Rajiv Kr. Choudhry

Rajiv Kr. Choudhry

Rajiv did his engineering from Nagpur University in 2000 in electronics design technology. He has completed his LL.B. from Delhi University, Law Center II in 2006, while working as an engineer at ST Microelectronics in NOIDA. After his LL.B., he went on to The George Washington Univeristy, Washington DC to do his LL.M. in 2007. After his LL.M., he has worked in the US at a prestigious IP law firm based out of Philadelphia. Till 2014, he was Of-Counsel to a Noida based IP law firm where he specialized in advising clients on wireless, telecommunication, and high technology. Rajiv is a co-founder of RHA Legal, a New Delhi based law firm specializing in IP law, with a focus on high – technology, and patent law. His core IP interest areas are the intersection of technology and IP, Indian IP policy, innovation, and telecommunications patents. He is also an inventor with pending applications in machine-to-machine communications domain (WO2015029061).

Patent

Determination of Patent Eligible Subject Matter: A Comparison of US and India


This post compares a current US case law relating to patent eligibility of computer implemented methods and compares with an example Indian case decided by a Controller.  It is startling to see how far the US patent law has come in defining abstract things (US 101) that are not patent eligible.  Let me explain more, for example, the US Federal Circuit has defined that claims dealing with data collection / identification of unwanted files / collection and analysis of information…


Read More »
Trademark

Technology Meets TM – Introducing Quickcompany


It gives me great pleasure to introduce Quickcompany.in to our readers.  Quickcompany is the first company I know that provides data based trademark and company related services in India.  Let me explain more: Quickcompany has managed to recreate almost the entire Indian trademark related data by using various techniques – some of these techniques involved putting multiple teams of people to manually download vast amounts of data.  Other’s involve creation of proprietary algorithms working on server based systems to fetch somewhat…


Read More »
Competition Law Patent

TRAI Invites Comments on Patents Act, FRAND | Views on Inter Agency Co-Operation


Last week, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) issued a consultation paper on promoting local telecom equipment manufacturing in India and invited comments from readers.  I believe that this is a great opportunity for all stakeholders to provide their comments to the TRAI.  The paper may be downloaded from here or by going to the TRAI site and then at publications / consultation papers. The deadline for submitting comments is 16.OCT.2017 and may be emailed to arvind[AT]trai{dot}gov{dot}in and bharatgupta{dot}[email protected]{dot}com…


Read More »
Patent

Indian Patent Office – Expedited Examination – Does it in Record Time


  Our patent office had initiated the expedited examination procedure last year under the revised rules 2016.  This program has yielded excellent results and some patents already granted.  One of them has been granted in record time of less than 4 months.  This is remarkable as if I exclude the time taken by the applicant to respond, the patent office took only 19 days. This is less than a month! Great going and three cheers for our patent office! About…


Read More »
Competition Law Patent Unfair Competition

Apple v. Nokia – patent privateering – Will the CCI take suo moto notice?


Last month, Apple and Nokia announced that they were settling all pending litigation with each other. In a statement available on Apple’s website, Nokia stated, “This is a meaningful agreement between Nokia and Apple,” Maria Varsellona, Chief Legal Officer, Nokia.  It moves our relationship with Apple from being adversaries in court to business partners working for the benefit of our customers.” Apple filed the first complaint against several entities, all of whom had purchased SEPs from Nokia / or were…


Read More »
Competition Law Patent Unfair Competition

A Critique of the Decision in Unwired Planet v. Huawei


On April 5, 2017, the UK High Court of Justice (Patents), Mr. Justice Colin Birss issued a detailed opinion [Unwired Planet v. Huawei ([2017] EWHC 711 (Pat), 5 Apr. 2017] in a matter involving SEPs and FRAND.  The Unwired Planet v. Huawei (hereafter “Unwired”) decision is extremely contentious and this posts covers only the issues that I believe need further consideration. Disclaimer: I advise several clients in matters involving SEPs and FRAND.  These are my views only. Long post follows. Background:…


Read More »
Competition Law Patent

Charging for Expired Patents: The How and Why the Practice Should Stop


This is a continuation of my previous post where I had briefly referred to charging for expired patents.  This post goes in greater detail in the issue. If I were to summarize this post, it would be: Portfolio licensing and FRAND commitments do not go together.  This post also highlights why it is important to keep the historical context in mind while dealing with 20 year monopolies as those of us who forget history are condemned to repeat it. A…


Read More »
Competition Law Innovation Unfair Competition

Qualcomm under Fire: Korea FTC, US FTC, Class Action Suits, and Apple


  This (long) post is about Qualcomm.  Qualcomm has a business model that is based on IP, whether it is IP creation (SEP or manufacturing related) or IP licensing.  It has been the historical practice in the technology industry that licensing was, and per Qualcomm and related parties, still is, done on end value of device. Qualcomm, Ericsson, and Nokia are three top players in the SEP licensing domain and unsurprisingly hold similar views as their business model is SEP licensing….


Read More »
Competition Law Patent Unfair Competition

Samsung gets a favourable ruling v. Apple from the US Supreme Court


In a crisp 10 page unanimous opinion, the US Supreme Court overruled the (unanimous) Federal Circuit decision.   The US Supremes held that an “article of manufacture” need not be the end product as was claimed by Apple and agreed with Samsung that the article could be an intermediate product or a component !!! “The Federal Circuit’s narrower reading of ‘article of manufacture’ cannot be squared with the text of §289. The Federal Circuit found that components of the infringing smartphones…


Read More »
Patent

Analysis of controller’s decisions – April 2016


I am bringing a number crunching post after a long time – and is based on the 400+ decisions issued by Controller’s office in all four patent offices.  April 2016 was a busy month! The rate of grant, and allowance have increased significantly since my last post summarizing the 2013 decisions.  At that time the average number of decisions each month was ~150.  In contrast, the current rate is well over 400 decisions per month.  This is an increase of…


Read More »