The Illusion of Innovation: Looking at the Galgotias University Patents
SpicyIP
Arguing that India’s patent regime is being distorted by seemingly flawed incentives, Kartikeya Srivastava explains how the NIRF’s publication-focused metrics have turned patent filings into a numbers game divorced from genuine innovation. Through a close reading of two contrasting Galgotias University patents, he highlights a structural system that risks rewarding low-quality filings. Kartikeya is a final-year law student in the LL.B. course at NLSIU Bangalore. He also has a B. Sc. degree in Biology. Having freelanced as a patent research analyst, he developed an interest in IPR. (Long post ahead)
The Illusion of Innovation: Looking at the Galgotias University Patents
By Kartikeya Srivastava
IPP = 5 × f (PP); PP: No. of patents published over the previous three years.
This formula represents a deep structural failure that has weaponized India’s patent system against its own innovation goals. It is used by the National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) to rank institutions, based on specific marks allotted to patents published, along with patents granted (see here). NIRF has created a ranking system that inadvertently rewards institutions for flooding the Patent Office with low-quality applications which may get published. This post will highlight this issue with the example of Galgotias University, which secured 3rd rank among the top 10 Indian applicants for patents from academic institutions and universities in 2023. Galgotias University was publicly criticised at the India AI Impact Summit 2026 after a Chinese-made robot dog displayed at its exhibit was portrayed as its own innovation, leading to the University’s stall being removed and a public apology. This controversy has brought more public visibility to institutional claims of innovation, creating a timely opportunity to interrogate what such claims actually rest upon. I have analysed two of Galgotias University’s patent applications, which were decided within weeks of each other. They paint a picture of the Indian patent system that goes well beyond the outcomes of the individual cases. One was refused. One was granted. The refused one, at least, was caught by a slow and barely functioning filter. A filter which failed to catch the other one.
1. The Refusal
On 13th February 2026, the Patent Office, refused Indian Patent Application No. 201911038394 (pdf), filed by Galgotias University in 2019 for a “Topical Anti-Inflammatory Ointment Formulation and a Method of Preparation Thereof”. The refusal, under Sections 2(1)(ja), 3(e), and 10(4) of the Patents Act, 1970, took over six years from filing to the final rejection order. In the next couple of paragraphs, I will briefly explain this patent application and the rejection order, in case the readers do not wish to delve into the details of this patent, which was rejected, they may move to Part 2.
The application discloses a formulation which combines etoricoxib, a well-established selective COX-2 inhibitor, with tamarind seed polysaccharide, basil leaf extract, aloe vera gel, HPMC, and glycerin. After the amendment from ten claims to seven and ultimately to three, the claims still could not survive. On inventive step, under Section 2(1)(ja), the Controller cited three prior arts to show that COX-2 inhibitors and the preparation of etoricoxib nanoparticles for topical delivery were all known. The order states these documents collectively establish the same objective, drug class, delivery strategy, and dosage form. The Controller ruled that since both etoricoxib and basil leaf extract have known anti-inflammatory activity, the increase in anti-inflammatory property shown by the applicant was a predictable additive or cumulative effect rather than synergism (synergy being an important requirement under the Patents Act for such patents). To read more on synergy under the Patents Act, click here. Further, the applicant only compared the formulation to individual ingredients and a standard drug (diclofenac sodium), failing to provide comparative analysis against the closest prior art cited, and could not overcome Section 10(4). Moreover, etoricoxib was the sole pharmacologically active API and the excipients (aloe vera, glycerin, etc.) performed their conventional roles. The Controller noted that albumin denaturation assay is an in vitro biochemical model that provides an indirect indication of anti-inflammatory potential but does not establish enhanced therapeutic efficacy in terms of pharmacodynamic effect, bioavailability at the target site, or clinical efficacy in comparison to the known substance administered in conventional form. Hence, the application failed under Section 3(d) as well. Read more about Section 3(d) here and here.
It took six years, three rounds of amendments, a hearing, and written submissions, but the doctrinal outcome is correct, as the application was rejected.
2. The Grant
Almost six weeks earlier, on 23 December 2025, the Patent Office granted Indian Patent to Application No. 202411024532 (pdf), filed by Galgotias University, for an “IoT Based Writing Pen for Monitoring the Health Parameters”. The application was filed on 27 March 2024. A First Examination Report issued on 29 October 2025 raised objections under Sections 2(1)(j), 2(1)(ja), 3(f), 3(n), and 10(4), citing two prior art documents: D1 (US2016364549A1) and D2 (WO2019012471A1).
The only claim of the patent (Claim 1) is as follows:
1. An IOT based writing pen for monitoring the health parameters comprises different types of sensors (101), microcontroller (102), WIFI (103), Power source (104), memory (105), mobile application (106), enclosure (107), alert system (108), Cloud platform (109), Display (110); wherein a plurality of sensors (101) is integrated into the pen to monitor different health parameters, such health monitor sensor, temperature sensor, accelerometer, blood oxygen level sensor, pressure sensor, and transfer to the microprocessor (102), where it serves as the brain of the pen, managing data collection from the sensors, processing the data, and controlling other components of the device;
wherein WIFI (103) is used for wireless connection to transmit data to external devices like smart phones or tablets and power source (104) provides the necessary energy to operate the pen and its components; memory (105) temporarily stores health data before it is transmitted to external devices;
wherein mobile application (106) works as an interface for user to view and analyze their health data and the enclosure (107) used for internal components, providing protection and durability; wherein alert system (108) generates alert or notification in response to abnormal health reading and prompt the user to take appropriate action, such as seeking medical attention or adjusting their activity level;
wherein Cloud platform (109) secures the user data, robust encryption protocols and authentication mechanisms are implemented both within the pen and the companion application; and Display (110) provides feedback to the user about their health status or the pen’s connectivity status.
