How has your experience as co-chair and member of INTA’s Bulletin Asia-Pacific Subcommittee and Law Firm Committee contributed to your professional development?  

Being co-chair and a member of INTA’s Bulletin Asia-Pacific Subcommittee and Law Firm Committee has deepened my understanding of IP law, particularly in the Asia-Pacific region. Engaging with regional IP trends has allowed me to gain insights into the evolving legal landscape across multiple jurisdictions, enhancing my ability to advise clients and help them adopt best IP practices. 

Networking with diverse IP professionals has facilitated valuable knowledge exchange and collaborations beyond my immediate practice. These roles have also enabled me to contribute to thought leadership, sharing my expertise on pressing IP issues while refining my analytical and advisory skills. 

Overall, my experience with INTA has enriched my profession as an IP attorney, empowering me to deliver high-value services to clients and contribute to the global IP community. 

 Your practice focuses on software and computer-implemented inventions. What are some of the biggest challenges currently facing clients in this sector, and what steps are you taking to mitigate these?  

India’s software and computer-implemented inventions sector presents evolving challenges for patent protection. Attorneys often face ambiguity in patentability criteria for computer-related inventions. While Indian law extends protection these, courts emphasise that such inventions must provide a technical solution to a technical problem. If the computer program achieves a technical effect that improves functionality, the invention is eligible for protection under Indian law.

However, challenges arise with computer-related inventions involving software-hardware interactions where clear evidence of technical contribution is missing. We work closely with clients to draft specifications and claims that highlight the technical problem-solving aspects of their inventions. Further, the acceptance of computer readable medium (CRM) claims remains a contentious issue in India. Generally, the Indian Patent Office (IPO) does not allow CRM claims, but we mitigate this by ensuring appropriate claim drafting and staying updated on examination guidelines.

What are your biggest concerns about the current SEP/FRAND landscape – in India and globally?

The SEP/FRAND licensing landscape is complex and challenging, both in India and beyond. A major concern is the risk of patent hold up, in which SEP holders demand excessive royalties post-adoption of a standard, potentially stifling competition. Conversely, implementers may engage in hold out – delaying or refusing licences to negotiate lower royalties, risking innovation in standards development. 

Royalty calculations remain a challenge in India due to the lack of standardised methods, which leads to potential royalty stacking. However, the Delhi High Court’s recent Ericsson judgment has provided objectivity on this. 

Finally, the need for robust regulatory frameworks that govern SEPs and FRAND licensing is critical. Clear policies can reduce disputes and provide a more predictable environment for innovation. 

How have client demands shifted over the course of your career, and how do you ensure that your team adapts to deliver the highest standard of service? 

Throughout my career, I have seen client expectations shift due to technological advancement, globalisation and market dynamics. Clients now seek strategic guidance that aligns their intellectual property with broader business objectives, not just routine patent filings. To address this, we ensure that our team understands each client’s industry and offers tailored insights.

The demand for speed has also grown, prompting us to train our attorneys regularly and integrate AI tools to reduce turnaround times. The IPO has shown a positive approach towards expediting the examination of patent applications, leading to an exponential increase in the number of patent filings and grants and thus a need for faster turnaround times.

Further, clients now expect ROI assessments of their IP portfolios, engaging us in regular evaluations to identify underutilised assets and licensing opportunities.

If you could change one thing about prosecuting patent applications in India, what would it be, and do you think it is likely to happen?

I would establish greater clarity and consistency in interpreting patentability standards for computer-related inventions and emerging technologies. Currently, IPO’s approach lacks uniformity, with examiners applying varying standards to the technical contribution required. This inconsistency undermines the integrity of the patent system. 

Judicial precedents in India are beginning to emphasise the need for clarity in software patent standards, and continued case law developments could guide both examiners and applicants. Looking at international best practices could also offer a framework for more consistent criteria, as many other jurisdictions have successfully navigated similar challenges. 

While achieving clearer standards will be gradual, we remain optimistic.