INTERNATIONAL TRADE AGREEMENTS AND IPR: THE INDIAN PERSPECTIVE OF TRIPS, USMCA & BEYOND

This Article is written by VARSHINI VS, THE TAMILNADU Dr. AMBEDKAR LAW UNIVERSITY, BBA LLB (hons.), VTH YEAR during her internship at LeDroit India.

SCOPE OF THE ARTICLE:

ABSTRACT:

Global market access, innovation, and technological diffusion have all changed as a result of the evolution of international commerce, which has combined economic liberalisation with the defence of intellectual property rights (IPR). This article examines how international trade agreements, including the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) and the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), have changed the global IPR framework, with a focus on the implications for India. India’s compliance trend under TRIPS, its opposition to TRIPS Plus norms, and its policy orientation towards striking a balance between trade commitments and developmental priorities are all examined.

The study uses a comparative framework to show how the sophisticated intellectual property rules of the USMCA indicate a move towards digital and data-driven IP administration, creating additional difficulties for developing countries. It also looks at India’s approach to negotiations in the WTO, WIPO, and regional forums, as well as new issues related to digital trade, data security, and artificial intelligence. In order to ensure that IPR frameworks continue to be tools of inclusive development rather than obstacles to growth, the report finds that India’s future participation in international commerce must combine innovative incentives with fair access.

Key words: Intellectual Property Rights, TRIPS Agreement, USMCA, Trade Liberalization, India.

1. INTRODUCTION:

One of the key characteristics of the global economic order is the relationship between intellectual property rights (IPR) and international trade. IPR has developed into a crucial element of international trade control, having previously been viewed as a matter of domestic policy or cultural prerogative. By incorporating intellectual property into the multilateral trading system through the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), the 1995 transition from the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) to the World Trade Organisation (WTO) formalised this change. Under the rationale of trade liberalisation, this integration represented the internationalisation of innovation policy as well as the harmonising of standards.

The addition of intellectual property rights (IPR) to trade agreements has been controversial and revolutionary for developing nations like India. On the one hand, TRIPS aimed to establish a standard of protection so that creators and innovators had equal rights everywhere. However, it also brought up important issues regarding access to knowledge, technology, and medications, all of which have a direct impact on social welfare and developmental autonomy. These worries were reflected in India’s opposition to strict IP protection during the Uruguay Round negotiations. The subsequent modifications to Indian legislation, particularly the Patents (Amendment) Acts of 1999, 2002, and 2005, show how domestic policy flexibility and international compliance have evolved.

This situation is made challenging by the growing spread of “TRIPS-Plus” standards in post-TRIPS trade agreements like the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA). These documents go beyond TRIPS responsibilities by imposing stricter enforcement guidelines, safeguards for digital intellectual property, and limitations on the flexibilities that developing countries depend on. India’s IPR strategy must balance innovative incentives with fair access as the global system shifts to a data-driven and digital commerce economy.
Therefore, the purpose of this paper is to address three connected questions:

1. How have worldwide IPR standards changed as a result of TRIPS and other trade agreements?
2. How has India negotiated, responded, and adjusted to this changing framework?
3. What opportunities and difficulties do India face “beyond TRIPS” in terms of data governance and digital trade?

The study places India’s IPR strategy in the larger context of trade fairness and developmental sovereignty by examining doctrinal advances, treaty commitments, and policy trajectories. In order to analyse India’s dual role as a compliant WTO member and an advocate for fair access within international IP regimes, the paper takes a comparative and policy-oriented approach, drawing on international instruments, judicial precedents, and national policy frameworks.

2. HISTORICAL EVOLUTION OF IPR IN INTERNATIONAL TRADE:

Although it existed before the WTO, the connection between commerce and intellectual property did not become well-known until the late 20th century. In the past, national legal frameworks designed to promote creativity and innovation inside home economies gave rise to intellectual property rights (IPR). The need for international cooperation was reflected in early multilateral initiatives like the Paris Convention for the Protection of Industrial Property (1883) and the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works (1886), but they mainly respected national autonomy when establishing standards. The World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) later administered both treaties, which set minimum criteria but lacked strong enforcement mechanisms, making them useless in an increasingly globalised market.

With the founding of GATT in 1947, the post-World War II era saw the growth of global commerce through market liberalisation and tariff reduction. However, IPR was not covered by GATT because its mandate was limited to commodities and tariffs. As industrialised countries, especially the United States, started to connect intellectual property protection with international economic interests in the 1970s and 1980s, a paradigm change occurred.

