The SpicyIP TV Podcast SS Edn: Ep 03 with Mr. Adarsh Ramanujan
Sonisha Srinivasan
In this 3rd episode of the SpicyIP Podcast Summer School Edition, it was an honour to speak with Mr. Adarsh Ramanujan(detailed bio below), a distinguished legal mind and an author. His attention to detail and well laid out thought process gave us a fresh perspective to approach complex issues. The brief time he spent with us during the Summer School was thought provoking and impactful leaving us wanting more. His process of breaking down complex scientific and technical matters into small components that are easily digestible is something that truly inspired the class. It was great to have him on the podcast and understand from his experiences more about patent litigation and his perspectives on legal education.
In this episode, I talk to him about approaches to, and a career in patent litigation, as well as the present state of legal education. A few gems to watch out for (with their context) in the podcast include when he talks about “not being a frog in the well”, his take on the “Jack of all trades” phrase, and his very interesting discussion on gaps (including necessary gaps) existing between legal education and practice! Yet another super insightful session from our Summer School faculty! Scroll down to view it (You can view episode 01 with Mr. Murali Neelakantan here and episode 02 with Mr. Sandeep Rathod here.)
SpicyIP TV: The Summer School Edition – Episode 03 Adarsh Ramanujan on Patent Litigation as a Career and Legal Education
You can view the Youtube video here: https://youtu.be/jBGySjaIXRs?si=qD qbq dVm1aX30o1
(Incase you have any trouble following along, you have the subtitles as well as the transcription below.)
In this episode (03), Sonisha Srinivasan speaks to Mr Adarsh Ramanujan (bio below) about the art of being a patent counsel and how to pursue a career in this field. Drawing from his experience assisting courts as amicus curiae, he discusses how a strong grasp of technical details are key to effective advocacy in patent litigation. He also reflects on whether a science background is essential for aspiring patent lawyers, shares candid advice for students entering the field, and comments on the present state of legal education in India.
About Adarsh Ramanujan: Adarsh Ramanujan is a Patent Agent and Independent Counsel/Founder at the Law Chambers of Adarsh Ramanujan with a diverse practice area, focusing primarily on litigation and commercial arbitration. Adarsh has an LL.M from the University of California, Berkeley, USA and is a gold medalist holding a B.Sc. LL.B (Hons.) degree, from NLU, Jodhpur, India. He is dual qualified to practice law in India and the State of California (USA). He is also accepted as a Fellow at the Chartered Institute of Arbitrators, London one of the oldest arbitral institutes in the world. He spent 3 years as a Partner of a law firm in Geneva, handling international disputes. He is one of the youngest counsels to represent sovereign governments. He has also consulted on FTAs and, thus, brings considerable global experience to his practice in India. He is the author of “Ramanujan’s Patent Law” (Oakbridge, 2024) and “Cases and Materials on Patent Law: A Synthesis for India” (Thomson Reuters, 2022) and has authored more than 40 national and international publications in the areas of IP, International Law, Arbitration & Tax. He was appointed Amicus Curiae by the Delhi High Court on the issue of AI and copyright, Amicus Curiae by the Delhi High Court and the Madras High Court on the issue of patentability of diagnostic methods.
SS: We have a couple of questions for you sir. With expertise from the global, uh, with global experience, could you tell us how you explain technical matters, specifically scientific, intricate scientific concepts, to courts while you litigate and while you are in the court? Do you have some kind of a strategy that you use to explain such matters to them specially with the experience of being appointed as amicus curiae by the Delhi High Court and and Madras High Court in various cases?
AR: I don’t know if there is any specific strategy, but usually my starting point for any dispute that involves a lot of technical facts is to, you know, actually become a person skilled in the art myself. That’s usually my starting point, which is that for every case, each case that I have to attend to, I actually try to go to the depths of that technical field to the extent that’s feasible for me given the time limits. That’s usually my first step, so that I understand the technology thoroughly as much as somebody in that field would understand, that’s the first step that I normally do, which involve a lot of, so I buy a lot of books. So if I get a, you know, a dispute that’s relating to electrical engineering, I’ll end up buying a lot of electrical engineering books. If I get something on fluid dynamics, I’ll buy fluid dynamic books So recently, this AI issue came up, so I have like six books on how machine learning is, you know, executed, what’s the history behind machine learning, so I do a lot of reading at the initial stage, just to get a much wider view and a more in depth view of the field that I’m involved in. That’s usually first stage for me. Then the second stage is I’ll go back to the case that’s been given to me, understand the case better because now I have a, I have a more in-depth perspective of the technology, re-understand that piece of patent or technical document handed over to me.
