Doctoral-Level Research in Indian CFTIs

PurposeThe purpose of this study is to assess the intellectual property (IP) policy and innovation practices of higher education institutions (HEIs) and to understand the impact of national intellectual property rights (IPR) policy at the ground level. It identifies the barriers of HEIs in the generation of IP, its commercialization and technology transfer.Design/methodology/approachThis cross-sectional study aims to understand the innovation practices and IP policy framework of HEIs in India. It was studied in a qualitative approach with a structured questionnaire tool deployed to the top management of HEIs (targeted respondents), using convenience sampling methods.FindingsThe results imply that IP policies and innovation practices of HEIs in India are evolving and need to align with the global standard as envisaged in the national IPR policy. Lack of commensurate incentives to the inventors, linkages with industries and facilities were found to be major barriers among HEIs and research institutions. Institutional IP policy shall be framed to promote industry linkages with universities resulting in successful IP generation and technology transfer.Research limitations/implicationsThe sample size in this study is less; however, it does not have an impact on the study outcome, as it is a qualitative approach.Practical implicationsThis study brings awareness among stakeholders of IP generation and commercialization regarding the barriers and needed changes to overcome them through policy.Social implicationsIt helps policymakers to redesign the tools of IP and innovation policy to enable the innovation promotion at HEIs. This study identifies innovation practices and institutional barriers in the generation of IP.Originality/valueThis qualitative survey-based study helps in understanding the innovation practices of HEIs in India. It also aims to identify the barriers of HEIs on the generation and commercialization of IP.

The investment activity is diverse and can be carried out with the use of intellectual property rights in accordance with the current international and Russian investment law. The article aims to identify the specifics of the application of intellectual property rights as investments and the implementation of intellectual investments, i.e. investments endowed into intellectual property rights. The objectives of the study are to consider the categories of an investment and object of investment activity, intellectual property, exclusive and other intellectual rights, as well as to analyze and determine the features of legal regulation of the activity in question at the international and national levels in the Russian Federation. Based on the results of the systematic analysis with the use of formal legal, comparative and other research methods, it is concluded that investments as a property in a broad sense may include both exclusive and other non-personal intellectual property rights to the results of intellectual activity and equated means of individualization of goods, works, services and enterprises. At the same time, they exclude intellectual property itself as a set of various types of intangible products, moral and other personal non-proprietary intellectual rights by virtue of their inalienable and non-transferable character. It is argued to be the same with respect to the object of investment activity, i.e. the property which the investment is endowed in and is capable to bring income to the investor in the future. Investments into such intellectual property rights can be called as intellectual investments.The legal regulation of investment activity with the use of intellectual property rights has a dual character (in the sense that it is carried out by different investment legislative acts with the similar subject of their regulation) and depends on the type of a particular object used. If intellectual property rights are invested in fixed capital, then they are to be recognized as capital investments and are governed by the Federal Law of February 25,1999 No. 39-FZ “On Investment Activity in the Russian Federation Carried out in the Form of Capital Investments”. If intellectual property rights are used as the object of investment activity, i.e. where investments are endowed in, such intellectual investments are subject to the regulation by the Law of the RSFSR of June 26, 1991 No. 1488-1 “On Investment Activity in the RSFSR”.

The philosophical differences between Northern countries, which adopt utilitarian and libertarian perspectives emphasizing strict Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) protection, and Southern countries, which prioritize distributive justice and universal access, create tensions in implementing global IPR policies, particularly concerning important issues such as access to medicines and technology. This research aims to analyze the influence of philosophical approach differences between Northern and Southern countries on Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) policies and implementation, as well as their ethical implications for public access to knowledge and technology. This research employs normative legal research methods with a conceptual approach, analyzing primary, secondary, and tertiary legal materials through literature study, and uses qualitative analysis to interpret the differences in philosophical approaches to IPR policies between Northern and Southern countries along with their ethical implications. The research findings show that philosophical differences between Northern countries, which adopt a utilitarian-libertarian approach with strict IPR protection, and Southern countries, which emphasize distributive justice-collectivism with a more flexible approach, have significant ethical implications for public access to knowledge and technology, as seen in the HIV/AIDS crisis in Africa and access to education, where strict patent policies of Northern countries often hinder developing countries' access to important technology and knowledge, while Southern countries advocate for universal access especially for basic needs such as health and education, creating tension between IPR protection and fulfillment of society's basic needs.

