Revisiting India’s National IPR Policy 2016 After a Decade of Implementation – Has It Delivered as Expected?

Introduction

Intellectual property has become one of the key pillars of economic competitiveness in the twenty-first century. Nations that expand investment in IP creation, protection and commercialization typically have stronger innovation ecosystems, high-value exports, and greater technological self-reliance. For India, characterised by fast-growing technology expenditures, world-leading pharmaceutical capabilities, vibrant creative industry, a newly dynamic start-up incubation sector, the need for a coherent national IP strategy had long been evident. Prior to 2016, India’s IP regime was fraught with disruptions, i.e., administrative duties of IP offices were scattered among ministries, pendencies in IP offices were very high, and domestic IP generation remained significantly low as compared to global standards.

Against this backdrop, the Government of India launched the National IPR Policy (2016). The National Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Policy of 2016 was the first comprehensive attempt in India to articulate the national strategy for intellectual property and the method of governing the same. Built around a framework of seven pillars, the Policy sought to develop awareness, encourage IP generation, reinforce IP legal mechanisms, modernise the IP administration, boost commercialisation, improve enforcement and build human capital.

Five years later, a Parliamentary Standing Committee on Commerce conducted an extensive review of the post-2016 IP regime and submitted its 161st Report in 2021. This article takes up a close look at both documents in order to determine how far the vision of the Policy was implemented in practice. It positions that, although administrative reforms and awareness initiatives moved ahead in leaps and bounds, more profound structural problems on innovation capacity, enforcement and commercialization continued to restrict India’s transformation into a knowledge-driven economy.

Nearly after a decade of National IPR Policy implementation and four years after the 161st Rajya Sabha Report, this article reassesses whether India’s IP ecosystem has meaningfully evolved by 2025-26.

India’s Pre-2016 IPR Landscape – A Background

Prior to the introduction of 2016 Policy, India’s IP ecosystem had various systemic weaknesses. Indian Patent examination timelines were among the longest in the world, and it was not uncommon for these periods to extend to several years. Capacity shortages were visible, wherein the Indian Patent Office had significantly fewer examiners as compared to other parts of the world, leading to inconsistencies in the quality of examination. From a structural perspective, India’s innovation ecosystem had chronic under-investment. Gross expenditure on research and development stagnated at around 0.7% of the GDP level for decades. Academic institutions produced a large volume of scientific publications but only a small portion of patentable inventions were there. Industry-academia association was weak, with few incentives to conduct joint research and to commercialize technologies.

Legal and enforcement issues also remained present. While India had TRIPS-compliant laws, it was also keen to preserve protections for public interests, especially in the pharmaceutical and traditional knowledge arena. Mobilizing mechanisms of enforcement were fragmented and have been different across states, and cases of counterfeiting & piracy increased across various sectors. Police forces were not trained in IP and judicial delays detracted from the deterrence effect of existing laws. Administrative coordination was weak, with responsibility for IP awareness, enforcement and policy spread across ministries. It was in this context marked by operational inefficiencies, low domestic innovation, lack of adequate enforcement and lack of institutional coordination that the National IPR Policy was adopted.

Vision and Structure of National Policy on IPR (2016)

The National IPR Policy (2016) was unanimously formulated with an ambitious vision, i.e., to establish India as a global leader in innovation by building “Creative India; Innovative India.” Its seven-pillar framework addressed awareness creation, IP generation, legal and legislative reform, administrative modernisation, commercialisation, enforcement, and human capital development. Rather than focusing solely on protection, the Policy sought to integrate IP into broader economic and innovative strategies.

To support implementation, the Policy also established the Cell for IPR Promotion and Management (CIPAM) under the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT), that was responsible for coordination, outreach, and stakeholder engagement. The Policy’s balanced approach involved promoting both the IP protection and public interest considerations. By 2025-26, this framework continues to define the institutional and policy architecture of India’s IP regime, even as questions persist regarding the depth and effectiveness of its on-ground implementation across sectors.

Implementation Status (2016–2021)

Between 2016 and 2021, the IPR regime saw great improvement, particularly in the areas of administration, digitization and awareness. However these gains have been unequal and haven’t translated strongly into enhanced innovation or commercialization at domestic level.

