Landscape of IP Ownership and Revenue Sharing Policies in India and their benchmarking with policies in the West

Landscape of IP Ownership and Revenue Sharing Policies in India and their benchmarking with policies in the West

Suchita Markan

Contact

Asst.General Manager at BCIL

Landscape of IP Ownership and Revenue Sharing Policies in India and their benchmarking with policies in the West

Article Fingerprint

ReserarchID

6879P

Landscape of IP Ownership and Revenue Sharing Policies in India and their benchmarking with policies in the West Banner

AI TAKEAWAY

Connecting with the Eternal Ground

Abstract

Innovation is the key to sustainable ecosystem in Science and Technology (S&T). Robust Intellectual property (IP) policies and revenue sharing models to incentivise innovators are imperative to boost creativity and innovation by them. This paper assesses the current IP ownership and revenue sharing policies in India deployed by key autonomous public research institutes (PRIs) under Ministry of S&T (DBT, CSIR, ICMR, ICAR), Ministry of Defence (DRDO), and Ministry of Agriculture and Farmers Welfare (ICAR), Government of India (GOI) with 345 institutes under their purview and top 100 universities as per National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF)-2017 issued by GOI. Pertinent IP policy typologies studied included presence/absence of IP policies, IP ownership policies, type of revenue sharing models, benefit sharing policies, payout frequency, start-up policies etc. and its bench marking with successful models being followed by leading universities in west in USA, UK and Canada. The findings of this study will be of relevance to policy makers for understanding policy typology, to practitioners for drafting suitable policies and to innovators as key beneficiary of such policies.

References

36 Cites in Article

Reference Format

(2016). India.
WIPO: Intellectual Property Policies for Universities.
(2014). Intellectual Property Rights for Software, Artificial Intelligence and Computer Related Inventions: A Comparative Analysis.
(2006). Policies Resulting from the Commercialization of Technology: A Compilation/Comparison of Universities and Technological Institutions in Canada.
(2010). Intellectual Property Policies at Canadian Universities.
(2001). UNILATERAL REFUSALS TO LICENSE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND INTERNATIONAL COMPETITION POLICY.
(2005). Technology-Transfer: What India can learn from the United States.
Furqan Qamar (2017). Measuring Performance of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) and the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF).
(2019). Intellectual Property Rights (IPR).
Guidelines/Instructions for Technology Transfer and Intellectual Property Rights.
Pradeep Yadav,Ankur Agarwal,Harendra Kumar,Shiva Kumar,Om Prakash,Basant Ballabh,Devakanta Singh (2025). Interspecific grafting compatibility studies between tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) grafted on eggplant (Solanum melongena) and its wild relatives.
Dbt (2022). Doing the Unthinkable.
Intellectual Property Right Policy-2013.
Cliff Reader (2006). AVS Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) Policy.
Dr. Sophia (2019). Predicting Equity VIX of Technological Companies.
Intellectual Property Rights Policy.
IP Ownership, Benefit Sharing and Incentive for Researchers-PPT WIPO.
(2006). Survey Report on Royalty Rates and Policies Resulting from the Commercialization of Technology: A Compilation/Comparison of Universities and Technological Institutions in Canada.
(2023). Conflicts Between Academic Inventors and Universities Since Bayh Dole Act.
Mrinalini Kochupillai (2008). Engineering a More Innovative Environment in India: An Analysis of the Protection and Utilization of Public Funded Intellectual Property Bill.
James Gazzard,Sarah Brown (2012). Revenue Sharing: An Assessment of Current Policies at UK Universities.
James Gazzard,Sarah Brown (2011). Unknown Title.
Saul Lach,Mark Schankerman (2004). Royalty Sharing and Technology Licensing in Universities.
Joseph Friedman,Jonathan Silberman (2003). University Technology Transfer: Do Incentives, Management, and Location Matter?.
Joseph Friedman,Jonathan Silberman (2003). University Technology Transfer: Do Incentives, Management, and Location Matter?.
Patents (1999). New York Times New York State Poll, March 1999.
Recommendation of the Committee on Guidelines for distribution and utilization of royality received by the University for technologies developed by the University Teachers.
Intellectual Property Policy.
(2013). Supplemental Information 6: Data augmentation accuracy comparisons using ResNet50 on Oxford-IIIT Pet Dataset (for Table 6)..
Jyoti Tripathi,Vipin Bhatnagar,Ashok Kumar,J Shahi (2015). Sensitivity Studies Using Globes.
Intellectual Property.
(2007). Copyright Page.
(2019). Intellectual Property Rights (IPR).
Amit Rehalia*,Samar Wazir,Md. Nafis (2020). Data Mining Association Rules using Probabilistic Functions without Predefined Weights.
(2016). Intellectual Property Rights (IPR).
(2012). Policy for Indian Institute of Technology Bombay.

