In a firm rebuttal to allegations that Indian pharmaceutical companies replicate products developed by Swiss firms, Commerce and Industry Minister Piyush Goyal has categorically dismissed such claims as unfounded. Emphasizing India’s commitment to intellectual property rights, Goyal underscored the nation’s legal safeguards against unethical patent extensions and highlighted India’s refusal to tolerate “evergreening” of patents. Amid discussions on the India-EFTA trade agreement, the minister affirmed that Indian pharmaceutical law strikes a balance between innovation and affordability, positioning India as a global partner in health care innovation—not an imitator.
Intellectual Property: India’s Uncompromising Stand
India’s Commerce Minister Piyush Goyal has dismissed recurring allegations by some Swiss pharmaceutical interests that Indian firms illicitly copy their patented products or trademarks. At a recent press interaction, Goyal was unequivocal: “I was shown none—not one,” he said, when asked about examples of such alleged infringements.
He asserted that the Indian pharmaceutical ecosystem is built on respect for global intellectual property frameworks and legal compliance. “India is very respectful of intellectual property rights (IPRs). India is very conscious of its responsibilities, and it is a country known to never, ever steal anybody else’s technology,” Goyal stated.
The minister’s response aimed to dispel a myth that has circulated in international forums for years, one that paints Indian pharmaceutical manufacturers as imitators rather than innovators.
Patent Evergreening: A Global Concern, Not an Indian Practice
A focal point of the discussion was the controversial practice known as “evergreening”—where patent-holding firms make minor modifications to an existing drug and seek extended patent protection, thereby delaying the entry of affordable generics into the market.
India, through its domestic legislation, particularly Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970, explicitly prohibits such practices unless the revised formulation demonstrates significantly enhanced efficacy. Additionally, Section 3(b) bars patents for products that may not serve public interest or represent real innovation.
Goyal criticized the global impact of evergreening, noting, “That is depriving even the Swiss people of affordable health care… You are causing a loss to billions of citizens, not only in Switzerland but across the world.”
This legal and moral position, he suggested, was not only a domestic policy but a global ethical imperative. He reiterated that India does not allow such mechanisms to undermine access to affordable medicines.
Global Trade and Collaboration Over Confrontation
Amid negotiations on the India-EFTA (European Free Trade Association) trade agreement—which includes Iceland, Liechtenstein, Norway, and Switzerland—Goyal described the engagement with Swiss pharmaceutical companies as constructive and forward-looking.
According to the minister, these companies offered actionable insights that the Indian government has already incorporated. “I’ve earned their trust,” he said, projecting confidence that Indian and European pharma players could forge partnerships rooted in shared goals: innovation, affordability, and equitable healthcare access.
Goyal added that Indian reforms have streamlined IPR processes, cut bureaucratic red tape, and accelerated approvals—all without compromising legal rigor. No pharmaceutical company, he asserted, had presented any verifiable claims of misconduct by Indian firms.
India's Expanding Pharma Market: A Global Opportunity
India’s pharmaceutical sector, with its scale, competitive pricing, and regulatory balance, represents an unparalleled opportunity for global pharma players. Goyal emphasized that Indian laws are not obstacles to innovation but safeguards against monopolistic exploitation.
He pointed out that pharmaceutical companies, including those from Switzerland and broader EFTA nations, have indicated a clear understanding of India’s legal structure and ethical stance. Contrary to misinformed narratives, they are not actively seeking to exploit patent laws via evergreening mechanisms in India.
With a domestic population of 1.4 billion and growing global influence, India offers both a massive market and a production base for companies aiming to balance profit with purpose.
Conclusion:
India’s pharmaceutical policy stands at the intersection of public health ethics and global economic strategy. By firmly rejecting myths around IPR violations and reinforcing its legal stance against evergreening, India is not just defending its reputation—it’s redefining global norms. As trade negotiations with EFTA advance, India's message is clear: collaboration, not contention, is the way forward. For global pharma, India is not merely a marketplace—it is a partner in building a healthier, fairer future.
Comments