Skip to content
Geneva Health Files
Sign in Subscribe

What the India–UK FTA Tells Us About the Future of IP and the Access to Medicines [GUEST ESSAY]; GHF Jobs Scanner

Newsletter Edition #301 [The Curated Primer]

By Priti Patnaik
What the India–UK FTA Tells Us About the Future of IP and the Access to Medicines [GUEST ESSAY]; GHF Jobs Scanner
Published:
|
Share to X Share to Bluesky Share to Facebook Share to LinkedIn Share by email

Hi,

Recently, India and the United Kingdom signed a Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA).

In this edition, we look at how the intellectual property (IP) chapter has the potential to limit access to generic medicines, both within India as well as across other developing countries. Pramiti Parwani who is a Research Fellow at Law for Health and Life at the University of Amsterdam, writes this guest esssay for us.

In this curated edition, we also present the GHF Jobs Scanner and bring a wrap of recent headlines.

Support public interest global health journalism, become a paying subscriber. Tracking global health policy-making in Geneva is tough and expensive. Help us raise important questions, and in keeping an ear to the ground. makes this possible.

Gratitude to our subscribers who help us contribute to greater accountability in global health.

More soon!

Best,

Priti

Feel free to write to us: patnaik.reporting@gmail.com or Follow us on Twitter: @filesgeneva

Illustration Credit: Amy Clarke, Chembe Collaborative

I. GUEST ESSAY

What the India–UK FTA Tells Us About the Future of IP and the Access to Medicines

By Pramiti Parwani

Parwani is a Research Fellow at Law for Health and Life at the University of Amsterdam, and consultant for Pharmaceutical Accountability Foundation and Health Action International. Email: p.parwani@uva.nl

On 24 July 2025, India and the United Kingdom signed a long-anticipated Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA)—commonly referred to as the India–UK Free Trade Agreement (FTA). Much of the media coverage has focused on the more tangible elements of the deal: tariff cuts on whisky, luxury cars, and textiles amongst others. However, from a public health perspective, crucially the intellectual property (IP) chapter has the potential to limit access to generic medicines, both within India as well as across other Global South countries.

This FTA marks India’s second major trade agreement with a European partner in as many years, following the Trade and Economic Partnership Agreement between India and European Free Trade Association (EFTA) signed in 2024. These trade agreements also reflect a broader trend, with ongoing negotiations underway with the European Union, United States and other trading partners. In this light, the provisions of the India–UK FTA are particularly noteworthy as they could well serve as a template or benchmark for future negotiations, not only for India but also countries.

Image Credit: Photo by Artem Podrez, Pexels

At first glance, Chapter 13 on IP rights may appear relatively benign. It reaffirms the Doha Declaration on TRIPS and Public Health, reiterates the parties’ rights to use TRIPS flexibilities and take measures to protect public health, including measures to promote access to medicines (Article 13.6 (2)). These are all familiar, if by now boilerplate affirmations. The FTA further explicitly states that it does not curtail a party’s rights under the TRIPS Agreement to issue compulsory licenses (Article 13.50) and also provides for exceptions from patent protection for regulatory review (Article 13.49). Yet, quite a few provisions included within the chapter are cause for concern.

Voluntary Licensing as the Preferable Route

Most prominently, Article 13.6(1), titled Understandings Regarding TRIPS and Public Health Measures, declares voluntary mechanisms “such as voluntary licensing which may include technology transfer on mutually agreed terms” as the preferable option to ensure access to medicines.

The reference to “technology transfer on mutually agreed terms” closely mirrors language found in the recently adopted WHO Pandemic Agreement (Article 11). It is noteworthy that during the Pandemic Agreement negotiations, India, like many other developing countries had strongly advocated for provisions requiring technology transfer on mandatory terms, whereas high-income countries like the UK, Switzerland, and EU Member States had pushed for voluntary arrangements only. The inclusion of voluntary licensing as the preferable route in this FTA further entrenches this preference. (In fact, across a number of forums from the UN to the WTO, the preference for voluntary measures as a de facto standard is consistently coming up for negotiation.)