1. Administrative Modernization – Recruitment of examiners had been enhanced to a great extent, e-filing portals got an uplift, and online hearings became common. The Parliamentary Committee acknowledged that patent pendency had reduced following significant recruitment, digitization, and procedural reforms. Transparency increased with real-time tracking of applications and centralized public access to IP records. Notwithstanding these successes, backlogs were not completely gone. The Committee noted that while changes to staffing had been for the better, long term retention and training remained patchy. Examiner expertise was uneven which impacted on consistency and predictability in outcomes of examinations.
2. Expansion of IP Awareness – CIPAM’s campaigns included school programs, small and medium enterprise training programs and enforcement workshops. IP Chairs were set up in universities, producing course materials, research publications and outreach programs. These initiatives played a major role in expanding the base of IP literacy in India. But awareness itself was not enough, particularly in the mass of smaller innovators, to result in more filings. Barriers such as high drafting costs, lack of legal support and lack of understanding of commercialization continued to discourage MSMEs.
3. Trends in Patent Filings – Despite improvements in the procedures, domestic innovation remained stagnant. Patent filings accounted for only about a third of overall patent filings. Foreign applicants continued to dominate. Low domestic filings reflected huge structural weaknesses as the R&D intensity in India remained low amongst major economies, private-sector investments in research remained low and university innovation ecosystems were underdeveloped.
4. Commercialization Gaps – The commercialization proved to be the weakest point in implementation. While the no. of patents being filed at universities grew, technology transfer offices (TTOs) were under-resourced and inconsistent in their performance. For many institutions patenting became an end rather than as a means to market deployment. The Committee highlighted the absence of uniform IP valuation frameworks, limited access to IP-backed financing and scant venture capital involvement with patent-intensive sectors in India. As a result, a large proportion of Indian patents remain unlicensed and uncommercialized.
5. Enforcement Challenges – Despite training programs, enforcement was still slow. Most states did not have hastened IP cells; police powers had restricted technical skills; co-ordination among police, customs and regulatory authorities was inefficient. The abolition of the Intellectual Property Appellate Board (IPAB) in the year 2021 further added to the uncertainties. With the transfer of appellate jurisdiction to High Courts, apprehensions were raised over judicial backlog and dearth of specialized technical benches.
6. Emerging Technologies vs. legislation Preparedness – Although the Policy recognised the requirement of futuristic legal reforms, India did not substantially update its IP regime to overcome the challenges posed by artificial intelligence, biotechnology, data-driven inventions and algorithmic innovations. Lack of adaptive norms resulted in India not being able to position itself in emerging technology sectors on a competitive footing.

Many of these implementation challenges, particularly in commercialisation, enforcement capacity and preparedness for emerging technologies, continue to influence the effectiveness of India’s IP ecosystem in current times, raising questions about whether procedural gains have translated into sustained innovation outcomes.

Key Results of the 161st Parliamentary Standing Committee Report (2021)

The Committee’s Report was the first holistic assessment of India’s post – 2016 IP ecosystem. Five major findings emerged.

1. Tenuous Domestic Innovation and Low R&D Investment – The Report correlated the low domestic filings to low R&D expenditure, poor infrastructure and poor industry-academy linkages. It recommended providing huge fiscal incentives and government funding to enhance the R&D intensity in India.
2. Commercialization Deficit – The Committee commented on the lack of a national IP valuation standard, the lack of more solid TTOs, and poor industry uptake of academic research. It called on the government to establish facilitation centers across the country, give commercialization grants, and encourage IP-backed lending.
3. Enforcement Weaknesses – The Committee stressed the need for specially-trained enforcement units, better border protection mechanisms, and centralized coordination of enforcement agencies.
4. Legislative Vacuums in New Technologies – The Committee had recommended that the government reconsider the norms on patentability especially in the field of AI, algorithms, data-driven inventions, biotechnology and computer-related inventions.
5. State-Level Participation – The Report recommended development of the state-level IPR policies and local innovation ecosystem for decentralized and inclusive IP development.

Post-2021 Developments: Has the Parliamentary Guidance been acted upon?

Since the submission of the 161st Parliamentary Standing Committee Report in 2021, India’s intellectual property ecosystem has undergone visible administrative and procedural consolidation, supported by sustained policy attention and incremental regulatory reform.  By 2024–25, India recorded a marked increase in overall IP filings across patents, trademarks, designs and geographical indications, reflecting broader participation in the formal IP system and the cumulative impact of digitisation, awareness programmes and startup-focused facilitation schemes. Amendments to the Patent Rules in 2024 further streamlined filing and prosecution procedures, reinforcing the Committee’s emphasis on efficiency and accessibility in IP administration.

Government-led initiatives in the post-2021 period have also sought to strengthen institutional engagement with IP. Startup-oriented schemes such as the Startups Intellectual Property Protection framework, continued expansion of IP facilitation services, and recognition-based mechanisms such as the National Intellectual Property Awards have contributed to greater visibility of IP as a strategic asset. Universities and research institutions have reported increased patenting activity, signalling gradual integration of IP considerations into research and innovation ecosystems.

Administrative digitisation has been one of the most visible areas of progress in the post-2021 period. Expanded use of e-governance tools, end-to-end online filing systems, virtual hearings, and real-time application tracking have improved procedural transparency and reduced friction for applicants. Standardised digital workflows and time-bound processes have contributed to more predictable examination timelines, reinforcing the Parliamentary Committee’s emphasis on efficiency and service-oriented IP administration.

