Strategic IPR Reconfiguration: Global & Indian Legal Developments

The global landscape of intellectual property rights (IPR) has undergone a foundational metamorphosis between 2021 and 2026. This period marks the definitive transition from a framework centered on physical industrial outputs to one anchored in the "intangible economy." By early 2025, the estimated value of corporate intangible assets—encompassing intellectual property, software, data, brands, and organizational capabilities—reached the landmark figure of $100 trillion. This valuation now exceeds the combined gross domestic product of the world’s largest economies, signaling that the primary drivers of wealth and competitive advantage are no longer tangible resources but the legal architectures governing innovation and information. This evolution is characterized by several intersecting forces: the administrative overhaul of national systems, specifically in India; the profound legal challenges posed by generative artificial intelligence (AI); and the maturation of international regimes such as the Unified Patent Court (UPC) and the Riyadh Design Law Treaty.

I. Multilateral Cooperation and the Public Health Impasse

At the international level, the intersection of IPR and public health remains a primary site of legal and ethical contestation. The trilateral cooperation between the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), and the World Trade Organization (WTO) has intensified to address innovation gaps, particularly regarding antimicrobial resistance (AMR) and non-communicable diseases (NCDs) . This practical coordination seeks to enhance the empirical basis for policy decisions, balancing the incentive structures of the pharmaceutical industry with the equitable requirements of global health access .

The TRIPS Waiver and the Deadlock on Therapeutics

The central pillar of the international debate remains the Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS). Following the June 2022 decision at the 12th WTO Ministerial Conference, which permitted a limited waiver of patent obligations for COVID-19 vaccines, the international community entered a period of strategic deadlock . Despite a requirement to reach a conclusion within six months regarding the extension of the waiver to COVID-19 diagnostics and therapeutics, the process remained unresolved through early 2026.

Developed nations have consistently resisted this expansion, citing concerns over the dilution of patent incentives and the technical complexity of defining the scope of covered products. An October 2023 report from the United States International Trade Commission (USITC) highlighted that determining the definitive scope of products covered by the terms "diagnostics" and "therapeutics" is inherently complicated and subject to extensive patenting. Consequently, while the WHO’s standing recommendations for COVID-19 have been extended through April 30, 2026, the legal framework for a mandatory waiver on therapeutics remains absent, forcing developing nations to rely on existing TRIPS flexibilities, such as compulsory licensing, which often prove procedurally cumbersome during crises.

Global Filing Trends and Intangible Intensity

Despite regulatory friction, global IP activity has reached record highs. International patent applications filed through the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) grew by 0.7% in 2025, reaching 275,900 applications worldwide—the second consecutive annual increase . Middle-income economies, led by Morocco, China, and India, are rapidly ascending the rankings of "intangible asset intensity".

II. National Jurisdictional Reform: The Indian Context

India has emerged as a critical focal point for IPR development, attempting to reconcile its historical role as the "pharmacy of the world" with its contemporary ambition to lead in high-value innovation. The implementation of the National IPR Policy (2016) has catalyzed administrative digitization, yet structural gaps in innovation capacity and enforcement persisted through 2025.

The Abolition of the IPAB and Judicial Restructuring

A pivotal moment occurred in April 2021 with the abolition of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) under the Tribunals Reforms Act . The IPAB, which had functioned for 18 years, was dissolved due to perceived administrative dysfunction and slow justice delivery . This decision transferred the powers of the IPAB—including patent revocation and rectification—to the respective High Courts .

This shift led to the establishment of specialized Intellectual Property Divisions (IPD) within the Delhi High Court in 2022, followed by the Madras and Calcutta High Courts . The Delhi High Court IPD has introduced modern procedural methods, such as "hot-tubbing" (concurrent evidence recording) and the use of technical experts to assist the bench . While these divisions have begun addressing the backlog of approximately 3,000 cases transferred from the IPAB, the absence of a uniform national IP judicial system remains a significant challenge .

The Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2024: Administrative Efficiency vs. Public Health

In March 2024, the Ministry of Commerce and Industry notified the Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2024, marking the most substantial modification to the Indian patent regime in years. These amendments were designed to streamline prosecution timelines and reduce administrative burdens, aligning Indian practice more closely with the standards of the United States and the European Patent Office (EPO).

Key modifications include:

• Request for Examination (RFE) Timeline: The period for filing an RFE was reduced from 48 months to 31 months from the priority date or filing date.

