IPR). My interest in this field was ignited by a course offered by World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), which introduced me to the intricate relationship between innovation, creativity, and legal protection. During my Masters of Laws (LLM), I chose to specialise in IPR, immersing myself in its complexities and diverse applications. This specialisation culminated in my dissertation, which focused on intellectual property and technology transfer — a topic that further deepened my engagement with the field.
The process of researching and writing my dissertation solidified my conviction that intellectual property rights was the ideal career path for me. Transitioning from studying History to teaching IPR has been both a natural progression and a deeply fulfilling journey, as it allows me to contribute meaningfully to a dynamic and impactful domain.
2. Your work on “Invisible Use of Trade Marks on Google AdWords” has gained attention. How do you perceive the evolving role of intermediaries in trade mark law in India?
This article primarily addressed the issue of intermediaries, such as Google, using trade marks as keywords on internet search engines. It specifically examined the question of whether intermediaries should be held liable for this practice. I argued in favour of imposing liability on intermediaries for the unauthorised and invisible use of trade marks as keywords and meta tags. The article emphasised that such practices should not be permissible as they undermine the rights of trade mark proprietors.
Using Google as a key example, I contended that the unauthorised use of registered trade marks by intermediaries should constitute an act of passing off. However, subsequent to my work, the Delhi High Court, in a Division Bench ruling, expressed a divergent view on the matter — one with which I respectfully disagree.
3. How effective do you find India’s guidelines on implementing IPR policies in academic institutions compared to global best practices, particularly the US?
The approach adopted by the United States is notably distinct from that of India, primarily due to the presence of specific legislation such as the Bayh-Dole Act, also known as the Patent and Trademark Law Amendments Act, enacted in 1980. The law allowed universities to own and licence inventions developed with federal funding. This fostered academia-industry partnerships and established mechanisms for profit-sharing from their outcomes. However, the US experience has shown that university-industry collaborations, in the absence of a coherent policy framework, can be counterproductive, often serving the interests of specific industries rather than contributing to broader societal welfare. Drawing from these lessons, the US has refined its approach, emphasising not only patenting but also the exchange of personnel, among other things, between academia and industry to enhance collaboration and innovation.
In contrast, the prevalent approach in India has centered on increasing patent filings, often misunderstood as a key indicator of scientific and technological advancement. However, this focus on quantity over quality overlooks critical aspects of innovation. US universities, through their extensive experience, have observed that while obtaining patents secures exclusivity in their favour, it also imposes significant costs on society in terms of the accessibility and use of inventions. This, in turn, impedes innovation and restricts the wider dissemination of new technologies for several years.
For Indian universities, a similar approach focused solely on maximising patents could prove counterproductive. The broader objective should be to create a balanced policy framework that promotes the transfer of technology, research support, cooperative research, and knowledge transfer.
4. Could you elaborate on the challenges developing countries face concerning local working requirements under the Trips Agreement?
The Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement, during its negotiation phase, came with several promises, particularly from developed countries. Among these was the commitment to technology transfer. However, it later became apparent that the provision for technology transfer was limited to least developed countries (LDCs). Consequently, India and other developing countries raised concerns regarding the enforcement of the objectives outlined in Article 7 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, 1995. In response, developed countries argued that these provisions are not mandatory.
A critical aspect of technology transfer is the local working requirement. An analysis of various provisions within the Patents Act, 1970 clearly indicates that local working requirements are mandatory for all patent holders. However, developed countries have strongly opposed this mandate, citing Article 27 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, 1995. They argue that imposing mandatory local working requirements constitutes discrimination and is therefore in violation of Article 27.
This stance from developed countries exerts considerable pressure on developing nations, discouraging them from enforcing such requirements on foreign patentees. Nonetheless, a joint reading of Articles 27 and 2 of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights, 1995 clarifies that World Trade Organisation (WTO) member States, including developing countries, retain the flexibility to mandate local working requirements. This interpretation underscores the balance of rights and obligations within the TRIPS framework, supporting the interests of developing nations to use the patent system as a tool for the transfer and dissemination of technology.
5. As a supervisor of doctoral research on various impactful topics of contemporary relevance, how do you guide students to make their work in policy and academia impactful?
The journey of a Doctor of Philosophy (PhD) begins with selecting a topic that is both challenging and relatively unexplored. Choosing the right topic creates an opportunity for both the research scholar and the supervisor to think independently, free from the constraints of existing literature. This independence fosters originality and innovation in research.
