European Commission publishes study on IP and agricultural biotechnology

 

European Commission published its "NGT patent study" . In 2023, the Commission requested an evidence-based analysis of how patents related to new genomic techniques (NGTs) affect innovation in plant breeding, as well as breeders' access to genetic material and availability of seeds to farmers. 

This study examines how the current intellectual property (IP) framework affects breeders, farmers, and plant biotechnology actors, with a particular focus on the use of new genomic techniques (NGTs) in developing new plants. The analysis combines legal, economic, and market perspectives using a multi-method approach, allowing the study to offer both quantitative indicators and qualitative insights reflecting stakeholders’ practical experiences. The report emphasises the interplay between IP rules and market realities, and highlights how this interaction shapes opportunities and constraints in the sector. The European plant breeding sector is technologically sophisticated yet structurally diverse, with many SMEs operating alongside a small number of large international firms. Breeding is highly research-intensive. The study identifies potential legal and economic impacts arising from patents on NGT plants. The increasing complexity of the patent landscape may pose challenges for smaller breeders to access plant genetic material in terms of licensing costs and freedom-to-operate constraints. The study highlights multiple opportunities to strengthen transparency, support SMEs, and facilitate licensing. Overall, the study concludes that a balanced, coherent, and transparent IP system remains essential for ensuring that the benefits of NGTs are realised across Europe’s plant breeding and farming sectors while maintaining diversity, competition, and long-term resilience.

Report-https://webgate.ec.europa.eu/circabc-ewpp/d/d/workspace/SpacesStore/e374dbb4-9cf9-4799-8d18-98a459a08c34/download

ipkat analysis-https://groups.google.com/g/ipkat_readers/c/KFTacG976GE/m/ZSAbQ0urCQAJ?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer

Papers and patents are becoming less disruptive over time

 Read the thought-provoking article by Michael Park1 , Erin Leahey2 & Russell J. Funk.

Abstract:

Theories of scientifc and technological change view discovery and invention as endogenous processes1,2 , wherein previous accumulated knowledge enables future progress by allowing researchers to, in Newton’s words, ‘stand on the shoulders of giants’3–7 . Recent decades have witnessed exponential growth in the volume of new scientifc and technological knowledge, thereby creating conditions that should be ripe for major advances8,9 . Yet contrary to this view, studies suggest that progress is slowing in several major felds10,11. Here, we analyse these claims at scale across six decades, using data on 45 million papers and 3.9 million patents from six large-scale datasets, together with a new quantitative metric—the CD index12—that characterizes how papers and patents change networks of citations in science and technology. We fnd that papers and patents are increasingly less likely to break with the past in ways that push science and technology in new directions. This pattern holds universally across felds and is robust across multiple diferent citation- and text-based metrics1,13–17. Subsequently, we link this decline in disruptiveness to a narrowing in the use of previous knowledge, allowing us to reconcile the patterns we observe with the ‘shoulders of giants’ view. We fnd that the observed declines are unlikely to be driven by changes in the quality of published science, citation practices or feld-specifc factors. Overall, our results suggest that slowing rates of disruption may refect a fundamental shift in the nature of science and technology.

EFTA-India Free Trade Agreement and Patents Rules Amendment: Compromising Public Accountability and Transparency in the Indian Patent System

 Recently, India and a group of 4 European countries- Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland (EFTA) signed a Trade Economic Partnership Agreement (TEPA) on a variety of trade related issues, including intellectual property rights. Significantly, the agreement requires India to make substantive changes to its provision obligating a patent applicant to furnish information about their foreign applications corresponding to their application in India. 

 Weakening Section 8 risks patent quality, discourages accurate disclosure of information about the relevant foreign applications, harming consumers.

Hence, it is crucial for us to reconsider the patent rules, taking into account the altered circumstances brought about by the TEPA agreement, which introduces Section 25(1)(h) as an opposition ground and necessitates enabling an active implementation of Section 64(1)(m). Our recommendation is to amend Rule 12, to include a sworn affidavit that all foreign patent prosecutions and their statuses, as updated to the patent office, are conclusive and comprehensive to the best of the knowledge of inventors and right holders. A rule can be introduced, whereby giving false or suppressing information under the affidavit could attract unliquidated damages for loss of time and resources of the patent office. This will ensure that if the company was aware of certain foreign patent proceedings but failed to disclose them to the Patent Office, a mental element can be assumed through an affidavit by default.

