Author(s): Kriti Sinha
Paper Details: Volume 4, Issue 2
Citation: IJLSSS 4(2) 06
Page No: 47 – 61
ABSTRACT
Starting off, the TRIPS agreement made it mandatory for countries to safeguard designs of semiconductor chips. Not until then had such rules been enforced globally through binding commitments. Instead of leaving choices open, articles 35 to 38 set clear baseline requirements for protecting circuit layouts. Because India belongs to the WTO, it passed its own law – the SICLD Act in 2000 – to meet those global expectations. Through close inspection, this study looks at how well India sticks to what TRIPS demands. Behind the legal text lies a deeper question – does the Indian law truly reflect the intent behind articles 35–38? While following words on paper matters, so does honoring their purpose. Though the law mostly fits TRIPS rules, weak spots remain in how it’s enforced, what it covers, because real-world results fall short. It turns out India meets the paperwork standard yet still struggles when putting rules into actual practice.
1. INTRODUCTION
Out of nowhere, tiny chips began reshaping entire economies – woven into everything from phones to medical gear. Hidden inside each one? A unique pattern of parts stacked in 3D space, quietly calling the shots on speed and power use. Not obvious at first glance, crafting those patterns takes years, serious money, heavy know-how. Without legal shields around them, copying wipes out the effort behind every design.[1]
Back before countries signed onto the WTO’s TRIPS deal, rules for safeguarding chip designs differed wildly across borders. Into that gap stepped the TRIPS framework, slipping in dedicated clauses – numbered 35 through 38 – setting baseline shields every nation had to offer.[2]
Later came India’s move under WTO rules – a need to adjust national law to fit global standards. Since joining the World Trade Organization, alignment became necessary. To meet those demands, new legal steps followed. The year 2000 brought the Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout-Design Act. Protection had to reflect how chip layouts differ from other creations. Not quite copyright, not exactly patent, but built for one purpose only. Unique shapes in tiny circuits deserved their own shield.[3]
This study dives into how well India follows TRIPS rules from Article 35 to 38 by closely looking at the SICLD Act. While checking if the law meets global standards on paper, it digs deeper to see if real-world application matches those promises. Gaps show up where enforcement falls short, revealing weaknesses that go beyond mere structure.
2. SEMICONDUCTOR DESIGN RIGHTS
Inside tiny chips, electronic parts sit placed just so across a special material. How they’re spread out – along with the links between – is what gives shape to their design.
Out there among ideas, patents guard how things work while layout-designs care about where circuit parts sit. Not far off, copyright falls short since function isn’t its territory. So, across borders, a one-of-a-kind system took shape – not quite like others – to fill what was missing.[4]
Protection becomes necessary because of situations like these
- High development costs
- Ease of copying through reverse engineering
- Rapid technological advancements
- Global trade in electronic goods[5]
3. INTERNATIONAL FRAMEWORK: TRIPS ARTICLES 35–38
Out there among legal areas, safeguarding chip layouts stands apart from usual rights like inventions or writings. These patterns – sometimes called topographies – mix how things work with where parts sit on a tiny surface. Because chips matter more now in worldwide commerce, countries agreed under TRIPS to set firm rules for shielding these designs. What makes them different? They are not fully invention, not quite art, but something in between.[6]
Starting at Article 35, the TRIPS agreement sets baseline rules for protecting chip designs. Under WTO oversight, every member country must adapt these into national laws. Instead of building fresh rules, it pulls key parts from the older Washington Treaty about integrated circuit IP. What stands out is how closely it follows that earlier treaty’s structure.[7]
This setup keeps global rules somewhat consistent, yet still lets countries apply them their own way. Still, confusion can arise since many nations haven’t signed the IPIC Treaty. Because of this gap, TRIPS blends clear duties with borrowed elements, leaving local courts to shape how rules are understood and applied.
