Topic 142 — Comparative IP Law

COMPARATIVE IP LAW examines major jurisdictions' approaches — UNITED STATES, UNITED KINGDOM, EUROPEAN UNION, CHINA, and JAPAN — providing context for understanding India's framework. Each jurisdiction offers distinct philosophical approaches: US emphasises STRONG IP RIGHTS + market-driven framework + fair use doctrine; UK FOLLOWS COMMON LAW heritage with EU influence (post-Brexit divergence); EU UNIFIED MARKET framework with national variations + strong harmonisation; CHINA RAPID IP MODERNISATION with state-driven framework + significant enforcement reforms; JAPAN STRONG IP CULTURE with emphasis on patent quality. Comparing approaches reveals India's strategic positioning: India BALANCES TRIPS minimum standards + flexibilities; OPPOSES TRIPS-Plus; PRESERVES public health; STRENGTHENS South-South cooperation. Key comparative dimensions: PATENTABILITY (US — broad including software/business methods; EU — restrictive software via technical effect; India — Section 3(d), 3(j), 3(k); China — modernised; Japan — strong technical effect). FAIR USE / FAIR DEALING (US — broad fair use; UK — fair dealing categories; India — Section 52 specific exceptions; EU — three-step test; Japan — limited specific exceptions). DAMAGES (US — willful infringement triple damages; statutory damages; UK — compensatory; India — emerging quantification framework; EU — varies by member; China — modernised). ENFORCEMENT (US — strong civil + criminal; ITC for imports; UK — strong civil; EU — Anti-Piracy Directive; India — IPAB abolished + HC IP Divisions; China — modernised IP courts; Japan — IP-specialised courts). The 2024-2025 reforms continue. India's approach is uniquely positioned — TRIPS-compliant + flexibilities-preserving + modernising. This topic walks through comparative IP law for major jurisdictions — substantive frameworks, enforcement, recent reforms, and India's strategic positioning.

1. United States IP Framework

A. Statutory Framework

US Patent Act (35 USC) — patents.
Lanham Act (15 USC §1051+) — trademarks.
Copyright Act 1976 (17 USC) — copyright.
Defend Trade Secrets Act 2016 (DTSA) — federal trade secrets.
US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) administers.
US Copyright Office under Library of Congress.

B. Distinctive Features

✅ US IP Distinctive Features

PATENT FRAMEWORK: · First-inventor-to-file (post-AIA 2013). · 20 years from filing (matches India). · Provisional applications. · Robust patent prosecution. · Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). · Inter Partes Review (IPR). FAIR USE (17 USC §107): · FOUR-FACTOR test. · (1) Purpose and character. · (2) Nature of work. · (3) Amount used. · (4) Effect on market. · Authors Guild v. Google 2015 — transformative use. · ANI v. OpenAI parallels (Indian pending). DAMAGES: · Willful infringement: TREBLE damages. · Statutory damages (Copyright): up to $150K per work. · Reasonable royalty. · Lost profits. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION (ITC): · Section 337 — IP-based exclusion orders. · Particularly significant for imports.

C. Recent US Cases Affecting India

Stephen Thaler v. Vidal (2022, 43 F.4th 1207) — AI inventor rejected.
Authors Guild v. OpenAI (pending) — AI training.
Bartz v. Anthropic (pending) — Claude training.
NYT v. OpenAI — news content training.
Hermès v. Rothschild (S.D.N.Y. 2023) — NFT trademark.

2. United Kingdom IP Framework

A. Statutory Framework

Patents Act 1977 — patents.
Trade Marks Act 1994 — trademarks.
Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 (CDPA) — copyright + designs.
Confidential information protected through equity.
UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) administers.
Post-Brexit divergence from EU framework.

B. Distinctive Features

✅ UK IP Distinctive Features

PATENT FRAMEWORK: · UK Patent — separate from EPO grants. · Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) member. · European Patent Convention (EPC) — UK still member. · UK separate from EU IP framework post-Brexit. FAIR DEALING (CDPA): · Specific category-based exceptions. · Research, private study, criticism, review, news reporting. · Less broad than US fair use. · Indian Section 52 alignment. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION: · Equity-based protection. · No statutory definition. · Common law framework. · Indian Section 27 ICA framework parallel. DESIGN PROTECTION: · UK Registered Design. · UK Unregistered Design Right. · Design Right protection (15 years). · Hague Geneva Act member. DISTINCTIVE: · Strong common law tradition. · Influence on Indian framework. · Post-Brexit independent path.

