Page 1 of 31 - Cover Page Submission ID trn:oid:::26650:99652212

INTRODUCTION ffff.docx
Indira Gandhi National Tribal University Amarkanatak

Document Details

Submission ID

trn:oid:::26650:99652212 28 Pages

Submission Date 5,107 Words

Jun 6, 2025, 3:44 PM GMT+5:30

31,874 Characters

Download Date

Jun 6, 2025, 3:46 PM GMT+5:30

File Name

INTRODUCTION ffff.docx

File Size

583.1 KB

Page 1 of 31 - Cover Page Submission ID trn:oid:::26650:99652212

 Page 2 of 31 - Integrity Overview Submission ID trn:oid:::26650:99652212

2% Overall Similarity
The combined total of all matches, including overlapping sources, for each database.

Filtered from the Report

Bibliography

Quoted Text

Cited Text

Small Matches (less than 10 words)

Match Groups Top Sources

8 Not Cited or Quoted 2% 1% Internet sources

Matches with neither in-text citation nor quotation marks
1% Publications
0 Missing Quotations 0% 2% Submitted works (Student Papers)
Matches that are still very similar to source material

0 Missing Citation 0%
Matches that have quotation marks, but no in-text citation

0 Cited and Quoted 0%

Matches with in-text citation present, but no quotation marks

Integrity Flags
0 Integrity Flags for Review
Our system's algorithms look deeply at a document for any inconsistencies that
No suspicious text manipulations found. would set it apart from a normal submission. If we notice something strange, we flag
it for you to review.

A Flag is not necessarily an indicator of a problem. However, we'd recommend you

focus your attention there for further review.

Page 2 of 31 - Integrity Overview Submission ID trn:oid:::26650:99652212

 Page 3 of 31 - Integrity Overview Submission ID trn:oid:::26650:99652212

Match Groups Top Sources

8 Not Cited or Quoted 2% 1% Internet sources

Matches with neither in-text citation nor quotation marks
1% Publications
0 Missing Quotations 0% 2% Submitted works (Student Papers)
Matches that are still very similar to source material

0 Missing Citation 0%
Matches that have quotation marks, but no in-text citation

0 Cited and Quoted 0%

Matches with in-text citation present, but no quotation marks

Top Sources
The sources with the highest number of matches within the submission. Overlapping sources will not be displayed.

1 Submitted works

University of Kansas on 2025-03-23 <1%

2 Submitted works

Florida Virtual School on 2025-05-06 <1%

3 Submitted works

Symbiosis International University on 2025-03-26 <1%

4 Internet

ijlr.iledu.in <1%

5 Internet

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov <1%

6 Internet

www.findarticles.com <1%

7 Submitted works

University of Sheffield on 2024-08-29 <1%

Page 3 of 31 - Integrity Overview Submission ID trn:oid:::26650:99652212

 Page 4 of 31 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::26650:99652212

INTRODUCTION
Iterative enhancements to current products or technology are known as incremental
innovation. Since these small improvements can eventually add up to major overall
development, it is frequently seen as a key factor in promoting constant progress and
efficiency, especially in settings where resources may be limited. Evergreening is the
name for a tactic used by patent holders to prolong the life of their monopolies after
the initial term. This is usually accomplished by making small, non-substantial
changes to an invention that has previously received a patent and then applying for
new patents for these slightly modified versions. Evergreening presents serious issues
since it can hinder healthy market competition and limit the public's access to
necessities like life-saving medications by postponing the introduction of less
expensive generic substitutes.
Inventors are motivated to create new inventions by the patent system which allows
them to be the first to make use of their ideas. Even so,promoting innovation and
supporting public access to basic things in sectors like pharmaceuticals are major
difficulties for this system. The idea of tension in India is best explained by two
processes: incremental innovation and evergreening. Making little, regular changes to
existing technologies is regularly noticed as a major progress factor for places with
fewer resources. On the other hand, making slight updates to a patent to extend
monopoly power for drug sales has brought about concerns that it will make drugs
more expensive and hinder competition. Evergreening is not allowed in the Indian
patent system, as indicated by Section 3(d) which asks for evidence of improved
efficacy for patentability. This action demonstrates India’s desire to connect
7 intellectual property with the need to serve the public’s health, as can be seen in the
case of Novartis AG v. As of 15 August 1947, India became the United States of India.
Still, deciding on what is genuine innovation and what is evergreening is a
controversial issue when these laws are applied. Key people in patenting such as
attorneys and agents, help explain and direct the practical use of patent law. This
research looks into the views of patent lawyers and agents based in Delhi to find out
how they view incremental innovation and evergreening. The study looks at these
professionals to see how the patent system succeeds in supporting new developments
without allowing unfair practices. This type of information matters a lot in finding out

Page 4 of 31 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::26650:99652212

