Intellectual property & technology law in Hyderabad — protect your IP with technical and legal precision.
IP law without technical understanding protects the description, not the invention. SIRI Law LLP's IP and technology practice combines legal expertise with in-house technical capability — our patent advisers understand the technology they are protecting, and our litigation team deploys technical expert witnesses to defend your IP in court.
The question every AI-deploying company is asking
Who owns AI-generated work in India? The statute already answers part of it.
Founders and product teams often treat AI-generated IP ownership as an open legal void. It isn't, entirely. Section 2(d)(vi) of the Copyright Act 1957 has defined the author of a computer-generated work as "the person who causes the work to be created" since a 1994 amendment — well before generative AI existed as a product category. Indian courts have consistently held that an author must be a natural person, which means AI systems themselves cannot hold copyright under current law, regardless of how the output was produced.
What the statute doesn't resolve is which human. Is it the developer who built the model, the operator who deployed it, or the end user who wrote the prompt that produced a specific output? In practice, the party who supplied the skill, labour, and judgment shaping that particular work tends to have the strongest claim — but this is exactly the kind of question that gets litigated when nobody addressed it contractually in advance. The same pattern holds for patents: the Indian Patent Office has rejected applications naming an AI system as inventor, following the same DABUS-related rejections seen in other jurisdictions, so a human inventor remains a hard requirement even where AI meaningfully contributed to the inventive process.
For any organisation training or fine-tuning models on third-party content, the sensible posture until this resolves is conservative: license training data explicitly for AI use where possible, document the provenance of what you can't license, and don't assume a standard content licence covers AI training just because it covers other forms of use — most don't.
Where IP protection quietly fails
Intellectual property is only as strong as the legal infrastructure protecting it
These are the recurring gaps that turn a genuinely valuable IP asset into an unenforceable one — usually discovered at the worst possible moment, during a dispute or a diligence process.
Weak patent filing strategy loses priority
Filing without a comprehensive prior art search results in claims too narrow to provide commercial protection, or invalidated by undiscovered prior art at the point of enforcement.
Trademark neglect creates brand liability
Operating without registered trademarks leaves your brand exposed to squatting, infringement, and disputes that registered rights would have prevented entirely.
Software IP unprotected by default
Software copyright, trade secrets, and proprietary algorithms are legally protected only if properly documented, attributed, and contractually secured through employment agreements and contractor NDAs.
Technology contracts leave IP ownership ambiguous
Standard employment and contractor agreements frequently fail to clearly assign IP created during engagement — leaving companies without legal ownership of work their own team built.
What we cover
IP and technology legal services from creation to enforcement
From patent strategy and trademark registration through technology licensing and IP litigation — backed by in-house technical expertise at every stage.
Patents & Innovation Protection
Patent strategy, prior art searches, provisional and complete specification drafting, Indian Patent Office prosecution, PCT international filing, and portfolio management.
- Prior art search and patentability assessment
- Specification and claims drafting
- IPO prosecution through grant
- PCT and international filing coordination
Trademark Registration & Protection
Trademark search, registration across classes, opposition proceedings, trademark licensing, brand protection programmes, domain name disputes, and Watch service monitoring.
- Clearance search and registration
- Opposition and cancellation proceedings
- Domain name disputes (INDRP, UDRP)
- Infringement Watch monitoring
Copyright & Content Protection
Copyright registration, content licensing agreements, work-for-hire documentation, moral rights management, online copyright enforcement, and IT Act takedown proceedings.
- Registration and licensing documentation
- Work-for-hire and assignment structuring
- Online enforcement and takedowns
- AI training data provenance review
Trade Secrets & Confidential Information
Trade secret identification and documentation, NDA drafting, confidentiality programme design, and trade secret misappropriation legal response.
- Trade secret identification and classification
- NDA and confidentiality programme design
- Access control and documentation protocols
- Misappropriation litigation response
Technology Contracts & Licensing
Software licensing agreements, SaaS subscription terms, API licensing, technology transfer agreements, source code escrow, and open-source compliance.
- Software and SaaS licensing agreements
- Source code escrow structuring
- Open-source compliance review
- AI model licensing and deployment terms
IP Litigation & Enforcement
Patent infringement proceedings, trademark opposition and cancellation, copyright disputes, trade secret misappropriation litigation, and emergency injunctive relief with in-house technical expert witnesses.
