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.