Super User

Super User

In the present knowledge economy the management of knowledge resources is essential to change, adapt and seize new opportunities especially with new emerging technologies and delivery models at the forefront of new engagements.

With the proliferation of digital technologies a humongous number of startups are working grounds up in the technology and innovation space. Amid these startups upping the ante and building software products especially using emerging technologies for the nation and the world, one thing that they cannot do without is acquiring Intellectual Properties. Innovation backed by IP should be the pivot to remain competitive at home while expanding overseas. Having a patent is definitely a source of competitive advantage as they go on and try and build products and platforms at scale. This is because in a world of rapid change patents ensure that an emerging technology is not being walled off by others and the enterprise has the ability to deliver solutions in multiple new technologies. Having patents in emerging technologies is thus a source of competitive advantage especially as we transit to building and using products and platform on which we compose, design and implement differentiated customer solutions at scale. In a world of short product life cycles and constant change, patents ensure that an emerging technology is not being walled off by others and the organisation retain the ability to deliver solutions in multiple technologies.

The good news is that of late a lot of Indian technological companies big or small have stepped up filing patents as they build solutions and products in the emerging technologies and look to monetise their IP and grow their business faster especially in the offshore markets. According to WIPO and it should sound music to our ears that the centre of gravity in intellectual property is shifting east with China, Japan, South Korea as the formidable players along with Israel and India emerging in the horizon.

For an innovative enterprise using emerging technologies in the digital platforms, the patent strategy should play a key factor in its business strategy. This is not an era where the importance of patents can be diminished but it will become an even more powerful tool for asserting supremacy.

To begin with the patenting process, a prior art search process needs to be initiated. CoE-IP offers a gamut of patent related services to its users including prior art search services absolutely free of cost. For more details please visit

Global pandemic coronavirus has literally turned the world upside down, something that hasn’t been witnessed in the past 100 years. Bewildering as it is, there is also hope that humanity may get past this if there is some action taken. The need of the hour is to accelerate testing capacity and tools in developing countries including India as well as increased access to low-cost diagnostics. Along with this the approach to the management of intellectual property rights by research institutions, tech startups, tech companies and R&D funders at this juncture can decisively affect availability, accessas well as transfer of technology and know-how.

Dr. Bharat Kale, Scientist G, Director C-MET, Pune  informed that  Dr. Milind Kulkarni,  Scientist-E and a team of scientists working at Pune-based Centre for Materials for Electronics Technology(C-MET)had developed low cost polymer swabs for COVID-19 sample collection, Testing Kits and antiviral protecting masks. In a free-wheeling discussion with CoE-IP editorial team, Dr. Milind Kulkarni on behalf of C-MET, Pune gave a glimpse of the areas where C-MET is working for developing solutions to fight COVID 19 and acknowledged the effort of CoE-IP in fast tracking the process of filing patents for the invention.  

1. Let us first congratulate you and the C-MET team on this vital breakthrough in this difficult time. Can you give our readers a glimpse of the technology for this present invention?

    • C-MET has developed simple and cost effective prototype of polymer swabs with the help of locally sourced raw materials for sample collection of clinical specimen samples of COVID-19 suspected cases.

  2. How effective is the technology considering that India imports polymer swabs and the nationwide lockdown has affected its supply?

    • Yes, India primarily imports polymer swabs and testing kits from Italy, Germany, China and the USA. Due to present import restrictions and global lockdown, a shortage of these kits was felt. CMET then initiated the activity urgently.

  3. Are you thinking of collaborating with any potential startup or other enterprises requiring R&D support, manufacturing support, facilitation for substantial scale-up?

    • C-MET, Pune is  discussing with 3 enterprises to ramp up the productions and cater to the increasing demands. Right now we cannot divulge the names but talks are very much on to tie-up with them up for scaling up and subsequent commercialization towards mass production.

    • Has the clinical trials started? If yes how effective has been the response.

