India’s technology hubs have evolved far beyond their original reputation as low‑cost back‑office operations. Today, they serve as vibrant innovation engines for multinational corporations, generating a steady stream of new products, services, and intellectual property. The recent surge in artificial intelligence capabilities is amplifying this trend, enabling engineers and scientists to move past repetitive coding tasks and focus on higher‑order invention. Executives from firms such as Daimler Truck, Kimberly‑Clark, and Publicis Groupe’s Epsilon have observed that AI‑driven automation is already increasing the volume of patents, trade secrets, and other IP emerging from their Indian global capability centres (GCCs). This shift signals a broader transformation in how global companies perceive India—not merely as a cost‑advantage location but as a strategic source of proprietary technology.
The economic scale of India’s GCC ecosystem underscores its growing influence. According to a joint Nasscom‑Zinnov report, Indian GCCs generated approximately $98.4 billion in revenue during the last fiscal year, surpassing industry forecasts by a full four years. This rapid revenue expansion reflects not only the depth of technical talent available but also the willingness of multinational firms to entrust increasingly complex, value‑added work to their Indian teams. As revenue climbs, so does the potential for IP creation, creating a virtuous cycle where financial success fuels further investment in research and development, which in turn yields more patentable innovations.
Artificial intelligence is acting as a force multiplier for this cycle. Modern AI tools can automate routine software development, testing, and data analysis, freeing engineers to tackle ambiguous problems that require creativity and deep domain expertise. When these cognitive resources are redirected toward invention, the likelihood of generating novel, patent‑worthy solutions rises dramatically. Moreover, AI‑assisted ideation platforms can sift through vast technical literature, identify gaps, and suggest novel combinations of existing technologies, effectively lowering the barrier to breakthrough innovation. The net effect is an acceleration of the patent pipeline that aligns with the strategic goals of GCCs aiming to move up the value chain.
Industry leaders confirm that the upward trend in IP generation is already visible and set to accelerate further. Radhakrishnan Kodakkal, Managing Director of Daimler Truck Innovation Center India, noted that the number of patents and trade secrets emanating from Indian GCCs is already rising, and he expects AI to amplify this growth. Similar sentiments were echoed by Pratik Nath of Epsilon India, who anticipates more IP work taking root in the country as AI handles routine tasks. These executive perspectives highlight a consensus: the combination of skilled talent, cost advantages, and advancing AI capabilities positions India to become a leading source of proprietary technology for global enterprises.
Quantitative data supports the narrative of rising patent activity. A separate Nasscom study revealed that patent filings in India increased by 11.3 % in fiscal year 2024, crossing the 90,000‑mark. While nearly half of these filings originated from multinational corporations, the report did not isolate the contribution of GCCs, suggesting that their impact may be undercounted. Many Indian‑generated inventions are filed through parent entities in the United States or Europe, masking the true volume of IP created domestically. This practice points to a gap between actual innovation occurring in India and the official statistics that capture only locally filed applications.
Several structural factors explain why companies often choose to file patents outside India despite the inventive work happening locally. Deena Dayalan, Global Head of Digital Operations and Cloud Transformation at Kimberly‑Clark, explained that her firm does not pursue patent filings from India because of procedural difficulties. Instead, inventions are routed through U.S. entities where the process is perceived as more predictable and efficient. This preference is not unique to Kimberly‑Clark; many multinationals adopt a similar hybrid model, leveraging Indian talent for early‑stage development while relying on established jurisdictions for formal IP protection.
The core of the difficulty lies in the Indian Patent Office’s examination timeline. Applicants frequently report that obtaining a first examination report takes five to six months—roughly double the average wait time in the United States. Following examination, the granting process can extend several more years, creating a prolonged period of uncertainty. Such delays can affect business planning, impede technology transfer, and reduce the strategic value of patents that may become obsolete before they are awarded.
Underlying these delays are significant resource constraints. Nasscom estimates that the Indian Patent Office employs fewer than a thousand examiners and controllers, whereas the United States Patent and Trademark Office maintains a workforce exceeding eight thousand. This stark disparity creates a chronic backlog that worsens as filing volumes rise. In addition to manpower shortages, applicants often encounter high legal fees, ambiguous procedural guidelines, and inconsistent application of standards across different technical domains, all of which deter local filing.
Procedural nuances further complicate the landscape. In India, applicants must submit a separate request to initiate substantive examination after the initial filing, a step that is absent in the U.S. system where examination begins automatically upon receipt of the application. This extra administrative requirement adds time and complexity, particularly for foreign applicants unfamiliar with the Indian framework. Kirti Balasubramanian, a partner at Trilegal, highlighted that eliminating this redundant step could bring India’s process closer to international best practices.
Recent reforms, however, are beginning to alleviate some of these pain points. The Indian Patent Office has migrated many functions online, introduced centralized allocation of applications to balance workloads, and expanded the use of video hearings to improve accessibility for remote applicants. These digital enhancements reduce geographic barriers, streamline docket management, and increase transparency. While the backlog remains a challenge, such measures demonstrate a commitment to modernizing the IP infrastructure and fostering a more conducive environment for domestic patenting.
For multinational corporations seeking to harness India’s inventive potential while navigating the current IP landscape, several practical strategies emerge. First, integrating AI‑driven idea‑generation and prior‑art search tools into the early R&D phase can increase the quality and novelty of inventions before they enter the formal patent pipeline. Second, establishing cross‑functional IP committees within GCCs that include legal, technical, and business representatives helps ensure that inventions are identified early, assessed for patentability, and routed through the most efficient filing channel—whether local or via parent entities. Third, investing in training programs that educate engineers on Indian patent procedural nuances can reduce reliance on external counsel and accelerate internal preparation.
Looking forward, stakeholders can take concrete steps to strengthen India’s position as a global IP hub. GCC leaders should advocate for continued modernization of the Patent Office, support initiatives that increase examiner headcount, and push for harmonization of procedural steps with major jurisdictions. Policymakers might consider offering fee reductions or fast‑track options for AI‑related inventions to incentivize local filing. Finally, investors and board members should monitor IP output metrics alongside traditional financial KPIs, recognizing that a robust patent portfolio is a leading indicator of long‑term competitive advantage in an AI‑driven economy.