Concerns about piracy, counterfeiting, and patent breaches in emerging nations have increased with the rise of high-tech companies, biotechnology, and pharmaceuticals. The International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA) and the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) led the U.S. industry lobby, which put a lot of pressure on trade negotiators to include intellectual property protection in the multilateral trading system.

This culminated in the Uruguay Round of GATT negotiations (1986–1994), during which the EU and the US successfully pushed for IPR integration under the pretext of trade-related issues. At first, developing countries like Brazil and India opposed the idea, claiming that excessive harmonisation would limit access to technology and necessities and that IPR protection should stay under WIPO’s jurisdiction. However, the Marrakesh Agreement (1994), which created the WTO and included TRIPS as one of its foundational agreements, was signed as a result of the economic power of industrialised nations.

Thus, TRIPS marked a profound change in international economic law, turning intellectual property rights (IPRs) from ethical and cultural rights into a commodity that could be traded. It essentially gave intellectual property the same binding power as trade and tariff agreements by imposing enforceable obligations supported by the WTO’s dispute resolution process.

The TRIPS negotiations were a turning point for India. India, a developing nation with a robust generic pharmaceutical sector, has long relied on a process patent system that enables local producers to create reasonably priced versions of copyrighted medications. This paradigm was put in jeopardy by TRIPS’ demand for product patents in chemicals, pharmaceuticals, and biotechnological inventions, which might raise drug costs and limit access to necessary medications.

However, the wider trade advantages of market access and international legitimacy were what motivated India to join the WTO. The subsequent changes to Indian patent law, which were put into effect gradually in 1999, 2002, and 2005, demonstrated a purposeful approach: adhering to TRIPS while maintaining latitude for local innovation and public health.

3. THE TRIPS AGREEMENT: CORE OBLIGATIONS AND INDIAN COMPLIANCE:

A key component of the global intellectual property-trade interaction is the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) (1994). The World Trade Organisation (WTO) Agreement’s Annex 1C requires members to offer minimal levels of intellectual property protection.

3.1 KEY OBLIGATIONS UNDER TRIPS:

According to Article 27(1), WTO Member States must grant patents “for any inventions, whether products or processes, in all fields of technology” (with certain exceptions). 

The rights granted by a patent are outlined in Article 28, including the ability to stop third parties from producing, utilising, or marketing the invention without permission. According to Article 33, patents must be protected for at least 20 years after the date of filing. Important concepts like national treatment (Article 3) and most-favored-nation treatment (Article 4) for holders of intellectual property rights are also incorporated into the Agreement. Member states are subject to enforcement duties under Part III of TRIPS (Articles 41–61), which mandate efficient civil, administrative, and criminal proceedings against IPR infringement.

3.2 FLEXIBILITIES AND TRANSITION ARRANGEMENTS:

Although TRIPS sets basic requirements, it also permits Member States to apply them in accordance with their own national policy goals. For instance, under some circumstances, Article 31 permits the use of a patent without the right-holder’s consent (also known as compelled licensing). Members of developing countries are granted transitional periods under Articles 65–66 to align their intellectual property laws.  Significantly, TRIPS “can and should be interpreted and implemented in a manner supportive of public health and promoting access to medicines for all,” according to the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health (2001).

3.3 INDIAN’S COMPLIANCE PATH:

India’s domestic IPR system had to be changed to comply with TRIPS commitments after it joined the WTO in 1995. Important turning points include:

1. The previous process-only patent regime was gradually replaced by product patent protection in pharmaceuticals and agrochemicals under the Patents (Amendment) Acts of 1999 and 2002.
2. The Patents (Amendment) Act 2005, which established product patents across all industries and included clauses like Section 3(d) (to prevent “evergreening”), longer patent terms, and more stringent enforcement procedures, was the significant reform.
3. In accordance with its TRIPS commitments, India additionally modified the Copyright and Designs Acts and passed the Protection of Plant Varieties & Farmers’ Rights Act 2001.
   By means of Section 3(d), mandatory licensing rules, and other legislative modifications, India operationalised TRIPS in its domestic statute book while maintaining the flexibility to address public health imperatives and access issues. According to empirical research, India has taken the lead in applying TRIPS flexibilities such mandatory licensing and establishing patentability thresholds.

