Kavitha Gupta's blog

A case study: how the record breaking antitrust penalty against Qualcomm transforms the landscape of SEPs licensing in China Dechert LLP China   March 26 2015 The PRC National Development and Reform Commission (NDRC) finally concluded its antitrust investigations against Qualcomm and issued an administrative sanction on February 10, 2015, putting an end to the 16-month investigation. The anti-monopoly enforcement agency held that Qualcomm had abused its dominant market position and restricted competition, and that its monopolistic conduct had violated the PRC Anti-monopoly Law (AML). A written decision was published on March 2, 2015. As a result of the violation, a record-breaking administrative penalty of RMB6.0988 billion (~US$975 million) was imposed by the NDRC, which turned out to be the largest fine for antitrust violations ever imposed by the Chinese government and an amount equal to five times the total amount of fines levied by the NDRC in 2014

              By H.L. Kumar   On allotment of independent code number (after complying with the prescribed conditions) and submitting the list of 20 or more employees, a contractor acquires the status of ‘establishment’ (may it be a Company, firm, society or sole proprietorship) and becomes responsible for deposit of Employees Provident Fund contributions. Besides that administrative charges are paid to the EPFO by such establishment. The establishment of contractor maintains records of the employees, submits nomination forms, returns and complies with other formalities like maintenance of inspection book, etc. etc. it is intriguing as to why a principal employer should be held liable for the default in payment of contributions or delaying the same by the establishment of the contractor.     The Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) was conceptualized to take care of the employees but not to let loose the reign of ‘Inspector Raj’ on the employers. It is a sad commentary on the

The license compliance endeavor by Autodesk post audit at BMM Ispat Limited (BMM), a Bangalore based company resulted in strong reaction in the form of lawsuit against Autodesk India Private Limited (Autodesk) before the Additional City Civil Judge, Bangalore. BMM sought to restrain Autodesk from interfering with the business activities of BMM. The court dismissed the interim injunction application filed by BMM and concluded that Autodesk possesses enforceable audit rights in their software license agreement and, being a reputed company, the question of interference by them does not arise. The court  permitted Autodesk officials to inspect  the premises of BMM to verify/ audit the use of its software. Facts of the case In December 2007 and March 2013, BMM purchased a total of 5 Auto CAD software’s/applications whereupon a Software License Agreement (SLA) was signed between Autodesk Inc. (parent company of Autodesk) and BMM. As per SLA generated at the time of installation of th

Why in-house lawyers are changing their behaviour Many legal functions are changing how they operate. We all know why. The strategy debate has been done to death. Forward-looking legal functions are focusing resolutely now on action and change. If change isn’t seen as an opportunity, it becomes a burden. But what are the professional and personal benefits of all this change? What would motivate senior lawyers to get behind the transformation required? Sandy Toksvig, the British-Danish comedienne jokes: “the problem with transformational change is that it suggests ordinary change has no change in it whatsoever”. Lawyers need to change their behaviour in order to bring about the transformation that the business is seeking in the operation of Legal functions. But why should they? The answer depends on whether you are a lawyer leader, or a lawyer follower. What should lawyer leaders do? Lawyer leaders, like all business leaders, should do three things: they create an environment in wh