Intellectual property rights (IPR), with the patent system at its cynosure, is one such issue which has been party to some of the most heated debates, staged in various international forums. In this regard, the vertex of contention is the age old ideological deadlock between private monopoly and public welfare, with the specific rights pertaining to innovations serving as the arena in this case. The global IPR landscape underwent a paradigmatic shift with the introduction of the Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) agreement in 1994, which established a set of minimal standards for IPRs. India, being one of the signatories to the treaty, was compelled to critically change its patent system wherein it had to start awarding patents on drugs. The change, which came into effect on 1st January 2005, symbolized a proverbial ‘change of guard’ per se in the history of India, wherein the deliberate exclusion of pharmaceutical products from patent protection had led to the development of an indigenous world-class generic drug manufacturing hub. However, its anti-monopolistic stance has caused India to receive, time and again, a fair share of flak for its IPR policy, with the NATCO and the Novartis cases being notable examples derived from the recent past. The situation reached a climax in 2014 with the USTR citing India on its ‘priority watch list’, for the purported “inadequacy” of its IPR norms. This precipitated the establishment of a national IPR Think Tank and the subsequent circulation of a draft National IPR Policy on 24th December 2014. With a country characterized by a quantum of diversity as extensive as India’s, the task of formulating an all-inclusive public policy in any sphere is challenging. This is especially accentuated for IPR, given that it is basically an intangible good stemming from a failure of the efficient markets hypothesis. However, it is quite conspicuous that the changes in India’s IPR regime over time have mirrored its gradual evolution from colonialism, to sovereignty, and now to superpower-in-the-making. Based upon this precept, it is quite intuitive that India ought to place the interests of its citizens on the top-most pedestal in arriving at a flexible IPR policy, wherein TRIPS-plus norms should be deemed sub judice. By virtue of this policy brief/article, I intend to propose an ideal national IPR policy for India with the aforementioned goals in mind. Furthermore, the proposed policy brief aspires to be as realistic as possible in its claims/suggestions, and hopes to engage its readers in a bidirectional dialogue regarding its specificity and appropriability, with regard to the fabric of the current Indian polity. In achieving its stated objectives, the article adopts a two-pronged approach. Firstly, it leverages upon the draft National IPR Policy (dated: 24/12/2014) as a skeletal framework, and carried out an impartial analysis of the same. It identifies the flaws/gaps in the postulates of the document and suggests ameliorations, wherever relevant. Secondly, it identifies lacunae in the existing informal Indian IPR policy structure, and recommends due directions in the stated areas. In all its analyses and/or postulates, the article proactively aims to accord the fundamental Constitutional directive principle of the achievement of an egalitarian and meritocratic the role its key thrust area.

Bertram Huber is a legal expert who personally participated in elaborating and drafting the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Policy adopted by the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI). In this paper, he explains the history and reasoning for his view that the obligation to license under the ETSI IPR Policy, once a commitment is given to license at fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms and conditions, does not necessarily extend to chipsets and other electronic components of standards-compliant end-devices. He further explains why, in his view, the ETSI IPR Policy does not compel an “essential” IPR holder to grant a license to every company that requests one, without consideration of where the license-seeking company operates in the chain of production or of whether that license would be duplicative of licenses granted to others. As explained by the author, his views are consistent with, and supported by, ETSI’s objectives and intent at the time it adopted its current IPR Policy, the express Policy language, and the long-standing practice of the telecommunications industry. In particular, he highlights how, in adopting its IPR Policy, ETSI intended to safeguard access to the cellular standards without changing the prevailing industry practice of manufacturers of complete end-devices concluding licenses to the standard essential patents practiced in those end-devices. Huber’s views on these issues rebut the positions taken by ETSI’s former Director-General, Karl Heinz Rosenbrock, in his recent paper titled Why the ETSI IPR Policy Requires Licensing to All.

