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).

Tidbit: Patent agent exam will happen before December 2016

/ By / Patent

Our patent office in a recent posting on its home page, informed users that the patent agent examination is likely to be held before December 2016 and detailed information would be published on the official website after finalization of certain matters. This office has been receiving frequent queries regarding plan of conducting Patent Agent Examination. In this regard, it is clarified that same is likely to be held before December, 2016. Detail information regarding same will be published on official website […]

Tidbit: Patent agent exam will happen before December 2016 Read More »

DHC rules that Ericsson concealed relevant information in Xiaomi matter – vacates injunction in part

/ By / Competition Law, Patent

On December 9, 2014 we had informed our readers that the Delhi High Court (DHC) had granted an interim injunction against Xiaomi.  The injunction was later modified by an order of the Division Bench of the DHC, and Xiaomi allowed to sell its devices subject to certain conditions.  The first post started with an editor’s note, which I find it useful to reproduce (just replace probably with almost certainly: “Due to the large number of queries around this – I would like

DHC rules that Ericsson concealed relevant information in Xiaomi matter – vacates injunction in part Read More »

DIPP invites comments on SEPs and their availability on FRAND terms

/ By / Competition Law, Patent

The Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion (DIPP) has published a paper on “Standard Essential Patents, and their availability on FRAND terms”.  The paper can be accessed here.  The last date to respond to it March 31, 2016. Objective: The Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion has prepared ―Discussion paper on Standard Essential Patents and their availability on FRAND terms, with the objective of inviting views and suggestions from the public at large to develop a suitable policy framework to define

DIPP invites comments on SEPs and their availability on FRAND terms Read More »

Part II: New CRI Examination Guidelines Issued by Our Patent Office

/ By / Innovation, Patent

This post is in continuation to the previous post informing our readers about the new CRI guidelines.  And it was necessitated because of the serious debate triggered as evinced by the several comments on the previous post.  This post will provide more details on how patents relating to software are being interpreted by courts / juries in the US, and some examples from Europe are also being provided. However, before I get into the same, I must acknowledge the stellar role

Part II: New CRI Examination Guidelines Issued by Our Patent Office Read More »

New CRI Examination Guidelines Issued by Our Patent Office

/ By / Innovation, Patent

Justice Ayyangar’s report formed the basis of the 1970 Indian patents act, and without doubt, has been the key driving force behind the stellar success of the Indian generic industry.  I would venture that the amendments and discussions that led to the 2005 version of the Act being passed, may be equally responsible for the success of the Indian software industry. Our patent office has recalled the 2015 Guidelines and issuing a fresh set of guidelines (2016 CRI guidelines) that are

New CRI Examination Guidelines Issued by Our Patent Office Read More »

Should royalty be paid for government taxes, duties, marketing etc.

/ By / Competition Law, Patent

This post deals with two issues in separate parts. Part I deals with the practical problem presented by some, and in my view, incorrect orders of the Delhi High Court. Part II deals with a possible solution to the problem. Last year we had written about order of Delhi High Court directing ad-interim payments to be made by Micromax Informatics to Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson. This decision made the basis on which further orders related to different parties were given. For

Should royalty be paid for government taxes, duties, marketing etc. Read More »

IPO Issues Updated Guidelines for Computer Related Inventions

/ By / Patent

Last week was a busy week at our patent office!! The Controller General issued clarifications under the Designs Act / Rules, and these examination guidelines under the Patent Act / Rules.  I will not do an analysis of the guidelines but simply extract out some relevant parts for our readers.  For more our readers can refer to our previous posts on Section 3(k) here, here, here, here, and here, and others.  These guidelines are extremely detailed and would definitely be helpful to practitioners,

IPO Issues Updated Guidelines for Computer Related Inventions Read More »

Spicyip Tidbit: IP Office provides (much needed) clarification in Designs Act

/ By / Design, Patent

Till recently, the provisions of the Design Act were being interpreted by the IPO as being applicable and giving protection only to the object applied for in the application, i.e. the registration was limited to only the model depicted in the application, or a limited application.   Let me illustrate by an example, if a particular class and sub-class example were used for a product, then the registration was limited to only the class and sub-class.  This was a very

Spicyip Tidbit: IP Office provides (much needed) clarification in Designs Act Read More »

Ericsson’s litigation strategy: A means to an end?

/ By / Competition Law, Patent

Some time back Ericsson announced a settlement of its pending disputes with True Position and Samsung. In the announcements, in True Position, Ericsson claimed that it “[T]akes pride in its technical leadership in wireless standard setting activities and looks forward to continuing to take a leading role in future 3GPP standard setting, including for LTE-Advanced and future generations of wireless technology.” In the Samsung matter, Ericsson claimed that it is, “[C]ommitted to licensing its standard-essential patents on fair, reasonable and

Ericsson’s litigation strategy: A means to an end? Read More »

Recruitment of examiners of patents and designs – IPO

/ By / Design, Patent

Some of our readers would be glad to note that our patent office is conducting a recruitment drive for examiners of patents and designs at our patents offices.   This is certainly music to the ears of not just the inventors, but also to industry and the patent office, as well as patent practitioners!  This will go a long way in reducing the backlog of pending applications. More details can be seen at: http://recruitmentnpc.in The process of application is entirely online

Recruitment of examiners of patents and designs – IPO Read More »

Scroll to Top