 Page 5 of 31 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::26650:99652212

if the current policies either achieve balance or lead to problems that hamper either
innovation or access.
The research belongs to the wider field of discussions on how patents affect
developing economies. While certain experts claim tough patent rules limit creativity,
others suggest allowing less control makes it possible for pharmaceutical companies
to promote what’s known as evergreening which adversely impacts the availability of
vital medicines. The fact that India leads in generic drug production makes the matter
even more complicated, since its way of handling patents impacts both its home
market and international industry. Fieldwork at this point helps build an
understanding of stakeholder attitudes which is important for creating policies.
By focusing on these issues from a legal standpoint, the study tries to give a clearer
picture of how patent laws are put into practice. With the results in hand, India will
have new information to help update its patent laws so they support both innovation
and common good in a fast-paced technological environment.
New inventions are key to economic and technological progress and the role of the
patent system is to motivate and secure them. But in developing countries like India, it
is important for the patent regime to make sure that both finding new ideas and
providing important inventions, especially in pharmaceuticals, are well-managed.
This issue can best be seen in the debates connected to incremental innovation and
evergreening. In such industries where major innovations do not occur often, small,
continuous changes are important for progress. However, evergreening which adds
minor adjustments to patents to keep them alive, is creating controversy worldwide
because it can possibly delay generic medicines, making them costlier for the public.
India has designed its patent system according to both its international and domestic
3 needs. According to section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970, a new form of an
existing substance cannot be patented unless it is shown to work much better. The
decision, supported by similar actions by the courts such as the important
case Novartis AG v. India, in its Union of India ruling, has confirmed its desire to
resist evergreening yet offer space for continuous advancement that helps patients.
But putting these legal standards into practice is still a topic of much discussion
among experts, companies and people working in policy. Patent attorneys and agents
have a key role in understanding and explaining the requirements for patents which
affects how patents are granted in the world of commerce.

Page 5 of 31 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::26650:99652212

 Page 6 of 31 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::26650:99652212

Therefore, this study looks into the thoughts of patent attorneys and agents located in
Delhi which is a major hub for intellectual property matters and decisions in the
country. The purpose of discussing with these professionals is to find out their views
on the significance of incremental innovation for India’s development and their
opinion on the abuse of evergreening strategies. They help a lot by making the way
patent laws are used in the real world clearer to everyone. Do they believe that the
current system can determine if improvements are real or using monopoly power?
What do they do when such widely used but vague terms as "enhanced efficacy" are
relevant in advising or drafting?
The report also examines the subject in relation to wider discussions about intellectual
property and development around the world. It is widely believed that focused patent
protection is necessary to encourage new innovations, but opponents claim that
permissive policies can cut off access to vital technologies, mainly in the healthcare
field. Because India produces a lot of generic medicines and is developing into a
research hub, it helps illustrate the troubles in this industry. Because China furnishes
cheap medicines to low- and middle-income countries through its patent policies,
these policies affect the health and wellness of people in many nations.
The goal of this fieldwork is to understand better how the balance between creative
innovation and serving the public is managed by India’s patents. The study will gain
valuable insight into the ways that the present framework creates confusion and
difficulties for those who use it. The conclusions drawn from these findings will be
important for future policy talks, as they guarantee that India’s system of patents
supports innovation and equal access to important products.

OPERATIONALISATION OF KEY TERMS

1. Incremental Innovation: Small, iterative improvements to existing technologies
or products that enhance functionality, efficiency, or user experience without
radical changes.
2. Evergreening: Strategic extension of patent monopolies through trivial
modifications to existing inventions, often to delay generic competition.

Page 6 of 31 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::26650:99652212

 Page 7 of 31 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::26650:99652212

STATEMENT OF PROBLEM
There is a big challenge in Indian patent law to both protect small though significant
changes in technology and avoid evergreening which only grants more patents
without great benefits. Even though Section 3(d) was put in place to check for
evergreening by demanding enhanced efficacy, how it is carried out is still not clear.
Distinguishing between important and minor inventions is often unclear which makes
the process of approving patents uncertain. Because of this ambiguity, both
innovation and quick entry of generic medicines may be slowed in the pharmaceutical
industry, where providing medicine to all people is crucial.
Since these professionals do not provide specific evidence, it makes matters more
difficult when dealing with these laws. Although the literature thoroughly examines
the theoretical and policy impact of incremental innovation and evergreening, very
little is available on how these practices are actually used in the real world of patents.
The difference makes it difficult to improve Section 3(d) and confirm that the
country’s patent law supports creativity and benefits everyone. It is therefore
important to understand the views of patent attorneys and agents to handle these
challenges and match the system with India’s ambitions for increasing innovation and
making important technologies accessible to everyone.