    • ICMR (Indian Council of Medical Research) -NIV (National Institute of Virology) Pune has tested our prototype swabs and informed that the swab material is suitable and satisfactory for human respiratory sample collection. The prototype is part of the COVID-19RT PCR sample collection and testing kit.

  4. How soon do you think the present solution can be scaled up to help other nations in dire need of this low cost technology?

  • C-MET has provided polymer rods for large scale trials of swab on automated machines.  C-MET is optimistic that once these trials are successful then the process will pave the way for large scale production.  Once scaled up this invention can be of immense value to India and other developing countries in need of large scale mobilization of diagnostic kits.

After fulfilling the requirement of country, the supply to other country can also be made possible with the help from our Ministry.  

    5. Are you considering other R&D technology solutions coming from C-MET that can be re-purposed for use in this times?

• Yes, C-MET is   very much in the process to realign solutions for fight against COVID 19. Right now a team of C-MET scientists comprising Dr. Sudhir Arbhuj and Dr. Govind Umarjee have already prepared Nanoparticle coated masks which are antibacterial and antiviral. While the report on antibacterial front had shown successful elimination of bacteria, the report on antiviral strength is awaited. The prototype is ready and C-MET personnel have already started using this mask. To begin with C-MET may supply few of these masks to Doctors. 

Nanoparticle coated masks

C-MET now has the technology of nanoparticle coating well supported by international scientific report.  The nanocoating can be done on any substrate i.e. polymer, ceramic, glass, metal, cloth etc.  Significantly, nanoparticle gel was also developed for Doctors.

  6. CMET has just filed a patent application for a COVID-19 related technology solution. How was the filing experience with CoE-IPs Patent Facilitation Centre considering the whole process needed to be fast-tracked and there was extreme sense of urgency? 

• C-MET is thankful to MeitY and especially the CoE-IP team for such a quick response. I must say that the response was very good, considering the present crisis. In a matter of just 2 days the prior art search was fast-tracked, applications routed through to the attorneys, necessary approvals obtained and patent application filed with the Indian Patent Office. I am very much impressed with the exemplary professionalism shown by CoE-IP. The patent on nanocoating on mask will be filed after getting report from the virology department.

  7. How do you want to use your technology (pending patent) for use by the larger community? 

    • As Scientists we feel that this technology developed by C-MET should be immediately taken up for low cost production to benefit society in our fight against COVID-19.Masks can be prepared in mass scale. Presently, the cost of the mask may get increased by 2-3 rupees with the nanocoating. With this the spread of corona can be controlled in an effective way.  Apart from masks, other healthcare wares like Apron for Doctors, Bed sheets, Curtains, Patient dresses can be coated with these antiviral nanocoating material for hospitals. Wooden, metal tables of offices, railway berths and seats of buses can be coated with these nanoparticles. It will have huge control on spreading of corona. The gel can be used by doctors and all healthcare professionals working in the hospitals. The whole community will be benefitted with this technology.  Hope we will be successful in this mission too. 

8. To conclude, do you think S&T Institutions can raise their Game against COVID-19 by increased collaboration and sharing of know-how on vital technology processes concerning vital public interests? 

  •  Yes, this is the time most useful for R&D organizations all over the globe coming along and collaborating.  The technology developed will be useful to whole world for fighting COVID 19.  In future, India will have all technologies at its disposal and will not have to dependon others. The team is very thankful to Director and Director General of C-MET and MeitY officials for their active support and motivation.

(CoE-IP team would like to thank DG CMET and Dr. Kale, Director C-MET for their assistance as also to Dr. Milind Kulkarni for sparing precious time)

              C-MET Scientists at C-MET, Pune Lab coating Nanoparticle on masks

NEW DELHI: The government is looking to tweak the existing intellectual property regime to make it more flexible and widen its scope to encourage research and innovation in artificial intelligence (AI). A high-level task force will soon be set up to examine and issue appropriate modifications to the existing intellectual property regulatory regime pertaining to AI. The government has chalked out a plan to use AI to improve India’s social indicators.

