Super Lawyer

Category: Law Firms

  • “The ability to understand new industries, learn continuously, and adapt legal thinking to new realities will make a significant difference.” – Riddima Sharma, Partner at ADP Law Offices.

    This interview has been published by Anshi Mudgal and The SuperLawyer Team

    Today, with almost a decade of experience behind you, looking back, what first drew you to law, and how did your undergraduate years shape your interest in intellectual property and allied fields?

    My journey into law was less of a direct calling and more a process of discovery. Back then, I was more defined by the career paths I was closing the door on, and law felt like a world of opportunity. I treated my classes as an exploration, searching for that one area that would genuinely resonate with me. That moment finally came late in law school when I was introduced to Intellectual Property. As a still-developing field, it felt exciting, but what really captivated me was the unique space where creativity and legal protection meet.

    That curiosity turned into a passion during my first internship with Mr. Ameet Datta, (formerly a Partner at Saikrishna & Associates) now the Managing Counsel at ADP Law Offices. As I watched technology evolve and brands become more valuable, I realized just how vital IP is as a shield for innovation, ideas, and expression. It was that realization that truly set my career path.

    You went on to pursue an LL.M. at the Munich Intellectual Property Law Centre, one of the most respected programs in the world. What motivated you to choose this course, and how did studying in such an international academic environment broaden your understanding of IP law? Could you also share how aspiring candidates can enrol in such a prestigious program?

    You know, it’s funny, I was getting really into IP law, but I kept feeling like I was seeing everything through a keyhole. All the thinking, all the cases, were from my own country’s perspective, and I just had this nagging feeling that I was missing the bigger picture.

    MIPL stood out because it is uniquely focused on IP and brings together expertise from leading institutions such as Max Planck and the University of Augsburg. The program offered not only academic rigor but also the opportunity to learn alongside peers from across the world, each bringing their own perspective and experience. This international exposure was invaluable, as it gave me a broader view of how IP is understood and applied across jurisdictions.

    For aspiring candidates, I would say the most important step is to build a strong foundation in IP during undergraduate years and to engage actively with research and writing in the field. The selection process is competitive, but genuine interest, clarity of purpose, and prior work or academic contributions in IP can make a strong application.

    Alongside your studies, you published articles on significant IP issues such as copyright royalties, broadcasting rights, and the recognition of “well-known” marks. What inspired you to explore these themes, and how do you see academic writing contributing both to your professional practice and to the wider discourse on IP law?

    During my course (thanks to MIPLC), I realised that writing is one of the best ways to discipline one’s thoughts and meaningfully contribute to discussions in this field. As students, we are often trained to see issues from a purely academic perspective, where outcomes are framed as either right or wrong. What MIPLC taught me instead was that in law, nothing is absolutely right or wrong . Rather, it is the reasoning and interpretation that lends weight to a position. That shift in perspective stayed with me. At the time, I chose to write on subjects like copyright royalties, broadcasting rights, and well-known marks, not only because I was working on them closely, but also because they had direct implications for creators and businesses. Over the years, I have come to value writing even more as it contributes to the collective understanding of the profession and, at times, can influence how laws are read and applied. For me personally, it became a bridge between academic study and real-world practice.

    You began your professional career with Saikrishna & Associates, where you grew into the role of Senior Associate. Could you share some defining experiences from this phase whether in trademark prosecution, IP litigation, or consumer protection that played a key role in shaping your growth as a lawyer?

    My early years at Saikrishna & Associates were deeply rooted in IP litigation, where I had the chance to work on matters that were both complex and high-stakes. Most of my focus was on IP disputes, and I was fortunate to work alongside some of the sharpest minds in the field. Those years gave me invaluable exposure from the intensity of courtroom practice and the rush of filings, to client interactions and my own growth as a lawyer. 

    Another significant phase of my career was in consumer protection, where I was entrusted with leading a team for a leading mobile manufacturer. The role required me to think beyond just the legal arguments, it was about strategy, execution, and making sure the client’s interests were protected at every stage. What stayed with me from that experience was not just tackling the legal issues, but also learning how to manage a team, set direction, and maintain consistency across multiple jurisdictions. That combination of leading people while steering complex matters was a real turning point in my professional journey and continues to shape the way I approach cases even today.

    Over the years, you have gained exposure to diverse domains such as trade regulatory compliance, consumer law, employment disputes, and arbitration. How has this multidisciplinary experience been beneficial to handle complex, multi-jurisdictional matters for global clients? What sector-specific challenges have you faced while dealing with arbitrations for international clients?

    My experience across these different domains has taught me that client issues rarely fit into neat legal boxes. What I have found, especially with complex, multi-jurisdictional matters, is that an issue that begins as a regulatory query can quickly intersect with consumer law or have employment implications. Having that broad background helped me to connect those dots early on. Instead of looking at a problem from a single perspective, I can anticipate how it might evolve and build a more resilient strategy for the client, which is essential when you’re navigating different legal cultures.