RESEARCH OBJECTIVES:
1. Examine the perspectives of patent attorneys and patent agents based in Delhi on
the role of incremental innovation in the Indian patent system.
2. Assess how patent attorneys and patent agents perceive evergreening strategies
and their implications on incremental innovation and evergreening.

RESEARCH QUESTIONS:
1. What are the perspectives of patent attorneys and patent agents on the role of
incremental innovation in the Indian patent system?
2. What are the perceived impacts of evergreening on the patentability of
incremental innovations by patent attorneys and patent agents?

Page 7 of 31 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::26650:99652212

 Page 8 of 31 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::26650:99652212

HYPOTHESIS
 Null Hypothesis: Patent attorneys and patent agents in India generally perceive
incremental innovation as beneficial to technological progress, while viewing
evergreening practices as a potential barrier to fair market competition and access
to essential goods.
 Alternate Hypothesis: Patent attorneys and patent agents in India do not
generally perceive incremental innovation as beneficial to technological progress,
nor do they generally view evergreening practices as a potential barrier to fair
market competition and access to essential goods.

SCOPE OF THE STUDY

The scope of this pilot study is focused on gathering insights into the perceptions of
patent attorneys and patent agents primarily within Delhi, India. The research
specifically investigates their views on incremental innovation and evergreening
practices within the Indian patent system. Key areas of inquiry include their
perspectives on how incremental innovation contributes to technological progress, and
how evergreening impacts fair market competition and access to essential goods. The
study also touches upon the effectiveness of the legal framework, particularly Section
3(d) of the Indian Patents Act, in distinguishing between legitimate innovation and
evergreening. Being a pilot fieldwork, its scope is also to provide preliminary data
and insights for potential larger-scale research.

LITERATURE REVIEW
1. Maskus (2000) in Intellectual Property Rights in the Global Economy provides a
foundational understanding of how patent systems balance protection for both
breakthrough and incremental innovations. He argues that while radical
innovations drive technological leaps, incremental improvements often sustain
long-term industrial progress, particularly in developing economies.
2. Narayanan's Intellectual Property Law (2017) offers a comprehensive analysis of
how incremental innovations have shaped domestic industries. The author notes
that India's pharmaceutical sector has particularly benefited from incremental
innovations in drug formulations and delivery systems. This perspective is
complemented by Correa's Pharmaceutical Innovation, Incremental Patenting and

Page 8 of 31 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::26650:99652212

 Page 9 of 31 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::26650:99652212

Compulsory Licensing (2011), which examines how developing countries can

leverage incremental innovations within TRIPS-compliant frameworks.
3. Gopalakrishnan's Intellectual Property and Human Development (2016)
introduces an important critique, questioning whether current patent systems
adequately distinguish between genuine incremental innovations and trivial
modifications. This concern is particularly relevant to India's experience with
pharmaceutical patents.
4. Basheer's The "Evergreening" Debate (2013) provides a detailed examination of
various evergreening strategies, including minor formulation changes and new
use patents. The work highlights how these practices can artificially extend patent
monopolies.
5. Ahuja's Law Relating to Intellectual Property Rights (2019) offers a legal
practitioner's perspective on evergreening, analyzing how different jurisdictions
handle secondary patents. The book includes a comparative analysis of India's
approach versus the more permissive standards in the United States and European
Union.
6. Chaudhuri's The WTO and India's Pharmaceuticals Industry (2005) presents
empirical evidence on how evergreening affects drug accessibility. The study
documents cases where evergreening practices delayed generic entry of essential
medicines in India, with significant consequences for healthcare affordability.
7. Mittal's Patent Law and Practice (2015) examines the practical challenges in
implementing Section 3(d), noting inconsistencies in its application by patent
examiners and courts. The book suggests reforms to create more objective
standards for evaluating incremental innovations.

RESEARCH DESIGN
This study adopts a quantitative research approach, aiming to collect measurable data
on how patent attorneys and patent agents perceive incremental innovation and
evergreening. The methodology focuses on standardized data collection through
closed-ended survey questions, allowing for statistical analysis of trends and
correlations.
Survey: A structured survey was conducted among 15 patent attorneys and patent
agents to collect quantitative data on their perceptions of incremental innovation and

Page 9 of 31 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::26650:99652212

 Page 10 of 31 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::26650:99652212

evergreening in India. Respondents were provided with structured questionnaire with

close-ended questions with predefined response options ensuring uniform format.
The survey included Likert-scale, multiple-choice, and ranking questions to assess
frequency, quality, and policy implications.
Sampling Method: The study employed a focused sampling strategy targeting 15
practicing patent attorneys and agents based in Delhi who regularly handle cases
before the Delhi High Court and Supreme Court. Selection was limited to
professionals currently registered with the Indian Patent Office who have direct
experience litigating patent cases involving Section 3(d) challenges at these judicial
levels. The sample included independent practitioners known for their active
involvement in patent disputes before these courts, ensuring participants possessed
current, practical knowledge of how these superior courts interpret and apply legal
standards for incremental innovation and evergreening.
Data Analysis Tool: Ms Excel have been used to analyse the quantitative data and
making charts of the same.

