What Apple v. Samsung can teach us about design

-Swapna Sundar, IP Dome

On 9^thJuly 2012, the UK High Court of Justice Chancery Division patents Court decided in favour of Samsung in an action where Samsung sought a declaration that the three of its galaxy tablet computers do not infringe Apple's community design registration for the IPad. His Honour Judge Birss QC decided the case in favour of Samsung.

Community Design practice in Europe has interesting concepts that help to clarify the subject of industrial design for designers in the fledgling Design IP regime of India.

Concept of Informed User:Designs are to be assessed from the perspective of the informed user.  He is a user of the product which the design is intended to be incorporated. He is not the designer, technical expert, Manufacturer or seller. However, unlike the average consumer of the trademark law, he's particularly observant. He (or she) has knowledge of the design corpus and of the design features normally included in the design of existing in the sector concerned. He is also interested in the products concerned and uses a relatively high degree of attention when he chooses them. The informed user also conducts a direct comparison of the design in issue unless there are specific circumstances of the device has the characteristics which make it impossible or impractical or uncommon to do so. The informed user neither

(A) merely perceives the designs as a whole and not analyse the details

(B) observes in detail minimal differences may exist

The informed user in this case will consider the product side by side, whether they are sold to the public shops and websites.

Exclusion of Function: Design registration law in general, excludes from protection features of appearance that are dictated solely by function.The "multiplicity of forms" theory states that, design is not dictated solely by function if it can be shown that the same technical function can be achieved by another design.

Overall Impression that the design produces on the informed user:The test of "different overall impression" is wider than protection against identical or nearly identical products. While Samsung claimed that the overall impression created by the Samsung Galaxy Tablets were on the informed user from those created by Apple iPad understanding the design in its proper context, Apple claimed that the overall impression produced on the informed user by Samsung tablet is not different from the one produced by the register design of Apple. Apple contended that the design must be understood properly bearing in mind the existing design corpus and the degree of freedom of the designer

Existing Design Corpus: Design corpus is determined taking into consideration the nature of the product to which the design is applied, the industrial sector to which it belongs on the degree of freedom of the designer in developing the design. Although in design law, it is necessary for the applicant to indicate the products in which the design is intended to be incorporated, the indication cannot be used to limit the prior art designs that make up the design corpus.

The design, to be registrable should be different from the designs in the existing design corpus. When the design is based on a new technology which brings new design constraints, then the designs (based on old technology) may have little relevance in deciding on novelty or originality of the new design. The Judge in this case felt that consumers of the new technology would be significantly impressed by the new designs that the technology enables.

Degree of Freedom of the Designer:Design freedom may be constrained by (i) the technical function of the product or an element thereof, (ii) the need to incorporate features common to such products and/or (iii) economic considerations (for instance, the need for the item to be inexpensive).

Context of the Design:Apple’s iPads are not concrete examples of the Design that they filed in 2004. Often in manufacturing, fidelity to the filed designs is sacrificed to acquire manufacturability and scalability.

Elements of Apple design: simplicity; unadorned and tile shaped. The large faces are blank with a screen on one side and back completely blank. Corners are rounded; there is a rim around the whole edge. The article is quite thin. The edge forms a right angle to the front face with a curve to the back face. The dotted lines in the Apple design registration do not indicate design element.

Elements of (the three) Samsung galaxy tablet design:very slim tile shaped articles; the front face is quite blank; corners are rounded; a rim around the edge and a border around the screen; the edges of the article are curved so that the bulge outwards. The sides have buttons on the back surfaces of the Samsung tablets differ from each other. Apart from the backs, the key differences between the galaxy tabs are size. The aspect ratios of the tablets are broadly the same and all three are about the same thickness.

