Super Lawyer

Tag: Intellectual Property

  • “My transition from practicing in India to building an international practice was a natural evolution, shaped by the global environment in which I was raised.” – Dr. Seemantani Sharma, Co-Founder at Mabill Technologies and Legal Manager at the Asia-Pacific Broadcasting Union, Malaysia.

    “My transition from practicing in India to building an international practice was a natural evolution, shaped by the global environment in which I was raised.” – Dr. Seemantani Sharma, Co-Founder at Mabill Technologies and Legal Manager at the Asia-Pacific Broadcasting Union, Malaysia.

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

    With such a diverse academic background, what initially inspired you to pursue law, and how did your early education in India, your LL.M. at The George Washington University Law School, and your PhD at the University of Technology Sydney shape your focus on technology, intellectual property, and governance?

    My journey into law began with a fascination for the Indian Constitution, a passion I nurtured from around the age of 17. I initially enrolled in a Bachelor of Economics at Delhi University, largely following my parents’ preference, but quickly realized that statistics and quantitative subjects were not my strength. They were very supportive when I decided to leave and pursue law instead, a field that truly aligned with my interests in governance, rights, and regulatory frameworks.

    During my legal studies in India, I completed the mandatory year of pupillage and internship, which gave me a clear sense early on that conventional legal practice was not the path for me. After graduating from law school and completing my internship, I chose to work for a media technology company in a legal-business role rather than a core legal role. While I did not learn a great deal about practicing law in that role, I gained invaluable insights into how media companies generate revenues through media rights. This first job laid the foundation for my current role at the Asia-Pacific Broadcasting Union (ABU), where I continue to work at the intersection of law, technology, and media rights.

    After my LL.M. at The George Washington University Law School, I stayed on for a year as a legal researcher at the Estelle and Melvin Gelman Library, working on a grant-funded project. It was during this period that I developed a deep interest in rigorous legal research and began considering pursuing a PhD in the future.

    Several years later, after moving to Malaysia to work for ABU, the PhD opportunity finally presented itself. In 2019, I received a scholarship from the University of Technology Sydney to write my doctoral thesis under two highly respected IP scholars. I chose to focus on the intersection of copyright, performers’ rights, and dance, an unconventional topic that few IP scholars are willing to supervise. My co-supervisor (a leading Australian IP scholar), who happened to be a trained ballet dancer, was supportive of my choice. This allowed me to combine my academic interests with my personal passion as a trained contemporary Indian dancer and a student of Anand Shankar.

    These experiences (from my early fascination with constitutional law, to my LL.M. research, to my PhD under distinguished scholars) have shaped my focus on technology, intellectual property, and governance. They reflect a trajectory guided by curiosity, rigorous research, and the desire to leverage law to protect innovation and creativity across diverse domains.

    In the early phase of your career in India, what were the most formative experiences that laid the foundation for your practice and motivated you to specialize in intellectual property law?

    From an early age, I have always had a global mindset, shaped in part by my father’s encouragement to think beyond borders. Growing up in a family of fourth-generation entrepreneurs, I also knew deep down that one day I would start my own venture. These early influences gave me the confidence to chart a non-conventional path in law, one that could combine rigorous legal expertise with innovation, business, and a global perspective.

    In the early phase of my career in India, I was profoundly shaped by what I observed in conventional legal practice. I was concerned by inefficiencies in the justice system, the backlog of cases, and at times, lapses in ethics among practitioners and judges. It’s not that the whole Indian legal system is flawed, but these experiences made it clear that a traditional legal career was not for me. I had always envisioned a professional journey that would take me beyond India, allowing me to work on global challenges and innovations.

    My first professional role at RSG Media Systems exposed me to the commercial side of media rights. I gained important insights into how media companies generate revenue, yet I realized I wanted a deeper understanding of law itself, particularly in areas intersecting with technology, creativity, and business. Intellectual property law naturally emerged as the perfect bridge between these interests.

    Admission to The George Washington University Law School for my LL.M. became a decisive step toward my vision of becoming a global legal professional. That experience, combined with my subsequent PhD and international roles, reinforced my trajectory toward innovation-driven law, entrepreneurial ventures, and intellectual property strategy. Looking back, these formative experiences (my global outlook, early exposure to media and business, and rigorous legal training) laid the foundation for my focus on technology, IP, and governance on a global scale.

    What inspired your transition from practicing in India to building an international practice, and how did you navigate the challenges of adapting to different legal and professional ecosystems?

    My transition from practicing in India to building an international practice was a natural evolution, shaped by the global environment in which I was raised. Although I grew up in India, most of my father’s clients were foreigners. Our home constantly hosted visitors from across the world. This exposure gave me a deep comfort with cross-cultural interactions and a global perspective from an early age. I did not even have an official “Indian” name until I was 15. My relatives and friends often laughed at my nickname, which didn’t sound very “Indian.” Even in Southeast Asia, people sometimes ask me, “Where are you from?” despite my distinctly Indian surname. From food preferences to clothing choices, many of my everyday habits are shaped by this international environment, reinforcing my adaptability and ease in multicultural settings. Even my astrologer once remarked that I would thrive in international environments, a prediction that, in hindsight, aligns closely with the trajectory of my career. These experiences have been invaluable, enabling me to navigate diverse legal, business, and cultural landscapes with confidence and nuance. These experiences have been invaluable throughout my career, enabling me to navigate diverse legal, business, and cultural landscapes with confidence and nuance.

    While this global exposure came to me naturally, I actively built additional skills to thrive in international environments. I learned basic Mandarin, took courses in cross-cultural negotiations, and continually sought opportunities to expand my knowledge. Adapting to different legal and professional ecosystems required not only understanding local laws and professional norms but also honing skills that allow me to connect effectively across cultures. It was challenging at first, and even now, navigating international scenarios is not always easy.

    These experiences, combined with my grounding in international law and intellectual property, enabled me to develop a practice that is both globally relevant and locally effective. My upbringing instilled confidence and adaptability, and my commitment to continuous learning has been critical in navigating challenges and building an international career.

    You’ve worked extensively on media rights, sports agreements, and international lobbying. What have been the most complex challenges in balancing broadcaster rights with the rapid evolution of digital and OTT platforms?

    I have worked extensively on media rights, sports agreements, and international lobbying, which has given me deep exposure to the complexities of balancing broadcaster rights with the rapid evolution of digital and OTT platforms. The ongoing challenges reflect the nuances involved so much so that the broadcasters’ treaty has not been adopted even after more than 20 years. Even within my organization, we constantly debate fundamental questions such as “what constitutes broadcasting” and “who qualifies as a broadcaster” in a rapidly changing digital environment.

    For me personally, one of the biggest challenges arises when distributing rights. OTT platforms are inherently non-territorial, which creates complexities when determining the exclusivity of sports rights in specific territories. Resolving these issues requires careful negotiation, strategic foresight, and an in-depth understanding of both the technology and the legal frameworks governing media rights.

    The rise of OTT platforms has added additional layers of complexity. Traditional licensing frameworks often struggle to accommodate streaming models, on-demand services, and cross-border content distribution. For instance, the recent bill in India aimed at regulating OTT platforms highlights how governments are still grappling with these shifts, trying to balance consumer access, content regulation, and the protection of established media rights.

    Navigating these challenges requires a combination of legal expertise, strategic negotiation skills, and a clear understanding of how technological disruption transforms the media landscape. My work in this domain has sharpened my ability to reconcile competing interests, draft adaptable agreements, and anticipate regulatory trends, ensuring that broadcasters’ rights remain protected even as the definition of “broadcasting” continues to evolve.

    As a legal consultant advising start-ups and international organizations, how do you approach contracts and IP licensing across jurisdictions such as Asia-Pacific, Europe, and the US? What recurring challenges do start-ups face when entering these markets, and how can they prepare for them early on?

    As an IP expert and co-founder of a clean-tech startup, I have seen first-hand how critical a robust IP strategy is to a start-up’s success. Advising start-ups and international organizations across Asia-Pacific, Europe, and the US, I approach contracts and IP licensing with a global mindset. Every jurisdiction brings its own legal frameworks, enforcement mechanisms, and cultural nuances, and agreements must be carefully crafted to balance protection, commercialization, and investor confidence.

    Start-ups often face recurring challenges when entering new markets. IP regimes are fragmented, copyright, patent, and trademark protections differ, and licensing agreements can become complex when crossing borders. The biggest hurdles arise when trying to align a start-up’s ambitions with local regulatory realities while ensuring that innovations remain secure.

    Preparation is essential. I advise start-ups to embed IP strategy into their business plan from the outset i.e. conducting thorough market and IP due diligence, clearly defining the scope, territory, exclusivity, and enforcement rights in contracts, and engaging experienced legal counsel early. This approach not only reduces potential disputes but also builds trust with investors and partners, enabling the start-up to scale efficiently while safeguarding its core innovations.

    For me, the interplay between law, technology, and business is endlessly fascinating. Helping start-ups navigate these complexities while protecting their innovations has been one of the most rewarding aspects of my career, and it underscores why IP strategy is never an afterthought. It is the backbone of sustainable growth in a global marketplace.

    As Co-Founder of Mabill Technologies, how are you leveraging AI and IoT to build sustainable HVAC solutions, and what role does intellectual property strategy play in protecting and scaling this innovation?

    As Co-Founder of Mabill Technologies, we are focused on leveraging AI to build predictive maintenance solutions for HVAC systems. We have plans to develop a  proprietary AI algorithm in collaboration with a university, with Mabill retaining full intellectual property rights while giving proper attribution to our academic partner. From Day One, I have approached this venture with a strong IP strategy, ensuring that our innovations are protected and positioned for scalable growth. Our IoT roadmap, which will enable real-time monitoring and optimization of HVAC performance, is planned for rollout in the second phase of development. By combining AI, IoT, and a robust IP strategy, Mabill aims to deliver sustainable, efficient, and market-leading HVAC solutions.

    Having advised both start-ups and WIPO on IP law and sustainable innovation, how has your research and writing influenced your approach to balancing commercialization, investor confidence, and long-term climate impact?

    Having advised both start on IP law and working with WIPO for a short consulting project, my research and writing have shaped a practical and principled approach to balancing commercialization, investor confidence, and long-term climate impact. I have come to recognize that investor confidence is ultimately built on trust. Trust that the technology is robust, the team is capable, and the IP is well-protected. My work in IP strategy ensures that innovations are defensible and scalable, which in turn is likely to assure investors. At the same time, my focus on sustainable innovation means that we do not sacrifice long-term climate impact for short-term gains. This dual lens of trust and sustainability guides how I structure ventures, communicate with stakeholders, and make strategic decisions that align profitability with purpose.

    What advice would you give to students aspiring to a career in intellectual property law? What practical steps and resources should they focus on during law school to prepare themselves for this field?

    It’s great to aspire. However, I would advise students not to get overly fixated on choosing a specialization too early. Intellectual property law is a fascinating field, but it is very niche. What matters more in law school is building strong foundational skills that will serve students across any area of law.

    One of the most critical skills is learning how to read i.e. not just reading casually, but developing the ability to process complex legal texts quickly and efficiently. I truly learned this during my PhD. It has been transformative for my career. Many students underestimate the importance of speed reading and speed writing. Nonetheless, in today’s world, these skills are what will set students apart. AI can retrieve statutes and perform basic drafting, but the ability to read deeply, synthesize quickly, and write clearly remains irreplaceable.

    In practical terms, law students should focus on cultivating analytical thinking, precision in writing, and the ability to quickly absorb large volumes of information. Internships, research projects, and exposure to different areas of law will also help develop versatility, which is especially important in niche fields like IP. Some of the best IP lawyers I know are creators, inventors, or entrepreneurs themselves. This combination of legal skill and practical, hands-on understanding of innovation gives them an edge. A strong foundation, combined with curiosity and disciplined study habits, will equip students to succeed whether they ultimately specialize in IP or elsewhere.

    How do you see the future of intellectual property and media law evolving with emerging technologies, and what is your vision for the evolution of your own practice in the coming years?

    The future of intellectual property and media law is poised for a sea change, driven largely by emerging technologies such as AI. Traditionally, IP laws have been human-centric, focusing on human creators and inventors. AI disrupts this framework, raising fundamental questions: Who qualifies as an author? Can a machine or AI system hold authorship? Jurisdictions across the world are actively debating how to address these challenges, and IP laws will likely need to evolve to accommodate non-human-generated works and AI-assisted inventions.

    In media law, licensing for OTT platforms remains one of the biggest challenges, particularly given their cross-border, non-territorial nature and the rapid pace of digital disruption. These shifts require not only technical legal expertise but also a strategic understanding of business models, technology, and regulatory frameworks. For me personally, determining the exclusivity of sports rights in specific territories for OTT platforms is a particularly complex challenge.

    I am registered to take the California Bar Exam, which reflects my legal training and commitment to professional rigor. However, my primary role today is as a founder and legal strategist rather than a conventional practitioner. My goal is to build Mabill into a leading venture while simultaneously establishing my thought leadership brand. I plan to revisit the decision to sit for the exam depending on Mabill’s growth trajectory, ensuring that my focus remains on driving innovation, scaling the business, and shaping the intersection of law, technology, and sustainable solutions.

    I see my role evolving from a technical-legal expert to a legal strategist and systems thinker. I aim to blend my legal background with high-level strategic input for start-ups in regulated sectors such as clean-tech. As a thought leader and clean-tech founder, I am no longer a conventional lawyer. Nonetheless, law continues to inform my work, enabling me to provide insights that protect innovation, anticipate regulatory trends, and support sustainable growth in a technology-driven world.

    You have authored books on the EU AI Act and IP monetization in the AI era, published peer-reviewed articles on piracy, TRIPS, and broadcaster rights, and contributed policy insights at global forums such as WIPO. How do you see this scholarship and thought leadership complementing your role as both a legal strategist and a tech founder and what broader impact do you wish to create in shaping the future of IP and technology law?