• Statement and Undertaking (Rule 12): The requirement to update the Controller on corresponding foreign applications every six months was relaxed. Applicants now only submit these details (Form 3) within three months of the issuance of the First Examination Report (FER).

• Divisional Practice: Aligning with the "continuation" strategy used in the US, divisional applications can now be filed for inventions disclosed in either the provisional or complete specification, rather than being restricted to the claims of the parent application.

• Patent Working (Form 27): The frequency for submitting statements of commercial working was changed from annually to once every three years.

From an administrative law perspective, the introduction of a "prima facie" screening stage for pre-grant oppositions under Rule 55 is the most contentious development . Previously, every representation triggered a notice to the applicant; now, the Controller may dismiss an opposition at the threshold if no prima facie case is established . Combined with the introduction of filing fees for pre-grant representations (ranging from ₹4,000 to ₹20,000), critics argue this creates an "artificial financial qualification" that excludes a majority of the population from a procedure originally designed to prevent "evergreening" of pharmaceutical patents .

III. The AI Frontier: Authorship, Training, and Personality Rights

The rapid acceleration of generative AI has forced a global re-examination of authorship and inventorship. As of 2026, the legal framework is struggling to address machine-led creation.

The DABUS Precedents and AI Inventorship

The global campaign for AI inventorship, spearheaded by Dr. Stephen Thaler and his AI system DABUS, has largely failed in traditional jurisdictions.

• United Kingdom: In December 2023, the UK Supreme Court (Thaler v. Comptroller-General) affirmed that an "inventor" must be a natural person . A follow-up appeal in 2025 confirmed that a later attempt to name Thaler himself as the inventor was "obviously defective" given his previous claims of autonomous machine creation.

• Japan: In January 2025, the IP High Court of Japan rejected DABUS as an inventor, stating that the term "name" in the Patent Act refers specifically to a natural person.

• United States: The USPTO and federal courts have maintained that human authorship is a "bedrock requirement". The US Copyright Office's 2025 report clarified that prompts alone do not provide sufficient expressive control to constitute authorship.

• India: While the DABUS case was tested in India, the Patents Act, 1970, which refers to a "person" as the true and first inventor, has been interpreted to exclude non-human entities. However, in April 2026, the Delhi High Court mandated an eight-week deadline for the Copyright Office to decide if an AI can be recognized as a legal "author" under the current framework.

AI Training and the ANI Media v. OpenAI Case

A landmark litigation, ANI Media Pvt Ltd v. OpenAI Inc, currently before the Delhi High Court, addresses whether the storage and use of copyrighted data for AI training constitutes infringement. The case has seen intervention from the Federation of Indian Publishers and major music labels, who argue that commercial AI training without authorization constitutes prima facie infringement.

The Expansion of Personality Rights

The judiciary has responded aggressively to deepfakes and AI voice cloning.

• The Arijit Singh Precedent: The Bombay High Court established India's first judicial precedent against AI voice cloning, granting an injunction protecting singer Arijit Singh's vocal style, technique, and mannerisms across all media, including the metaverse.

• Sonakshi Sinha and Aishwarya Rai: In 2025, the Delhi High Court granted ad interim injunctions in favor of actresses Sonakshi Sinha and Aishwarya Rai Bachchan, restraining the unauthorized commercial use of their likenesses and AI-generated deepfakes.

IV. The Riyadh Design Law Treaty (2024) and Design Rights in India

The adoption of the Riyadh Design Law Treaty (RDLT) on November 22, 2024, marked a milestone in harmonizing industrial design protection. India, which witnessed a 78% rise in industrial design filings in 2023, has signaled its commitment to this framework.

Key Provisions of the RDLT:

• Grace Period: Article 7 provides a mandatory 12-month grace period, allowing designers to file applications after public disclosure without losing novelty.

• Deferred Publication: The treaty allows designs to remain unpublished for at least six months (three months in some contexts), giving creators control over product launch timing.

• Simplified Representation: Applicants can choose from various formats, including video files and graphic reproductions, to represent their designs.

• Cultural IP: The RDLT allows nations to require information on traditional cultural expressions and traditional knowledge as part of the application process, a provision India championed to protect its rich heritage.

V. Biodiversity, Traditional Knowledge, and the 2024 Rules

The protection of genetic resources (GR) and traditional knowledge (TK) reached a critical milestone with the 2024 WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge. Simultaneously, India notified the Biological Diversity Rules, 2024, effective from December 24, 2024, to operationalize the 2023 Amendment Act.