The proposed task force will have representatives from stakeholder ministries and departments like information and technology, company affairs, Department of Industrial Policy and Promotion and the Niti Aayog. “The current IP regime with its stringent and narrowly focussed patent laws is posing a challenge to AI applications given the unique nature of AI solution development,” a senior government official told ET.

For instance, the algorithms and data used in an AI-powered application are key elements and hence the intellectual property regime in the context of AI must be robust and enforceable for innovators to have the confidence that they will be able to make profits from and take credit for their work, the official explained. “This will help in promoting innovation, entrepreneurship and core and applied research in the field of AI,” the official added.

The Niti Aayog has recently put out a discussion paper on India’s strategy for artificial intelligence under which it identified five sectors — healthcare, agriculture, education, infrastructure and transportation — that can immensely benefit from AI. India initially plans to fund its AI programmes from the `200 crore allocated under the Atal Innovation Mission. Projects are likely to be granted on the challenge mode.

In the Union Budget, finance minister Arun Jaitley had entrusted the Aayog with the task to initiate a national programme to direct the government’s efforts in the area of artificial intelligence, including research and development of its applications.


Jurors in the latest courtroom battle between Apple and Samsung have delivered their verdict siding with Apple, deciding Samsung needs to pay Apple $533 million for infringing utility and design patents relating to the iPhone with its own devices.

After days of deliberating, a federal jury handed down its verdict in the Apple v. Samsung case on Thursday, declaring the South Korean tech giant owes $533,316,606 for infringing on Apple's iPhone design patents. Another $5.3 million was awarded for two utility patents.

The figures were shared by legal reporter Amy Miller and Stephen Shankland on Twitter.

Samsung lawyer John Quinn told Judge Lucy Koh he had some issues with the verdict that would be addressed in post-trial motions.

The trial is a continuation of the courtroom battles between the two tech giants, which first took place in 2012, a time when Apple was awarded $1 billion in damages. It was found by the court that Samsung had violated a variety of Apple's patents, including those for the "Bounce-Back Effect" and "Tap to Zoom."

A settlement appeared to be reached in 2015, reducing the amount to $548 million, while the case continued to go through the appeals process.

In late 2016, the case reached the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled unanimously in Samsung's favor in December 2017, deciding that design patents only cover individual smartphone components and not the entire mobile device. The ruling meant the case was sent back to a lower court for a damages re-determination.

As part of the new trial, the burden was not on Samsung to disprove the entire smartphone is an "article of manufacture," but instead with Apple. The iPhone producer had to convince the court that the infringed patents apply to the whole product, not individual components.

The latest trial started on May 14, and after a difficult jury selection process, was spread out across the week. Jurors started their deliberations on Friday and continued after the weekend on the following Monday, before making their decision today.

In this case, the decision the jurors made determined how much Samsung has to pay Apple as part of the infringement, rather than whether the infringement took place at all. While Apple wants the full $1 billion for the infringement, Samsung had previously advised it was willing to pay $28 million.

The first witness in the trial was Apple marketing VP Greg Joswiak, testifying that design was an important part of the company, critical even before the 2007 debut of the iPhone. Apple attorneys showed the jury photographs of products including Macs, iPods, Powerbooks, and MacBooks to drive the point of design being "in the DNA of the company."

As Apple was "betting the company" on launching the iPhone, Joswiak noted this caused Apple to file for a vast number of patents to protect its design and other elements, such as communications techniques.

On Wednesday, Apple expert witnesses Adam Ball and original Mac designer Susan Kare continued to argue the merits of Apple's patents. Importantly, the pair sided with Apple's legal team in viewing three granted designs as applicable to iPhone's "articles of manufacture."

Samsung's lawyers did manage to get concessions from both Ball and Kare, acknowledging smartphones are made from individual components. Kare admitted "I get that a display screen is a thing," and agreed that Apple's patent illustrations included dotted lines that, while providing a complete picture of the iPhone concept, are not necessarily covered in its claims.