From an access to medicines standpoint, this is particularly troubling. The experience during the COVID-19 pandemic and previous health crises has underscored the inherent limitations of relying solely on voluntary mechanisms to ensure access to pharmaceuticals. For instance, the voluntary nature of the mRNA Vaccine Technology Transfer Hub undermined its intended impact when no pharmaceutical company was willing to share its mRNA technology through the hub. In such a scenario, enshrining a preference for voluntary licensing — without a balancing provision highlighting the necessity of compulsory measures in various contexts — risks undermining the compulsory licensing flexibilities enshrined in TRIPS.

While the FTA formally reiterates the right to issue compulsory licenses under the TRIPS Agreement, the emphasis on voluntary licensing nonetheless signals a normative stance that could creating a chilling effect on compulsory licenses, shape future interpretations and constrain the political space for more robust interventions. It is also significant that this provision did not appear in the India–EFTA agreement, suggesting a further shift away from compulsory mechanisms over the past year.

Working Requirements and Pre-Grant Opposition

The FTA also includes certain procedural constraints that strengthen patent holders’ positions and may indirectly hamper access to generic medicines. This includes notably provisions on working of patents and pre-grant opposition, which follow similar language to the India–EFTA agreement, suggesting a broader trend toward systematically eroding the space available for effective scrutiny of patents.

Article 13.56 on patent working requirements restricts patent offices from requesting annual information on the working of patents, limiting such disclosure to once every three years. Given that the non-working of a patent (i.e., the failure to manufacture or supply the patented invention within the country) is a recognized ground for issuing a compulsory license under Section 84(1)(c) of the Indian Patents Act, this provision undermines the ability of civil society and generic manufacturers to monitor patent use effectively and to initiate informed requests for compulsory licenses.

Similarly, Article 13.55 on pre-grant opposition proceedings requires that any such opposition be resolved within a reasonable period of time and that prima facie unfounded oppositions be swiftly rejected. While the language is less prescriptive than the EFTA version, giving parties more discretion, it still restricts oversight on patent grants. By restricting opportunities for patient groups and public health advocates as well as generic manufacturers to challenge unmeritorious patent applications, these procedural requirements undermine key safeguards that facilitate timely access to affordable generic medicines.

A caveat is in order here: While the provisions of the FTA will formally apply in both jurisdictions, the practical impact is likely to be felt more asymmetrically, as illustrated from statistics on patent filing in each of the patent offices. According to data from WIPO, UK-origin patent applications in India represent approximately 1.35% of total applications (1,217 out of a total of 90,298), whereas Indian-origin applications at the UK Intellectual Property Office account for only about 0.36% (71 out of 19,963). A similar imbalance is visible at the European Patent Office, of which the UK is a member, where Indian-origin applications constitute just 0.4% of the total.

This asymmetry suggests that any changes to the intellectual property framework under the FTA are likely to benefit the larger number of UK applicants in India than the other way around.

Patent Office Cooperation: A Trojan Horse?

Finally, another cause for concern comes from provisions on cooperation and work-sharing arrangements between patent offices (Article 13.16, see also Article 13.14). These provisions aim to facilitate the sharing of search and examination results between the patent offices, reduce differences in the procedures of the respective patent offices, and promote international harmonization of IP rights.

At first glance, this seems to be a standard technocratic, administrative provision to promote efficiency and avoid duplication of work by patent offices. Formally, each patent office retains full autonomy over its decisions.

However, previous academic research on the matter has shown that in practice, such cooperative frameworks can significantly influence the standards applied during the patent examination process.

There is concern that reliance on output from patent offices applying more IP-maximalist standards can lead to erosion of public health safeguards embedded in Indian national law. For instance, in the past, commentators have pointed out that the Indian Patent Office under-utilizes the anti-evergreening provision in the Indian Patents Act (Section 3(d)), erroneously granting improper patents for incremental innovations. This trend has been partially attributed to training initiatives led by, or implicit deference to, patent offices in the Global North.

These provisions on patent office cooperation in the UK-India FTA thus risk reinforcing those dynamics by promoting increased cooperation and reliance between patent offices—particularly given that such reliance has historically flowed in a unidirectional manner from patent offices in the Global North to India.

