Patents and the Perils of Incentive-Driven Innovation
Y
Babji, Advocate & IPR Attorney
Intellectual Property Rights are intended to
protect creativity, reward genuine innovation and encourage research that
contributes to societal progress. Patents, in particular, are meant to
recognise inventions that are novel,
inventive and useful, while also serving as indicators of a nation’s
scientific and technological advancement. However, when patent activity becomes
incentive-driven rather than
innovation-driven, the very spirit of IPR stands at risk of dilution.
Recent public debates sparked by a widely discussed
“robo-dog” episode associated in public discourse with Galgotias University have brought this concern into sharp focus.
The controversy is not merely about one institution or one isolated event. It
raises deeper questions about how patent-linked
incentives, rankings and funding mechanisms can be exploited when
safeguards are weak.
Based on patent data from 2023–2024, Galgotias University reportedly filed more patent
applications than all 23 Indian
Institutes of Technology (IITs) combined. While the IITs together filed 1,106 patent applications, certain
private universities significantly outperformed them in sheer filing numbers.
Such a disparity, while not illegal in itself, warrants closer examination from
a policy and governance perspective.
In India, filing a patent is relatively
inexpensive. At the same time, innovation summits, academic schemes and policy
initiatives often offer financial
incentives, recognition or grants linked to patent filings. In some
cases, a modest filing fee can potentially be followed by substantial monetary
incentives. The objective behind such schemes is laudable, to encourage
students, researchers and institutions to innovate.
However, when quantity begins to overshadow quality, patents risk becoming
statistical instruments rather than authentic markers of intellectual
contribution. A system in which a small filing cost can unlock large incentives
creates an inherent vulnerability particularly when scrutiny at later stages is
limited or inconsistent.
When an institution files an unusually large number
of patents compared to national benchmarks, legitimate policy questions
naturally arise are (1) Are these patents based on original, in-house research?
(2) Do they satisfy the legal standards of novelty and inventive step? (3) Or
are they strategic filings aimed primarily at maximising incentives, rankings
or institutional visibility? These are not accusations, but governance questions that demand
transparent, evidence-based answers.
Patent counts also play a role in national
evaluation frameworks such as National
Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF), which influence institutional
reputation, student admissions, funding access and in some cases, fee
structures. When ranking systems reward numerical outputs without proportionate
scrutiny of substance, unintended consequences follow.
A self-reinforcing cycle may emerge like this. File
more patents and improve rankings. Improve rankings and gain regulatory and
financial advantages. Gain advantages and file even more patents.
In such an ecosystem, genuine innovators, especially
students and researchers with limited institutional backing risk being crowded
out by entities better equipped to navigate procedural loopholes. Innovation
gradually shifts from problem-solving
to performance metrics.
Another critical dimension is the use of public money. Any incentive or grant
linked to patent activity ultimately draws from taxpayer resources. If rewards
are issued at early or provisional stages without rigorous evaluation of
originality, ownership or commercial viability, the system becomes vulnerable
to rent-seeking behaviour, where
financial gain overtakes scientific merit.
From an IPR standpoint, this is deeply problematic.
Intellectual property is not merely a legal entitlement. It is a moral contract between the innovator and
society. When that contract is stretched or manipulated, public trust in
innovation ecosystems erodes.
It is therefore essential that this debate does not
descend into personalised attacks or institutional vilification. The larger
issue is systemic design, not
individual intent. Several structural weaknesses demand attention towards (a) Limited
scrutiny at the patent-filing and incentive-approval stages (b) Incentives tied
to numbers rather than impact or commercialisation (c) Ranking frameworks that
privilege volume over value and (d) Insufficient transparency in grant
disbursement and audit mechanisms. These gaps explain why similar controversies
recur across sectors, not only in higher education, but also in start-ups and
research institutions.
The issue of patent integrity must also be viewed
alongside concerns about institutional credibility in higher education. As per the UGC, there are 32 fake
universities in the country, including 12 in Delhi alone. If institutions are
declared fake for violating prescribed norms, does this justify branding
Galgotias as fraudulent? While this statistic refers to unrecognised
entities rather than accredited private universities, it highlights a broader
challenge i.e. regulatory oversight has
not always kept pace with rapid institutional expansion.
When oversight is uneven, incentives, whether
linked to patents, rankings or grants are more likely to be misused. The result
is reputational damage not only to individual institutions, but to India’s
higher-education and innovation ecosystem as a whole. India’s innovation
ecosystem urgently needs corrective measures. Intellectual Property Rights are
a national asset. They must be
guarded not only by law, but by integrity,
accountability and thoughtful policy design. The present debate,
whatever its trigger, should serve as a wake-up call to reform systems rather
than sensationalise individuals or institutions.
In the end, a
strong IPR regime is not one that produces the most patents, but one that
produces the most meaningful ones. Patents that solve real problems,
generate real value and genuinely reflect human ingenuity.