3.1 ARTICLE 35 COUNTRIES MUST SAFEGUARD INTEGRATED CIRCUIT DESIGNS
One way to start is by noting that Article 35 of the TRIPS deal requires countries in the WTO to safeguard chip designs. Protection comes not through fresh rules but by borrowing from another agreement – the Washington Treaty’s Articles 2 to 7 – on intellectual rights for circuits. Using existing terms keeps global standards aligned without rewriting what already works. Even so, nations can adapt how they apply these rules at home.[8]
Originality matters most when it comes to layout-designs – they need to come from real creative work, not standard industry practice. Ownership isn’t assumed; it has to be acknowledged by law, giving makers full say over how their designs are used commercially. Licensing or passing on a design? That power rests solely with the person who made it. Copying without permission – whether exact replication or sneaky reuse – is something every country must guard against. Protection kicks in even if someone tries to profit indirectly from stolen blueprints.[9]
Still, Article 35 brings confusion since it points to a treaty few countries have adopted. Because of this, how well it works rests within national courts and local laws.
3.2 ARTICLE 36 WHAT PROTECTION COVERS
Ownership of a protected layout-design brings certain legal privileges. Whoever holds it can stop others copying the design without permission. Importing chips made from it also needs approval. Distribution for sale falls under restriction too. Control over profits tied to the design stays with the person who created it.[10]
Still, Article 36 allows some clear exceptions. When it comes to studying or testing tech, taking apart systems isn’t blocked – this opens paths for new ideas. People who get hold of copied goods without knowing can fall under protection too. Once they learn what happened, fines might follow, yet blame doesn’t land right away.[11]
This rule tries to help both inventors and tech progress at once. Still, if people stretch the loopholes too far, safeguards might stop working well.
3.3 ARTICLE 37 ACTIONS NEEDING PERMISSION
Ownership gets a clear edge here. Anyone wanting to sell items with copied designs must ask first. Think distribution, bringing goods into markets, even putting them on shelves – all need permission. Commercial moves like these rest solely in the hands of the rights owner. Control stays tight around how the design shows up in trade.[12]
Someone unaware they have a copycat item won’t face penalties right away. Yet after being told, staying in possession means paying fair compensation. Protection exists for honest outsiders caught up in such cases.[13]
Though designed to level the playing field in business dealings, this rule could weaken prevention efforts while making honesty harder to demonstrate. Still, its intent leans toward balance rather than strict control.
3.4 HOW LONG PROTECTION LASTS
Thirty-eight says there must be at least a decade of safeguarding. Starting when it gets registered or hits the market – whichever comes first. Because chips evolve fast, ten years makes room for fresh ideas while letting others build later on.[14]
Even if the decade-long term works most times, getting back massive R&D spending isn’t guaranteed. Some countries can choose longer terms under TRIPS – just never shorter ones. A fixed timeline blocks endless market control while pushing fresh progress over time. Ending early? Not an option.
4. THE SEMICONDUCTOR INTEGRATED CIRCUITS LAYOUT DESIGN ACT 2000
Back in 2000, India passed a special law about chip designs just to meet global trade rules. Not quite copyright, not quite patent – this system carves out its own space in IP rights. Because tiny circuit patterns need different safeguards than books or inventions do. Global agreements pushed the move, yet the structure stands apart by design.[15]
4.1 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE
Protection begins when a layout-design gets official registration under the law. This rule covers chip designs from local inventors along with those from abroad, provided their countries offer similar rights here. Innovation in tech hardware gains support through clear legal rules. Meeting global norms is part of how the system operates. Legal safeguards activate only after formal approval, not before.[16]
4.2 KEY PROVISIONS
A layout-design means how parts sit together inside a chip, shaped in space. Not every setup gets shielded by law – only those born from fresh thinking stand out. What counts is whether someone truly worked it out, instead of copying what’s already floating around among experts.[17]
What stands out about the Act? Its way of handling registrations. Ownership protection kicks in once registered – after applying, going through review, then landing on the official list. Having a spot there counts as solid proof you own it.[18]
Whoever holds the registration gets special access – making copies, using it to earn money, passing it on or letting someone else use it. Control stays tight when it comes to how the design brings value.[19]
Protection lasts a full decade, starting from whenever comes first – registration day or the moment it hits the market – just as TRIPS lays out.[20]
Now here’s a fresh take on that piece. Courts can step in when rights are breached. One path leads to court orders stopping further misuse, cash payments for losses, or handing over gains made unfairly. On another track, penalties might mean paying money to the state or even time behind bars. The whole setup works to scare off copycats, giving real weight to ownership of design layouts.[21]
5. COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS: TRIPS VS SICLD ACT
Though global rules set a baseline for safeguarding chip designs, India shaped its own law in 2000 to meet those demands. Its legislation mirrors much of what TRIPS requires, yet real-world execution shows some shortcomings. When matched side by side, alignment is clear – but room for improvement lingers where policy meets practice.[22]
Original layout designs get safeguarded under Article 35, a point shared by both TRIPS and India’s SICLD law. Ownership and sole authority go directly to makers once originality meets the defined threshold set in national rules. Meeting international norms works well here, even if one detail adds friction – registration must happen, something TRIPS does not clearly demand. Procedures tied to filing create hurdles that weren’t spelled out abroad.[23]
Exclusive rights under Article 36 appear much like what TRIPS sets out – copying, selling, bringing in, handing out – all covered by India’s SICLD Act. Yet differences pop up when it comes to workarounds like taking apart software to learn how it functions or using something without knowing it was protected. These outs might stretch further here than elsewhere. That wider reach could leave less room for strict safeguards.[24]
When it comes to Article 37, each system demands permission before using designs commercially, yet includes protections for honest users caught unaware. The SICLD Act lines up with this idea, though real-world hurdles within India’s legal setup weaken how well those rules actually work.[25]
Ending on Article 38, the SICLD Act lines up exactly – offering at least ten years’ coverage when measured by TRIPS rules.[26]
Still, even though India meets most TRIPS requirements on paper, weak enforcement slows progress. Legal hurdles stand in the way. Processes drag things down too. Firms rarely make full use of what’s available. Rules exist, yet real-world impact stays low.
6. CRITICAL LOOK AT INDIA’S COMPLIANCE
Even though India passed the Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout-Design Act in 2000 to meet TRIPS requirements, problems still show up when putting it into practice. Because what’s on paper doesn’t always happen on the ground, doubts grow about how well the law actually safeguards designs.[27]
6.1 FORMAL VERSUS SUBSTANTIVE COMPLIANCE
On paper, India’s laws line up with TRIPS on layout and wording. Still, real-world follow-through lags because enforcement is thin, court rulings are scarce, and businesses take little part. So the match looks good only at first glance.
6.2 WEAK ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS
Most days, the law just sits there while problems pile up behind it. Judges often do not understand the tech stuff involved – so rulings drag on without clarity. Court steps take too long, which stretches cases into years instead of months. Criminal penalties? Hardly ever used, almost like they forgot them. Because nothing really happens after breaking rules, people see little reason to stop. The threat of punishment fades when consequences never show.[28]
6.3 LIMITED AWARENESS AND USAGE
Most people hardly ever use the SICLD Act. Few designs get officially recorded, while major court cases are missing – suggesting many involved, from businesses to lawyers, simply do not know about it. As a result, the law matters less in real-world situations.[29]
6.4 REVERSE ENGINEERING EXCEPTION
Though TRIPS allows reverse engineering, India’s loose legal take could erode the strength of protected rights. Unclear rules leave room for doubt, opening doors to potential abuse.[30]
6.5 OVERLAP WITH OTHER IP LAWS
Layout-design safeguards sometimes bump into patent rules, then brush up against copyright too. When that happens, people might get mixed signals about which laws apply where. Confusion creeps in. Rules start bending unevenly across cases. The whole thing grows harder to follow without clear lines drawn anywhere.[31]
6.6 INSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS
Most countries have centers just for chip design rights. Not India. Without labs that test circuits or panels that review claims, filings get stuck. Problems pile up when there is no clear way to settle fights over ideas. Laws exist but they stumble without support systems nearby. Weak backing means weak outcomes in practice.
7. COMPARATIVE PERSPECTIVE
One look at various legal systems shows the TRIPS rules set a common starting point for safeguarding chip designs – yet real-world results differ widely by nation. Not just because laws are written differently, but due to uneven enforcement power, weak institutions here, strong ones there, plus active or absent tech sectors shaping outcomes. Peering into how the U.S., Europe, and India handle these global duties reveals gaps between promise and practice. What seems identical on paper becomes something else entirely when applied.[32]
7.1 UNITED STATES
Hidden inside U.S. law since 1984 sits a special rule just for tiny computer chips – their shapes, patterns, how they’re built. It doesn’t borrow from copyright or patents; instead, it carves out its own space. Because regular IP rules miss these details, something different was needed. That difference? A system shaped only for circuits, nothing else. Precision matters when copying can happen fast – this law draws clear lines where others blur.[33]
What stands out about the U.S. setup is how firmly rules get enforced. Judges there have handled countless fights over intellectual property, even ones packed with intricate tech details. Because they know their way around such issues, rulings on advanced chip designs tend to be precise. Thanks to long-standing systems, court outcomes often follow familiar patterns. That predictability helps everyone understand where they stand under the law.[34]
What helps make the U.S. system work well is how involved companies are. Firms file their chip designs regularly, showing they take ownership seriously. When violations happen, they do not hesitate to go to court. Such readiness keeps the framework alive, turning laws into real outcomes. Penalties like blocked sales, compensation payments, or profit returns add weight to the rules. These tools discourage copying by raising the cost of breaking them. So while many nations meet treaty requirements on paper, the U.S. follows through with consistent action.[35]
7.2 EUROPEAN UNION
Across Europe, rules for safeguarding chip designs follow a shared pattern. A single legal structure holds things together, yet countries can adjust slightly where needed. One clear system cuts confusion between nations. Smooth handling of disputes across borders becomes easier as a result.[36]
What stands out about the EU setup is how tightly it controls regulations. Instead of treating intellectual property on its own, Europe ties it closely to industry goals and new ideas. Because of this blend, laws around patents or copyrights feed into wider efforts to boost tech progress and wealth creation. Tying those rights directly to science projects and invention programs helps shape conditions where fresh thinking can grow.[37]
Courts in European countries work under shared rules, which helps keep decisions fairly uniform. Because these nations follow one structured system, enforcement tends to run without major hiccups. Legal powers exist alongside experienced agencies that know how to apply them. While inventors get protection, room remains for fair market rivalry. Things like disassembling software for study slip through – but only when strict conditions are met. What emerges isn’t perfect, yet it holds together through design and routine. Stability comes not from bold ideas but steady execution across borders.[38]
7.3 INDIA
Now picture India’s rules shaped by the Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout-Design Act, 2000 – this setup sticks close to what TRIPS demands. Original designs get shielded here, while those who dream them up earn special usage rights. Exceptions exist, though only a few, carved within clear boundaries. Protection lasts exactly ten years, not more. When you look at laws on paper, India managed to match global expectations without straying off track.[39]
Still, even with proper rules in place, India’s system doesn’t work well in real situations. A major issue? The Act sits mostly unused. Layout designs registered here are few, court cases almost non-existent. That silence suggests businesses aren’t turning to it much. Without active adoption, its influence naturally shrinks.[40]
One big reason it’s barely used? People involved simply do not know enough – firms, inventors, even lawyers. Instead of turning to the SICLD Act, many go for patents or keep things hidden as trade secrets. Problems pop up when trying to enforce rules – delays drag cases forward slowly. Experts with the right tech knowledge are missing. Specialized bodies that could help? They just aren’t there.[41]
Out of step with real-world needs, India’s setup follows rules on paper yet stumbles when put to use. Though laws exist and look good, they lose force due to spotty follow-through, lackluster participation from businesses, and roadblocks within agencies. Fixing those pieces – slow processes, thin cooperation, uneven oversight – is what will shape a system that does more than meet global standards; it would actually work where it counts.
