Piyush Goyal patent policy

Recently, Piyush Goyal, Union Minister of Commerce and Industry, made a significant statement declaring that India will not allow the evergreening of patents. This strong stance comes in response to growing pressure from multinational pharmaceutical companies and foreign governments seeking to dilute India’s stringent patent laws, particularly Section 3(d) of the Indian Patent Act. To fully understand the weight of this statement, it is important to explore the concept of evergreening and the reasons why India continues to uphold its strict intellectual property framework.

India Says No to Evergreening—But What Does That Mean?

Patent evergreening is a practice where companies attempt to extend the duration of a patent by making minor modifications or filing new applications with slight changes. These changes often offer little to no real therapeutic improvement. The primary goal is to maintain market exclusivity and delay the entry of generic competitors, thereby reinforcing their dominance in the market.

By “therapeutic improvement” in patent law, what is meant is a significant and measurable advancement in the effectiveness, functionality, or overall performance of a product or process when compared to its previous version. 

Read Also:-PUMA Wins 8 Lakh in Delhi High Court Over Trademark Violation by Counterfeit Website

What Exactly Is Section 3(d) of India’s Patent Law?

This section clearly states that merely changing the appearance or making slight modifications to a product—without offering any real or additional value—does not qualify for a new patent. The change must provide genuine, measurable benefits such as improved performance or efficiency.

The main purpose of the section is to promote genuine innovation over superficial changes.
To stop companies from extending patents through minor tweaks, to ensure affordable access to products, especially in sectors like healthcare, agriculture, and technology.

What Led to Piyush Goyal’s Stand Against Patent Evergreening

India has a long history of facing pressure from multinational pharmaceutical companies and certain developed nations to ease its stringent patent laws, especially Section 3(d) of the Indian Patent Act. These stakeholders argue that India should expand its intellectual property (IP) framework to offer broader patent protections. However, India has consistently prioritized the needs of its own population by ensuring access to affordable products, particularly in critical sectors like healthcare and technology. In past trade negotiations, including Free Trade Agreements (FTAs) with the EU and the US, foreign governments have pushed India to amend its patent regime in ways that could open the door to evergreening practices.

The Reason Behind Piyush Goyal’s Patent Statement

Through this statement, Piyush Goyal delivered a clear signal to global powers and large corporations, emphasizing that the interests of India and its people will always come first for the government. Reasons for giving this statement:

1.) To Protect India’s Patent Integrity
India’s patent law blocks monopoly through minor product changes, using evergreening. Goyal’s statement proves that this approach ensures affordability for the public.

2.) To Push Back Against Global Pressure
Powerful countries and pharma firms often push for stricter IP rules. Goyal’s statement firmly rejects such influence.

3.) To Assure Stakeholders
As a key source of affordable products, India’s stance reassures both domestic users and global partners that real innovation will be prioritized.

4.) To Use Legal Rights Under Global Agreements
India is lawfully using WTO rules that allow countries to put public health first, and Goyal made it clear this won’t change.

Conclusion

Piyush Goyal’s statement makes it clear—India isn’t backing down on its patent rules. The government is putting people first, keeping medicines and essential products affordable. It’s a strong message to big companies: only real innovation deserves protection, also showing the power of India. This news has so much potential, and we have tried to explain each point in simple words. 

Read Also:-Dr. Reddy’s vs Novo Nordisk Patent infringement case: Delhi High Court asked for a reply in the ongoing case

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *