Green Intellectual Property

The damage to the environment has over the last decade or so been a topic of paramount importance. Changes to the same can now be felt closer to home rather than in some remote corner of the globe. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) released a report in 2021 stating that climate change is “widespread, rapid, and intensifying”. We are at the precipice of an important stage in the history of our planet. Never before has technology reached the levels that we have now. It is time to optimally harness technology to protect the environment to sustain future generations. With the literature currently in the media, there is definitely awareness of the damage being caused.

Green technology and innovation thereof will be of paramount importance, and Intellectual Property (IP) rights play a major role. The term ‘Green Intellectual Property’ refers to the protection of innovations in the field of green technology. The UN Rio Declaration on Environment and Development of 1992 stated that Green Technology means “environmentally sound technologies that protect the environment, are less polluting, use all resources in a more sustainable manner, recycle more of their wastes and products, and handle residual wastes in a more acceptable manner than the technologies for which they were substitutes“.

WIPO is playing a huge role in the acceleration of Green IP through WIPO Green (https://www3.wipo.int/wipogreen/en/). “WIPO GREEN is an online platform for technology exchange. It supports global efforts to address climate change by connecting providers and seekers of environmentally friendly technologies.”

India, with a huge focus on agriculture, could see smart agriculture come to the forefront. We could also see the rise of water and soil conservation mechanisms, soil re-carbonization and carbon sequestration, etc. In fact, since 2016, over half of the patents granted in India were related to green technologies. In sheer numbers, 61.186 patents were granted in this field, and over 90% of these technologies addressed waste management and alternative energy production methods.[1]

Green IP is likely to lead to the rise of a huge amount of innovation. With innovation comes patent protection. Secrecy may be maintained to maximise market position for innovative technologies that will result in the rise of trade secrets. The aesthetic appearance of new innovations will come under the ambit of protection of design rights. Design rights may also be a valuable right as the use of 3D printing grows as a potentially more sustainable manufacturing technique. The rise of Green IP will also result in the rise of certified trademarks. Software and data evaluation will also play a decisive role in improving existing technologies in an environmentally friendly way. We will also see the rise of technology transfer licensing agreements as companies look to leverage technology developed by others to their advantage. Thus, the importance of Green IP will percolate to an increase in IP protection as well.

For those who are trailblazers in the field, having an IP checklist and an IP strategy will be of importance. Apart from this, the Indian government may also need to look at more subsidies and rebates for the development of Green IP. In a recently published report, Green Future Index 2022, India was ranked among a contingent labelled as “climate laggards”. The country’s COVID-19 recovery plan favours traditional industries, which is hampering the move to greener policies.

Nevertheless, subsidies in official fees for start-ups and MSME’s have pushed these industries to protect their intellectual property. Such a change can also be effected with rebates for the filings for Green IP. With the problems brought about by damage to the environment being closer to home, it is time for India to be at the forefront of the development of Green IP.

References:

[1] https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/every-2nd-patent-granted-since-2016-relates-to-green-tech-most-linked-to-waste-alternative-energy/articleshow/89420047.cms

Image Credits: Photo by JudaM from Pixabay 

For those who are trailblazers in the field, having an IP checklist and an IP strategy will be of importance. Apart from this, the Indian government may also need to look at more subsidies and rebates for the development of Green IP.

POST A COMMENT

Cryptocurrency and Money Laundering: Deciphering the Why and the How

The financial sector continues to revel in the advancement of disruptive technological innovations. Due to the attractive rates and fees, ease of access and account setup, variety of innovative products and services, and improved service quality and product features, financial technology is attracting more customers and investors today.[1] Despite the numerous advantages of these sectoral transformations, it is impossible to deny that the digitization and ease with which the internet has enabled all of us to function effectively in our day-to-day work has also created a space for virtual crimes.

Amidst the pioneering fintech revolution, cryptocurrency has emerged as a modern financial technology that can be used to easily launder money. Despite rapid market fluctuations and an uncertain legal status, cryptocurrency continues to captivate Indian investors, who are undeterred and unbothered by the associated risks of cyber fraud.

This article will explore how the crypto market nurtures a convenient and fertile ground for money laundering activities.

 

Cryptocurrency and India

 

The Indian regulatory market has had a hot and cold relationship with cryptocurrency over the years. The RBI, vide Circular DBR.No.BP.BC.104/08.13.102/2017-18 dated April 06, 2018[2], restricted all crypto transactions. However, in 2020, the Supreme Court effectively struck down the ban. As a result, the RBI stated in Circular DOR. AML.REC 18/14.01.001/2021-22 that banks and financial institutions cannot cite the aforementioned circular to warn their customers against dealing in Virtual Currencies. However, it did state that, “Banks, as well as other entities addressed above, may, however, continue to carry out customer due diligence processes in line with regulations governing standards for Know Your Customer (KYC), Anti-Money Laundering (AML), Combating Financing of Terrorism (CFT) and obligations of regulated entities under the Prevention of Money Laundering Act (PMLA), 2002, in addition to ensuring compliance with relevant provisions under the Foreign Exchange Management Act (FEMA) for overseas remittances.”[3]

At present, while the talks of implementing comprehensive legislation governing cryptocurrencies have fizzled out, the Union Budget 2022 brought digital currencies under the tax net. As of 2022, the crypto asset market in India stands at an approximated evaluation of 45,000 Crores and 15 million investors[4].

However, it is pertinent to note that it is transactions, not investments, in the digital currency that pose an issue. In India, the Enforcement Directorate discovered over 4,000 crores of such illegal cryptocurrency transactions in 2021. As per the 2022 Crypto Crime Report by blockchain data firm Chainalysis[5], cybercriminals laundered $8.6 billion worth of cryptocurrency in 2021, $6.6 billion in 2020 and $10.9 billion in 2019. Furthermore, the study discovered that at the moment, darknet market sales or ransomware attack profits are virtually derived in cryptocurrency rather than fiat currency, thus significantly contributing to the data. 

Money laundering, terror financing, drug dealing, and other criminal activities are all done using cryptocurrency transactions. Although these transactions are recorded on a blockchain and are traceable, criminals use mixers and tumblers to make it difficult for a third party to track them.

 

The Laundering Mechanism

                           

                                    Eurospider Information Technology AG, “Mixers Tumbler Example,” fig.

For clarity, refer to the above image. Using the OHNE mixer, A sends 20 bitcoins to B, U sends 15 bitcoins to V, and X sends 5 bitcoins to Y. These are single-layer transactions that are simple to trace and identify.

The transaction takes place in a different way in the second image, where the MIT mixer is used. For the sake of brevity, let us consider a single layer of mixer being used. In real life, the number of mixers used is in the thousands. Here, A sends 20 bitcoins to M1, U sends 15 bitcoins to M2 and X sends 5 bitcoins to M3. In the next stage, B receives 20 bitcoins from M2, V receives 15 bitcoins from M1, and Y receives 5 bitcoins from M1. The difference we must notice is that B, V, and Y are receiving the same number of bitcoins as in picture one, but not from A, U and X, respectively. Because there is no information about A sending bitcoins to B, U sending bitcoins to V, or X sending bitcoins to Y, these transactions are not single-layered and are impossible to trace. Hence, making the transaction anonymous.

Criminals use a similar method to send money using cryptocurrencies. Consider the following scenario to gain a better understanding: A, B, C, and Z are cryptocurrency users who keep their coins in their digital wallets. They use the same mixing service to make transactions. A, B, and C are law-abiding citizens, while Z is a criminal involved in drug trafficking. A has to pay X a certain amount of money. X is paid, but the bitcoins he received were deposited by Z, a drug trafficker. When X received the payment, he had no idea that the bitcoins he had were dirty bitcoins and had been used for illegal activities. This is a straightforward explanation of how dirty bitcoins are making their way through the market, paving the way for money laundering. 

 

What can be done?

 

The International Monetary Fund (IMF) has released a report titled “Global Financial Stability Report”[6] which discusses the following details about how cryptocurrencies should be regulated, considering their increasing market capitalization and the growing exposure of banking and financial systems to crypto assets:

  1. Implementation of global standards applicable to crypto-assets should be the key focus area of national policies.
  2. Regulators should identify and control the associated risks of crypto assets, specifically in areas of systemic importance.
  3. Coordination among national regulators is key for effective enforcement and fewer instances of regulatory arbitrage.
  4. Data gaps and monitoring of the crypto ecosystem for better policy decisions should be prioritised by the regulators.

The report also discusses how stablecoins and decentralized finance pose a significant risk to the crypto market and the overall economy if they are not properly regulated and supervised by issuers.

  1. Regulations should be proportionate to the risk and in line with those of global stablecoins.
  2. Coordination is a must, to implement requisite recommendations in the areas of acute risks, enhanced disclosure, independent audit of reserves, and fit and proper rules for network administrators and issuers.

The report also discusses the importance of managing macro-financial risks through:

  1. Enactment of de-dollarization policies, including enhancing monetary policy credibility.
  2. Formulating a sound fiscal position with effective legal and regulatory measures and implementing central bank digital currencies
  3. Reconsidering Capital Flow Restrictions with respect to their effectiveness, supervision, and enforcement

However, according to the report, cryptoization would make finance more cost-effective, quick, and accessible.

There is also an intergovernmental organisation known as the Financial Action Task Force, which is constantly updating its recommendations to maintain legal, regulatory, and operational methods for combating money laundering, terrorism financing, proliferation, and other threats to the integrity of the international financial system. The Financial Action Task Force (FATF) recently released a compliance framework recommending that all anti-money laundering rules that traditional financial systems follow be applied to stable coins, cryptocurrency, and virtual asset service providers. Even though identifying the source of such funds and keeping track of who is the beneficiary of such funds is difficult, countries are still being encouraged to develop provisions that provide for due diligence, record keeping, and the reporting of suspicious transactions.[7]

 

The Legislative Way Forward for India

 

At present, there is no comprehensive legislative framework to govern fintech advancements encompassing blockchain and cryptocurrencies. At best, the present regulatory framework is a patchy, cross-networked arrangement that demands careful deliberations in alignment with the evolving technological innovations in the sector.

The Information Technology Act, 2000:

While the legislation successfully addresses issues like identity theft, hacking, and ransomware and provides a means to tackle the issue of extraterritorial jurisdiction, it is safe to conclude that the serpentine considerations of blockchain cannot be comprehended and addressed by the Act.

The Prevention of Money Laundering Act, 2002 and the Prevention of Money Laundering Rules, 2005

The offences listed in Parts A, B and C of the PMLA Schedule attract the penalties enumerated under the Act.

Part A categorises offences under: Indian Penal Code, Narcotics Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, Prevention of Corruption Act, Antiquities and Art Treasures Act, Copyright Act, Trademark Act, Wildlife Protection Act, and Information Technology Act.

Part B enlists offences under Part A with a valuation of Rs 1 crore or more.

Part C exclusively deals with trans-border crimes.

Recently, the Enforcement Directorate attached proceeds of crimes amounting to Rs 135 crores in 7 cases in which the usage of cryptocurrency for money laundering activities was flagged by the authorities.[8]

However, it is pertinent to note that the offences recognised under the respective parts of the schedule only comprise the offences under the current framework of legislation, which is at present not equipped to regulate any segment of cryptocurrency transactions and digital currency operations in the country. 

Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999

Even though the Act specifies procedures to conduct cross-border and foreign exchange transactions, it fails to identify the role of technology as an instrumental enabler of such transactions at present. However, it is interesting to note that it empowers the RBI to establish a regulatory framework to address the same.

The Payment and Settlement Systems Act, 2007

The PSS Act was enacted with the objective of establishing a regulatory framework for banks and ancillary financial institutions, designating RBI as the nodal authority. Section 4 of the Act states that no payment system shall operate in India without the prior due authorization of the RBI.

Apart from the above-mentioned legislation, regulators like SEBI, Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (MeitY), Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority of India (IRDAI), and Ministry of Corporate Affairs (MCA) have also undertaken initiatives to implement specialised guidelines. While these regulations deal with the contemporary issues of payments, digital lending and global remittances, none of them has managed to find a concrete ground for effectively supervising and regulating cryptocurrency transactions backed by blockchain in the current volatile ecosystem.

At present, key industry regulators and stakeholders should collaborate to understand the novelty, process and extent of the present disruptive fintech trends. Furthermore, initiatives should be taken to ensure transparency of such transactions, establish secure authentication transactions for the exchanges and tighten the legislative noose on cyber security systems in the country. Additionally, establishing a centralised statutory body and local self-regulatory bodies across the sovereign, and implementing an extensive centralised framework is also imperative. The current scheme of criminal activities in virtual space transcends geographical boundaries, hence it is crucial for global policymakers to implement mechanisms to ensure coordination and collaboration by institutionalising inter-governmental bodies.

References: 

[1] ‘The Current Landscape Of The Fintech Industry – Fintech Crimes’ (Fintech Crimes, 2022) <https://fintechcrimes.com/the-landscape-of-fintech-in-year-2020/> accessed 9 February 2022.

[2] https://www.rbi.org.in/scripts/FS_Notification.aspx?Id=11243&fn=2&Mode=0

[3] https://rbi.org.in/Scripts/NotificationUser.aspx?Id=12103

[4] https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/union-budget-2022-no-crypto-bill-listed-this-budget-session/articleshow/89265038.cms

[5] https://go.chainalysis.com/rs/503-FAP-074/images/Crypto-Crime-Report-2022.pdf

[6] ‘Global Financial Stability Report’ (2021) <https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/GFSR/Issues/2021/10/12/global-financial-stability-report-october-2021> accessed 11 February 2022.

[7] ‘VIRTUAL ASSETS AND VIRTUAL ASSET SERVICE PROVIDERS’ (2021) <https://www.fatf-gafi.org/media/fatf/documents/recommendations/Updated-Guidance-VA-VASP.pdf> accessed 11 February 2022.

[8] https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/india/ed-investigating-7-cases-of-cryptocurrency-usage-in-money-laundering-attaches-rs-135-crore/articleshow/90200012.cms

 

Image Credits: Photo by Bermix Studio on Unsplash

At present, key industry regulators and stakeholders should collaborate to understand the novelty, process and extent of the present disruptive fintech trends. Further, initiatives should be undertaken to ensure transparency of such transactions, establish secure authentication transactions of the exchanges and tighten the legislative noose on cyber security systems in the country.

POST A COMMENT

TRAI’s Framework for Data Centres, Interconnect Exchanges and Content Delivery Networks- An Update

Communication services such as voice, video, data, internet, and wideband multimedia have become indispensable in the modern society. Information communication technology (ICT) has become a vital resource in development of various economic sectors enabling the various participants in economic and social spheres to have a quick and easy access to information and knowledge. ICT makes communication efficient in all spheres of life- in companies fostering increased efficiency, allowing access to human resource, promoting sustainable development of entrepreneurship.

At present, most sectors and organizations are generating mountains of data on a daily basis. Therefore, to stay competitive, organizations are constantly working to optimize data to leverage it to their advantage. For instance, the banking sector uses data extensively to understand how their customers use data to identify potential security risks. Data plays a vital role in the real estate and property management sector by extending an improved property analysis mechanism, understanding the customers and deciphering the market trends. The telecom industry is also utilizing data to improve in several key service areas, including customer experience, fraud reduction, churn prediction, and dynamic pricing. Further, with the rollout of 5G, data plays a key role in network planning, monitoring and management. Hence, data is the central force for driving crucial innovative and advanced industry solutions for the systematic growth of the economy.

Digital advances have generated enormous wealth in record time, but that wealth has been concentrated around a small number of individuals, companies and countries. Under current policies and regulations, this trajectory is likely to continue, further contributing to rising inequality, not only at the country level between developed and developing economies but also at the level of big online players, controlling data acting as an entry barrier for new entrants, leading to near monopoly in global digital markets. The effect of globalization and the development of the telecommunication sector has also affected the Indian market vitally.

On 21 December 2021 TRAI- the Telecommunication Authority of India released a consultation paper on the ‘Regulatory Framework for Promoting Data Economy through Establishment of Data Centres, Content Delivery Networks, and Interconnect Exchanges in India’ where it discussed and opined thoroughly on the markets of data economy, its challenges and its growth and future opportunities in the sector.


The TRAI Consultation Paper and Data Centres  

 

The new era of digitization has rolled out 5G, Internet of Things (IoT), and Artificial Intelligence (AI) leading to the creation of data via widespread, geographically distributed networks and new-age devices. Further, Enhanced Mobile Broadband (eMBB), Ultra-Reliable Low Latency Communications (URLLC), and Massive Machine Type Communications (MMTC) are set to emerge as dominant storage interfaces. 5G, along with edge computing, is set to fulfil the needs for ultra-reliable, low-latency, and high-throughput communication. Use cases driven by this intelligence-centric connectivity will catalyse computing at the edge as they effectively become mini data centres and bring a completely new paradigm to storage at the edge. This brings with it a need for advanced networking, computing and storage in edge devices and endpoints.

The main theme of the TRAI consultation paper is the development of a regulatory framework to make the data market more abiding and regulated for systematic development and protection of its users. While competing with the world data economy the need for a proper regulatory framework that can encourage the development of 5G, IoT, data centres, and associated services, data analytics, edge computing, digital platforms, and applications were discussed and their effect on the growth are discussed in the paper.  For any economy to be competitive, it has become essential to become reliable and self-sufficient in terms of futuristic technology. This has bought the Indian government’s inaction to bring in various initiatives and policies to bring digitalisation to the forefront of the market. Policies like Digital India Programme 2015 and National Digital Communication Policy 2018 contributed tremendously to the development and population of the data economy and digitalization.

The TRAI paper clearly emphasized and questioned the potential of growth of data centres in India in light of various challenges in terms of economic/infrastructure and financial aspects. The paper sought views on:

(i) incentives and long-term measures to facilitate growth and investment in data centres, Content Delivery Networks (“CDN”s), and Interconnect Exchanges (“IXP”s).

(ii) building, safety, disaster recovery, and security standards for data centres.

(iii) access to facilities such as dedicated fibre and electricity, and provision of concessional tariffs or subsidies.

(iv) need for a unified data centre policy in India and centre-state coordination.

(v) need for a regulatory framework for CDN and interconnect exchanges in India.

Additionally, it was noted in the paper that the mere establishment of data centres will not efficiently meet the country’s data requirements.  Initiatives to address challenges of data penetration in Tire 2 and Tire 3 cities also has to be addressed. The paper also discussed and opened itself to comments on the green data certification, building norms for data centres and other aspects important for the development of an economically efficient data economy. The paper further discusses the impact of Covid-19 on the digital economy that resulted in a data surge arising out of increased digital social interactions and online transactions.