3.4 ASSESSMENT OF TRIPS COMPLIANCE AND IMPACTS IN INDIA:

India’s adherence to TRIPS has resulted in several outcomes. On the one hand, it boosted India’s integration into the international intellectual property system and reinforced legal protections for Indian inventors. However, it also brought up issues with technology transfer, access to medications, and the effects on the generic business, which had prospered under the pre-2005 regime. Going forward, India’s IPR strategy will continue to face significant challenges in striking a balance between advancing innovation and safeguarding social welfare.

4. POST TRIPS DEVELOPMENT AND RISE OF TRIPS PLUS STANDARDS:

An important turning point in international IPR governance was the World Trade Organization’s 1995 ratification of the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). But many bilateral and regional trade agreements have advanced over the years, introducing what are known as “TRIPS-Plus” criteria. There are important ramifications for the Indian context: these improved standards may limit the policy space that developing nations have historically utilised to strike a balance between innovation and public welfare.

4.1 DEFINITION AND CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIPS PLUS STANDARDS:

Trade agreements that impose stricter requirements than those found in TRIPS itself are referred to as “TRIPS-Plus.” Important characteristics consist of:

1. longer patent durations than the 20 years required by TRIPS (Article 33).
2. requirements for data exclusivity (delaying generic entry by safeguarding clinical test data).
3. techniques for extending or modifying the duration of a patent.
4. tougher enforcement requirements (criminalisation, border controls, increased damages).
5. Foreign rights holders can file lawsuits against states for IP regulation through Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) systems.

1. These requirements diminish the developmental autonomy that nations like India have attempted to maintain by essentially limiting developing countries’ ability to apply TRIPS flexibilities (such as mandatory licensing or patentability exclusions).

4.2 INDIA’S RESPONCE AND STRATEGIC CAUTION:

When it comes to approving trade agreements that include TRIPS-Plus clauses, India has been hesitant. For instance, India expressed concerns about provisions that would limit access to medications, hinder its generic pharmaceutical business, or increase monopoly rents for global originators during discussions for a planned free trade agreement with the European Union. India’s approach is in line with a developmental IP paradigm, acknowledging the importance of robust incentives for innovation while maintaining that IPR must be balanced with access, technology transfer, and capacity-building.

4.3 LANDMARK CASE LAW ILLUSTRATING INDIAN’S POLICY SPACE:

Two significant Indian rulings demonstrate how India has re-balanced or pushed back using local law:

1. Product patentability and “evergreening” in Novartis AG v. Union of India & Ors (Supreme Court of India, April 1, 2013):-
   In this instance, the Swiss multinational Novartis contested the denial of its patent application for imatinib mesylate’s B-crystalline form (marketed as Glivec/Gleevec). Because the new form did not show improved efficacy over the existing drug, the Indian Patent Office rejected the application under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970. The refusal was upheld by the Supreme Court. This ruling is significant because it shows how India limited incremental patenting, which can extend monopoly beyond the initial innovative effort, by using a local patentability criteria.
2. Natco Pharma Ltd. v. Bayer Corporation and Union of India & Ors. v. Bayer Corporation (Controller’s Order 9 March 2012; IPAB 4 March 2013) Mandatory licensing
   The Controller granted Natco Pharma a licence to produce Bayer’s medication Sorafenib (NEXAVAR) in India’s first compulsory licence under Section 84 of the Patents Act on the grounds that the patentee had not met the “reasonable requirement of the public,” had not sufficiently worked the invention in India, and the price was not reasonably affordable. The IPAB maintained the ruling despite Bayer’s challenge, raising the royalty from 6% to 7%. This case demonstrates that, despite international IP pressure, India maintains and makes use of TRIPS flexibilities (such as Article 31) to safeguard public health and access.

4.4 IMPLICATION FOR INDIA AND DEVELOPING COUNTRIES:

For India, the emergence of TRIPS-Plus regimes presents a number of concerns and strategic difficulties:

1. Reduced policy space: India may lose crucial instruments (compulsory licensing, patentability restrictions, parallel importing) that assist domestic industry and access to medications if it accepts trade agreements with TRIPS-Plus commitments.
2. Regulatory coherence vs. sovereignty: Businesses may use trade agreements to press for harmonised international standards, but developing nations must protect their sovereignty in order to customise IP regimes to meet their own developmental goals.
3. Linkage with digital trade and data flows: As trade agreements address concerns related to the digital economy, TRIPS-Plus-like obligations may be expanded to include data exclusivity, algorithms, and AI-generated inventions, opening up new avenues for IP-trade.
4. Strategic advantage for India: India can safeguard its generics industry, maintain access to medications, and promote domestic innovation by carefully negotiating trade agreements (favouring limited IP obligations, preserving domestic flexibility) and continuing to take advantage of TRIPS flexibilities domestically.

