ARTICLE
11 September 2025

Critical Research Report On India-UK CETA Analysis From The IPR Perspective

Ka
Khurana and Khurana

Contributor

Khurana and Khurana logo
K&K is among leading IP and Commercial Law Practices in India with rankings and recommendations from Legal500, IAM, Chambers & Partners, AsiaIP, Acquisition-INTL, Corp-INTL, and Managing IP. K&K represents numerous entities through its 9 offices across India and over 160 professionals for varied IP, Corporate, Commercial, and Media/Entertainment Matters.
Explore Firm Details
India-UK CETA, which became operational on July 24, 2025, was signed to help increase trade, job creation, and growth of economies.
Worldwide Intellectual Property
Shikhar Sanadaya
Your Author LinkedIn Connections

India-UK CETA, which became operational on July 24, 2025, was signed to help increase trade, job creation, and growth of economies. Intellectual property rights (IPRs) The legal issues related to Patents, copyrights, designs, trademarks, GIs and trade secrets Chapter 13 focuses on righting the balance between IP rights and the interests of the general public because innovation must be maximized, and IPRs must be in support of innovation. India expects a 99 percent duty-free treatment of its exports and this will result in benefits to the labor-intensive sectors and services, whereas the UK will receive benefits as tariffs are cut and enhancing the strength of the copyright rights. India opposed certain patentization measures, such as patent term extension and data exclusivity claims, as explicit forms of TRIPS-plus, but is still troubled by voluntary licensing preferences (Article 13.6) and triennial patent working disclosure (Article 13.56). Such provisions implicitly question the TRIPS flexibilities of India at the expense of policy space and at the advantage of right holders.

Signed on July 24, 2025, following 14 rounds of negotiations, the India-UK CETA that will enter into force after ratification is expected to boost employment, exports, and economic growth through profound tariff removal. UK provides duty-free access of 99 percent on Indian export and India lowers tariffs on 90 percent of the UK lines. It is the largest FTA post-Brexit the UK and the most substantial outside Asia to India, as a strategic step to bring India at a global economic helm by 2047. Chapter 13 which talks of Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) is paramount and it determines innovation and transfer of technology. This IPR focus augers in on an innovation alliance, with a shift in focus on knowledge-based economic integration, instead of commodity based economic integration.

The Chapter 13 of CETA is seeking effective and balanced protection and enforcement of IP rights to create innovation, transfer technology, and welfare. It involves copyrights, designs, trademarks, GIs, patents and trade secrets, enforcement and cooperation. The chapter has an explicit reaffirmation of the TRIPS obligations and the Doha Declaration that its measures should not be seen to preclude a party to do anything to protect the health of the population and use the flexibilities. The CETA is agreed, but not yet ratified and signed July 24, 2025. Although reflecting TRIPS flexibilities, wordsmithing of provisions, particularly those on voluntary licensing, patent working disclosure, and patent working protection, is viewed as an encroachment of policy space by India that may appear to favor right holders

  1. Patents and Public Health: Navigating "TRIPS-Plus" Provisions

The Patents Act in India (Section 84 dealing with compulsory licensing, Section 3(d) dealing with patentability has historically guaranteed access to affordable medicines and has guarded against evergreening a position which is consistent with the Doha Declaration. The Indian government claims that CETA shields its generic pharmaceutical marketplace parents by not imposing "TRIPS-plus" measures such as extension to the term of patent or data exclusivity, and by excluding Section 3(d).

Nevertheless, such decisive provisions are worrying. Article 13.6 favours voluntary means of accessing medicine, as opposed to the historic use of compulsory licensing in India. Critics such as MSF say that voluntary licenses are limiting, and more so favor local producers and can remove the availability of generic drugs unlike what will be happening with the voluntary licenses. The provision at Article 13.56, which permits disclosure of patent working on no less than triennial basis, all delay in the identification of non-working patents, making compulsory licensing difficult and artificially advantages large patent holders. Civil society regards this as a "categorical regression" of the health protection given to people. Accepting of these provisions may diminish the Indian leadership role in supporting IP rights of the developing nations. The IPR chapter of the CETA has managed to accomplish the following, has the de facto effect of TRIPS-plus outcomes via nuanced procedural and preferential language, and this has made it more difficult to exercise the TRIPS flexibilities by India.

Key Patent-Related Provisions in CETA vs. India's Traditional Stance

IPR Feature

India's Traditional Stance

CETA Provision

Implication

Patent Term Extensions

Strongly resisted; not mandated by Indian patent law.

Not mandated.

India successfully resisted this common "TRIPS-plus" demand.

Data Exclusivity

Strongly resisted; considered beyond TRIPS obligations.

Not mandated.

India successfully resisted this common "TRIPS-plus" demand.

Patentability Criteria (Section 3(d) of Indian Patents Act)

Strict criteria to prevent evergreening of patents (minor modifications).

Explicitly stated as "fully protected".

India maintained its sovereign right to refuse patents for minor modifications of known substances.

Compulsory Licensing (CL)

Key public health safeguard (Section 84 of Patents Act); used to ensure affordability and availability (e.g., Sorafenib Tosylate case).

Article 13.6 states "preferable and optimal route to promote and ensure access to medicines is through voluntary mechanisms".

Shifts the stated preference away from compulsory licensing, potentially creating a "chilling effect" on generic availability and weakening India's bargaining power in negotiations.