The Infrastructure of the Data Economy

 

The paper recognises the following three main infrastructures for boosting the data ecosystem and facilities

  • Data Centres
  • Content Delivery Networks
  • Internet Exchange Points

Together these three form the part of what can be termed as “Digital communication infrastructure and services”. It is important to note that with CDN the delivery of the data sought by the users is established and the players like Netflix, Youtube and Amazon establish their own CDN  in locations that are near to users to make the use of the internet bandwidth less which ultimately reduces the cost and make it more economical for them. These CDN networks are not adequately regulated in the Indian market. TRAI with the consultation paper has sought opinions on the same and has also highlighted the point of whether the lack of a regulatory framework for these CDN networks in India affects the growth of the CDN market in the country.

The main mission of the paper was to connect India with proper digital communication infrastructure, propel India with the latest technology including 5G, AI, IoT Cloud, and empower India by securing its digital sovereignty and data protection.

The consultation paper further analysed the idea of the dark fibre cable network, data centre and the regulatory framework or other limitations these data centre companies are facing and how these avenues can be incentivised. 


Infrastructure Requirements for Data Centres

 

The paper discussed the resources which are required for the establishment of the data centres and how their availability or shortage can add to the hardships of the establishment of economical units of the data centre. While opting for and establishing a data centre it’s essential to look into the availability of the power supply and water. India faces an energy deficit of 1,44,1 Million Units (MU). The most affected areas are the rural areas in India. The cost of power can also not be overlooked. The major cost which is approximately 50-60% of the total operating cost of these data centres is the cost of power. The power and cooling segment of the Indian Data Centre power and cooling market is expected to reach $1,065.5 million by 2025, growing at a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 9.4% during the forecast period 2019–2025. 

Water resources were another facility for which data centres might face challenges. The major work of the water is to cool off. As per the report around 15- megawatt of energy in a Data Centre can use up to 360,000 gallons of water a day as the scale of the data centre will rise more reliable sources of water has to be looked into. In the process of cooling off some amount of water is also evaporated leading to loss of water. The question which arose is whether India is ready to meet these power and water supply requirements for the establishment of a highly popularizing segment of data centres. This remains a question of concern to meet the cooking up future requirements

Looking into the matter the TRAI suggested developing renewable energy and development of green data centres. In Europe, the climate-Neutral Data Centre pact is the law that aims to make all of the European Union Climate-neutral by 2050. These green data centres will have low emission rates. A vision to create such data centres and emphasis on the establishment of data centres driven by renewable energy was also emphasised.


Telecom Data and its Security Issues


 

Telecom data is the first digital footprint created by any household. For proper functioning of the services collecting such user data and establishing robust infrastructure for the services providers to proffer better services becomes very essential. For this, the mechanisms of the consented sharing of telecom data and data empowerment and protection Architecture were explained in the paper.

Even though the intention of the Personal Data Protection (Bill) 2019 was to extend legislative protection to users wherein purpose-driven collection of data, user consent to sharing of personal data etc. were addressed, it is yet to be seen how the law progresses in the future. 


Telecom Industry and the OTT Platforms

 

The functioning of the telecom industry and its importance and assistance in the development of Over the Top (OTT) platforms like ‘Netflix’, ‘Amazon’, ‘Hotstar’ can be understood easily. The telecom industry provides the oil to these OTT industry players for smooth functioning and better market reach. In the recent paper released by the Competition Commission of India (CCI) on the market study of the telecom sector, it highlighted the raising trends of a partnership between the telecom Industry and these platforms and how this can act as an entry barrier. 


CCI’s Concern over the Growth of the Telecom Market and its Nexus with TRAI

 

The market study of the telecom sector released by the CCI on 22nd January 2021, highlighted various contemporary competition issues, including upcoming competition issues as the telecom sector is set to see further transformation and innovations with 5G around the corner, discussing:

(a) Financial stability and competition

(b) Vertical integration and competition.

(c) Data privacy and competition.

(d) Infrastructure and competition.

The CCI raised concerns over the data privacy of the users from deals like Jio- Facebook, where the users are robbed of their right to data privacy. Raising concerns of such kind in its study, the TRAI also channelized its discussions on similar lines in its paper where a huge threat to the data privacy of the users was discussed and a strong need to regulate and limit the data sharing and purpose-driven data collection was identified. 


Regulatory Framework for the Data Centres, Current Scenario and the Way Forward

 

A strong surge in the consumption of data has been projected for the coming years. This massive increase in the use of data shall require a robust mechanism for data management, data security, and good data infrastructure. However, India still lacks a centralized regulatory framework that properly regulates or prescribes compliance standards with respect to the establishment of such data centres. This consultation paper by TRAI is the first concrete step in this direction.

The paper received comments from various significant stakeholders. While addressing the issue of data penetration at Tier 1 and Tier 2 cities, Vodafone Idea Limited (‘VIL’), one of the stakeholders, suggested that the Government should extend tax benefits to Service Providers that are building disaster recovery sites to ensure reliable services. Development of Special Economic Zones (‘SEZ’) in TIER 2 & 3 cities should be undertaken to motivate data centre players, rationalization of electricity tariffs across all states and ready infrastructure facilities inclusive of power, transport, water supply, fibre connectivity etc. should be set up in those Tier 2 & 3 cities. VIL further observed that a central law governing data construction and operation should address aspects relating to the entire lifecycle of data centres. Since the National Broadcasting Company (‘NBC’) covers maximum data centre related guidelines, it is recommended to form a single regulatory body under NBC, which should develop India-specific building standards for the construction of data centres operating in India.

Internet freedom foundation, another stakeholder, has also provided its comments and suggestions on the considerations raised in the Paper. The foundation advocated the urgent need for the creation of a multi-stakeholder body for the enforcement of net neutrality. The need for a more efficient data policy specifically designed for the telecom industry was also put forward promoting evidence-based policymaking for the CDNs. In order to ensure a more streamlined functioning of the telecom industry, the foundation emphasized overall sectoral transparency. It raised concerns over data monetization and its threats. Additionally, it placed stress on proper surveillance of these data centres as sensitive data of users would be involved.

The National Association of Software and Service Companies (‘NASSCOM’) in their comments on the paper focused on the development of the CDN market and its growth potential in India. NASSCOM raised concerns over regulatory compliances that can potentially make the Indian CDN market less competitive and advised on initiating strategies to combat the same. It also raised concerns over the reduced network efficiency because of the regulatory requirement of interconnection with Telecom Service Provider (TSP) and Internet Service Providers (ISP) and network neutrality. It opined that both will be affected negatively by the criteria proposed by the paper. It urged TRAI to refrain from imposing ex-ante obligations for mandatory interconnection between CDNs and ISPs.

With all these regulatory challenges the stakeholders also provided their point of view on the issues and challenges of the data centres, from advocating for the establishment of special economic zones and providing some tax benefits for the establishment of the data centres to the need for proper authority for the certification of the data centre as adopted globally has been highlighted. The stakeholders also highlighted the portions wherewith not much effort skilled labour can be found and up-gradation of the existing skills can be done. Data privacy matters took the spotlight in almost all the stakeholders’ comments. They advocated for the implementation of a comprehensive law to deal with the matter at hand. Further, on compliance, the stakeholders emphasized structuring an all-encompassing competent channel for the use and availability of the resources such as power, land, and water for smooth functioning of the data centres.

In 2020, Singapore imposed a moratorium on the establishment of the data centres because of the disparity in the use of resources by 7%. India is already facing challenges in sustainable development and is aiming to become a global hub for data centres, without a practical mechanism in place. It is interesting to note that, states like Karnataka and Tamil Nadu have formulated their policy on the same. They have also sought amendments in the state legislations to incorporate congenial provisions for the establishment of the data centres but until now no steps have been taken.

As per some of the suggestions, in addition to notifying a national policy on data centres, the government should also identify and proffer various incentives for the players keen on undertaking the establishment of such data centres, especially with respect to considerations like electricity, water resources, infrastructure, technology and Research and Development. Before formulating and enforcing anything it’s evident for the government to into consideration all the aspects of labour, resources, real estate etc. before devising a perfectively addresses the challenges of the sector and works in concert towards the benefits of its stakeholders.

In 2020 the Ministry of Information Technology formulated a Data Centre Policy, 2020 discussing the challenges and how a centralised system for clearance and approval for the establishment of data centres has to be structured and new building norms specifically dealing with the construction of the data centres are to be developed. More stress on a smooth regulatory framework for ease of doing business was emphasised.

While the central government is yet to formulate comprehensive legislation to govern data centres, various state governments have undertaken the initiative to regulate the sector within their jurisdiction.

Maharashtra’s Data policy extends fiscal incentives such as stamp duty exemption, electricity duty exemption, value-added-tax refund and property tax benefits for data centres that comply with specific criteria. 

Telangana’s Policy extends fiscal incentives like power, building fee rebates and land at subsidized costs. Additionally, other non-fiscal incentives like exemption from the purview of the Telangana Pollution Control Act, exemption from statutory power cuts and from inspection under specified labour legislation and permissions to file self-certificates have also been offered.

The Tamil Nadu Data Centre Policy 2021 has established a single-window facilitation portal to maintain time-bound processing of applications and coordination with various agencies and departments. Further, incentives such as electricity tax subsidies on power, concessional open access charges and cross-subsidies, dual power and stamp duty concessions and permits for self-certificates pertaining to compliance with respect to statutory registrations and forms under respective labour legislation are provided. 

The Data Centre Policy 2021 of Uttar Pradesh provides incentives with respect to data centre park developers and data centre units. Interest/capital subsidy, land subsidy, stamp duty exemptions and dual power grid network, as well exemption from inspection under labour legislation and permissions to file self-certificates have also been provided for under the legislation.

West Bengal data centre policy 2021 is a 5-year plan providing various power, water and infrastructure facility for the smooth functioning of the data centres. 

Haryana and Karnataka are still finalising their state policy while the Odisha government has also rolled out a policy that needs further development and the status of its implementation is not yet confirmed.

As per some of the suggestions of the stakeholders, in addition to notifying a national policy on data centres, the government should also identify and proffer various incentives for the players keen on undertaking the establishment of such data centres especially with respect to considerations like electricity, water resources, infrastructure, technology and Research and Development. Before formulating and enforcing anything it’s evident for the government to into consideration all the aspects of labour, resources, real estate etc. before devising a perfectively addresses the challenges of the sector and works in concert towards the benefits of its stakeholders.

 

Image Credits: Photo by Ian Battaglia on Unsplash

A strong surge in the consumption of data has been projected for the coming years. This massive increase in the use of data shall require a robust mechanism for data management, data security, and good data infrastructure. However, India still lacks a centralized regulatory framework that properly regulates or prescribes compliance standards with respect to the establishment of such data centres. This consultation paper by TRAI is the first concrete step in this direction.

POST A COMMENT

Privacy Shield 2.0: Cue for EU-India Data Transfer Mechanism?

Since the implementation of GDPR standards across the EU, data transfer between other countries and the EU has become a widely debated complex issue across the world. Article 44 of GDPR permits the transfer of personal data outside the EU, only when the recipient country has an equivalent level of security to protect the personal data of EU citizens, as guaranteed by the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The biggest dilemma that many countries across the globe face is that they either lack a national legislation on data privacy or if they do have one in place, it may not be considered at par with the standards set by GDPR. Such a situation creates a genuine legal obstacle to the transfer of personal data between the EU and those countries.

Conceptualization of the Privacy Shield

 

Over the years EU and various other countries have developed certain mechanisms to tackle these obstacles created by requirements mentioned under Article 44. Standard contractual clauses (SCC), binding corporate rules (BCR) are such instruments that the countries and corporates have adopted for the transfer of personal data.

The United States of America lacks a comprehensively dedicated legislation for data privacy.  However, the country has many sectorial legislation and regulations ensuring the privacy protection of individuals, yet, the EU has consistently ruled that the USA does not guarantee an equivalent level of protection.  Safe Harbour Framework, one such additional mechanism agreed upon between the Governments of the EU and USA defines a series of principles to be followed and adopted by companies for the transfer of personal data.

US companies were required to self-certify these principles mentioned under the safe harbour framework and the US regulators would in turn enforce such framework within their limits and jurisdictions.  In 2013, Edward Snowden rocked the world with some lethal revelations about various global surveillance programs run by the NSA. In light of such a disclosure, an Austrian citizen named Max Schrems filed a complaint stating that the US does not provide adequate protection of personal data against such mass surveillance undertaken by authorities. The European Court of Justice (“ECJ/ Court”), noted that the US could allow any national security, public interest argument and law enforcement requirement to prevail over the Safe Harbour framework. Hence, the ECJ concluded that the safe harbour decision was invalid, as it interfered with the fundamental rights of an EU citizen. This decision is widely known as Schrems I.

After courts invalidated the safe harbour decision, the European Commission and the US Department of Commerce came up with the Privacy Shield framework for the continued transfer of data from the EU to the US.  US Corporations who intend to receive personal data from the EU self-certify before the Department of Commerce that they will adhere to certain principles recognised in the Privacy Shield. These principles were developed by the US Department of Commerce in consultation with the European Commission.

This led Max Schrems to again file a complaint challenging the validity of the privacy shield and the use of SCCs by companies to bypass the requirements of adequate protection stipulated by Article 44 of the GDPR on the ground that US investigation agencies have unlimited access rights of personal data retained with USA corporations neither Privacy Shield nor SCCs prevents those rights. Accordingly, it was argued that Privacy Shield or SCCs does not ensure the privacy rights of EU citizens. This case soon came to be known as Schrems II. The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) examined the US’s Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act and the surveillance programmes that such provisions allow and found that US agencies have wider access rights on every data retained with USA corporations and Privacy Shield in any manner takes away these rights of USA investigative agencies.   CJEU accordingly invalidated the EU-US privacy shield mechanism. 

The judgment in Schrems II had led to a major deadlock between US-EU economic relations, particularly concerning the transfer of data. With no approved mechanism in sight, companies found it difficult to transfer data for achieving their business obligations. On 25th March 2022, the EU commission and US government announced that they had agreed in principle on a new framework for the purpose of cross border transfer of data, known as Privacy shield 2.0. The new framework promises to provide benefits to both sides of the Atlantic and ensure that a balance is created between the new safeguards and the national security objectives of the US, which will ensure the privacy of EU personal data.

The text of this new framework has not been released.  The press note released by the White House contains a few details that the framework might incorporate. It states that intelligence collection might be undertaken only where it is necessary to advance legitimate national security objectives and in no way should impact the protection of privacy and civil liberties[1]. In addition, the US intelligence agencies will adapt procedures to ensure effective oversight of new privacy and civil liberties standards[2]. Moreover, a proposal to set up an independent Data Protection Review Court has been mooted for EU individuals seeking claims and damages for breach of their personal data by the US Government. The proposal also details that the adjudicating members or individuals shall be chosen from outside the US Government.

If Privacy shield 2.0 does pass the test laid down by the European courts, experts believe that this could trigger an estimated $7.1 trillion economic relationship between the US and the EU. Hopefully, Privacy shield 2.0 will be able to provide a predictable, effective and lasting remedy for transferring personal data from the EU to the USA.

 

 

Data Transfer between EU and India

 

The above discussions and mechanisms have a significant relevance in relation to data transfer between the EU and India. The Indian investigation and intelligence agencies have similar powers to their US counterparts in terms of their right to access or demand or conduct searches in any Indian enterprises and collect all relevant data required.  The fundamental right to privacy recognised in the Puttuswamy case is not absolute. Further, as per Article 19(2) of the constitution, the state can impose reasonable restrictions on the exercise of fundamental rights in the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, the security of the State, friendly relations with foreign States, public order, decency or morality or in relation to contempt of court, defamation or incitement to an offence.

Moreover, Section 69, of the IT Act, 2000 provides the Central and State government with the power to intercept or monitor any information stored in a computer resource provided such information is required for:

  • In the interests of India’s sovereignty and integrity.
  • Defence of India,
  • State’s security,
  • To maintain friendly relations with other nations, or
  • To maintain public order, or
  • For preventing incitement to the commission of any cognizable offence relating to the above, or
  • For investigation purposes

The above provisions are similar to the rights available to US investigative agencies. For the same reasons, the Schrems II judgment and Privacy Shield mechanisms are relevant while considering EU-India data transfer.

Currently, there are no approved mechanisms for data transfer between the EU and India like the Privacy Shield framework. Hence, the European companies are justifiably reluctant to establish business relations with our country. Since India is a hub of IT-enabled services like BPOs and KPOs, it is desirable to have an efficient and clear legal regime for data transfer to foster a symbiotically advantageous economic relationship between the two sovereigns. Unfortunately, neither of the Governments has taken any urgency to initiate the formulation of rules similar to the Privacy Shield. It is worthwhile to consider whether the new Privacy Shield 2.0 could be considered and replicated in India.  If both the governments can demonstrate their intent, the groundwork for a contusive business environment for data transfer between the two sovereigns can be initiated. 

Currently, there are no approved mechanisms for data transfer between the EU and India like the Privacy Shield framework. Hence, the European companies are justifiably reluctant to establish business relations with our country. Since India is a hub of IT-enabled services like BPOs and KPOs, it is desirable to have an efficient and clear legal regime for data transfer to foster a symbiotically advantageous economic relationship between the two sovereigns. 

POST A COMMENT

Navigating the Legal Quagmire of Limitations on Trademark Oppositions

Though the pandemic seems to be receding across the world, the problems that it has created seem to be multiplying, and the legal system has been grappling trying to address the issues affecting business. The High Court of Delhi, in a recent judgment, Dr. Reddys Laboratories Limited vs. the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks, sent shockwaves through the system.

The petitioners had filed writ petitions against the haphazard manner in which the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks (“CGPDTM”) had handled the filing of Trademark opposition proceedings during the pandemic. The petitioners were aggrieved when they discovered that opposition proceedings couldn’t be initiated on the online portal of the Trademarks Registry post the statutory timelines of four (4) months, as prescribed under Section 21 of the Trademarks Act, 1999. However, the Supreme Court in Suo Moto Writ (Civil) No. 3 of 2020, titled In Re: Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, had extended the statutory time period in India. Additionally, the Trademarks Registry also refused to accept such oppositions when filed manually. Further, the Trademarks Registry went on to issue the Certificates of Registration even though they were aware of the requests to initiate opposition.

The Supreme Court had clearly stated in the aforementioned order that “the time period between March 15, 2020, and February 28, 2022, has to be fully excluded for the purpose of calculating limitation under all enactments and statutes, both before judicial and quasi-judicial bodies.” The CGDPTM had also reaffirmed the above order vide its notice of January 18, 2022. The petitioners argued that the non-acceptance of the oppositions was in contravention of the Supreme Court order, especially as it had been reaffirmed by the CGDPTM as well.

The officials of the CGDPTM also informed the court that more than 4 lakh registration certificates had been granted during this period. Further, vide an affidavit submitted by the CGDPTM, it was affirmed that 113517 oppositions were filed between the periods of March 24, 2020, and February 28, 2022. It was also mentioned that “6,000-7,000 oppositions have been filed during the pandemic period beyond the four-month period of limitation, and the same have also been entertained.” Thus, the CGDPTM has been accepting oppositions in a very haphazard manner, undermining the rights of those who wished to initiate opposition actions and has also issued Certificates of Registration, granting challengeable rights to applicants.

As the limitation period in terms of the orders of the Supreme Court would have been extended for filing oppositions to the said applications until the expiry of 90 days from March 1, 2022, i.e., till May 30, 2022, the High Court of Delhi has instructed as follows:

  • Opponents must send emails expressing their interest in opposing any of the marks until May 30, 2022. On receipt of any such email, even if the mark currently stands as opposed, the CGDPTM is to facilitate the filing of the opposition either through the online platform or by accepting the same manually.
  • If the mark stands registered, and in the absence of any request to oppose the marks by May 30, 2022, the mark will continue to stand registered.
  • For those marks that stand as registered, if the opposition is received by May 30, 2022, the Certificates of Registration shall stand suspended till the opposition is decided upon.

The High Court of Delhi has also gone on to caution the CGDPTM and instructed them to develop a mechanism to dispose of the huge backlog of opposition currently pending at their end.

Right holders, especially those who are in receipt of the Certificates of Registration, will need to keep their fingers crossed that no oppositions are filed by May 30, 2022. Furthermore, infringement proceedings may not be initiated against infringing parties until the May 30, 2022 deadline.

The haphazard handling of the opposition proceedings in this time period has created both a logistic nightmare as well as hampered the rights of numerous applicants. With more skeletons coming out of the closet of the CGDPTM, it remains to be seen how they are handled. The High Court of Delhi needs to be lauded for taking such a sensitive issue and handling it at the earliest.

Exciting times to navigate through the curveballs thrown by the CGDPTM. 

Image Credits: Photo by Markus Winkler on Unsplash

The haphazard handling of the opposition proceedings in this time period has created both a logistic nightmare as well as hampered the rights of numerous applicants. With more skeletons coming out of the closet of the CGDPTM, it remains to be seen how they are handled.

POST A COMMENT

Self Reliance: Not Just a Political Construct Anymore

Since independence, Indian political leaders have espoused the need for “self-reliance”. Over the last five decades, we have certainly achieved this goal in areas such as the production of food grains and milk. It is clear that we have not done so in some other basic areas, including education, healthcare and energy. When the government announced “Make in India” and “Atmanirbhar”, some called it “old wine in new bottles” or “mere election slogans”. While there may be some truth in these allegations, it cannot be denied that recent developments around the world (and in our own neighbourhood) are forcing us to rethink concepts such as “national interest” and hence, “self-reliance”.

Self-Reliance Important Despite Globalization

Especially in the last two years, major events have unfolded that continue to have a significant impact on our lives and indeed, the world as we know it. The pandemic has painfully underscored global interdependence amongst countries. Whether it was PPE kits, face masks, syringes or vaccines, no one country had it all. And if they did, they chose not to share it with others. Inherent inequities in the current global healthcare and socio-economic systems led to many parts of the world remaining without access to resources that were critical to preventing infection and the spread of COVID 19. Many western countries with the financial muscle to place bulk vaccine orders in advance end up destroying millions of expired vials. What a waste! Arguably, political and governance decisions made even a couple of months before the vaccines expired could have helped to vaccinate hundreds of thousands of people in less fortunate countries that were not self-reliant.

Russia’s month-long invasion of Ukraine continues even as I write this post. Many countries have united to impose a range of sanctions on Russia; many have stayed away. But in an interdependent world, the impact of such sanctions cannot be localised to just one country. India, which imports more than 85% of its crude oil requirements, has been adversely affected. Many of our young citizens who were pursuing medicine or other courses in Ukraine, have been affected. It is unclear whether they will be able to complete their education in Ukraine if the war continues, and what alternatives there may exist.

Petroleum is a natural resource and we cannot do much on the supply side if we do not have economically exploitable reserves in India (whether onshore or offshore). We have little choice but to look at alternative energy sources and manage demand- which is what we have been doing for some years now. An example is the Electric Vehicle revolution that is beginning to gather momentum. Similarly, drones have the potential to transform many fields, including agriculture, logistics, healthcare and of course, defence- but we need to develop the capacity to design and build them in India.

As the world evolves even more into a knowledge economy, innovation will be a clear source of competitive advantage. Not just through technological advancements in fields like AI/ML, IoT and quantum computing, but also through innovations in creating appropriate legal frameworks to ensure the orderly functioning of the global/national systems. This also means revamping our education system to ensure that it encourages the kind of critical thinking that’s needed in the years ahead. The New Education Policy was introduced in 2020, but many teething troubles remain; steps need to be taken quickly to resolve them if we are to benefit from this new approach to primary, secondary and higher education in our country.

Fostering Self-Reliance Involving Multiple Stakeholders

While the Founding Fathers had a certain perspective when they wrote our constitution, that worldview was limited by what they envisioned at the time. It is reasonable to say that the world has changed drastically in the last 70 years. Indeed, many of these changes could not have been imagined in the late 1940s or even in the 1990s. This is why we, as a nation, must view “self-reliance” in a different way than we have done in the past. The quasi-federal structure that we have given ourselves must not impede progress; the Central and State Governments must work together to formulate policies that complement and supplement each other and are not designed to create face-offs.

Policies and strategies alone are not enough; action is needed on the ground to convert them into actionable plans, projects and measurable goals. This needs everyone to work together. The private sector must play its part in making the necessary investments in building critical capacities and training our youth. The PLI scheme has begun to show some results, and I hope manufacturing of drones, electric vehicles and batteries based on sodium, etc. will also soon take off in a bigger way. Our citizens, too, have an important role to play. The advice to “reuse, reduce, recycle” is not just for environmental gains; it has the potential to conserve physical and financial resources that will make it easier for us to become self-reliant.

The starting point is to set aside ego and ideological differences, make the effort to understand other points of view and work together to build a self-reliant India that becomes a self-contained ecosystem that is more capable of bearing external shocks in the future. We cannot predict what these shocks might be or where they will originate, but we can be better prepared.

Image Credits: Photo by Christopher Burns on Unsplash 

While the Founding Fathers had a certain perspective when they wrote our constitution, that worldview was limited by what they envisioned at the time. It is reasonable to say that the world has changed drastically in the last 70 years. Indeed, many of these changes could not have been imagined in the late 1940s or even in the 1990s. This is why we, as a nation, must view “self-reliance” in a different way than we have done in the past.

POST A COMMENT

Delhi HC Draft Rules for Patent Suits, 2021: Streamlining the Procedure

The Delhi High Court has witnessed a surge in the number of patent infringement actions filed before it across various scientific and technological fields including pharmaceuticals, diagnostics, mechanical engineering, telecommunications, electrical /electronics, wind technology etc, since the past 10-15 years.

In a bid to address the growing complexities concerning patent suits and actions, the Delhi High Court vide its notification dated 10th December published the Rules governing Patent Suits, 2021 in the public domain and has invited inputs and suggestions of the relevant stakeholders, by 17th December 2021.  

The main objective of Drafting a new set of rules is to streamline the procedure for filing patent suits and establish a uniform structure of provisions and governing mandates concerning patent litigation in the city’s adversarial system, following the establishment of IPD.   

Key Highlights of the Draft Rules Governing Patent Suits, 2021

The Draft Rules clarify that the published rules will apply to all patent suits in India which lie before the Intellectual Property Division of the Delhi High Court. As per the issued notification, in case of any inconsistency occurs over the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 and the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Division Rules, then in that case the present rules will prevail.

Further, the General Clause of the Rules (Rule 17) states that “Procedures and definitions not specifically provided for in these Rules shall, in general, be governed by The Civil Procedure Code, 1908 as amended by The Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and the Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018 as also the Delhi High Court Intellectual Property Rights Division Rules, 2021, to the extent they are not inconsistent with the present Rules.”

As per the Definition Clause Rule 2(b), it is maintained that all suits seeking relief under Section 48, Sections 105, 106 including counterclaims under Section 64, Section 108, 109, 114 in the Patent Act, 1970 are governed by the provisions of the Rule. Additionally, the provision of Priority Patent Application has also been provided for in the Rules. It is defined under Rule 2(j) as, “ A parent application, a Convention application or a Patent Cooperation Treaty application from which the suit patent claims priority.”

Rule 3 elaborates upon the mandated contents of the pleadings and Rule 4 provides the details of the documents to be attached with the respective pleadings discussed under Rule 3. It also highlights the specifications that are crucial to mention in the pleadings.