With the intensive consumption and price rising of traditional fossil fuels, the development and utilization of renewable energy has attracted worldwide attention. Meanwhile, due to enhanced energy constraints and increasingly grim greenhouse gases, many countries all over the world have been developing renewable energy technologies to promote sustainable growth economically. Intellectual property rights (IPR) policy linked to renewable energy provides institutional guarantee for the development of renewable energy industry and technology. This study works to test the performance of IPR policies of renewable energy industry in China. We employed Cobb-Douglas production function and built on a quantitative policy indicator measurement system over the period from 2004 to 2013 to evaluate the impact of IPR policy of renewable energy industry on innovation and market development in China, which provides an all-round study on the IPR system by clearing up all IPR policy system that is related to the renewable energy industry. The results of Multiple Regression Models indicated that the current IPR policy of renewable energy industry are disconnected from China’s reality because the innovation ability of the renewable energy industry has not been improved rapidly and that both the market transformation ability and market prospect of new energy technology patents are weak.

The rendezvous between intellectual property rights and human rights has awakened slumbering legal spirits. Miscellaneous legal phenomena are now nestled in the intersection between intellectual property rights and human rights. However, the interplay between human rights and intellectual property rights is bizarrely characterized by amity and hostility. Naturally, therefore, situating indigenous intellectual property at the intersection of intellectual property and human rights becomes a daunting task. However, the dilemma is often overstated especially from the point of view of conventional intellectual property rights. At the outset of this Article, I shall be exploring the history and the development of the relationship between human rights and intellectual property rights. In the followng section, I shall be examining the extent to which intellectual property rights are entrenched in the international human rights instruments. The last section shall be devoted to exploring the phenomenon of locating indigenous peoples' rights at the interface between intellectual property rights and human rights and reflecting on the ensuing issues—an aspect which has seldom been considered in the existing literature.

Making a COVID-19 vaccine globally available once developed: Decoupling production of the vaccine from its development

In this paper, we analyze decision making on Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) policies in the standardization ecosystem. While a large literature has studied IPR policies of Standard Developing Organizations (SDOs), we contribute a more rigorous analysis of how these IPR policies are shaped by the interdependencies between SDOs and between SDOs and a variety of stakeholders. While SDO stakeholders often have opposing policy preferences, they are tied together by non-generic complementarities and a joint interest in the overall performance of the standardization system, which are constitutive characteristics of an ecosystem. The standardization ecosystem is characterized by widely shared institutional norms, which – in the field of IPR – result in the preponderance of what we call a “Baseline Policy”. SDOs’ positions in the ecosystem contributes to explain where in the ecosystem institutional innovations going beyond the Baseline Policy are more likely to arise. We analyze different mechanisms of transmission of such novel practices, such as emulation and precedent.

Caricom Single Market and Economy (CSME) firms operate under various laws and policies on intellectual property rights (IPRs), innovation and technology. International analyses and rankings rate the CSME countries’ performance as poor in comparison with others at the same level of economic development. This results in negative impacts on the economic and social welfare of their communities. A paucity of data existed concerning the effects of policies on decisions by local firms to engage in innovation and technology activities. The purpose of this qualitative case study was to examine the effects of policies on IPRs, innovation, and technology on firms in select CSME countries. The questions addressed how IPRs policies affect the choices of innovation activities by firms, and what differences in IPRs policies in Guyana, Barbados, Trinidad and Tobago and Jamaica, influence the decisions by firms to invest in innovation and technologies. Landes and Posner’s utilitarian exposition that IPRs should be based on the maximization of social welfare provided the theoretical framework for the study. Various policy papers, firm studies, study reports, and legislation from government and international agencies were analyzed using 4 levels of inductive coding. Findings included a lack of clear IPRs policies, high levels of innovation where policies were weakest, and a general reluctance by firms in the countries to invest in innovation and technology. Further study of the sociological and cultural aspects of IPRs policies, and how they affect innovation in CSME is recommended. This study can help effect social change in the CSME by informing policies that maximize social welfare through innovation and technology.