Working of Patents Disclosure

Annual disclosure (Form 27) required for patent holders to demonstrate commercial working, crucial for public oversight and triggering compulsory licenses.

Article 13.56 states "Neither Party shall require a patent owner to provide annual disclosure... periodicity shall not be less than three years".

Weakens public oversight and delays the detection of non-working patents, making it significantly harder and slower to invoke compulsory licenses, thereby benefiting large patent holders and prolonging market exclusivity. Described as a "clear rollback" of public health safeguards.
  1. Geographical Indications (GIs) and Traditional Knowledge (TK)

Chapter 13 of CETA deals with Geographical Indications (GIs), and side letters covering wine, spirits, agricultural products, and handicrafts GI (including Scotch whisky and Darjeeling tea), of the EU benefit. Nonetheless, the agreement does not provide unambiguous "positive protection" of Traditional Knowledge (TK) that is outside established typologies of IP. Although India has both domestic mechanisms, namely the TKDL, to help stave off TK misappropriation and benefit-sharing legislation, there are still shortcomings, such as the lack of sui generis legislation and issues relating to oral tradition documentation. This shows that the CETA prioritized commercial GIs over general TK protection and implies that India missed the chance to place its TK agenda, which is likely to support the prevailing IP standards more.

  1. Other IPR Categories: Copyrights, Designs, and Trade Secrets

CETA's IPR chapter covers copyrights, industrial designs, and trade secrets, aiming for effective protection. The UK gains "enhanced copyright protections" for at least 60 years, with the chapter seeking to balance rights and public interest while facilitating information diffusion. These provisions are expected to boost creative industries, advanced manufacturing, and India's IT/ITeS sector through tariff reductions and digital trade commitments (e.g., e-contracts, limited data localization). While beneficial for digital services, the "enhanced protection" emphasis could favor right-holders, potentially impacting India's access to digital content and technologies.

Economic and Strategic Impact of the IPR Framework

The IPR mechanism of the CETA has its effects on the two economies to a substantial magnitude. UK industries (life sciences, pharma, advanced manufacturing, creative, services) have greater tariff-cut, easing of rules and improved copyright protections UK industries are benefiting, getting a market bearing. In the case of India, even after the government has guaranteed protection of generics beyond the "TRIPS-plus" there is still an apprehension on voluntary licensing and patent working disclosure. Nevertheless, the Indian pharma is able to access NHS procurement and rapid market entry. The UK promises of India can be seen in the growth and promise in IT/ITeS and services sectors with improvements in professional mobility and exemption of social security. Duty-free access is also granted to labor-intensive manufacturing which increases export and using up of labor. In general, the concession by India to patent flexibility is a strategic trade-off, which will foremost pursue economic interests and market access, which could deliver power to the innovator companies.

VI. Stakeholder Perspectives and Broader Critical Assessments

The CETA's IPR chapter elicits diverse reactions. Civil society and public health advocates (e.g., MSF, TWN) criticize Article 13.6's preference for voluntary licensing and Article 13.56's triennial patent working disclosure, despite India resisting explicit "TRIPS-plus" demands. They argue these provisions undermine India's policy space for affordable medicines and constitute a "rollback" of safeguards. Academic opinions vary: some note balanced copyright provisions , while others point to subtle pressure on India to weaken patent working rules, favoring multinationals and potentially eroding India's IP leadership. Both governments assert the CETA safeguards interests, promotes growth, and enhances IP protection, with India highlighting Section 3(d) protection and the absence of patent term extensions or data exclusivity. This divergence reveals a fundamental disagreement on the IPR chapter's long-term implications and its "balance."

VII. Conclusion and Recommendations

The IPR Chapter of the CETA is nuanced: India opposed overt demands to improve on TRIPS-related IP (extension of patent term, data exclusivity) but acquiesced in more subtle compromise, including the adoption of the preference to voluntary license (Article 13.6) and triennial working disclosure (Article 13.56) of patents. The benefits of these procedural changes have been raised as having the potential to undermine the public health protection in India, access to affordable medicine and the loss of IP leadership in India even though the agreement is beneficial to the economy. The balance in the context of the IPR is also debatable particularly in protection of public health and traditional knowledge.

Proposal to Effective Implementation, Monitoring and Future Dialogues

India has to be alert that IPR is having an effect on the prices of medication and the generic availability and review the voluntary licenses and the triennial disclosures. It must enhance internal protection, work on clear understandable guidelines on the subject of interpretations making public health safety a priority, and take the initiative in promoting the safeguarding of Traditional Knowledge (TK) under the auspices of positive protection, not confined to GIs. The two countries ought to take advantage of the working groups of CETA in conducting technology transfer and research and development. Effective implementation and the adaptation of policies require constant communication with the stakeholders.

Long-Term Implication

IPR chapter of the CETA highlights the conflict between IP protection and the common good. It exposes the practices of such developed countries emerging/ seek IP agendas not in the form of all-out TRIPS-plus clauses but in amusement procedural modifications. The future India IP strategy needs to change to be strategic in negotiating clear text and avoiding flexibilities and subtle policy autonomy erosion. This calls for watchfulness, legal interpretation and questioning of harmless provisions in order to transform IP diplomacy. The long-term success of the framework consists in India successfully manoeuvring through these provisions in such a way that it retains its policy space with the economy growth not sacrificing either the health or the availability of knowledge.

REFERENCES

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Authors
Person photo placeholder
Shikhar Sanadaya
Your Author LinkedIn Connections
See More Popular Content From

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More