100 Best Innovations 2019- nominations invited

Innovations in mining not related to production from mining

This WIPO working paper explored the recent boom in mining innovation.
Australia, Canada, China, Europe and the United States of America concentrate the largest share of global innovation measured as mining R&D expenditures, exploration expenditures or mining technologies in patent data.
Our analysis showed how mining innovation spurs along the mining production lifecycle and value chain. In particular, recent mining innovation focused in exploration and refining technologies. However, some subsectors have contributed more to the recent mining innovation uptick more than others. In particular, there has been a decrease of the from refining technologies share in favor of those from exploration and transport technologies. We interpret these results as a direct consequence of the demand surge of mineral products in the same period. We also observe an increase of automation innovation in the mining sector. These trends are not new for the industry, which observed an increase in the 1990s and early 2000s. Nonetheless, we now observe a remarkable automation uptick.
 The distribution of economies contributing to mining technologies does not corresponds with the typical mining producing ones. Only China and the United States of America lead both in mining output and innovation. Australia, Canada and Norway also offer a relatively balanced mining output and innovation. Other typical mining economies struggle to be present in the innovation spotlight. The Russian Federation, Brazil and Chile are probably the best among these, while the other ones generate very limited innovation outcomes.
 Indeed, mining innovation is more likely to spur in functioning innovation systems not necessarily based on mining operation countries. Many developed economies not particularly relevant in mining production contribute in a great extent to the global mining innovation. Japan, the Republic of Korea and many European economies are the top ones among these.
 Traditionally mining producing and specialized economies such as Chile, South Africa and the Russian Federation have all diminished their mining innovation specialization. Conversely, Australia, Canada, the United States of America and Brazil have increased their mining relative specialization, which also means the contributed more to the global mining innovation intensity surge. Most of the increase in the exploration subsector is coming from the increase in specialization. Australia, Chile and the Republic of Korea increased their relative specialization in this subsector and are probably among the largest contributors to the exploration booming relatively to the other sectors. On mining transport, Chile and Australia were the only country improving their mining transport specialization.
The US, Canada and Australia, are more specialized in automation compared to lower-middle income and uppermiddle income nations. The selected economies are fairly weak in environment specialization. Only Chile, the Republic of Korea and the United States of America show a positive RSI for environmental technologies. 

SEPs in connected cars, connected homes.

SEPs (Standard Essential Patents) till now familiar in telecom like 5G now enter homes and automobiles.
 Patented essential wireless technology will transform an automobile into a connected car, a meter into a smart meter, a house into a smart home – the product of today into that of tomorrow.
Avanci a patent pool firm offering SEPs for connected cars, connected homes, connected meters. Kasim Alfalahi is the Founder and CEO of Avanci. In his previous role as Chief Intellectual Property Officer for Ericsson, Kasim led the company’s licensing and patent development worldwide – an industry-leading practice he built over 20 years. During this time, he and his team established the concept of patents as marketable business assets, transforming Ericsson from a net-payer to a net-receiver of royalty income. Under his direction, patent licensing became fundamental to Ericsson’s global success – bringing in $1.7 billion in revenue in 2015.

IIIF2019-Report

 The three day event was held in 10,000 sq.ft exhibition hall of NSIC located in Kushaiguda industrial area and attended by about 5,000 visitors who spent on the average 2hrs in the fair. Innovators from 25 countries, India, China, Macao, Philippines, Malaysia, Iran, Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Morocco, Turkey, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Portugal, Germany, Poland, Serbia, Bosnia, Croatia, France, Romania, Moldova, Canada, USA and Brazil  displayed their innovations. NOSTC selected 35 student innovators for this international fair from out of 100 finalists at National competition. They came from different parts of the country, Gujarat, Nagaland, J&K, Bihar, Delhi, Maharashtra, Chhattisgarh, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Telangana.

The fair was inaugurated on 1^st December by President of Indian Innovators Association, Dr ASRao, Dr Zengpei Xuan China, Edyta Wołczyk  Poland, YS Rajan Head of International Jury and Jayesh Ranjan IAS, Principal Secretary to Government of Telangana, Industries & Commerce (I&C) Department, & Information Technology, Electronics and Communications (ITE&C) Department. After honouring jury and release of book `Creating Demand for Local Innovations’ Jayesh Ranjan talked briefly about initiatives of Telangana state in creating dynamic, vibrant environment for innovators & investors.

Simply Science organised Science Quiz, Indian innovator Mohan Sarma signed MOU with Zimbabwe/ South Africa for technology transfer and VNRVJIET signed research partnership agreement with Gram Bazaar. Several leads on business / research partnerships/ patenting support were also received. Dr Zengpei visited and addressed student of VNRVJIET on Chinese Innovation System. Mr Winfried visited and addressed youth at CCMB on science and youth. Market exploration visits arranged for visitors under Start-Up exchange program.