Then the third step, which is the most significant part is break it down into the smallest possible components If, if you’re talking about, I mean, it’s difficult to give it in abstract, but if you take a typical chemistry patent case where you’re dealing with the, you know, a development of a new pharmaceutical substance, right? And typically a substance like that will be represented by a chemical formula. And the chemical formula tends to sometimes be a big molecule, even from the drawing you look at it, you’ll see it’s a big molecule. The idea is to then dig down even that molecule to say that look in, although this is a single molecule, you have to understand this molecule into one, two, three, four, five different components. And this is essentially how these components are coming together to make this particular molecule. And where the real functionality of that molecule is arising from, is it because of a substitute at a particular location or a substitute in another location? So the idea is to enable the judge or assist the judge in making them understand that what you look on the surface looks complicated. But it is possible to break down anything that is complicated into smaller packets of information. And my job as I see it is to assist the judge in breaking it down into that smaller package of information. And then assist the judge in putting them together. So this is usually the process I go through. Sometimes it’s very expanded depending on how much time I have on my hands. Sometimes it’ll be very truncated depending on what type I have on my hands. The other thing I also realized is the span of my limited career or experience, judges are having lesser time than before. So if say eight years ago, I would have two hours to explain a case to a judge, that’s now cut down to half, which means, we also need to enable or assist the judge to understand the same set of facts in half the time than before. Which means you’ll again go back, you’ll again break it down into even smaller packets. So it’s, I feel the key is to be in a position to break it down into that smaller packet of information. That’s the way I see it. I don’t know if this is a strategy or if it’s just my own chaotic way of doing it. But it’s the complexity that always bothers a judge. Because you can give a judge a complex typical facts scenario and they never have a problem in breaking it down. You take a typical family dispute. We’ve some 15 different family members. but they still know how the partition will go. They dont get perturbed by the complexity. What perturbs them is when the complex facts are also gibberish where they’re too technical. So if we are able to break it down, I think that’s the key. is what I have seen.
SS: So as a counsel, it’s important that you know it very well.
AR:Yes, yes.
SS: So in that aspect, how important do you think is a background of science for patent litigation? Do you think somebody with a science background or somebody who understands science better is at a better position?
AR: 100%. I think as arguing counsel, it is the person who can, you need not to have a science background.I do. But what I tell everybody is, if you want to do patent litigation, either have a science background or mentally be ready to know that even if you don’t have a science background, you should be willing to put in that time to understand every technical aspect of the case that comes before you. Because as you rightly said, you can’t as an arguing counsel be the blind leading the blind. Because in 90% of your cases, your judge is not going to understand,is not going to come with a science background. Which means if you also don’t understand it, you’re only going to give some half-baked things to judge. And that’s not going to help the judge in any way. So it’s, I advise people, it’s absolutely necessary,but even if you don’t have that science degree, you should contemplate within yourself whether you have the ability, or you don’t have the psychological block in “I won’t study science” I’ve seen that a lot of practitioners, that this is technical, this is not my cup of tea. You figure it out. So if you have the block then I advise not doing patent litigation.
SS: Could you just give some guidance and advice to students who want to pursue patent litigation and take it forward as a career?
AR: So what guidance? So my first guidance is that don’t have a psychological block to scientific information. Two, be ready to work very hard. As a profession, this profession requires a lot of hard work. If you really want to excel, you need to spend a lot of time reading. And in the area of technical facts in patent litigation , it’s all the more because you end up having to read stuff that is not got to do with anything with law. That’s two. So I feel that in patent litigation you need to be ready to work extra hard. And three, I advise every person who wants to do patent litigation to draft and prosecute patents. You have to start at the ground level. You need to know from the foundation where it leads to. That’s a third piece of advice I’ll certainly give.
SS: This also means internships towards direction.
AR: Yes, yes, 100% internships towards a direction or spend a few years with a team that’s prosecuting patent applications. What other, what other guidance I can give? Okay, fourth I will give which is that Don’t be a frog in the well. Your interest may be patent litigation, but never come to a position where you say, I will only do patent litigation. I feel that doesn’t help. So this initial part of the podcast that I was telling you, the ability to break it down into smaller packets. I think a lot of it also has to do with lateral thinking, which is you need to attack the same problem from different angles. Okay? So if you’re the guy who’s or the gal who’s doing only patent litigation or only patent work every day, seven days a week, for six days a week, I think you lose that ability to attack the problem from different angles. It’s your ability to do non-patent litigation, and in fact, preferably non-IP litigation. Just step out of that zone of IP or patents, do something completely different. I don’t know, take up some bail work. Whatever, whatever other areas interest you or don’t interest you, do a contract dispute, do some arbitration. Whatever work comes your way, try doing things other than patent litigation and IP litigation. I think it hones your ability to look at the same problem from different angles.
