India's technology sector has produced companies of extraordinary value — and the IP frameworks that protect that value range from world-class to negligible, often within the same company. The gap between a company that has properly documented its IP ownership, registered its key marks, structured its technology agreements to protect its know-how, and built an IP portfolio that supports its valuation — and one that has not — is not a gap in legal budget. It is a gap in legal advice received early enough to matter.
Goldschmidt Pallonji's IP and Technology practice covers the full spectrum — from trademark filing and patent prosecution through technology contracts, licensing, and cross-border IP structuring, to IP enforcement litigation and DPDP Act compliance. The practice is built around the needs of technology businesses, software companies, pharmaceutical and life sciences companies, consumer brands, and media and entertainment companies — each of which has a different IP profile and a different set of risks.
For cross-border IP — Indian companies licensing technology to overseas entities, foreign technology companies licensing into India, and Indian startups that hold IP in a Singapore or Cayman holding company for investor purposes — GP provides the bilateral analysis that single-jurisdiction IP practices cannot. The royalty withholding tax on an India-to-Singapore technology licence, the transfer pricing implications of an intra-group IP licence, and the contractual protections that Indian law provides (or does not provide) for licensed technology are all assessed simultaneously by one team.
Registration to enforcement, licensing to DPDP compliance — the complete IP and technology law capability that Indian and international technology businesses require.
Trademark clearance searches, filing strategy across classes, prosecution before the Trade Marks Registry (including responding to examination reports and hearing proceedings), and multi-jurisdictional filing coordination through the Madrid System. Trademark watching services and opposition proceedings where third-party applications conflict with existing registrations. Enforcement — cease and desist letters, infringement suits before the District Court and High Court, Anton Piller orders, and IPAB/Commercial Court proceedings. Online infringement — domain name disputes under INDRP and social media takedowns.
Learn More →Patent filing and prosecution before the Indian Patent Office — complete drafting of patent specifications, claims, and drawings in coordination with technical subject-matter experts. PCT international applications for Indian innovations seeking overseas protection. Section 3 patentability analysis for software, business methods, and pharmaceutical formulations — the most litigated area of Indian patent law. Patent licensing strategy and drafting. Freedom-to-operate opinions for product launches and technology acquisitions. Patent portfolio management for companies with existing or growing patent estates.
Learn More →Drafting and negotiation of technology agreements — software development agreements, software-as-a-service (SaaS) subscription agreements, technology services agreements, IT outsourcing contracts, and maintenance and support agreements. IP ownership provisions in development contracts — the work-for-hire analysis under Indian copyright law, assignment versus licence, and the specific provisions that ensure the commissioning party owns the deliverable. Open source licence compliance — identifying open source obligations in a software product and managing GPL, LGPL, MIT, and Apache licence compliance in commercial software distribution.
Learn More →Implementation of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act 2023 — India's comprehensive data protection legislation — across the full compliance lifecycle. Data mapping and processing activity inventories. Consent framework design and implementation for digital products. Data Principal rights management — notice, consent, correction, and erasure mechanics. Data Fiduciary obligations including privacy notices, grievance mechanisms, and Data Protection Officer appointment where required. Cross-border data transfer compliance and Significant Data Fiduciary obligations for platforms above the threshold.
Learn More →IP holding structure design for technology companies — whether to hold IP in India, Singapore, Cayman, or another jurisdiction, and the tax and legal implications of each choice. Intra-group IP licensing agreements with transfer pricing-compliant royalty rates. Royalty withholding tax analysis on cross-border licence payments — Section 195 TDS obligations, treaty-reduced rates, and nil withholding certificate applications. For Indian startups with IP in a Singapore Holdco structure — the FEMA and tax implications of the holding structure and the licensing back to the Indian entity.
Learn More →Legal frameworks for AI product development and deployment — ownership of AI-generated output under Indian copyright law, liability for AI-generated harm, contractual risk allocation in AI services agreements. Training data licensing — the copyright status of data used to train AI models, and the licensing or fair use frameworks that legitimise training data use. AI procurement contracts for enterprises deploying third-party AI tools — vendor due diligence, data residency and privacy obligations, model output warranties, and indemnity frameworks. Generative AI product compliance — content moderation obligations, harmful content liability, and the emerging regulatory framework for AI in India.
Learn More →Many Indian startups — particularly those that have raised VC funding — hold their intellectual property in a Singapore holding company, with the Indian entity operating as a services subsidiary and paying a royalty to the Singapore Holdco for the use of the IP. This structure raises simultaneous legal, tax, and FEMA questions: Is the royalty rate arm's-length for transfer pricing purposes? Is there a Section 195 withholding obligation on the royalty payment? Does FEMA permit the intra-group royalty arrangement without RBI approval? Is the IP ownership documentation between the Singapore entity and the original Indian developers watertight? GP advises on all four dimensions simultaneously — from practitioners who understand Singapore IP law as well as Indian IP and tax law.