5. THE UNITED STATES-MEXIO-CANADA-AGREEMENT (USMCA) MODEL: NEW DIMENSIONS OF IPR TRADE:

An new chapter on intellectual property rights (IPR) is included in the USMCA, which went into effect on July 1, 2020, replacing the previous North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) between the United States, Canada, and Mexico.

5.1 CORE IPR PROVISIONS OF USMCA:

The following are some of the main IPR-related duties under the USMCA:

1. As part of general requirements, IP holders must receive both national and most-favored-nation treatment.
2. Improved patent term extensions or modifications for “unreasonable” delays in regulatory approval or prosecution. For instance, the USMCA stipulates that if an applicant endures an excessive delay of more than five years from filing or three years following a request for inspection, the patent term may be reinstated.
3. Data protection and regulatory exclusivity for pharmaceuticals: The final text of the USMCA eliminated the requirement that biologics have at least ten years of exclusivity (Article 20.F.14).
4. A five-year exclusivity period and additional safeguards apply to new chemical entity medications. 
5. Copyright term extension: In accordance with U.S. and EU regulations, works are protected under the USMCA for the life of the author plus, in many situations, 70 years.
6. Enhanced enforcement obligations include trade secret protection, border controls for counterfeit goods, and requirements for internet service providers (ISPs) to apply safe harbour rules and deal with technological protection measures that are being circumvented.

5.2 COMPARISON WITH TRIPS AND “BEYOND” TRIPS FEATURES:

1. Certain levels of IPR protection are required by TRIPS (e.g., minimum patent term of 20 years, enforcement responsibilities). However, USMCA advances certain features further or in different ways:
2. Although TRIPS requires inventions to have a minimum patent term of 20 years, the USMCA introduces procedures for patent-term restoration for delays, which effectively increases protection for right-holders above the TRIPS baseline.
3. TRIPS does not stipulate a set duration of regulatory exclusivity for biologics; nevertheless, the USMCA initially sought to impose a 10-year period, which was later eliminated, demonstrating a shift towards “TRIPS-Plus” criteria.
4. The minimum criterion under the Berne Convention (life plus 50 years), which TRIPS contains by reference, is exceeded by the extension of copyright term (life plus 70 years) under the USMCA. 
5. Particularly with regard to digital trade, circumvention of technological protection, and ISP liability, the enforcement mechanisms and border controls in the USMCA are more robust and extensive than what many nations had under TRIPS alone.
   As a result, the USMCA model represents a new standard for sophisticated IPR obligations in trade agreements, which developing nations must carefully consider before implementing.

5.3 IMPLIOCATIONS FOR INDIA:

The USMCA model has various lessons and warning signs for India:

1. India may be subject to increased obligations (patent term adjustment, regulatory exclusivity, stronger enforcement) if it enters into free-trade agreements (FTAs) or regional trade agreements (RTAs) with intellectual property chapters modelled on USMCA-style provisions. This could restrict its policy space to use flexibilities like compulsory licensing or anti-evergreening measures.
2. The context of pharmaceutical access: The USMCA’s removal of the 10-year biologics exclusivity demonstrates the potential pushback, but the remaining protections still provide a greater baseline than what many underdeveloped nations now have. India needs to strike a balance between incentives for innovation and the availability of reasonably priced medications. For instance, research indicates that public perceptions during the USMCA discussions were focused on the availability of medications.
3. Domestic innovation policy: In order to negotiate more IPR obligations, India may want to think about bolstering its domestic IPR ecosystem (infrastructure, adjudication, and patent office capacity).
4. India may decide to oppose free trade agreements (FTAs) that incorporate TRIPS-Plus requirements (such as those found in the USMCA) in the absence of corresponding protections for public health, traditional knowledge, and general industry.
5. Digital and future-technology readiness: Given that the USMCA addresses digital enforcement and more general IP topics, India should expect similar “new dimension” IPR provisions in future trade agreements. As a result, it should proactively align its domestic law and policy.