    My work as a scholar and thought leader directly complements my role as both a legal strategist and tech founder. Authoring books on the EU AI Act and IP monetization in the AI era, publishing peer-reviewed articles on piracy, TRIPS, and broadcaster rights, and contributing policy insights at global forums such as WIPO has given me a nuanced understanding of the intersection of law, technology, and innovation. These insights allow me to advise start-ups and investors not only on compliance but on strategic IP and legal frameworks that drive value creation and reduce regulatory risk.

    Being a tech founder, myself gives me a first-hand perspective on the challenges innovators face i.e. how to scale responsibly, protect core technologies, and navigate complex cross-border regulations. This combination of scholarly rigor and operational experience enables me to provide high-level strategic guidance that is legally sound, commercially viable, and investor-ready.

    My broader vision is to shape a legal and regulatory ecosystem where emerging technologies like AI are harnessed responsibly, IP rights incentivize creativity, and sustainable innovations (especially in sectors like clean-tech) can scale globally. By bridging the worlds of law, entrepreneurship, and technology, I aim to help founders, investors, and organizations anticipate market shifts, protect their assets, and unlock long-term growth opportunities.

    Get in touch with Dr. Seematani Sharma –

  • “The real shift ahead will be from treating privacy as a legal checkbox to making it part of core business strategy.” – Ankita Sabharwal, Managing Associate at Chadha & Chadha.

    “The real shift ahead will be from treating privacy as a legal checkbox to making it part of core business strategy.” – Ankita Sabharwal, Managing Associate at Chadha & Chadha.

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

    Being in this industry with such diverse experience, what initially motivated you to choose law as a career, and what inspired you to specialize in Intellectual Property, Data Privacy, and Technology Law?

    As a child, I was always writing poems for school magazines. I still recall one incident when I shared an unwritten poem with a classmate, only to find it published under his name in the very next issue. I came home in tears, and that’s when my mother first introduced me to the concept of copyright. That moment sparked my curiosity about how law can protect creativity and original thought.

    Naturally, when I began my career, intellectual property became my first area of focus. Over time, as I engaged with clients and industries evolving rapidly in the digital age, I found myself drawn to the adjoining fields of technology and data privacy. It felt like a natural transition, broadening my horizon from protecting creative works to safeguarding innovation, digital assets, and personal data.

    Today, my work allows me to bring these threads together: using IP, technology, and privacy law not just as legal tools, but as enablers of innovation and trust in an increasingly interconnected world.

    You started your career at top-tier firms specializing in IP. What early experiences helped lay the foundation for your practice, and how did you navigate your way into such prestigious firms straight out of law school?

    When I first joined my law firm, most of my work was around intellectual property including litigation, opinions, and strategy. That’s when the GDPR had just come in, and suddenly everyone was talking about data privacy. I remember being really curious about it and actively looking for ways to get involved in those matters, even while my main focus was IP.

    What struck me was how naturally the two fields connected. On one hand, I was helping protect brands and creative works, and on the other, I was seeing how technology and privacy were becoming equally critical for businesses. That overlap made me want to broaden my horizon beyond IP, and it eventually set me on the path of building a practice at the intersection of IP, data privacy, and technology law.

    With years of experience across various domains in IP law, how do you approach complex IP disputes especially in the brand protection domain, and what are the key challenges in managing global IP portfolios?

    In IP disputes, whether trademarks, patents, or copyrights, I focus on aligning enforcement with the client’s long-term strategy and reputation. In brand protection, a recurring challenge is timing. Many businesses delay securing rights until the brand has grown or infringement has already occurred. The same happens with patents, where filings are often an afterthought instead of being integrated with R&D. Another common issue is skipping clearance searches, whether for trademarks or prior art in patents, which leads to avoidable disputes and costs. The key is to start early, secure strong and defensible rights, and stay proactive rather than reactive.


    You have advised clients on data privacy compliance under DPDP, GDPR, CCPA, and other international regulations. What are the major challenges companies face while ensuring compliance with these data privacy frameworks?
    One of the biggest challenges is procrastination. Companies know compliance is important but tend to delay it until there’s a breach or regulatory action, when it’s already too late. Another recurring issue is the way data is handled: it’s often scattered across departments, systems, and vendors without proper mapping or controls. Many organizations don’t even have a clear view of what data they collect, where it’s stored, or how long they retain it. Without that foundation, compliance with frameworks like DPDP, GDPR, or CCPA becomes patchwork. The real solution is to start early, streamline data handling, and embed privacy into day-to-day processes rather than treating it as a last-minute fix.

    What are the most critical considerations when drafting and negotiating technology contracts, licensing agreements, or cross-border data transfer agreements?

    For me, the most critical part of drafting or negotiating technology contracts, licensing agreements, or cross-border data transfer agreements is balance. On one side, you have the legal and regulatory requirements i.e., data transfer restrictions, liability, compliance with GDPR or DPDP, and so on. But on the other, you have the business reality: both parties want a workable, commercial arrangement that doesn’t get buried under red tape. I’ve seen that the real challenges often lie in the details, how data is actually handled day to day, who has access, how risks are allocated if something goes wrong. Cross-border transfers especially demand extra care, because you’re not just dealing with contracts but also with differing legal regimes and enforcement landscapes. So the key for me is clarity and practicality, making sure the contract reflects not just what looks good on paper but how the technology, data, and partnership will function in real life. That’s where the trust between parties really gets built.

    Having handled numerous brand protection, domain name disputes, and anti-counterfeiting enforcement cases, can you share one of the most challenging cases you’ve worked on and how you navigated it?

    While I can’t share client names, I can say I’ve handled everything from pharma to fashion to OEMs, and each sector brings its own unique challenges. One of the toughest situations I dealt with was a large-scale counterfeiting network spread across multiple jurisdictions. It wasn’t just about seizing counterfeit goods, it involved coordinating with law enforcement, navigating cross-border enforcement hurdles, and simultaneously managing domain name takedowns and online marketplaces. What made it challenging was the scale and speed at which counterfeiters adapt. Every time we shut down one channel, another would emerge. The way we navigated it was through a multi-pronged approach through legal actions, customs enforcement, online monitoring, and working closely with investigators. It taught me that brand protection today isn’t just about one-off enforcement, but about building a continuous, layered strategy.

    How has speaking at global conferences and publishing on technology and data privacy shaped your perspective and practice? What advice would you offer to students aspiring to enter this field, and what resources would you recommend to stay current?

    I still remember my very first global conference as a young attorney. I was so anxious, sitting in the audience, just trying to absorb everything and wondering if I would ever have the courage to stand on that stage. To look back now and see the journey from being an eager attendee to becoming a speaker is something that feels very special. Speaking at these forums and writing on technology and data privacy has given me incredible exposure. It has shaped the way I think and connected me with inspiring people from all over the world. More than anything, it has taught me that this field never stands still, and the best way to grow is to keep learning and sharing.

    For students who want to step into this space, my advice would be to focus on upskilling and to trust the process. Don’t feel pressured to be part of the rat race. Choose your own path, follow what excites you, and keep nurturing that interest. In the long run, it is passion and consistency that will set you apart. To stay current, I would suggest keeping an eye on regulatory updates, following thought leaders, and most importantly, engaging in conversations, because some of the most valuable insights come not from books, but from exchanging ideas with others who share your curiosity.

    As someone who oversees high-stakes matters, manages teams, and mentors the next generation of associates, how do you manage everything such as handling complex legal mandates, and what qualities do you value most in your team members?

    To be honest, I don’t think I do much! It’s the young associates who make it all possible. They come in with so much commitment, energy, and willingness to learn that managing high-stakes matters becomes a shared effort rather than a burden. My role is simply to guide and support them, but the drive really comes from their side.

    What I value most in my team is sincerity, curiosity, and ownership. These are qualities they already bring to the table, and they inspire me as much as I hope to mentor them. At the end of the day, it’s their dedication that keeps everything moving, and I feel fortunate to be surrounded by such motivated people.


    What emerging trends in AI, blockchain, or digital technologies do you see shaping the future of IP and data privacy law?

    I think the future of IP and data privacy law will be shaped by how we respond to technologies. With AI, the big questions are around authorship and ownership, who owns AI-generated outputs and the privacy risks that come from training on massive datasets. Blockchain adds another dimension: while decentralization is powerful, it raises real challenges for enforcement and even basic rights like data erasure.

    What excites me most is data privacy itself. It’s often seen as a compliance burden, but I see it as business-friendly. Strong privacy practices don’t just avoid penalties, they build trust, open up cross-border opportunities, and become a differentiator in crowded markets. The real shift ahead will be from treating privacy as a legal checkbox to making it part of core business strategy.

    Looking ahead, where do you see your practice evolving over the next five years, and what areas are you most excited to focus on?

    I honestly don’t know what life will look like five years from now, and maybe that’s the beauty of it. What I do know is that I want to keep learning, keep growing, and keep challenging myself to create a deeper impact through my work in IP, technology, and data privacy. But more than that, what excites me is the opportunity to create a path for others.

    As a first-generation lawyer, I know what it feels like to start without a roadmap, to rely on sheer hard work and belief. Over the next five years, I want to not only grow but also make sure that others like me, first-gen lawyers know they can dare to dream, carve their own space, and make it big. If my journey can inspire even a few to believe that it’s possible, that would be the most meaningful achievement of all.

    Get in touch with Ankita Sabharwal –

  • “I’ve learned that the best legal solutions aren’t just technically correct : they’re commercially viable and operationally practical.” – Neha Shankar, Director Legal (Deputy General Counsel) at Innovaccer.

    “I’ve learned that the best legal solutions aren’t just technically correct : they’re commercially viable and operationally practical.” – Neha Shankar, Director Legal (Deputy General Counsel) at Innovaccer.

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

    You’ve led high-stakes SaaS and IT contract negotiations across jurisdictions like the US, UK, Middle East, and India. What key legal and commercial differences have you observed among these regions, particularly in structuring and negotiating complex technology agreements?                                  

    The fundamental difference is risk philosophy and regulatory approach. US contracts are heavily liability-focused with aggressive risk shifting – broad indemnities, high liability caps, and extensive IP warranties because litigation risk is real. UK/EU takes a more balanced approach with reasonable risk allocation, but GDPR fundamentally changed data processing terms and cross-border transfer requirements.

    Middle East markets are relationship-driven with conservative risk tolerance – they often require local partnerships, prefer advance payments or guarantees, and decision-making is more hierarchical. Each country varies significantly – UAE’s approach differs from Saudi Arabia’s regulatory framework.

    India is extremely cost-sensitive with detailed SLA requirements and strong data localization mandates under DPDP Act. There’s preference for Indian governing law and local arbitration venues.

    For AI and emerging tech, the differences are stark. US allows broad AI disclaimers and extensive model training rights. EU requires AI Act compliance with strict accountability for high-risk systems. The Middle East often mandates human oversight for AI decisions. India’s framework is still emerging but trending toward data sovereignty.

    My approach: Use master agreements with jurisdiction-specific addenda rather than one-size-fits-all contracts. Build modular compliance sections that adapt to local requirements. Most importantly, understand that what works in Silicon Valley often needs significant adaptation – both legally and commercially – for other markets.

    As Director-Legal (Deputy General Counsel) at Innovaccer and a close advisor to both leadership and product teams, how has your role evolved beyond traditional contract review into a more strategic business function? 

    My role has evolved from traditional lawyer to strategic business partnership. I’m now embedded with product and leadership teams from the earliest stages – helping architect compliance into product roadmaps rather than reviewing afterward, participating in M&A strategy and market expansion decisions, and turning regulatory requirements into competitive advantages. I’ve built legal infrastructure that operates at business speed through automated workflows, self-service templates, and proactive frameworks that eliminate bottlenecks. The result is measurably faster deal cycles, on-schedule product launches, and better strategic decision-making because legal insights come early in the process rather than as obstacles later. Legal has become a growth accelerator rather than a cost center.

    From negotiating complex IT contracts to managing commercial transactions, you’ve worked extensively across highly regulated sectors. How do you stay abreast of evolving legal and regulatory frameworks, particularly in areas like data privacy and technology law? What’s your approach to identifying and mitigating legal risks in such fast-paced and dynamic industries?

    Staying current in fast-moving regulatory environments requires a systematic approach, not just ad-hoc reading. I’ve built a multi-layered monitoring system that combines automated alerts, industry networks, and practical application. For regulatory tracking, I use targeted legal research platforms with custom alerts for specific jurisdictions and practice areas – data privacy updates from key regulators like FTC, state AGs, and international bodies. I also maintain relationships with specialized regulatory counsel in different jurisdictions who provide real-time insights on enforcement trends and practical legal and compliance interpretations.

    Industry engagement is equally important. I’m active in relevant legal associations and regularly attend focused conferences – not general legal events, but sector-specific gatherings where regulators actually speak and share enforcement priorities. Peer networks with other in-house counsel facing similar challenges provide invaluable practical insights you can’t get from legal publications.

    For risk identification, I’ve developed frameworks that integrate legal monitoring with business operations. I work closely with product, engineering, and business development teams to understand what’s actually being built and sold, not just what’s documented. This early visibility lets me spot regulatory risks before they become legal problems.

    My mitigation approach focuses on building scalable systems rather than case-by-case reviews. I create legal frameworks that can adapt to regulatory changes without rebuilding everything. For data privacy, this means privacy-by-design architectures that can accommodate new requirements. For commercial transactions, it means modular contract structures that can be updated efficiently.

    The key is making legal monitoring a business process, not a personal responsibility. When regulatory changes happen, we can adapt quickly because the infrastructure is already in place.

    In the early stages of your career, you worked across diverse areas like transaction structuring, energy law, employment compliance, and more. How has this multidisciplinary exposure informed your legal thinking and approach as an in-house counsel today? 

