ABSTRACT
The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in unprecedented global issues that impact various domains of governance and legality. This study project looks specifically at how the epidemic has affected India’s property laws, with a focus on intellectual property rights like copyright, trademark, and patent laws. The beginning of the pandemic accelerated the passage of historic laws and stimulated innovation, particularly in the areas of digital and medical technology. This paper aims to provide a comprehensive analysis of these developments and assess their long-term implications for the Indian legal system.
To provide a foundation for understanding the modifications resulting from the health emergency, the study initially identifies the state of intellectual property law in India before to the pandemic. The adoption of expedited processes for COVID-19-related patents, worries about coerced licensing, and the surge in trademark applications for pandemic-related products are the next areas of focus. These issues raised significant concerns regarding opportunistic filings and trademark protection. The study also examines how copyright regulations have evolved to take into account the increasing digitization of content and the trend toward online education.
This paper examines the short-term solutions and possible long-term changes to property law that the pandemic may require using a mix of case studies, literature reviews, and legal analysis. The study takes into account global comparisons in order to contextualize India’s strategies and evaluate their efficacy. The study’s ultimate goal is to provide well-founded suggestions for improving India’s intellectual property framework’s adaptability and resilience in the event of future international crises. In addition to adding to the body of knowledge in academia, this investigation offers useful information to help policymakers and legal professionals understand how property rules are changing in post-pandemic India.
KEYWORDS: COVID-19; Pandemic; India; Real Estate Sector
INTRODUCTION
Since its discovery in late 2019, the COVID-19 pandemic has fundamentally altered economies and cultures all across the planet. Legal systems were also put to the test as nations struggled to handle the health crisis, especially in areas where public health, economic stability, and technological innovation converge. With its enormous population, prominent position in the world’s pharmaceutical industry, and use of internet services, India faced particular difficulties that had an effect on its legal system, particularly with regard to property laws. The purpose of this study is to investigate the subtleties of how India’s copyright, trademark, and patent laws have been impacted by the pandemic. The world came to a standstill because to the widespread COVID-19 pandemic. Additionally, it revealed the preexisting disparities in wealth, age, color, sex, and geography, among other factors, which contributed to the pandemic’s disproportionately high impact on the weakest segments of the world’s population. The depressing state of the world’s healthcare system is mostly due to unequal and insufficient access to medications, Covid testing kits, vaccinations, and other resources. The conflict between intellectual property and the availability of reasonably priced medications, vaccines, and other essential medical technology was another relevant problem that emerged. It is important to note that although the argument over intellectual property rights and access to medical technologies has been for some time, the coronavirus just made it more heated.
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
The research methodology for this project is designed to comprehensively assess the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on property laws in India, with specific attention to intellectual property rights including patents, trademarks, and copyrights. The methodology incorporates a combination of qualitative and quantitative approaches to gather, analyze, and interpret data.
STATE OF PROBLEM
The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed and often exacerbated existing vulnerabilities within legal systems globally, particularly in the realm of intellectual property laws. In India, the enforcement and adaptability of intellectual property rights (IPRs) faced significant challenges due to the urgent need for medical treatments, vaccines, and a sudden shift towards digital platforms. This section outlines the specific problems that emerged in the domain of intellectual property in India during the pandemic, providing the foundation for the research.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Until recently (the SARS epidemic in 2002), the regulatory architecture of the current intellectual property regimes and its possible effects during a worldwide pandemic had not received much attention from the legal and economics academic communities. According to Santos Rutschman, this lack of scholarly focus contributed to major causes of inefficiency and subpar decision-making. In regards to vaccines and intellectual property laws, she contends that the world is not ready for the next pandemic. She also demonstrates how the absence of incentives for pharmaceutical and vaccine businesses to produce new products is one of the main issues. Santos Rutschman continues, saying that rather than waiting for an outbreak to happen before investing more money in developing a vaccine or other therapy, we should do it during periods of calm, when the disease is still rare. Santos Rutschman goes on to address The Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovation’s (CEPI) responsibilities and role.