Similarities between the designs of Apple and Samsung tablets:

1.       a rectangular, biaxially symmetrical slab of four evenly, slightly rounded corners

2.       a flat transparent surface without any ornamentation covering the entire front face of the device up to the rim

3.       a very thin rim of constant with, surrounding and flush with the front transparent surface

4.       a rectangular display screen surrounded by a plain border of generally constant width centred beneath the transparent surface

5.       a substantially flat rear surface which curves upwards at the site and come to make the front surface of the crisp outer edge

6.       a thin profile, the impression of which is emphasised by item 5 above

7.       overall, design of extreme simplicity without features which specify orientation

In order to make a decision in this case, the Judge decided on the following formula:

(1)          The exercise will start with identifying the informed user and existing design corpus. The overall impression is something produced on informed user.

(2)          The design must be broken down into features. Each feature needs to be considered in order to give it an appropriate significance of weight in three respects – determination by function, difference from the design corpus, and point of view of design freedom.

(3)          The differences from the registered design and the allegedly infringing design need to be addressed and weighted. The waiting exercises concerned with assessing the significance of the similarity to the informed user.

(4)          The court can decide whether the alleged infringement produces a different overall impression on the informed user from the produced by the registered design.

Final take-aways from the judgement:

·         Things which look the same because they do the same thing are not examples of infringement of design right.

·         The goal of design protection is to reward and encourage good product design by protecting the skill, creativity and labour of product designers. Design is concerned with both form and function however, design law is not seeking to reward advances and function. That is the sphere of patents.

·         Function imposes constraints on the design is freedom which do not apply to an artist.

www.ipdome.in

AN INTRODUCTION TO THE AMERICA INVENTS ACT

-Swapna Sundar, IP Dome

On September 16, 2011, President Barack Obama of the United States signed into law the American Invents Act at the Thomas Jefferson High School for Science & Technology in Alexandria, Virginia. The Act amends the Patent Law in the United States and puts in place some unique features. In this article I will explore some of them.

President Obama pointed out in his 2011State of the Union Address: “We know what it takes to compete for the jobs and industries of our time.  We need to out-innovate, out-educate, and out-build the rest of the world.”The America Invents Act (AIA, for short) is to enable the economy to recover by providing the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) with larger resources to speed up the processing of patents and reducing backlogs. This in turn would lead to faster translation of inventions to industrial products, thereby increasing jobs and technology-led enterprises.

The AIA switched to the First-inventor-to-file rule, from the First-to-invent rule and expands definition of prior art, to include public use, sales, publications, and other public disclosures anywhere in the world as of the filing date, other than publications by the inventor within one year prior to filing. Notably prior art includes foreign offers for sale and public use.Also confidential sales of the patented technology will no longer mark the beginning of the 1 year grace period.

The Act revises and expands post-grant procedures while retaining existing ex parte re-examination. Pre-issuance submissions by third parties are added and the scope of inter partes re-examination is expanded and renamed inter partes review. The AIA also adds post-grant review. Another significant change is that while an inventor is still required to “set forth” the best mode for working an invention, failure to disclose a best mode is not a basis for invalidating or rendering an issued patentunenforceable. Insufficient disclosure is no longer a defence against patent infringement

Further, start-ups are will have an opportunity to have important patents reviewed in one-third the time with a new fast-track option that has a guaranteed 12-month turnaround.The AIA added a micro-entity status which includes an independent inventor with a previous calendar year gross income of less than 3 times the national median household income who has previously filed no more than four non-provisional patent applications apart from those the inventor was obligated to assign to an employer. A micro-entity is entitled to a 75% reduction in many of the patent fees payable to the US Patent Office during prosecution of a US patent application. The patent office is expected to develop regulations to identify which fees will be eligible for the reduction and how joint inventors may qualify as a micro-entity.Patents in green technology can be filed at no cost to the inventor.

The USPTO's dynamic Director David Kappos is set to lead America into a new era of Patenting.

*Swapna Sundar teaches a P.G. Diploma course on Patentability of Inventions: US and EU perspectives, at the Nalsar University of Law. NALSAR Proximate education PG Diploma programmes are designed to meet the requirements of professionals in the field of science, technology, media and human rights. For further information go to http://www.nalsarpro.org/

www.ipdome.in

THE IMPORTANCE OF MARKET RESEARCH: Sustainable Competitive Advantage in the Food Industry

-Team IP Dome* 

Understanding trends in the market including what your customer is buying today and what he is going to look for on the shelves tomorrow, what the condition of her health is today – and given her food and health preferences - what her health condition will be ten years from now; and also what their children are eating today during their snack time and what would attract that peer group five years from now, could decide whether your company is going to last through the transition or not.

The importance of market research in identifying research focus and IP portfolio construction cannot be over-emphasised; neither can the power of information. Start-ups in the food industry, particularly in India, do not pay sufficient attention to market research. There are several reasons for this. The first being, reliable and valid market research is expensive, whether commissioned or conducted by the entrepreneur; second, the entrepreneur may be driven by a passion – either for the product or the entrepreneurial activity – and may feel that market research is delaying the arrival of the product in the market. It may simply be that the entrepreneur does not want to receive any negative feedback on his product. Regardless of the reason, failing to do market research can amount to a death sentence for your food enterprise. The companies that do their homework the best are the ones that are likely to survive over the long term.

If you are interested in entering the food industry with a good IP portfolio including a good brand and trademark, vendor and retailer data and a strong and innovative product and positioning, it is necessary to understand the market in terms of:

Consumer: Your consumer preferences could give rise to brand loyalty. Understanding his preferences in terms of colour, taste, flavour, smell, texture, packaging, quantity and other such parameters could help you to tailor your product to meet his expectations. Further innovations to the product can also be driven by the consumer’s changing preferences. For example, if you are targeting small children with bakery products, it would be invaluable to know that small children prefer uniform and homogenous textures to mixed textures which are popular with adolescents.

Product: Studying existing products in the market would provide you with important information regarding the uniqueness of your (proposed) product. You would be able to then leverage this uniqueness by building on it, and creating a brand to highlight the difference. Innovative design in the product – such as unique colours, shapes and configurations, compositions, and new flavours, could add to the inherent uniqueness. For instance, if you are in a crowded market such as potato chips, it may be essential to differentiate your chips by providing different configurations, shapes, textures and perhaps additional flavouring or dips.

Competition: Competition needs to be studied in terms of target market, positioning, retailer agreements, supply chain efficiency (particularly in perishable goods), innovation and IP protection, and changing consumer preference. It is necessary to identify the competitor and also to understand the areas of competition. It is possible that the same competitor may not be competing against you in your entire product line. By identifying competition appropriately, enterprises can allocate scarce resources to those products which are receiving strong market response. For instance, if your cream biscuits are receiving more response than those of your competitors, while your ready to cook pasta is losing out to a stronger competitor, it may be better to consolidate your cream biscuit market before allocating further resources and energy to the pasta business. Monitoring your competitor would also mean you are watching whether he is copying your product or passing off his product as yours by using a similar trademark or brand name.

One of the ways smaller companies could get reliable market research is by pooling together their resources and getting a single report done by a leading market researcher in that industry. Subsequently, the cluster could share the output of the report in non-competing ways.

*Our team was invited to make a presentation on IP at the Technology Entrepreneurship Development Programme (TEDP) in Food Processing organised by VITTBI under the aegis of National Science and Technology Entrepreneurship Development Board, DST, Govt. of India and Entrepreneurship Development Institute, Ahmedabad on 07 Sep, 2012. For further information on the programme please contact tbicoordinator@vit.ac.in. 

www.ipdome.in

Invention and Innovation: How Different Are They ?

-Swapna Sundar, IP Dome

 

(Excerpt from ‘IP Smart – how to get ahead using IP’ a book in progress by Swapna Sundar. © Swapna Sundar, 2012)

An ‘innovation’ is a new process or device that contributes a significant differentiation to a pre-existing functionality of a known invention. This significant differentiation can be provided by one or more of several ‘innovations’ including design, ease of use, ease of manufacture and addition of known features of functionalities. Some ‘innovations’ like the iPod are better known than the individual ‘inventions’ that make them possible.