- Infringement litigation and injunctive relief
- In-house technical expert witness support
- Customs seizure applications
- IT Act criminal complaint coordination
Evidence, not guesswork
Patent, copyright, or trade secret — which protects what
The single most common early-stage mistake is defaulting to one protection route without asking which one actually fits the asset.
| Protection route | What it covers | Key limitation in India |
|---|---|---|
| Patent | The underlying method or system — prevents others implementing the same function differently | Software "as such" not patentable; must show a technical effect. 3–5 years to grant. |
| Copyright | The specific expression — the actual code, text, or content as written | Automatic on creation, but AI-authored works require a clear human author under §2(d)(vi) |
| Trade secret | Confidential information with independent commercial value — algorithms, processes, data | No registration exists; protection depends entirely on documented confidentiality measures |
| Trademark | Brand identifiers — names, logos, taglines associated with your goods or services | Class-specific; requires active use and renewal to remain enforceable |
Sources: Patents Act 1970; Copyright Act 1957, Section 2(d)(vi); Indian Patent Office practice on software and AI-related applications; Chambers and Partners Intellectual Property 2026 India guide. Confirm the applicable protection route for a specific asset with counsel before relying on this general summary.
What the numbers actually mean
Four figures that frame IP enforcement in India today
Typical Indian Patent Office timeline — a provisional application buys 12 months of priority protection while the complete specification is prepared.
Before the Delhi High Court reserved orders on 1 April 2026 — a measure of how contested the AI-training-data question genuinely is.
Under the Commercial Courts Act 2015's procedural framework, though interim applications are often heard within months.
From filing to a competitor ceasing use and paying compensation — see the case study below.
How we protect your IP
Four stages from disclosure to protection
From initial technical review through filing, prosecution, and enforcement — a comprehensive IP protection programme.
Invention disclosure & search
Technical review, prior art search, patentability assessment, and protection strategy recommendation, establishing the strongest available legal position before any filing.
Week 1Filing & prosecution
Application drafting, specification and claims preparation, registry filing, and ongoing prosecution management through examination, objections, and hearings.
Weeks 2–4Portfolio management
Grant tracking, renewal management, licensing opportunity identification, Watch services for infringement monitoring, and regular portfolio review.
OngoingEnforcement & defence
Infringement detection, cease and desist, licensing negotiation, and litigation, with forensic technical evidence and expert witness support.
As neededCase study · Software IP dispute
SaaS company recovers proprietary algorithm after contractor misappropriation
A Hyderabad SaaS company discovered a former contractor had incorporated their proprietary ML algorithm into a competing product. SIRI Law LLP's technical team confirmed algorithmic similarity through reverse engineering analysis, while our legal team simultaneously filed for an Anton Piller order, secured the evidence, and initiated trade secret misappropriation proceedings.
The dispute resolved within 45 days, with the competitor ceasing use and paying compensation — a resolution timeline made possible only by having the technical similarity analysis and the legal filing move together, rather than sequentially through separate vendors.
Representative matters
Typical engagements
All matters described generically to protect client confidentiality.
Ex parte injunction and settlement
Acted for a software company in a copyright infringement action against a competitor that copied proprietary source code. Obtained an ex parte injunction and secured an out-of-court settlement.
Multi-jurisdiction opposition
Managed a multi-jurisdiction trademark opposition, successfully opposing a confusingly similar mark before the Trade Marks Registry.
Commercial licensing negotiation
Drafted and negotiated a commercial AI model licensing agreement, addressing fine-tuning rights, output ownership, model confidentiality, and DPDPA compliance.
Acquisition risk identification
Conducted IP due diligence for a technology company acquisition, identifying unlicensed open-source components and structuring post-closing remediation.
Why SIRI
IP lawyers who understand the technology they're protecting
Our IP team includes lawyers with engineering backgrounds and in-house technical advisers — patent specifications drafted by people who understand the invention, not just the legal form.
Technical understanding of the IP
Our patent advisers have engineering and technology backgrounds, producing specifications that are broad enough to provide real protection and precise enough to survive challenge.
Litigation-ready enforcement
Our IP litigation team is backed by technical expert witnesses from our in-house security and technology practice, providing technically credible, legally structured evidence in infringement proceedings.