It’s crucial to uphold the safety net established by the pioneers of our patent law to balance the rights of the holder with the public’s interests. This is especially vital as technology advances rapidly while the law struggles to keep up.

(source: spicyip- https://spicyip.com/2024/04/efta-india-free-trade-agreement-and-patents-rules-amendment-compromising-public-accountability-and-transparency-in-the-indian-patent-system.html

Indian patents 2022

 

WIPO released statistics for 2022.

Indian patent office received 77,068 applications, 38,551 from residents and 38,517 from non-residents, more than Germany, the UK, France, Russia Australia, and Canada but less than China, USA, Japan, and Korea. Patents in force are 1,28,663 with non-residents share at 81.60% and most of them are in force for more than 10 years,

Report: https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo-pub-941-2023-en-world-intellectual-property-indicators-2023.pdf

IIT Bombay R&D report 2022

 IITB is India's premier academic institute. Read the IRCC publication highlighting R&D status.

Report on Evaluation of Innovation Excellence Indicators of Public Funded R&D Organisations

 

A quality report but wrongly titled as talk of  innovation excellence is pre-mature.

A total of 193 R&D labs were considered for this report from out of 660 listed in DST directory. A  majority 70% have either not responded or do not have details for analysis, strange considering this is an initiate of Office of Principal Scientific Adviser. Innovation Excellence is covered under the pillar Science, Technology & Innovation Excellence' which measured Scholarly Research Output, Development and Innovation Output , Commercialisation of Technologies,  Revenue Generation and Collaborative Research. The findings:

• The patent filings have slowed from 657 in 2017-18 to around 605 in 2019-20. The patents filed for by the 193 labs account for around 2 percent of the total patents filed within India and outside India by Indian residents. In terms of patents granted, the 193 labs accounted for around 8 percent of the total patents granted within India and outside India to residents in India.
• A total of 1513 new products and 1480 new services were introduced in the period under consideration. Of the 193 labs, there were 46 labs that did not introduce a single new product or service in any of the three years.
• The labs earned over Rs 5300 Cr over the three year period, with the main contribution coming from earnings through consultancy fees. The earnings through consultancy fees through non-government is however driven by a small number of labs that are also engaged in providing services to specific sectors like manufacturing, infrastructure and healthcare whereas the government consultancy earnings are driven by sectors such as electronics and infrastructure among others. Earning from commercialization (2019-20) was Rs 31 crores from government sources and Rs 36 crores from no- government sources. Extra mural funding from government sources was Rs 3959 crores from government sources and  Rs 259 crores from non-government sources.

The labs reported 1192 technologies in 2019-20 alone as TRL 5 and above targeted towards SDGs. Their  meaning is not clear to me.

Micro level data

Volume II has lab level data, two taken for illustration.

CEERI

Engineering is the bugbear of CSIR labs. This lab in electronics and statistics for 10 crore spend in 2019-20.

• number of patented filed- 0
• number of patents licensed out-0
• contribution to standards , regulation-0
• new products/ services introduced-0.23
• earnings from government sources- 0.02
• earnings from non- government sources-0.14

Institute of Nano Science and Technology

Some labs are always in the news, riding the hype curve.

• Number of PhDs, Masters and Graduate degrees awarded by the lab or awarded through collaboration with a University (per 100 scientific staff)- 13.92
• Whether the PhDs have been examined by one or more foreign assessors as an organisation policy- NIL
• Number of national awards and recognitions and fellowships received by members of the lab (per 100 scientific staff) -0
• Number of international awards and recognitions and fellowships received by members of the lab (per 100 scientific staff)-0
• Number of publications in quality peer reviewed journals (per 100 scientific staff-115
• Number of citations received by papers published in the preceding three calendar years (per 100 scientific staff)-1690
• Percentage of publications in top 10% journals-8.33
• Number of commissioned technology development/ design/project reports prepared (per 100 scientific staff)-0
• Number of IPRs filed (per Rs.10 Cr spent)-0.47

Recommendations

The present study reveals that there has been an increase in international technology transfers from14 in 2017-18 to 20 in 2019-20, but a gradual decline in the numbers of domestic technology transfers, from 636 in 2017-18 to 613 in 2019-20.