Ball conceded the iPhone could be dismantled into parts, but stressed the Jury should keep focusing on the final design. "Just because you can take something apart doesn't mean it was designed to be that way," said Ball. "If you replace [a component], you're trying to get back to that thing that you bought."

Samsung's expert witness, accountant Michael J. Wagner, largely discussed the Korean giant's accounting practices. Asked by Apple counsel Bill Lee if Samsung balances its sheets by tallying profits from components, Wagner said "no" to each item.

Lee's questioning seemingly tried to prove that Samsung also believes that, from a financial standpoint, an article of manufacture is the whole device and not individual parts.

Wagner also confirmed Samsung made $3.3 billion on the sale of 8.6 million smartphones that were found to have infringed Apple's design patents, but that figure is based on taking the entire mobile device into consideration, not specific infringing components.

In the closing arguments, Apple lawyer Joe Mueller reiterated expert witness points, declaring "the fact you can pull apart a phone means absolutely nothing. The question is what did they apply those designs to. It's not a pane of glass. It's not a display screen that doesn't show a GUI. It's the phone."

By contrast, Samsung lawyer John Quinn told the jury "The Apple design patents do not cover anything on the inside of the phones. They don't even cover the entire outside. Under the law, Apple is not entitled to profits of any article of manufacture to which the design was not applied."


New Delhi, April 26 (IANS) The Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) was on Thursday awarded the National Intellectual Property (IP) Award 2018 in the category 'Top R&D Institution/Organisation for Patents and Commercialisation', an official statement said.

Union Commerce and Industry Minister Suresh Prabhu gave out the award to CSIR Director General Girish Sahni at a function organised by the Indian Intellectual Property Office and Confederation of Indian Chambers of Commerce (CII) here to celebrate the World IP Day.

CSIR Laboratories have been developing and providing technology focused at the unmet need and the cutting edge knowledge base and human resource on the other for socio-economic development in the country, it said.

"The CSIR S&T domains range from environment to health and drinking water, from food, housing, energy to specialty chemicals and petrochemicals, glass and ceramics to mining, metals and minerals, medicinal plants, leather to machinery, instrumentation and strategic sectors including aerospace.

"It is contributing for the Missions such as Swachh Bharat, Swasth Bharat, Samarth Bharat, Make in India, Innovate for India, Startup India and Skill India," said the statement

The CSIR has been ranked ninth in the world among the 1,207 government institutions, with an overall global ranking of 75 in the world, covering 5,250 institutions, as per the statement.

"Pioneer of India's intellectual property movement, CSIR today is strengthening its patent portfolio to carve out global niches in select technology domains," it said.

Among the other awardees were IAS officer couple Mayur Maheswari and Ritu Maheswari who were presented a special citation award for their patent invention to facilitate communication among various health stakeholders which they later assigned to the Union Health and Family Welfare Ministry for free utilization.

Ritu Maheswari is currently the District Magistrate of Ghaziabad and Vice Chairperson of Ghaziabad Development Authority while her husband is posted in Delhi.

The Indian Intellectual Property Office confers IP Award on outstanding innovators, organisations and companies in the fields of patents, designs, trademarks and geographical indications on the occasion of World IP Day every year.


Another day, another multi-billion dollar judgment potentially hazardous to the software development community. In the latest round of the Oracle v Google dispute over the use of Java (Oracle) API’s in Android (Google), the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit of the United States (CAFC) overturned the lower court’s jury verdict that Google’s use of Java APIs was fair, and remanded the case back to trial (for the third time) on damages that Google would have to pay – potentially 9 Billion USD.

However, the judgement is goes far beyond monetary claims between these two tech giants – having deemed APIs to be copyrightable subject matter, it sets the standard to which the use of APIs will be held when determining whether its use is ‘fair use’ under US law, a body of law often referenced in India as well. This post will discuss the implications of the most recent finding of the CAFC.