In their analysis of the 2012 Mers-CoV and 2014–2015 Ebola outbreaks, Halabi, Rourke, and Katz point out a number of flaws in the actual policy responses. They propose that at such times, significant knowledge (asymmetric information problems) was kept secret because of loopholes in the patent system. The solutions they suggested included rewarding and sponsoring the gathering of any relevant data, creating a globally reputable database to which the results could be reported, and increasing the number of researchers without favoring small or solo investigators.
The literature following the Ebola outbreak discusses the drawbacks of new regulations such as compulsory licensing, as well as potential alternatives. However, free expression is a crucial issue that plays a significant role in combating a pandemic. In addition to IP law and patent law, Johnson and Bailey point out that free speech is crucial for providing the public with accurate information and preventing the spread of false information that could cause panic. They contend that the patent system actually hinders the development of new drugs and vaccines since, even in the event that a single lab group publishes a small bit of (unpatentable) knowledge that aids in the creation of a vaccine, that knowledge will eventually be copyrighted and benefit only them. This consequently slows down the creation of fresh medications or vaccines to combat the coronavirus. In particular, patenting a vaccine serves as a strong incentive for its development since, as Bailey and Johnston point out, it effectively creates a monopoly on it from an economic standpoint.
However, a more comprehensive view may reveal another difficulty with a COVID-19 vaccine, which would render the patent and intellectual property rights concerns insignificant. Even once a vaccine has been discovered or created; it still needs to undergo protracted, time-consuming clinical trials. In other words, even if a vaccine is created today, it can take a year or more for it to be approved for use by the general public. Because there won’t be many critical cases in the roughly one year that drug trials take to complete, and there won’t be much additional damage if the vaccine is released onto the market one month later, even if the patent law does slow down the search for the right vaccine by one or two months. However, it is imperative to support the development and manufacturing of vaccines during critical periods like the current coronavirus outbreak. However, there are still a lot of obstacles to overcome in the patent market, particularly with regard to goods intended to treat infectious diseases, so it is not a simple path to follow.
Beldiman believes that the best way to address the issue of infectious diseases is to create patent pools.Beldiman also covers a variety of economic stances, their (anti-)competitiveness, how they are implemented, and a number of the WHO’s rejected ideas. She also doubts the propriety of patenting virus samples, even if they come from a natural source.
According to Tietze et al.’s ad hoc patent study, organic chemistry and the creation of techniques and medications for viral prevention, diagnosis, and therapy account for the bulk of coronavirus-related patents in the field.Additionally, they note a delay between the epidemic and the filing of patents, which is in line with UK Patent Office procedures. Tietze et al. suggest that the high number of references to nonpatent literature written following epidemics may signal scientists’ urgent desire to release material into the public domain and make it promptly available to a larger audience.
Lastly, Walsh et al. contend that current IPR frameworks serve as a barrier to accessing IPRs during times of public health emergency and that a comprehensive reassessment is necessary, with the goal of incorporating fair and just legal measures that safeguard the public interest(s) within IPR frameworks that also address non-IPR barriers. McMahon muses that despite the substantial potential ethical and health ramifications, patent holders may still have a great deal of unrestricted choice over how an innovation is used under present patent law. Correa further contends that research into more effective and efficient therapies is encouraged by the current IPRs system and advocates for the establishment of alternative methods, such as “open-access” models, to stimulate greater research and development into diseases that disproportionately impact developing nations. In order to maximize health gain rather than profits, Light suggests nonprofit health care and pharmaceutical development that could reduce present health inequities. It also suggests using entrepreneurial collaboration for public health markets and inverting intellectual property to public health IP.
IPRS AND THE ANTI-COMMONS
When more than one person or agent is granted usage rights, the classic tragedy-of-the-commons issue occurs. Commonly owned assets have a propensity to be misused in certain situations, sometimes to the detriment of their worth. Common examples include oil pools, fishing areas, hunting areas, aquifers, fishing grounds, and locational amenities from the middle Ages. Economists have been prepared to provide answers to this tragedy for a century. The lack of efficient resource management results in a value deficit; utilization must be restricted. A management strategy that can guarantee effectiveness is the delegation of ownership rights.