    In arbitration, I have seen how sector-specific challenges can shape the course of proceedings. For example, in matters involving international clients, aligning the expectations of different legal systems with the procedural framework of arbitration requires careful navigation. There are also cultural and commercial nuances that need to be factored in, since what is persuasive in one jurisdiction may not resonate the same way in another. Learning to manage these differences while keeping the client’s broader objectives in mind has been an important part of my journey.

    In your current role, what inspired your transition, and how are you approaching the leadership responsibilities of managing large-scale IP litigation campaigns and advising clients across multiple industries? What essential qualities do you look for when building your team?

    The transition into my current role has been quite recent, so in many ways it is still a process of learning, adapting, and growing into the responsibilities that come with it. What inspired the move was the opportunity to work more closely with clients on a larger scale, not just on individual disputes but in shaping their overall IP strategy and helping them navigate complex litigation campaigns.

    When it comes to leadership, especially on these large campaigns, my philosophy is pretty simple: give people a clear map and a good compass, then trust them to navigate their part of the journey. My main job is to make sure everyone understands the ‘why’ behind what we’re doing, the client’s ultimate goal. Once that vision is shared, I find the best results come from giving talented people the autonomy and support they need to truly own their work. It’s about guiding the strategy without micromanaging the execution.

    As for building a team, a strong resume is just the start. I look for a certain mindset. I want people who are naturally curious, the ones who are always asking “what if?” because that’s how you stay ahead in a field like IP. I also look for a deep sense of accountability, where people treat a client’s problem as if it were their own. But above all, I look for a genuine collaborative spirit. A high-stakes litigation campaign is a team sport, and you need people who instinctively pick each other up and push each other to be better, especially when the pressure is on. That’s the kind of team that truly succeeds.

    Looking back on your journey from law school to partnership, what key values have remained constant? What advice would you give to young lawyers aspiring to build a career in intellectual property especially when it comes to balancing deep subject expertise with the ability to adapt to rapidly changing technological and regulatory landscapes?

    Looking back, the values that have remained constant for me are sincerity, consistency, and respect for the profession. No matter the stage of my career, I have found that showing up prepared, being thorough, and treating people with fairness has gone a long way in building trust with clients, colleagues, and even opponents in litigation. These values have shaped not only the way I work but also the way I lead. For young lawyers interested in IP, my advice would be to build a strong foundation in the subject while also remaining open to change. IP is deeply linked with creativity and technology, both of which are evolving faster than ever. The ability to understand new industries, learn continuously, and adapt legal thinking to new realities will make a significant difference. At the same time, it is important to stay grounded in the basics, because strong fundamentals are what allow you to adapt with confidence. If you combine deep subject knowledge with curiosity and flexibility, you can find a very rewarding path in IP law.

    Get in touch with Riddima Sharma –

  • “AI is certainly going to play an important role in compliance and investigations, but I don’t see it as something that will completely take over.” – Guneet Gudh, Principal Associate at Panag & Babu.

    This interview has been published by Anshi Mudgal and The SuperLawyer Team

    You have built a distinguished career as a Financial Crimes & Corporate Governance Lawyer. What initially drew you to this specialisation, and how did your academic background shape the perspective you bring to your practice today?

    I grew up around conversations on business and decision-making, so questions of accountability and systems were never abstract for me; they were part of daily life. That naturally drew me toward financial crimes and governance, because I could see how one weak link could impact an entire organization. My academic journey from JGLS to experiences at LSE and Augsburg University gave me the global perspective I needed. It taught me to look at compliance and governance not just as rules to follow, but as tools to build trust and resilience. That mix of early exposure and academic grounding still defines the way I practice today.

    In your experience across developed and emerging markets, what are the most striking differences in investigative and compliance strategies? Which international best practices could be effectively localised for India’s evolving landscape?

    I would challenge the notion that the differences in compliance approaches lie solely between developed and emerging markets. In my experience, the real distinction is not geographical; it stems from the ethics, priorities, and compliance mindset of an organisation’s leadership. When leadership is genuinely committed to integrity and transparency, even jurisdictions with evolving regulations can foster proactive and effective compliance. Conversely, where leadership is indifferent or evasive, even the most advanced regulatory systems can be rendered ineffective.

    That said, India can certainly benefit from selectively adopting global best practices, such as strengthening internal controls, conducting sharper and more independent compliance audits, and leveraging technology-driven tools for real-time monitoring. However, these mechanisms only achieve their purpose when reinforced by strong leadership and a well-equipped legal and compliance ecosystem that recognizes compliance not merely as a shield against penalties, but as a foundation for building sustainable trust.