Google v Oracle’s Never-Ending Trials

The dispute between Oracle and Google began several years ago and has been followed with some interest by lawyers and developers alike. A quick recap of the facts leading to the suit, which we have previously covered here

Oracle owns the Java programming language – a language built for interoperability and multifunctional use, with the motto ‘write once, run anywhere’. Google, in 2005, acquired Android, and began its development by utilizing Java APIs. Oracle sued Google over the use of its code.

The first trial rested on the question of whether APIs are copyrightable subject matter. This question is of immense consequence. APIs or Application Programming Interfaces, are the signposts which allow developers to make different programmes and software interoperable, without having to rewrite the entirety of the code themselves, in a new and original manner. If you decide to tweet this post using the link provided below (please do!), you will be utilizing Twitter’s API which has been embedded on this blog. APIs consist of declaring code – an expression that identifies the prewritten function and tells the computer to execute the implementing code – the specific instructions for how to carry out a program.

Oracle claimed copyright over the declaring code, verbatim copied by Google, as well as the ‘structure, sequence and organisation’ of implementing code being used by Google for the development of the Android software. This SSO standard is the standard used to determine whether software has been copied, under US Copyright Law, when it does not amount to literal copying. Google’s defence was that APIs are not copyrightable subject matter.

The debate on copyrightability rested essentially on the principle that the use of functional elements of a literal work should not amount to infringement of the work. The District Court found that Oracle APIs were not copyrightable, which finding was reversed by the Federal Court of Appeals, and remanded back to trial on whether Google actually infringed Oracle’s copyright, or whether the use of the APIs should be deemed fair use. The jury returned a verdict favourable to Google – declaring its use of APIs as fair, which has now been overturned once again by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

The Court of Appeal Decision on Fair Use – Another Blow for Software Innovation

There are four, non-exclusive statutory factors generally considered by courts in the US when deciding on fair use in copyright – these factors have to be weighed against each other to arrive at the final conclusion regarding fair use. These were examined by the Court appeals in the following manner:

1. Purpose and character – The Court found that Google’s use of the Java APIs was commercial in nature (notwithstanding that the Android software was open source) because Google earned advertising revenue from data collected through Android. Secondly, the Court rejected Google’s contention that the use was ‘transformative’, a strong factor in favour of fair use. The Court held that Oracle had already licensed its APIs for use in software, and moreover, the purpose of the use was the same – the declaring code was verbatim copied for the same purposes for which the APIs had been made.

2. Nature of the work – On the second factor, the Court found in favour of Google, because it recognized that APIs were functional and their use was constrained by the necessity to create APIs in a particular manner to enable their functionality. However, the Court noted that this factor was not particularly significant in the overall consideration of factors.

3. Amount and substantiality of the copied portion used in relation to the the work as a whole – On this factor, the Court found that Google’s use of 11,500 lines of code was more than what was necessary for the purpose of writing in Java. Further, qualitatively, the copied lines of code were important to the Android system. Therefore, this factor too weighed against a finding of fair use.

4. The effect of the use on the potential market of or value of the copyrighted work – The Court found that Oracle’s own competing smartphone OS had suffered as a result of the popularity of the Android system and overturned the jury verdict on this principle, which had held in favour of Google.

On a consideration that three of the fair use standards clearly weighed against Google, the Court reversed the jury’s finding of fair use. While the Court noted in its conclusion that its finding in this case did not imply that the “fair use defense could never be sustained in an action involving the copying of computer code.”

Unfortunately, this conclusion does not offer too much comfort to the developer community operating under US law, where it remains unclear whether the development of programmes which incorporate APIs will make developers liable for infringement, and to what extent they can protect themselves from this charge while enabling the APIs necessary functions.

As one scholar notes, the real difficulty in this court was the initial finding of infringement of APIs, which blurs the right between the protection of creative and functional elements. As a matter of principle under many copyright jurisdictions, that portion of a work used incidentally to the expression of a particular idea, should not constitute infringement. In considering APIs, there are only specific means of writing a program which is ‘creative’ and does not copy the structure, sequence or originality of an existing API which enables a particular function.