Mr Iftekhar Pathan, Serial investor was chief guest at the awards function on 3^rd Day. Awards given by NSIC officials and IFIA members from China, Iraq, Poland and Portugal. Dr ASRao gave special awards for best exhibitor (Zen technologies), best incubator (IITK SIIC FIRST),Innovation Champion( Ms Annie Vijaya, Program Manager , TSIC ), best entrepreneur (Ram Kumar Verma, Native Araku Coffee), Rural income enhancement award (Jagarlamudi Durga Prasad) and IYIIA 2019 award to Mrs Kanak Lata, a dedicated agriculture scientist. Dr Nikhil Agarwal, Chief Executive Officer, Foundation for Innovation & Research in Science & Technology (FIRST) invited IIA to organise IIIF2010 at IIT, Kanpur, 27-28th ^November 2020.

Defense Reserach labd in India offer patents - royalty free

The Indian Defence Research Development Organization (DRDO) has formulated a new policy that allows the Organization to offer complete access to its patents filed in India without any licensing or royalty fees.  According to the notification, an application for licensing must be made through the DRDO website and a processing fee of INR 1000/- must be deposited. The Applicant is also required to disclose its financial and technical capabilities in a comprehensive manner, along with the application. All applications will undergo a screening process to determine whether the applicant has met the eligibility requirements and has provided all the required information. On completion of the same, a non-exclusive license will be granted for a period of 1 year. The Licensee is obligated to furnish details to DRDO, every year, regarding Working of Patents – Form 27. On completion of one year, the license can be renewed without incurring any additional costs. DRDO’s patent portfolio primarily consists of inventions related to missile technology, aeronautics, naval systems, life sciences, armaments, combat engineering, electronics and communication material.

List of patents.

knowledge is global but innovation is local

Knowledge creation is spreading to more and more countries. For most of the period from 1970 to 2000 only three countries – the United States (U.S.), Japan and Germany accounted for two thirds of all patenting activity worldwide. When the remaining Western European economies are included the share reached some 90 percent. But in the years since, the rest of the world has come from almost nowhere to account for almost one third of all patenting activity. Published scientific data have spread even more widely, with the rest of the world going from less than a quarter of all such publication to around half over the last 20 years.

China and the Republic of Korea are largely responsible for the rising share of new areas in knowledge production and innovation: they account for over 20 percent of patents registered in the years 2015–2017, compared to under 3 percent in 1990–1999. Other countries, notably Australia, Canada, India and Israel, have also contributed to the global spread of innovation. Many middle-income countries, however, and all lower-income countries continue to have substantially lower levels of patenting activity.

Innovation is geographically concentrated in a limited number of areas. The emerging landscape of global hotspots and niche clusters shows that inventive and scientific activity within each country is persistently concentrated in a few large, cosmopolitan and prosperous urban areas. In the U.S., hotspots around New York, San Francisco and Boston accumulated roughly a quarter of all U.S. patents filed from 2011 to 2015. In China, those around Beijing, Shanghai and Shenzhen increased their share from 36 percent to 52 percent of all Chinese patents during the same period.

Less than 19 percent of all inventive and scientific output worldwide is generated by inventors or researchers located outside hotspots and niche clusters. Despite the big change in the global innovation picture, more than 160 countries – the vast majority – still generate little innovation activity and do not host any hotspot or niche cluster.

Source: WIPO report 2019.

International Innovation fair (IIIF 2019)

IIIF 2019 brings  largest confluence of Innovators, Entrepreneurs, Start ups from all across the globe.

Why India is reluctant to sign RCEP?

India seemed to have pulled out of RCEP. Regional comprehensive Partnership Agreement (RCEP) is a proposed free trade agreement (FTA) between 10 ASEAN countries and their six FTA partners, namely Australia, China, India, Japan, Korea and New Zealand. It accounts for 25% of global GDP, 30% of global trade, 26% of FDI flows and 45% of the total population. From India’s point of view RCEP is critical. RCEP countries account for almost 27% of India’s total trade. Exports to RCEP account for about 15% of India’s total exports and imports from RCEP comprise 35% of India’s total imports. India runs a trade deficit with ASEAN as well as the partner countries of RCEP. India’s trade deficit with the bloc has risen from $9 billion in FY05 to $83 billion in FY17, of which China alone accounts for over 60% of the deficit. The primary reason is India's limited success with FTAs.