One thing stands out when you look closely – meeting rules on paper does not mean they work well in practice. The U.S. and the EU show how laws gain strength when agencies enforce them and businesses actually take part. In contrast, India’s setup looks good only at first glance, with little real-world impact so far. Progress there depends on turning procedures into active, consistent efforts across sectors.
8. CHALLENGES IN IMPLEMENTATION
Even though India follows TRIPS rules, problems remain in enforcing safeguards for chip designs. What looks good on paper often stumbles in practice. Laws exist, yet real-world application lags behind. Gaps show up when policy meets industry needs. Enforcement struggles with consistency across regions. Technical know-how is uneven among officials. Legal clarity does not always lead to strong outcomes. Courts sometimes lack specialized understanding. Industry feedback points to delays and uncertainty. Protection measures fail to keep pace with innovation speed.[42]
8.1 TECHNOLOGICAL COMPLEXITY
Most trouble starts because chip blueprints are packed with technical detail. These tiny circuit patterns mean little to anyone without specialist training. Legal teams struggle to grasp how they work, let alone judge creativity or copying. Understanding them usually demands outside experts stepping in. Longer court battles follow, along with higher bills piling up. The whole process slows down, weighed by complexity.[43]
8.2 ECONOMIC LIMITATIONS
Most chip work in India stays small scale, so the SICLD Act doesn’t get much real-world testing. Instead of building at home, the nation brings in most high-end tech from abroad. Because setting up labs and teams takes serious money, few firms jump into designing new layouts. Without strong reasons to protect their work, businesses skip registering designs – rights often go unused. This gap makes the law feel more like paper than power.[44]
8.3 GLOBAL COMPETITION
Out front, nations like the United States, China, South Korea, and Taiwan hold firm control over chip production, leaving India trailing behind. Their edge comes not just from better facilities but also massive spending on innovation and tighter rules around inventions. Because of this gap, building a strong local industry feels out of reach. With little homegrown activity, protecting circuit designs hardly matters within the country.[45]
8.4 POLICY GAPS
Most times, gaps pop up when rules for inventions clash with plans to grow industries. Even though the SICLD Act sets down protections, wider pushes meant to boost chip building and new ideas fall short. Without focused perks – say cash infusions, lighter taxes, or grants for labs – the setup crumbles a little more each day. When officials, businesses, and universities barely talk, attempts scatter like dust in wind.[46]
OVERALL ASSESSMENT
Still, nations such as the U.S. and EU show real results through solid laws that actually work. Yet in India, rules exist mostly on paper. Technical hurdles slow things down. Limited funds make progress harder. Pressure from world markets adds strain. Weak spots in policy weaken enforcement. Fixing these areas matters if laws there are to do more than just sit unchanged.[47]
9. SUGGESTIONS FOR REFORM
One step forward might mean rethinking old habits around legal details. Not only rules but also how they fit rising tech matters most. Matching worldwide norms – say, what’s inside TRIPS – matters when talk turns to actual use. Progress hides less in new texts than in syncing moves with market motion.
9.1 STRENGTHENING ENFORCEMENT
When enforcement falters, laws offer little shield. The 2000 chip design act allows penalties and fixes – yet hinges on consistent follow-through. Watched closely, rules hold weight; left unattended, they fade in force. Even solid statutes stumble without steady eyes.
