US Priority Watch List

• 27 Apr 2024

For Prelims: Intellectual Property Rights Policy Management framework, National IPR (Intellectual Property Rights) Policy 2016, Geographical Tag, Copyrights, Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

For Mains: Intellectual Property Rights, Need and Challenges.

Source: BL

Why in News?

Recently, the United State’s USTR Special 301 Report has again included India in the ‘Priority Watch List’ (PWL) of countries, along with China, Russia, Venezuela, and three others due to concerns about Intellectual Property (IP) protection and enforcement.

• Over the years, including 2020 and 2021, India has been listed in the USTR Special 301 Report.

What is the USTR's Special 301 Report?

• About:
  • Mandated by Section 182 of the US Trade Act of 1974, it is an annual review conducted to assess the adequacy and effectiveness of US trading partners' IP protection and enforcement practices.
• Designation Criteria:
  • The USTR considers factors like the severity of IP concerns, the economic impact on US rights holders, and the lack of progress made in addressing identified issues when designating countries to the PWL or Watch List.
    • Priority Watch List (PWL): Countries on the PWL face the most serious allegations of inadequate IP protection and enforcement. The USTR may initiate formal trade investigations or impose sanctions if they fail to demonstrate significant improvements.
    • Watch List: Countries placed on the Watch List have some concerning IP practices, but the issues may not be as severe as those on the PWL. The USTR uses the Watch List to monitor countries and encourage them to strengthen their IP regimes.
• US Government Initiatives:
  • Advocacy Efforts: The USTR employs bilateral negotiations, World Trade Organisation (WTO) participation, and stakeholder engagement to bolster IP protection with trading partners.
  • Technical Assistance: The US strengthens developing countries' IP systems through training for legal and administrative personnel.
  • Anti-Counterfeiting and Piracy Efforts: The USTR fights counterfeiting and piracy through joint actions, information exchange, and capacity building with partner nations and organizations.

What are the Concerns Raised Related to India in the Report?

• India's Placement: India has consistently been placed on the 'priority watch' list in the Special 301 Report, indicating significant concerns regarding IP protection, enforcement, and market access for American IP stakeholders.
  • As per the report, India remains one of the most challenging major economies concerning IP protection and enforcement.
• Inadequate IP Enforcement: The USTR report identifies various shortcomings in India's IP enforcement, including high rates of online piracy, a significant backlog in trademark opposition cases, and insufficient legal mechanisms for protecting trade secrets.
  • These include high customs duties on IP-intensive products and concerns over whether India has an effective mechanism for the early resolution of potential pharmaceutical patent disputes.
• Copyright Compliance Issues: India should fully implement World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO) Internet Treaties and avoid extending copyright licenses to interactive transmissions to protect copyright holder rights.
  • Interactive Transmissions are transmissions where the user actively participates, such as streaming music or downloading videos.
• US-India Trade Policy Forum: While some progress has been noted under the US-India Trade Policy Forum regarding issues like trademark infringement investigations and pre-grant opposition proceedings, several longstanding concerns remain unaddressed.
• India’s Stand on Intellectual Property Rights: India’s stance is that its laws are in strict adherence to the World Trade Organisation’s Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement, and it is not obligated to make changes as per other international rules.

Way Forward

• Joint IP Commission: Establish a permanent India-US IP Commission with representatives from government, industry, and academia.
  • This approach mirrors the successful US-China IP Working Group, credited with fostering dialogue and addressing specific concerns. This commission can:
  • Identify areas of mutual concern and prioritize joint action plans.
  • Facilitate knowledge exchange on best practices in IP protection and enforcement.
  • Develop harmonized IP policies to bridge legal discrepancies.
• Focus on Capacity Building: The US can offer technical assistance to India's patent office and judiciary to:
  • Streamline patent application processes and reduce backlogs.
  • Enhance training for judges and law enforcement on IP enforcement mechanisms.
    • This strategy echoes the success of the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which includes provisions for technical assistance on IP enforcement.
• Transparency and Stakeholder Engagement: Both countries should promote increased transparency in IP decision-making processes.
  • Regular consultations with industry stakeholders from both nations can identify practical challenges and solutions.
  • This approach draws on the EU's transparent IP enforcement regime, which emphasizes stakeholder involvement.
• Dispute Resolution through Arbitration: Establish a streamlined arbitration mechanism for resolving IP disputes between companies. This could involve:
  • Independent panels of experts with knowledge of both US and Indian IP law.
  • Faster and more cost-effective resolution compared to traditional litigation.
    • This approach is similar to the successful IP arbitration provisions within the Singapore-India Comprehensive Economic Cooperation Agreement (CEPA).

Conclusion

By fostering collaboration, capacity building, and establishing efficient dispute resolution mechanisms, India and the US can move beyond the "Priority Watch List" narrative. This innovative approach, inspired by successful global practices, can pave the way for a more harmonious and productive relationship, fostering innovation and economic growth for both nations.

Drishti Mains Question:

Q. Discuss the implications of the India-US dispute over the Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) regime on bilateral relations, considering the divergent perspectives. Evaluate the challenges and opportunities for both countries in reconciling their differences.

UPSC Civil Services Examination, Previous Year Questions (PYQs)

Prelims

Q1. With reference to the ‘National Intellectual Property Rights Policy’, consider the following statements: (2017)

1. It reiterates India’s commitment to the Doha Development Agenda and the TRIPS Agreement.
2. Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion is the nodal agency for regulating intellectual property rights in India.

Which of the above statements is/are correct?

(a) 1 only

(b) 2 only

(c) Both 1 and 2

(d) Neither 1 nor 2

Ans: (c)

Q2. Consider the following statements: (2019)

1. According to the Indian Patents Act, a biological process to create a seed can be patented in India.
2. In India, there is no Intellectual Property Appellate Board.
3. Plant varieties are not eligible to be patented in India.

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

(a) 1 and 3 only

(b) 2 and 3 only

(c) 3 only

(d) 1, 2 and 3

Ans: (c)

---

Mains

Q. In a globalized world, Intellectual Property Rights assume significance and are a source of litigation. Broadly distinguish between the terms—Copyrights, Patents and Trade Secrets. (2014)