    That multidisciplinary foundation taught me to see legal issues as interconnected business problems rather than isolated practice areas. Working in energy law showed me how regulatory frameworks shape entire business models. Transaction structuring taught me to think commercially about risk allocation. Employment laws gave me an operational perspective on how legal requirements actually impact day-to-day business. Now as in-house counsel, I don’t just analyze contracts in isolation – I understand how employment terms affect deal structures, how regulatory compliance impacts transaction timelines, and how operational realities influence legal strategy. This cross-functional thinking lets me spot issues other lawyers miss and provide solutions that work across multiple business functions. Instead of saying ‘that’s not my area,’ I can connect dots between different legal domains to solve complex business challenges more effectively.

    You’ve worked closely with business stakeholders, particularly in the IT sector. What are some common challenges you encounter in ensuring legal compliance, and how can businesses proactively address these issues early in the process to avoid future roadblocks? 

    The biggest challenge is that business teams treat legal compliance as a final review step rather than a foundational design element. In commercial contracting, sales teams often negotiate terms that create operational nightmares – promising SLAs we can’t meet or data processing we can’t legally perform. On the product side, teams build features first, then discover they violate privacy laws or create IP ownership issues. My approach is embedding legal requirements upfront – I work with sales to create contract playbooks with pre-approved terms that close deals faster, collaborate with product teams during feature planning to ensure privacy-by-design, and partner with engineering on data architecture that supports both business needs and regulatory compliance. I also build automated approval workflows and self-service legal tools so teams can move at business speed without creating risks. The result is that legal becomes a competitive advantage – we can commit to terms competitors can’t, launch compliant products faster, and avoid the costly retrofitting that kills margins and delays launches.

    With over a decade of experience, what initially drew you to pursue law as a career? When you reflect on your journey now, how has your vision evolved since those early days?  

    I was initially drawn to law because I saw it as a way to solve complex problems and create structure in ambiguous situations. Early on, I thought legal work was about finding the right answer in statutes and precedents. Over the past decade, I’ve realized that the most impactful legal work happens at the intersection of law and business strategy – it’s not just about compliance, but about enabling growth and competitive advantage. My vision has evolved from being a legal expert who provides advice to being a business partner who helps drive outcomes. I’ve learned that the best legal solutions aren’t just technically correct – they’re commercially viable and operationally practical. What excites me now is using legal expertise to unlock business opportunities that others can’t see, whether that’s structuring deals that competitors can’t match or building compliance frameworks that become market differentiators. Law became less about finding answers in books and more about creating solutions that don’t exist yet.

    Recognized for your strong contributions across industries, what core values or guiding principles have anchored your legal journey? Looking ahead, what goals or aspirations do you hold for the future?  

    Ans: Three core principles have guided my legal career: pragmatic problem-solving over theoretical perfection, business enablement rather than risk avoidance, and building scalable systems instead of one-off solutions. I’ve always believed that the best legal advice is the advice that actually gets implemented – which means understanding business realities and crafting solutions that work operationally, not just legally. My approach has been to turn legal requirements into competitive advantages rather than compliance burdens. Looking ahead, I’m focused on leveraging emerging technologies like AI to transform how legal functions operate – building intelligent contract systems, predictive compliance frameworks, and automated risk assessment tools that let legal teams operate at unprecedented scale and speed. My aspiration is to help redefine what in-house legal can accomplish, moving from a support function to a strategic driver of business growth and innovation. The future of legal is about using technology and strategic thinking to solve business problems that haven’t been solvable before.

    Legal work in high-stakes corporate environments is intense. How do you balance your professional responsibilities with personal well-being? What practices or activities help you recharge and maintain perspective? 

    Honestly, I’m a natural hustler – I thrive on the intensity and challenge of high-stakes legal work. But I’ve learned that raw drive without strategy leads to burnout, not breakthrough results. The key is channeling that energy where it creates maximum impact rather than spreading it thin across everything.

    With experience, I’ve developed systems for sustainable high performance. I start my day with strategic work before reactive demands take over, and I batch similar tasks to maintain deep focus rather than constant context-switching. Outside work, I stay physically active and spend time with my dog – there’s something grounding about that unconditional companionship that cuts through legal complexity. I’m also involved in community animal welfare work, which connects me to something meaningful beyond corporate environments.

    The breakthrough insight: stepping away from legal problems often unlocks better solutions when I return. I’ve built strong professional relationships that provide perspective during intense periods, and I’ve learned to distinguish between urgent and important – not every crisis is actually critical. This lets me stay calm under pressure and direct my hustler energy where it matters most. Sustainable excellence isn’t about working harder – it’s about managing energy strategically.

    Given your wide-ranging expertise, what advice would you offer to young lawyers entering the legal profession today particularly those looking to build careers in corporate law, technology, or cross-border commercial practice? 

    Three pieces of advice: First, become genuinely business-literate, not just legally competent. Understand how companies actually make money, how technology works, and what drives commercial decisions. The lawyers who succeed long-term are those who can translate legal requirements into business solutions. Second, specialize early but stay adaptable. Pick a sector like fintech or healthcare and become the go-to expert, but develop skills that transfer across industries – contract negotiation, regulatory analysis, and strategic thinking are universal. Third, build relationships before you need them. The best opportunities come through networks, not job boards. Connect with in-house counsel, business leaders, and peers who’ll become your referral sources and collaborators. For cross-border work specifically, understand that legal expertise alone isn’t enough – you need cultural fluency and practical knowledge of how business actually gets done in different markets. Most importantly, think like a business partner from day one. Don’t just identify problems – propose solutions. The lawyers who advance fastest are those who make their clients’ lives easier, not more complicated.

    Get in touch with Neha Shankar –

  • “For students and young professionals moving from engineering to patent law, the first step is to maintain your strong technical knowledge.” – Iti Negi, Patent Practitioner.

    “For students and young professionals moving from engineering to patent law, the first step is to maintain your strong technical knowledge.” – Iti Negi, Patent Practitioner.

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

    In the early stages of your journey, particularly while transitioning into the world of intellectual property, what were some defining experiences that helped shape your practice in patents? Could you share any formative instances that honed your core skills?

    Overall, my journey in the field of Intellectual Property (IP) has been both enriching and transformative. Each organization I have worked with has added a unique dimension to my understanding of IP, helping me grow both technically and strategically. While I have had the opportunity to learn immensely at every stage, there are two experiences that stand out. Not only because of the nature of the work involved, but also because they came at pivotal moments in my career and had a lasting impact on how I approach patent practice today.

    The first was my transition into an in-house role at LG Electronics, which marked a significant turning point. Although this was not at the very beginning of my career, it was one of my earliest exposures to working in a large, innovation-driven product company. It was an exciting time as the first iPhone had just launched, reshaping the mobile industry. I was one of the few patent professionals hired outside LG’s IP team in South Korea, which gave me a unique vantage point.

    This role gave me critical exposure to the intersection of product design and IP. I worked extensively on handheld devices, touchscreens, and human machine interfaces. I learned to break down products into their technical components and identify key innovation areas. It was here that I began to understand the importance of aligning patent strategy with product roadmaps, ensuring that each patent family supported not just a single product but an entire innovation trajectory.

    In addition, I had the opportunity to contribute to emerging areas such as smart TVs and smart home initiatives. This showed me how cohesive, ecosystem-level IP strategy can create stronger value than isolated patents. Collaborating with different business units and cross-functional teams deepened my appreciation for how patents can be leveraged as long-term strategic assets. That early experience of helping shape an IP function within a rapidly evolving tech landscape laid a strong foundation for my future roles.

    The second defining chapter came during my time at Nokia USA. As part of Nokia’s patent team, I worked across high impact areas like User Interface (UI) and User Experience (UX), Augmented Reality (AR) and Virtual Reality (VR), and digital health. Being immersed in Nokia’s global innovation ecosystem, from Nokia Research Labs and Nokia Bell Labs to academic collaborations across Europe and Asia, broadened my horizons both technically and culturally.

    My role encompassed a wide range of responsibilities including invention harvesting, portfolio development, prosecution, and strategic patent portfolio management across key jurisdictions such as the US, Europe, China, Japan, and Korea. I also got exposure to work with Technical Support teams for different patent licensing projects at Nokia. This includes preparing claim charts and evidence of use analyses, contributing directly to licensing and divestment strategies.

    This is where I gained a nuanced understanding of how the clarity and scope of a patent can directly influence its commercial value and enforceability. I began to think more holistically, not just about obtaining patents, but about building enforceable, high-quality assets that could withstand scrutiny in licensing and litigation contexts.

    Together, these two experiences helped me develop a well-rounded perspective, one that balances deep technical insight, legal precision, and strategic foresight. They taught me to view IP not just as a legal function, but as a business enabler, and that mindset has stayed with me throughout my career.

    With over 17 years of in-house patent experience, looking back, what initially inspired you to pursue a degree in law after completing your engineering? Was patent law always an area of interest, or did your passion for it evolve organically over time?

    Looking back, my path into patent law was not something I had mapped out early on. It was a journey that evolved gradually, shaped by experiences, exposure, and curiosity. What started as an interest in understanding how technology impacts real-world outcomes slowly matured into a deep, lasting passion for IP and patents.

    During my engineering years, I was always intrigued by how innovation could be protected, monetized, and scaled. Through internships and early professional experiences, I began to realize that I was drawn not just to the technical side of things, but to the intersection of technology, business, and strategy. I found myself wanting to explore the broader picture, what happens beyond the invention itself.

    That curiosity eventually led me to the field of intellectual property. I was particularly fascinated by how IP brings together technical analysis, strategic thinking, and legal structure. My initial experiences with patent work, mostly through hands-on projects and on-the-job learning, made a strong impression on me. The more I was exposed to the field, the clearer it became that I wanted to move beyond executing individual patent tasks. I was eager to contribute to broader innovation strategies and understand how legal frameworks support long-term business goals.

    As I worked across different projects and domains within the IP space, I gained a better appreciation for the breadth of the field. Patent law is vast, and exposure to varied technologies and business contexts helped me understand which aspects resonated with me the most. Over time, it became clear that deepening my legal understanding would allow me to be more effective and more strategic in my role.

    This was the turning point that led me to pursue a law degree. It was not about switching careers but about enhancing the one I was already building. Law helped me connect the dots between technology, innovation, and strategic value creation. It gave structure to the insights I had been developing through experience. 

    You’ve managed patent portfolios across major jurisdictions such as the US, Europe, Japan, China, Korea, and India. What are some of the most nuanced challenges you’ve encountered in aligning with these diverse legal frameworks?

    Yes, that’s right, managing patent portfolios across multiple jurisdictions involves navigating various topics and requirements, which can present nuanced challenges when trying to align a global strategy.

    One of the few topics to keep in mind is patent eligibility, particularly for software and business methods. Compared to other jurisdictions, the US tends to be more permissive but requires to show specific improvements in computer functionality or technological solutions to overcome eligibility rejections, following the Alice decision. Europe places strong emphasis on the technical contribution of an invention, where a business advantage alone may not be enough to establish patentability.

    Technical disclosure requirements also vary significantly, and this can impact claim amendments during prosecution. For example, the European Patent Office (EPO) is very strict about amendments not containing subject matter that extends beyond the content of the application as originally filed. When making amendments, it is important to specify where the support lies in the original application. Although exact wording is not legally required, examiners generally prefer amendments that closely match the original text. 

    Handling of prior art and grace periods differs across jurisdictions as well. The US offers a one-year grace period after disclosure, whereas Europe generally requires absolute novelty before filing. China and India allow limited grace periods under specific conditions. These differences make the timing of public disclosures and use of nondisclosure agreements important considerations.

    Inventive step criteria is another aspect to be mindful of. For example, the EPO primarily assesses inventive step using the problem-solution approach. This involves identifying the closest prior art, establishing the objective technical problem based on the differences, and determining whether the invention would have been obvious to a skilled person.

    When it comes to claims, jurisdictions also vary in their preferences and fee structures. For instance, there is often a dislike of excessive independent claims, and claim fees can increase significantly with multiple dependencies or a large number of claims. Careful planning of claim scope and format is therefore necessary to balance broad protection with cost-effectiveness.

    Overall, these jurisdictional nuances call for a careful and flexible approach. Understanding local laws, working closely with local patent agents and attorneys, tailoring claim language and prosecution strategies, and managing disclosures thoughtfully are important steps to building a patent portfolio that is both effective and enforceable across different regions.

    What inspired your transition from practicing in the Indian IP ecosystem to pursuing an international role, particularly within the U.S. patent system? After nearly a decade of working in India, how did you navigate the shift, both technically and culturally and what were some of the key experiences as you adapted to the U.S. IP landscape?

    My move to the US was not a planned career step but was driven by personal reasons. However, during my practice in India, I consistently worked with multinational companies, expatriates, senior leadership, and patent attorneys and agents from the US, Europe, and Korea. I also managed international patent portfolios and was regularly exposed to global patent laws and treaties, which provided a strong foundation for the transition.

    Technically, adapting to the US patent system involved gaining a thorough understanding of its examination procedures, claim drafting nuances, and administrative and legal standards. On the cultural side, I embraced the collaborative and fast-paced work environment, learning to navigate diverse communication styles and team dynamics effectively.

    Overall, my prior international exposure made the shift smoother and helped me quickly align with the US IP landscape while appreciating the cultural differences that enriched my professional growth.

    In your in-house roles, you’ve worked closely with engineers and product development teams to build high-value patent portfolios aligned with business strategy. From this experience, what are some common pitfalls you often see at the early stages of innovation or idea disclosure that, if left unaddressed, can lead to challenges or setbacks during later stages of patent prosecution? How can these be proactively avoided?

    A common pitfall at the early stages of innovation or idea disclosure could be insufficient technical details in the Invention Disclosures. Inventors may focus on what a new feature or a use-case is but sometimes fail to fully articulate the know-how and why behind its technical effect. This lack of depth may challenge later patent prosecution. To avoid this, we could implement a structured invention disclosure process where the patent practitioners work with the Engineers at an early phase of patent workflow and provide examples on the level of technical details needed.