    Looking toward the next decade, how do you envision the fusion of technology, governance, and cross-border regulation reshaping compliance practice, especially with the rise of AI and digital investigation tools?

    AI is certainly going to play an important role in compliance and investigations, but I don’t see it as something that will completely take over. The human element, the judgment, experience, and ethical grounding that specialists in this field bring, remains irreplaceable. Complex financial crime matters often involve nuance, intent, and context that no algorithm can yet fully grasp. It will take AI time to reach that stage.

    That said, I view AI as an additional strength in the lawyer’s toolkit. It can help sift through vast volumes of data, spot unusual patterns, and accelerate processes that once took weeks. But at the end of the day, AI is a supporting hand, not the lead investigator. The control, the strategy, and the interpretation still rest with the human professional.

    Right now, there is a tendency to overstate AI’s capabilities, almost treating it as magic. But in reality, it is just another tool, powerful, yes, but still a tool. I compare it to how Microsoft Office transformed law practice in the 1990s. Back then, it didn’t replace lawyers, but it fundamentally changed how we worked and made us more efficient. I believe AI will do the same; it will make us sharper and faster, but it won’t replace the human expertise at the core of the legal practice.

    The surge in online fraud, cyber-enabled financial crimes, and digital payment scams has created new challenges for regulators, corporates, and law enforcement alike. From your perspective, what gaps still exist in India’s current framework to address these threats, and how can legal practitioners play a proactive role in combating them?

    Online fraud is one of the fastest-growing risks, not just for individuals but for corporates and financial institutions. The sheer speed and cross-border nature of these crimes often outpaces traditional investigative and regulatory tools. While India has made strides with measures like the RBI’s fraud monitoring systems and the CERT-In framework, the ecosystem still faces gaps in coordination, reporting, and accountability.

    One of the biggest gaps is siloed response—banks, fintechs, law enforcement, and regulators often act reactively and in isolation. A more integrated framework, with real-time intelligence sharing, is urgently needed. Another issue is underreporting; many organisations hesitate to disclose fraud incidents out of fear of reputational damage, which only perpetuates vulnerabilities.

    Lawyers in white-collar practice can contribute significantly here: by advising corporates on robust fraud-prevention policies, ensuring compliance with reporting obligations, and guiding internal investigations that meet both legal and regulatory standards. Beyond that, we can help bridge the gap between technology and law—working with forensic experts, fintech players, and regulators to shape practical frameworks that keep pace with evolving digital threats. 

    As an established lawyer in governance, investigations, and white-collar matters, how do you mentor the next generation? What skills or tools do you recommend for them to thrive in today’s rapidly shifting regulatory and technological terrain?

    Mentorship, to me, is first and foremost about giving young lawyers the confidence to keep going and ensuring they don’t give up when the work feels overwhelming. This is a demanding field, and in the early years, it’s easy to doubt yourself. Sometimes the best role a mentor can play is simply to reassure them that discipline, consistency, and patience will carry them through.

    Beyond that, I see mentorship as preparing young lawyers not just for today’s challenges but for tomorrow’s uncertainties. I encourage them to cultivate adaptability, strategic thinking, and clear communication, because in white-collar practice, clients look to you as a trusted advisor, not just a lawyer. I also urge them to embrace technology – mastering data analytics, digital forensics, and regulatory tech platforms is no longer optional.

    Most importantly, I remind them that tools and trends will keep changing, but ethics, resilience, and statutory grounding never go out of fashion. Regulatory landscapes will shift, but if you stay curious, disciplined, and grounded in the law, you’ll be equipped to thrive at the intersection of law, business, and technology.

    Finally, what is your long-term vision for your practice as a Financial Crimes & Corporate Governance Lawyer? And how do you manage the demands and pressures of such an intense field while maintaining personal well-being?

    For me, discipline always tops the list. Without discipline, nothing else really sustains. Over time, discipline creates habits, and those habits make it easier to do the workday in and day out. In the early stages of your career, when you’re putting in long hours and truly immersing yourself, that consistency shapes you into a stronger professional. It’s like practice in any field—the more you repeat, the sharper you get.

    I also believe the right mindset matters just as much. Keeping the outlook of a leader, taking ownership, thinking ahead, and combining it with the endurance of an athlete helps you enjoy the journey rather than just endure it. This is not an easy profession, but when you bring discipline, habits, leadership, and endurance together, the work becomes something you grow with, not something you burn out from. That’s what keeps me motivated and makes the practice rewarding.

    Get in touch with Guneet Gudh –

  • “As I tell young lawyers, both prosecution and litigation have something to offer and embracing both helps you become better at each one.” – Nithya Somasundaram, Advocate Patent Agent at R K Dewan & Co.

    This interview has been published by Anshi Mudgal and The SuperLawyer Team

    You have been practicing IP law for over 17 years, covering trademarks, patents, copyrights, and design protection. Looking back, what initially drew you to intellectual property, and how has your passion evolved over time?

