Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) laws are crucial for balancing innovation, public interest, and rights of creators. India, the US, and the European Union share many treaty obligations (e.g. TRIPS, Paris/Berne Conventions), but differ significantly in how laws are drafted, interpreted, enforced, and what flexibilities are allowed. Below I compare key areas — patentability & pharmaceuticals; copyright & exceptions; moral rights; enforcement/licensing; and public interest flexibilities — drawing both from Indian laws & case law, as well as US & EU practice. Finally, I suggest what India might learn or reform.

1. Patentability & Public Health: Section 3(d), Compulsory Licensing

India

• Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, 1970 (as amended in 2005): prevents “evergreening” — that is, obtaining secondary patents for trivial modifications of known substances unless there is enhanced therapeutic efficacy. In Novartis AG v. Union of India & Others (Supreme Court of India, 1 April 2013), the applicant for Glivec (imatinib) could not satisfy Section 3(d). The Court held that improved bioavailability or mere physicochemical properties alone do not amount to enhanced therapeutic efficacy unless proven.
• Compulsory licensing under Section 84: First granted in Natco Pharma Ltd. v. Bayer Corporation (Controller of Patents, 2012; IPAB & later High Court upheld) for the cancer drug Nexavar. Conditions under Section 84(1) include: after three years of grant, reasonable requirement of public not met; the invention not available at an affordable price; or not worked in India. Royalty was fixed (6%) etc.

US & EU

• In the US, patent law tends to allow broader scope for incremental inventions, provided novelty and non‐obviousness are met. No provision exactly like Section 3(d). Also, compulsory licenses are rare and tightly constrained; US law does not generally permit broad compulsory licensing for pharmaceuticals, except under special circumstances (e.g. government use, very limited).
• EU member states have varied rules, but EU jurisprudence and regulation tends to allow some flexibilities, especially in line with TRIPS and the Doha Declaration. However, EU countries typically rely more on regulatory data protection, market authorizations, etc., rather than compulsory licenses. Some EU countries do permit compulsory licensing under specific circumstances (public interest, emergency) but scope and practice differ widely.

Lessons & Reflections for India

• India’s Section 3(d) is often criticized by industry but widely praised by public health advocates. Clear standards like “therapeutic efficacy” help avoid frivolous patents; India might continue refining the evidence required for efficacy to avoid uncertainty.
• For compulsory licensing, ensuring procedural clarity and predictability (royalty rates, criteria, working of patent) is important so that rights-holders are not unfairly surprised and public health objectives are met.

2. Copyright Exceptions: Fair Use / Fair Dealing

India

• Section 52 of the Copyright Act, 1957 enumerates specific “fair dealing” exceptions. These are closed/exhaustive: private/personal use, research or private study; criticism or review; reporting of current events, etc.
• Indian courts look at whether dealing is “fair” using factors such as nature of work, amount used, effect on the market, but since the statute prescribes the purposes, uses outside those cannot be claimed. Scholarly commentary points out that transformation (bringing in new expression) is not as explicitly central as in US doctrine.
• Case law: R. G. Anand v. Deluxe Films (Supreme Court of India, 1978) is often cited regarding substantial reproduction and criteria for infringement/defences. Also, Amar Nath Sehgal v Union of India (Delhi High Court, 2005) emphasised moral rights, but in context of destruction / distortion rather than copyright exceptions.

US

• Fair Use, 17 U.S.C. § 107: a flexible doctrine not tied to a closed list of purposes. Courts weigh four statutory factors: (i) purpose & character (including whether transformative, commercial or non-commercial); (ii) nature of the copyrighted work; (iii) amount & substantiality of portion used vs whole; (iv) effect on market or potential market.
• Landmark case Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. (1994) held that a parody for commercial purposes can still qualify as fair use if transformative.