Oracle’s win on infringement meant, effectively, that any API executing a particular function would be the property of the person who wrote that, effectively excluding the use of that function (say, connecting a WordPress blog to an Amazon cloud server). Moreover, the ruling has a cascading effect given that uses of APIs have been without licenses, upon which further systems have been built, which are now imperilled.

In terms of its latest ruling on fair use, the Court of Appeal has indicated that functionality does not play a particularly large role in fair use of software, a finding which is particularly important given the works in question – APIs which are essentially required methods for compatibility. Secondly, that ensuring interoperability and porting to different platforms may not be considered transformative enough for a favourable fair use verdict.

Ultimately, both the copyrightability and the fair use verdict jeopardize the developer community’s long-standing custom of permissionless use of APIs for ensuring compatibility between programs. Given that an open source customisation of APIs for use in smartphone was not found to be fair, it is likely that it will embolden developers to lay claim over specific APIs. There will, in turn, be a chilling effect in the use of APIs by developers, instead requiring them to rewrite their own specifications for these specific uses, and convince anyone working with them to use their APIs, instead of operating in a more free and interoperable universe.

There are jurisdictions where the issue has been treated differently. The CJEU has declined copyright protection for APIs, holding that extending protection to the functional elements of a program would amount to allowing ideas to be monopolized, and not merely specific expressions. India allows software to be copyrighted under the Copyright Act, and, while the use of APIs does not clearly fall into the exemptions under Section 52 of the Act, Courts in India have recognized that where an idea can only be expressed in a particular manner, such expression would not be entitled to copyright protection.

Source :

BlackBerry may not be the leader in the global smartphone market anymore but the company does own a treasure trove of patents. As investors raise concerns about the growth rate at its core security-focused software business, the company is looking through its library of wireless and messaging patents to find more opportunities for licensing deals and even lawsuits. After filing a similar lawsuit against Facebook last month, BlackBerry has now sued Snapchat for patent infringement.

The 71-page complaint against Snapchat maker Snap alleges that the company has infringed on its messaging technology patents in the Snapchat app. The patents Snap is alleged to have infringed on include map improvements and UI for mobile devices as well as advertising methods. It also mentions that Snap Maps and the display count of unread messages are infringing activities as well.

Bloomberg mentions in its report that two of the six patents that BlackBerry has alleged Snap to have infringed on are also in the suit against Facebook that was filed on March 6th. Its suit against the social media giant alleged Facebook, WhatsApp, and Instagram of infringing on its messaging app patents.

The complaint also mentions that BlackBerry has tried to resolve this matter out of court by communicating with Snap for over a year but to no avail. It now seeks “redress for the harm” caused by Snap’s alleged patent infringement with this lawsuit.

Snap is yet to comment on the matter.


BlackBerry is gradually feeling out its new niche as a veritable patent troll. Following a complaint it filed against Facebook last month, the company has filed fresh litigation against Snap, creator of Snapchat, for allegedly infringing its messaging patents.

Bloomberg first reported the lawsuit on Tuesday. It claims that BlackBerry has been trying to resolve Snap’s alleged infringement of six of its patents for the last year. “Various letters, calls and an in-person meeting,” as the lawsuit puts it, have resulted in failure to find an acceptable resolution.

It should come as no surprise that the patents relate to BlackBerry’s BBM messaging service that was considered the crown jewels of the company in the days when it was known as “CrackBerry” due to its popularity. Among the features that BlackBerry claims Snap stole, it lists the display of timestamps in the messaging interface, and “mapping techniques to establish and maintain real-time activity location information.”