    I am on the path I am today because of my guru, Professor P. Vanangamudi, whose initial guidance and mentorship shaped me into who I am now. I started my career with internships in criminal law and also experimented with some LPO work, but in 2005 I developed a fascination with intellectual property. I found patents particularly interesting because they connected back to my own scientific journey. On the first day of my internship, during a project with my learned mentors Adv. Surya Senthil (Ex-Technical Member – Copyrights) and Adv. Lakshmidevi Somanath (Ex-Technical Member – Trademarks), I was asked to draft an abstract for a patent application. That day proved to be a turning point, as it revealed how the law is deeply intertwined with scientific and innovative activity in very concrete ways. I was also fortunate to have Shri P. S. Surana (Co-founder, Surana & Surana International Attorneys) as my guide and mentor, whose constant encouragement to pursue IP and litigation drew me to focus on this field from that time onwards.

    In February 2009, I joined R.K. Dewan & Co., 82 years old IP boutique Firm that provided me with the right platform to grow my passion into a career. This is where my interest in IPR grew even stronger. I had the opportunity to learn, practice, and handle the next level of IP under the guidance of the luminary Dr. Mohan Dewan and the powerhouse of RKD, Dr. Niti Dewan. Their mentorship shaped much of what I am today at R.K. Dewan & Co. Prosecution had always been my comfort zone, and I was initially hesitant to step into litigation. My senior colleague, Advocate Balaji, through his guidance and strategic approach, inspired me and gave me the confidence to embrace litigation alongside prosecution.

    Over the years, what started as a fascination with patents grew into a much deeper dedication to all that is IP. I have come to see how trademarks, copyrights and designs are powerful strategic assets that promote innovation, branding and commercial growth beyond just legal rights. That evolution of seeing IP as a bridge between creativity, technology and commerce still inspires me everyday, even after 17 years of practice. 

    You pursued a B.A., B.L. (Hons) at the School of Excellence in Law, followed by a B.Sc. in Physics and an M.L. in International Law and Indian Constitution. How has this diverse academic background shaped your analytical approach and influenced your career in IP and litigation?

    I became a Registered Patent Agent due to my science background, which helped me navigate the technical side of patents. That history has been useful all along, especially when dealing with inventors or dealing with hearings with other parties and explaining their ideas.

    What really added value in my practice was my M.L. in International Law and Indian Constitution. I was given the big picture and scope of international and cross border cases that covered aspects of filings, prosecution rights and parties limitations. I worked at the Chennai firm of R. K. Dewan & Co., and worked on a few general civil litigation cases, as well. I always appreciated having a solid constitutional and international background, I could be exposed to the nature of the dispute while identifying where parties would have rights, an obligation (if there were any), and jurisdictional issues.

    Having appeared before the Trade Marks Registry, Patent Office, Intellectual Property Appellate Board, and Madras High Court, could you share the most memorable cases that significantly shaped your expertise in IP litigation and prosecution?

    Novartis vs Cipla – 3003/CHENP/2004, Chennai Patent office:

    One of the most formative experiences in my journey as an IP litigator and patent professional was the privilege of assisting and learning from Dr. Mohan Dewan during the landmark Novartis pre-grant opposition hearing before the Patent Office, Chennai. This case, which revolved around Application No. 3003/CHENP/2004 for “Inhibitors of Tyrosine Kinases,” stands out not just for its legal complexities but for the many lessons it imparted about the nuances of Indian patent law, especially around amendments, inventive step, and sufficiency of disclosure.

    The case centered around Novartis’ application (No. 3003/CHENP/2004) for a new class of tyrosine kinase inhibitors molecules with critical relevance in cancer treatment. The pre-grant opposition, filed by Cipla under Section 25(1), challenged the patent on multiple grounds, including obviousness (Section 25(1)I), insufficiency of disclosure (Section 25(1)(g)), and questions under Sections 3(d), 10(4), 57, and 59 of the Patents Act.

    I experienced first-hand the intensity of argument and the importance of deeply understanding technical details and strategic legal arguments in a high-stakes Patent opposition. The proceedings, which saw formidable representation from both Novartis and the opponent, Cipla Ltd., brought several procedural and substantive issues into sharp relief. 

    I took part in examining prior art, dissecting the detailed claim amendments, and debating whether the reversal of an amide bond (and the resulting molecular changes) amounted to a non-obvious inventive step. The discussion on the sufficiency of disclosure was equally instructive particularly the Controller’s emphasis that, for new chemical entities (NCEs), it is the supported utility that matters most at the filing stage, not retrospective efficacy data, unless Section 3(d) is directly invoked.