    Industrial Application or Utility of Inventions. It’s good to work with Inventors to demonstrate a practical application for their inventions. Jurisdictions scrutinize “abstract ideas” or “computer programs per se.” To counter this, disclosures must highlight technical effects and improvements to, for example, existing computing or vehicles, not just a new user experience.

    Initial invention disclosures may focus solely on current product features, potentially overlooking future developments or competitive design-arounds. This can result in unduly narrow patent claims. It is therefore advisable to collaborate closely with inventors to explore potential workarounds, alternative technologies, and foreseeable product evolutions to ensure broader and more robust claim coverage.

    By proactively addressing these areas, early ideas translate into a robust, high-value patent portfolio that aligns with business strategy.

    Looking ahead, how do you foresee the role of an in-house IP professional evolving, especially in the context of generative AI, rapidly emerging technologies, and shifting regulatory environments? What skills, perspectives, or mindsets will be critical for IP professionals to stay ahead?

    The role of an in-house IP professional is fundamentally transforming, demanding consistent vigilance across both technical and legal domains due to their rapid evolution. The rise of generative AI exemplifies this shift, raising complex questions from Inventorship, AI governance and evolving standards of subject matter eligibility for AI-related inventions across different jurisdictions. Furthermore, the increasing use of AI tools in patent drafting and analysis requires us to master new proficiencies while mitigating risks like data security and “hallucinations.” Staying current in these areas is crucial, allowing IP professionals to move beyond traditional counsel to provide proactive, forward-looking strategic guidance that anticipates both technological breakthroughs and their unique legal ramifications.

    For patent professionals, this shift demands a deep understanding of these technologies, the ability to ask the right questions to the inventors so as to use the details to draft patent applications and create a patent portfolio that is robust, strategically aligned, and resilient to future developments (future-proof patent applications). Simultaneously, the use of AI in media and content generation is raising complex questions in copyright law, including issues around authorship, fair use, and derivative works. Navigating these emerging challenges requires both legal adaptability and technical insight.

    For students and young professionals exploring a transition from engineering to law and ultimately into the IP and patent domain, what advice would you offer? Could you suggest a potential roadmap or strategies to help them stay relevant and future-ready in this interdisciplinary space?

    For students and young professionals moving from engineering to patent law, the first step is to maintain your strong technical knowledge. As an engineer or STEM graduate, you have a solid foundation. Try to stay current with the latest technological trends within your specific field. Understanding the core technology is crucial, as patent law focuses on protecting innovations you thoroughly comprehend.

    Next, develop your legal knowledge. Immerse yourself in legal manuals, textbooks, and case studies. You must become comfortable with legal language, statutes, and court rulings. This new legal expertise will combine with your technical background, creating a unique and powerful skill set vital for the interdisciplinary world of intellectual property. This allows you to understand the interplay between technology and legal strategy.

    Finally, sharpen your writing skills. Much of your work will involve writing patent applications and legal arguments. Master both technical writing, for accurate invention descriptions, and legal writing, for clear application of the law. Also, cultivate essential soft skills like analytical thinking, perseverance, and attention to detail. These qualities are vital for success and will give you a distinct edge in this rewarding field.

    Balancing a demanding career with personal well-being is no small feat. How do you maintain that equilibrium? Are there personal practices, habits, or philosophies that help you stay grounded and balanced in both your personal and professional life?

    Balancing a demanding global IP role with personal well-being is vital. My approach starts with prioritizing well-being as a non-negotiable. This means regular self-care activities that recharge me. Exercise, mindfulness, hobbies, and time in nature are essential. I schedule short breaks daily to rest. Taking proper vacations allows me to truly disconnect from work. Maintaining 

    Effective time management helps me find that crucial balance. I plan my schedule carefully to allocate time for both professional responsibilities and personal commitments. This structured approach allows me to manage the high demands of my role without constant “on-call” pressure, creating a clear distinction between work and personal life.

    A strong support network is also critical. I cultivate relationships with colleagues, mentors, friends, and family. Their guidance, emotional support, and practical help are invaluable in navigating challenges. This network provides a crucial sense of community and perspective. My personal philosophy centers on finding purpose and meaning in my work, which boosts job satisfaction. I embrace continuous learning and growth to stay adaptable.

    Get in touch with Iti Negi –

  • “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.

    “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 –

  • “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.

    “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 –

  • “Being dual-qualified in both India and California, allows me to advise clients navigating regulatory requirements, commercial expansion, and product launches across both legal systems.” – Anuja Shah, Privacy, IP & Tech Lawyer  ant Inventus Law, California.

    “Being dual-qualified in both India and California, allows me to advise clients navigating regulatory requirements, commercial expansion, and product launches across both legal systems.” – Anuja Shah, Privacy, IP & Tech Lawyer  ant Inventus Law, California.

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

    With several years of experience in the legal industry, and an international practice, what initially inspired you to pursue a career in law? What experiences guided you toward specializing in this particular field of IP and Data Privacy, and how did your law school journey shape your career?

    Growing up, I was the inquisitive child in the family, always asking questions like “Why?” “What does this mean?” and “How does this work?”, not to challenge authority, but out of genuine curiosity. So, when it came time to choose a career path, law felt like less of a decision and more of a natural evolution. After all, what better profession for someone who spent their childhood debating dinner table negotiations? Law gave me a way to turn that endless curiosity into something constructive, to ask better questions, find sharper answers, and help others navigate the “whys” and “what ifs” of the world.

    But law was not my first choice. As a kid, I was equally captivated by science and believed I might one day become an aeronautical engineer. One of the defining moments that shifted my perspective occurred while watching Kalpana Chawla on the news during the Columbia shuttle tragedy alongside my father. I remember wondering, What happens when science fails? Who steps in when technology breaks down? That moment planted the seed for a different kind of career, one that still engages with science and innovation, but from a legal lens.

    That curiosity eventually led me to intellectual property law, where science, technology, and legal reasoning collide in wonderfully complex ways. During law school in India, I immersed myself in this area through internships at prominent law firms, gaining exposure to a broad range of IP matters, including trademarks, copyright, technology, media, gaming and gambling, and entertainment law. The ever-evolving nature of IP, driven by innovation, fascinated me. I realized that IP law was not just about protecting rights, it was about fostering creativity, enabling progress, and balancing competing interests in a dynamic, global environment.

    Thus, after graduation, I joined a law firm as an IP attorney to get a deeper understanding of the field, and just as I was getting comfortable, the GDPR arrived and I was hooked. The realization that lawyers have to adapt just as fast as the tech world made privacy law feel less like a compliance checklist and more like a moving target that I genuinely enjoyed chasing.

    Eventually, that passion brought me to the Bay Area, the land of startups and innovation. Studying IP and data privacy here was not just about career growth; it was about being at the heart of change, surrounded by people building the future, and occasionally breaking things that lawyers then have to fix.

    Looking back, my career has been shaped by one simple fact: I never stopped asking “why?” The difference now is that I have learned how to put those questions into memos, and a commitment to helping clients navigate the complex interplay between law, technology, and human creativity.

    Starting your career with a prominent law firm, what were some key learning experiences during the early stages as you were mastering the fundamentals? Given the complexity and constant evolution of Data Privacy Laws, how did you develop an understanding of the field and stay ahead of emerging trends?

    When I first started my career as an IP attorney at a law firm, freshly out of law school, I imagined a steady path through the world of trademarks and copyright. And for a while, that is exactly what I got: think counterfeit sneakers, branding disputes, and the occasional “no, you cannot copyright a concept” conversations.

    But here is the twist no one warns you about in law school, clients do not show up with neatly categorized problems. They often bring you messy, modern dilemmas. And that is how I found myself dipping my toes into the complex pool of data privacy.

    Working with clients ranging from mom-and-pop retailers to Fortune 500 tech giants, I quickly realized that every product launch or branding campaign had a digital component, and where there is data, there is drama.

    Initially, my work was trademark-focused. But adjacent issues kept knocking on my door: copyright quirks, customs enforcement, and eventually, a new breed of question: “Hey, does our app accidentally violate three different international privacy laws?” Spoiler: it often did.

    Slowly but surely, the law kept up to the technological development with the introduction of the General Data Protection Regulation (“GDPR”), aka “the EU’s gift to lawyers everywhere.” The Brussels effect had lawyers and tech enthusiast everywhere scrambling to understand cross-border compliance, and enough acronyms to make your head spin. What fascinated me was not just the law itself, it was the broader question of how we regulate innovation. The boundaries between intellectual property, consumer rights, and data governance began to blur, and I realized, this was the future.

    What started as a curiosity has become a cornerstone of my practice. Privacy isn’t just a hot topic, it is a critical lens for understanding the intersection of innovation, ethics, and law in the digital age.

    To stay updated and ahead of emerging trends, I rely on a well-balanced mix of strategies: regularly reviewing regulatory updates and key case law, tuning into insightful podcasts and panel discussions on evolving privacy topics, and subscribing to a few carefully curated newsletters. I have also joined privacy book clubs where we regularly discuss upcoming privacy regulations and challenges faced in the field. 

    So, while I did not imagine a career in the intersection of IP, privacy, and consumer protection, I am glad it happened. And for all the challenges this field throws at us, one thing is for sure: Privacy law is never boring.

    After over four years at a law firm, you chose to pursue a Master’s degree at the University of California, Berkeley School of Law, specializing in Technology Law, Privacy Law, and Intellectual Property Law. What inspired you to focus on these areas, and how did your studies shape your understanding of data privacy laws on a global scale? Additionally, as a Research Assistant to Professor Sonia Katyal and an active member of the Women in Tech Law team, what other activities did you engage in, and how did these experiences influence your professional growth and development?

    After over four years of tackling trademark disputes and navigating the growing tide of data protection concerns, I realized I wanted more than just answers. I wanted to understand the bigger picture. I was curious not just about what the law said, but why it was evolving the way it was, especially in response to rapidly shifting technologies. 

    Berkeley felt like the perfect fit: world-renowned faculty, cutting-edge tech-law curriculum, and if the future was being built in Silicon Valley, then Berkeley Law was clearly where it was being legally translated.

    Immersing myself in this environment gave me something invaluable: perspective. Studying privacy law under experts who were helping shape legislation (rather than just interpret it) helped me move beyond the black-letter law mindset. I began to think more critically about regulatory intent, policy trade-offs, and the delicate balance between innovation and accountability.

    Courses like Social Media Law and Computer Crime Law sharpened my understanding of how existing legal frameworks are being pushed by new technologies. Learning about Hollywood contracts one day and GDPR enforcement actions the next made me see just how interconnected everything is in this space, and how important it is for lawyers to be adaptable, tech-savvy, and a little creative.

    Beyond academics, working as a Research Assistant to Professor Sonia Katyal was one of the most formative experiences of my time at Berkeley Law. Her work sits at the crossroads of technology, IP, and civil rights, and being part of a research project examining how copyright and trademark law intersect with identity and digital expression expanded my understanding of what the law can do, not just what it should do. It also refined my analytical skills, deepened my research capabilities, and taught me how to connect theory to real-world legal challenges.

    As part of varied organizations such as Women in Tech Law and journals such as Berkeley Technology Law Journal, I had the opportunity to engage in real conversations about the future of the profession. One standout moment was interviewing Professor Jennifer Urban, Chair of the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA). That conversation gave me unique insight into the inner workings of a regulatory body and offered a front-row seat to the evolution of U.S. privacy enforcement. 

    These experiences, taken together, significantly shaped my professional growth. They helped me transition from being a subject-matter practitioner to a more holistic legal thinker. They taught me to approach problems from multiple angles: technical, ethical, regulatory, and commercial. Most importantly, they reaffirmed my passion for working at the intersection of law and technology and gave me the tools and confidence to lead in this space.

    Berkeley did not just deepen my legal expertise; it expanded my entire outlook on the role lawyers can play in shaping the future. 

    As a student researcher at the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Northern California, you worked on the Digital Rights Project, focusing on policy research related to consumer data protection and compliance with California privacy laws, including the CCPA, CalOPPA, and the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act. How would you compare the data protection frameworks in the U.S., India, and Europe, particularly with your certification in these areas?

    My time at the ACLU of Northern California’s Digital Rights Project offered invaluable insight into the nuanced and often fragmented landscape of U.S. privacy law. Unlike the European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) or India’s newly enacted Digital Personal Data Protection Act (DPDP), both of which adopt comprehensive, centralized frameworks grounded in fundamental privacy rights, the U.S. continues to follow a sectoral and state-by-state approach, creating significant variability and complexity in compliance.

    One of the most interesting projects I worked on involved analyzing the privacy implications of QR code-based restaurant ordering systems. What initially appeared to be a straightforward user interface turned into a multi-layered compliance exercise involving the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), California Online Privacy Protection Act (CalOPPA), and the Song-Beverly Credit Card Act. It served as a powerful reminder that even the most routine consumer interactions can involve intricate legal considerations, especially when sensitive data such as payment or behavioral information is collected and stored.

    This experience strengthened my ability to assess data practices through a multi-jurisdictional, multi-sectoral lens, reinforcing the importance of understanding not just the legal frameworks involved, but also the underlying technical architecture of products and services. A lawyer’s ability to offer sound advice increasingly depends on their understanding of how data flows through systems, where risks lie, and how those risks intersect with evolving legal standards.

    A key difference I observed between U.S. privacy laws and the GDPR lies in the scope and rigor of compliance requirements. The GDPR is both strict and expansive, there is no minimum threshold for applicability. Any company, regardless of size, that collects personal data from even a single EU resident is subject to the law. It is a deeply consumer-centric regime, with limited room for flexibility.

    In contrast, while U.S. state laws like the CPRA, are also robust, they do provide some flexibility for companies, especially smaller entities and startups. Most U.S. privacy laws include applicability thresholds, based on revenue, number of consumers affected, or volume of data processed, before the obligations kick in. This approach allows smaller businesses a bit more breathing room to implement privacy compliance during their early growth stages, aligning legal obligations with business maturity. That said, it remains critical for startups to incorporate privacy-by-design from the outset, as crossing the threshold can happen sooner than anticipated. In short, the GDPR prioritizes consumer rights at every level, while U.S. laws attempt to strike a balance, offering strong consumer protections without stifling innovation and scalability.