  1. The Plaint (Rule 3 A) shall discuss a brief background of the technology and relevant technical details, ownership details, corresponding suits/applications emanating from the innovation and the respective requisite details of the suit. An infringement analysis through a claim’s vs product chart, list of experts and details of the royalties received qua the suit/ patent portfolio also has to be mentioned.
  1. Written Statement (Rule 3 B) shall be inclusive of arguments comprehensively challenging the claim of infringement. Technical analysis with specifics of the product/process used by the defendant shall be included in the written statement while claiming non-infringement. Further, if the defendant is willing to obtain a license from the patentee, quantum for the same has to be elaborated upon. Details of the sales of the allegedly infringing product/process also have to be provided.
  1. Counter Claim (Rule 3 C) shall be precise as to the grounds that are raised under Section 64 of the Patent Act. The ground claiming lack of novelty or inventive step shall have to be supported by ‘art documents. If a counter-claim is filed seeking relief on the ground of noninfringement, then the requirements for a Suit under Section 105 of the Act shall be followed.
  1. Replication ( Rule 3 D) shall initially summarize Plaintiff’s case and Defendant’s case. Subsequently, it shall provide a para-wise reply to the written statement.
  1. A suit seeking a declaration of non-infringement under section 105 of the Act, shall specify the scope of the claims, the product/process being implemented by the Defendant claimed to be non-infringing and the technical/legal basis on which declaration is being sought
  1. A suit under section 106 of the Act for an injunction against groundless threats shall contain the nature of the threat, whether oral or documentary; details of any challenge made to the validity of the patent and an invalidity brief pursuant to the challenge and details pertaining to correspondence that may have taken place between the parties.

It is pertinent to note that, strict directions and guidelines for the governance of relief applications under the Patent Act, 1970 saves judicial time and resources and improve the quality of judgements delivered by the court.

Further, the Draft Rules segregate the suit adjudication into three case management hearings, apart from the first listing, namely First Case Management Hearing, Second Case Management Hearing, and Third Case Management Hearing. The Rules enumerates specific directions that may be given by the Court at each stage, and also provide guidelines on when certain specific documents may be filed, officers may be appointed, etc. 

A key concept of Hot-tubbing has been discussed under Rule 9 (iii) that provides that expert testimony can be directed by the Court if it deems fit, on its own motion or application by a party to be recorded by Hot Tubbing technique guided by Rule 6, Chapter XI, Delhi High Court (Original Side) Rules, 2018. Further, the rule also discusses the recording of evidence through video conferencing, by a Local Commissioner or at a venue outside the Court’s premises; all subjected to the discretion of the court.

The current Draft under Rule 12 has provided for “compulsory mediation”. It provides that at any stage of the proceedings if the court is of the opinion that the parties ought to explore mediation, it shall appoint a mediator/ a panel of mediators and technical experts to explore the pathway of amicable dispute resolution.

Under Rule 13 the court has been empowered to prepare a list of scientific advisors that shall assist the Court in the adjudication of patent suits. The list shall be subjected to periodical review. When the assistance of the expert is sought, they would have to submit a declaration of integrity and impartiality. 

Under Rule 16, In addition to the provisions in the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 for Summary judgment, Summary Adjudication of Patent suits can be undertaken in the following conditions;

(a) Where the remaining term of the patent is 5 years or less;

(b) A certificate of validity of the said patent has already been issued or upheld by the erstwhile Intellectual Property Appellate Board, any High Court or the Supreme Court;

(c) If the Defendant is a repeat infringer of the same or related Patent;

(d) If the validity of the Patent is admitted and only infringement is denied.

Conclusion

The Draft Rules present adaptability to the technological revolution that has enveloped the industry sectors across the world by simplifying litigation and increasing flexibility of the procedural aspect of the law. The contents of the pleadings are unambiguously discussed, leaving no room for confusion, as all the requisite information can be obtained by the parties at the first instance. Further, the clearly earmarked list of mandatory documents to be filed by the litigants saves judicial time wasted in adjournments owing to the lack of availability of documents.

Incorporation of methods of video conferences, hot-tubbing etc. for the purpose of collecting evidence while providing for the filing of technical primer, makes the case more comprehensible and streamlines judgment quality across the patent suit. The Draft has also successfully addressed the issue of a lengthy litigation process by providing for Summary adjudication of Patent suits.

Since the Rules are currently open to the opinion and suggestions of the stakeholders, it is yet to be seen how the final rules would shape up.

Image Credits:  Photo by Markus Winkler from Pexels

The Draft Rules present adaptability to the technological revolution that has enveloped the industry sectors across the world by simplifying litigation and increasing flexibility of the procedural aspect of the law. The contents of the pleadings are unambiguously discussed, leaving no room for confusion, as all the requisite information can be obtained by the parties at the first instance.

POST A COMMENT

OECD BEPS Framework: Recent Development

Addressing tax issues arising in the digital economy has been a priority of the international community since past several years. It aims to deliver a consensus-based solution and ensure Multinational Enterprises (MNEs) pay a fair share of tax in the jurisdiction they operate. After years of intensive negotiations, the Organization for Export Co-operation and Development (OECD) / G20 has recently introduced a major reform in the international tax framework for taxing the Digital Economy.

The OECD / G20 inclusive framework on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) [“IF”] has issued a Statement, on 8th October 2021, agreeing on a two pillar-solution to address the tax challenges arising from the digitalization of the economy. There are 136 countries, including India, out of a total of 140 countries, representing more than 90% of the global GDP, that have agreed to this Statement. All members of the OECD countries have joined in this initiative and there are four G20 country members  (i.e. Kenya, Nigeria, Pakistan & Sri Lanka) who have not yet joined. The broad framework of the two-pillar approach as per the Statement is as follows:

 

Pillar One

 

Introduction and applicability:

  • Pillar One focuses on fairer distribution of revenue and allocation of taxing rights between the market jurisdictions (where the users are located), based on a ‘’special purpose nexus’’ rule, using a revenue-based allocation.
  • Applicable to large MNEs with a global turnover in excess of  Euro 20 Billion and profitability above 10% (i.e. profit before tax)[1]. This revenue threshold is expected to be reduced to Euro 10 Billion, upon successful review, after 7 years of the IF coming into force.
  • The regulated financial services sector and extractive industries are kept out of the scope of Pillar One.

 

Calculation Methodology:

  • Such allocation will help determine the ‘’Amount A’’ under Pillar one.
  • The special-purpose nexus rule will apply solely to determine whether a jurisdiction qualifies for Amount A allocation based on which 25% of residual profits, defined as profit in excess of 10% of revenue, would be allocated to the market jurisdictions using a revenue-based allocation key.
  • Allocation vis-à-vis nexus rule will be provided for market jurisdictions in which the MNE derives at least Euro 1 Million  of revenue  [Euro 250,000  for smaller jurisdictions (i.e. jurisdiction having  GDP lower than Euro 40 Billion )]
  • Profits will be based on financial accounting income, subject to:
    • Minimal adjustments; and
    • Carry forward of losses
  • Detailed revenue sourcing rules for specific categories of transactions shall be developed to ensure that revenues are sourced to end market jurisdiction, where goods or services are consumed.
  • Safe harbour rules will be separately notified, so as to cap the allocation of baseline marketing and distribution profits of the MNE, which may otherwise already be taxed in the market jurisdiction.

 

Tax Certainty:

  • Rules will be developed to ensure that no double taxation of profits gets allocated to the market jurisdiction, by using either the exemption or the credit method.
  • Commitment has been provided to have mandatory and binding dispute prevention and resolution mechanisms to eliminate double taxation of Amount A and also resolve issues w.r.t transfer pricing and business profits disputes.
  • An elective binding dispute resolution mechanism for issues related to Amount A will be available only for developing economies, in certain cases. The eligibility of jurisdiction for this elective mechanism will be reviewed regularly.

 

Implementation:

  • Amount A will be implemented through a Multilateral Convention (MLC), which will be developed to introduce a multilateral framework for all the jurisdictions that join the IF.
  • The IF has mandated the Task Force on the Digital Economy (TFDE) to define and clarify the features of Amount A (e.g. elimination of double taxation, Marketing and Distribution Profits Safe Harbour), develop the MLC, and negotiate its content so that all jurisdictions that have committed to the Statement will be able to participate.
  • MLC will be developed and is expected to be open for signature in the year 2022, with Amount A expected to come into effect in the year 2023.
  • IF members may need to make changes to domestic law to implement the new taxing rights over Amount A. To facilitate consistency in the approach taken by jurisdictions and to support domestic implementation consistent with the agreed timelines and their domestic legislative procedures, the IF has mandated the TFDE to develop model rules for domestic legislation by early 2022 to give effect to Amount A.
  • The tax compliance will be streamlined allowing in-scope MNEs to manage the process through a single entity.

 

Unilateral Measures:

  • The MLC will require all parties to remove all digital service tax (DST) and other similar taxes (eg: Equalisation levy from India perspective) with respect to all companies and to commit not to introduce such measures in the future.
  • No newly enacted DST or other relevant similar measures will be imposed on any company from 8 October 2021 and until earlier than 31 December 2023 or coming into force of the MLC.