C. Recent UK Cases

Thaler v. Comptroller-General [2023] UKSC 49 — AI inventor rejected.
Getty Images v. Stability AI — AI training pending.
Brexit IP transition.

3. European Union IP Framework

A. Statutory Framework

European Patent Convention (EPC) 1973 — multinational.
Unified Patent Court (UPC) — effective 1 June 2023.
European Patent Office (EPO) administers.
Trade Marks Directive (EU 2015/2436).
EU Trade Mark Regulation (EUTMR).
European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO).
Database Directive 96/9/EC.
EU AI Act 2024.

B. Distinctive Features

✅ EU IP Distinctive Features

EUROPEAN PATENT FRAMEWORK: · EPC 1973 — multinational system. · EPO — central examination. · Patents validated in chosen states. · Unified Patent Court (UPC) — effective 1 June 2023. · Single litigation across EU. EU TRADE MARK FRAMEWORK: · EU Trade Mark (EUTM) — single registration covers EU. · Madrid Protocol designation EU. · Strong harmonisation. COMMUNITY DESIGNS: · Registered Community Design (RCD). · Unregistered Community Design (UCD). · Hague Geneva Act EU member. DATA PROTECTION: · GDPR 2016 — data protection. · EU AI Act 2024. · Major regulatory framework. GI PROTECTION: · Strong GI framework. · Aged products + spirits. · Consumer protection orientation.

C. India-EU FTA Implications

TRIPS-Plus debates.
Patent term extension contested.
Data exclusivity proposals contested.
GIs mutual recognition.
Continuing negotiations.

4. China IP Framework

A. Statutory Framework

Patent Law (revised 2020).
Trade Marks Law (revised 2019, 2020).
Copyright Law (revised 2020).
Anti-Unfair Competition Law (2017).
China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA).
IP Courts established 2014 (Beijing, Shanghai, Guangzhou).
Supreme People's Court IP Tribunal.

B. Distinctive Features

✅ China IP Distinctive Features

RAPID MODERNISATION: · Major IP reforms 2008-2025. · Patent quality emphasis. · Enforcement strengthening. PATENT FRAMEWORK: · Top global filer (1,693 PCT 2023). · State-supported innovation. · Strong enforcement post-2020 reforms. TRADE MARK FRAMEWORK: · Top trade mark applications globally. · State-driven brand promotion. · Anti-counterfeiting reforms. IP COURTS: · Specialised IP Courts (2014). · Supreme People's Court IP Tribunal. · Streamlined adjudication. · Indian HC IP Divisions parallel. GEOGRAPHIC INDICATIONS: · Strong protection. · Mutual recognition agreements. INTERNATIONAL ENGAGEMENT: · Belt and Road IP cooperation. · Chinese IP standards push. · India-China IP issues.

C. India-China IP Comparison

Both major IP players.
Different approaches.
Both pharma-strong.
Different bilateral approach.
IP cooperation areas.

5. Japan IP Framework

A. Statutory Framework

Patent Act (revised regularly).
Trade Mark Act.
Copyright Act.
Unfair Competition Prevention Act.
Japan Patent Office (JPO) administers.
Tokyo + Osaka District Courts IP Divisions.

B. Distinctive Features

✅ Japan IP Distinctive Features

STRONG PATENT TRADITION: · Major PCT filer (969 in 2023). · Quality-focused patent system. · Tokyo + Osaka IP Court divisions. TECHNOLOGY FOCUS: · Strong tech IP. · Automotive + electronics. · Robotics + AI. · Major collaborations. INTERNATIONAL ENGAGEMENT: · Active WIPO + WTO participation. · Strong bilateral cooperation. · India-Japan FTA framework. · India-Japan IP cooperation. GI PROTECTION: · Specific GI Act. · Strong agricultural GIs. · India-Japan GI cooperation. DISTINCTIVE: · Patent culture deep-rooted. · Quality emphasis. · International cooperation strong.

C. India-Japan Cooperation

India-Japan Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA) 2011.
Continued IP cooperation.
Bilateral patent + trademark frameworks.
Cross-border enforcement.