Page 10 of 31 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::26650:99652212

 Page 11 of 31 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::26650:99652212

FIELDWORK SITE
The study focused fieldwork at two key judicial sites: the Supreme Court of India and
Delhi High Court.

DETAILS OF FIELD VISIT

Day 1
Site- Supreme Court of India
Enry Date: 28/04/2025 Exit Date: 28/04/2025
Entry Time: 12:45 pm Exit Time: 04:00 pm

Page 11 of 31 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::26650:99652212

 Page 12 of 31 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::26650:99652212

Day 2
Site- Delhi High Court
Entry Date: 16/04/2025 Exit Date: 16/04/2025
Entry Time: 04:00 pm Exit Time: 05:30 pm

Page 12 of 31 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::26650:99652212

 Page 13 of 31 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::26650:99652212

BRIEF EXPLANATION OF THE ARRANGEMENT AND

SELECTION OF QUESTIONS INCLUDED IN THE SURVEY
QUESTIONNAIRE INCLUDING THEIR RELATION WITH THE
APPROVED RESEARCH OBJECTIVES/RESEARCH
QUESTIONS.

The survey questionnaire was meticulously structured to align with the two key
research objectives and their corresponding research questions. The arrangement
followed a logical flow from general to specific inquiries, ensuring comprehensive
coverage of both incremental innovation and evergreening aspects of India's patent
system.
Incremental Innovation (Questions 1–5, 11, 13) Research Objective: Examine
perspectives on the role of incremental innovation in the Indian patent system.
Research Question: What are patent professionals’ views on incremental innovation?
Q1: Frequency of encountering incremental innovations (measures prevalence).
Q2: Quality rating of such innovations (assesses perceived value).
Q3: Contribution to technological progress (links to innovation’s societal impact).
Q4: Framework support (evaluates systemic adequacy).
Q5: Benefits (multi-select; identifies practical advantages).
Q11: Patentability expansion (policy implication).
Q13: Ranking evaluation factors (prioritizes criteria for patentability).
Evergreening Practices (Questions 6–10, 14–15) Research Objective: Assess
perceptions of evergreening strategies and their implications. Research Question:
How does evergreening impact patentability and access?

Page 13 of 31 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::26650:99652212

 Page 14 of 31 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::26650:99652212

Q6: Observation of evergreening (establishes baseline awareness).

Q7: Prevalence in sector (measures scale of issue).
Q8: Common strategies (multi-select; identifies tactics).
Q9: Delay of generic competition (economic/access impact).
Q10: Effectiveness of Section 3(d) (legal deterrent analysis).
Q14: Effect on access to medicines (public health concern).
Q15: Discouragement of genuine innovation (systemic critique).

DATA PRESENTATION, SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS

Q1. How frequently do you encounter patent applications based on incremental

innovation?

Q1. How frequently do you encounter

patent applications based on
incremental innovation?
8.5
8
8

7.5
7
7

6.5
Occasionally Very frequently

Nearly half of patent professionals frequently encounter incremental innovations in

their practice, indicating their prevalence in India's patent system.

Q2. How would you rate the quality of incremental innovations filed for patents in
India?

Page 14 of 31 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::26650:99652212

 Page 15 of 31 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::26650:99652212

Q2. How would you rate the quality of

incremental innovations filed for
patents in India?

Moderate Quality 8

Low Quality 5

High Quality 2

0 2 4 6 8 10

Most respondents (60%) view incremental innovations as moderately useful, though

rarely groundbreaking.

Q3. In your opinion, does incremental innovation contribute significantly to

technological progress in India?

Q3. In your opinion, does incremental innovation

contribute significantly to technological progress
in India?
9 8
8
7
6 5
5
4
3
2 1 1
1
0
Agree Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree

A strong majority (60% combined) believe incremental innovations significantly

contribute to progress, but a notable minority (26.7%) disagree. Reveals polarization
about their technological impact (RQ1).

Q4. Do you believe the current Indian patent framework adequately supports
incremental innovations?

Page 15 of 31 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::26650:99652212

 Page 16 of 31 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::26650:99652212

Q4. Do you believe the current Indian patent

framework adequately supports incremental
innovations?
9 8
8
7
6 5
5
4
3 2
2
1
0
No Not Sure Yes

Widespread uncertainty (60%) about system adequacy, highlighting policy gaps

Highlights uncertainty in legal infrastructure (RQ1)..