India’s experience with FTAs

Regional trade agreements (RTAs) have become increasingly prevalent since the early 1990s. RTAs cover more than half of international trade and operate alongside global multilateral agreements under the World Trade Organization (WTO). The first eleven years (1995-2005) of the WTO were paralleled by a tripling of RTAs from 58 to 188. Currently, 455 RTAs are in force globally. India is one among top countries in Asia with the maximum number of FTAs either in operation or under negotiation or proposed. According to the Asian Development Bank Institute, as of now, India has 42 trade agreements (including preferential agreements) either in effect or signed or under negotiation or proposed. Out of this, 13 are in effect, one is signed but not yet implemented, 16 under negotiation and 12 are proposed/under consultation or study. Most of India’s existing FTAs are with Asian countries which are quite different from each other in terms of the level of their economic development. The major FTAs that India has signed and implemented so far include South Asia Free Trade Agreement (SAFTA), India-ASEAN Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CECA), India-Korea Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) and India-Japan CEPA.

Indian exports to SAFTA countries have increased faster than its imports from them leading to a significant rise in trade surplus with these economies from about US$ 4 billion to US$ 21 billion. The maximum growth in exports to SAFTA region has been recorded with Bangladesh and Nepal. contrary to India-SAFTA trade India’s imports from ASEAN has increased at a significantly higher rate than Indian exports to ASEAN. Another important point worth to be noted is that the imports from ASEAN grew much faster than India’s imports from the world. The faster growth in imports has resulted in a significant increase in India’s trade deficit with ASEAN from less than US$ 8 billion in 2009-10 to about US$ 22 billion in 2018-19. With CEPA, India’s trade deficit with Korea from US$ 5 billion in 2009-10 to US$ 12 billion 2018-19. As in the case of ASEAN and Korea, India’s trade deficit with Japan has not only increased during2011-12 to 2018-19 but grown faster than India’s trade deficit with the world.

India seems to have underutilised its existing FTAs. The percentage of India’s international trade routed through the preferential route/FTAs is very low. According to the Asian Development Bank, the utilisation rate of India’s FTAs varies between 5% and 25%, which is one of the lowest in Asia. Moreover, exports to FTA partner countries and non-partner countries have grown at the same pace. Complex rules of origin criteria, lack of information on FTAs, higher compliance costs and administrative delays dissuade exporters from using preferential routes. The compliance cost of availing benefits under these FTAs is so high that exporters prefer using the normal route. India has actively pursued FTAs with several major trading partners in the past without benefitting much.

NITI AAYOG recommendation

Before getting into any multilateral trade deal india should

·        firstly, review and assess its existing FTAs in terms of benefits to various stakeholders like industry and consumers, trade complementarities and changing trade patterns in the past decade.

·        Second, negotiating bilateral FTAs with countries where trade complementarities and margin of prefeence is high may benefit India in the long run.

·        Third, higher compliance costs nullify the benefits of margin of preference, thus reducing compliance cost and administrative delays is extremely critical to increase utilisation rate of FTAs.

·        Fourth, proper safety and quality standards should be set to avoid dumping of lower quality hazardous goods into the Indian market.

·        Fifth, circumvention of rules of origin should be strictly dealt with by the authorities. In case of India- SriLanka FTA, Srilanka had started exporting copper to India by under invoicing of imported scrap to in order to show higher value addition for qualifying for preferential rates under the FTA. Thus, Rules of Origin (ROO) norms can easily be circumvented by simple accounting manipulation to flood Indian markets.The over-arching conclusion of this report is that FTAs have to be signed keeping two things in mind, mutually reciprocal terms and focusing on products and services with maximum export potential.

Patent amendment rules 2019

The Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2019 have now come into effect through a notification by the Central Government on the 18th of September 2019 in its official gazette. A major change brought about by the new rules is that now in addition to startups and applicants designating India as ISA or electing India as IPEA in their corresponding PCT applications, the option of seeking expedited examination is now available to a wide category of applicants. According to the Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2019 rule 24 C is substituted to read as follows:

“…(b) that the applicant is a startup; or

(c) that the applicant is a small entity; or

(d) that if the applicant is a natural person or in the case of joint applicants, all the applicants are natural persons, then the applicant or at least one of the applicants is a female; or

(e) that the applicant is a department of the Government; or

(f) that the applicant is an institution established by a Central, Provincial or State Act, which is owned or controlled by the Government; or

(g) that the applicant is a Government company as defined in clause (45) of section 2 of the Companies Act, 2013 (18 of 2013); or

(h) that the applicant is an institution wholly or substantially financed by the Government;

Explanation:- For the purpose of this clause, the term ‘substantially financed’ shall have the same meaning as in the Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Comptroller and Auditor General’s (Duties, Powers and Conditions of Service) Act, 1971(56 of 1971); or

(i) that the application pertains to a sector which is notified by the Central Government on the basis of a request from the head of a department of the Central Government.:

Provided that public comments are invited before any such notification; or

(j) that the applicant is eligible under an arrangement for processing a patent application pursuant to an agreement between Indian Patent Office and a foreign Patent Office.