6. Comparative Patent Frameworks

Aspect	India	US	UK	EU	China	Japan
Patent term	20 years	20 years	20 years	20 years	20 years	20 years
First-inventor-to-file	Yes	Yes (post-AIA 2013)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Software patentability	Section 3(k); technical effect	Generally yes	Technical effect	Technical effect	Yes	Yes
Pharma evergreening	Section 3(d) anti-evergreening	Limited	Some restrictions	Some restrictions	Some restrictions	Some restrictions
Compulsory licensing	Section 84 robust	Limited (Section 1498)	Various	Various	Modernised	Limited
Pre-grant opposition	Yes (Section 25(1))	No (post-grant only)	No (post-grant only)	No (post-grant only)	No (post-grant only)	No (post-grant only)

7. Comparative Trade Mark Frameworks

Aspect	India	US	UK	EU	China	Japan
Initial term	10 years renewable	10 years renewable	10 years renewable	10 years renewable	10 years renewable	10 years renewable
Use requirement	Yes (Section 47)	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Madrid Protocol	Member 2013	Member	Member	Member	Member	Member
Well-known marks	Section 11(6) + Rule 124	Recognized	Recognized	Recognized	Recognized	Recognized
Trade dress	Recognized	Strong protection	Recognized	Recognized	Recognized	Recognized
NFT trademarks	Emerging	Hermès v. Rothschild	Emerging	Emerging	Emerging	Emerging

8. India's Strategic Positioning

✅ India's Distinctive Position

STRENGTHS: · TRIPS-compliant + flexibilities-preserving. · Section 3(d) anti-evergreening (unique globally). · Section 84 robust compulsory licensing. · South-South cooperation leadership. · Modernising framework. · Strong pharmaceutical industry. DISTINCTIVE FEATURES: · Pre-grant + post-grant opposition. · Section 3(d), 3(j), 3(k) specific exclusions. · PPV&FR Act 2001 strong farmers rights. · Section 27 ICA strict restraint. · Modernised IP framework. INTERNATIONAL ENGAGEMENT: · Lead in Doha Declaration 2001. · Co-lead in MC12 Decision 2022. · Lead in WIPO Treaty May 2024. · Selective treaty membership. FUTURE DIRECTIONS: · Continue TRIPS flexibility preservation. · Continue oppose TRIPS-Plus. · Continue South-South cooperation. · Continue domestic modernisation. · Continue strategic autonomy.

9. Memory Aid — Quick Recall

✅ Quick Recall — Comparative IP Law

US — strong IP rights + market-driven; PTAB; ITC; fair use 4-factor test.

UK — common law heritage; CDPA 1988; Brexit independent path.

EU — unified market; EPC 1973; UPC effective 1 June 2023; EU AI Act 2024.

China — rapid modernisation; CNIPA; specialised IP courts (2014); top patent filer.

Japan — strong patent tradition; JPO; Tokyo + Osaka IP Courts; quality-focused.

India — unique TRIPS-balanced approach; Section 3(d), 3(j), 3(k); pre-grant + post-grant opposition.

Stephen Thaler — globally rejected (US 2022; UK 2023; India Del HC 2025).

India's Section 84 compulsory licensing — uniquely robust.

India's Madrid Protocol since 2013; Hague Geneva Act since 2014; Beijing 2020; Marrakesh 2014.

India lead in Doha 2001; co-lead in MC12 2022; lead in WIPO Treaty 2024.

🎯 EXAM POINTERS — TOPIC 142

Comparative IP: US + UK + EU + China + Japan + India.
US — US Patent Act (35 USC); Lanham Act (15 USC §1051); Copyright Act 1976 (17 USC); DTSA 2016.
US fair use — Four-factor test (17 USC §107); transformative use.
US damages — willful TREBLE damages; statutory damages up to $150K per work.
US ITC — Section 337 import IP exclusion orders.
UK — Patents Act 1977; Trade Marks Act 1994; CDPA 1988.
UK fair dealing — specific category-based exceptions.
UK confidential information — equity-based protection (no statutory definition).
EU — European Patent Convention 1973; Unified Patent Court effective 1 June 2023; EUIPO; EU AI Act 2024.
EU EUTM — single trademark registration covers EU.
EU GDPR 2016 — data protection framework.
China — Patent Law (revised 2020); Trade Marks Law (revised 2019, 2020); IP Courts established 2014; CNIPA.
China top global PCT filer (1,693 in 2023).
Japan — strong patent tradition; JPO; Tokyo + Osaka District Courts IP Divisions.
Japan major PCT filer (969 in 2023).
India — Section 3(d), 3(j), 3(k) specific exclusions.
India pre-grant opposition (Section 25(1)) — distinctive globally.
India Section 84 compulsory licensing — uniquely robust framework.
India PPV&FR Act 2001 — strong farmers rights.
India Madrid Protocol 2013; Hague Geneva 2014; Beijing 2020; Marrakesh 2014.
Stephen Thaler — globally rejected (US 2022 43 F.4th 1207; UK 2023 UKSC 49; India Del HC 2025).
India's strategic position: TRIPS-compliant + flexibilities-preserving + South-South cooperation.