According to the complaint:

Defendant’s use of BlackBerry’s inventions and infringement of the Patents-in-Suit have succeeded in diverting consumers away from BlackBerry’s products and services and toward those of Defendant. This infringement has resulted in a substantial and undeserved windfall for Defendant as these users drive Defendant’s revenue. Defendant’s gain comes at BlackBerry’s expense, depriving BlackBerry of revenue to which it is entitled as a result of its inventions.

While Snap has experienced rapid growth over the last few years, it’s hard to call it a success story. For the last two months, its stock price has slipped further towards oblivion. It’s currently close to an all-time low after getting a huge bump in January. That’s resulted in two rounds of layoffs of more than 200 people.

BlackBerry, on the other hand, is on the rise despite being miles away from its mid-aughts peak. In 2008 it was selling at $144 per share; today it goes for about 10 bucks. But it gained around 50 percent in 2017 as it’s come to terms with its new business approach. TCL licensed the BlackBerry name in 2016 and has manufactured several new handsets. BlackBerry LTD pivoted to become a software company, but some analysts believe that it has much greater potential in profiting from litigation around its patent portfolio. IEEE ranked BlackBerry fourth in the category of internet and communication services for its annual patent power rankings in 2016. Google, Facebook, and Verizon were the only companies to rank higher.

In 2015, BlackBerry CEO John Chen claimed that the company holds “about 44,000 patents,” and monetization of those patents “is an important aspect of our turnaround.” Since then, it’s filed litigation against Facebook, Avaya, BLU, Nokia, Cisco, and most bizarrely, Ryan Seacrest for his Typo iPhone case that attempted to slap a BlackBerry-like keyboard on an iPhone.

Investors seem to like the strategy, and so far it’s resulted in numerous settlements. Whether BlackBerry’s various claims have merit will be up to the courts to decide, but the features it mentions in the suit certainly seem to fall into the category of “just the way things are now.” A patent for a timestamp on a message seems as obvious and frivolous as IBM’s claim on out-of-office email. But hey, I’m not a corporate patent attorney.


 American diesel engine maker Cummins Inc, which over the weekend opened its largest technical centre in Pune at an investment of Rs 1,500 crore, has termed the tax on intellectual property (IP) as a big "disincentive", even though it is bullish on India.

The American diesel engine specialist, which is celebrating 100 years, has been operating in the country for the 50-plus years. As a group, it collectively operates 21 manufacturing facilities in the country employing over 10,000.

"There are lots of complicated taxes in India. One such levy is the tax imposed on IP. We generate many IPs here in India and we use them in other markets as well. But we have to pay tax to government for this.

"While other countries give us tax discounts if we generate IPs, India taxes it. My feeling is that this really is a big disincentive to do R&D," Cummins Inc chairman and chief executive Tom Linebarger told PTI in an interaction over the weekend in Pune.

The Centre had imposed tax on transactions relating to intellectual property in the 1994 budget if the IP rights were classified as services and the states used to levy tax on IP rights if the transaction involving such were classified as sale/deemed sale of goods under state sales tax rules.

Under the GST regime, IP is taxed if the transaction value or the price actually paid or payable for the said supply of goods/services at 12 per cent (6 per cent each CGST and SGST).

Linebarger said though India has lowered the tax on IP to 10 per cent from 20 earlier and has also promised to bring it down to zero, it remains a "disadvantage" to do IP.

There are many challenges here but one of the biggest challenges is the off and on infrastructure development, he said, adding average development is good but still there are some sectors which are growing better than the rest while some others are growing not so well.

Sounding bullish on India, Linebarger said, "we are excited about India. Though it has had its strong times and weaker times, this country is full of resources and there is all-round dynamism. We need infrastructure and certain basic things properly. Right now we are very optimistic about the Indian market".

The government focus on infrastructure is having a big impact on our business here as the truck, construction, mining and marine industry is doing well now, he added.

Linebarger also lauded the GST implementation as "a big positive" for their the business because "everything that is of national standard is better for the businesses."