Explanation:- The patentability of patent applications filed under clause (j) above will be in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Act.”

Source: banana IP

Demand side innovation policy

Demand side innovation policy is now considered imperative for nations economic growth. It needs to be coupled with more traditional supply side innovation policies. While , supply side is taken care in most developed nations, catching up economies still struggle for want of knowledge capabilities and funds. Demand side is more tricky and less articulated. Compatibility with WTO, multilateral, bilateral agreements is one issue. More daunting is the systems and mindset that comes in the way of picking winners. Training public procurers needs long term commitment of policy makers, bureaucrats and other stake holders of a National Innovation System.

This compendium addresses this new topic listing several best practices.
Available at:
Amazon India
Amazon USA
Amazon UK
Flip Kart
Notion Press
iBook
Kindle
Kobo
Google Play

Indian Pharma- export thrust leads to import dependence.

In the post-2000s period, India’s policymakers went on to promote an imbalanced growth of sales revenue in the case of large domestic pharmaceutical firms in an accelerated and highly skewed way. Large firms were allowed to grow by increasing their sales revenue through the expansion of pathways of low road to industrial development.  They were were allowed to produce and sell branded generics and combination products in the domestic market. Second, large firms were allowed to outsource production to small-scale firms for sale in the domestic market. Third, domestic firms supplied contract manufacturing and research services to foreign firms. Fourth, large firms were allowed to build strategic alliances and collaborations with other large firms of domestic and foreign origin. Fifth, trade was liberalised with a view to encourage exports embedded in imported active pharmaceutical ingredients. Consequently, there has been a rise in the number of large firms who do not undertake in-house manufacture of the core ingredient of the pharmaceutical formulations, or APIs, by themselves. That has made India dependent on China for key starting materials (KSMs), intermediates and APIs . 

The “success story” of the Indian pharmaceutical industry will be over when China enters the finished products market globally, which it is starting to. 

The Drug Discovery and Development Industry in India— Two Decades of Proprietary Small-Molecule R&D

Initially, post the 2000s, drug discovery research drove innovation activity by stressing on in-house R&D capabilities for close to 30 domestic pharmaceutical firms . However, the engagement of domestic pharmaceutical firms with drug discovery for new drug development has been on the decline from 2012. The number of patents filed on new chemical entities (NCEs)  by the domestic pharmaceutical firms is small . Presently, there are only three firms pursuing some activity in drug discovery and new drug development .
Read the paper.

Innovations in Public Administration in India

Conclusion in this special article by Dipti Gupta, Ashok Kumar Pandey, Amit Garg.

An analysis of the Prime Minister’s awards in the paper provides certain insight into the innovation typology in Indian public administration and its distribution. 

First, the technological and management innovations are predominant in Indian public administration. However, the citizen-centric and collaborative innovations in administration need to evolve much more in order to achieve citizen satisfaction and trust in service provision, so as to provide high quality of services consistently.

Second, the award structure change in 2016 depicts a shift towards a top-down approach promoting innovation related to central schemes rather than being oriented to local context. Priority should be to integrate people’s needs for services with various relevant policies of the government and awarded innovations, dovetailing them in that order. Feedback on service quality from the people is also to be incorporated in service assessment continuously.

Third, the public service innovation strategy should incorporate an institutional set-up for scouting and cataloguing public administration innovations with a focus on context, resources, and individual, team or organisational initiatives to create replicable templates of flexible order out of these.

Fourth, Prime Minister award process can be made more transparent by making all the competing applications visible in public domain and considering beneficiaries’ feedback while deciding the award winners, thus, validating the whole process. An online public innovation repository can help achieve this.

India's S&T policy under Indira Gandhi as narrated by Ashok Parthasarathi.

Lecture by Ashok Parthasarathi, DOWN THE MEMORY LANE RECALLING INDIA’S NATION – BUILDING EXERCISE is remarkable for his insights on early years on India's S&T policy.  Glimpses on his important part of Indian history:
Space Commission: After death of Sarabhai, Satish Dhavan was identified as successor and before accepting the offer, he gave his perspective and laid down conditions , direct with Prime Minister.