The literature does, however, also depict the other side of the commons tragedy. There are other circumstances in which the presence of multiple interested parties with control rights (property rights) results in high transaction costs and underutilization of the asset. This situation—where a large number of people must agree before an economic resource may be used in a novel way—is known as the “tragedy of the anti-commons.” As mentioned, for instance, the patent system gives inventors property rights, which ought to strongly encourage investors to discover profitable new goods or procedures.
However, a “tragedy of the anti-commons” could result from the establishment of such broad property rights for technological innovations. As Leitzel notes, current innovators build upon the stream of earlier inventors and ideas, as seen, for instance, in vaccine research. If many patent holders have patented things that are necessary components of a new discovery, however, the tragedy of the “anti-commons” may occur. Due of the high transaction costs and potential hold-out requests made by several patent holders, inventors may then be discouraged from sectors where patents already exist.
Toward the optimal regulatory framework
A number of suggestions for a better public policy framework and well-informed political discourse are provided in this section. It explores whether COVID-19 will be able to buck the historical trend of failing to manufacture a vaccine during the time of an infectious disease outbreak owing to a lack of incentives. It also addresses vaccine production failures and incentive mechanisms.
- The TRIPS agreement and the pharmaceutical industry
In order to guarantee that patents do not become obstacles to the availability of such products, governments should move quickly to enact laws and establish programs that will offer a sustained source of incentives for infectious diseases. Specifically, the issue of how much intellectual property is protected needs to be resolved in order to strike a balance between investors’ rights and the law. According to a general theory of intellectual property rights, nations with varied degrees of economic development have distinct best interests when it comes to the strength of IP protection, and these best interests are subject to alter over time. More precisely, the individual or business requesting a license must have attempted, within a reasonable timeframe, to negotiate a voluntary license with the patent holder on reasonable commercial terms, according to Article 31 of TRIPS (Other Use Without Authorization of the Right Holder), among other provisions. The TRIPS Agreement stipulates that “the right holder shall be paid adequate remuneration in the circumstances of each case, taking into account the economic value of the authorization,” but it does not define “adequate remuneration” or “economic value.” A compulsory license can only be issued if that fails, and even then, the patent owner is entitled to full compensation.
- Compulsory license and march-in rights
The fundamental goal of patent rights is to prevent third parties from creating, utilizing, or commercializing a patented innovation unless the patent holder has granted permission via carefully drafted license agreements that guarantee fair recompense for the time and money expended in creating the invention. But as has already been demonstrated, the TRIPS Agreement allows governments to compel the licensing of a copyrighted technology in times of need, especially where there is a risk to public safety, by instituting “compulsory licenses.” In light of the COVID-19 pandemic, should governments make use of these readily available, if little utilized, compulsory licensing provisions?
- Strategically and temporarily waiving patent rights
As mentioned, governments are free to exploit any patented intellectual property (IPR) and simply have to pay a fair rate in exchange for using the compulsory licensing system and march-in rights. However, some IP owners have made the decision to put a temporary halt to the enforcement of their rights. In other words, some patent holders are reacting to the COVID-19 outbreak in an unexpectedly helpful manner, so eliminating the need for the government to use march-in rights and forced licensing. Specifically, requesting injunctive relief and delaying the production of the COVID-19 vaccine might seriously harm a company’s reputation and public relations.
- The COVID-19 pandemic and legal change
Legal and Policy Changes in Response to the Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Property Laws in India: In India, the COVID-19 pandemic has forced a number of legislative and regulatory adjustments to address the problems with property laws, especially those pertaining to intellectual property rights. With these modifications, we hope to achieve a compromise between safeguarding intellectual property rights and attending to pressing public health issues, financial worries, and societal interests. Key modifications to laws and policies include:
- Expedited Patent Processes: It’s possible that the Indian government accelerated the patent clearance procedures for discoveries connected to COVID-19, facilitating quicker access to crucial medical procedures and technological advancements. This could entail creating unique paths for prioritizing COVID-related patent applications or simplifying the processes for patent review.
