Rahul Vijh Image

Rahul Vijh

s a seasoned technology consultant and has advised AmLaw 100 firms and Fortune 500 corporations on IP licensing and litigation in technology areas such as telecommunication networks, enterprise software, search engine and internet technologies, consumer hardware and operating systems. He and his team at Copperpod IP are passionate about helping clients do what they do best, but do it more and do it faster.

Recent Articles by Rahul Vijh

Reverse Engineering and the Law: Understand the Restrictions to Minimize Risks

Fundamental to building and executing any successful patent licensing program is the ability to find and prove evidence of infringement, often through reverse engineering methods. A product is purchased and deconstructed to understand how it was built, how it works and what it is made of. The process of reverse engineering usually involves multiple types of analysis; which type of reverse engineering to apply is determined by the type of technology and the industry in which the patented invention is being used.   Intellectual property law does not discourage innovators from dismantling the inventions of their competitors, whether the technology is software, electronic, chemical, or mechanical. But there are still limits on how the results of a reverse engineering effort can be exploited.

Understanding Damages Calculation in SEP Litigation

Courts around the world have determined appropriate methodologies for calculating damages on standard essential patents (SEPs) for which patent holders have made an assurance to license on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms. Determinations of patent holdup, licensee holdout, use of worldwide portfolio licensing, incremental value rule, etc. are included in these decisions. The court determines damages based on the below-referenced judgments and FRAND terms when reviewing SEP infringements. Under most patent laws, infringement damages are set based on factors including actual loss due to infringement, if the actual loss is difficult to determine, gains of the infringer, and if both actual loss and gains are not available—determination of appropriate multiples of a reasonable royalty fee. 

VirnetX Awarded $502.6 Million in Fourth Jury Trial against Apple

On Tuesday, April 10, 2018, a federal jury in Eastern District of Texas awarded VirnetX Holding Corp. (VHC) with a $502.6 million verdict against Apple Inc. finding that Apple was infringing 4 secure communications patents – providing a new chapter to the now eight-year old battle between Zephyr Cove, Nevada based VirnetX and Cupertino-based Apple, Inc.

PayPal Accuses Paytm of Trademark Infringement in India

On November 18, 2016, Paypal Inc. filed an objection at the Indian Trademark Office accusing Paytm, an Indian mobile wallet company, of trademark infringement. The objection comes at the heels of the recent windfall made by the latter on account of a cash-strapped nation moving rapidly towards a cashless normal. For six years, Paytm had been steadily becoming a household name in middle-class India – until it really hit the jackpot on November 8, 2016 when the Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced demonetization of currency notes of Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000 – invalidating overnight 80% of the country’s cash in circulation.