Technology is what enables ‘innovation’; while it is ‘commercial science’ that leads to ‘invention’. Technology innovation is the process through which improved technologies are developed and brought into widespread use. The process of innovation includes research, development, design and market use. These processes are enabled by arrangements between financiers, market research agencies, designers, scientists and laboratories of different disciplines and organisations that produce and market the product.

While ‘invention’ lies at the core of the technological advancement, it is risky to invest in it as returns are unpredictable. With a radical invention, it is not possible to say whether it would succeed in the market. However, with an innovation comprising known and tested inventions, the possibility of success is much higher. This is the reason that most investments are targeted towards innovative technologies with clear commercial applications and financial returns.

Under the Indian Patents Act, 1970, an ‘invention’ means any new and useful -

•    art, process, method or manner of manufacture;

•    machine, apparatus or other article;

•    substance produced by manufacture,    

                        and includes any new and useful improvement of any of them.

In Bishwanath Prasad RadheyShyam Appellant v Hindustan Metal Industries , one of the landmark cases in Indian IP law, the Supreme Court of India laid down the importance of assessing ‘inventive step’, as follows:

"It is important that in order to be patentable an improvement on something known before or a combination of different matters already known, should be something more than a mere workshop improvement; and must independently satisfy the test of invention or an 'inventive step'. To be patentable the improvement or the combination must produce a new result, or a new article or a better or cheaper article than before. The combination of old known integers may be so combined that by their working interrelation they produce a new process or improved result. Mere collection of more than one integers or things, not involving the exercise of any inventive faculty, does not qualify for the grant of a patent."

In non-law terms, an invention is a new device, method, composition or process. The process could be an improvement on the existing process. However, this improvement must result in a new product or functionality. Inventions should not be obvious to others working in the field – either in academia or in industry, or both. The term ‘innovation’ does not appear in the Act, and no protection is provided to innovations.

To understand ‘innovation’ as compared to ‘invention’ let us look at a species of patents that are not protected in India.

Several countries in the world have the practice of granting ‘Petty Patent’ protection to minor inventions that are useful and industrially applicable such as those relating to tools and implements, but do not represent a technical step forward in the art and fail to cross the barrier of ‘inventive’ step. These petty patents are also called ‘utility models’. It was the German Patent law, which in 1978, first introduced limited protection for simple devices for 3 years. Soon Japan followed suit, closely followed by China, Korea and Taiwan, though with significant differences from German law in one or more of the following respects:

• Standard of invention required.

• The basis on which novelty is assessed.

• Whether examination is required.

• Costs.

• Duration of protection.

The fifteen years up to 2000 saw the introduction of utility model protection in at least 25 jurisdictions which did not have them previously, taking the total number of countries with petty patent protection to 77. These patents are called Utility Model in China; Innovation Patent in Australia; Utility Model in Japan, Italy; Germany (Gebrauchsmuster); France (Certificate d’Utilitie) and Spain; Short Term Patent in Holland and Ireland and Short Patent in Belgium. In some countries like Australia, a utility model can be converted into a standard patent. As of now, India, USA and UK do not grant protection for petty patents.

Utility patents provide cost advantage. Normally petty patents are not examined before grant. As it is only an examination that would reveal whether the patent is valid, they may be more difficult to sell or license, or enforce, until the patent has been examined and certified.

The Australian Patent Office grants ‘Innovation Patents’ to inventions that are new, useful and involve an innovative step.

In 2008, the Australian Federal Court has handed down a decision relating to the enforceability of innovation patents, wherein, a substantive judicial decision was made regarding the definition of ‘innovative step’. In Delnorth Pty Ltd v Dura-Post (Aust) Pty Ltd  JusticeGyles considered three innovation patents for roadside posts for supporting signage or delineating paths, roadways or boundaries. The three innovation patents were granted on applications divided from a standard patent application. In a finding that turned largely upon construction of the relevant claims His Honour held that Dura-Post’s ‘Exy-Drive Steel Flex’ post infringed the patents. Dura-Post had claimed that the patents did not relate to a manner of manufacture, or lacked fair basis, novelty, utility or clarity, and also included the ground of lack of innovative step.