Access and Benefit Sharing (ABS)

India’s first National Report on the Nagoya Protocol, submitted in March 2026, revealed that ₹216.31 crore had been mobilized through ABS approvals between 2017 and 2025, with over ₹139 crore disbursed to local communities and traditional knowledge holders. The 2024 Rules include Digital Sequence Information (DSI) within the ambit of the Act, requiring prior approval from the National Biodiversity Authority (NBA) for inventions based on DSI accessed from India. Penalties for violations now range from ₹1 lakh to ₹50 lakh.

VI. International Developments: The Unified Patent Court (UPC)

In Europe, the Unified Patent Court (UPC), which opened in June 2023, has quickly established itself as a cornerstone of global patent litigation, with approximately 1,100 cases filed by the end of 2025.

Landmark 2025 Rulings

In November 2025, the UPC Court of Appeal delivered landmark decisions in Amgen v. Sanofi and Meril v. Edwards.

• Inventive Step: The Court established the "realistic starting point" test for assessing inventive step, harmonizing different national approaches.

• Imminent Infringement: In Novartis v. Zentiva, the Court ruled that completing all pre-launch preparations for a generic product in one participating member state can amount to imminent infringement in all member states.

• Public Health Exceptions: While granting injunctions is the norm, the Court held that proportionality may require exceptions when third-party interests, such as patient health, are at stake—modifying an injunction where a device is the only available treatment.

VII. Trade Dynamics and the EU-India Free Trade Agreement (2026)

On January 27, 2026, the EU and India announced the conclusion of negotiations for a bilateral Free Trade Agreement (FTA) . While India maintained its regulatory autonomy and avoided "TRIPS-plus" patent requirements that would impact its generic industry, the agreement introduces complex provisions for the digital economy.

Digital Trade and the Algorithmic Accountability Gap

The Digital Trade Chapter of the FTA establishes a broad prohibition on requiring the transfer of, or access to, software source code. Critics highlight a "regulatory asymmetry": while the EU retains scrutiny over AI through its internal AI Act, India’s ability to conduct proactive audits of EU-origin AI is legally constrained by the FTA text. Indian regulators may only seek access to code reactively, during court proceedings or investigations, rather than conducting systemic pre-market audits for bias or safety.

VIII. The Digital-First IP Regime and Data Sovereignty

The Indian IPR landscape is increasingly converging with digital privacy and cybersecurity frameworks. In November 2025, the Government of India notified the Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) Rules, operationalizing the 2023 Act.

The Integration of IP and Privacy

For IP owners, the DPDP Rules have significant implications:

1. Consent Managers: Scheduled for full enforcement in November 2026, this framework introduces registered intermediaries to manage individual data rights, creating new commercial opportunities for tech providers.

2. Anti-Counterfeiting: The 2025 focus has shifted toward integrating advanced authentication and digital monitoring into the legal structure to combat the rise of online counterfeits. Under new e-commerce discipline, platforms are moving from reactive "safe harbor" models toward a "conscience-driven" approach, where platform responsibility includes proactive catalog monitoring and seller validation .

IX. Landmark Jurisprudence and Enforcement Trends (2023–2024)

The Indian judiciary has delivered several judgments that redefine digital enforcement:

• Standard Essential Patents (SEP): In Ericsson v. Lava (2024), the Delhi High Court awarded damages exceeding ₹244 crore, affirming that royalty calculations should be based on the end-device price rather than the chipset. This empowers patent holders to secure financial security in telecommunications litigation.

• Dynamic+ Injunctions: In response to rogue betting and piracy websites, courts have granted "Dynamic+" injunctions (e.g., Star India v. Rogue Betting Websites), allowing broadcasters to extend blocking orders to mirror or alphanumeric versions of sites without filing new lawsuits for every URL.

Conclusion: The Strategic Integration of Innovation and Law

Between 2021 and 2026, the field of intellectual property has matured into the stabilizing backbone of the global digital economy. The valuation of intangible assets at nearly $100 trillion underscores that future growth lies in the strategic management of patents, brands, and data. India’s internal reforms—from the abolition of the IPAB to the 2024 Patent Rules and the 2026 EU FTA—reflect a commitment to administrative efficiency and digital modernization, even as they raise questions about the dilution of long-standing public health and regulatory safeguards . As the Unified Patent Court harmonizes European jurisprudence and the Riyadh Design Law Treaty simplifies global design protection, the coming decade will be defined by the ability of legal practitioners to navigate a unified framework where IP, data protection, and AI governance converge into a single mandate for ethical and secure innovation.