Department of Biotechnology released DBT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY GUIDELINES 2023.
The policy guidelines tried to answer the long-debated issue- Exclusive licensing of technology vs. non-exclusive? While recognizing the merits of exclusive licensing, an attempt is made to link it TRL level.
5.2. Exclusive licensing
5.2.a. For research leads in lower TRLs, exclusive licensing may be considered.
5.2.b. Public interest should be protected with clauses on the availability of the final product
in Indian markets at affordable rates, especially for products with the potential for mass
deployment.
5.2.c. Timelines on commercialization should be clearly defined in a licensing agreement.
5.2.d. Preference to Biotech SMEs and Manufacturing in India.
5.2.e. Preferred purchase arrangements for start-ups for products developed under
government-funded programs.
5.2.f. A standard licensing agreement framework may be developed by the public
institution that would ensure a share of the revenue earned by the licensee to be given
to the partnering public institutions for a limited timeframe.
5.2.g. The license shall be subject to the irrevocable, royalty-free right of the
Government of India to practice or to require the licensee to grant sublicenses to
responsible applicants, on reasonable terms, when necessary to fulfill the health safety or
security needs of the country.
This report gives a glimpse of what is happening in DBT-funded research institutes. Patent analysis:
Between 1997 and 2027 DBT applied for 256 distinct patent families, on the average of 22-24 per year. NII, Delhi is the msost active with 42 of the 256 followed by IGGEB with 27 and CDFC 11, NCCS 10, NBRC 9, RGCB-8
Also read: Ravi, R., Janodia, M.D. University-Industry Technology Transfer in India: a Plausible Model Based on Success Stories from the USA, Japan, and Israel. J Knowl Econ 13, 1692–1713 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13132-022-00908-z