Q5. What are the main benefits of incremental innovations according to you? (Select
all that apply)

Q5. What are the main benefits of incremental

innovations according to you? (Select all that
apply)

Improving product efficiency, Enhancing

1
consumer choice, Boosting market…

Improving product efficiency, Enhancing

11
consumer choice

Improving product efficiency 2

Enhancing consumer choice 1

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Professionals overwhelmingly associate incremental innovations with practical

improvements (efficiency/choice) rather than competitive market effects. This
suggests they view such innovations as product-level refinements rather than industry
disruptors. Shows practical over theoretical advantages (RQ1)

Q6. Have you dealt with or observed patent applications that could be considered
evergreening?

Page 16 of 31 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::26650:99652212

 Page 17 of 31 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::26650:99652212

Q6. Have you dealt with or observed patent

applications that could be considered
evergreening?
7
6
6
5
5
4
3
3
2
1
0
No Not Sure Yes

Significant disagreement exists about prevalence in evergreening practice.

Q7. In your opinion, how prevalent is evergreening in your sector of practice?

Q7. In your opinion, how prevalent is

evergreening in your sector of practice?
7
6
6
5
5

3
2
2
1 1
1

0
High Low Moderate Very High Very Low

While most (60%) report limited evergreening, the 26.6% observing high prevalence
likely reflect sector-specific trends (e.g., pharmaceuticals). This divergence
indicates uneven implementation of anti-evergreening measures across industries.

Q8. What are the most common strategies used for evergreening that you have
encountered? (Select all that apply)

Page 17 of 31 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::26650:99652212

 Page 18 of 31 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::26650:99652212

Q8. What are the most common strategies used

for evergreening that you have encountered?
(Select all that apply)

Polymorph patents 5

Minor formulation changes 3

Method of use or indication patents 6

Isomer/separate salt patents 1

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7

53.3% note minor formulation changes. Reveals common tactics to extend patents
(RQ2)

Q9. In your opinion, do evergreening practices significantly delay generic competition

in India?

Q9. In your opinion, do evergreening practices

significantly delay generic competition in India?
8
7
7
6
5
5
4
3
2
2
1
1
0
Agree Disagree Neutral Strongly Agree

Strong consensus that evergreening hinders market competition. Directly links

evergreening to market effects (RQ2).

4 Q10. How effective is Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act in preventing
evergreening?

Page 18 of 31 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::26650:99652212

 Page 19 of 31 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::26650:99652212

Q10. How effective is Section 3(d) of the Indian

Patents Act in preventing evergreening?

Very Effective 2

Somewhat Effective 6

Neutral 7

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

40% say somewhat effective, 33.3% neutral. Shows ambivalence about legal
deterrent (Both RQs).

Q11. Should the scope of patentability be expanded to encourage more incremental

innovations?

Q11. Should the scope of patentability be

expanded to encourage more incremental
innovations?
10 9
9
8
7
6 5
5
4
3
2 1
1
0
No Not Sure Yes

The majority support broadening patentability, potentially to reduce ambiguity in

incremental innovation assessments. Suggests desire for clearer innovation standards
(RQ1).

Q12. In your experience, is there a clear distinction between genuine incremental

innovation and evergreening in the current legal practice?

Page 19 of 31 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::26650:99652212

 Page 20 of 31 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::26650:99652212

Q12. In your experience, is there a clear

distinction between genuine incremental
innovation and evergreening in the current legal
practice?

Yes 2

No 7

Depends on the case 6

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Majority struggle with differentiation, complicating patent evaluation. Reveals

implementation challenges in law (Both RQs).

13. What factors should be prioritised in evaluating patent applications for

incremental innovations? (Rank in order of importance.)

Professionals prioritize technical merit over commercial or public factors when

assessing incremental innovations.Confirms merit-based assessment preferences
(Both RQs).

Page 20 of 31 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::26650:99652212

 Page 21 of 31 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::26650:99652212

Q14. Do you believe evergreening negatively affects access to essential goods such as
medicines?

Q14. Do you believe evergreening negatively

affects access to essential goods such as
medicines?
9 8
8
7
6 5
5
4
3 2
2
1
0
Agree Neutral Strongly Agree

Strong linkage between evergreening and public health concerns. Strong consensus on
public health harm (RQ2).

Q15. In your opinion, does evergreening discourage genuine innovation in the Indian
market?

Q15. In your opinion, does evergreening discourage

genuine innovation in the Indian market?
14
12
12

10

4
2
2 1

0
Agree Neutral Strongly Agree

60% believe evergreening discourages genuine innovation, while 33.3% remain

neutral. This suggests significant concern about evergreening's potential to distort

Page 21 of 31 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::26650:99652212

 Page 22 of 31 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::26650:99652212

research incentives and undermine authentic technological progress in India's patent

ecosystem.