When PM opened the envelope, she found a six-page handwritten letter laying out a complete space profile from the current Sounding Rockets of the Ionosphere through the Scientific Satellite Aryabhatta the Remote Sensing Satellites. Dhavan called Bhaskara, to the Application Technology Satellite -6 to the APPLE to the SLV-3 our first Satellite Launch Vehicle to the Indian National Satellite (INSAT) to the Polar Satellite Launch Vehicle for Launching Sun-Synchronous Communication Satellites in Polar Orbits to, finally launching Geostationary Satellites called the Geostationary Satellite Launch Vehicle (GSLV).
Dhavan then came up to Delhi and met Indiraji. The 20-minute meeting went very well. Dhavan laid down three conditions for his finally taking up the job. First, that the Space Commission and Department of Space should have the same kind of powers and responsibilities as did the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC)’ Secondly, like the AEC again the Head- quarters of the Commission and the Department should, not be in Delhi but in Bengaluru, what with headquarters of the mammoth Hindustan Aeronautic Ltd, the National Aerospace Laboratory (NAL) of CSIR and the Aeronautical Development Establishment (ADE) and the Gas Turbine Research Establishment (GTRE) both of the Defense R&D Organisation Bengaluru was the Aerospace Capital of the country. Dhavan’s third and last condition was that it would be difficult- indeed in correct-for him and the institution he was currently heading- the Indian Institute of Science (I. I. Sc ) also in Bengaluru to suddenly and abruptly terminate a 25-year long association by his (Dhavan’s) leaving it. So he requested PM to agree to there being a smooth and gradual transition of the following kind. Dhavan would continue as Director IISc for a three year period after he took over as Chairman Space Commission. 
 

Battle for next generation SEP- CWA 17431 or CWA 95000

SEP issues sit at the heart of future technology developments that will support internet of things (IoT) deployments across consumer and enterprise markets. Meanwhile, 5G technologies will have an increasing role to play in the future economy by enabling the rise of the IoT.Not surprisingly, there is hot debate among companies involved in forging Europe’s nascent IoT.

On one side is a small group of companies that have shifted their business models from putting products into the market, to maximising profits from SEP licensing, including Nokia, Ericsson, InterDigital, and Qualcomm. These are the companies that hold a large portion of the patents that are essential for the implementation of key interoperability standards such as 4G/LTE, wifi and Bluetooth, as well as in emerging standards that will drive future 5G networks. Their guidelines is called CWA 1 or  CWA 17431. Qualcomm, Nokia, Interdigital, Dolby, and Ericsson are important members of this group.

The App Association founded an open and inclusive effort to develop a set of industry guidelines for SEP licensing, dubbed the CEN CENELEC Workshop Agreement2, or CWA 2/ CWA 95000. Participants included SEP holders and licensees of all sizes as well as those from industries just starting to jump into IoT, such as the automotive and healthcare industries. Apple, Intel, Samsung, and Cisco are important members of this group.

Independent inventor Kris K Panchoo from Maritius allege copying of his idea by FIFA

Kris K Panchoo is an independent innovator from Mauritius. He alleges his idea of a better referee system was copied by sports organization FIFA.
Problem: The system of refereeing was a 2-side observation of the infringement of the game - on one side is the central referee and on the other side is the lineman. From this system numerous problems were occurring because they could not detect everything as they are both far from the play action and the 22 players would often obstruct clear vision to detect infringement of the game.
Solution by Panchoo: a 3-side observation - on one side is the central referee, on the second side is the lineman and on the 3rd side is the Goal-lineman which is the new member I created to perform. I.e a Triangular observation. From this triangular system, refereeing errors would drastically be reduced but not to perfection because players would still obstruct clear vision. It took me like a decade to find the real solution. From writing of Indian mystics I shift the goal-lineman position from ground level to an elevated level near the goal post in order to have a Panoramic view. From this system nothing could go unseen.
Protection: He received advise  that proposed system of refereeing football relates to a scheme or method of playing a game and is consequently specifically excluded under patent law. Hence he registered it as copyright in India.
He alleges Infringement by FIFA & UEFA knowingly without acknowledging / license.
Details as given by inventor:

21.12.1986 TS – Triangular System of Refereeing Football was invented by its copyright owner – Kris K. Panchoo  but not Not disclosed 

1986 to 1996 A whole decade of research to finally transformed TS into TPS & TPS2 for a perfect and unfailing system of match control.

(TPS – Triangular and Panoramic System of Refereeing. TPS2 is another advanced version)

02.07.1996 FIFA and UEFA informed about an unfailing/perfect system of refereeing, without any disclosure of the system.

18.07.1996 informed by fifa that proposal has been submitted to Fifa’s Task Force 2000.