 

Pillar Two

 

Introduction:

 

  • Pillar Two consists of Global anti-Base Erosion Rules (GloBE) to ensure large MNEs pay a minimum level of tax thereby removing the tax arbitrage benefit which arises by artificially shifting the base from high tax jurisdiction to low tax jurisdiction with no economic substance.
  • Pillar Two is a mix of several rules, viz. (i) Income Inclusion Rule (IIR); (ii) Undertaxed Payment Rule (UTPR); and (iii) Subject to Tax Rule (STTR).
  • IIR imposes a top-up tax on parent entity in respect of low taxed income of a constituent entity
  • UTPR denies deductions or requires an equivalent adjustment to the extent low tax income of a constituent entity is not subject to tax under an IIR.
  • STTR is a treaty-based rule which allows source jurisdiction to impose limited source taxation on certain related-party payments subject to tax below a minimum rate. The STTR will be creditable as a covered tax under the GloBE rules.
  • There would be a 10-year transition period for exclusion of a certain percentage of the income of intangibles and payroll which will be reduced on year on year basis
  • GloBE provides de minimis exclusion where the MNE has revenue of less than Euro 10 Million and profit of less than Euro 1 Million and also provides exclusion of income from international shipping.

 

Calculation Methodology:

 

  • Pillar Two introduces a minimum effective tax rate (ETR) of 15% on companies for the purpose of IIR and UTPR and would apply to MNEs reporting a global turnover above Euro 750 Million under country-by-country report.
  • The IIR allocates top-up tax based on a top-down approach, subject to a split-ownership rule for shareholdings below 80%. The UTPR allocates top-up tax from low-tax constituent entities, including those located in the Ultimate Parent Entities (UPE) jurisdiction. However, MNEs that have a maximum of EUR 50 million tangible assets abroad and that operate in no more than 5 other jurisdictions, would be excluded from the UTPR GloBE rules in the initial phase of their international activity.
  • IF members recognize that STTR is an integral part of Pillar Two for developing countries and applies to payments like interest, royalties, and a defined set of other payments. The minimum rate for STTR will be 9%, however, the tax rights will be limited to the difference between the minimum rate and tax rate on payment.
  • GloBE rules would not be applicable to Government entities, international organizations, non-profit organizations, pension funds or investment funds that are UPE of an MNE Group or any holding vehicle used by such entities, organizations, or funds.

 

Implementation:

  • Model rules to give effect to the GloBE rules are expected to be developed by the end of November 2021. These model rules will define the scope and set out the mechanics of the GloBE rules. They will include the rules for determining the ETR on a jurisdictional basis and the relevant exclusions, such as the formulaic substance-based carve-out.
  • An implementation framework that facilitates the coordinated implementation of the GloBE rules is proposed to be developed by the end of 2022. This implementation framework will cover agreed administrative procedures (e.g. detailed filing obligations, multilateral review processes) and safe-harbors to facilitate both compliance by MNEs and administration by tax authorities.
  • Pillar Two is proposed to be effective in the year 2023, with the UTPR coming into effect in the year 2024.

 

FM Comments :

 

With the introduction of the OECD/G20 inclusive framework on BEPS, OECD expects revenues of developing countries to go up by 1.5-2% and increase in overall reallocation of profits to developing countries of about USD 125 Billion. India, being a huge market to large MNEs, has always endorsed this global tax deal. However, with the introduction of this framework, India will have to abolish all unilateral measures, such as equalization levy tax and Significant Economic Presence (digital permanent establishment) provisions. MNEs will also have to re-visit their structure to ring-fence their tax positions based on the revised digital tax norms.  This Statement lays down a road map for a robust international tax framework w.r.t taxing of the digital economy,  not restricted to online digital transactions.

References

[1] Calculated, using an “averaging mechanism”, details of which are awaited.

Image Credits: Photo by Nataliya Vaitkevich from Pexels

With the introduction of the OECD/G20 inclusive framework on BEPS, OECD expects revenues of developing countries to go up by 1.5-2% and increase in overall reallocation of profits to developing countries of about USD 125 Billion. India, being a huge market to large MNEs, has always endorsed this global tax deal.

POST A COMMENT

Global Captive Centers in India: Can Add Value if Set Up Differently

Major forces of change, such as the emergence of new technologies, maturing of platform-based business models and other competitive threats are forcing businesses to transform themselves. Another driver of large-scale change is the pandemic, which has led to new ways of working. Hybrid models, where a large chunk of employees work remotely and not from a designated office space, are now becoming the norm. Although some companies have begun to announce plans for their employees to return to workplaces, the consensus opinion is that a hybrid model is going to become the new norm because it significantly reduces operating costs; also, employees are finding it more convenient.

One area where the above changes are clearly visible relates to how large and medium enterprises across industries are looking at outsourcing to countries such as India. In recent years, the contours of both IT outsourcing and BPO have evolved rapidly; the above-mentioned forces of change are only accelerating the velocity of change.

A survey by NASSCOM recently found that by 2025, MNCs are likely to set up 500 new Global Captive Centers (GCCs) in India. Until two years ago, the number of such units established annually was around 50. This demonstrates that India’s large talent pool continues to be attractive. But it’s a different world we live in than even five years ago.

Earlier, most MNCs viewed their GCCs in India as low-cost delivery centers and design, architecture, prioritization of projects etc. were all the exclusive domain of Business/Technology leaders in the parent company. Cost arbitrage opportunities still exist in India vis-à-vis western countries, and thus, cost savings will remain an important objective for evaluating GCC performance. However, the ongoing shifts are raising the bar on how GCCs are expected to contribute to their parent organizations. Along with cost-efficient service delivery, enhancing automation, driving process innovation and enabling adoption of new technologies and architecture paradigms will all become important performance criteria. In some cases, there may even be expectations of new product innovations coming out of the Indian GCC.

MNCs will need appropriate operating models and talent to deliver on the potential. Employee contracts need to be suitably structured. IPR must be appropriately protected. Compliance with data privacy and other regulations must be ensured. As MNCs plan and implement their GCCs in India, they must keep in mind that India too is changing rapidly. They must formulate their strategies keeping in mind four specific factors:

  • Quality infrastructure (including reliable electricity and broadband connectivity) is now available across the country, and not limited to Tier 1 cities. This gives companies a wider choice of locating their GCCs.
  • As a result of reverse-migration triggered by the pandemic, talent too is available in smaller cities across the country. Given the possibility of remote working, the proximity to families and lower cost of living have become significant incentives; in fact, many employees prefer to live and work from such locations.
  • Many state governments are offering incentives to companies establishing operations in less-developed parts of their states and creating employment opportunities.
  • The country’s FDI, income tax and GST regimes are also frequently being tweaked to make India more competitive and business-friendly.

All this means that making choices and decisions around business objectives, investment routing, structuring and locations based on criteria and checklists that were relevant even a couple of years ago may lead to sub-optimal outcomes. Your GCC in India has the potential to be a global Centre of Excellence- so make sure that you make the right decisions so that your investments deliver ROI in ways that go far beyond cost arbitrage.

Mr. Sandip Sen, former Global CEO of Aegis and a well-known veteran of the BPO industry, put it thus: “These are exciting times for the Business Process Management industry for many reasons. Use of Artificial Intelligence (AI), analytics and higher levels of automation mean that players at the lower end of the value chain will need to raise their capabilities. In the next phase, GCCs will focus more on innovation as well as technology enablement aimed at enterprises to embrace ecosystem-based business models and higher levels of customer-centricity. But to achieve all this, companies have to take an approach that is very different from what they might have taken some years ago”.

 

Image Credits: Photo by Alex Kotliarskyi on Unsplash

MNCs will need appropriate operating models and talent to deliver on the potential. Employee contracts need to be suitably structured. IPR must be appropriately protected. Compliance with data privacy and other regulations must be ensured. 

POST A COMMENT

Project Cost in Infrastructure Projects: Concept, Challenges and Way Forward

The IMF and Central Statistic Organization had dubbed the Indian economy as the fastest growing economy back in 2019. Moving forward, in 2021 despite the havoc wrecked by the pandemic on advanced economies across the globe, the IMF has kept India’s growth forecast unchanged at 9.5%. In order to sustain India’s growth momentum, the development of country’s infrastructure sector is cogent. The National Infrastructure Pipeline has been the focus of current policies, with an unprecedented increase in capital expenditure allocation for FY 2021-22 by 34.5% to INR 5.5 lakh crore to propel infrastructure creation. However, the April-June 2021 report of The Ministry of Statistics states that 470 projects sanctioned by the centre suffered from a cost overrun of 61.5 percent, that is Rs 4,46,169.37 crore[1].

Project cost remains the central concern for any seminal discussion on infrastructural projects in India or around the world. This is the nebulous point where a host of stakeholders would converge to dispute, disagree, or litigate. This article aims to discuss the concept of project cost and its various implications for the different stakeholders involved.

Introduction to Infrastructure and Projects

 

Costs that are reasonably incurred for the acquisition and construction of infrastructure are referred to as infrastructure costs. Hence, Project cost could mean the total cost of an infrastructure project.  In India, there is no clear definition of the term infrastructure. However, on 1st March 2012, the Cabinet Committee on Infrastructure approved the framework to include a harmonised master list of sub-sectors to guide all the agencies responsible for supporting infrastructure in India. These sub-sectors include transports and logistics, energy, water and sanitation, communication, and social infrastructure. Out of the plethora of these sub-sectors, during the fiscals of 2020-2025, it is expected that sub-sectors such as Energy (24%), Roads (19%), Railways (13%) and Urban (16%) shall constitute 70%of the projected capital expenditure in infrastructure in India[2]. The total capital expenditure as per the report is expected to be 102 lakh crore Indian rupees. Furthermore, in India, the current investment in infrastructure is USD 3.9 Trillion, and the required investment is USD 4.5 Trillion, leaving a gap of USD 526 Billion[3]. Therefore, the energy and infrastructure sector are instrumental in generating tremendous employment opportunities and drive a substantial increase in GDP per annum in India as well as countries all over the world.