When considering whether an innovative step subsisted, His Honour prescribed the following steps:

•           Compare the invention as claimed in each claim with the prior art base and determine the difference(s),

•           Look at the difference(s) through the eyes of a person skilled in the relevant art in the light of the common general knowledge as it existed in Australia before the priority date, and

•           Ask whether the invention as claimed only varies from the kinds of information set out in prior art in ways that make no substantial contribution to the working of the invention.

In other worlds, in the context of the claimed roadside post, this meant the question was whether the claimed features made a substantial contribution to the way the roadside post functions. The question was not whether the claimed features contributed to the claimed function of the roadside post of being elastically bendable.

Further, the proper construction of the term ‘substantial’ in this context will depend on the situation - it may mean ‘great’ or ‘weighty’ in some situations, or ‘more than insubstantial’ or ‘of substance’ in others. While not judicially stating that an ‘innovative step’ requirement for an innovation patent constitutes a lower level of inventiveness as compared with an ‘inventive step’ for a standard patent, the court did provide a clear distinction between the term ‘inventive step’ as applied to standard patents and ‘innovative step’ as applied to innovation patents.

An innovation patent can protect an invention that has a point of differentiation that provides a substantial contribution to the working of the invention, even if that point of differentiation is obvious.

A related concept is ‘technology’. In its very general sense, technology is the application of scientific knowledge for practical purposes through the usage and knowledge of tools, techniques, crafts, systems or methods of organization, especially in industry. Change in the real world is the explicit purpose of technology, and not, as is the case with science, the understanding of nature; accordingly its solutions are not right or wrong, verifiable or falsifiable, but more or less effective from different points of view.

However, given the widespread use of the term in the 20th century, it has evolved to mean several different classes of ‘technology’ such as advances in Information ‘Technology’. Technology has also come to mean the branch of knowledge dealing with engineering or applied sciences. In anthropology, technology also refers to the body of tools and other implements produced by a given society, therefore, technology is also the way human beings use machines and other tools to make or do something. Technology includes all the objects from a basic pencil and paper to the latest electronic gadget.

Thus technology also refers to goods or services, or goods and services that result in a technical method to achieve a practical purpose or in improvements to productivity. The know-how behind such technology is also technology. Design, development and realisation of a solution - whether that be through prototype, batch- or mass- production or some form of three-dimensional or computer model – is technology.

Design and production involve co-operating multi-disciplinary teams of designer, production engineer and materials scientist, but also may require “technologists” in performing a multitude of functions, such as working with others, operating within budgets, persuading decision makers, communicating to clients and working to deadlines.

In today’s world, technology has also evolved to reflect the values that we hold dear such as ‘green or sustainable’ technology, and ‘people-centric technology’ depending on the rightness or wrongness of a particular solution in ethical terms apart from suitability for purpose and ease of manufacture.

In July 2011, several newspapers  carried news that the Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion had made 

a proposal to the Government for protecting petty patents. Nothing more has been heard on this proposal till date. As matters stand, Indian Patents Act does not recognise innovations as protectable subject matter.

However, Innovation has its supporters among policy-makers, entrepreneurs, innovators and academic & research institutions in this country, including bodies such as the National Innovation Council. The advocates of innovation in India support the growth of ‘innovation for India’ which is to be appropriate for the Indian population.

The Indian capacity to innovate in adversity is also being seen globally as an idea that can be emulated in small and large companies, organisations and developing economies. Indian-born telecom millionaire and Chairman of the National Innovation Council, Sam Pitroda says, in his foreword to ‘Jugaad Innovation’ , ‘ (India’s) unique needs call for a new model of innovation that focuses on affordability and inclusive growth and lifts people at the bottom of the pyramid out of poverty and deprivation.’ And again, ‘…our innovation needs to be frugal with scare resources, affordable for our poorest citizens, and environmentally sustainable.’ According to Mr.Pitroda, innovations abound in our country, the challenge is to scale and standardize, and market these innovations.

www.ipdome.in

 Introduction to PPH 

The Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH) is a set of initiatives for providing accelerated patent prosecution procedures by sharing information between some patent offices. It also permits each participating patent office to benefit from the work previously done by the other patent office, with the goal of reducing examination workload and improving patent quality.