- Compulsory Licensing: India may have taken into consideration, or put into effect, compulsory licensing requirements for COVID-19 vaccines or treatments, in response to the public health emergency. In order to ensure greater access at reasonable costs, compulsory licensing enables the government to award licenses to third parties to produce patented goods or technology without the patent holder’s approval.
- Trademark Registration Procedures: The pandemic may have led to adjustments in trademark registration procedures to accommodate the surge in trademark filings for pandemic-related products and services. This could involve increased scrutiny of trademark applications to prevent trademark squatting or opportunistic registrations.
- Copyright Enforcement Measures: India may have tightened copyright enforcement regulations to thwart digital piracy and defend the rights of content creators in light of the country’s move toward digital platforms for employment, education, and leisure during the epidemic. In order to prevent copyright infringement, this can involve cooperating with internet service providers and stepping up monitoring of online platforms.
- Policy Guidelines for Digital Education: Because online learning platforms were widely used during the epidemic, policy guidelines or directives may have been made by the government to support the morally and legally acceptable usage of copyrighted works in digital education. In order to facilitate remote learning initiatives, this may entail supporting open educational resources (OER) or putting fair use regulations into place.
- International Engagement: In order to support fair access to necessary technologies and foster international collaboration in tackling intellectual property issues during the pandemic, India might have participated in talks and negotiations on a global scale at organizations like the World Trade Organization (WTO) or the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).
CASE STUDIES
- Expedited Patent Approval for COVID-19 Vaccines: The accelerated patent approval procedure for COVID-19 vaccines in India could be examined in a case study. This would entail looking through the government policies, regulations, and patent applications that were put in place to expedite the approval of vaccinations created during the pandemic. The purpose of the case study is to evaluate how well the accelerated procedure protects intellectual property rights while enabling prompt access to vaccinations.
- Trademark Disputes Over Pandemic-related Products: This case study would examine trademark challenges pertaining to pandemic-related products, including medications, sanitizers, and personal protective equipment (PPE). It would examine well-known incidents of trademark infringement, issues with trademark squatting, and the legal procedures used to settle disagreements. The case study would emphasize how crucial trademark protection is for preserving consumer rights and public health in times of crisis.
- Copyright Enforcement in Online Education: Specifically concentrating on the field of digital education, this case study would investigate copyright enforcement strategies put in place during the pandemic. It would look into cases of copyright infringement on online learning environments, the legal difficulties teachers and content producers confront, and how copyright law works to strike a balance between the rights of copyright holders and educational material accessibility. The case study would shed light on how copyright enforcement is changing in the digital era.
- Compulsory Licensing for COVID-19 Treatments: The application of mandatory licensing laws to increase access to COVID-19 therapies in India will be examined in this case study. It would look at the frameworks of laws and policies that control compulsory licensing, the standards used to grant licenses, and the effects on patent owners and makers of generic products. The case study would examine issues with intellectual property rights while evaluating how well-suited compulsory licensing is to facilitating access to necessary medications.
- International Trade Disputes Over Vaccine Patents: This case study would examine discussions and disagreements about international trade pertaining to patents for vaccines during the epidemic. It will look at India’s involvement in promoting, in international for a like the WTO, the waiver of intellectual property rights for COVID-19 vaccinations. The case study would examine how international agreements on vaccination access, technology transfer, and global health equity may affect law and policy.
Adjusting the long-term incentives
The market for infectious disease vaccines has historically been regarded as one of the least lucrative pharmaceutical businesses due to its expensive and intricate development. There are very different financing structures in each of the three stages of vaccine development: antigen discovery, formulation, and animal studies in the first; early development, which includes optimization and the first and second phases of development; and late development, which includes final manufacturing, licensing, and the third phase of development.
It’s also important to keep in mind that vaccines are preventative rather than curative; one side effect of this is herd immunity, which protects those who receive the shot from contracting the disease by preventing them from spreading it to others (a positive externality and a solution for potential free-riding problem).