Alongside these procedural gains, India has also witnessed incremental improvement in domestic IP filings in the post-2021 period. While foreign applicants continue to account for a substantial share of patent filings, the proportion of domestic filings has shown a gradual upward trend, particularly from startups, academic institutions, and MSMEs. This growth reflects the cumulative impact of awareness initiatives, facilitation schemes, and reduced procedural barriers, indicating a broader engagement of Indian stakeholders with the formal IP system.

Critical Insights and Existing Structural Gaps

Four structural gaps are apparent.

1. The R&D and Innovation Gap – India’s low expenditure on R&D is the biggest hurdle for meeting the objectives of the Policy. Without sustained increases in both public and private R&D investment, India cannot hope for a significantly increased amount of domestic patent filings or a significant amount of technological breakthroughs. Academic research remains publication-heavy and patent-light as a result of misaligned incentives.
2. Commercialization Ecosystem Deficit – The infrastructure of India in terms of commercialization is not developed. Without standardized methods of valuation, investors cannot rely on pricing patents. Without strong TTOs, universities are not in a position to translate research outputs into marketable products. Selling, licensing and monetizing patents is still difficult, especially for startups and MSMEs.
3. Weakness in Enforcement and Adjudication – Enforcement is inconsistent across states, investigations are slow, and the capacity of the judiciary is inadequate to handle complicated IP disputes. The abolition of IPAB led to some transitional difficulties in which the High Courts were made to bear the responsibility without setting up any specialized technical bench.
4. Need for future oriented legal frameworks – India needs to urgently update its patentability requirements to reflect non-traditional inventions, and especially of those that are produced by AI. Without the kind of forward-looking frameworks in place, India’s chances of being globally competitive in high growth sectors is at stake.

Conclusion

By 2025 both the National IPR Policy (2016) and the reforms triggered by the 161st Parliamentary Standing Committee Report (2021) have created an environment where the ecosystem of India’s IP system is getting stronger and more coherent. Startups, MSMEs and research-driven enterprises have gradually understood the strategic importance of IP and have received a helping hand through low-cost registration revenues, faster procedures and IP schemes eased by the government. Enforcement training programmes have started to improve institutional awareness and the annual reports of DPIIT indicate steady progress on stakeholder engagement, transparency of the system and e-governance initiatives. These developments cumulatively are indicative that the Indian IP system has become more accessible, more efficient and more responsive than it was a decade ago.

However, these gains are still incremental. India has much more work to do in order to make big structural investments to make substantial progress on the innovation front especially in R&D expenditure, commercialization routes and governance of emerging technologies. Without serious and long-term effort towards public and private investment in research, India cannot anticipate any possibility of dramatically raising domestic patent filings or generating globally competitive technological breakthroughs. The National IPR Policy created a visionary foundation, and the 161st Committee Report articulated a systemic blueprint; together, they represent a critical inflection point in India’s transition toward a knowledge-driven economy. Together, they represent a critical inflection point in India’s transition toward a knowledge-driven economy.

Going forward, how long these reforms persist will be a function of the ability of India to institutionalize comprehensive innovation capacity at federal, state and sectoral levels. The next phase requires an enabling environment of an ecosystem where IP will not just be generated but also successfully commercialized through sustainable development of technology transfer infrastructures, national IP valuation standards, and available IP-backed financing mechanisms. Regulatory and judicial modernization will be key as new and emerging technologies such as artificial intelligence, biotechnology, clean-energy systems and data-driven inventions.

Ultimately, the trajectory set in motion by the 2016 Policy and the 2021 Parliamentary Report, serves as a kind of solid foundation for India. Whether this foundation matures into a globally recognised innovation ecosystem in the coming decade will be a function of sustained political will, institutional coordination and long term investments in scientific, legal and technological capacity.

Author: Aditi Yadav, in case of any queries please contact/write back to us via email to [email protected] or at IIPRD. 

References

1. Government of India, National Intellectual Property Rights Policy, 2016, DPIIT (2016).
2. Rajya Sabha Secretariat, 161st Report of the Department-Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Commerce: Review of the Intellectual Property Rights Regime in India (2021).
3. CGPDTM, Annual Reports and IP Statistics, Government of India (2016-2025)
4. FICCI CASCADE, Illicit Markets: A Threat to Our National Interests – Counterfeiting in India (2020).
5. UNESCO Inst. for Stat., Research and Development Expenditure Dataset (2020).
6. CIPAM, Annual Activity Summary (2017-2020).
7. Indian Patent Office, Annual Report (2019-2020).
8. UNESCO Institute for Statistics, Science, Technology and Innovation Indicators (2020).
9. DPIIT, IP Annual Report (2023).
10. World Intellectual Property Organization, Global Innovation Index 2025 (2025)
11. Ministry of Fin., Government of India, Economic Survey 2023-24 (2024).
12. DPIIT, E-Governance in IP Administration: Progress Report (2022).