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).

Competition Law Patent Unfair Competition

US Court Grants Federal Trade Commissions Motion: Qualcomm Must License Any Willing Company, Including Rival Chip Makers


This is a monumental development: Judge Lucy H. Koh of the  Northern District of California has held that Qualcomm must license any willing licensee – this includes rival chipmakers, such as MediaTek or Intel or any other player.  This is huge: Qualcomm admittedly had never licensed any of its competitors.   Hence the decision may be read to hold that Qualcomm is in breach of its FRAND commitments. In my view, this judgement is also valuable from another perspective: Whether chipsets can…


Read More »
Unfair Competition

An Oxymoron by Definition – The Decision by UK Court of Appeal in Unwired Planet v. Huawei


A Google search throws up some amusing examples when one searches for oxymoron examples.           The recent decision by the UK Court of Appeal in Unwired Planet v. Huawei (click here) is exactly that.  Why, would you ask? Because on one hand there is Brexit and on the other hand this judgement-it seeks to enforce those patents that are not under its own jurisdiction.  Ergo-oxymoron.  Perhaps some part of the judgement seems to be yearning for…


Read More »
Drug Regulation Patent

IPO Grants Patent to Brodalumab


Last week, our IPO granted a patent to Amgen covering the drug Broadlumab.  Brodalumab is a human monoclonal antibody designed for the treatment of inflammatory diseases including psoriasis  In the United States, Broadlumab is known as Siliq and in Europe it is Kyntheum. The application for Broadalumab was filed as a PCT application – PCT/US2007/021174 (click here to see the page on WIPO – Patentscope) and was accorded application number: 2350/CHENP/2007. One can see the entire file on this link – https://www.quickcompany.in/patents/il-17-receiptor-a-antigen-binding-proteins Sandeep Rathod –…


Read More »
Patent

US Supreme Court Upholds Post Grant Challenge Process to Patents


Yesterday’s decision by the United States Supreme Court (USSC) in Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Group et al. upholds the legality of the post grant review process at the Patent Trial and Appeals Board.  The review process was initiated for the first time in US patent law history by the America Invents Act in 2011. Procedural History:  The Appellant / Oil States had a patent relating to tech. for equipment used in hydraulic fracturing.  It sued Greene’s Energy Group for infringement at district…


Read More »
Competition Law Patent

Determination of FRAND royalty – TCL v. Ericsson LM


In my first posts in 2017, I had discussed various FRAND / SEP issues that were raised in the Qualcomm matters in Korea, and the US.  I end the year with a similar post on FRAND issues.  Together these decisions bring clarity to what is FRAND and hopefully will help the Indian brands as well in their litigation against SEP owners.  This post arises from the determination of FRAND rates in TCL Mobile Limited, and TCT Mobile v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, Case…


Read More »
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 »