Under the Patent Prosecution Highway (PPH), an applicant receiving a ruling from the Office of First Filing (OFF) that at least one claim in an application filed in the OFF is patentable may request that the Office of Second Filing (OSF) fast track the examination of corresponding claims in corresponding applications filed in the OSF. PPH will leverage fast-track examination procedures already available in the OSF to allow applicants in the OSF to obtain corresponding patents faster and more efficiently.

PPH speeds up the examination process and lowers costs. Managers responsible for their organization’s intellectual property strategy and legal counsel looking to obtain the best, most cost-effective advantage for their clients should consider it as a means to deliver significant benefits to their businesses.

Benefits to the PPH include:

Accelerated Examination

Examination within two to three months from the grant of the PPH request provided the application has completed all its pre-exam processing and is ready for examination.

Greater Efficiency

More than 90 percent of PPH cases are allowed. The allowance rate for non-PPH cases is less than 50 percent.

Decreased Costs of Prosecution

On average, PPH cases have fewer actions per disposal when compared

A Patent Cooperation Treaty/Patent Prosecution Highway (PCT/PPH) pilot program was started on 29 January 2010 for a planned period of two years. This pilot program enables to "[fast-track] patent examination procedures for PCT applications that have received a positive written opinion of either the International Searching Authority or the International Preliminary Examining Authority, or an international preliminary examination report from the European Patent Office (EPO), the Japan Patent Office (JPO) or the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

www.ipdome.in

My Internship at IP Dome

-Smarak Sikdar, IIT-Kharagpur 

Graduating from Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur, requires a “compulsory internship, of 40
working days during the summer vacations after the sixth Semester”. So, the entire 5th semester goes in
preparing CVs, CLs, Resumes and looking for Companies and farms that suits one’s domain or interest. And the next semester, in applying for those companies and, waiting for an affirmative reply.
My domain of Engineering is Naval Architecture. “Then what am I doing in IP-Dome ?” must be the
question creeping in your cerebrum. So, let me clear this curiosity first. It is not that I am not interested in my
B-tech, it is only a comparative factor that came in between. During my 2nd year, I was a part of a project
under CSIR, IIM Ahmedabad which basically was my first introduction to Intellectual property(IP). After
completion of the project I gained a huge interest in the subject, mainly due to two reasons firstly, it is an
almost untouched subject in India, not many people have a proper understanding of it, but, its highly required
for the technical and industrial growth of the nation. The second reason may seem to be a bit selfish, but it is
what we all are struggling for, it offers bright future.
After applying in a number of companies, which included some ship-builders as well, to be on the safer side, I
came to know about IP-Dome, from Entrepreneurship-cell IIT Kharagpur, which identifies all new
innovations and start-ups and try to help in their growth. After being introduced to IP-Dome it seemed to be
perfect for my internship this season, as the rest applications were either for attorneys or the IP department of
some big MNC. Building strategy around an intellectual property was an innovative idea, and I realy wanted
to do it instead of fighting some IP infringement case. Thus, I applied, received a call and eventually my
application was accepted.
All set for a great learning experience, I reached Chenaai on the 14th day of May, and the weather was just
blistering. Apart from the Weather and the communication gap, Chennai was great. Now, getting back to my
internship, my 1st project was to create the IP portfolio for Anna university, the same I did for our college last
year, The other projects were much more dynamic, ranging from the business analysis of Activated Carbon
using IP mapping to Market analysis of Africa for Indian investors including the Bharti-Zain acquisition case.
The other facets of my internships were Competitive intelligence report of Infosys, Case study of Five major
global Acquisitions in the last 10 years. As you can see the projects were quite diversified, so was the learning
experience.
According to me it is always better to work on different platforms rather than a constrained one during the
learning stage, as Knowledge never goes in vain, and this I achieved while working in IP-Dome.
To wind it up, I would like to thank my CEO Mrs. Swapna Sundar, and guides Mr. Hariprasad, Mr. Jagathish
for a wonderful experience which I would carry forward for the rest of life.