• Allocation of certain financial resources to all labs which can be mobilized additionally for translational research, pilot plant trials and scale-up. of the technologies developed in the labs for their improvement in ‘Technology Readiness Levels’. 
• In order to encourage the scientists to enhance the volume and value of IPRs and subsequent technology transfer, it may be useful to have provisions for definitive career interventions like financial incentives (cash awards, additional increments etc.) and preferential promotional rules.

Patents 2020

WIPO report analyzes IP activity around the globe. Drawing on 2020 filing, registration and renewals statistics from national and regional IP offices. India received 56,771 patent applications, ot of which 23,141 were from India, 10,478 from USA, 4826 from Japan, 3775 from China, 2682 from Korea and 2525 from Japan.Resident grants for India grew by 5.5% whereas that of non-residents grew at 6.3%. Non-Resident share of patents granted by Indian Patent Office were pegged at 81.1%. The situation was different for Industrial Designs where out of 12,793, resident applicants were 8962 and non-residents 3,831.India does not grant utility patents and is not a member of International Union for Protection of New Variety of Plants. Publishing industry data covered under Creative Economy do not have Indian data.

Universities lag behind commercial firms in patenting new technologies.

Top 300 Organizations Granted U.S. Patents in 2020 is a publication of Intellectual Property Owners. Out of top 100, the list full of commercial firms, University of California stands at rank 60. What expalins the decline of patenting by universities?

Paper ` Think universities are making lots of money from inventions? Think again' gives a glimpse.

Patents and the Fourth Industrial Revolution- EPO publication

The Fourth Industrial Revolution (4IR) is already triggering sweeping transformations in value creation and consumer behaviour. A constellation of disruptive technologies – the internet of things, cloud computing, big data, 5G communication and, of course, artificial intelligence – is paving the way for a new data-driven economy. This new study takes a truly global perspective on the technology drivers of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Drawing on patent data across over 350 distinct technology fields, it provides unrivalled insights into the digital transformation impacting the global economy today. Drawing on the latest information available in published patent documents, the data presented in this study show trends in high-value inventions for which patents have been filed in more than just the inventors’ domestic market, by counting international patent families (IPF). 

Bangalore is ranked 28th in 4IR clusters with Samsung Electronics (19%), Intel (9%), Wipro (6%) working on Software, power supply, data security. India gets the cake in cross- border collaborations, due to presence of MNC R&D centers. Some 11% of the IPFs related to 4IR technologies originate from teams of inventors located in different countries. On a global scale, India and Canada stand out in this respect, as up to 39% and 34% of their respective IPFs were co-invented in the period 2010-2018.

Using Inventions in the Public Domain- WTO guide

Developing New Products- there are millions of patents free to use in India. That is knowledge on tap.

Information and knowledge in published patents and patent applications plus other public domain knowledge can be utilized to help conceive, refine and/or formalize a concept for a product, protect the idea for a product and map its path to commercial viability.
This guide is organized in three distinct modules that review and explore the applicability of information from inventions in the public domain. The modules are as follows:
MODULE I Review of the public domain as a function of geography and time, with a focus on: (1) the public domain in developing and least developed countries and (2) the relationship between patents and the public domain.
MODULE II Exploration of public domain knowledge in patents, the relationship between patents and other intellectual property rights, and using the insights gained to find opportunities to leverage existing inventions and public domain knowledge for facilitating business success.
MODULE III Using and integrating public domain knowledge in product development processes from an idea’s conception to its analysis, design, testing, market launch and post-launch analysis for continuous improvement.
Download the guide.

Identifying Inventions in the Public Domain- WIPO Guide

A public domain invention is a publicly disclosed invention not covered by any enforceable patent rights in a specific country, at a defined time, such that anyone may freely use that invention in that country at that time, without liability for patent infringement. Using this conceptual framework, the guide teaches you a three-stage process for searching and analyzing published patent documents using the tools of freedom to operate (FTO) determination.