    This comparative analysis between the EU, India, and U.S. frameworks highlighted a fundamental truth: privacy compliance is not one-size-fits-all. It demands not only legal fluency but also a contextual, practical understanding of industry, technology, and jurisdiction. This foundational experience continues to shape my approach to privacy law, grounded in strong legal analysis but always mindful of the evolving global and technological landscape.

    Being admitted to both the Indian Bar and the State Bar of California, how has your dual qualification benefited your practice? What advice would you give to aspiring legal professionals aiming to clear the California Bar Exam?

      Being dual-qualified in both India and California, two jurisdictions that are home to some of the world’s most dynamic and disruptive startups, has significantly enhanced my ability to provide cross-border legal counsel, particularly in the areas of intellectual property and data privacy. This dual qualification allows me to advise clients navigating regulatory requirements, commercial expansion, and product launches across both legal systems. Where Indian law is rapidly evolving through legislative reform, California’s legal landscape is shaped by a combination of statutes and robust regulatory enforcement. Understanding these contrasts enables me to craft nuanced, business-oriented legal strategies that are tailored to the specific jurisdiction and sector.

      As for the California Bar Exam, its reputation as one of the most challenging in the U.S. is well-earned, but not insurmountable. My advice to aspiring legal professionals is straightforward: treat it like a full-time job. Success requires consistency, discipline, and a well-structured study plan. I truly believe that the exam does not test intelligence, it is more about mastering the method, developing exam endurance, and performing under pressure. If you can commit to the process fully, passing the exam is absolutely achievable.

      Ultimately, the effort is well worth it. Being admitted in California has opened up exciting opportunities to work at the intersection of law, technology, and innovation on a truly global scale.

      Throughout your distinguished career, what strategies have you employed to maintain a healthy work-life balance? What guidance would you offer to others striving to manage both professional ambitions and personal responsibilities?

      Let’s be honest, achieving work-life balance in the legal profession is often more aspiration than reality, something everyone talks about, but few actually manage to pin down. The nature of our work is demanding, high-stakes, and often time-sensitive. But over the years, I have learned that if you do not actively protect your personal life, your professional life will quietly take over every corner of it.

      One mindset shift that has served me well is this: Don’t make work your life, make it part of your life. Law is what I do; It is not all of who I am. I have come to believe that you cannot be a high-performing professional if you are constantly running on empty. As the saying goes, you can’t pour from an empty cup! 

      For me, this means setting clear boundaries where possible. I carve out non-negotiable time for things that replenish me, whether that’s exercise, travel, sports, time with family and friends, or even just reading something that has nothing to do with legal theory. I also try not to romanticize the hustle. Being available 24/7 does not make you indispensable, it often just makes you exhausted. And, let us be candid: no matter how good you are, you are replaceable to your workplace, but not to your health, your loved ones, or yourself.

      My advice to younger legal professionals is that ambition is important, but so is sustainability. If you are building a long-term career, you need to treat your time, energy, and wellbeing as strategic assets. Learn to say no. Take breaks without guilt. Celebrate small wins outside of work. And most importantly, define success on your own terms, not just by billable hours.

      At the end of the day, being a fulfilled person makes you a better lawyer!

      Get in touch with Anuja Shah –

    1. Fueling the Future of Innovation Through IP Awareness and Advocacy – Nilanshu Shekhar, Founding Partner at KAnalysis

      Fueling the Future of Innovation Through IP Awareness and Advocacy – Nilanshu Shekhar, Founding Partner at KAnalysis

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

      Let me begin by asking you about your decision to do law after having an engineering degree or academic foundation in biotechnology and industrial microbiology. What was your inspiration in bringing intellectual property into your life, and how have you taken this approach to excel in the IP domain and make it a passion?

      As it happens with everybody, the shift to intellectual property from an engineering background, or in my case, the shift from biotechnology and industrial microbiology to IP, was not planned. It happened organically, and I began my career as a patent engineer in my first organization where I was introduced to the world of IP.

      That exposure was an eye-opener for me because I realized IP was the perfect intersection of science, law, strategy, and, more importantly, business. It allowed me to stay close to innovation while also influencing how innovations are protected and commercialized. So that is something that brought me towards IP, and the interest has kept me going to date. Over time, this technical-to-legal transition has shaped my entire approach to how I view IP.

      I don’t look at innovations in isolation. I view them as a larger part of the innovation journey because it’s all incremental and doesn’t happen as a eureka moment. That mindset continues to influence how I advise my clients even today. Whether it’s a startup or a multinational trying to scale its IP, I try to see the bigger picture of what the innovation would mean to them, how it aligns with their business goals, how to strategically protect it because IP, in isolation from business, is of no use.

      That’s how my journey towards IP keeps me motivated and going strong.

      Thank you so much for bringing in this aspect of the intersection of two fields, which are absolutely niche. Way back in 2007 itself, you started KAnalysis, and right now, you have made it a thriving IP law firm. What were some of the key challenges during those early years when you started your journey with a modest three-member team and navigated it through building a firm of this size and reputation, with a mission of making an IP hub in India? How have you done it?

      Well, it has happened gradually, I would say. When we started in 2007, we were working out of a single basement with very limited resources and zero clients. So, the initial challenge was how to show your credibility. Why would anybody trust a young firm or someone who has just started?

      We focused on quality, our responsiveness, and trust, because trust is something that takes you far. Even during our initial phase, we were doing the IP work. Wherever we were trained, we were not good at starting or setting up a business, managing cash flows, or getting clients, or getting an introduction to a client. We could execute a project, we could write a patent, we could search for prior art, or we could do a lot of things, but how to convince somebody to trust you?

      So those were tough initial days, as it happens with everybody. But the real challenge started as we grew. When you try to scale, the biggest challenge is that you should not dilute your core values. Consistency and patience are key. Over time, we have invested in people, set up robust processes, and, being from an engineering background, we could incorporate and adapt technology at various levels.

      People, process, and technology, I would say, are the three pillars we have not compromised on till now. The culture is that we will not compromise on these, however big we grow, because growth at the cost of culture and quality will not last long. Over the years, it has been almost 18 years. We have built slowly and steadily, investing in people, processes, and technology.

      That’s what I claim to be my biggest challenge now. As the team grows now, we are over a hundred people. The majority of my team is in India, but a few members are spread across the globe. The second-largest team is in the US, and we have small offices spread across the globe to take care of various jurisdictions.

      Every step has a new challenge, and as we grow, the challenges keep changing, but you have to adapt and survive.

      You have been resilient, and you have prospered through that. Keeping all that and working towards IP rights for more than 18 years now, what was the role of your engineering background in shaping the strategies that you particularly saw were different from regular lawyers? Obviously, there was a different understanding that came from having an engineering background plus a legal understanding. How have you seen that particular combination help you and your team grow and strategize at the same time?

      Yes, I have a different take on this. Whatever course or degree or exercise you take, it shapes your mind to think in a particular way. That’s what engineering does.

      Engineering doesn’t teach you anything specific. It trains your mind in a particular direction, to think a certain way, to solve issues or problems with a different bent of mind. Engineering teaches you to deconstruct a problem, break down the system into fundamental parts, look at each part individually, and then see their function and assimilate them.

      Law, on the other hand, teaches you to analyze. Law teaches you to connect those individual parts in a logical and legal framework. So, having training in both aspects helps you see the final picture without missing the finer details. That’s what the combination of engineering and law helps you achieve.

      Initially, I was more involved in patent prosecution. Over time, I was exposed to IP litigation, which has added a third dimension to my thinking. When you are prosecuting patents, your basic idea is to get a patent. When you go into litigation, you realize the basic idea is how to get a patent that is enforceable.

      It teaches you what holds in court and what falls apart. This practical insight sharpens my instincts in the entire scheme of things. Now I try to look for the best claim scope or how to draft better claims. As a litigator, I have realized that my ability to draft and interpret claims has also improved.

      Claims should be broad enough, assertable, and defendable even under attack. All those things shape your thinking. Every day is a learning process. Every case teaches you something. So whether I’m guiding someone, I’m not just focused on getting the examination and obtaining a patent, but also on how much I can contribute to obtaining an enforceable patent. My goal is to create IP that is not just strong on paper.

      It should withstand scrutiny. It should attract investors. It should survive litigation, both offensive and defensive, and it should support the business in market entry. Starting and setting up my business also helps me understand the key challenges any company faces with regard to IP protection.

      You don’t go all out and spend all your money on IP. Business is also important. It’s a combination and a learning that has helped me consult clients. I don’t work with clients as just a service provider or as a lawyer. I work hand in glove, even suggesting who they should go to for a merger or whom they should not partner with. I regularly undertake those kinds of activities.

      That’s why I like working with early-stage startups or small tech companies, because there you can be very closely invested. Over time, I’ve seen most of my clients trust me because we make them understand that IP isn’t just about legal protection. It’s a business asset.

      So technical understanding, legal foresight, and business acumen that’s why we have been successful as KAnalysis, I would say. I’ve seen my clients from their first provisional patent to securing multimillion-dollar funding. Those have been brilliant experiences.

      We would also love to understand that particular monetization process and the multimillion-dollar deals that you have done for IP monetization especially.

      But before that, we would love to ask you about your pro bono work also, where you have invested a lot of your time in initiatives like the IP Help Desk for startups and the IP workshops that you keep on doing. What actually fuels your dedication to promoting IP awareness and educating academicians and entrepreneurial communities related to this? Because you do it pro bono and you are also involved in a lot of deals which are for monetization. So how do you find the balance between these two, and how do you find time to do that?

      That’s interesting! I’ll tell you a very humorous anecdote. When I joined IP, it was very difficult to convince my dad what I was doing. And he is a professor. So that is the level of IP awareness in India. It took me a long while because India has no dearth of innovation, but IP awareness and awareness around IP rights remain uneven. Startups, academic institutions, and big companies have their setup because they have realized it the hard way.

      They have been sued or they want to protect, so they have mechanisms. But startups and academia lack IP awareness. Over the years, I have been working and managing one of the largest patent portfolios in India. We are managing portfolios in over 80 countries, spanning over 30,000 patents.

      So, handling that kind of a portfolio, I realized that most of my clients are from outside India. During COVID, you get time to ponder a lot about what we are doing and what we are giving back to society. During those days, I realized, let’s start an IP help desk to help startups, because startups are in the most gullible phase. I have seen investors who are real sharks take over their hard-earned innovation and everything. So I launched the IP help desk just to help them understand their questions, their issues, and guide them or handhold them without charging them. Because initially, they’re short on money and they think everybody is trying to sell something.

      I have done over 150 pro bono workshops across the country in the last two and a half years. These are not just lectures; they’re conversations where I help to demystify IP to the founders, to the people at incubation centers, those who have just started, and I give them practical, usable advice.

      How to stagger the cost. How you can protect yourself with minimum cost. So that when you attract investors, you may pay me but how can we get to that stage where you are attractive to the investor and protected. Because IP should not be an afterthought. It should be part of the innovation process from day one.

      Founders and researchers need to understand their rights and the value of protection. That’s what I do. I try to make them understand where the value lies. It’s not a cost center, it’s an asset. Slowly and gradually, I’m assisting over 1,000 startups at the moment, who are transforming in their trust in me, their confidence, and their outlook. For me, this is a way of giving back to the ecosystem, because ultimately this ecosystem has shaped me, and I ensure that the next generation has all the tools to compete globally. Because Indians should be competing globally. Big companies or multinationals will not build India. It will be the SME sector that writes the next India growth story.

      So that’s what my mission is to enable startups to lead the India story. Whatever little I can contribute, I try to contribute.

      That’s not little, that’s huge. One person can bring in so much change and can bring in so many people together to work towards one goal of making India again an IP hub as you have envisioned for everyone.

      Yeah, that’s why I keep my Fridays open for four hours. Anybody can book a slot and they can ask questions, without any charges. So that’s something that attracts most people.

      Wow! We would love to promote that aspect. And we’ll definitely talk about this the Fridays that you keep open for people to come to you and have that free consultation. That’s something which is not easily available, at least from such senior attorneys who are already managing such big portfolios.

      This is something that is very inspiring for young professionals also. So, sir, how would you like to talk about the intersection of science, innovation, and law, and what kind of core skills these young professionals can seek when they’re trying or thinking of building a career? And what do you propose to build that particular mindset, and what kind of advice would you like to give to them so that they can thrive in this particular field of intellectual property, keeping in mind that they also have to give back to society, as you already are doing?

      For anybody to give back to society, they should first focus on building their career and themselves. And they should enjoy IP, because this is a field where, if you don’t enjoy it, you cannot work a single day. That joy, that kick you don’t have to drag yourself to the office any day. You just look forward to it. And for that, the basics for students or young professionals is that you should develop interdisciplinary fluency.

      You should have a passion for science, an understanding of law, and an ability to look at business so that you are able to connect the dots. That’s something I always suggest. It’s not about mastering one thing. You have to be a jack of all trades. You have to be good at multiple things, because if you go in one direction if you are very good at law, IP is not for you. That’s the core legal side. If you’re good at engineering, IP is not for you either.

      You should have a flair for multiple things. That’s what IP requires. You should also cultivate a habit of deep listening, because the majority of my clients describe symptoms, not problems. My job is to diagnose both.

      They would just give me a situation where they’re stuck. That’s just a symptom. The real problem lies somewhere else. I need to identify what the root problem is and then provide a solution. Somebody has sued them filing a countersuit is not always the solution. There is also room for arbitration.

      If my case is not very strong, I would look for other avenues where I could bring the other party to the negotiating table. So that’s all part of business strategy. Secondly, I would advise the young generation to stay curious, because IP is evolving rapidly, especially with areas like AI, genomics, cleantech, and the majority of the new avenues that are coming.