 

Structure of Project Finance Transactions

 

The main parties involved in a project finance transaction structure are (i) The Authority or the Government (ii) The Private Party Investors/Developers, Sponsors or Promotors and (iii) the Lenders. These three parties are key players responsible for the determination of project costs in infrastructure and construction projects. The principal point of convergence for these three players is the project company (i.e., also known as special purpose vehicle) set up by the private party investors under which the infrastructure project is formed and under which the project exists in the concession agreement. The project cost is mainly estimated by the private party and the lenders who would finance in the form of equity and debt. The typical financial structure for infrastructure projects has a debt-to-equity ratio of 75:25. However, the ratio may vary depending upon the risks involved.

                Illustration I: Key parties that influence the project cost of an infrastructure project

                                                                                                                     

 

Risks that affect the Determination of Project Cost

 

Every project has certain risks attached to its completion. These risks influence the determination of project costs by the authority, the private parties and the lenders. The risks, in turn, then affect the total cost of the project. The risks affecting the three parties are explained below:

 

                                Illustration II: Risks that affect the determination of project cost

    

 Risk for Authority

Risk for Private Party
Investors

Risk for Lender

Technical or physical risks

Economic or market risks

Economic or market risks

Risk relating to land acquisition

Construction and completion risk – cost overrun/time
overrun/delays

Financing risks

For eg. Technical or physical risks may include risks
associated with
technology during
construction and operation as well as social and environmental risks.

For eg. Economic or
market risks may include input and output price variations, variation in
demand, debt/equity financing as well as counterparty risks.

For eg. Economic or
market risks may include input and output price variations, variation in
demand, debt/equity financing as well as counterparty risks.

The other risks that affect the cost of the project are contractual and legal risks, resource and raw material availability risks, demand risks, design risks, force majeure, property damage, permits, licenses, authorization, supply risk, social and environmental risks.

 

The Major Risks affecting Project Cost in India: Cost Overrun and Time Overrun

 

Out of the myriad of risks affecting project cost, the major risks in India are the risks associated with cost and time overruns. As many as 525 infrastructure projects were hit by time overruns, and as many as 470 infrastructure projects, each worth Rs 150 crore or more, were hit by cost overruns of over Rs 4.38 Trillion owing to delays, according to a report by the Ministry of Statistics, cited previously[4] The main causes for time overruns are delay in obtaining forest and environmental clearances, delay in land acquisition,  and lack of infrastructure support.  As per the report, there are other reasons like delay in project financing, delay in finalisation of detailed engineering, alteration in scope, delay in ordering and equipment supply, law, geological issues, contractual complications and delay in tendering.

 

The Key Elements of Project Cost

 

The elements of ‘costing’ include variables such as raw materials, labour, and expenses. Thus, for infrastructure projects as well, at the time of estimation of cost, these variables would come into play. The factors affecting cost for a public-private partnership project could be the following:

 

                        Illustration III: Factors affecting Cost of Projects: PPP model projects

FACTORS AFFECTING COST OF PROJECTS : PPP MODEL PROJECTS

Materials

Labour

Consultants

Contractor

Client

External
Factors

Dispute
Resolution

Costs and delays
associated with procurement and delivery of materials, import costs

Availability or non –
availability of skilled labour.

Recurring changes in
design

Poor site management
and supervision

Change orders

Force Majeure events
and weather changes.

International dispute
resolution in outside jurisdictions[1]

Unavailability of raw
materials

Poor management of
labour

Delay in approvals and
inspections

Inept subcontractors

Political and policy
changes such as MII[2]

Approvals from
authorities

Costly and time-consuming
domestic litigation

Wastage and theft of
materials – 13 to 14 million construction waste (FY 2000-2001)[3]

Increasing cost of
labour

Inaccuracy in design,
costs associated with knowledge transfer

Poor planning,
scheduling and cash flow management by Contractors

Poor communication for
quality and cost

Accidents

High legal costs and high
arbitrators fees[4].
Non-realisation of arbitral awards and court decree amounts.

 

 

Case Study: The Mumbai Monorail – An EPC Contract Model

 

Time and cost overruns in projects lead to disputes and arbitrations. A suitable example is the  Mumbai Monorail which has entered disputes and arbitration between the Contractor and the Authority over its project cost[9]. The development authority MMRDA entered into a contract with L&T Scomi Engineering for the construction of the Mumbai Monorail project. The original project cost between the Private Party Investors and the Authority was estimated to be Rs 2,700 crore, after which disputes arose. The Authority had claims against the Contractor for not completing the project task on time. The arguments of the Contractor pertained to the cost escalations caused by delays due to the fault of the Authority.  In 2019, the Bombay High Court appointed an arbitrator to settle the dispute. Currently, the dispute is still in the arbitration stage. Furthermore, post-December 2018, the MMRDA had taken over the Operation and Maintenance of the Mumbai Monorail project from L&T Scomi Engineering. Due to the Make in India policy, the tenders for manufacturing of the Mumbai Monorail were altered to encourage manufacturers and Indian technology partners to participate and fulfil the demands of manufacturing the additional monorail rakes[10]. Among other issues currently plaguing the Mumbai Monorail project, such as unavailability of a sufficient number of rakes to keep the services running and an inadequate number of spare parts, the widening deficit between revenue and O&M costs, remains primary.   

   

Way Forward

 

As per the report by the Ministry of Statistics cited above, the reason for cost and time overruns can be largely attributed to the state-wise lockdown due to the COVID-19 pandemic, which has been causing great hindrance to the implementation of infrastructure projects. Time and cost overruns in projects lead to disputes and arbitrations. Furthermore, in the procurement stage of projects, biddings in India happen with the project sponsor underbidding for the project so as to survive the competitive market. However, the underbidding combined with lack of margin included in the overall costs by contractors or sponsors often overlook inevitable hidden and unforeseeable costs which in turn enhance the final costs of the project. For instance, the Mumbai-Monorail project is a classic example of cost overrun. The solution would be to have a clear understanding of the project agreements, risks involved in the project particularly the conditions of force majeure, an objective evaluation of project cost while bidding taking into account uncertainties relating to raw material procurement, labour laws, land acquisition and risks related to cost and time overruns due to decisions of the awarding authority or public policy or any of the factors described above. The compensation clauses should be coherent and unambiguous, and in line with actual project cost incurred in the project leaving less scope for future disputes and arbitrations. Furthermore, it would be useful for the contractors / concessionaires , while making claims in an infrastructure project, to do it in a timely manner while maintaining clear and systematic evidentiary documentation, to substantiate the claims that may have arisen during the course of the project.

References: 

[1] http://www.cspm.gov.in/english/flr/FR_Mar_2021.pdf

[2] Finance Minister Smt. Nirmala Sitharaman releases Report of the Task Force on National Infrastructure Pipeline for 2019-2025, dated 31 December 2019, Press Information Bureau, pib.gov.in (2019), https://pib.gov.in/Pressreleaseshare.aspx?PRID=1598055 (last visited Sep 17, 2021).

[3] Forecasting Infrastructure Investment Needs and gaps, Global Infrastructure Outlook – A G20 INITIATIVE, https://outlook.gihub.org/ (last visited Sep 17, 2021).

[4] 422nd Flash Report on Central Sector Projects (Rs.150 Crore and Above), March 2021, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation Infrastructure and Project Monitoring Division (2021), Available at: http://www.cspm.gov.in/english/flr/FR_Mar_2021.pdf (last visited Sep 17, 2021)

[5] Joseph Mante, Issaka Ndekugri & Nii Ankrah, Resolution of Disputes Arising From Major Infrastructure Projects In Developing Countries Fraunhofer, https://www.irbnet.de/daten/iconda/CIB_DC24504.pdf (last visited Sep 17, 2021).

[6] Make in India Initiative, Government of India.

[7] Sandeep Shrivastava and Abdol Chini M.E. Rinker Sr., Construction Materials and C&D Waste in India, School of Building Construction University of Florida, USA, https://www.irbnet.de/daten/iconda/CIB14286.pdf (last visited Sep 17, 2021).

[8] Amendments to the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, August 2014, Law Commission of India, Report No.246.

[9] Larsen and Toubro Limited Scomi Engineering BHD vs. Mumbai Metropolitan Region Development Authority MANU 2018 SC 1151, Arbitration Petition (C) No. 28 OF 2017.

[10]Adimulam, S. (2021, March 2). Mumbai: Monorail rakes will be made in India. Mumbai. Retrieved September 17, 2021, from https://www.freepressjournal.in/mumbai/mumbai-monorail-rakes-will-be-made-in-india.

 

 

Image Credits: Photo by Wade Austin Ellis on Unsplash

The solution would be to have a clear understanding of the project agreements, risks involved in the project particularly the conditions of force majeure, an objective evaluation of project cost while bidding taking into account uncertainties relating to raw material procurement, labour laws, land acquisition and risks related to cost and time overruns due to decisions of the awarding authority or public policy or any of the factors described above.

POST A COMMENT