DESCRIBE (Module II)  – Gather information from the client about the invention: · What is the invention and what does the client plan to do with it? · Where does the client plan to use the invention?  When does the client plan to use the invention? – Describe the invention and its planned use. 

SEARCH (Module III)  – Break down the invention into parts and identify features to search. – Choose search parameters and resources: keywords; patent classification symbols; databases; countries; year(s); language(s). – Search for patent documents with claims that might cover the invention or one of its essential features, and identify potentially relevant documents to analyze.

 ANALYZE (Module IV) – Analyze each potentially relevant patent document: · Analyze claims to determine the scope of patent rights. Could a claim be interpreted in such a way that it might be found to cover the invention or one of its essential features? Yes/No/Cannot determine. · Determine the legal status of each analyzed patent. Is it still in force? If so, where is it enforceable and for how long? If not, is it expired, abandoned, invalidated, disclaimed or revoked? Is the legal status ambiguous or unsettled?

Download guide.

PATENTING OF MICRO-ORGANISMS IN INDIA, HOME OF PIONEER Ananda Mohan Chakrabarty

Prior to 1980, Inventions pertaining to microorganisms and other biological entities were subject to product patents in India i.e patents were granted for processes and products obtained using microorganisms but no patents were given for microbes as such. Louis Pasteur received a U.S. Patent No 141072 for process of fermenting beer but no patent was given for the living entity “yeast” per say. However, in 1980, Ananda Mohan Chakrabarty developed a “genetically modified” bacterium capable of breaking down crude oil.  This property of degrading crude oil was not not found in the naturally occurring bacteria and thus this invention was thought to have significant value for cleaning up oil spills. With effect from 20.05.2003 India has started granted patents in respect of invention related to microorganisms.

When an invention involves a microorganism, completely describing said invention in the description to enable a third person put the invention into practice becomes difficult.  It would be virtually impossible to describe the microbial strain, its isolation, selection and modification to guarantee that the other person will obtain the same strain from the same environment. In such a situation, the microorganism itself will form an essential part of the disclosure and a sample of the microorganism must be deposited in a recognized institution for its availability to the public. The depositor should, in particular, ensure that the deposit is made in the name of the applicant for the patent and a sample of the microorganism is deposited to an International Depositary Authority before filing the patent application. There should be sufficient time for delays in the mail or customs formalities (if the sample is being sent by mail). If the sample is found to be non-viable by the International Depositary Authority (IDA), a replacement sample has to be provided by the applicant for the patent.

Two microbial culture collections have acquired status of IDA:

(a)    Microbial Type Culture Collection and Gene Bank (MTCC), Chandigarh, UT, India

(b)   Microbial Culture Collection (MCC), National Centre for Cell Sciences, Pune, Maharastara, India

MTCC chrages one time fee for such a deposit.

·        Non-Profit organizations: The depositor has to pay a one time fee of Rs.20,000/- PER CULTURE (Rs.15,000 deposit fee + Rs.5,000/- for making ampoules) + 18.00% GST.

·        Commercial organizations: The depositor has to pay a one time fee of Rs.25,000/- PER CULTURE (Rs.15,000 deposit fee + Rs.10,000/- for making ampoules)+ 18.00% GST.

Example: Patent Number 251658: a novel microorganism which is suitable for the production of hydrogen. This organism is a strain of Thermoanaerobacterium thermosaccharolyticum under the deposition number FERM BP-10793 or its variant.

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.

EPO guidelines on AI

EPO release guidelines on the patentability of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning technologies. Artificial intelligence and machine learning are based on computational models and algorithms for classification, clustering, regression and dimensionality reduction, such as neural networks, genetic algorithms, support vector machines, k-means, kernel regression and discriminant analysis.
Artificial intelligence and machine learning find applications in various fields of technology. For example, the use of a neural network in a heart-monitoring apparatus for the purpose of identifying irregular heartbeats makes a technical contribution. The classification of digital images, videos, audio or speech signals based on low-level features (e.g. edges or pixel attributes for images) are further typical technical applications of classification algorithms. Classifying text documents solely in respect of their textual content is however not regarded to be per se a technical purpose but a linguistic one (T 1358/09). Classifying abstract data records or even "telecommunication network data records" without any indication of a technical use being made of the resulting classification is also not per se a technical purpose, even if the classification algorithm may be considered to have valuable mathematical properties such as robustness (T 1784/06).