      If you are not curious, if you are not rigorously reading, it’ll be very difficult to stay updated. This field needs you to be relevant. And finally, last but not the least be ethical. Cutting corners is not going to help you survive long in this field. This field is built on trust. So if you try to cut corners, you might get one or two clients, or you might get one or two cases, which would be shortcuts.

      But integrity will help you build a career. That’s a must. This field rewards only those who are sharp and sensitive. It’s not something you should be ruthless about. Those who can think like a scientist, act like a lawyer, and listen like a consultant. I always say to anybody who is hired that you should have good listening skills, but you should act like a lawyer and think like a scientist.

      That’s what an IP lawyer should be. It’s not a one-dimensional career, I would say. I have been actively mentoring our juniors to understand what I call IP fluency. It’s the ability to connect innovation, law, and commercial relevance. Because there is a brilliant invention that somebody has done, most of the inventors are very passionate about what they have created.

      But is it packaged enough to be marketable as a product? An IP lawyer would stop before that. I go that extra step. How would the market perceive this? What would be the best sales strategy? If you could associate your product with some bigger brand, how would this complement?

      So, those kinds of strategies I come up with because I try to help the business grow rather than just limiting myself to the IP side. So if you are someone who is curious, ethical, and eager to make an impact, IP is the career for you. It’s a very fulfilling career path. But choosing wisely is what I suggest.

      We also have one very good initiative in our organization where we have weekly training sessions for everybody. Whatever is there, they are given specific topics to present to the entire organization. Every fortnight, we have sessions so they get to dive deeper into that particular topic. That is something I have been doing regularly in this organization, because for me, it’s all about the culture that we build. We are here to nurture, and that’s what we have been doing.

      So I’ll start with “curiosity is the key, thinking like a scientist, acting like a lawyer.” Sir, keeping all that in mind, how have you developed this culture inside your organization and made sure that everyone is aligned with the whole process? Because it’s a huge organization.

      It’s in several jurisdictions as well. So the kind of thought process that’s involved also requires an understanding of having very good mental health as well as physical health. How have you worked on that and made sure that all your team members are not only aligned but also following the certain protocols that you may have set? Because it has become a very big and growing issue of mental health problems and compromised physical health and people have started talking about it. So how do you work around that and make sure that you also stay healthy and that your team across the globe is also equally healthy?

      It’s definitely a journey. I would say I’ve been trying hard to maintain a balance, but yes, it’s still a learning curve. I used to equate longer hours with better outcomes.

      That was earlier. Over time, I have realized or with experience, I could do things much quicker and I have realized that clear thinking, a strategic approach, and, I would say, strong leadership all combine to form a structure that helps you remain fit. By fit, I mean mental health more, because lawyers get involved in a case so much that they’re not able to shut down when they’re not working.

      Even in the subconscious mind, a case keeps on going. When you are so involved, a setback in court would ruin your evening, which shouldn’t be.

      So a lot of times it happens, but now I take time and ensure that I switch off. I listen to music, go for walks, or the best I like is speaking to young professionals that helps me unwind.

      And I have a supporting family. I have a very close group of friends. I have kids who help me relax, and that’s how I keep my mental balance. I would say they help me recharge, especially when things get intense and it happens almost every week. So that’s how it is.

      Delegation of work and another important point that I forgot worth mentioning, is building a strong second line. Because as the firm grows, you need to have a second line that takes care of the majority of my issues so that I come into the picture at a very later stage.

      That helps me go out and work daily because prioritizing mental health is not just about myself, but it’s all across the firm. Because if you are not sustainable, it’ll not last long. You’ll burn out.

      So we need to keep that flame alive but that flame should not burn you is what I always tell people. You stay motivated, but at least learn to enjoy, and that enjoyment should come.

      I’m very fortunate to have a set of friends who keep me grounded. They don’t let me fly too long. So that’s how I relax and unwind. And I’m still learning. Scaling means having trust in your second line, having trust in your delegation, having trust in your processes and culture. I’m very thankful that I have built a very good team. It’s a slow and steady process.

      Every hiring goes through a lot of vetting.

      I’m personally involved in most of the hirings that happen in the company because the culture should be intact. The mindset you can teach a person but you can’t change the attitude. So that is one thing I always, always look for in people. Somebody who has not played any sport would not be a good team player, is what I feel.

      So these are small, small things that I keep in mind when I look for people while hiring. I like to speak to them for an hour or so to understand and pick up some things from their mind. That person might be a brilliant asset, but if it’s not a fit for the culture, then he’s not the person for me.

      Amazing views, sir. Thank you so much for talking about building a very strong second line as well as delegating your work obviously with diligence and with the understanding that it’ll work after you have delegated.

      Sir, while you were talking about IP rights and IP management and other aspects of intellectual property, you also talked about negotiations and management. We would like to ask you your thoughts about the arbitrations that keep happening in intellectual property. How do you see the future of IP arbitration in India and globally as well? Because you have a global presence.

      I have been involved in several IP transactions as well, and over time I realized that your biggest competitors could be your potential collaborators in the future. This is a big jigsaw puzzle. Every piece needs to fit in somewhere, and that is something where there is always room for negotiation, because nobody is outrightly against anybody.

      It’s that everybody is protecting their own business interests. So in the broader sense, what we do is we try, as I mentioned earlier, to deconstruct the dispute. What is the major negotiating point? What is a strict no-go?

      Is there any chance where a financial negotiation could also take place?

      Because initially, I was also involved in a lot of IP valuation work as well. So, if there is a dollar value attributed to this particular piece of technology, could there be a royalty scope wherein we could have a negotiation around that?

      Arbitration is not always about having a mandatory step, because these days, courts have been constantly pushing for arbitration, and people should first try out arbitration before starting the trial.

      But arbitration as a first step needs to be taken care of. The real challenge I feel in India is that there are not enough trained arbitrators. Arbitration is a very, very specialized niche that is going to be very lucrative. There is very little expertise in that particular domain.

      Because an arbitrator who specializes in aerospace would not be a good fit for e-commerce.

      So for somebody who is a domain-specific arbitrator it has been a wonderful experience working with some very good arbitrators trained in Singapore or Dubai.

      Because those two centers I really like the framework they have: the training of arbitrators, the certification courses they offer.

      It’s amazing. I have had the fortune of working with quite a few of them, and I wish India had that kind of setup, where we have training schools for arbitrators where there is a specific coursework, six months or eight months, wherein arbitrators are trained to arbitrate. Because most of the time, we have our own biases, and arbitrators shouldn’t be biased.

      So those are small, small things that arbitrators need to inculcate. With training and proper guidance from established institutes across the globe, India can be a major hub because that would lead to a reduction in a lot of the backlog we have in courts, if there is a good arbitration mechanism.

      In IP, I would say it’s very laughable that most of the businesses 500, 600 crore businesses were started by a family. When they split, they don’t have a proper agreement about IPR or brands, and that fight goes on.

      Those family businesses I’ve been involved in a lot of feuds in family businesses where the brand, who owns the brand later, is a real nightmare, because many people don’t understand the value of the brand unless they see that they can’t sell using that brand. Then the valuation starts.

      So it’s still in a very, very nascent stage in India.

      But I am very hopeful that the next crop would be more accustomed to and more inclined towards alternate dispute resolution mechanisms.

      Sir, with the kind of experience and exposure you’re offering through your workshops, I truly hope many others follow your lead so that India can become the IP hub you’ve envisioned. As we come to the end of this conversation, I’d love to understand how you keep yourself updated with everything happening in the IP world. How much do you read, how often do you interact with the international community, and what differences have you observed in the understanding of IP rights across jurisdictions? Since you’ve worked in over 80 jurisdictions, you must have encountered varied approaches to the same IP concepts. It would be great if you could share those insights for the benefit of young professionals.

      Definitely. Because IP is a global thing. It’s not restrained. You need protection in multiple countries, but each country has a different law that we should understand. Each country has a different patentability criterion.

      Some things are patentable here, some things are not patentable here. Method patents are patentable in some countries, some countries only allow system claims. So this kind of thing, where you are seeking global protection if you don’t have a bird’s eye view of different jurisdictions that are patentable in Japan might not be patentable here in India. Or let’s say there is a business method patent, which is allowed in the US but not allowed in India. Software patents we face a lot of issues regarding Section 3D or repurposing of drugs. So all those things you need to work with attorneys across multiple jurisdictions to understand.

      If you are starting with a PCT application, my team has been trained with US attorneys, European attorneys, Canadian attorneys, even Japanese and Chinese attorneys. So when we write a PCT, you have room to amend in that specific jurisdiction when you enter that.

      When you are trying to prosecute applications across the globe if you are working here most people would go and help you to submit with a foreign attorney without giving you the legal perspective. Let’s say if you file in the US with 20 claims.

      Same application if you go to Europe why go with 20 claims if you have to pay an additional claim fee for five extra claims? Because above 15, Europe charges. In China, it charges above 10. Some people I have encountered in the past it’s against my profession but I would say that just to justify the billing of $20,000, they write a 200-page patent.

      That invention was brilliant and beautiful, and it should have been protected across the globe. But the translation cost was so high that the client could not afford to file in non-English jurisdictions. Only nine or ten countries allow you to file in English. The rest all require local language. You get the translation done.

      Why write a textbook when you are writing a patent? Be concise, be compliant, and think about the business of the client rather than your billing is what I always suggest. So having a global perspective with regard to global filings has been the hallmark of our success because our patents get prosecuted in multiple jurisdictions, and we are the ones who are responsible for all the jurisdictions.

      We would not say that we have drafted as per Indian law and the rest you take care of with your local attorneys. Then you keep on having office action after office action after office action, and you end up spending a lot without getting the patent because it was written in such a manner that there is very little room to go ahead.

      I’ll tell you, these days I’m facing a lot of issues with Indian companies, I would say. They cut corners while drafting a patent. They come to us for making a response for a US office action. After our response, the claims are allowed, but the final objection comes that there is no support for those claims in the specification.

      You can amend the claims, but you can’t amend the specification. A brilliant innovation goes down the drain because you have already disclosed most of the things. There are remedies that we suggest, but you end up having your cost at least 1.5 to 1.8 times. You try to save a few dollars and you end up spending a fortune. So that’s something that needs to be told to the people and to the business community that it’s always a penny-wise and pound-foolish situation.

      That is the kind of situation that most Indian businesses are facing these days.

      And as you mentioned at the start, they don’t want to pay. They will pay. They’ll pay when they are in a soup. Why get in a soup? Have preventive strategies first. That’s my advice.

      Why get into a suing battle later when paying upfront can keep you protected for life? I’d really like to understand your thoughts and motivation. How do you envision the IP hub idea becoming a reality in India over the next decade, especially considering the high-profile cases you’ve handled and the challenges you’ve seen businesses face? Since you’re mentoring so many attorneys, startups, and businesses, what would your advice or strategy be to help make this vision real, especially with the government also actively working towards IP awareness? How can both young professionals and seasoned attorneys contribute to this goal?

      I would say that we need to shift our mindset from domestic-first to a global situation. It should be global by design. Most of the people file PCT applications, and I have seen people who say that they have got a worldwide patent.

      So that’s the level of awareness they have. And they don’t enter the national phase, and everything goes down the drain.

      So if you start with a global perspective, then only you’ll be able to compete globally. That’s why KAnalysis started. We came up with the idea everybody laughed at us that how can you manage through a single window so many jurisdictions?

      Step by step, step by step, the team got trained. We got trained in understanding different countries, different jurisdictions, what kind of objections each country has. We have built strategies where you could save at least 40% of your cost if you plan your prosecution and global IP filing strategically. Minimum 40% saving that we have shown repeatedly again and again.

      That’s a huge amount of money considering you are looking at 8 to 10 jurisdictions to file. Of course, India has made commendable strides. It’s not that India has not done anything. At that time, there was no digital filing when I started. Now it’s all digital.

      Expedited examination is a very welcome step that we have. They have increased outreach programs, which is very good. They have stakeholders’ meetings that is a very welcome step.

      The major problem that I see is inconsistency in the examination of patents. Delay has been something that I have always been seeing, but now at least with expedited examinations and all, I’ve been able to get patents within a year, many times.

      So those are some things that have certainly helped. Just like USPTO, the Indian Patent Office needs to adapt to AI for basic things. You can’t replace humans, but at least the formalities checks and all those things could be automated. USPTO has automated all those things.

      That would help us get a better outcome, faster outcome, and reduce the delay in enforcement.

      I empathize with the judiciary because they have a huge backlog, but the Indian system legal reform is the need of the hour. If you want to be business-friendly, you need to have fast-track courts. IP divisions here in two high courts is a very welcome step. It’s really, really helpful. But we need to have more dedicated IP courts across the country.

      IP should be the prime focus of the country. Because if you want to become a so-called Vishwa Guru, then you need to focus on IP. If you don’t do that, you’ll not be a business-friendly jurisdiction. You’ll just be a center for cheap labor, and your manufacturing will move somewhere else because they will be cheaper than you.

      Unless you innovate, unless you try to remain attractive to innovation, unless you create an ecosystem for innovation you’ll just remain like that.

      We have seen examples. Malaysia was one such country which could not innovate. It rose very fast, and then stagnated and phased out. They were calling it the next bright spot.

      Innovation sustains. The US hardly makes anything. They innovate. So innovation needs to be nurtured.

      And at the very grassroots levels, school curriculum should have at least a course on IPR. I tell my kids a very fascinating story. They were making some paintings at home, so I told them to always sign your painting.

      Otherwise, somebody else would take the credit. That’s IPR.

      So that’s something we need to inculcate and create right from the initial days that anything you create, it’s your intellectual property.

      And think beyond. And our education system also needs an overhaul where we have relevant courses that are more aligned with industry requirements.

      That is something I look forward to with this government. Let’s see how much they do.

       Thank you, sir, for being here and for your incredible dedication to intellectual property. It’s rare to see someone live and breathe IP the way you do. We truly appreciate you taking the time to share your insights on IP rights, monetization, valuation, and so much more. Your passion is inspiring, and we hope it drives India closer to becoming a global IP hub.