The article is devoted to the content of the concepts «intellectual property» and «right of intellectual property» and to the issue of the possibility of using them as equivalent concepts. The author considersthe features of a broad understanding of the concept of intellectual property, in which it is revealed as a complex set of social relations arising at all levels of public life. With this approach intellectual relations are only one of the varieties of intellectual property relations, the totality of which is subject to legal regulation only in part.Taking into account the above, the difference between the meanings of the concepts «intellectual property» (in the sense of this concept as a social relation) and «intellectual property right» is reflected in the content of the structural elements of the relations that denote these concepts: 1) Subjects of intellectual property rights are determinedon the basis of compliance with certain legal requirements regarding legal personality, as well as the acquisition of subjective legal rights and obligations, which are provided to them by legal norms (by using their legal personality); the subjects of intellectual property become participants of social relations of different levels, including those, which are outside of the legal regulation. Such interactions may be related to realization of creative abilities of a person, mental activity, etc; 2) In the centre of understanding of the concept «object of intellectual property rights» is the content of intellectual property rights as a totality of personal non-property and property rights.The defining aspect of legal protection is the right to the created object of intellectual property rights. At the same time the object of intellectual property is a value in sociophilosophical sense that satisfies the social, cultural, mental and other needs and interests of people. In this sense the object by its nature is a good for man; 3) Social connections between the subjects of intellectual relations are revealed through corresponding rights and obligations of the participants of these relations; in the relations of intellectual property social relations manifest themselves as interaction between people in different spheres of social life, based on the corresponding social statusesand roles, in which individuals carry out creative activity, realize their mental and cultural needs, etc. Understanding the concept «intellectual property» as identical with the concept «intellectual property right» is based on a normative approach. This approach shows that the concept of «intellectual property» and «intellectual property right» are used in the legislation in the same sense and can denote both objects of intellectual property right and rights about such objects.

The intersection of intellectual property and human rights is a relatively new site in the search for balance in intellectual property law and policy. Although this intersection opens up intellectual property to a unique kind of interdisciplinary analysis, only the human rights system appears to have seized the opportunity, while its intellectual property rights counterpart remains reluctant to engage. There are, so far, different competing first impressions over the nature of the intersection between intellectual property and human rights. Despite empirical credence of the conflict narrative, the co-existence of complementary thesis of the intellectual property and human rights interface has greater prospects for a meaningful and balanced rapprochement between the two. This chapter argues for critical scrutiny of the human rights appeal of intellectual property rights in order to avoid its potential for being hijacked by stronger stakeholders at the expense of their weaker opponents for whom intellectual property rights have strong paradoxical ramifications.

The Colour of Copyright

The world community recognizes that intellectual property and intellectual rights are one of the foundations of the modern business world. The issues of choosing ways to protect intellectual property rights are the subject of constant discussions. The authors analyze the problem in two aspects: from the point of view of state and international policy and from the point of view of the possibility of protecting their intellectual rights by participants in civil turnover. The purpose of the study is to study the mechanism of intellectual property rights protection, as well as to study the problems of compensation for moral damage and self-defense in the field of intellectual property. When preparing the article, general scientific logical methods were used, as well as a private formal legal method. The authors note that the conflict between the interests of the copyright holder of exclusive rights, on the one hand, and the general rights of participation and access, on the other, is a characteristic feature of modern society and culture, therefore intellectual property and intellectual rights are of interest not only as a legal institution, but also as a cultural model and socio-economic mechanism. With the development of digital technologies, the very principle of exclusivity of intellectual rights is increasingly being questioned both in theory and in practice, which naturally leads to a revision of existing ideas about the protection of these rights.

Issues, arising in the field of intellectual property rights in connection with the development of artificial intelligence systems and their impact on the development of legal relations in the economy and culture of modern society, have been considered. Aspects of mutual policies in the field of intellectual property rights and the development of artificial intelligence systems for the development of innovation and creativity have been examined. Questions of copyright and ownership in the interaction of man, collective and artificial intelligence or artificial intelligence systems have been raised and proposed. Issues related to artificial intelligence as an object of intellectual property have been considered. The position of the author on the legal personality of artificial intelligence to intellectual property objects created by autonomous artificial intelligence systems has been presented, which is expressed in the answers to the questions of the project of the World Intellectual Property Organization to the wide discussion of interested parties, planned for 2020 at the headquarters of the World Intellectual Property Organization in Geneva. The main conceptual principle of the author on the issues of the planned discussion is to grant the right of copyright and ownership of intellectual property objects created by autonomous artificial intelligence to a dressed subject – a person or collective, a developer of artificial intelligence with fixation of the latter as a sub-subject or instrument of the subject. Traditional categories of intellectual property rights also have been considered, such as patentability and the inventive level of property in connection with the possible generation of these objects by artificial intelligence. Issues related to data, its generation, fabrications and legal relations regarding data have been considered. Harmonization of international intellectual property rights policies to alleviate the technological gap between countries in the context of artificial intelligence development has been examined.