In addition to selecting the topic, certain essential qualities significantly contribute to the research process: a natural inclination towards critical analysis and writing, a strong commitment to influencing policy-making, and a disciplined approach to work.
Once the topic is chosen, the next step involves an exhaustive review of the literature. This includes exploring studies that are even tangentially related to the subject and extending the search to topics beyond the immediate domain of the research. This broad exploration is followed by in-depth discussions and debates on the findings from the reviewed studies.
Through this rigorous process, the researcher gradually builds the foundation for the work, ultimately arriving at a stage where they can offer meaningful policy suggestions and recommendations based on the outcomes of their PhD research.
6. You have extensive publications in renowned journals. Which of your works do you consider the most significant, and why?
I authored an article titled “Patents (Amendment) Rules 2020: India’s Patent Working Requirement at Stake”, published by the Oxford University Press, which I consider one of my most significant works. The article critically examines the amendment to Form 27 of the Patent Rules, 2003 and its implications for the local working requirements of patented inventions.
The revised Form 27 suggests that local working requirements are no longer essential, allowing patentees to meet market demands solely through imports. In my article, I argue that this amendment undermines the substantive provisions of the Patents Act, 1970. Such a shift violates a fundamental principle of lawmaking: subordinate legislation cannot override or contradict the parent legislation. This work underscores the potential consequences of this amendment on the broader objectives of India’s patent system.
7. What lessons from your administrative tenure at Tripura University have shaped your approach to academic leadership?
During my tenure as Head (in-Charge) at Tripura University, I had the privilege of closely observing the administrative processes involved in formulating and implementing policies for students. This role allowed me to identify critical gaps between the administration and students, shedding light on how these disconnects contribute to a misalignment between the delivery of services and the actual needs of the student body.
Operating with limited resources taught me valuable lessons in resource optimisation and prioritisation, demonstrating that academic goals can still be achieved effectively despite constraints. This experience also emphasised the importance of strategic decision-making in ensuring impactful outcomes.
A particularly rewarding aspect of my tenure was witnessing the personal and professional transformation of students. Many students, upon graduating, reflected on how the course had shaped them into entirely different individuals compared to when they first enrolled. Today, a significant number of them are contributing to fields such as academia and judicial services, which stands as a testament to the transformative power of education and well-designed academic programs.
8. Given the increasing relevance of AI and big data, what emerging challenges do you foresee in intellectual property law over the next decade?
The forthcoming decade, as envisaged by numerous scholars, is poised to be the “age of information”, where big data-driven artificial intelligence (AI) is expected to challenge the jurisprudential foundations of intellectual property (IP) law. Traditional IP theories advocate for the recognition and reward of human labour and ingenuity in the creation of intellectual works, while striving to balance the monopolistic tendencies of IP rights with the broader societal imperative of information dissemination.
The advent and application of AI technologies, however, appear to disrupt this delicate equilibrium, introducing significant distortions. On one hand, such advancements may diminish incentives for human creativity, while on the other, they threaten to create an intensely competitive environment that jeopardises the survival of human creators. Moreover, the distinction between human and non-human creators is becoming increasingly blurred, presenting profound conceptual and legal challenges. At its core, the foundational challenge posed by AI strikes at the root of copyright and patent law i.e. authorship and inventorship.
9. What are some of the key skills law students need to develop to contribute meaningfully to the evolving field of intellectual property law?
Students aspiring to excel in the field of intellectual property must develop a clear understanding of the diverse perspectives within the IP system. Recognising that intellectual property is primarily an economic issue, students should cultivate an interest in analysing who benefits from specific provisions of IPR.
It is equally important to understand that intellectual property is not solely about safeguarding the rights of IP holders. The system also serves broader societal objectives, aiming to enhance the dissemination of intellectual property goods to the widest possible audience. This dual focus on private rights and public welfare underscores the importance of a balanced approach to intellectual property.
10. Could you briefly share insights from your recent talk/lecture at Harvard University on drug patent applications and opposition proceedings?
My talk at Harvard University focused on analysing drug patent applications filed in the US, EU, and India between 2015 and 2024. This included an examination of related patent prosecutions and litigations, as well as a comparative cross-country analysis. The discussion explored different filing strategies adopted by patent applicants in national phase applications and the legal and public health grounds raised in opposition proceedings. By reviewing decisions from relevant authorities, the talk aimed to highlight the rationale behind accepting or rejecting patent oppositions and their broader implications for access to medicines.
1. Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, Banaras Hindu University.
2. Student Ambassador, Faculty of Law, Banaras Hindu University.