      One thing I would like to add in the end.

      We should learn to celebrate innovators like we celebrate a lot of things.

      We should have a national program to celebrate innovators. That would be really an encouraging sign for anybody to innovate.

      Get in touch with Nilanshu Shekhar –

    2. ” India is on the cusp of becoming a major technology hub, and IP will play a central role in that journey.” – Prateek Shrivastava, Founding & Managing Partner at PNA Intellectual Property & Technology Attorneys.

      ” India is on the cusp of becoming a major technology hub, and IP will play a central role in that journey.” – Prateek Shrivastava, Founding & Managing Partner at PNA Intellectual Property & Technology Attorneys.

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

      You began your career in Electronics and Communication Engineering before transitioning into intellectual property law. What inspired this shift, and how has your technical background influenced your approach to IP practice?

      Before moving into intellectual property law, I was working with a government-backed electrical equipment company, fully immersed in engineering projects. I kept noticing that while a lot of great ideas were being developed, very few were being protected or taken to market in a structured way. That gap between technology and protection really stayed with me and eventually pushed me to explore IP. 

      What began as curiosity soon turned into a career path. I decided to formally study law and later qualified as a Patent Agent, which gave me both the legal and technical grounding to work in this space. That combination of engineering, law, and patent practice has been invaluable. When I sit with inventors or R&D teams, I can dive into the technical details and at the same time think strategically about how to convert their work into strong IP assets.

      My engineering background helps me speak the language of technology, while my law degree and patent agent qualification allow me to translate that innovation into legal protection and business value. It’s this blend that really shaped my approach to IP and continues to define how I work with every invention that comes across my desk.

      As an empanelled IP Facilitator under the Government of India’s Start-up India Intellectual Property Protection (SIPP) Scheme, what are the key challenges and opportunities you encounter while supporting early-stage start-ups?

      Working as an IP Facilitator under the Government of India’s Start-up India Intellectual Property Protection (SIPP) Scheme has been a truly eye-opening experience. One of the biggest advantages of the scheme is the strong support it provides to early-stage start-ups. With the government offering significant rebates on official patent fees and providing pro bono professional assistance through empanelled attorneys to DPIIT-recognized start-ups, many young companies have been able to secure patents that they might have otherwise delayed or avoided due to cost concerns. This framework has opened the doors for start-ups to build strong IP foundations right from the early stages of their business.

      However, the biggest challenge continues to be awareness and mindset. Many Indian start-ups still approach patent filing as a defensive move or a legal checkbox they need to tick, rather than seeing IP as a core part of their growth strategy. In contrast, if you look at start-ups in the US or Europe, they adopt a far more aggressive, offensive IP strategy. They use patents to carve out market monopolies, create high valuation leverage, and build long-term competitive barriers. This is one of the reasons why IP-driven companies in those economies contribute significantly more to GDP and societal growth because they see IP as a business asset, not just a legal requirement.

      Through the SIPP scheme, I’ve had the chance to work closely with many such Indian start-ups and help them shift their perspective. One example that stands out is a EV based start-up we supported in securing their patents and aligning their IP portfolio. That strategic IP work became a major factor in them raising approx. USD 15 million in funding, proving that when IP is treated as a growth tool, it delivers tangible results.

      The opportunity here is immense. With the government backing start-ups through rebates and professional support, and with the right guidance on how to leverage IP offensively rather than defensively, Indian innovators can build companies that not only protect their ideas but also dominate markets.

      You’ve collaborated with premier institutions like IITs and NITs on IP strategy and commercialization. Can you share an experience on how you helped transform a research idea into a commercially viable innovation?

      Over the years, we’ve had the opportunity to work with several premier institutions, especially NITs, on building their IP strategy and taking research beyond the academic stage. A lot of the work coming out of these institutions is brilliant, but often, the initial intent behind filing a patent is academic credit rather than commercialization. Our role has been to change that perspective and create pathways for these ideas to become market-ready innovations.

      Being empanelled with multiple IITs and NITs has given us a chance to replicate this model across different institutions and help them not just file patents but also align their research with commercial outcomes. It’s incredibly rewarding to see academic innovation transition into real-world solutions and to know that our IP strategy is helping bridge that gap between lab and market.

      Through MoUs with universities and incubation centers, you’ve promoted a culture of IP awareness. What critical gaps do you see in IP literacy among Indian innovators, and how can they be addressed?

      Signing MoUs with universities and incubation centers has shown me how powerful structured IP awareness programs can be. Despite the growing innovation ecosystem in India, there are still some critical gaps in IP literacy that hold back many inventors. A large part of the problem is that IP is still seen just as a legal formality. Innovators often file patents to meet academic requirements or to create a defensive shield, but rarely integrate IP as a business and commercialization tool from the very beginning.

      Another major gap is geographical. Most IP awareness and resources are concentrated in Tier-1 cities, while a lot of untapped innovation is happening in Tier-2 and Tier-3 cities. These regions have bright minds and unique problem-solving approaches but lack exposure to structured IP education and professional guidance. That’s one of the reasons I recently started Udyovidh Innovation and Incubation Centre in Gwalior, a Tier-3 city, with the aim of bridging this gap. Our focus is on early-stage start-ups, helping them embed IP strategy into their business models from day one, and creating an ecosystem where innovation doesn’t get lost due to lack of guidance.

      What we’ve noticed is that once innovators from smaller cities understand how IP can help them secure funding, scale their business, and even expand globally, their entire approach changes. Tier-3 cities need this focus because they’re not just catching up, they’re creating solutions that are often more cost-effective and directly relevant to grassroots challenges. By building IP literacy in these regions, we’re not only helping start-ups protect their ideas but also enabling them to compete on a national and international stage.

       After working with several leading IP law firms, what motivated you to establish your own practice? What were the biggest initial challenges, and how did you overcome them?

      After working with some of the leading IP law firms, I realized that there was a gap that needed to be filled. A lot of start-ups, individual inventors, and innovators outside the big cities struggled to access high-quality, business-focused IP services. Most of the top-tier firms were catering primarily to large corporations. I wanted to create a practice that was agile and approachable, where a young start-up or a first-time inventor could get the same level of strategic IP support as an established company. That vision is what motivated me to take the leap and establish my own practice.

      The initial challenges were exactly what you’d expect i.e., credibility and trust. Competing with Tier-1 firms while being based in a Tier-3 city like Gwalior was not easy. People often questioned whether a small-city firm could deliver at the same standard. The only way to overcome that was through consistent, high-quality work and building long-term relationships with clients. We leveraged technology to work seamlessly with clients across India and overseas, and word-of-mouth from successful cases helped us grow organically.

      Looking back, those early challenges shaped the DNA of the firm. Yes, we committed mistakes but these mistakes taught us to stay client-focused, maintain the highest standards, and prove that quality IP services don’t depend on your postal code rather they depend on expertise and commitment.

      As a member of international bodies like FICPI and AIPPI, how do you view India’s evolving IP landscape in comparison with global trends especially in areas like AI, biotech, and clean energy? What policy changes or reforms would you like to see to strengthen support for inventors and start-ups?

      Being part of international IP bodies has given me a good perspective on how India’s IP ecosystem compares with global trends. In areas like AI, biotech, and clean energy, India is moving in the right direction, but we are still catching up when it comes to integrating policy, industry, and innovation at the same pace as countries like the US, Europe, or even some parts of East Asia.

      AI is a prime example. While India has strong talent and a growing start-up base, our patent laws still need more clarity around software and algorithm-based inventions to give innovators confidence. In biotech, the potential is huge because of our R&D capabilities, but faster regulatory clearances and better tech-transfer mechanisms from academia to industry are needed. Clean energy is another critical area where India is innovating at the grassroots level, but the IP frameworks to support large-scale commercialization need strengthening.

      One policy change I’d really like to see is more structured incentives for IP-driven start-ups, similar to what some European countries offer. This includes not just fee rebates but tax benefits for companies actively investing in patent portfolios and R&D. We also need to build better linkages between government-funded research and industry so that patents don’t just sit on paper but actually reach the market.

      India is on the verge of becoming a global innovation hub, but to truly compete at a world-class level, our IP policy needs to be more forward-looking and business-oriented, especially in emerging technologies.

      You actively mentor start-ups through incubation programs. What advice would you give young entrepreneurs on embedding IP strategy into their business early on? Additionally, what guidance would you offer to aspiring IP lawyers looking to enter this field?

      When I mentor start-ups through incubation programs, the first thing I tell young entrepreneurs is that IP isn’t something you add later; it’s something you build into your business model from the very beginning. Every product roadmap, every funding pitch, and even every discussion with potential partners or investors is stronger when backed by a clear IP strategy.

      My advice is simple: don’t look at IP as a cost, look at it as an investment. Even a basic prior art analysis before you start developing can save you from reinventing the wheel or walking into infringement issues later. Start small if needed, but start early and build your IP portfolio as you grow.

      For aspiring IP lawyers, my guidance would be to really understand technology and business beyond the legal language. A good patent attorney is not just someone who drafts claims; they are a bridge between innovation and strategy. Learn to decode inventions, understand how businesses work, and always think about the commercial value of the IP you’re protecting.

      As the founder of PNA Intellectual Property & Technology Attorneys, what is your long-term vision for the firm? How do you see IP shaping India’s future as a global tech hub?

      When I founded PNA Intellectual Property & Technology Attorneys, my vision was very clear i.e., to create a firm that doesn’t just provide legal services but becomes a true partner in innovation. I wanted to build a practice where inventors, start-ups, and companies feel that their ideas are being nurtured into business assets, not just filed as paperwork. In the long run, my goal is to make PNA a go-to destination for technology-driven IP strategy, both in India and globally.

       India is on the cusp of becoming a major technology hub, and IP will play a central role in that journey. If we want to compete globally, our innovators must be able to not only create but also protect and commercialize their technologies effectively. I see PNA contributing to that by helping inventors move from idea to market with strong IP foundations and by creating awareness that intellectual property is as important as funding or product development in building a successful tech business.

       Over the years, that vision has grown stronger, especially with the team that came together to shape the firm. Anmol has been instrumental in developing robust business development strategies. He brought in a structured approach to client engagement, built sustainable collaborations with universities and incubation centers, and ensured that our services were aligned with the rapidly evolving needs of start-ups and enterprises. His ability to translate market dynamics into actionable growth strategies has been key in expanding our reach and making PNA a trusted name, even outside the Tier-1 hubs.

       Monica, with her sharp legal acumen, has been the driving force behind our legal strategies. She has meticulously built processes that combine technical insight with legal precision, ensuring that every patent or trademark we handle is strategically positioned for both protection and commercialization. Her focus on maintaining international standards has also allowed us to manage cross-border IP portfolios effectively and deliver the kind of quality work that competes with global practices.

       My vision is also to bridge the gap between Tier-1 cities and emerging innovation clusters in Tier-2 and Tier-3 regions. We’ve already proven that high-quality IP services can thrive outside the big metros, and I want PNA to be at the forefront of making IP accessible, strategic, and business-oriented for everyone, from a first-time inventor to a scaling tech company.

      Get in touch with Prateek Shrivastava –

    3. “It must be understood that true inclusion lies in recognising difference, not ignoring it, and creating conditions that enable success on equal terms.” – Karan Kamra, Intellectual Property Lawyer.

      “It must be understood that true inclusion lies in recognising difference, not ignoring it, and creating conditions that enable success on equal terms.” – Karan Kamra, Intellectual Property Lawyer.

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

      Your journey from Dhanbad to where you stand today is truly inspiring. How have your personal experiences and academic background in Political Science shaped your decision to pursue law, and how have they influenced your strong legal journey and commitment to the profession?

      I’m a first-generation lawyer, born into a family deeply rooted in the pharmaceutical business, a world far removed from the courts and statutes that now define my everyday life. Growing up with cerebral palsy in a small town like Dhanbad, I often felt the need to prove myself – to be seen, to be heard, and to be taken seriously. For me, the black coat was more than a symbol of the legal profession, it  signified  a  possibility – that merit could speak louder than mobility and that confidence and conviction could override any preconceived notions about ability. 

      I came to Delhi and pursued Political Science. The discipline deepened my understanding of the Constitution, legal systems, and power structures. It eventually led me to Campus Law Centre, Faculty of Law where I discovered my calling in Intellectual Property law. 

      My personal experience instilled in me a deep sense of resilience, to persist, adapt, and advocate in a world not always built for difference.  At the same time, my academic grounding in Political Science gave me a strong structural lens helping me understand laws and  their intricate interplay with legal systems and institutions.  

      This foundation, combined with lived experience, has shaped not just how I view the law but how I approach Intellectual Property, with empathy for creators and right holders,  strategic thinking for brand protection, and a deep sense of purpose in safeguarding invention.  

      In the early phase of your career, you worked  in a full-service law firm and an independent  general practitioner. What motivated your transition into intellectual property law, and how did those foundational years shape your current approach to IP practice? 

      In the early phase of my career, working with a full-service law firm and an independent  general practitioner exposed me to the breadth and intensity of legal practice – from civil suits to commercial disputes. It was a rigorous training ground that honed my advocacy, research, and drafting skills. 

      I began noticing how deeply brands, trademarks,  domain names, content, and technology were getting intertwined with legal disputes. I was drawn to the unique intersection of law, commerce, and creativity that intellectual property law offered. The shift to IP felt organic—it allowed me to work not just reactively in disputes, but also proactively with creators, individuals and businesses to safeguard what they were building. 

      Those foundational litigation years instilled in me a detail-oriented, strategic mindset. They taught me how to anticipate risks, think like a litigator even in advisory work, and approach IP not in isolation, but in its commercial and legal context. 

      You’ve represented clients in domain name disputes before WIPO and INDRP. Could you walk us through your experience in this space? What are some of the key legal and strategic challenges entities commonly face in such matters? 