    This case underscored practical lessons in legal drafting, oral advocacy, and the handling of amendments under Section 59, where every narrowing of claims must remain anchored in the original disclosure. The Controller’s decision ultimately dismissed all opposition grounds, recognizing the inventive nature and adequate disclosure in the application, and allowed the patent to proceed. The clarity and logic with which the order dealt with the inventive step set a new benchmark in my understanding of patent jurisprudence in India.

    I have personally argued over 400 patent matters before the Indian Patent Office, and have also actively conducted matters before the erstwhile IPAB, the Madras High Court, the Karnataka High Court, and various District Courts. Handling exhibits, preparing briefs, and formulating technical arguments in these cases has reinforced the critical importance of precision, clarity, and a comprehensive understanding of both law and technology. This experience has been a defining milestone in my practice, affirming that thorough preparation, strategic advocacy, and meticulous attention to detail are essential qualities for any successful IP litigator.

    As an Advocate & Patent Agent at R K Dewan & Co., you handle brand advice, design protection, and IPR consultations. What are the biggest challenges brands face when entering the Indian market, and in India’s evolving digital and tech-driven IP landscape, what common pitfalls do innovators encounter? How can companies proactively protect their IP from an early stage?

    India is an incredibly diverse and fast-moving market, with great buying opportunities but also very real issues for brand owners. Cost competition is high, squeezing brand owners’ margins, while the threats of counterfeits and infringement can damage brand owner’s reputations and market share. The complexity of regulations and enforceability adds to the pressure, and many companies, especially small to medium enterprises, fail to allocate the necessary budget or focus to protect their IP. However, many larger companies are becoming more proactive, and have dedicated IP divisions and in-house counsel to drive better IP management.

    One of our clients had encountered issues while attempting to register their brand on the Government e-Marketplace (GeM), as this Govt platform intensified scrutiny on IP registrations, requiring comprehensive documentation to ensure authenticity and protect genuine brands. This was a strong reminder that the scrutiny of IP rights is more rigorous than ever. This is particularly relevant as online marketplaces keep expanding, requiring mandatory registration of IP as procurement authorities seek to verify authenticity. Too often, we see innovators engaging with their IP reactively, addressing infringement only after it happened, which is not an effective strategy in the digital and fast moving world we live in.

    In short, companies entering the Indian market must recognize IP protection as a foundational business priority. A proactive approach to IP management, conducting searches, timely registration, and ensuring robust confidentiality protocols, will not only take away the pressure of challenges such as counterfeits or cost pressure, but will maximally enable commercial exploitation of innovation in a dynamic market.

    You are a member of the INTA Brand and Innovation Committee. How has this international exposure influenced your perspective on global brand protection, and what emerging trends do you see shaping the future of trademarks and IP innovation worldwide?

    Serving as a team leader of the Product & Counterfeit Technologies group within the INTA Brand and Innovation Committee has been an invaluable learning experience for me. In that capacity, I have been able to work with international Attorneys from different jurisdictions as we tracked global brand protection challenges, discussed emerging issues, authored articles and suggestions, and facilitated education webinars and roundtables. 

    This experience allowed me to see the highly variable way IP practice is conducted across countries, as it is shaped by the differing needs and differing levels of proactivity in IP practice. For example, while the US, Europe, and the United Kingdom have long-standing comprehensive infrastructure and practice in IP, I saw exciting and impressive development and, in many countries like South Korea, China, Japan, India, and Singapore, there is rapid growth and increasingly sophisticated practice in enforcement and justice in this area of innovation. 

    This has helped me to better appreciate that IP strategies for protection will require a more robust, adaptable, and technology-driven approach. I have also observed that emerging trends like the use of AI and other advanced technologies to combat counterfeiting are shaping the future of trademarks and IP innovation worldwide, demanding greater collaboration, vigilance, and creativity from brand owners and IP professionals alike.  

    Technology commercialization and contractual agreements have been a significant part of your practice. How do you navigate the complexities of IP licensing for both startups and established enterprises, and what are the key challenges involved?

    In my opinion, guiding startups or medium sized businesses through the maze of IP licensing can justly be viewed as a balancing act based on knowledge and communication. One of the major challenges I see more often than not is the general lack of awareness (or desire to comprehend) responsible IP rights and licensing agreements. This is particularly true of startups. The case examples are pretty minimal, primarily because many new ventures receive limited or zero direction and experience managing and structuring these kinds of agreements. 

    Using a Academia-Industry partnership adds to the challenge, particularly for the commercialisation of technology and associated contracts. Parties need to specify who owns what, how the IP can be used, what will be the method of profit sharing. They also need to ensure how the confidentiality of the parties is preserved. Having the interests of all parties aligned would be preferable. 

    Startups may face some of these challenges given their limited resources and less power to negotiate, while established companies can face IP portfolio management challenges, as well as competitive edge protection challenges. We all know this is made even more challenging when one tries to facilitate developing constructive, industry specific, strategies for clients, as the true potential of their IP is unlocked and allowed to flourish, whose value could easily be compromised.

