03 July 2026, NIICE Commentary 12611
Srishti
Innovation is rarely an evenly paved terrain; it is a topography defined by history, capital, and access. In the established hubs of the West, the intellectual property (IP) regime often seems like a settled house where the focus is on securing the windows and installing stronger locks, so progress becomes a matter of refining what is already owned, unlike the Global South, trying to build its homes from the ground up while the rain is still pouring. This advocacy for much-needed accessibility and differentiated responsibilities got articulated in the 2007 WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organisation) Development Agenda to ensure that global protection of knowledge never comes at the expense of inclusive accessibility. As delegates gather in Geneva this July 7-15, 2026, for the 68th Series of Meetings of the Assemblies of the Member States of WIPO, the question remains: has the promise of 2007 matured into a genuine engine for inclusive growth, or does the “developmental dimension” remain a secondary concern in a system still primarily designed for the world’s most established economies?
Recommendation 45: Substantive Reform or Procedural Compliance?
WIPO’s then-Director General, Sudanese diplomat Dr. Kamil Idris, marked the 2007 Development Agenda as “a testimony to the international community’s commitment to promote the evolution of an IP system that addresses the needs and concerns of all countries”. Central to this framework was Recommendation 45, which institutionalised IP enforcement within broader societal interests, declaring to “Promote measures that will help countries deal with intellectual property-related anti-competitive practices, by providing technical cooperation to developing countries, especially LDCs, at their request, in order to better understand the interface between IPRs and competition policies”.
Nearly two decades later, the legacy of Recommendation 45 reveals a stark division in international policy. It is argued that its implementation has reduced to bureaucratic compliance, pointing out that the Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP) frequently produces initiatives focused on technical training rather than structural reform. A realistic defence, however, highlights a change in WIPO’s institutional DNA. The Agenda did institutionalise IP “flexibilities”, legally empowering nations to anchor their patent laws to protect health and local industries. However, the core tension persists: the Agenda successfully democratised the international conversation around innovation, but it has yet to fully democratise its material benefits.
The very first few sentences (Cluster A) of the adopted recommendation provide technical assistance that is meant to be demand-driven and in accordance with the local economic realities, rather than neglecting the important legal safety valves allowed under agreements such as TRIPS that protect public interests like affordable medicines, education, and food security. The technical assistance mentioned is often delivered as an “adherence overdrive” prioritising training officials to adopt the strictest possible IP protections instead of teaching countries how to utilise these legal safeguards, leading to a one-size-fits-all model that often ignores the specific stage of industrial development of each country, leaving them with little room to innovate using their domestic resources.
Meaningful discussions on equitable development and IP flexibilities are often confined to CDIP (Committee on Development and Intellectual Property)- established to oversee the Agenda’s implementation across the organisation, while being sidelined in the core norm-setting bodies like the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) Working Group.
The Global Patent Ecosystem
Unlike most United Nations agencies that rely on government donations, WIPO is almost entirely (96%) self-funding, relying on fees paid by users of its global registration services with the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT) system, which are primarily large MNCs based in advanced economies and hence create an incentive in WIPO to prioritise strict patent enforcement over development exceptions.
Moreover, to protect an invention, an innovator can’t just file one application, but must legally register and maintain it in each individual country, requiring hiring foreign patent attorneys and paying for complex technical translations. While wealthy corporations absorb these expenses to build webs of hundreds of patents protecting even slight variations of a single technology, startups and research bodies in developing nations can’t afford the millions required to audit these, which is why, while India’s domestic ecosystem surged to 76,470 filings, its international PCT filings stand at 4,552, significantly lagging behind that of China’s 70,160, in 2025.
Jai Anusandhan: A New Vocabulary for Progress
India’s agenda in the upcoming session marks a strategic shift from being a passive recipient of norms to advocating a structural blueprint for the Global South by pushing for a reduction in filing fees for MSMEs and women entrepreneurs, paired with the promotion of Geographical Indicators (GIs) and Traditional Knowledge (TK) to safeguard regional and rural crafts. Rather than treating green technologies as heavily guarded assets, the push is for their equitable diffusion and technology transfer.
While it’s true that localising IP frameworks can fuel inclusive economic growth, developing nations like India must realise that advocating reforms on global stages is only half the battle. To fill the deep systemic gaps, it must be matched by an equal push for R&D investments. Sovereignty for these nations must also be secured at home by incentivising innovators to develop the technological capital required to actively shape global norms and envision a fairer system in Geneva.
Srishti is currently pursuing her M.A. in International Relations at the South Asian University, New Delhi, India.