15.10.1996 Fifa invited Kris to have  system tested by the Mauritian International referee, Mr Kim.

21.10.1996 By telefax - I refused to discuss or prove TPS to anybody else apart from fifa’s for two reasons :

 21.10.1996 Immediate reply from fifa, rejecting my proposal of discussion and proving. 

ALLEGATION- FIFA REJECTED THE IDEA OF INVENTOR BUT STARTED USING IT UNDER A DIFFERENT NAME-additional assistant referee (AAR)

https://www.uefa.com/news/newsid=2048377.html

The inventor is looking for legal help to enforce his rights.

The DNA Technology (Use and Application) Regulation Bill, India

The Deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) is a set of instructions found in a cell.  These instructions are used for the growth and development of an organism.  The DNA of a person is unique, and variation in the sequence of DNA can be used to match individuals and identify them. DNA technology, therefore allows for accurate establishment of an individual’s identity.¹

DNA-based technology can be used to aid criminal investigations.  For example, the identity of a criminal offender may be determined by matching DNA found at the crime scene with the DNA of a suspect. In addition, DNA-based technology helps in identification of victims in the event of terrorist attacks or natural disasters such as earthquakes.  For example, DNA technology has been used to identify victims of terrorist attacks on the World Trade Centre in 2001, and disasters such as the Asian tsunami in 2004. Further, DNA profiling can be used in civil matters, such as parentage related disputes. 

Currently, the use of DNA technology for identification of individuals is not regulated.  In the past, several expert groups including the Law Commission, have looked at the use and regulation of DNA technology. The Commission submitted its report as well as a draft Bill in July 2017.²   In this context, the DNA Technology (Use and Application) Regulation Bill, 2018 was introduced in Lok Sabha on August 9, 2018.  The Bill regulates the use of DNA technology for the purpose of identification of persons in criminal and civil matters.    

Press release and report of Law Commission 

http://lawcommissionofindia.nic.in/reports/Report271.pdf

Where did Swedens Top 100 innovations originate?

This study has investigated how 100 of the most important Swedish innovations have emerged.The results indicate that 47 percent of the top one hundred innovations were created by inventors as employees of companies, while individual inventors and entrepreneurs have contributed 33 percent and university finally accounts for the remaining 20 percent. Companies and individuals often have a combination of technical expertise and market knowledge that allows radical innovations to emerge. Companies often may have a cash flow that sometimes can be used for funding extensive development.
An important conclusion is that the independent inventors' role has become more prominent in recent decades. Of the twenty major innovations during the period 1955-1979 25 percent of those emerged from independent inventors. Of the 20 innovations between years 1981 to 2006 no less than 45 percent came from this category. The independent inventors in other words have become increasingly important in Sweden.
Some important innovations from independent innovators:
The Respirator, Sparkling mineral water, The Screw propeller, The telephone handset, 

(Extract from report, Author Dr. Christian Sandström,
Ratio and Chalmers University of Technology, christian.sandstrom@chalmers.se  )

Trade fairs to advance SME internationalisation

The purpose of the study is to find out how trade fairs affect the factors in theory and practice, and how scarce resources should be allocated to gain an efficient trade fair outcome.
Black (1986) defines trade fairs as “events that bring together, in a single location, a group of suppliers who set up physical exhibits of their products and services from a given industry or discipline”. Trade fairs can be roughly categorised based on their geographical coverage, i.e. whether they have international, national or local focus.  Moreover, market coverage classifies fairs regarding their appeal on one particular industry, i.e. vertical trade fair, or appeal on all sorts of goods and services from different industries, i.e. horisontal trade fairs. (O’Hara 1993.)10 most common objectives of trade fair participation: 1. make direct sales, 2.maintain contact and image with former customers 3. make contact and create image with new potential customers, important especially for companies penetrating new market areas 4. introduce a new product or a new line, fairs are a more efficient way to introduce a new product than traditional sales call 5. demonstrate nonportable equipment 6. on-the-spot technical problem solving, increases time usage efficiency 7. find new ideas or applications 8. build morale of local sales representatives 9. counter participation by competitors, enables attendees to compare own products to competitors’ ones 10. recruit personnel.
Authors Miika Kreivi, Matti Muhos, Lingyun Wang, and Pekka Kess illustrate the benefits with 3 cases from China fair. 

Patent Infringement Risk-Singapore introduces Intellectual Property Insurance Initiative for Innovators (IPIII)

I talked about Patent Infringement Rik in my 2004 paper-Covering Patent infringement risks in technology transfer agreements, advocated insurance as solution.