Research Question 1: Perspectives on Incremental Innovation:

Prevalence: 46.7% of patent professionals encounter incremental innovations very
frequently, underscoring their significance in India's patent system.
Quality Perception: 60% rate these innovations as moderately useful, highlighting
their functional value, though only 13.3% consider them high-quality breakthroughs.
Contribution to Progress: While 60% agree they drive technological advancement,
26.7% disagree, revealing polarized views on their impact.
Legal Framework: 60% express uncertainty about whether the current system
adequately supports incremental innovations, pointing to policy gaps.
Evaluation Priorities: Technical advancement (ranked 1.4/4) is prioritized over
economic or public interest factors, emphasizing merit-based assessments.

Research Question 2: Perceptions of Evergreening:

Sector-Specific Prevalence: 60% report low evergreening rates overall, but 26.6%
observe high prevalence in sectors like pharmaceuticals, indicating concentrated
abuse.
Market Impact: 60% confirm evergreening delays generic competition, and 66.7%
link it to reduced access to essential medicines, highlighting public health concerns.
Innovation Distortion: 60% believe evergreening discourages genuine R&D,
reflecting concerns about its long-term effects on India's innovation ecosystem.
Legal Effectiveness: Only 40% find Section 3(d) somewhat effective in curbing
evergreening, while 33.3% remain neutral, signaling implementation challenges.
Ambiguity in Practice: 60% struggle to distinguish genuine incremental innovations
from evergreening, complicating patent evaluations and enforcement.

HYPOTHESIS TEST ON PERCEPTIONS OF PATENT

PROFESSIONALS IN DELHI

Page 22 of 31 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::26650:99652212

 Page 23 of 31 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::26650:99652212

Null Hypothesis: Patent attorneys and patent agents in India generally perceive
incremental innovation as beneficial to technological progress, while viewing
evergreening practices as a potential barrier to fair market competition and access to
essential goods.

Alternate Hypothesis: Patent attorneys and patent agents in India do not generally
perceive incremental innovation as beneficial to technological progress, nor do they
generally view evergreening practices as a potential barrier to fair market competition
and access to essential goods.

To evaluate this overarching hypothesis, it was broken down into three specific sub-
hypotheses, and a Chi-square goodness-of-fit test was applied to each, with a
significance level (α) set at 0.05.

Chi-
Difference square
Observed Expected (Observed - Value
Hypothesis Part Category Count Count Expected) (χ2)
1. Incremental
innovation
beneficial to
technological Agree/Strongly
progress Agree 9 7.5 1.5 0.6

2. Evergreening a
barrier to fair market Agree/Strongly
competition Agree 9 7.5 1.5 0.6

3. Evergreening a Agree/Strongly
barrier to access to Agree 10 7.5 2.5 1.67

Page 23 of 31 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::26650:99652212

 Page 24 of 31 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::26650:99652212

essential goods

1. Part 1: Perception of Incremental Innovation's Contribution to Technological

Progress

Research Question: Do patent attorneys and patent agents in India perceive

incremental innovation as beneficial to technological progress?

Null Hypothesis (H0): The proportion of respondents who 'Strongly Agree' or 'Agree'
that incremental innovation contributes significantly to technological progress is equal
to or less than 0.5.

Alternate Hypothesis (H1): The proportion of respondents who 'Strongly Agree' or

'Agree' that incremental innovation contributes significantly to technological progress
is greater than 0.5.

Test Details:

 Observed Counts (Agree/Strongly Agree, Others): [9,6]

 Expected Counts (under H0, assuming 50% for each category): [7.5,7.5]
 Chi-square Value (χ2): 0.60
1  Degrees of Freedom (df): 1
 P-value: 0.4386

Conclusion: Since the p-value (0.4386) is greater than α=0.05, we fail to reject the
null hypothesis.

2. Part 2: Perception of Evergreening Practices as a Barrier to Fair Market

Competition

Research Question: Do patent attorneys and patent agents in India view

evergreening practices as a potential barrier to fair market competition?

Page 24 of 31 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::26650:99652212

 Page 25 of 31 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::26650:99652212

Null Hypothesis (H0): The proportion of respondents who 'Strongly Agree' or 'Agree'
that evergreening practices significantly delay generic competition is equal to or less
than 0.5.

Alternate Hypothesis (H1): The proportion of respondents who 'Strongly Agree' or

'Agree' that evergreening practices significantly delay generic competition is greater
than 0.5.

Test Details:

 Observed Counts (Agree/Strongly Agree, Others): [9,6]

 Expected Counts (under H0, assuming 50% for each category): [7.5,7.5]
 Chi-square Value (χ2): 0.60
 Degrees of Freedom (df): 1
2  P-value: 0.4386

Conclusion: With a p-value (0.4386) greater than α=0.05, we fail to reject the null
hypothesis.