Sovereign Patent Funds (SPF)

In the year 2000, a new patent aggregation business emerged under the name Intellectual Ventures (“IV”). Armed with more than five billion dollars from global companies such as Microsoft, Intel, Sony, Nokia, Apple, Google, Yahoo, American Express, Adobe, SAP, Nvidia, and eBay, IV aggressively acquired patents. Within its first ten years of existence, the privately-held company occupied the enviable spot of being one of the top five U.S. patent owners. In March 2009, IV expanded its reach globally to Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, China, India, and other countries, hoarding patents in important industries as it opened new offices on foreign soil. Indian innovators happily sold their patents for small amounts reported to be around 5000USD.As of today, IV owns a portfolio of 70,000 patents and collects more than three billion dollars in licensing fees.

Alarmed by the rise of powerful patent aggregators in the United States, governments from other countries have decided to counter with their own initiatives of aggregating patents through the establishment of Sovereign Patent Funds (“SPFs”). In the last few years, Japan, South Korea, China, Taiwan, and France have each launched SPFs. The Japanese government, through the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry, established its sovereign patent fund, the Innovation Network Corporation of Japan (“INCJ”), in July 2009. In 2010, the South Korean Ministry of Economics established a sovereign patent fund, Intellectual Discovery (“ID”). In August 2011, Taiwan created its first sovereign patent fund, the Taiwan Medtech Fund.  In 2014, China stoked fear in the patent market by establishing the Ruichuan IPR Funds.
Further Reading: https://lawreview.law.ucdavis.edu/issues/51/4/Articles/51-4_Nguyen.pdf

Are there patents in 1st Industrial Revolution? (IS INDIA READY FOR 4TH INDUSTRIAL REVOLUTION-PART2)

I raised this query in my bog post dated 19^th February 2018 and VK Varun, Scientist from DSIR, Ministry of Science & Technology commented  

During First Industrial Resolution, As per USPTO, 4695 patents were granted during 01/Jan/1790 to 31/12/1840 and its distribution is as follows:

1790-1800 [117]; 1801-1810 [084]; 1811-1820 [177]; 1821-1830 [595]; and 1831-1840 [3722].

Thank u Varun. There were indeed many patents and this was discussed in the working paper: Patents and the first industrial revolution in

the US,France and Britain, 1700-1850 by Sean Bottomley.

Some interesting aspects:

Between 1660-1760, few patents were awarded in England; it was unusual for more than a dozen to be granted in any one year. number of patents increases rapidly so that in 1800, 96 patents were awarded and in 1850, 513. Out of 72 'superstar' inventors born between 1660 and 1830, 81% obtained at least one patent in the course of their careers. 

Patent agents appeared in the third quarter of the eighteenth century. Agents offered an extremely valuable service; by 1849, virtually all inventors employed an agent (even if they resided in the capital). 

International patents: In the 1820s, Britons obtained, at the very least, 170 patents in France (6.3 %) of the total awarded) and in the 1830s, 415 (7%)  of the total awarded. Henry Bessemer worked on the problem of manufacturing cheap steel for ordnance production from 1850 to 1855 when he patented his method. He sold an exclusive licence to the Spanish  for his steel converter for £5,000. 

Patent infringement: Work on patent cases in the Court of Chancery between 1714 and 1758, shows that there were, at the very least, forty one cases instigated by patentees. The Court of Chancery offered patentees a variety of legal remedies – most importantly, injunctions.

Patent licensing : Between 1770 and 1845, around 30 percent of English patents were assigned in full and another 25 percent were either assigned in part and/or licensed as well. Many inventors licensed their patent. By selling a portion of the patent as part of a partnership agreement, inventors could obtain access to manufacturing plant and/or capital. Without sufficient capital, it is difficult to turn an invention to profit.