This article analyses the emerging scenario; closing gaps between Indian lab transactions and state-of-art, liberal interpretation of patent infringements by US courts, aggressive patenting strategies of MNCs, globalisation of operations by Indian licensee’s  and advocates a mechanism to convert `uncertainty’ into `risk’ and covering of `risk’ with insurance. 

The Intellectual Property Office of Singapore (IPOS), Lloyd’s Asia and Antares Underwriting Asia announced ( June 2019) a new initiative to support innovative enterprises as they enter global markets. Called the Intellectual Property Insurance Initiative for Innovators (IPIII), it will give innovative enterprises insurance coverage for legal expenses that may be incurred in intellectual property (IP) infringement proceedings worldwide.Under IPIII1, enterprises and innovators with a Singapore patent, trademark or registered design can take up an insurance policy with substantial cost savings that pays the legal costs of enforcing IP rights or defending against allegations of IP infringement.
More information on IPIII and Antares’ IP insurance policy at www.ipos.gov.sg/protecting-your-ideas/ip-insurance and
www.antaresunderwriting.com/intellectual_property_insurance/ respectively.
The policy pays the legal costs arising from:  • Allegations of infringement of your intellectual property - cover for legal fees to pursue a potential infringer  • Allegations of infringement of someone else’s intellectual property - cover for legal fees to defend an allegation of infringement  • Allegations of infringement against your licensee - cover for legal fees to defend an allegation of infringement made against a licensee  • Disputes between you and your licensee - cover for legal fees to ensure a licensee performs within the terms of their licence agreement.
The insurer gives 20% discount under this policy.

DRDO products for export

Details of products for export are available:
https://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/pub/ebooks/DRDO_Developed_Products_for_Export/html5forpc.html?page=1&bbv=1&pcode=

DRDO technologies for licensing

DRDO has listed several dual use/ commercial technologies under category B. They can be checked at:
https://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/English/index.jsp?pg=cat-b-technology.jsp

The following agencies can be contacted for Technology Transfer

1. National Research Development Corporation
2. Confederation of Indian Industry
3. PHD Chamber of Commerce and Industry
4. The Associated Chambers of Commerce and Industry of India

 Technologies transferred are listed at:
https://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/English/index.jsp?pg=cat-b-tech-delivered.jsp

Additional list of technologies ready to transfer are at:
https://www.drdo.gov.in/drdo/English/index.jsp?pg=cat-b-tech-ready.jsp

Public Procurement Policy revised to boost Make-In-India

Government of India revised 2017 order on local preference in public procurement.
1. upto Rs50 lakhs only the local supplier shall be eligible to bid,
2. purchase preference to local supplier where the total value is more than 50L but divisible among bidders.
3. The minimum local content is 50%.
4.The margin of purchase preference can be upto 20%.
5.Self certificate by local supplier accepted on local content.
6. supplies protected under IPR exempted from local content stipulation.

India is not a member of WTO's GPA and has chosen to be observer only.

Why India needs a reindustrialisation drive

Why doesn’t India have an industrial policy, given that even the neo-liberal bastions, its biggest critics, are seeing in it a viable response to the relentless Chinese challenge?

Instead, we are going in the reverse direction—with a 14% decline in our high-tech industry and the percentage of GDP devoted to research and development (R&D) decreasing from 0.85% in 2011 to 0.63% in 2015, an anomaly of serious dimensions in today’s technology-driven world.

India needs a reindustrialisation drive to create a level-playing field for the country’s private manufacturers and increase their R&D intensification. Consider this: The much-touted Indian services sector, which forms almost 61% of the economy, generates around $183 billion of exports, while the beleaguered manufacturing sector, the serial sacrificial lamb in trade negotiations (to save H1B jobs) with only 16%, generates $210 billion! It is clear which one is the most productive sector of our economy, and which ones creates more multipliers, jobs and domestic value-addition.

Read more on this article by By Smita Purushottam

Inventor Assistance Program-WIPO

Officially launched in 2016, the Inventor Assistance Program aims to level the playing field for inventors who have great ideas but struggle to secure patents due to a lack of funds. The WIPO-led public-private partnership helps these inventors get professional support from patent experts who offer legal services at no cost to the inventors – a boost for individual innovators, as well as their countries’ economic development. This WIPO established the Inventor Assistance Program to level the playing field for under-resourced inventors in developing countries by pairing them with a specialist to help draft and prosecute their patent applications.

Volunteers provide free assistance before the inventor’s local patent office and in selected jurisdictions. The program operates in five countries today: Ecuador, Colombia, Morocco, the Philippines, and South Africa. For the inventors wishing to protect their invention at the international level, the IAP also provides support for the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) national and regional phase entry in the United States of America and in Europe. The program plans to expand to Japan in the near future.