From an access to medicines perspective, this could endanger the effective implementation of public health exceptions including anti-evergreening provisions by patent offices, thereby undermining access to generic medicines.

A Template in the Making?

Seen in isolation, none of the above-mentioned provisions represent substantive TRIPS-plus obligations (i.e. IP standards which exceed the minimum thresholds established under the TRIPS Agreement). However, taken collectively, they reflect a subtle recalibration of India’s IP regime — one that narrows the space for compulsory licensing, imposes procedural constraints that reduce patent oversight by patent offices and civil society, and promotes regulatory convergence with a patent office that has historically applied maximalist IP standards.

K. M. Gopakumar, Co-convenor of Working Group on Access to Medicines and Treatment, while speaking at a press-briefing in July 2025 labelled the IP chapter as “backdoor entry of TRIPS Plus provisions.”

Particularly concerning, these provisions in the UK-India FTA may directly and indirectly affect access to medicines not just in India but also in other Global South countries. Given India’s role as the pharmacy of the developing world, any impact on generic production in India affects not only pharmaceutical access within the country but also in other developing countries and LDCs where Indian generic medicines are supplied.

Second, the inclusion of these provisions may further serve as a de facto benchmark expected from India by other trading partners and lead to further entrenchment of these standards.

Moreover, as has been discussed elsewhere, India’s domestic IP legislative framework have often served as an example for other Global South countries. For instance, the anti-evergreening provision has since diffused into legislations of other such as Bangladesh, Chile, Philippines, and Thailand.

Any dilution of these provisions in India’s legal and regulatory framework could erode its role as an exemplar, potentially triggering a ripple effect in other Global South countries and discouraging them from adopting legal frameworks that support the development of local innovation capabilities for medicines.

As a matter of process, the lack of transparency and stakeholder engagement during the FTA negotiations raises serious concerns. Public health advocates were excluded from consultations on the IP chapter, and the only publicly available information emerged from leaked draft texts in 2022. Given the potential public health implications of the IP provisions, the absence of transparency is particularly troubling and underscores the importance of inclusive and open negotiation processes.

Overall, the IP provisions in the UK-India FTA, while different from the TRIPS-plus IP provisions that have historically raised concerns, nonetheless mark a quiet but significant shift in India’s IP regime with the potential to undermine both domestic and global access to affordable medicines.

Particularly concerning is the emphasis on voluntary mechanisms for technology transfer, contradicting India’s previous advocacy for compulsory technology transfer. Looking ahead, these provisions risk setting a precedent for future trade negotiations, creating pressure for India to adopt more stringent IP protections across its trade relationships. As ever, the devil lies in the details—not just in what is written, but in how it is interpreted, implemented, and replicated in other negotiations.

II. PODCAST CORNER

Child health in the metacrisis: GLOBAL HEALTH MATTERS

From climate change and conflict to economic instability, today’s converging global crises are reshaping the landscape of child health. In this episode, host Garry Aslanyan speaks with two leading voices in global health: Landry Tsague, Director of the Center for Primary Health Care at Africa CDC, and Debra Jackson, Takeda Chair in Global Child Health at the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine. They share insights on what should be done to strengthen health systems, empower communities and create conditions where children not only survive, but thrive amid the turbulence of the metacrisis.

Listen to the episode

This podcast promotion is sponsored by the Global Health Matters podcast.

If you wish to promote relevant information for readers of Geneva Health Files, for a modest fee, get in touch with us at patnaik.reporting@gmail.com.

III. GHF JOBS SCANNER

Senior Level

Mid Level

Junior Level

Consultant roster

Looking to recruit a consultant or advertise a position? Reach us at bizdevelopment@genevahealthfiles.com with “GHF Jobs Scanner” in the subject line.

IV. HEADLINES & MORE

Global health is everybody’s business. Help us probe the dynamics where science and politics interface with interests. Support investigative global health journalism.

Priti Patnaik

All articles
Tags: Global Health Newsletter

More in Global Health

See all

More from Priti Patnaik

See all

From our partners