Many inventors made money : silk-winding machinery patented by Thomas Lombe in 1718 and worked in partnership with his half-brother John and his cousin William. Over the course of the patent term (1718-1732,  Thomas made £80,000, and when he died in 1739, he was able to leave his family £120,000, a colossal fortune by the standards of the day.

All inventors did not make money : there were many inventors during the industrial revolution who failed to reap any rewards from their endeavours and ended their days in poverty – John Kay, James Hargreaves and Richard Trevithick to name but three. Moreover, Kay, Hargreaves and Trevithick all chose to patent their most important inventions (respectively, the flying shuttle, the spinning jenny and the first high-pressure steam locomotive), but to no avail.

Patenting is not a new subject, only we cannot continue to ignore them for 4th industrial revolution too. in Part 3 we will discuss about pitfalls of leap-frogging.

Revised Guidelines for Computer Related Inventions

Government released revised guidelines on June 30th. It replaces guidelines issued in February 2016.
Means plus Function: The claims concerning CRIs are often phrased in means for performing some function such as means for converting digital to analog signal etc. These types of claims are termed as means +function format. The „means‟ mentioned in the claims shall clearly be defined with the help of physical constructional features and their reference numerals to enhance the intelligibility of the claims. The claims in means plus function form shall not be allowed if the structural features of those means are not disclosed in the specification. Further, if the specification supports performing the invention solely by the computer program then in that case means plus function claims shall be rejected as these means are nothing but computer programme per se. Where no structural features of those means are disclosed in the specification and specification supports performing the invention solely by the software then in that case means in the “means plus function” claims are nothing but software.

Who owns patents in Mobile Devices in India

The report `PATENTS AND MOBILE DEVICES IN INDIA: AN EMPIRICAL SURVEY by Jorge L. Contreras and Rohini Lakshané' provides useful data. Highlights:

• The report identified a total of 19,569 published Indian patent applications and 4,052 issued Indian patents relating to mobile devices from January 2000 through February 2015. Top eleven holders of patents  are all non-Indian, based in North America, Europe and the Asia-Pacific region.The single technology category with the greatest number of patents was communications (12,857). Of approximately 23,500 total patents identified, a total of only eighteen patent applications and no issued patents were held by three of the Indian firms studied (Spice Digital, HCL and Videocon).
• While absence of patenting activity in India is predicted, what surprised the authors is significant presence of software patents.  3,068 patents covered software-related features such as the operating system, message display, searching, file management and ringtone management. 
• Finally authors refer to a possible solution - One of the authors (Lakshané), together with the Centre for Internet and Society (CIS), have requested that the Indian government establish a patent pool covering critical mobile technologies, and that licenses to such pool be made available to all domestic manufacturers at a fixed royalty rate of 5% of the end product’s net selling price. Read the open letter addressed to Indian PM.

China received more patent application than USA and Japan combined- WIPO

Year 2015 report on IP metrics was released by WIPO. Highlights:

•  Around 2.68 million patent applications were filed worldwide in 2014. Indian Patent Office received 42,824 patent applications, 12,040 from India, 9,824 from USA, 5338 from Japan, 3,174 from Germany and only 880 from China. PCT applications not originating from India number 26,340.China tops the list with nearly a million applications, 80% from residents and mostly utility patent applications. India's patent position is higher than Russia, UK, France, Australia and near that of Germany.
•  USPTO tops in patent grants with 3 lakh, India grants 6,153, mostly (5433) from non-residents. There are over 2 lakh patent applications pending in India compared to a million in USPTO.
• Of the top 10 origins in the period 2011-13, Switzerland filed mainly in pharmaceuticals; the Russian Federation in food chemistry; France and Germany in transport; China, Japan and the Republic of Korea in electrical machinery; the Netherlands in medical technology; and the UK and the US in computer technology. Majority of applications in India are in Pharma and Computer technology.
• An estimated 948,900 applications for utility patents were filed worldwide in 2014, of which 868,511 were received by SIPO. Resident applications made up 98% of all applications filed worldwide in 2014, showing that utility model applications are rarely filed abroad. Compared to patents, the Czech Republic, China Hong Kong (SAR), the Philippines, Slovakia and Ukraine are intense users of utility models.