SS: So you also would say that a generalist is better than a specialist or..
AR: Okay, so… So you, I’m sure you heard the old adage, Jack of all trades and master of none. So I have my own personal adage, I delete the letter ‘N’ from none. So you ought to be Jack of all trades and master of one. Okay. So that’s the way I have tried to build my own practice. I started, although I did a lot of initial part, lots of custom work etc. I started doing patent work. I decided I’ll become a master in that subject. At least I try. So that becomes like a core. And then you start building satellites around it. You start doing trademark work, your copyright work. then you step out of your IP zone, you do tax, you do, I did some tax work, I did anti-dumping, countervailing duties.I did international trade. Then I started doing arbitration. Now I’m doing a lot of contract disputes.So you pick your one subject that remains your core. And then you build multiple satellites around it. Okay. So my objective is to become a Jack of as many trades as I can, without leaving the core that I have, which is
SS: Master that.
AR: And Master that. And unfortunately the problem is I’ve realized slowly in my time that there’s no question of becoming a master in one, because that’s a never-ending goal. It’s a process, becoming a master of a particular subject it’s simply a process It’s not a goal at all. We just keep working on it all the time.
SS: And learning is a never-ending process.
AR: Absolutely.
SS: And one last thing. With respect to the current legal education system in our country, do you think there is a gap in students coming out and becoming patent litigators or do you find something that is missing in today’s system, which if implemented can bring out better patent litigators?
AR: Okay. I mean, some of my information is going to be dated because it’s a long time since I graduated. I don’t know how much legal education has changed now. Of course I do, do all these, you know, visiting lectures and things. But that only gives you a very narrow glimpse of how it is. But I think the question you have is part of a larger issue. Because I feel that we have a fundamental issue with the Indian education system per se. Not just to do with law or litigation or patent litigation. I have seen that back in the day when I finished my high school. And we had to picking, of course law was my first preference. Engineering was my backup. So I had given my AIEEE and all those exams for engineering. But obviously my dad’s engineer, my brother was in engineering college already. And the feedback that I was always getting was that it doesn’t matter which engineering college you went to. Everybody who graduates is basically useless. All the industries need to train them independently. Even in my dad’s own company, he used to at that point in time and I was graduating. He used to a lot of VLSI very large-scale integration. And he used to say that whichever university I pick, whichever student comes in. They don’t know what, how to implement a VLSI design impact. which means you go through that in job on the job training. So it appears that perhaps not much has changed. And this comment doesn’t apply just to engineering, it equally applies to law. Is that most people who are graduating find it very difficult to enter the field. There’s a gap between that knowledge that you’re supposed to gain in the university and the knowledge that you actually need in practice. In many ways, some gap is absolutely necessary. Because I think when you study, you have to study the ideal. Practice is not always ideal. You’re always cutting corners. A lot of the cases that you fight will be jurisprudentially wrong. But you still have to defend your party. And a lot of occasions, the kind of orders that you have to fight on a day- day innand day out basis will have absolutely nothing to do with law. So some gap should always remain. Because I don’t think that students coming out of any university or for that matter, law school, should be as good as a practicing lawyer. Because there are things that you learn in university and the things that you learn in practice.
SS: The experience would also be
AR: 100%. Which means not all gaps between legal education and actual practice are bad. Some gaps are a must. Because you don’t want to corrupt what you learn in law school with what actually happens in practice. I think you have to retain some idealism over there. That’s my view. But the gaps that we actually have are much more problematic than the gaps that you can have. Because at least back in the day, I remember for our IP, so I’m an IPR honours student from Jodhpur . Which in my fourth and fifth year I had extra credit papers and multiple papers solely focused on IP. But I can say without disrespect to anybody, that a lot of the IP I know is just self study. Because we used to struggle with getting professors. And I don’t think the situation has changed even today. Getting good professors is still a problem from what I understand. And that is in turn because professors aren’t paid enough. In our academics, professors aren’t paid enough. And that is in turn because despite all the rich cultural heritage that we have, we do not give gurus the kind of respect that they deserve. And this is very contrary to our original heritage and culture and history. Gurus are always treated next to God? But in fact, above God, after your parents Mata-Pita [Mother – Father], Guru [Teacher], Devam [God] But I don’t think we treat our teachers with the respect that they actually deserve. And that shows in the way they are treated, you know, in terms of pay packages or in terms of how colleges are typically run. So I feel that till you solve that larger issue, you are always going to have an unwanted gap in legal education. Which means you take a very specialized niche field. So like IP litigation or a patent litigation, you will never be able to solve that gap. Because for somebody to be, you know, immediately employable in IP or patent litigation. That law school must have the kind of professors who will spend the amount of time to study and teach the kids. And you have the kids to have that much respect on the professor to sit and go through those courses and work hard. I find that perhaps that is not happening in all the fields that we want.
