Data from the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs, Trademarks and Geographical Indications (CGPDTM) show that patent applications have nearly doubled in five years, rising from 58,503 in 2020–21 to 110,375 in 2024–25. On paper, this is a strong signal of innovation confidence. But, add a few more statistics and that’s when the big picture can be seen. 

“Examination and grants of patents have dropped sharply. This threatens to throw a wrench in all the innovation momentum the country has been trying to build,” the attorney said. 

Examination output, the critical step that determines whether a patent is granted, has fallen sharply over the same period. From over 73,000 examinations in 2020–21, the number dropped to just 15,726 in 2024–25. Grants, too, have been volatile. After a spike in 2023–24 (when more than one lakh patents were granted as legacy cases were finalised) the number fell back to 33,504 in 2024-25.

The divergence is stark. India is filing more patents than ever before. But it is not examining them at the same pace.

“While examination is the bottleneck in the process, there is no silver bullet to fix the dip since it exists because of multiple reasons like understaffing, time-consuming specialised training, changing technology, frequent transfers, re-evaluations, and loose timelines, ” said the attorney. 

The Capacity Gap

The structural issue appears to be institutional capacity. The latest official data shows that recruitment has taken place at the Indian Patent Office, but the strength remains around 850 examiners and controllers combined. That isn’t a high number given the backlog that exists. 

The United States Patent and Trademark Office employs roughly 8,000 patent examiners. China’s National Intellectual Property Administration operates with well over 13,000 examiners across its system. Both countries process significantly higher volumes while maintaining relatively predictable examination timelines.

Unless this capability is built up, merely filing patents is not competition to win in the innovation race. 

What Other Countries Do Differently

“Globally, patent systems have recognised that speed and predictability matter as much as volume,” the attorney said. 

Singapore runs accelerated pathways that can deliver examination reports within months, positioning itself as a regional IP hub. China has, over the past decade, invested heavily in examiner recruitment and digital workflow systems to reduce pendency and improve throughput.

India has introduced expedited examination routes for startups, small entities and certain technology sectors. But broader systemic timelines remain uneven, and statutory deadlines for office actions are less rigid than in some advanced jurisdictions. 

For investors and deep-tech founders, time to grant matters. A patent pending for four or five years does not carry the same commercial weight as one granted swiftly.

Brand India At A Crossroads

Rising patent filings reflect genuine innovation activity — in AI, pharmaceuticals, clean tech and manufacturing. Domestic applicants now account for a growing share of filings, a positive shift from India’s earlier reputation as primarily a foreign-origin patent market.

That matters for “Brand India.” Innovation credibility is not just about startups and funding rounds. It is about enforceable intellectual property that can anchor global competitiveness.

India’s recent collaboration with Brazil on intellectual property cooperation, including agreements to streamline procedures and share examination practices, signals that policymakers are aware of the global dimension of IP governance. Such partnerships can help align processes and reduce duplication.

But structural reform at home remains essential. Unless examination capacity is built up through sustained hiring, better training pipelines, digital modernisation and performance consistency, merely filing patents will not be enough to compete in the global innovation race.

India’s innovation engine is clearly accelerating. The question now is whether the institutional machinery around it can keep pace. In the end, innovation is not measured only by how many ideas are filed — but by how many are recognised, protected and brought to the market.