    Your career started with internships and junior associate roles in IP and civil litigation. What early experiences have helped you navigate complex IP disputes and establish yourself as a trusted advisor?

    I think my development as a practitioner was really shaped by the formative early years. I started out doing internships and then as a junior associate, and I was lucky to experience two very different but related areas of law, civil litigation and intellectual property litigating. During that time, I was not merely learning about the law in theory. I was sitting through hearings, helping to draft pleadings, and seeing the approaches that senior advocates took in court in deciding how to strategize.

    My best experience was being able to balance both prosecution and litigation. So on the one hand, I had actual experience with patent drafting, oppositions, and trade mark filings, which I think taught me a very technical, detail-oriented framework, while on the other, I had the experience of working with seniors on IP enforcement issues before the Madras High Court and the erstwhile IPAB. 

    I learned two things: that preparation and details are very important when working with complex disputes; and then also, I learned the importance of having trust and a good flow of clarity with clients. Because when a client comes to you, they are looking for more than a lawyer. They need someone who can sort through technically complex, high-risk disputes and return clear, readily manageable solutions. Over the years, that aspect is what made me credible and established me.

    Having managed multi-faceted IP portfolios and brand strategies, how do you foresee the convergence of AI, digital platforms, and global trade impacting IP enforcement and commercialization in the next five years?
    I visualize the next five years will see the intersection of AI, digital platforms, and international commerce, which will dramatically reshape enforcement and commercialization. Regarding enforcement, brands will increasingly rely upon AI-based monitoring systems to identify infringement, monitor supply chains, and detect misuse on e-commerce and social media platforms. Furthermore, we are already seeing the implications of the power of data analytics and image recognition methods to detect infringement much faster than traditional efforts allow. 

    With respect to commercialization, AI will start to re-use and re-imagine the notion of an asset, not only as a tool. Whether it is through AI-generated content, predictive analytics to inform research and development, or digital licensing platforms, businesses are increasingly going to understand that intellectual property is not merely a shield, but can also be used as a mechanism to create financial value.

    For us as professionals, this means transitioning away from the strictly enforcement-based position to advising the business more strategically. We will need to align legal protection with technology adoption, but also to align the business’ global strategies. In short, the practice of intellectual property will necessitate more and more a combination of legal skills, technology adoption, and commercial insight.

    Finally, what advice would you give to young lawyers and professionals aspiring to specialize in IP law, particularly in balancing litigation and prosecution on a global stage?

    As I tell young lawyers, both prosecution and litigation have something to offer and embracing both helps you become better at each one. The IP practice in India has also expanded tremendously; it is no longer a “road less taken.” The competition in this domain has intensified, and the number of practitioners is now greater. Moreover, IP is not a one-stream subject; it has many distinct subfields like trademarks, patents, copyright, designs, and geographical indications, all of which require different expertise. Young practitioners should consider specializing in these subfields and develop a focus area, while retaining a broad understanding of the other sub-disciplines.

    The rivalry among young lawyers has reached unprecedented levels, particularly due to the surge of private institutions producing law graduates every year. On the positive side, this generation is skilled in the use of technology and AI tools; however, I would advise them not to use these platforms at the expense of other more dependable methods. The core of any law practice is undertaking thorough legal research, reviewing original texts, statutes, case law, and recognized commentaries.

    Get in touch with Nithya Somasundaram –

  • “Cryptocurrency in India still sits in a grey area. It’s taxed, monitored under money laundering laws, but still not officially recognised as currency.” – Aashish Patankar, Trial and White Collar Crime Lawyer.

    “Cryptocurrency in India still sits in a grey area. It’s taxed, monitored under money laundering laws, but still not officially recognised as currency.” – Aashish Patankar, Trial and White Collar Crime Lawyer.

    This interview has been published by Anshi Mudgal and The SuperLawyer Team

    Your doctoral research focuses on economic frauds with special reference to the Maharashtra Protection of Interest of Depositors Act, 1999 (MPID). How has your academic background in commerce, finance, and corporate law influenced your understanding of white-collar crimes? Could you also highlight some key gaps or challenges you’ve identified in the enforcement of the MPID Act during your research?

    My academic background in commerce, finance, and corporate law has helped me develop the way I think about economic offences. Once you have grasped the mechanics of finance and corporate structures, it is easier to understand how the system is exploited. 

    During my research on the MPID Act, one challenge I have consistently noticed is that while the legislation is well-intentioned and aimed at protecting depositors, its enforcement often struggles because of delays in attachment and prosecution. Many times, by the time the authorities act and pursue the offender, the trail has already grown cold and recovery is nearly impossible. Another gap is the edges of enforcement and conflict of central legislation as PMLA, Companies Act, SEBI laws and the MPID Act being a state level enforcement, and derails any sense of priority in jurisdiction or proceedings.