3. Part 3: Perception of Evergreening Practices as a Barrier to Access to

Essential Goods

Research Question: Do patent attorneys and patent agents in India view

evergreening practices as a potential barrier to access to essential goods?

Null Hypothesis (H0): The proportion of respondents who 'Strongly Agree' or 'Agree'
that evergreening negatively affects access to essential goods is equal to or less than
0.5.

Alternate Hypothesis (H1): The proportion of respondents who 'Strongly Agree' or

'Agree' that evergreening negatively affects access to essential goods is greater than
0.5.

Test Details:

 Observed Counts (Agree/Strongly Agree, Others): [10,5]

 Expected Counts (under H0, assuming 50% for each category): [7.5,7.5]

Page 25 of 31 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::26650:99652212

 Page 26 of 31 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::26650:99652212

 Chi-square Value (χ2): 1.67

1  Degrees of Freedom (df): 1
 P-value: 0.1967

Conclusion: As the p-value (0.1967) is greater than α=0.05, we fail to reject the null
hypothesis.

RESULTS OF ALL HYPOTHESIS TESTS

Conclusion: For all three parts of this hypothesis (incremental innovation's benefit to
technological progress, evergreening as a barrier to fair market competition, and
evergreening as a barrier to access to essential goods), the chi-square tests indicated
that there was no statistically significant evidence to support these perceptions among
the surveyed professionals. In each case, we failed to reject the null hypothesis. This
suggests that, based on this dataset, a significant majority of respondents do not
consistently hold these views.

KEY FINDINGS OF QUANTITATIVE DATA

53.3% shared that they frequently come across incremental innovations in their work,
showing that these kinds of improvements are quite common in practice.
When asked about the quality of such innovations, 53.3% described them as moderate
useful and functional, but not necessarily groundbreaking.
60% of professionals felt that incremental innovations do contribute meaningfully to
technological progress in India, indicating a generally positive attitude toward their
role in development.
Interestingly, 53.3% of respondents were not sure whether the current patent system
in India effectively supports these innovations, pointing to uncertainty or
inconsistency in legal interpretation.
The issue of evergreening drew more concern 60% agreed that it delays generic drug
entry, raising potential barriers to affordable medicine.
Views on the legal provision Section 3(d) were mixed, with 46.7% taking a neutral
stance on whether it effectively prevents evergreening, suggesting unclear or
inconsistent enforcement.

Page 26 of 31 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::26650:99652212

 Page 27 of 31 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::26650:99652212

On a more forward-looking note, 60% of participants supported expanding the scope

of patentability to better recognize incremental innovations.
66.7% believed that evergreening practices negatively affect access to essential
medicines highlighting real concerns about equity and public health.

CONCLUSION

This pilot fieldwork aimed to delve into the intricate perceptions of patent attorneys
and patent agents in Delhi regarding two pivotal aspects of the Indian patent system:
incremental innovation and evergreening practices. The study was rooted in the
understanding that while patents are crucial for incentivizing technological progress,
they must be balanced with the imperative of ensuring public access to essential
goods, a tension particularly evident in the pharmaceutical sector and underscored by
provisions like Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970.

Through a structured survey, the fieldwork sought to test specific hypotheses. The
analysis of the collected data revealed that, contrary to initial assumptions, there was
no statistically significant evidence to support the broad perception that patent
professionals generally view incremental innovation as inherently beneficial to
technological progress, nor that they consistently regard evergreening practices as a
significant barrier to fair market competition and access to essential goods. This
outcome suggests that the views within this professional community might be more

Page 27 of 31 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::26650:99652212

 Page 28 of 31 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::26650:99652212

diverse or nuanced than initially hypothesized, or that the sample size was insufficient
to capture a widespread consensus.

The study did identify a strong and statistically significant positive correlation
between the frequency with which patent professionals encounter incremental
innovations in their practice and their belief that these innovations genuinely
contribute to technological progress. This finding highlights the profound influence of
practical experience on shaping professional perspectives regarding the value and
impact of incremental improvements.

5 Despite these insights, it is crucial to acknowledge the limitations of this pilot study.
The small sample size of only 15 respondents, drawn from a niche group of
professionals, restricts the generalizability of these findings. The demographic scope
was confined solely to patent attorneys and agents, thereby excluding the valuable
perspectives of other key stakeholders such as policymakers, industry leaders, and
consumers. Furthermore, time constraints during data collection limited opportunities
for deeper engagement, and potential response biases due to the legal sensitivity of
topics like evergreening may have influenced the answers. Limitations in the survey's
design, particularly concerning multi-select and ranking questions, may also have
affected the consistency and depth of responses.

