IP Risk ManagementDr. Kalyan C. Kankanalakalyan@bananaip.comurl: www.bananaip.com

Blog: www.indianipinfo.blogspot.comRadio: www.sinapse.intellectureindia.com/radio

Risk Sources• Internal• Generation• Excavation• Protection• Management• External• Infringement• Transactions

•Patent Risks

•Patent Risks

Patent Rights

• Territory• Product Patent - Make, Use,

Sell, Offer for Sale and Import.• Process patent - Use

Infringement

• Types – Direct

•Literal•Equivalent

– Indirect

Direct Infringement

• Claim Construction• Comparison• Claim by claim - element by

element

Claim Construction• Claim

• Preamble • Transition• Body

• I claim a 'ceiling Fan' comprising of a base connected to a solid rod, which in turn is connected to a rotor with three wings.

Claim Construction

• Preamble - I claim a 'ceiling Fan'

• Transition - comprising of • Body - base connected to a

solid rod, which in turn is connected to a rotor with three wings.

Claim Elements

• Base• Solid rod• Rotor• 3 Wings

Is this product infringing?

• A ceiling fan having a base to be attached to the ceiling and which has a hollow rod connected to the base. The hollow rod is connected to a circular rotor having 4 wings.

• I claim a 'ceiling Fan' comprising of a base connected to a solid rod, which inturn is connected to a rotor with three wings.

Doctrine of Equivalence

• Equivalents of a claim• In substance equivalent• Function-Way-Result Test• Prosecution History Estoppel• Obviousness Test – Material

Effect – Part of prior art

Lalabhai v. Chimanlal

• Process of treating dry fruits• Comparison • Sulphuric Acid - Washing Soda• muriatic acid - Acetic acid• Sulphur dioxide fumes under

pressure - Sulphur dioxide fumes without pressure

Raj Prakash V. Mangat Ram

• Process - Printing picture films for use in film strip viewer

• Respondents - Film Viewers - Pictures and films of different dimensions

• Held liable - Substantially Equivalent

NTP v. RIM

• Black Berry Technology• RIM held liable for

infringement• Damages – 612 million dollars

Indirect Infringement

• Contributory Infringement• Inducement to infringe

Defenses

• Government use• Research Exemptions• Experiments or education• FDA approval• Other Defenses

Steps

• FTO Search and Analysis• Infringement analysis• Technology Landscape

Example• Flav sells fruits with flavours induced into them. Sells fruits

like grapes, apples and so on with orange, mango and any other flavour induced into them. Flav's process is as follows:

• Frozen fruits are sorted, sliced and de-frosted;• Water and/or acid treatment is given to the fruits to remove

their natural flavour by removing sugars, acids and other water soluble ingredients;

• Fruits are then immersed in sugar syrup and other flavoured liquids for about three hours; and

• Air is blown on the fruits with force to dry them.

• Flav wishes to avoid patent risks in India. What should it do?

Example• Claim

• A process for preparing a flavored dried fruit product said process comprising:

• (a) treating a dried fruit with an acidulant being selected from the group consisting of tartaric acid, malic acid, citric acid, ascorbic acid, phosphoric acid, and fumaric acid, in an amount and for a period of time which is sufficient to substantially remove the natural flavor of the dried fruit;

• (b) dehydrating the treated dried fruit to obtain a desired moisture content; and

• (c) treating the dried fruit during step (a) or after step (b) with a flavoring agent having a flavor which does not substantially correspond to the natural flavor of the dried fruit.

• Infringing?

• Trade Secret Risks

Misappropriation• Conduct which results in obtaining

trade secret information by improper means constitutes misappropriation.

• ‘Improper means’• Criminal Conduct• Breach of Contract• Tortuous liability

Defenses

• Reverse Engineeing• Independent Creation

Risk Management• Risk Assessment and Categorization

• Actions

• Search and FTO Analysis• Technology Landscaping

• Options

• Work around• Collaborate• License• Infringe• Defend

References

• Dr. Kalyan Kankanala, Arun Narasani and Vinita Radhakrishnan, Indian Patent Law and Practice, Oxford University Press, 2010 (ISBN No. - 97801 98067740.)

• AMAZIN' RAISINS INTERNATIONAL, INC., Vs. OCEAN SPRAY CRANBERRIES, INC., 306 Fed.Appx. 553, 2008 WL 5474244 (C.A.Fed. (Mass.)).

• Raj Prakash Vs. Mangat Ram Chowdhry, MANU/DE/0152/1977.

• Lalubhai Vs. Chimanlal, MANU/MH/0038/1935.• NTP Vs. Research in Motion• NTP, INC., v. RESEARCH IN MOTION, LTD.,, 418

F.3d 1282 (2005).• www.sinapseblog.com

•Thank you