CHALLENGES AND OPPORTUNITIES
- Balancing Intellectual Property Rights and Public Health Needs Protecting intellectual property rights, encouraging innovation, and guaranteeing prompt access to necessary technology and treatments in the event of a public health emergency are some of the major obstacles
- Addressing Legal and Policy Gaps: Rapid legal and policy solutions are needed in light of the pandemic’s revelation of flaws and inconsistencies in the current property rules, notably in relation to copyright enforcement, trademark registration, and patent approvals.
- Combatting Opportunistic Practices: Strong measures are required to stop opportunistic acts and safeguard consumer rights because of the spike in trademark filings for pandemic-related goods and services, which has resulted in issues including trademark squatting and fraudulent claims.
- Ensuring Equitable Access to Technologies: Access to life-saving technologies and treatments must be equitable, particularly in developing countries like India. However, intellectual property barriers can hinder access, especially for marginalized populations, posing ethical and legal challenges.
- Navigating International Trade and Legal Frameworks: Global health crises provide complicated issues for international trade agreements and intellectual property systems. It takes legal know-how and international collaboration to negotiate fair access to vaccinations, therapies, and technologies while upholding intellectual property rights.
CONCLUSION
This study makes the argument that the TRIPS Agreement and the current system of patent laws do not present an impassable barrier to the development of an effective COVID-19 vaccine. Governments have the ability to effectively overcome intellectual property barriers, such as deflation in the market price of medicines, by utilizing existing compulsory licensing, patent-pools, research subsidies, reward systems, and reputational sanctions. This is especially true during the COVID-19 pandemic. Under severe information asymmetries, the widely supported modification or even repeal of the current patent law system may prove to be detrimental and distorting. Specifically, the cost of forgoing the choice to wait increases with uncertainty, while the value of waiting increases with the predicted value of the law over time. Of course, one may argue that the COVID-19 pandemic was a required stressor in order to make the IP law resilient and anti-fragile.
This resilience, however, brought about by the COVID-19 stressor, will be attained ex post, after the data required for any modification is easily accessible. Furthermore, as we have demonstrated, the legal frameworks currently in place (such as advance purchase agreements and compulsory licensing) may already offer practical and efficient means of mitigating the drawbacks of conventional exclusionary patent regimes.
REFERENCE
- For hospitality and tourism sector, 2021 is all about survival, recovery. Uma, K., & Gujar, S. (2020). Impact of Covid-19 Pandemic Crisis on the Real Estate Housing Sector. Psychology and Education Journal, 57(9), 4037–4042. https://doi.org/10.17762/PAE.V57I9.1622
- Impact of covid – 19 on real estate sector Journal of Global Information and Business Strategy, 12(1), 58–66. https://doi.org/10.5958/2582-6115.2020.00007.7 Thomas, S. (2021). Despite near term COVID induced uncertainties, Indian malls are here to stay | India | Cushman & Wakefield. Tyagi, A. (2021).
- Santos Rutschman, ‘Property and Intellectual Property in Vaccine Markets’ (2020) TA&MUJPL
- Open Letter to WIPO: Intellectual Property and COVID‐19, 2020 https://www.communia‐association.org/2020/04/03/open‐letter‐wipo‐intellectual‐property‐covid‐19/
- WTO | intellectual property – overview of TRIPS Agreement.” World Trade Organization, https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/trips_e/intel2_e.htm. Accessed 2 July 2023.
- 15 October 2020 Page: 1/13 Original: English 1 THE TRIPS AGREEMENT AND COVID-19 INFORMATION NOTE1 Key points • A full response.” World Trade Organization, 15 October 2020, https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/covid19_e/trips_report_e.pdf. Accessed 2 July 2023.
- Introduction to TRIPs Agreement,
- https://www.jpo.go.jp/e/news/kokusai/developing/training/textbook/document/index/TRIPs_Agreement.pdf. Accessed 2 July 2023.
AUTHOR- RINKLE MOHANTY
COLLEGE- SOA NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF LAW