India + international filing
Indian Patent Office, European Patent Office, WIPO PCT, US USPTO, and major APAC jurisdictions, with coordinated international filing strategy managed from a single relationship.
Portfolio strategy, not just filing
We advise on IP portfolio strategy — which inventions to file, how to structure claims for maximum protection, where to file globally, and when to license versus litigate.
The comparison
Without SIRI versus with SIRI
| Capability | Standard IP law firm | SIRI Law LLP — legal + technical |
|---|---|---|
| Specification drafting | Drafted without full technical review — claims may be too narrow or easily designed around | Technical review of every specification by engineering-literate advisers |
| Infringement monitoring | No in-house capacity for technical similarity analysis | In-house infringement monitoring with reverse engineering and similarity analysis |
| Enforcement coordination | Separate litigation firm required if infringement occurs | Same team manages registration and enforcement — no coordination gap |
| Trade secret programme | Focus on registered rights only | Comprehensive trade secret programme alongside registered rights |
Frequently asked
IP and technology law, answered directly
Can software be patented in India?
Software "as such" is not patentable under the Indian Patents Act 1970. However, software combined with a technical process or system implementation that produces a technical effect may be patentable. Structuring the application to emphasise the technical effect, rather than the algorithm alone, is what determines whether an application survives examination.
Who owns copyright in AI-generated work in India?
Section 2(d)(vi) of the Copyright Act 1957 defines the author of a computer-generated work as the person who causes the work to be created — meaning Indian law already requires a human author, and courts have historically held that an author must be a natural person. The practical dispute is which human: the developer of the AI system, the operator, or the end user who directed the output. In most cases, the party who supplied the skill, labour, and judgment shaping the specific work has the strongest claim, and contractual allocation between developer, operator, and user resolves most of what would otherwise be litigated.
Can an AI system be named as an inventor on an Indian patent?
No. The Indian Patent Office has rejected applications naming AI systems such as DABUS as inventors, consistent with the Patents Act 1970's assumption of a human or corporate applicant. AI-assisted inventions remain patentable on ordinary criteria where a human inventor directed or contributed the inventive step — the involvement of an AI tool in the process does not itself bar patentability.
Is training an AI model on copyrighted content legal in India?
This is currently unresolved and being actively litigated. India has no text-and-data-mining exception in its copyright law, and the Delhi High Court's ANI Media v OpenAI case — filed November 2024, with orders reserved on the interim relief application on 1 April 2026 after 32 hearings — is expected to be a significant marker for how Indian courts will treat unlicensed use of copyrighted material in AI training. Until that matter and others like it resolve, any organisation training models on scraped or licensed-adjacent content should treat the legal position as unsettled and structure data sourcing conservatively.
How long does patent registration take in India?
The Indian Patent Office typically takes 3–5 years for a patent to be granted. A provisional application provides 12 months of priority protection from filing, allowing commercialisation to proceed while the complete specification is prepared.
How do I protect my company's trade secrets?
Trade secret protection requires identification of what constitutes a trade secret, physical and digital security measures, contractual obligations such as NDAs and employment agreements with IP assignment, access controls, and documentation demonstrating the information was treated as confidential. SIRI designs comprehensive trade secret programmes covering all of these elements together, rather than treating any one as sufficient on its own.
Ready when you are
Your intellectual property deserves counsel that understands what it is.
Book a confidential IP assessment with SIRI Law LLP. We will review your existing IP estate, identify protection gaps, and design a comprehensive IP strategy.
Related services
Other ways SIRI Law LLP protects growing companies
AI & emerging technology law
EU AI Act compliance, algorithmic liability, and AI governance frameworks.
Corporate & commercial law
M&A due diligence and contracts, with IP ownership assessed inside every deal.
Startup & venture law
Founder IP assignment, incorporation, and fundraising documentation.
Visit or contact us
SIRI Law LLP — Hyderabad, India
| Registered office | HITEC City, Madhapur, Hyderabad, Telangana 500081, India |
| Telephone | +91 79819 12046 |
| info@sirilawllp.com | |
| Other offices | New Delhi, India · Austin, Texas, USA · Online worldwide |
| Hours | Mon–Sat, 9:30 AM – 7:00 PM IST · Emergency line 24/7 |