Specialized IP courts start with picking judges who know tech stuff, especially how chips are built. Because these people grasp intricate details, rulings tend to be sharper and faster. When court processes speed up, backlogs shrink naturally. Understanding circuits and chip architecture becomes key when legal fights turn highly technical. Without that background, decisions might miss critical points. Building expertise through ongoing learning helps keep pace with new inventions. Fair outcomes depend on knowing what the technology actually does. Clarity in law follows when those deciding cases speak the same language as engineers. Knowledge gaps cause mistakes; fixing them strengthens trust in rulings.
When things move too slow in court, justice loses its edge. Fixing conflicts without long waits keeps laws meaningful. Because speed shows that rules still matter, not just on paper. When someone acts fast, it stops others from testing limits. It helps when those who enforce the law know what they’re doing. Catching wrongdoing early means nothing if nobody can follow through. Stronger teams behind investigations make consequences real. Well-prepared officers turn alerts into results. Without proper tools and training, even clear violations slip. Fair outcomes depend on how quickly and firmly systems react.
9.2 PROMOTING AWARENESS
Most people involved – startups, legal professionals, businesses – are unaware of the SICLD Act. Because they do not know it exists, they cannot use its safeguards properly. Knowledge spreading more widely would lead to better follow-through on rules meant to help them.
Talking directly with people through events like hands-on sessions helps them see why safeguarding chip layouts matters. When face-to-face talks happen, they tend to work better than just handing out papers – questions get answered on the spot. Schools weaving these ideas into classes give learners a stronger start before entering the field. Adding material about circuits and ownership rules inside regular subjects builds skill alongside understanding of rights.
Together, universities and companies help spark new thinking. Ideas tend to become real solutions when scholars team up with people who build things. What begins in a lab often finds its way into everyday use through such links.
9.3 POLICY INTEGRATION
What keeps chip designs safe isn’t just new tech – it’s how well laws keep pace. As the semiconductor field moves forward, rules need to shift right along with it.
Together, the SICLD Act and national chip efforts grow stronger when aligned. Not apart – side by side – they shape shared outcomes through law and production. When officials, builders, and innovators sync their moves, progress flows smoother, clearer. Outcomes tighten up. Execution finds rhythm.
Putting together a full national approach to semiconductors matters now more than ever. This kind of framework needs to include every phase of how chips are made, yet also build solid barriers around inventions and ideas. If those shields fall short, new breakthroughs could stall – so laws that guard knowledge become central to lasting tech growth.
10. CONCLUSION
India introduced a rule on chip designs in 2000. That step signaled intent to follow worldwide trade standards. Rather than imitate, it shaped an original system. With Articles 35 to 38 folded into domestic strategy, coherence emerged. Even old designs found a place under the law. Only makers got control over their work. Yet certain situations opened doors regardless of who owned it. The shield stayed up for a fair stretch, just past minimum standards. Paper promises matched outside demands, if barely.[48]
Even if it looks good on paper, weak outcomes tell another story. The SICLD Act struggles because enforcement is spotty; understanding of its reach stays shallow among key players. Loopholes grow wider over time – clashes emerge with current intellectual property rules. Institutions tasked with oversight simply do not have the muscle needed. What seems strong in design crumbles when tested by reality.[49]
Start with the U.S., then check Europe – laws exist, sure, yet results lag behind. What actually moves things forward? Institutions doing their job, properly resourced. Companies must act, not just show up at meetings. Growth links tightly to whether efforts match broader industry currents and market needs.[50]
Truth hits hard when circuits are involved – India’s climb in the worldwide chip race leans on guarding its design secrets tight. Progress shows up plainly; following foreign standards fades beside what really counts: muscle in markets, bold invention, trust from investors, resilience where pressure mounts.[51]