6. INDIA’S POLICY AND NEGOTIATION STRATEGY IN GLOBAL IPR REGIMES:

6.1 INDIAN’S IPR POLICY ARCHITECTURE:

The Patents Act of 1970, the Copyright Act of 1957, the Trademarks Act of 1999, the Designs Act of 2000, and the Geographical Indications of Goods (Registration and Protection) Act of 1999 serve as the main pillars of India’s intellectual property (IP) system. These statutes have undergone frequent amendments to guarantee TRIPS compliance while maintaining essential flexibilities. A “Creative India, Innovative India” is the goal of the historic National IPR Policy (2016). IPR awareness, generation, enhancing the legal framework, administration and management, commercialisation, enforcement, and human capital development are its seven goals.

India’s IP policy is distinct in that it attempts to strike a balance between social welfare goals and innovation incentives, particularly in the areas of technology transfer, healthcare, and agriculture. This strategy is based on the notion that intellectual property protection should support both wider developmental demands and private rights.

6.2 NEGOTIATION STRATEGY IN MULTILATERAL FORUM:

One of the most outspoken and astute negotiators in the WTO and WIPO frameworks, India has pushed for distinct duties for poor nations. India continuously defended during the TRIPS discussions and the reviews that followed:
TRIPS “should be interpreted and implemented in a manner supportive of WTO Members’ right to protect public health and promote access to medicines for all,” according to the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health (2001).

1. the time frames during which least-developed nations (LDCs) must implement their TRIPS obligations.
2. the idea of capacity building and technology transfer as outlined in TRIPS Article 66.2.

Through alliances with countries that have similar developmental goals, such as the G-77 and BRICS, India has been a key player in coalition-building in recent negotiations. The Global South’s opinions are guaranteed to be heard while IPR regulations are being made thanks to this coalition approach.

6.3 BILATERAL AND REGIONAL APPROCH:

India’s preference for multilateralism over bilateralism in IPR governance is seen in its cautious approach to free trade agreements (FTAs) that feature TRIPS-Plus clauses. For example:
India objected to strict IP rules pertaining to data exclusivity and patent term extensions during the EU-India free trade agreement discussions, claiming that these provisions could impede access to reasonably priced medications.
Concerns over intellectual property obligations and their effects on the pharmaceutical and agriculture industries also played a role in India’s 2019 decision to leave the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP).
These illustrations show India’s intention to safeguard its domestic policy space, particularly for vital industries like digital innovation, biotechnology, and generics.

6.4 JUDICIAL ENDORCEMENT OF POLICY AUTONOMY:

Indian courts have consistently upheld the spirit of TRIPS flexibilities and protected the public interest while interpreting intellectual property legislation. For example:
The Supreme Court emphasised the legislative aim of Section 3(d) in Novartis AG v. Union of India, which is to ensure affordable access to medicines and prevent evergreening.
Higher courts affirmed the Controller’s mandatory licence ruling in Bayer Corporation v. Natco Pharma Ltd., demonstrating India’s preference for public health over commercial monopolies.

7. INDIA AND THE FUTURE OF TRIPS 2.0:DIGITIAL TRADE, ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE AD EMERGING IP CHALLENGES:

7.1 THE EVOLUTION TOWARDS TRIPS 2.O:

International intellectual property regimes are changing as global trade shifts to a digital, data-driven economy. This stage, which is colloquially referred to as “TRIPS 2.0,” encompasses data governance, artificial intelligence (AI), algorithms, genetic information, and digital assets in addition to the conventional IP categories of patents, trademarks, and copyrights.

Digital trade provisions are increasingly overlapping with intellectual property obligations, according to recent plurilateral negotiations like the WTO’s Joint Statement Initiative (JSI) on E-Commerce and IP chapters in modern trade agreements like the USMCA, CPTPP, and DEPA. These advancements put traditional IP paradigms based on territoriality and human authorship in jeopardy.

This “second generation” of IP regulations presents important issues for India:

1. How should AI-generated art, or non-human creativity, be safeguarded? 
2. Should data—often referred to as the “new oil”—be regarded as intellectual property, and if so, who is the owner?
3. How can poor nations maintain open innovation without allowing multinational businesses to monopolise data and algorithms?

7.2 AI AND AUTORSHIP:

The discussion of AI authorship has produced conflicting results on a global scale:

1. AI-generated works without human authorship have been denied protection by the U.S. Copyright Office and the U.K. IPO.
2. Although the Copyright Act, 1957 (Section 2(d)(vi)) defines “author” for computer-generated works as the “person who causes the work to be created,” India has not yet passed legislation on AI authorship. This clause might subtly permit a human controller (such as a programmer or operator) to assert authorship, but not artificial intelligence.

