Independent Advocacy & Technical Mastery for Global Law Firms and Technology Leaders
Operating an independent senior counsel practice, prioritizing selective, high-stakes mandates over routine administrative volume filings.
| Practice Vertical | Regulatory Scope & Practice Focus | Key Deliverables |
|---|---|---|
| Contentious Patent Oppositions | Pre-grant representations (Sec 25(1)) and post-grant oppositions (Sec 25(2)) before the IPO. Section 8 foreign filing status attacks and wrongful obtainment disputes. | Written statements of grounds, prior art mapping, Rule 62 hearing bench memos. |
| High Court IPD Appeals & Litigation | Appeals against Controller refusal orders (Sec 117A) and commercial patent infringement / revocation suits before the Delhi High Court IP Division. | Appellate memos, interim injunction applications, claim construction briefs. |
| High-End Drafting & Prosecution | Specification drafting and global PCT national phase entry harmonization. Resolving combined Section 2(1)(ja), 3(d), and 3(k) FER rejections. | High-density patent specifications, FER response packages, auxiliary claim sets. |
| Software, AI & CRI Patentability | Navigating US 35 U.S.C. § 101 Alice/Mayo Step 2B and Indian Section 3(k) 'Further Technical Effect' rules for AI, cloud, and telecom SEPs. | Section 3(k) technical contribution briefs, hardware-software nexus claim sets. |
Comprehensive working paper series deconstructing fundamental prosecution bottlenecks before the Indian Patent Office (IPO) and High Court IP Division (IPD).
View Author Page on SSRN (ID: 13342608) →
Reconciling India's 'Dual-Gate' Inventive Step Architecture with TRIPS Footnote 5 and PCT Article 33(3). Proves that Gate 1 (substantive utility) cures domestic deficits while Gate 2 strictly maintains non-obviousness floors.
Deconstructing the Divisional Dilemma in India: Section 16(1), the Ayyangar Report, and the Fallacy of 'What is Not Claimed is Disclaimed'. Demonstrates Limb 1 ('if he so desires') as India's 35 U.S.C. § 120 continuation equivalent.
The Amendment-Divisional Trap in Indian Patent Practice: Reconciling Sections 57–59 and Section 16. Resolves the double-bind between post-filing claim scope limits and voluntary continuation filings.
The Section 3(e) Eligibility Fallacy in Indian Patent Practice: Decoupling Multi-Component Aggregation from Inventive Step under Section 2(1)(ja). Establishes evidentiary standards for synergistic combinations.
An exhaustive 140-page statutory commentary deconstructing Indian patent practice, legislative intent (Ayyangar Committee Report 1959), and comparative US/EPO jurisprudence.
Direct senior counsel representation backed by 22 years of continuous engineering and legal depth.
An independent, conflict-free patent practice led directly by Gaurav Arora. Prioritizing selective, high-stakes oppositions, appeals, and complex prosecution over high-volume administrative filings.
Gaurav Arora is an Advocate (Bar Council of Delhi) and Registered Indian Patent Agent (INPA-1900) with over 22 years of total technical and legal experience (15+ years in patent law, drafting, prosecution, oppositions, and litigation). He has drafted and prosecuted over 2,000 patent specifications globally across software/AI, telecom, automotive, and deep-tech mechanical systems.
Holding a dual US-India qualification—passing the USPTO Patent Bar (2016) following an LL.M. from Cardozo Law School (NYC) and an LL.B. from Government Law College (GLC Mumbai), alongside enrollment in India—the practice provides foreign law firms, corporate IP leaders, and technology enterprises with conflict-free, elite trial advocacy and strategic prosecution before the IPO and Indian courts.
Arora IP Counsel • New Delhi / NCR, India
📞 Phone: +91-7838040796
✉️ Email: [email protected]
🌐 Web: www.aroraipcounsel.com
SSRN Author Profile ID: 13342608 | Enrolment No: D/2462/2024 | INPA-1900
📲 Save Digital Contact Card (.vcf)