Kushank Sindhu and Abhishek K. Singh here throws light on the ignorance of the government on the data screening process through this paper.


The central point of conflict between innovator and generic
pharmaceutical companies is how generic companies
circumvent drug authorization procedures for
manufacturing products already invented by innovator
companies. Governments rely on the post-screening data
submitted by innovators to check the similarity of the
generic’s product with the innovator’s product. Generics
are able to reduce costs because of low trial and testing
costs. This helps them market cheap and similar medicines
but according to the innovators, there must be intellectual
property protection given on the data that they have already
submitted given its newness and expensive generation.
Governments should not rely on them at least for a few
years. The TRIPS Agreement is ambiguous on this issue
leading to different interpretations. India interprets against
such protection on the misplaced belief that imposing it
would finally lead to delay and increase in medicine costs.
This paper brings out the fallacy in the above line
of thought by interpreting the TRIPS in a manner which
clearly indicates towards a regime of data exclusivity as a
means of intellectual property protection. Analysis of data
from countries shows the benefits of such interpretation encouraging critical research and development of cheaper
and more effective medicines. It allows for foreign
investment and collaboration opportunities. India’s position
on data exclusivity is incorrect and dangerous making the
country lose out on crucial benefits. Concerns such as high
prices of medicines can be remedied utilizing the provisions
already there in Indian law. This plan of action will protect intellectual property towards better public healthcare