Author name: 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 the founder of Tech Law Associates, 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).

2011 at the IPO: a summary of controller’s decisions

/ By / Uncategorized

I cannot believe how fast time goes and we are end of yet another year!  For a tribute to the year gone by, we bring for our readers, a summary of the controller’s decision delivered.  So before going further, Happy holidays wish you all a very happy and interesting new year 2012!! Interesting statistics:Number of decisions rendered: 97 including unavailable files.Number of refusals/revocations:  89.5.5 (including one partial rejection, and unavailable files)Number of grants:  7.5 (including one partial allowance). Maximum number of […]

2011 at the IPO: a summary of controller’s decisions Read More »

Missed deadlines, docketing errors and unintentional vs. unavoidable errors

/ By / Patent

The Delhi patent office recently issued two well reasoned decisions relating to PCT applications that were filed after the 31 month deadlines.  Both decisions were issued by Dr. K.S. Kardam and in both decisions, the Controller held that because the applicant had missed the deadlines, did not provide sufficient cause for extension of time, information of the applications had become part of the public domain; and both applications were therefore, deemed to be withdrawn.  Interestingly, both cases were handled by

Missed deadlines, docketing errors and unintentional vs. unavoidable errors Read More »

Dealing with frivolous Pre-grant oppositions with detectives

/ By / Patent

A recent case decided by the Controller in a pre-grant opposition highlights the practice of opposing applications from big pharma for the sake of opposition.  In this case, the Applicant (Abbot Labs.) had to resort to investigating the background of one opposing party, and submit voice recordings to the Controller to help him decide whether the opposition filed was frivolous.  The post highlights summarizes the opposition proceedings in the case and provides certain practice pointers at the end.  Hat tip

Dealing with frivolous Pre-grant oppositions with detectives Read More »

Innovation in the first class: Virgin v. Jet/Contour

/ By / Innovation, Patent

Sumathi had recently discussed the Virgin Airways case and had very neatly summarized the proceedings at the Chennai patent office.  This post analyzes the decision in further detail, and provides key claim construction issues and drafting style pointers as discussed in the decision.  My take on the “concept level rethink” issue is that the inventor had approached the problem of providing best possible seating arrangement in a constrained space by changing both the seat (first opposition) and the arrangement (second

Innovation in the first class: Virgin v. Jet/Contour Read More »

Patent strategy: Filing a provisional patent application (specification)

/ By / Innovation, Patent

Inventors often have many questions related to patent filing and some general ideas about patenting.  But the question that I am asked many times is about the procedure, costs and how/where to start.  I usually advise inventors to go for  provisional patent application (called as a provisional specification in India) first.  This post provides a basic overview of provisional applications, and lists out the pros and the cons.  It would be beneficial to inventors who are looking forward to take their

Patent strategy: Filing a provisional patent application (specification) Read More »

End to an interim injunction: TenXC decision announced

/ By / Patent

The Delhi High Court recently announced the verdict in the TenXC case/cases .  We have earlier blogged about the case here and here.  As expected, the interim injunction granted to the patentee, TenXC was vacated and the defendants were allowed to keep accounts till the time final verdict is announced; the patent has not been declared to be invalid.  This decision has clarified quite a few issues in Indian patent law and at the same time raised a few issues related

End to an interim injunction: TenXC decision announced Read More »

Examination of patent applications at the Indian patent office.

/ By / Uncategorized

Our patent office recently issued a circular relating to examination of patent applications and consideration of examiner’s report by the Controllers.  This circular provides an insight into the current process of examination of a patent application and also provides concrete steps to reduce the delay (at the patent office) in examination.  In my opinion, this is a very welcome step and long overdue.  PS:  We had, in one of our previous post provided suggestions for improving the working of the patent office

Examination of patent applications at the Indian patent office. Read More »

Standard (US) for determining obviousness in chemical cases

/ By / Patent

This post provides an overview of the Federal Circuit’s decision in Unigene Labs. and Upsher-Smith Labs v. Apotex (Fed. Cir. 2011) with respect to determination of an inventive step.  Long post follows. Summary: Unigene reflects the extent to which the Federal Circuit has evolved KSR v. Teleflex (KSR’s) obviousness jurisprudence.  Instead of following the KSR direction of ‘obvious to combine’, the Federal Circuit differentiated formulating known compounds with novel compounds and therefore pushes the boundaries of non-obviousness to new levels.  That said, this case

Standard (US) for determining obviousness in chemical cases Read More »

America Invents Act: an overview

/ By / Innovation, Patent

President Obama last Friday signed into law the America Invents Act (“AIA”) at a Virginia school.  The AIA is a serious overhaul of United States patent law in over 60 years.  The recent changes to the US patent law makes it more-in-sync with global patent laws, the changes are intended to bolster innovation and economic development.  There are large number of revisions in the AIA that seek to redress perceived problems with the previous law, reduce administrative and litigation costs,

America Invents Act: an overview Read More »

Anatomy of NATCO’s compulsory license application

/ By / Patent

We had in two previous posts (here and here) informed our readers about NATCO’s compulsory license (CL) application for Bayer’s drug Nexavar.  The actual application for grant of the license is now available here.  This post looks in detail at the specific grounds taken in the CL application and does not cover any other material.  Biospectrum Asia edition has carried an excellent piece on this CL application and has included comments from officials from Bayer, NATCO and our very own, Shamnad.  In India, the drug

Anatomy of NATCO’s compulsory license application Read More »

Scroll to Top