The advancement of technology will continue. The world has evolved from room-sized computers to nanotechnology. Nanotechnology studies and manipulates stuff 100 m or smaller. Nanotechnology is a future technology. The slogan is now “ever smaller, ever faster” Nanotechnology offers access to the smallest objects, introducing patenting and regulating difficulties. Nanotechnology requires expanding all viewpoints, including operational region norms. To promote R&D, inventors need strong IP protection, especially patents.
IPR helps creators of intellectual concepts manage cash, time, resources, and effort, which encourages commerce and industry. Academic scientists must write unique publications to progress. Transferring academic knowledge to industry can boost academic entrepreneurship. Patents include more relevant knowledge than research. Scientific research may benefit from broadening patent writing. Appropriate IPR policies and accessible technology transfer employees reduce time. Patents boost universities’ economics and professors’ reputations. Intellectual property may help commercialize and advance nanotechnology, despite India’s poorly developed IP environment.
Despite programmes like Nano Mission, which provides funding to competent groups (preferably from a group of institutions) to conduct focused nanoscience research and develop nanotechnology-based applications, India had just 54 Nanotechnology patents as of 2019, compared to 4666 in the US.
Problems confronting the Indian government
A product or technique without industrial applicability is patent-ineligible in India. The provision looks tough for nanoscale innovations.
India uses the ‘substantial utility’ criteria, according to law and tradition. “Substantial usefulness” means “real-world use.” In nanotechnology patents, stringent adherence to ‘industry-usable’ poses a dilemma. Nanotechnology has “unpredictable” lab and real-world outcomes. In a controlled lab environment, extraneous effects are easy to spot. Extrinsic factors can affect test results, impeding patentability.
Section 3(b) of the Indian Patent Act prevents nanobiotechnology patenting due to nanotoxicity assumptions. Due to nanoparticles’ strong penetration capacity, they can penetrate human bodies and induce nanotoxicity. Section 3(d) is ambiguous about whether particle size is patentable. “Nano” refers to 100-nm-or-smaller innovations. Nanomaterials are often combinations of particles or inventions, or nanoparticles of existing materials, with no noticeable change in attributes or industrial uses. Section 3(d) “standard effectiveness” may not be met. India has no criteria for assessing effectiveness and advancing efficacy.
Nanotech’s growth requires immediate reform.
Neither the Indian Patent Act nor the TRIPS agreement, which promotes the protection of intellectual property across all domains of research, regulate this technology. This gap between technology and patenting may be due to a lack of understanding of its properties.
Amending the Indian Patent Act is one way to patent nanotechnology inventions. Legislators must recognize nanotechnology and create a mechanism for patenting nanotechnology inventions. Since nanotechnology involves several scientific disciplines, a team of examiners from different fields would help understand the claims. A nanotechnology database similar to the regular database might be created. Nanotechnology patents need a different classification, which needs policy. These early efforts will stimulate nanotechnology research and innovation, boosting India’s patenting system.
Conclusion
Nanotechnology reinvents intellectual property rights and presents patentability challenges, threatening its progress. Open and closed intellectual property will inevitably coexist. Nanotechnology is the future of science and technology; thus, legislation must stimulate new thinking, parallel research and invention, patent deletion, and rapid product creation. The necessity of the hour is neither strong rules nor liberal regulations, but a framework that analyses long-term demands and research and innovation in a hopeful technology that will define the future of mankind.
Indian patent law is insufficient to meet nanotechnology patent issues within and outside the office. In the Indian Patent system, the lack of legislative framework or patent office regulations addressing patentability standards, nanotech term definitions, patent term assurance, upstream patenting and licensing, and inclusive prior art or nanotech classification poses several barriers.
India’s nanotechnology innovations and patenting are young. In 10 years, science will dominate. Nanotechnology development is crucial for India’s social and scientific demands.