India's pharmaceutical sector produces both innovators and generic manufacturers — and the IP framework for each is entirely different. For innovators, patent prosecution under the Section 3(d) and 3(e) provisions that limit evergreening, and the Bolar exemption that permits pre-approval research on patented compounds. For generic manufacturers, freedom-to-operate analysis, patent term expiry calculations, and pre-grant opposition proceedings. For licensing — compulsory licence applications and the statutory licence framework under the Patents Act. GP handles both sides of the pharmaceutical IP equation — the innovator protecting its patent and the generic manufacturer challenging it.
Trademark infringement in India is no longer primarily a physical goods problem. It is a digital problem — counterfeit online sellers, domain name squatters, social media impersonators, and app store copycats who free-ride on established brand equity. The legal tools to address online trademark infringement are available and fast — John Doe orders (where the infringers are unknown), Anton Piller orders (where evidence must be secured urgently), platform takedown notices, and domain name transfer proceedings under INDRP. GP has obtained all of these on behalf of brand owners who discovered infringement on marketplaces, social platforms, and domain registrars — and obtained orders within days where the commercial loss justified urgency. If your brand is being misused online, the question is not whether there is a legal remedy. The question is how fast you can deploy it.
The IP licence agreement that a technology company signs today has a tax life of its own — royalty withholding obligations, transfer pricing documentation requirements, GST on the licence fee, and capital gains on any IP disposal. Most IP lawyers do not handle these. Most tax lawyers do not draft IP contracts. GP handles both — the IP contract and the tax consequences of that contract — from one team, ensuring that the IP structure and the tax structure are consistent and mutually reinforcing from the first draft.
Indian startups that hold IP in Singapore, Australian technology companies licensing into India, and Indian IT companies with IP in their UK entity all face bilateral IP and tax questions that single-jurisdiction practitioners cannot fully answer. GP advises on the Indian side of every cross-border IP structure — and on the Singapore, Australian, GCC, and UK side simultaneously. The IP holding structure advice, the transfer pricing documentation, and the FEMA compliance are delivered together, from one team, without the coordination risk of multiple separate advisers producing conflicting positions.
IP registration is not valuable in itself — it is valuable because it protects assets that have value. GP advises on IP strategy as well as IP mechanics: which innovations are worth patenting, which marks are worth registering in which jurisdictions, which trade secrets are better protected by contract than by registration, and how the IP portfolio should be structured to maximise the company's valuation in a funding round or M&A transaction. The IP advice that GP provides is anchored in the commercial objective — because IP that is not commercially structured is just a filing fee.
Complete confidentiality maintained.
Conducted an IP ownership audit for a B2B SaaS company ahead of a Rs.45 crore Series B fundraise. The audit identified that a significant portion of the core platform code had been written by three contractors and two co-founders under arrangements that did not include express IP assignment provisions — leaving copyright in the individuals rather than the company. GP remediated the gap through retrospective IP assignment agreements with all five parties, confirmed through a legal opinion that the assignments were valid and complete, and delivered the clean IP ownership position that the lead investor required as a condition of investment. The Series B closed on schedule.
Advised a consumer electronics brand on the emergency enforcement response to the discovery of 340 counterfeit product listings across three major Indian e-commerce platforms. GP obtained a John Doe order from the Delhi High Court within 72 hours of instruction, served the order on the three platforms, and coordinated the removal of all identified listings within five business days. The same order was used as the basis for a follow-up series of takedowns of newly identified listings over the subsequent three months — establishing an ongoing enforcement protocol that reduced counterfeit listings to negligible levels.
Advised an Indian fintech startup on the legal and tax review of its existing Singapore IP holding structure — established by a prior adviser without FEMA compliance analysis or transfer pricing documentation. GP assessed the FEMA implications of the IP assignment to the Singapore entity (identifying an omitted RBI filing), established arm's-length royalty rates for the licence-back agreement using a comparable uncontrolled royalties analysis, prepared the transfer pricing documentation required under the Indian TP regulations, and corrected the Section 195 TDS withholding on royalty payments that had been calculated at the wrong rate. All compliance gaps were remediated before the company's planned Series C fundraise.
The practice is led by a senior IP lawyer with experience across trademark, copyright, and patent prosecution and enforcement — working alongside a dedicated DPDP and technology contracts specialist, a patent agent team for pharmaceutical and technology patent prosecution, and the IP tax CA team that handles royalty withholding, transfer pricing for IP, and GST on technology services. For cross-border IP structures, the practice draws directly on GP's International Tax and Transfer Pricing practices.
The practice has a specific AI and emerging technology focus — advising on AI contracts, training data licensing, generative AI liability, and the evolving Indian regulatory framework for AI — recognising that the technology law questions of the next decade are substantially different from those of the last.
The consent framework, Data Principal rights, grievance mechanism, and Significant Data Fiduciary obligations — a practical implementation guide for businesses that need to build DPDP compliance before the enforcement window opens.
Read Alert →Co-founders, contractors, employees, and open source — the five IP ownership gaps that appear in most technology company due diligence, and how to identify and remediate them before investors do.
Read Guide →Whether you need trademark registration, a patent filed, an IP ownership gap remediated, a DPDP implementation plan, or emergency trademark enforcement — our team responds within 24 hours.
By submitting you agree to our Privacy Policy. All communications are strictly confidential.