While many questions can be raised with regards to how broad this claim is and the disclosure requirements in the specifications, an issue was raised by the Patent Office during prosecution with respect to the term “health monitor sensor” and its broad and ambiguous scope. The applicant gave a general explanation, “health monitoring module comprises sensors configured to measure blood oxygen level (SpO₂), temperature, and pressure, along with an embedded accelerometer for capturing motion data associated with writing activity.” It is a mystery how this clears the objection that mentioning “health monitor sensor” in the claim is overly broad. There were other objections which I do not believe were clearly clarified by the applicant but the pertinent issue lies in the novelty and obviousness itself.
Although two prior arts were cited by the Patent Office in the present case, I was able to find a much better prior art (US20170115755A1), in a few minutes, using free, public databases. Filed by Samsung, it discloses explicitly or substantially, all the elements of Claim 1 of the granted patent (576421). The only element not explicitly disclosed in the prior art is the memory of the pen temporarily storing the sensory data, which should be obvious to a person skilled in the art as the prior art discloses a stylus which may have a memory, processor and sensors and some temporality is indicated before sensory data is transmitted to another device. The same applies for the claimed feature of the pen, where the pen itself displays alerts based on a certain threshold in the sensory data. In the prior art, it is not disclosed that the stylus can display the alerts, instead, a connected device does the same. It should be obvious for a person skilled in the art as the stylus already has a processor, display and sensors. For interested readers, a claim-by-claim comparison against the granted Galgotias patent is as follows:
Image – Drawings taken from the respective patent applications. FIG. 18 – Prior Art (Samsung) and Fig. 1- Granted Patent (Galgotias University)It is important to note that a granted patent is not immune to challenge. Under Section 25(2), a post-grant opposition may be filed, and a patent may be revoked under Section 64. The grounds are available. The question is whether anyone would consider it worth pursuing, which points to the broader structural problem. Post-grant opposition requires resources, time, and a concrete interest in the outcome. Against a granted patent for an IoT health pen, held by a university that is unlikely to enforce it commercially, the incentive to challenge is low. The patent will sit on the register, be counted in the institution’s IP portfolio, appear in NIRF filings, and do precisely the institutional work it was filed to do.
3. The Structural Problem
SpicyIP bloggers have, on multiple occasions, examined how patent quality is neglected in the race to become the most innovative (see here, here and here). Recently, there has been considerable coverage of this issue in the public (see here and here). The NIRF framework which incentivises patents published (not even granted, let alone commercialised), creates a deeply perverse incentive structure that harms India’s innovation ecosystem rather than nurturing it. As Tanishka flagged in her analysis of the 2023-24 India Annual Report, the NIRF framework may be an important driver behind a mindless race among universities, where the sheer filing of applications, including frivolous ones, suffices to improve rankings. A single institute like Lovely Professional University filed 1418 patent applications, while the twenty-three IITs collectively filed only 1106. The Galgotias patent analysed above is a textbook illustration of this problem, a published (and in this case, granted) patent that reads almost identically on the Samsung prior art, yet counts toward NIRF scores.
As has been noted in a different context (examiners’ quota system), any hard incentives affecting the ability of examiners to produce a certain amount of output automatically translate into prioritising quantity over quality. With institutional rankings, national pride, and NIRF scores tied to patents, there are more than enough incentives to keep filing them. Further, the massive number of applications will force examiners to clear the backlog fast and neglect quality. Crucially, the metric rewards publication, not just grant or commercialisation. Under Section 146, every patentee has to report the commercial working of their patents, yet data from the annual reports shows a staggering gap: while 1,15,916 patents were in force in 2021-22, only 9,616 were reported as being worked commercially. As is generally argued, patents are a social bargain, the inventor discloses technical knowledge and receives a monopoly for 20 years. An important aspect of this bargain is the expectation that the patent be worked in India, as stated in Section 83. When NIRF rewards the publication act itself, decoupled entirely from this working expectation or any commercialisation outcome, the metric does not measure innovation, it measures the capacity of institutions to generate paperwork, which is a fundamentally false proxy.
There is a counter-argument to this, that even filing-focused incentives represent a meaningful process for Indian universities that historically did not engage with the patent system at all. This argument has merit and should not be dismissed. However, the Indian Patent Office is already under tremendous pressure and has a considerable backlog, with WIPO’s 2024 IP Indicators showing a 149% increase in grant rate compared to 2022. It will be unreasonable to expect rigorous examination under these circumstances. A metric that drives mass filing of potentially low-quality applications, which are then being granted at record rates by an overstretched Patent Office, and subsequently never even worked commercially, does not represent a good start for innovation, but an elaborate facade. I would argue, with due respect, that the tolerance, even enthusiasm to some extent, for inflated patent numbers as a proxy for innovation reveals something more troubling than a flawed metric, it reveals a deeply ingrained institutional culture that prizes the appearance of achievement over its substance, where certificate matters more than the competence it supposedly certifies.
Here is what I am reluctant to say, but I believe is true, the patent system is not the primary villain here. The fault lies upstream, in NIRF metrics that count publications, in institutional IP offices incentivised to file rather than screen, and in the unspoken agreement among universities, rankings bodies, and accreditation agencies to treat quantity as a respectable proxy for quality.
Finally, this is not a hit piece on Galgotias University, or the Patent Office, it is merely to highlight a structural issue in the system. While looking at numbers is one thing, the intention is to give the readers an opportunity to look at the patent claim itself and get an insight, leaving law aside, whether these patent applications should be granted and whether they add to the innovation goals of India in 2026.