One suggestion I have always had, apart from the systemic issue, because I don’t know who is going to solve that problem. But one suggestion I have always had for any university is to have visiting professors. And that makes a big difference because I could compare and contrast my university education here and my master’s education abroad. So in my master’s education, I specialized again in IP, Pharma regulation and Competition law. And kind of professors I used to have used to teach papers. I had a mix of, I could of course in the master’s you can pick your papers. I was able to pick a set of courses which were purely academic taught by pure academics. And I had a set of courses that I could pick from pure practitioners. Which means twice a week they would visit from their office and teach us for a couple of hours and then head back. So I was able to get a good mix of pure, pure, hardcore theory, uncorrupt, pure hardcore theory. And I was also able to get a glimpse of how that theory is actually applied in practice. For me, at least mentally, it made a huge difference. I was able to see things very clearly. I will still not forget, I did a paper on patent prosecution. I was taught by my professor who was a partner specializing in biotech patent prosecution. So I mean I studied a lot of patent law by then , by the time I went to the US. Which means I already know theoretically. So there is an obviousness standard,there is an enablement standard. But he used to come to class and he used to give us like sample questions. So here is the specification and here is the office objection And our take home assignment will draft a response So then you are actually forced to apply and obviously we get it wrong sometimes and we get it right sometimes. That’s part of the, but it gave me a first hand glimpse of how the theory is applied to practice. I think that changed my outlook. Another paper I did was- it was actually called patent litigation. So beginning of the course we were given a fact situation. The class was divided into plaintiffs and defendants. Every alternate week each class used each section divided as plaintiff and defendants will either draft a motion or will argue a motion. So if this week I draft a motion for summary judgment say as a defendant, next week, so this week I’m, I’m graded on the draft. And next week I have to argue that motion for summary judgment. Then I’m graded on my oral arguments. So that’s, that’s the course. So that’s the entire course from beginning to end.
SS: So you had a simulation
AR: Right, so this is another paper that I very distinctly remember. So again that, you know, gave me a very clear idea. Of course it was for American practice. I realized it’s very different from what happened in India when I came back later. But it gave me a very good insight. And I feel we don’t do enough of that in India. Another thing I strongly recommend to universities is to adopt the socratic method of teaching. Which is that a course material is prescribed before each class. Students are expected to study the material and come. And the purpose of the class is largely to go to higher level of discussion on the reading material. And the socratic method of teaching is because the student is expected to be prepared. The class is taught by Q&A. And in fact you’re graded on it. I think we should start implementing those kind of teaching methods because students also must get serious with their coursework. And every course, every day matters in class. And you’ll be randomly called also. You’ll be randomly called. Okay so and so come on tell me what do you think of this. You don’t answer and your graded on that also. To make it a serious effect you’re graded on it. But I think that also helps because coming to class just to read the reading materials doesn’t make sense to me. And this is especially true now You have got an information overload. You have to say no to information now. Apparently, ChatGPT gives legal opinion also. So you have got a huge amount of the information that’s freely accessible. So coming to class just to discuss what’s already available in the public makes absolutely no sense to me.
SS: Right.
AR: The purpose of the class should be a peer group with one person perhaps knowing a little more than the other on that day. Having an enriched discussion on what is to be done with that where are the loophole where are the problems where should the jurisprudence go. I think that’s the way classes should be conducted that is what I feel. That’s I think the second thing that we need to do. One is therefore visiting professors who are in practice. Two is the socratic method of teaching and not typical lecture method. I don’t think it helps a lot. But I think even this apart from the larger systemic change that I have that we have people have to change their attitude to teachers. Even these two changes will require a lot of you know push it’s not going to happen overnight. As somebody who’s been doing all these visiting lectures the past eight, ten years at least, I think it’s being done as a matter of routine. Not enough seriousness is attached to you know, because end of the day a practitioner has to take time off from what he or she is doing on a regular basis to be visiting a university. So there has to be some level of seriousness attached to that type of work. Again it’s a matter of respecting the position. I think this also will take some time but I think these are at least achievable.
SS: Thank you so much sir thank you for being here.
AR:My pleasure
SS: Your insights will definitely help.
AR: That I don’t know.
SS: Definitely. Because a lot of things you said are very relatable And for especially people who want to, specifically the beginning part of the podcast where you were mentioning about the technical matters. Especially the people who want to get into patent litigation, I’m sure these words would, definitely make a difference to them. Thank you so much for being here.
AR: My pleasure.
SS: It was a pleasure talking to you. Thank you.
AR: Thank you.