www.ipdome.in

Seminar on Advanced Intellectual Property Concepts

-Swapna Sundar, IP Dome

 

CHENNAI, iitm Research park, 5^th july, 2012:IP DOME – STRATEGY ADVISORS in collaboration with Parthys REVERSE INFORMATICS conducted a SEMINAR ON ADVANCED INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONCEPTS at the IITm Research Park, Kanagam Road, Taramani, Chennai, on 5th of July, 2012 (05.07.2012)from 9:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.

As Indian companies and research institutions develop greater dependence on the use of R&D for business development and leverage IP in the market, it is essential for decision makers in the companies to acquire greater sophistication in the understanding and use of IP in the emerging markets of South Asia, India, Africa, Eastern Europe and South America. The seminar imparted specific knowledge and information about these markets.

Dr. ParthibanSrinivasan, Founder and CEO of Parthys Reverse Informatics gave the welcome address, while Swapna Sundar, CEO, IP Dome spelt out the theme of the seminar.

The inaugural speaker, former Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks,Mr. S.Chandrashekaran, provided a clear, concise and interesting description of the Indian IPR system with special focus on Patents.

Special Speaker, Mr. Stephen Adams,Director, Magister Ltd. UK in his session on Harmonisation of International Patent Regimes provided an informative overview of the filing procedures and processes for seeking patent protection in various countries, emphasizing on the new and efficient procedures that have gained currency such as the PPH – patent prosecution highway – that would reduce the time and cost of filing and getting patents in different countries.

Special Speaker, Mr. ShubadipSarkar, Head of IP, Cognizant Technology Solutions provided information on the new product-led strategy of the Indian IT sector. His session was much appreciated and led to an interesting interactive session.

In an interaction on the sidelines of the seminar, Mr. Sarkar Shared that seminars of this kind is essential to improve the knowledge and information regarding IP among the stakeholders. Expressing appreciation for the organisers, Mr. Sarkar added that the seminar is a catalyst to ignite and initiate the process of IP development. Speaking on his subject, Mr. Sarkar said that IT majors in the country are increasingly concentrating on product development.

“IP sessions like these help in sensitizing people on importance of IP and the various laws and procedural aspects of IP protection and enforcement.

Companies are now increasingly becoming aware of the IP processes and therefore are emphasizing on the need of increasing the overall awareness among its employees”

-ShubadipSarkar

Swapna Sundar, CEO, IP Dome in her session spoke about the necessity for Indian innovative companies to study the markets of Africa, Eastern Europe and West Asia as possible areas for commercialization of their technology. The strategy, according to her, would lead to better Returns on Investment (ROI)on R&D and thereby encourage future innovative activity in India.

PVS Giridhar, Advocate and Senior Partner, PVS Giridhar&SaiAssciates, provided information on how litigation strategies and IP protection strategies could be developed with a view to enhancing the value of IP.

IP Dome operates at the intersection of the Lab, the law and the Market and provides IP services including search, filing, prosecution, landscaping, mining, training and IP strategy to Corporates, research institutions and entrepreneurs. IP Dome’s interdisciplinary team of lawyers, engineers and scientists undertake IP processes with a view to commercialization and revenue generation for the IP owner.

Parthys Reverse Informatics provides services in literature curation, patent analytics and thought/opinion leaders’ research, across life sciences, chemistry, biotech, pharma and hi-tech industries.

For more information, contact Swapna@ipdome.in, or visit our website at www.ipdome.in. Watch our videos on youtube/ipdomeseminars

www.ipdome.in