    The Act is strong, but sometimes its effectiveness can be compromised in practice through procedural delays, poor agency coordination, and attempts to strike a balance between depositors’ protection and the rights of bona fide third parties. This is where I see a need for more extensive reform and clarification.

    You have handled several high-profile and complex criminal defence cases involving multi-crore corporate frauds and GST evasion. Could you share one particularly challenging case experience and how you strategized your way through it?

    Certainly! One case that comes to my mind right now involved a large corporate fraud and GST evasion worth several crores – and it was particularly significant as it was one of the first arrests in Maharashtra specifically for fraudulent availment of input tax credit, but more than the amount, it was the structure of the operation that made it really demanding for me. It was a well-orchestrated network of multiple shell companies, benami directors, and several documents that had been carefully planned to appear legitimate. By the time I stepped in, the arrest had already been made.

    From the remand hearing stage itself, I appeared for the accused and continued representing them through the entire process until we successfully secured bail.

    We also highlighted violations of procedural safeguards under the CGST and MGST provisions. Beside this, we took help from an independent forensic accountant who examined the financial transactions. Our goal from the beginning was to show that these were not necessarily fraudulent movements of money, but could also be read as genuine business activity with commercial rationale. 

    You successfully defended clients in a multi-crore Bitcoin scam case, an area where financial fraud converges with evolving technologies. With the advent of the new Digital Personal Data Protection (DPDP) rules, how do you see defence strategies evolving in cases involving cryptocurrencies and digital financial crimes?

    Yes, I have defended some clients in Bitcoin scam cases, including matters related to one of India’s biggest cryptocurrency frauds, the GainBitcoin scam case. This was a massive Rs 6,600 crore Ponzi scheme that was allegedly masterminded by Amit Bhardwaj and his brother Ajay Bhardwaj, and it really opened my eyes to how technology and financial laws are starting to collide. Because of the introduction of the new Digital Personal Data Protection Act, I think defence strategies are going to change in very different ways.

    I appeared for my clients from the remand stage itself and continued through the entire process until we secured bail. 

    For one, we now have a solid legal basis to question how agencies are handling personal digital data, how it’s collected, stored, shared. In crypto cases, most of the evidence is digital, so if investigators skip steps or mishandle that data, we can raise serious doubts in court. Earlier, we didn’t have a clear law backing that argument, now we do.

    Also, cryptocurrency in India still sits in a grey area. It’s taxed, monitored under money laundering laws, but still not officially recognised as currency. And this confusion gives us room to argue that our clients were operating within what was legally understood at the time, even if the law was unclear.

    As part of your professional and social commitment, you’ve provided pro bono legal aid to under-trial prisoners and represented numerous indigent accused across Maharashtra’s trial courts. What systemic barriers have you observed in ensuring fair representation for under-trials, and how can the legal fraternity work towards making justice more accessible for marginalized communities?

    Working in trial courts across Maharashtra and providing pro bono aid to under-trials has helped me understand how the system functions on the ground. One of the biggest issues, I would like to share, is the absolute lack of legal aid lawyers compared to the number of under-trial prisoners(UTP). Most legal aid lawyers, I know, are handling 200+ cases at once, that’s why it’s not surprising that many under-trials meet their lawyers for the first time in court. There’s no time for proper case prep, and that really affects the outcome in my perspective.

    Let me share two specific cases that highlight these challenges. I appeared for an accused in a case punishable under Section 328 IPC and other relevant sections, who had been in jail for five years. While I successfully secured his bail, he didn’t have the financial condition to furnish the surety. The only viable option was to file a discharge application, which I presented before the Baramati District Court, and the court was pleased to discharge the accused from the case.

    In another case, I represented a person charged under Section 302 IPC who was languishing in jail for six years. I conducted the entire trial, and he was ultimately acquitted by the Pune District Court. These cases show how prolonged incarceration affects the most vulnerable.

    Even when bail is granted, release gets delayed, sometimes for weeks or months, just because of delayed paperwork and sometimes, miscommunication between courts and jails. I have seen people stay behind bars for months after getting bail, which is truly heart-breaking. Add to that the language barriers, missing documents, and financial struggles, and you have got people stuck in the system with no help.

    If you ask me about my opinion, then I would suggest that we need more trained legal aid lawyers, regular jail visits, digital tools to track cases, and also we need to make communities aware about their basic legal rights. If we, as lawyers, law students, bar associations, and NGOs, come together and build a more connected, grassroots-level support system, it can make a big difference.

    You have authored several papers and conducted numerous lectures and seminars. In your view, what role does academic writing and legal scholarship play in shaping legal practice? What advice would you offer to young legal professionals looking to contribute to this space?