Stronger follow-through could push India past mere rule compliance toward systems that deliver. Not box ticking, but outcomes start drawing focus – enforcement clarity, public awareness of rights, agency resources, policy alignment. Fail to link these parts, and global patent targets remain distant. Working protections make space where innovation moves with economic growth.[52]
[1] World Intellectual Property Organization, Intellectual Property and Integrated Circuits (WIPO 2005)
[2] Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights 1994 (TRIPS) arts 35–38
[3] Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout-Design Act 2000 (India)
[4] Lionel Bently and Brad Sherman, Intellectual Property Law (5th edn, OUP 2018)
[5] WIPO, Protection of Layout-Designs of Integrated Circuits (WIPO Guide)
[6] Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights 1994 (TRIPS) arts 35–38
[7] Treaty on Intellectual Property in Respect of Integrated Circuits 1989 (Washington Treaty/IPIC)
[8] Treaty on Intellectual Property in Respect of Integrated Circuits 1989 (Washington Treaty/IPIC)
[9] Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights 1994 (TRIPS) arts 35–38
[10] Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights 1994 (TRIPS) arts 35–38
[11] TRIPS Agreement 1994 art 36–37
[12] Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights 1994 (TRIPS) arts 35–38
[13] TRIPS Agreement 1994 art 36–37
[14] Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights 1994 (TRIPS) arts 35–38
[15] Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout-Design Act 2000 (India)
[16] Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout-Design Act 2000 (India)
[17] Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout-Design Act 2000 (India)
[18] Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights 1994 (TRIPS) arts 35–38.
[19] Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout-Design Act 2000 (India)
[20] Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights 1994 (TRIPS) arts 35–38.
[21] Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout-Design Act 2000 (India)
[22] Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights 1994 (TRIPS) arts 35–38.
[23] Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights 1994 (TRIPS) arts 35–38.
[24] Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout-Design Act 2000 (India)
[25] Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout-Design Act 2000 (India)
[26] Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout-Design Act 2000 (India)
[27] Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights 1994 (TRIPS) arts 35–38
[28] Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout-Design Act 2000 (India)
[29] Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout-Design Act 2000 (India)
[30] Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights 1994 (TRIPS) arts 35–38
[31] Lionel Bently and Brad Sherman, Intellectual Property Law (5th edn, OUP 2018)
[32] Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights 1994 (TRIPS) arts 35–38.
[33] Semiconductor Chip Protection Act 1984 (United States).
[34] Lionel Bently and Brad Sherman, Intellectual Property Law (5th edn, OUP 2018)
[35] Semiconductor Chip Protection Act 1984 (United States).
[36] Council Directive 87/54/EEC on the Legal Protection of Topographies of Semiconductor Products.
[37] Council Directive 87/54/EEC on the Legal Protection of Topographies of Semiconductor Products.
[38] Council Directive 87/54/EEC on the Legal Protection of Topographies of Semiconductor Products.
[39] Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout-Design Act 2000 (India)
[40] Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout-Design Act 2000 (India)
[41] Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout-Design Act 2000 (India)
[42] Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights 1994 (TRIPS) arts 35–38
[43] Lionel Bently and Brad Sherman, Intellectual Property Law (5th edn, OUP 2018)
[44] OECD, Semiconductors and Global Value Chains: Policy Perspectives (OECD Publishing 2019)
[45] OECD, Semiconductors and Global Value Chains: Policy Perspectives (OECD Publishing 2019)
[46] OECD, Semiconductors and Global Value Chains: Policy Perspectives (OECD Publishing 2019)
[47] Council Directive 87/54/EEC on the Legal Protection of Topographies of Semiconductor Products.
[48] Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) 1994, arts 35–38; Semiconductor Integrated Circuits Layout-Design Act 2000 (India)
[49] Nuno Pires de Carvalho, The TRIPS Regime of Trademarks and Designs (Kluwer Law International 2011)
[50] Semiconductor Chip Protection Act 1984 (US); Council Directive 87/54/EEC on the legal protection of topographies of semiconductor products
[51] World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), Intellectual Property and Integrated Circuits (WIPO Publication)
[52] UNCTAD-ICTSD, Resource Book on TRIPS and Development (Cambridge University Press 2005)