India must thus make its position clear and strike a balance between human accountability and incentives for innovation. It may seek direction from developing frameworks such as the EU’s AI Act (2024), but any reform must be in line with India’s open-source ethos and development aspirations.

7.3 DATA, TRADE, IP: THE INTERSECTION:

The fields of data protection and digital commerce are emerging as the next front in the fight for IP-style exclusivity. For example:

1. National sovereignty over data is essentially limited by the U.S.–Japan Digital Trade Agreement (2019) and USMCA Chapter 19, which forbid data localisation regulations and encourage unlimited cross-border data flows.
2. Adopting such pledges might undermine regulatory autonomy for India, whose Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 supports state control over sensitive data and selective localisation.

Data monopolisation, which occurs when big corporations exploit trade secrets and exclusive rights to control international data ecosystems, is a serious issue. Therefore, India’s approach should make sure that its commitments to digital commerce do not result in “data TRIPS-Plus” requirements that limit its capacity to control domestic data use and advance digital inclusion.

7.4 BIOTECHNOLOGY, GENETIC RESOURCES, AND TRADITIONAL KNOWLEDGE:

Biotechnology and genetic resources (GRs), where intellectual property (IP) interacts with ethics, biodiversity, and indigenous rights, are also discussed in the TRIPS 2.0 discussion. India has taken the lead in advocating for:

1. An obligatory disclosure of origin requirement for traditional knowledge and genetic resources in patent applications.
2. Cases like the Turmeric Patent (USPTO Reexamination No. 90/003,433) and Neem Patent (EPO Patent No. 436257), which India successfully opposed for lack of novelty and theft of traditional knowledge, provide protection against bio-piracy. 

These cases highlight India’s vigorous defence of its biological and cultural heritage against baseless IPR allegations.

7.4 STRATEGIC ROADMAP FOR INDIA IN TRIPS 2.0:

India needs to take a proactive stance based on innovation sovereignty and digital equity in order to properly position itself in this changing environment:

1. Bolster national IP and data regulations while maintaining control over AI, data localisation, and open-source software while adhering to global best practices.
2. Invest in AI-powered patent inspection technologies and IP analytics to reduce backlogs and speed up submissions.
3. Encourage South-South coalitions for common stances on data regulation, digital trade agreements, and AI governance, such as those found in the G77 and BRICS.
4. Encourage the incorporation of traditional knowledge as a separate category under WIPO treaties and institutionalise its protection through the TKDL.
5. Incorporate inclusivity and ethics into AI and digital innovation policies to make sure IP law advances society as well as markets.

8. CONCLUSION: TOWARDS A BALANCED GLOBAL IP ORDER:

India’s involvement with international intellectual property regimes has shown a deliberate effort to balance national development objectives with international conformity. India has developed a sophisticated legal and judicial system that emphasises innovation while maintaining accessibility and affordability since the TRIPS Agreement was put into effect.

The efficient application of TRIPS flexibilities is demonstrated by provisions like Sections 3(d) and 84 of the Patents Act, 1970, which are backed by court rulings like Novartis AG v. Union of India and Bayer Corporation v. Natco Pharma Ltd. By ensuring that intellectual property legislation functions as a tool of public policy rather than a weapon of monopoly, these steps have enabled India to retain its position as a leader in the global generics market.

However, a move towards more comprehensive and stringent IP protection models is indicated by the emergence of TRIPS-Plus norms through bilateral and regional trade agreements like the USMCA. These frameworks frequently put corporate innovation incentives ahead of social benefit, endangering the delicate balance between access and rights. India’s strategic determination on maintaining legislative autonomy and safeguarding policy space is demonstrated by its persistent opposition to such measures in the India-EU free trade agreement and its exit from the RCEP discussions. India continues to show that economic development and intellectual property protection are not mutually contradictory and must be pursued in tandem to create sustainable innovation by firmly adhering to the ideals of justice and accessibility.

India needs to rethink its approach for the upcoming “TRIPS 2.0” period as the global IP landscape shifts into the digital age, characterised by artificial intelligence, algorithmic creativity, data monopolisation, and genetic resource expropriation. A balanced model that incorporates ethical innovation, traditional knowledge protection, and digital sovereignty into its IP policy is necessary for the future. A compassionate and inclusive global intellectual property regime will be shaped in large part by bolstering domestic institutions, increasing engagement in multilateral diplomacy, and promoting a South-South alliance. In the end, India’s transition from TRIPS compliance to digital leadership is a prime example of a larger idea: intellectual property laws should promote both technological advancement and the welfare of all people.