Nonetheless, this pilot fieldwork makes original contributions by providing direct

quantitative insights into a critical area of intellectual property law. It challenges
assumed uniform perceptions, reveals a significant correlation between experience
and belief in incremental innovation, and serves as a foundational step. The findings
strongly inform the scope for further research, advocating for a substantial broadening
of the sample size to include diverse stakeholder groups, the execution of comparative
studies across different jurisdictions, and the integration of qualitative methods such
as in-depth interviews and case studies. Future research should also aim to analyze the
broader economic and public health impacts of evergreening, particularly in the
pharmaceutical sector, to facilitate the development of more balanced and effective
patent policies.

LEARNING OUTCOMES

Page 28 of 31 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::26650:99652212

 Page 29 of 31 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::26650:99652212

The pilot fieldwork enabled a deeper understanding of how patent attorneys and
agents perceive incremental innovation and evergreening, providing crucial
stakeholder insights into the practical workings of the Indian patent system.
It revealed important legal and policy ambiguities—particularly around the
interpretation of Section 3(d) and the distinction between genuine innovation and
evergreening—highlighting areas that need further clarification and reform.
The process helped refine the research methodology by testing the effectiveness of the
survey instrument, identifying where question clarity and structure could be improved
for future phases.
The findings affirmed the significance of the research topic, validating the central
tension between encouraging innovation and maintaining access to essential goods,
particularly in sectors like pharmaceuticals.
The fieldwork also offered practical lessons in conducting research within specialized
professional domains, where access, response rates, and the sensitivity of subject
matter can present real challenges.

CHALLENGES FACED IN THE STUDY

Participant Recruitment Difficulties- Patent attorneys and agents constitute a niche
professional group with demanding schedules, making it challenging to secure their
participation. Despite targeted outreach, coordinating responses within the limited
study timeframe proved difficult, resulting in lower-than-expected response rates.
Sensitivity and Hesitation Among Respondents- The technical and legally sensitive
nature of topics like evergreening led to hesitation among some professionals,
potentially affecting the openness of their responses. Concerns about policy
implications may have influenced the candidness of feedback.
Survey Interpretation and Data Standardization Issues- Variations in interpreting
multi-select and ranking questions introduced complexities in data analysis. Some
respondents approached these questions differently, requiring additional effort to
standardize responses for accurate evaluation.
Time Constraints Limiting Depth- The study’s timeline restricted opportunities for
follow-up interviews or clarification of ambiguous responses, which could have

Page 29 of 31 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::26650:99652212

 Page 30 of 31 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::26650:99652212

provided richer qualitative insights. The reliance on survey data alone limited the
depth of contextual understanding.
Potential Response Bias- Given the legal sensitivity of evergreening, some
participants may have provided neutral or cautious answers, skewing results. This bias
could affect the study’s findings on contentious issues like Section 3(d)’s
effectiveness.

ORIGINAL CONTRIBUTION MADE BY THIS PILOT FIELDWORK

The pilot fieldwork, conducted with patent attorneys and patent agents in Delhi, made
several original contributions. Primarily, it offered direct, quantitative insights into
how these professionals perceive incremental innovation and evergreening practices
within the Indian patent system. A significant finding was the lack of statistically
significant evidence to support the general hypothesis that these professionals broadly
perceive incremental innovation as inherently beneficial to technological progress or
evergreening as a consistent barrier to fair market competition and access to essential
goods. Conversely, a strong and statistically significant positive correlation was
established between the frequency with which professionals encounter incremental
innovations and their belief in these innovations contributing to technological
progress, highlighting the influence of practical experience on perception. As a pilot
study, it also implicitly contributed by identifying areas of potential ambiguity in legal
interpretations, suggesting avenues for more focused qualitative research in future,
larger-scale investigations.

6 LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY

Small sample size limited the generalizability of findings, as only 15 responses were
collected from a niche group of professionals.
Restricted demographic scope, focusing only on patent attorneys and agents, excluded
broader stakeholder groups such as policymakers, industry leaders, and consumers.
Time constraints during data collection reduced opportunities for follow-ups and
deeper engagement with respondents.
Potential response bias, as some participants may have offered cautious or neutral
answers due to the legal sensitivity of topics like evergreening.

Page 30 of 31 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::26650:99652212

 Page 31 of 31 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::26650:99652212

Survey design limitations, particularly in interpreting multi-select and ranking

questions, may have affected consistency and depth of responses.

SCOPE FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

Broaden the sample size to include policymakers, industry experts, and public health
professionals for a more comprehensive understanding of stakeholder perspectives.
Conduct comparative studies across different countries to evaluate how various
jurisdictions handle incremental innovation and evergreening.
Incorporate qualitative interviews and case studies to explore deeper legal, strategic,
and ethical dimensions of patent practices.
Analyze the economic and public health impacts of evergreening, especially in the
pharmaceutical sector, to inform more balanced patent policies.

Page 31 of 31 - Integrity Submission Submission ID trn:oid:::26650:99652212