EU

• EU’s copyright directives (e.g. InfoSoc Directive, DSM (Digital Single Market) Directive) require member states to have exceptions/limitations such as quotation, criticism, review, parody, pastiche. But many are more prescriptive and less broad than US fair use; also many EU member states still follow “fair dealing”-type narrower exceptions though some variation.
• EU recently (Directive 2019/790) introduced rules that affect online content sharing platforms (Article 17) that aim to balance rights between rightholders and users. For example, users’ ability to rely on exceptions (e.g. parody) when uploading content.

Comparison & What India Can Learn

• Flexibility vs Certainty: US doctrine offers more flexibility but also more unpredictability; India offers more certainty but may stifle new kinds of creative uses (remix culture, user-generated content) that do not squarely fall into enumerated categories.
• Transformation: Indian law/courts might benefit from more explicitly defining or adopting “transformative use” as a factor in fair dealing, even while respecting the scope of statute, to allow more innovation in the digital age.
• Online platforms and user-generated content: EU’s rules under the DSM Directive and Article 17 are specifically aimed at balancing platform liability vs user rights. India may consider clearer regulation around platform liability, takedown processes, notice & counter-notice structures.

3. Moral Rights, Duration, and Authorship

India

• Under the Copyright Act, 1957, Section 57 provides for moral rights: author’s right to claim authorship, and to restrain or claim damages for distortion or mutilation of work prejudicial to author’s honour or reputation. Amar Nath Sehgal v Union of India (2005) is a key case: Delhi HC enforced moral rights in context of mural destruction or misuse.
• Duration: Indian law generally provides copyright protection for lifetime of author plus 60 years.
• Authorship for computer‐generated works is partially dealt with under Section 2(d) (works “computer generated”), but crucially, Indian law stipulates “person who causes the work to be created” to be author.

US & EU

• US: Moral rights are limited under US law. The Visual Artists Rights Act (VARA) gives rights to visual artists for attribution and integrity but only for certain categories of works; also moral rights are narrower than in Indian law in many respects.
• EU: Moral rights are more robust in many member states (“droit moral” in French law, etc.), generally non‐waivable in many jurisdictions; lifetime + 70 years often for author’s rights. EU provides moral rights more widely than US.

Lessons

• With AI and new media, clarity on authorship is becoming more important. India’s “computer generated” clause is helpful but may need more clarity around human vs machine authorship, collaborative works, etc.
• Strengthening moral rights in the digital/distributed content era (modification, remixing, integrity) could help protect creators.

4. Enforcement, Licensing & Liability

India

• Enforcement: Indian Courts and Patent Office have been active in enforcing IP, but often many delays. Compulsory licensing (Natco-Bayer) shows use of statutory enforcement for public interest. Also Indian case law on fair dealing / copyright infringement is less voluminous for online uses.
• Licensing & collective administration: Indian system has institutions like IPRS (for music), etc., but licensing of platforms, streaming, etc., is still evolving.

US

• Strong enforcement: statutory damages, injunctive relief quite significant; digital IP enforcement (DMCA) provides safe harbour regimes, notice and takedown; big litigation in platforms etc.
• Licensing norms are mature: mechanical licences, public performance, synchronization etc., very well developed; big role of collection societies.

EU

• EU has elaborate regulations/directives affecting cross-border enforcement, platform liability (e.g. under DSM Directive), fair remuneration, digital rights management, etc.
• There is also an evolving jurisprudence of the CJEU (Court of Justice of EU) that keeps enhancing harmonisation, e.g. on user rights, platform duties, safe harbour limitations etc.

Lessons

• India could benefit from clearer statutory safe harbour / platform liability rules with notice & counter-notice, to handle user-uploaded content, etc.
• More predictable licensing frameworks for digital uses (streaming, online content sharing) would help creators, platforms and users.

5. Public Interest & Access: TRIPS Flexibilities

India’s IPR laws have several built-in flexibilities (many under TRIPS are optional or required) for public health, access to medicines, working of patents in country, exceptions for research/education.