Download References

Funding

No external funding was declared for this work.

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

No ethics committee approval was required for this article type.

Data Availability

Not applicable for this article.

How to Cite This Article

Suchita Markan. 2018. \u201cLandscape of IP Ownership and Revenue Sharing Policies in India and their benchmarking with policies in the West\u201d. Global Journal of Science Frontier Research - I: Interdisciplinary GJSFR-I Volume 18 (GJSFR Volume 18 Issue I1).

More Citation Formats

Select Citation Style:

Download Citation

GJSFR Volume 18 Issue I1

Explore Journals Explore Volume Read This Issue

Journal Specifications

Crossref Journal DOI 10.17406/GJSFR

Print ISSN 0975-5896

e-ISSN 2249-4626

Keywords

Not Found

Classification

GJSFR-I Classification FOR Code: 050104

Submission ReceivedFebruary 21, 2018
Peer Review Double Blind
Handling Editor
Accepted March 13, 2018
Published March 25, 2018

Version of record

v1.2

Issue date

June 30, 2018

Language

Experiance in AR

Explore published articles in an immersive Augmented Reality environment. Our platform converts research papers into interactive 3D books, allowing readers to view and interact with content using AR and VR compatible devices.

View in VR

Read in 3D

Your published article is automatically converted into a realistic 3D book. Flip through pages and read research papers in a more engaging and interactive format.

View in 3D

Article Matrices

Total Score: 101

Country: India

Subject: Global Journal of Science Frontier Research - I: Interdisciplinary

Authors: Suchita Markan (PhD/Dr. count: 0)

View Count (all-time): 154

Total Views (Real + Logic): 3038

Total Downloads (simulated): 1594

Publish Date: 2018 06, Sat

Monthly Totals (Real + Logic):

Month 1: 28 views
Month 2: 44 views
Month 3: 32 views
Month 4: 43 views
Month 5: 32 views
Month 6: 44 views
Month 7: 50 views
Month 8: 50 views
Month 9: 16 views
Month 10: 48 views
Month 11: 40 views
Month 12: 25 views
Month 13: 43 views
Month 14: 33 views
Month 15: 23 views
Month 16: 22 views
Month 17: 30 views
Month 18: 12 views
Month 19: 47 views
Month 20: 27 views
Month 21: 36 views
Month 22: 32 views
Month 23: 29 views
Month 24: 28 views
Month 25: 36 views
Month 26: 16 views
Month 27: 35 views
Month 28: 30 views
Month 29: 38 views
Month 30: 20 views
Month 31: 42 views
Month 32: 32 views
Month 33: 30 views
Month 34: 31 views
Month 35: 24 views
Month 36: 28 views
Month 37: 33 views
Month 38: 39 views
Month 39: 20 views
Month 40: 38 views
Month 41: 17 views
Month 42: 15 views
Month 43: 39 views
Month 44: 34 views
Month 45: 29 views
Month 46: 32 views
Month 47: 31 views
Month 48: 33 views
Month 49: 31 views
Month 50: 31 views
Month 51: 37 views
Month 52: 17 views
Month 53: 16 views
Month 54: 24 views
Month 55: 34 views
Month 56: 33 views
Month 57: 39 views
Month 58: 23 views
Month 59: 45 views
Month 60: 14 views
Month 61: 29 views
Month 62: 31 views
Month 63: 17 views
Month 64: 27 views
Month 65: 39 views
Month 66: 12 views
Month 67: 28 views
Month 68: 34 views
Month 69: 32 views
Month 70: 43 views
Month 71: 25 views
Month 72: 42 views
Month 73: 28 views
Month 74: 30 views
Month 75: 43 views
Month 76: 23 views
Month 77: 40 views
Month 78: 26 views
Month 79: 29 views
Month 80: 21 views
Month 81: 30 views
Month 82: 15 views
Month 83: 23 views
Month 84: 26 views
Month 85: 44 views
Month 86: 23 views
Month 87: 45 views
Month 88: 25 views
Month 89: 18 views
Month 90: 36 views
Month 91: 21 views
Month 92: 75 views
Month 93: 48 views
Month 94: 23 views

Total Views: 3038

Total Downloads: 1594

2026 Trends

Our website is actively being updated, and changes may occur frequently. Please clear your browser cache if needed. For feedback or error reporting, please email [email protected]