    For me, academic writing has played a meaningful role in connecting and relating legal theory with day-to-day practice. With the help of writing and research, I have been able to step back from the routine of litigation and examine the different patterns and challenges within the legal system. Well-reasoned legal scholarship usually finds its way into judgments, reforms, and legal education, and I have seen how it can directly influence how the law is interpreted and applied.

    To all the young professionals, I would recommend starting with small, focused pieces, perhaps a case law or analysis of a recent development in your area of practice. Choose topics that reflect current legal challenges or procedural issues you observe in court. Try to show your practical experience with the help of your writing. Engage with ongoing academic conversations, attend seminars, and collaborate with others in the field. Writing regularly with purpose sharpens your thinking and builds your skills.

    You’ve appeared as counsel across various jurisdictions, including trial courts and the Bombay High Court, and have assisted in representing prominent politicians, bureaucrats, and celebrities. In the initial phases, what were the endearing experiences that laid the foundation to your practice?

    In the early years, what really changed me was the time I spent observing and working with senior advocates at the Bombay High Court. Watching them argue, handle the pressure, and understand tough situations have taught me more than any class or lecture ever could. I was fortunate to assist in matters that ranged from bail to high-stakes commercial disputes, and that variety gave me a good solid base to start my own practice.

    I still remember my first proper argument in court, it was a small matter, but for me, it was a big moment. The judge asked a tough question, and while I fumbled a bit, I also learned how to hold my ground. Those moments, when you get knocked a little and then find your footing, are mostly the ones that stay with you.

    Working with senior counsel also taught me how much court preparation matters. And when I started assisting in high-profile matters, I realised a new thing about managing the expectations of well-known clients, is a skill in itself.

    Looking back, it was those early experiences, good and tough, that gave me both clarity and confidence. They still guide me on how I approach my cases today.

    Looking back at your robust and diverse career, what inspired you to pursue law? What was your original vision, and how has that evolved over time? What are your aspirations going forward?

    To be honest, law was not always the plan. Coming from a family business in finance and share broking, I was naturally exposed to the financial world from an early age. I even pursued an MBA in Finance, thinking I would follow that path. However, my interest in law kept growing stronger than anything else.

    I didn’t grow up with the idea of becoming a lawyer; it came more from curiosity and also with a need to find something that combined structure with impact. Over time, I realised how powerful the law could be in changing lives and solving problems. That’s when it became more than a profession and started feeling like a purpose.

    My early vision was probably moulded by the usual excitement of arguing in court, but as I started handling cases, my understanding of the law grew more. I began to see it less as a tool to win arguments and more as a way to balance justice.

    Now, my focus is on deepening that expertise, working on policy-heavy cases, white-collar crimes, and contributing to the law around data and tech laws. I also work on the corporate advisory side. A major part of my corporate practice involves drafting and negotiating commercial agreements, including non-disclosure agreements. I regularly advise companies on confidentiality matters and information security protocols that align with both legal requirements and business objectives.

    This dual exposure has helped me a lot in understanding how preparation and preventive corporate advisory go hand in hand.

    In the future I would like to build a practice that will represent and also educate, mentor to create awareness about legal reform. The law is always evolving, and I want to keep evolving with it.

    What advice would you give to law students and young professionals hoping to build a career in economic offenses and financial crime litigation? Is there a particular roadmap or mindset you’d recommend to help them stay ahead in this rapidly evolving space?

    Economic offences are really wide, which makes it hard to grasp it all at once. If your goal is to start a practice focused on economic offences and financial crime litigation, I would suggest learning as much as you can about financial systems and how they actually work. This area is much more about understanding how money travels in the economy and how the regulators generally think. So, alongside your legal studies, make sure you have spent time on basic accounting, and the financial regulations.

    In your early years, try to work alongside lawyers, or firms dealing with white-collar crime, with the ED or CBI issues, and with cases of corporate fraud. Try to watch closely how investigations are conducted, and how documentation is compiled, the process of taking statements, and how enforcement agencies operate. This will give you an initial understanding of the concept.

    Given the high-stakes and often intense nature of  litigation, how do you maintain your composure in stressful situations? What practices help you manage pressure while also taking care of your mental well-being?
    Litigation matters are intensive, long hours, and involve tight timelines, high stakes. It’s very easy to lose your balance if you don’t actively protect it. With time, I have learnt that managing pressure means building the capacity to carry stress without letting it overwhelm you.

    I maintain a strict routine of one hour of meditation and one hour at the gym daily. This combination has become non-negotiable for me, regardless of how demanding my case load gets. I have also become very mindful of boundaries. I have stopped glorifying all-nighters. I delegate when I need to, I disconnect when I must.

    Law can really push you. If you don’t pace yourself, you’ll burn out before you build anything that lasts.

    Get in touch with Ashish Patankar –