      The legal framework under both WIPO’s UDRP and India’s INDRP is robust but exacting, placing the onus on the Complainant to establish three core elements: (1) that the domain is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which it has rights, (2) that the registrant lacks legitimate interests in the domain, and (3) that the domain has been registered and is being used in bad faith. While WIPO offers quicker, globally recognized redress—typically resolving disputes within 60–75 days—INDRP is key for .in domain disputes and may take 3–6 months or more due to procedural flexibilities and single-arbitrator handling under NIXI.

      Success before both forums relies heavily on the Complainant’s ability to present comprehensive evidence, including proof of trademark rights, prior and continuous use, and supporting documentation like screenshots of misuse, WHOIS records, archived web content, and prior communications. This evidence must clearly align with the legal criteria, particularly to demonstrate the registrant’s bad faith and lack of legitimate interest. The process is evidence-driven and leaves little room for error.

      One of the significant challenges is that infringers often hide behind privacy services or proxy registrations, making it harder to trace the true registrant. WIPO has mechanisms in place to request unmasking, usually coordinated with the registrar, though it’s not guaranteed. INDRP poses more hurdles due to NIXI’s limited procedural transparency and lack of early disclosure protocols. In such cases, complainants must rely on circumstantial and digital forensics—such as WHOIS history, DNS and IP data, website metadata, and linkages across abusive registrations—to build a strong, inferential case.

      While dealing with software piracy and advising software firms, what major trends and challenges have you observed globally? How do you think India’s legal and enforcement mechanisms compare with international frameworks in addressing piracy?

      Software piracy today has evolved into a highly complex and dynamic threat, fuelled by digital proliferation and the increasing sophistication of infringers. We’ve seen a decisive shift from physical duplication to digital piracy, with unauthorized downloads, license key sharing, and hacked installations spreading through torrent sites, web platforms, and even on social media and e-commerce portals. A major trend is the rise of ‘cracked’ enterprise solutions being sold at a fraction of their actual price, often through resellers masquerading as legitimate vendors. In the SaaS ecosystem, misuse takes subtler forms – such as license overuse, unauthorized API calls, credential stuffing, and cloning of proprietary software models.

      From a comparative lens, India’s enforcement mechanisms have strengthened in recent years. Courts have become more proactive in granting Anton Piller orders, John Doe orders, and dynamic injunctions to block rogue websites. The IT Act and Rules coupled with the Copyright Act, provides a statutory framework for enforcement, and cybercrime units in metro cities are increasingly equipped to tackle software piracy, especially in B2B settings.

      However, when compared with jurisdictions like the U.S., EU, or even Singapore, India still lags in certain areas- particularly in digital forensics, quick takedown protocols and cross-border enforcement cooperation. Lack of digital IP expertise in certain enforcement bodies and different judicial approaches to damages also pose challenges.

      To combat this, software companies must take a multi-pronged strategy: strong, enforceable EULAs with audit rights; proactive license tracking using Software Asset Management (SAM) tools; deployment of digital watermarking and DRM technologies; and active online surveillance of infringing platforms. Legal action must often be supported by pre-suit investigations to establish unauthorized use, followed by civil enforcement and, where appropriate, criminal prosecution. 

      The most effective anti-piracy efforts globally involve a mix of litigation, technology, partnerships with enforcement agencies, and user education, something India is slowly but surely aligning itself. 

      You’ve also championed client interests during mediations at the Delhi High Court Mediation Centre. In your view, how effective is mediation in resolving complex IP disputes, and what role does it play in balancing commercial and legal interests?

      Mediation, especially in the context of IP disputes, can be a remarkably effective tool when approached with the right mindset. At the Delhi High Court Mediation Centre, I’ve seen firsthand how it creates space for parties to move beyond rigid legal positions and engage in commercially meaningful dialogue. Unlike litigation, which is often adversarial and time-consuming, mediation allows for tailored, confidential, and business-sensitive solutions, making it particularly valuable in high-stakes IP matters. 

      In disputes involving brand reputation, time-to-market pressures or ongoing commercial relationships, mediation offers the flexibility to craft outcomes that litigation may not be equipped to provide, such as licensing arrangements, joint ventures, or mutually acceptable phased withdrawals. Pre-suit mediation, in particular, has emerged as a powerful tool to resolve conflicts early, avoid escalation, and maintain goodwill – saving time, cost, and reputational strain.

      Ultimately, mediation helps balance legal rights with commercial realities. It empowers clients to co-create outcomes that serve both legal and business interests. In an IP landscape shaped by innovation and speed, mediation is increasingly becoming a strategic first step—particularly effective in resolving disputes early and efficiently, with the exception of aggravated cases of infringement or passing off that merit litigation.

      Having advised multinational clients in sectors such as automotive, pharmaceuticals, e-commerce, and hospitality, what unique IP challenges have you seen in the automotive sector? What preventive strategies would you recommend to avoid trademark issues early on?

      The automotive sector in India faces distinct IP challenges due to its vast supply chain, aggressive branding strategies, and a rapidly growing aftermarket ecosystem.  Trademark infringement today extends beyond core brand names and registered marks to include sub-brands, model names, variant tags, and even alphanumeric identifiers. Infringers, particularly in the spare parts and accessories markets, routinely misuse these marks to falsely suggest association or compatibility to original vehicle manufacturers (the rightful IP holders). This not only dilutes brand equity but also risks consumer deception and safety, especially when counterfeit or substandard parts and accessories are involved. 

      A common defence invoked by unauthorised sellers is Section 30(2)(d) of the Trade Marks Act, which allows the use of a registered mark to indicate the intended purpose of a product or service (e.g., “compatible with Brand X”). However, this defence is not absolute. The protection under the provision ceases to apply where the use is not in accordance with honest industrial or commercial practices, or where it takes unfair advantage of  or is detrimental to the distinctive character or repute of the mark. In the automotive space, this line is often crossed when infringers stylise logos, mimic trade dress, or market counterfeit parts under the guise of compatibility.

      Design infringement is another major concern, especially with regard to spare parts like headlights, grills, mirrors, and alloy wheels. Many of these are reverse-engineered and sold in the grey market without authorization, undermining both brand value and consumer safety. Companies often fail to register industrial designs or delay doing so, weakening their enforcement stance in cases of replication by third-party manufacturer.

      To address this, companies must actively monitor and enforce rights not just in their principal marks but also in model-specific and component-related branding, which are often more vulnerable. Registering sub-brands and variant names in relevant classes, including digital and retail categories, is key. Furthermore, legal notices and litigation should specifically challenge bad-faith use that exceeds the scope of Section 30(2) (d) focusing on consumer confusion, deceptive marketing, and reputational harm. 

      On the design front, preventive strategies include timely registration of industrial designs for high-risk components such as headlights, mirrors, grilles, and alloy wheels, especially those with distinctive visual appeal likely to be replicated. Companies should conduct regular design audits, embed subtle identifiers to support enforcement, and use border enforcement mechanisms to block infringing imports. Where misuse persists, design infringement lawsuits under the Designs Act, 2000—seeking injunctions, damages, and delivery of infringing goods—are vital tools to deter copycats and affirm rights. Combined with trademark enforcement, these steps help safeguard brand equity and product integrity across the automotive ecosystem.

      You’ve often mentored and guided younger professionals. What advice would you offer to law students or litigators looking to shift to IP law, and what resources or habits can help them stay competitive and updated in this fast-evolving domain? 

      For law students or litigators looking to transition into IP law, my first piece of advice would be: ‘cultivate curiosity’. It is important to ground yourself in the fundamentals—copyrights, trademarks, patents, and designs but it is equally imperative to go beyond textbooks. Following case law developments and tracking decisions of various courts, as well as international bodies like WIPO and dispute resolution platforms like INDRP, is essential. These decisions not only reflect how the law is being interpreted in real time but also reveal emerging trends, judicial attitudes, and strategic nuances that shape IP enforcement and protection.

      Using legal search engines like Manupatra and Westlaw, staying tuned into online news portals such as Live Law and Bar & Bench, and regularly reading blogs like SpicyIP and IPKat are excellent ways to stay updated. Newsletters, national and international legal magazines and webinars (hosted by bar associations or IP firms) also offer timely insights into evolving jurisprudence and policy shifts.  

      I would recommend interning with or working alongside seasoned practitioners. Many young professionals grow the most by observing and absorbing. Simply being in the room with experienced lawyers, watching how they interpret statutes, craft arguments and strategy and navigate court dynamics can shape your legal thinking in ways that are both subtle and lasting. Know the procedure as regards court filings and court practice. Most importantly, stay open to learning and listening whether from seniors, peers, or juniors. The humility will keep you sharp and grounded. 

      Balancing demanding professional responsibilities with personal well-being is no small feat. How do you manage this balance, and what practices or mindset have helped you stay grounded over the years? 

      Balancing the intensity of legal practice with personal well-being has been one of the most challenging and ongoing lessons of my career. In the early years, it was easy to get swept up in the long hours and high-pressure deadlines and the constant push to prove myself. But over time, I’ve come to realize that sustainability in this profession requires more than endurance, it needs intentionality, boundaries and deliberate pauses. 

      Balance comes from prioritizing high-impact tasks and pressing deadlines, while simultaneously planning a clear roadmap for research, preparation, and argument execution in other matters. This structured approach ensures that urgent work is handled efficiently without losing sight of long-term responsibilities, helping me stay steady, focused, and prepared across all fronts. 

      Spending time with family and friends, engaging in conversations beyond law, and learning to disconnect have become vital. Music, movies, and books are more than just breaks, they’re essential tools to break monotony, spark creativity, and keep me grounded.

      From being mentored by senior lawyers to independently handling high-stakes litigation, your journey has been marked by growth and learning. What are some of the most valuable lessons you’ve carried forward, especially when it comes to leadership and courtroom advocacy?

      Every journey has its highs and lows, and mine has been no exception. I did make my share of mistakes in the early years – be it in court, professional interactions, or even client handling. Each misstep became a valuable lesson. I learnt to face embarrassment, accept feedback, and grow from it. One of the most important lessons was to remain both tenacious in facing challenges and malleable enough to learn from seniors and peers—an essential balance not just at the start, but throughout one’s legal career.

      I’m deeply grateful for the mentorship I received, especially from Mr. Achuthan Shreekumar, Mr. Saif Khan and Ms. Binny Kalra in my early years. They taught me to take full ownership of my work, to be meticulous in my preparation, and to argue with clarity, conviction, and courage. These values continue to guide me through complex matters and high-pressure situations in court with balance and self-belief. 

      Observing some of the finest legal minds during my legal career has been my privilege. It has helped me absorb the nuances of court craft, statutory interpretation, and legal strategy, often through a quiet process of osmosis.

      Equally important have been the lessons in procedural rigour, understanding filings, registry practices, court processes, and client coordination. Perhaps most importantly, I’ve learned to listen, whether to seniors, peers, or juniors. Staying open and receptive has I’ve imbibed the importance of discipline, resilience, ethics, and a commitment to timeline – qualities that help build a legal culture that respects creativity, integrity, and innovation.  

      As a lawyer with cerebral palsy, you’ve spoken powerfully about inclusion and structural challenges. What changes would you like to see in the legal industry to make it more accessible, and how can organizations move from intent to implementation on this aspect?

      Navigating the legal profession as a differently-abled lawyer has been a mixed journey. I’ve been fortunate to encounter mentors and colleagues who valued my credentials and potential over visible physical limitations. Despite the same, I’ve also faced scepticism—about whether I could handle the physical demands of litigation or keep pace in a high-pressure environment. These misconceptions stem from deeper social conditioning around disability and competence. The only real way to counter them is through consistent performance, meaningful outcomes, and quiet persistence.

      Over time, I’ve realised the issue isn’t about access to opportunity. Many firms today are open to hiring professionals with disabilities, especially as diversity becomes a core organisational value. The real challenge lies in organisations being  truly disability-cognizant beyond the point of entry. 

      Genuine inclusion means going beyond symbolic representation—it requires accessible infrastructure, assistive tech and software apps, flexible work schedules. Most importantly, more organisations need to invest in inclusive training across teams and levels and to build  a culture rooted in empathy, understanding, and intentional dialogue. Equally important is addressing ‘disability blindness’—the expectation that disabled professionals meet identical performance standards without acknowledging their physical limitation or the systemic barriers they navigate. It must be understood that true inclusion lies in recognising difference, not ignoring it and creating conditions that enable success on equal terms. 

      Looking ahead, how do you see IP law evolving over the next decade, especially with the rise of AI-generated content, deepfakes, and non-traditional trademarks? What key reforms or innovations do you think are essential to future-proof the IP framework?

      Over the next decade, IP law in India will be under mounting pressure to modernise in response to rapid technological advances. AI generated content fundamentally challenges the traditional copyright framework, which is centred on human authorship and originality. As machines autonomously create literary, artistic, and musical works, existing laws struggle to define ownership, liability, and infringement. To address this, regulatory clarity is essential either through specific amendments to the Copyright Act or by introducing sui generis protections tailored to AI generated  and machine generated content. 

      To address deepfake misuse, India’s IP regime must strengthen personality rights to prevent unauthorized digital cloning of a person’s image, voice, or likeness, especially for commercial use. There must be an expansion of the scope of ‘misrepresentation’ under  trademark and passing-off laws to cover deepfake endorsements or AI-generated impersonations that mislead consumers or dilutes brand identity. 

      Additionally, there must  be  an introduction of mandatory disclosure or watermarking requirements for AI-generated or manipulated content, especially on social media or commercial platforms, to ensure transparency and traceability. Lastly, there is a need of faster takedown mechanisms and intermediary liability guidelines tailored to AI and deepfake content under IP enforcement rules, empowering right holders to act swiftly.

      Trademark law must evolve to protect non-traditional marks like sound, scent, motion, and holograms. With businesses increasingly operating in digital-first or virtual environments, including the metaverse,  the law must address how trademarks function when use is no longer confined to physical goods or services. This will require not only legislative amendments but also updated examination guidelines, jurisprudence, and technological competence within the Trademark Registry and Judiciary. 

      Get in touch with Karan Kamra –