• TRIPS Agreement allows exceptions, compulsory licensing, etc., subject to constraints. India has availed such flexibilities (e.g. in Novartis, Natco cases).
• EU has also wrestled with these flexibilities; EU law must implement directives in line with TRIPS, but many EU countries are more constrained by higher levels of protection (often political / industry pressure).
• US often pushes for strong IP protections abroad (through trade agreements), though internally also has some flexibility (e.g. fair use, government use, etc.).

India’s experience shows that having well-crafted statutory flexibilities and robust judicial interpretation are both crucial in ensuring balance.

Key Case Laws / Statutes for Reference

Jurisdiction	Case / Statute	Key Holding
India	Novartis AG v. Union of India & Others (1 Apr 2013)	Strict interpretation of Section 3(d); “enhanced therapeutic efficacy” required for secondary patents in pharma.
India	Natco Pharma Ltd v. Bayer Corporation (Compulsory License, 2012; IPAB & High Court)	Section 84 exercised: royalty, public health, price control, working requirement.
India	Amar Nath Sehgal v Union of India (2005)	Moral rights under Section 57; right to attribution, integrity, restoration.
India	R. G. Anand v. Deluxe Films (1978)	Defining infringement, and what counts as substantial part; uses in fair dealing contexts. (Also cited in comparative discussions)
US	Campbell v. Acuff-Rose Music, Inc. (1994)	Parody with commercial purpose can still be fair use if transformative.
US Statute	17 U.S.C. § 107	The “fair use” provision with four-factor test.
EU	DSM Directive / Copyright in the Digital Single Market (Directive 2019/790) Article 17 et al.	Platforms’ liability; user upload exceptions; balancing freedom of expression and authors’ rights.

What India Can Learn / Path for Reform

Based on the comparative study, here are some lessons / possible reform paths for India:

1. Clarify transformation in fair dealing
   Explicit acknowledgement in statute or judicial precedent of “transformative use” (beyond mere criticism or review) would help adapt to new media forms (remixes, mashups, AI‐generated content).
2. Modernize platform liability / safe harbour
   India could more clearly define duties of online platforms, limited liability, notice & takedown or counter notice, obligations under content sharing, similar to US DMCA or EU DSM provisions.
3. Balance patent protection with public health, but improve certainty
   Section 3(d) is valuable, but sometimes industry claims uncertainties in what counts as “therapeutic efficacy.” Clearer guidelines, possibly regulations or policy, would help (e.g. what evidence is needed, what kinds of modifications might qualify).
4. Enhance digital licensing frameworks
   As digital content (streaming, social media, user uploads) becomes more central, licensing systems (collecting societies, public performance, sync licences, etc.) need to be more efficient, transparent, cross-border aware.
5. Stronger enforcement and procedural efficiency
   Indian litigation is often slow. Improving IP adjudication (IP courts, specialized benches), faster processes for interim relief, more predictable royalty determinations, etc., will help.
6. Public awareness and access
   More awareness among creators and users about rights & exceptions; perhaps India might consider expanding or clarifying exceptions for education, research, and digital libraries in line with international best practices, without undermining creators’ incentives.

Conclusion

While Indian IPR law shares many treaty-based foundations with US & EU regimes, its choices in statutory design (more prescriptive, closed exceptions, strong public health safeguards) set it apart. US offers breadth and flexibility, sometimes at the cost of predictability; EU tends to be somewhere in between, with many countries still offering more prescriptive exceptions, but recent directives push towards adapting to digital and platform realities. India’s strengths lie in its TRIPS-flexibilities (public health, compulsory licensing) and moral rights protections; its challenges are keeping up with rapid digital content norms, defining transformation, platform liability, and increasing legal clarity and efficiency.

India can learn from US & EU experience, especially in clearer exception doctrines, efficient enforcement, harmonised rules for digital distribution, and balancing incentives for innovation with affordability and access.