India’s Government said in a 2 August 2024 parliamentary answer that Bharat Biotech International Limited (BBIL) and ICMR-National Institute of Virology (NIV) were co-applicants on a joint Indian patent application, after ICMR-NIV was inadvertently left off BBIL’s initial filing. It said BBIL had filed a correction with the Patent Office—but did not identify the application number or say whether the correction was accepted. That leaves key questions about the current filing, inventorship and the practical effect of the collaboration unanswered.
What did the Government say about the Covaxin patent filing?
In its answer to Lok Sabha Starred Question No. 166 on 2 August 2024, the Government said BBIL had filed a joint Indian patent application with ICMR-NIV as a co-applicant. It said ICMR-NIV’s name had been omitted from BBIL’s initial application inadvertently and that BBIL had filed a correction with the Patent Office. The answer did not name the application number or confirm that the Patent Office completed or accepted the correction. Government of India, Lok Sabha Starred Question No. 166, “Patent on Covaxin,” 2 August 2024.
| # | Preview | Product | Price | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |
|
GOING VIRAL MAKING OF COVAXIN: THE INSIDE STORY | $9.99 | Buy on Amazon |
| 2 |
|
Why you should take the Corona Virus Vaccine to eliminate the Covid 19 pandemic? | $1.99 | Buy on Amazon |
Those are distinct procedural facts: an application was filed, a co-applicant was reported, and a correction was reportedly submitted. The answer does not establish the current register entry, whether the correction took effect, or that a patent was granted.
How do the 2021 and 2024 parliamentary answers fit together?
The 2021 answer described the collaboration’s agreed terms; the 2024 answer addressed the reported patent filing and correction. They speak to related but different parts of the arrangement, and neither alone answers every question about ownership or the patent record.
#1 Best Overall
The 2021 account of the collaboration
In a 20 July 2021 Rajya Sabha answer, the Government said the ICMR-BBIL memorandum of understanding covered collaboration on an inactivated whole-cell vaccine. ICMR was to provide a characterized virus strain, while BBIL was to develop the final formulation. The Government said the MoU provided for joint intellectual-property ownership and that the product would be in both organizations’ names. It also reported a five percent royalty on net sales, payable half-yearly, and an initial non-exclusive license to commercialize the product within a two-year period. Government of India, Rajya Sabha Unstarred Question No. 250, “MoU Signed Between ICMR and Bharat Biotech,” 20 July 2021.
The same answer said BBIL agreed to supply vaccines for clinical trials at no cost, offer vaccines to ICMR and government bodies at a reasonable negotiated price, and prioritize domestic supply over exports when doses became available. These are terms as the Government reported them in 2021; the answer does not by itself establish how each term was later implemented.
The 2024 account of the filing
The 2024 answer added that BBIL’s initial Indian patent application omitted ICMR-NIV and that BBIL had filed a correction. This is consistent with the 2021 statement about intended joint IP ownership, but a statement about the MoU is not the same thing as proof of the names and status in a patent register. The later answer does not say the correction was accepted or describe the final application record.
What do the answers say about public spending?
The Government reported estimated ICMR expenditure of ₹35 crore in its 2021 answer and again reported approximately ₹35 crore in its 2024 answer. These are Government-reported estimates from the respective years, not a verified independent accounting of all public and private development costs. The 2021 answer said ICMR had not provided development funds to BBIL, while describing ICMR’s own expenditure on development activities and trials. 2021 Rajya Sabha answer; 2024 Lok Sabha answer.
The 2024 answer’s annexure listed the ICMR estimate in three categories:
| Reported activity | Government-reported amount |
|---|---|
| Virus isolation, animal challenge studies, neutralization testing and related work | ₹7.2 crore (₹720 lakh) |
| Laboratory testing of Phase 1, 2 and 3 trial samples | ₹7.8 crore (₹780 lakh) |
| Phase 3 trial support at 25 sites for screening and recruiting 25,800 participants | ₹20 crore (₹2,000 lakh) |
The 2021 answer also described Phase 3 trials at 25 sites with 25,800 participants. The 2024 response said BBIL spent a much larger component of total development cost, but did not quantify that component. The answers therefore provide ICMR expenditure figures and a qualitative comparison, not a complete cost split.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.Does joint ownership establish who invented Covaxin?
No. The sources describe separate issues that should not be treated as interchangeable:
- Collaboration: The Government’s 2021 answer described the work assigned to ICMR and BBIL under the MoU.
- Intended ownership: The same answer said the MoU provided for joint IP ownership.
- Applicants: The 2024 answer said BBIL and ICMR-NIV were co-applicants on a joint Indian application and that BBIL filed a correction after ICMR-NIV’s omission from the initial filing.
- Inventorship: Neither parliamentary answer, as described here, establishes which individuals were named as inventors or whether ICMR scientists were recognized as inventors.
An applicant or owner is not automatically an inventor. The 2024 answer does not resolve the inventorship question raised in Parliament, and its account of a correction filing does not establish the Patent Office’s final record.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches2Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems3Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteWhat legal powers did the Kerala High Court discuss?
In Dr. K. P. Aravindan v. Union of India, decided on 18 May 2022, the Kerala High Court recounted petitions seeking disclosure of vaccine intellectual-property arrangements and transfer of Covaxin manufacturing technology. The judgment discussed statutory mechanisms including compulsory licensing and government use or acquisition, while recognizing that whether to use those mechanisms was for the Central Government to decide. This was discussion of available legal and policy options, not a ruling that the Government had exercised them for Covaxin. Kerala High Court, Dr. K. P. Aravindan v. Union of India, 18 May 2022.
How can the current Indian patent status be checked?
A reliable status update requires the application number and the Patent Office’s current file history. The parliamentary answer does not supply the application number or confirm the outcome of BBIL’s correction, so it cannot establish the present docket status. IP India provides public patent search and application-status resources; the official pages are IP India e-Services and IP India patent utilities. An official ICMR-NIV patents listing is also available, but it does not resolve the current status of the Covaxin application: ICMR-NIV patents.
Without a verified application number and file history, the 2024 answer supports reporting that a correction was filed—not that the correction was accepted, that the patent was granted, or that any foreign filing was amended.
Quick Recap
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