Already, the IAP has helped 39 inventors. So far, five patents have been granted in Colombia. The covered inventions include a device that stabilizes vehicles on wet, muddy roads, specialized kitchen equipment to cook lasagna, a machine that helps the visually impaired distinguish coins, modular furniture and an automated car covering by inventor Ivan Rizo.

Source: WIPO

2019 Emerging Therapeutic Company Trend Report

Some of the key findings from this report prepared by BIO are:
• Venture Capital Investment: A record $12.3 billion in venture funding went to U.S. emerging therapeutic companies in 2018, with 95% toward novel R&D and only 5% into drug improvement R&D for existing drugs. Venture investment into innovative U.S. therapeutic companies continues to outpace Europe (5.7x), Asia (4.6x), and the rest of the world (35x) despite a record $5.2 billion for Ex-U.S. companies.  First-time Series A financing broke a record in the U.S. with 109 new companies receiving funding, indicating a robust interest in early-stage biotech.
• IPOs: U.S.-based R&D-stage emerging therapeutic companies were able to raise $5.1 billion from 47 IPOs in 2018, a record dollar amount and the 2nd highest number of IPOs in a decade. Ex-U.S. based R&D-stage emerging therapeutic companies raised $2.3 billion from 22 IPOs, a record dollar amount.
• Follow-On Public Offerings: Public market follow-on offerings for U.S.-based R&D-stage emerging therapeutic companies remained strong, with $11.5 billion raised in 2018 across 118 offerings (valued at $10 million or more). Ex-U.S.-based R&D-stage emerging therapeutic companies raised $3.2 billion from 28 transactions in 2018, a record year in dollars raised and the number of financings.
• Licensing: Global R&D-stage licensing deals (valued at $10 million or more) brought in $9.1 billion in upfront payments, a 107% increase over 2017. Asian emerging company assets accounted for a record 18 of these deals in 2018, albeit reaching only 11% of the total funds raised.
• Acquisitions: The number of global R&D-stage emerging therapeutic company acquisitions rebounded from a decade low of 21 in 2017 to 28 in 2018. A record $32.5 billion was paid upfront for the 28 R&D-stage companies. U.S.-based companies accounted for 66% of the R&D-stage emerging company acquisition targets. The number of global market-stage emerging therapeutic company acquisitions reached a decade low of four acquisitions for $2.2 billion (upfront).
• Global Clinical Pipeline: Total active clinical-stage programs reached a record 6,984 with emerging companies accounting for 73% of these programs. Emerging companies have 94 marketing applications for new drugs (NDA/ BLAs) under review at the U.S. FDA. U.S.-based emerging companies account for 62% of these submissions. 

Fintech Startups- regulatory framework

On April 18, 2019, the RBI announced the Draft Enabling Framework for Regulatory Sandbox (“Proposed Framework”), detailing the proposed features of the sandbox. The Proposed Framework is a draft for public comments, and is not effective yet.

The Indian fintech sector has witnessed exponential growth and, by some accounts, is presently the world's second largest fintech hub with more than 2,000 entities operating in this sector.¹ While the term “fintech” has emerged from a combination of the words “finance” and “technology”, there is no universal consensus on what innovations fall under the “fintech” umbrella. Some of the major products and services that are now synonymous with fintech innovations include the digital payments ecosystem, peer-to-peer lending platforms, crowd-funding, crypto-assets and blockchain technology, distributed ledgers technology, Big Data, smart contracts, robo-advisors and aggregators.

However, as traditional law and policy development is slow to catch up with the rapid pace of technological innovation, innovators look towards regulators to develop new approaches to support this rapid speed of growth.

In view of the growing significance of fintech innovations,² the RBI set up an inter-regulatory ‘Working Group on FinTech and Digital Banking’ in July 2016³ to study the regulatory responses to such innovations across the globe. The Group included representatives from the RBI, Securities Exchange Board of India (“SEBI”), Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (“IRDAI”), and Pension Fund Regulatory and Development Authority (“PFRDA”), select financial entities regulated by these agencies, rating agencies and fintech consultants and companies.

On February 08, 2018, this Working Group released its report, which, among other things, recommended the formulation of an appropriate framework for a regulatory sandbox. The Working Group noted that sandboxes offered benefits including limited testing which would answer questions, before the product is made available more broadly, on the product’s concerns as well as its potential for success. It observed that the objective of a sandbox should be “to encourage more fintech experimentation within a well-defined space and duration where regulators will provide the requisite regulatory support, so as to increase efficiency, manage risks better and create new opportunities for consumers.”

Read more :   http://www.nishithdesai.com/information/news-storage/news-details/newsid/5501/html/1.html