How much growth was recorded in patent filing in Madhya Pradesh during the period from 2018-19 to 2022-23?
- (a)230%
- (b)320%
- (c)180%
- (d)280%
Correct — A, 230%. Patent filings from Madhya Pradesh grew by about 230 per cent between 2018-19 and 2022-23 — that is, they roughly tripled in four years, off a small base. The state's own reported series shows the shape of that climb: filings from MP rose from 190 in 2017-18 to 194 in 2018-19, 285 in 2019-20 and 398 in 2020-21 (MP Council of Science & Technology, using Indian Patent Office data). Over the same years all-India filings grew only about 22 per cent, from 47,854 to 58,503, so MP's growth rate is several times the national one — which is the point the figure is quoted to make.
- (b)320% — Overstates the rise. A 320 per cent increase would mean filings more than quadrupled over the four years; the reported growth is 230 per cent, a little over a tripling.
- (c)180% — Understates it — 180 per cent is less than a tripling. It is a plausible-looking guess because MP's patent filings had already risen about 109 per cent between 2017-18 and 2020-21, and it is easy to assume the pace slowed rather than continued.
- (d)280% — The nearest distractor, and the one most likely to be confused with a neighbouring statistic — MP's design filings (a different category of intellectual property) rose about 250 per cent between 2017-18 and 2020-21. Keep the patent series and the design series apart.
Patent filings are the standard proxy for a state's innovation activity, which is why they turn up both in state economic surveys and inside the SDG and innovation indices. Two cautions come with the statistic. First, filings are not grants — an application filed says nothing about whether a patent is eventually awarded. Second, percentage growth off a small base is dramatic by construction: Madhya Pradesh files a few hundred patents a year against tens of thousands nationally, so a rise of a few hundred applications reads as a 230 per cent jump, while the same absolute rise in Maharashtra or Karnataka would barely register. The underlying push in MP has come from IPR facilitation through the MP Council of Science & Technology, patent-cost reimbursement in state industrial and startup policies, and the growth of institutional research at IIT Indore and similar centres.
Treat this as a two-part memory: the direction (MP's patent filings have grown far faster than the national average) and the exact figure (230 per cent for 2018-19 to 2022-23). If you can only recall the direction, use arithmetic on the options — 230 per cent means 'a bit more than tripled', which is the sort of leap a state moving from under 200 filings to a few hundred would produce; 320 per cent would demand a much larger jump than MP's known trajectory supports.
- MP's India Innovation Index score is 12.74 against 36.40 for India (SDG India Index 2023-24), so the high growth rate is still on a low base
- Patents filed are not the same as patents granted — the state figures quoted are filings
A growth rate and a level answer different questions — the trap is reading a big percentage as a high rank.
- Confusing patents filed with patents granted
- Mixing up the patent series with the design-filing series, which grew at a different rate
- Reading a large percentage as a large absolute number — MP's filings are in the hundreds, against tens of thousands nationally
MPPSC asks the percentage growth or the year-wise count for Madhya Pradesh; UPSC asks the law and the institutions instead — which body is the nodal agency for IPR, and what can be patented in India.
With reference to the 'National Intellectual Property Rights Policy', consider the following statements: 1. It reiterates India's commitment to the Doha Development Agenda and the TRIPS Agreement. 2. Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion is the nodal agency for regulating intellectual property rights in India. Which of the above statements is/are correct?
- (a) 1 only
- (b) 2 only
- (c) Both 1 and 2
- (d) Neither 1 nor 2
Answer(c) Both 1 and 2 — the policy reaffirms the Doha/TRIPS commitment and DIPP (now DPIIT) is the nodal agency.
The policy architecture behind the number — the national IPR framework and nodal agency whose facilitation drive is what state patent-filing growth figures are meant to demonstrate.
Consider the following statements: 1. According to the Indian Patents Act, a biological process to create a seed can be patented in India. 2. In India, there is no Intellectual Property Appellate Board. 3. Plant varieties are not eligible to be patented in India. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?
- (a) 1 and 3 only
- (b) 2 and 3 only
- (c) 3 only
- (d) 1, 2 and 3
Answer(c) 3 only — plant varieties cannot be patented in India; they are protected under a separate law.
Same subject from the legal side — what a patent filing in India can actually cover, which is the substance behind the filing counts MPPSC quotes.
- practice — not a real PYQ
Which department is the nodal agency for intellectual property rights in India?
- (a)Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade
- (b)Department of Science and Technology
- (c)Department of Legal Affairs
- (d)Department of Commerce
Answer(a) Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade — DPIIT, under the Ministry of Commerce and Industry, administers the National IPR Policy.
- practice — not a real PYQ
Under Indian law, which of the following is NOT eligible to be patented?
- (a)A new plant variety
- (b)A novel chemical compound
- (c)A new machine
- (d)A novel process of manufacture
Answer(a) A new plant variety — plant varieties are protected under the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights Act, not by patents.