It can be noted on March 1 Cummins opened its largest ever technology centre in Pune investing Rs 1,500 crore. The 67,500-sq meter Cummins Technology Centre India, the work on which began in 2013, can seat 2,500 engineers and is equipped with world-class labs, engine testing cells and other engineering facilities.

The facility, which is the largest for Cummins across the world, houses 36 engine test cell slots, two turbocharger rigs, one emissions burner test rig, eight product-line specific labs, and nine shared services labs.

Cummins India, which has invested around USD 1 billion in the country in the past five years alone, is group of seven legal entities across 200 locations in the country and the group operates 21 manufacturing facilities.

The seven entities (including four JVs) are Cummins India, Cummins Generator Technologies, Cummins Technologies, Fleetguard Filters, Tata Cummins, Valvoline Cummins and Cummins Sales and Service.


WASHINGTON: America's massive trade deficit with China is estimated to have resulted in about two million job losses in the US, the White House has said, defending President Donald Trump's decision to initiate strong actions against China's "unfair" trade practices. 

Trump imposed USD 60 billion of tariffs on Chinese imports to punish the country for its "unfair" seizure of American intellectual property, a move that could escalate the already tense trade relations between the world's two biggest economies.

Trump directed the US trade representative to level tariffs on about USD 60 billion worth of Chinese imports after a seven-month investigation into the intellectual property theft, which has been a longstanding point of contention in US-China trade relations.

China also announced retaliatory measures against the US.

A senior administration official told reporters: "By some calculations, every billion dollar of trade deficit that arises from market-distorted policies, costs us about 6,000 jobs. A very conservative calculation, by some estimates, is that trade deficit results in about two million more jobs in China and two million less here. This is a serious problem that the US side is keenly aware of".

China's "unfair" trade practices has resulted in a goods trade deficit of USD 370 billion, the official said.

The Trump administration said that it is for China to decide what course it wants to take.

"The point here is that China will have a choice as to how to respond, and they have benefited far more from this relationship than we have. We will certainly take that into account," the official said.

The typical American corporation that wants to go to China and sell its goods into the Chinese market is on the horns of a dilemma.

Responding to questions, the official said the concerns with Chinese economic practices are widespread throughout the United States and around the world.

"We have heard from many of our trading partners that they share many of these concerns," the official said.

Another administration official said China benefits far more from the US-China trade relationship than the US does.

Since 2001, when China joined the World Trade Organisation, its economy has grown from USD 1 trillion of GDP to USD 12 trillion; roughly an 800 per cent growth rate.

"During the same period of time, the American economy sputtered. It went from an annual growth rate of about 3.5 per cent between 1947 and 2000, down to around two per cent, which everybody wanted to say was the new normal for America. But the contrast between China's growth and its unfair trade practices, and what had happened to the US in terms of growth and wage growth, is quite startling," the official said.

Later State Department Spokesperson Heather Nauert said Trump has been very clear from the first day on the campaign trail, longstanding concerns that he has and administration-wide people have, with China's "unfair" trade practices.

"It's natural for us to have to address things that we don't agree on. One of them is certainly trade. The President has fought very hard for advancing opportunities, economic opportunities for American businesses, but also the American people," she said.

Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden welcomed the decision.

"China has cheated, stolen and bullied American industry on trade for decades, causing massive economic wreckage to workers, employers and communities across America in the process. Our country must stand up against China's trade blackmail, so I am encouraged that the administration is focused on protecting the technologies that China publicly targeted," Wyden said.

Senator Sherrod Brown welcomed the news that the Trump administration is taking steps to launch crackdown on China's violation of intellectual property laws.

Business Roundtable said unilaterally imposing tariffs or other restrictions without a long-term strategy to bring about reforms in China will only raise prices in America, make American companies and products less competitive, and harm US workers and consumers.

"The administration should instead pursue a comprehensive approach centred around several strategic priorities. This includes working closely with our international partners to identify unfair trade barriers and practices that China must remove, setting deadlines for such reforms and outlining actions that the US will take if those reforms are not undertaken," it said.