Intellectual Property Rights — Practice Questions
UPSC Prelims-pattern practice questions on IPR with explanations — Section 3 exclusions, Doha Declaration, copyright, Natco v. Bayer, WIPO treaty.
Questions
These are original UPSC-pattern practice questions. Attempt each one before revealing the answer.
Under Section 3 of the Patents Act, 1970, how many of the following are not inventions and hence not patentable?
- A method of agriculture or horticulture
- A computer programme per se
- Plants and animals in whole or in any part other than micro-organisms
- An invention which, in effect, is traditional knowledge
Solution
All four are excluded: 3(h) — methods of agriculture or horticulture; 3(k) — computer programmes per se; 3(j) — plants and animals other than micro-organisms; 3(p) — traditional knowledge. Note that micro-organisms themselves are carved out of the 3(j) exclusion.
Answer: D
With reference to the Doha Declaration on the TRIPS Agreement and Public Health (2001), consider the following statements:
- It affirms the right of each WTO member to grant compulsory licences and to determine the grounds for them.
- It affirms the right of each member to determine what constitutes a national emergency.
- It made data exclusivity for clinical trial data mandatory for all members.
Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
Solution
Statements 1 and 2 are correct — both appear in paragraph 5 of the Declaration. Statement 3 is incorrect — the Declaration imposed no data exclusivity; that is a TRIPS-plus demand usually pressed in free trade agreements, and India does not grant it.
Answer: A
Under the Copyright Act, 1957, copyright in a published literary work generally subsists for
Solution
For literary, dramatic, musical and artistic works published in the author’s lifetime, copyright lasts for the author’s lifetime plus 60 years (counted from the beginning of the calendar year after death). Life plus 70 years is the rule in the USA and the EU, not India; 20 years is the patent term.
Answer: C
India’s first compulsory licence under Section 84 of the Patents Act, granted in 2012, related to which drug?
Solution
In March 2012 the Controller of Patents granted Natco Pharma a compulsory licence for Bayer’s sorafenib tosylate (Nexavar), finding all three Section 84 grounds satisfied. Imatinib mesylate (Glivec) was the subject of Novartis (2013) — a case on patentability under Section 3(d), not compulsory licensing.
Answer: B
The WIPO Treaty on Intellectual Property, Genetic Resources and Associated Traditional Knowledge, adopted in 2024, primarily requires
Solution
The treaty (May 2024) creates a disclosure requirement: where a claimed invention is based on genetic resources or associated traditional knowledge, the applicant must disclose the country of origin or source, and the indigenous people or local community that provided the knowledge. It does not mandate TK libraries, ban such patents or fix royalties.
Answer: A
What is “evergreening” of patents? Explain how Indian patent law guards against it.
Solution
Introduction: Evergreening is the practice of extending a patent monopoly beyond its 20-year term by obtaining fresh patents on minor modifications of an existing product — a new salt, crystal form, dosage or combination — without real therapeutic improvement.
Body:
- Why it matters: delays entry of cheaper generics; keeps drug prices high; burdens public health budgets.
- Section 3(d): new forms of known substances are not inventions unless they show significantly enhanced efficacy; Novartis (2013) read this as therapeutic efficacy for medicines.
- Section 3(e) and inventive step: mere admixtures without synergistic effect are excluded; Section 2(1)(ja) demands a non-obvious technical advance.
- Opposition: pre-grant opposition by any person and post-grant opposition within a year (Section 25) let patient groups and generic firms challenge weak patents.
- Other checks: compulsory licences (Sections 84, 92), revocation in public interest (Section 66), and the Bolar exemption (Section 107A) for early generic preparation.
- Concerns: critics argue these provisions may discourage genuine incremental innovation; consistent examination is essential.
Conclusion: India’s law uses TRIPS flexibilities to separate real innovation from strategic patenting — protecting access to medicines while still rewarding genuine advances.