Current Science

Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription Access

Transfer of Innovations:A Case of Working of Patents in India


Affiliations
1 Intellectual Property and Technology Management Unit, Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), New Delhi 110 012, India
2 Institute Technology Management Unit (ITMU), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi 682 018, India
 

Patents are the protected form of innovations and the currency of a knowledge-based economy. This article is an outcome of the analysis of working of patents data, which were published on the Indian Patent Office (IPO) website during 2012 and 2013, and continuously updated thereafter. For an overview of working of patents in India, an aggregate of 64 companies and/or organizations were selected for this study. The results of the analysis revealed that Qualcomm topped the list with 1113 granted patents at IPO, followed by Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (1085), Hindustan Unilever (773), Samsung Electronics (705), and Philips (352). The objective of this study was to determine the workability of patents in India, and the results indicated that all the seven patents granted to Indofil (an Indian company, which manufacturers agricultural, specialty and performance chemicals) were in working conditions, which apparently signified that the firm had effectively transferred the innovations for production and for the end-user. IPO was preferred as an important patent filling offices (PFO) by different national and international companies for filling their innovations. The results of this study provide an opportunity for the inventors, market players, researchers and consumers to know about the innovations which are lying in the PFOs of the different countries and lapsed after completing their life, i.e. 20 years.

Keywords

Companies and Organizations, Development and Commercialization, Innovations, Technology Transfer, Working of Patents.
User
Notifications
Font Size

  • World Intellectual Property Indicators 2016; http://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_941_2016.pdf

  • Association of University Technology Managers, What is technology transfer? http://www.autm.net/What_Is_Tech_Transfer.html (retrieved during July 2013).

  • Baregheh, A., Rowley, J. and Sambrook, S., Towards a multidisciplinary definition of innovation. Manage. Decisi., 2009, 47(8), 1323–1339.

  • Hemantkumar, P. B., Shailesh, G. and Porey, P. D., Commercialization of technology: innovations and patents – issues and challenges. Tech Monitor, 2010, pp. 12–18.

  • US Code, Patent rights in inventions made with federal assistance. 35 USC Chapter 18. 200. 1980 Fed. Reg. 96-517, 6(a), 94 Stat. 3018, 1980.

  • Allen, J., Does university patent licensing pay off? IPWatchdog, Inc, 2014; http://www.ipwatchdog.com

  • Kim, Y., Consumer user innovation in Korea: an international comparison and policy implications. Asian J. Technol. Transf., 2015, 23(1), 69–86.

  • Valerie, L. M., Joelle, M., David, W., Vinit, N., Todd, S., John, F. R. and Paul, R. S., More than money: the exponential Impact of Academic Technology Transfer. Technol. Innov., 2014, 16(1), 75–84.

  • Malackowski, J. E., The intellectual property marketplace: past, present and future. J. Marshall Rev. Intell. Prop. L., 2006, 5, 605– 641.

  • Reilly, R. F. and Schweihs, R. P., The Handbook of Business Valuation and Intellectual Property Analysis, McGraw-Hill, New York, 2004.

  • May, C., Trouble in E-topia: knowledge as intellectual property. Urban Stud., 2002, 39(5-6), 1037–1049.

  • According to Forbes, ‘there are more than 40 Chinese phrases (Chengyu), to encourage children and adults to have big dream for their future’. See Forbes, 2014.

  • www.patentinspiration.com/

  • Seo, K. K., Bong, G. L., Beom, S. P. and Kyoung, S. O., The effect of R&D, technology commercialization capabilities and innovation performance. Technol. Econ. Dev. Econ., 2011, 17(4), 563–578.

  • Kumar, R., Commercialization of intellectual property in changing scenario. Bull. Pharm. Res., 2013, 3(3), 107–111.

  • http://www.ipindia.nic.in/ (accessed on 20 February 2017).

  • Chakravarty, S., Importance of assignment agreements under intellectual property laws in India. J. Intell. Property Rights, 2009, 14, 513–522.

  • Tiwari, R., Tiwari, G., Rai, A. K. and Srivastawa, B., Management of intellectual property rights in India: an updated review. J. Nat. Sci., Biol. Med., 2011, 2(1), 2–12.

  • Pavit, S. K., Local working requirement of a patent in India. Advocate Associate, Intellectual Property Laws Division, Vaish Associates Advocates, New Delhi, 2011; http://legalperspectives.blogspot.in/

  • Mossof, A., Rethinking the development of patents: an intellectual history from 1550–1800. Hastings Law J., 2001, 52, 1255–1322.

  • http://www.ipindia.nic.in/iponew/publicNotice_24December2009.pdf

  • http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips_04c_e.htm#Footnote5

  • http://www.wto.org/english/docs_e/legal_e/27-trips_03_e.htm 8

  • Bodenhausen, G. H. C., Guide to the Application of the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property – As Revised at Stockholm in 1967 (WIPO Publication, Geneva), 1968, p. 71.

  • Reddy, G. B., Local working of patents – law and implementation in India. J. Intell. Property Right, 2013, 18, 15–27.

  • https://www.qualcomm.co.in/

  • http://www.boschindia.com/en

  • http://britannia.co.in/

  • https://www.hul.co.in/

  • http://www.csir.res.in/

  • http://world.honda.com/

  • https://www.tvsmotor.com/

  • http://www.gm.com/

  • Singh, V., Chakraborty, K. and Lavina, V., Pharmaceutical patenting trends on drugs and lifestyle diseases: an analysis of Indian and global status. Curr. Sci., 2017, 113(4), 725–732.

  • https://www.novartis.com/

  • http://www.pfizer.com/

  • http://www.aurobindo.com/


Abstract Views: 419

PDF Views: 138




  • Transfer of Innovations:A Case of Working of Patents in India

Abstract Views: 419  |  PDF Views: 138

Authors

Vikram Singh
Intellectual Property and Technology Management Unit, Indian Council of Agricultural Research (ICAR), New Delhi 110 012, India
Kajal Chakraborty
Institute Technology Management Unit (ITMU), Central Marine Fisheries Research Institute, Kochi 682 018, India

Abstract


Patents are the protected form of innovations and the currency of a knowledge-based economy. This article is an outcome of the analysis of working of patents data, which were published on the Indian Patent Office (IPO) website during 2012 and 2013, and continuously updated thereafter. For an overview of working of patents in India, an aggregate of 64 companies and/or organizations were selected for this study. The results of the analysis revealed that Qualcomm topped the list with 1113 granted patents at IPO, followed by Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (1085), Hindustan Unilever (773), Samsung Electronics (705), and Philips (352). The objective of this study was to determine the workability of patents in India, and the results indicated that all the seven patents granted to Indofil (an Indian company, which manufacturers agricultural, specialty and performance chemicals) were in working conditions, which apparently signified that the firm had effectively transferred the innovations for production and for the end-user. IPO was preferred as an important patent filling offices (PFO) by different national and international companies for filling their innovations. The results of this study provide an opportunity for the inventors, market players, researchers and consumers to know about the innovations which are lying in the PFOs of the different countries and lapsed after completing their life, i.e. 20 years.

Keywords


Companies and Organizations, Development and Commercialization, Innovations, Technology Transfer, Working of Patents.

References





DOI: https://doi.org/10.18520/cs%2Fv117%2Fi6%2F1032-1044