This Post speaks for itself

I was recently asked to write a blog post for this prestigious IIT law blog by one of its founding fathers (I so like this word). My initial thoughts were to write about section 377 of Indian Penal code.

The argument was that the words “against the order of nature” in the section is ambiguous and the legislature does not have the requisite competence to use such words in a criminal statute A.K.A Colourable legislation (what you cannot do directly you cannot do indirectly).

Research on this topic was done for two weeks after which I went to our Constitutional Law professor to get clarity of the Idea (Very proudly), Our professor had to control his laughter at this Bakwaas idea of mine and explained to me that the doctrine of colourable legislation applies only with regard to testing of legislative competence according to the lists provided in the seventh Schedule of the Indian Constitution. 

Due to Peer pressure from the same person,  I started doing the thing I actually do when I do not know what to do – Google “How to write a law blog”, what came up was suggestions to write on law, doctrines in law.. oh yea.. the usual general stuff. What stood out was to communicate to readers whatever thought you are having with questions to ponder upon.

I have a liking for these doctrines such as colourable legislation (what you cannot do directly you cannot do indirectly) and concepts like Butterfly effect. So why not prove Butterfly effect using a common law doctrine?

http://www.deviantart.com/morelikethis/394290438

Butterfly effect means a small change one place in a deterministic nonlinear system can result in large differences in a later state. Though I do not understand it fully being a layman, I understand that small change at a place in a time can result in a larger change in a different place in a different time.

This got me thinking. Let us consider one of the craziest doctrines Res ipsa loquitor (the thing speaks for itself) to prove Butterfly effect.  History says these lines were used by Cicero in a speech made for his friend Milo who was accused for murdering his political enemy around 52 BCE (it seems he used a different version as res loquitor ipsa- the thing itself speaks, would have transformed into more innuendos if we would have known).

This doctrine first came into the annals of common law in a judgment by, Sir Charles Edward Pollock A.K.A Baron Pollock in the case of Byrne v.Boadle in the year 1863, when a barrel of flour rolled out of a window and fell on a pedestrian who sued the owner of warehouse. Sir Pollock used res ipsa loquitor in a brief colloquy with the counsel to shift the burden of proof from plaintiff to the defendant. He used the Latin term being a classical scholar in the best tradition of English judges (As you might have already guessed by the improvement in the language, the original article). 

Now this is a Small change in the year 1863 in England.

In the year 1987 in a developing Country (Been developing for a long time aren’t we?) in a public Interest litigation filed by Mr. M.C. Mehta (now I need to give citation – 1987 SC 965 oleum gas leak case) the doctrine was applied in spirit to shift the burden of proof from the public (here Mr. M.C. Mehta) to the industry which releases harmful gas.

In Vellore Citizens’ Welfare Forum v. Union of India((1996) 5 SCC 647)the Supreme Court sealed the shifting of Burden of proof from the person affected to the person causing the effect by introducing precautionary Principle (shifting burden of proof) which is a part of Customary International Law according to the judgment.

After this Particular Judgment the Courts in India has applied this principle in many cases and has formed an inevitable part of Indian Environmental Jurisprudence.

This is a larger change in the year 1996 in India.

So a simple statement used by a philosopher became a tort law doctrine in 1863 and now has a permanent place in Indian Environmental jurisprudence.

Butterfly Effect Proved.

Now that I have proved Butterfly effect I would go to my initial point about section 377(Disclaimer: I am not for or against section 377, I just don’t like these words “against the order of nature"). Our Honourable Supreme Court have held that Section 377 of Indian Penal code is not violative of the Constitution of India.

Our Honourable Supreme Court have been busy propounding Negative voting, disqualification of criminal law makers and many other judgments that are in consonance with the needs of the society in the year of 2013. But when it came to challenge of 377 IPC they also rejected the review petition.

This style of interpreting law according to the needs of society in a particular time is called purposive interpretation in general (in particular Objective purpose). 

The Supreme Court refrained from starting a small change which they could have done easily by easily reading sexual orientation included in sex that is given in Article 15 of the Indian Constitution.

The judges in the proceedings of the case of Suresh Kumar Koushal v. NAZ Foundation said that “20-30 years ago surrogacy would have been considered to be against the order of nature. Today it is a thriving business.” 

Some of the petitioners that was in favor of 377 IPC in the mentioned case included Tamil Nadu Muslim MunnetraKazhagam; Utkal Christian Council; the All India Muslim Personal Law Board; Trust Gods Ministry; the Apostolic Churches Alliance, tr its Bishop (there were no Hindu, Buddhists, Sikhs, Jain or other religious groups).

The Parliament while enacting Criminal Amendment Act did not consider the deletion of Section 377 as suggested by the Law commission in its 172^nd report. But the Government filed for review in the Supreme Court which was rejected by the Court and the Ministers comment on its judgment were termed as not in good taste and also unwarranted by the Supreme court.

So the Questions I am putting before you are:

1.   Has the Supreme Court created a smaller change by challenging the vote bank politics of the current Indian political system by this judgment?

2       Will it lead to a larger change during Elections?

3       Have I started a smaller change that will lead to a larger change by asking the above questions?

4      Is Butterfly Effect Real?

The one single answer I give you is res ipsa loquitor – this post speaks for itself and I am really not kidding.

Author - Narayanan H

Disclaimer: This blog or any post thereof is not to be considered to be in any way associated with the official stand of IIT kharagpur or RGSOIPL on the issues being discussed in the said post. The opinions on the blog are the authors own and should not be considered as legal advice.

Read More

MEET THE VICTORS !!

Meet the proud Winners of the 6th Symbiosis B. Krishna Memorial IPR National Moot Competition, 2014. The team of Akriti Kapoor and Preeti Kareddy with Researcher Paresh Chinchole, has made RGSOIPL proud by winning the School’s first ever IPR moot court competition. We managed to catch them, in spite of their busy schedule, (oh yes..!! Busy accepting congratulations or feeling modest when people praise them) for a quick chat. They were more than willing though, to answer all our modest questions. Well here it is:

All Smiles: Preeti, Paresh and Akriti.

1. Hey guys, AWESOME work..!! Congratulations on your Victory. How does it feel to win the first ever National Level IPR Moot Court Competition for RGSOIPL?

Akriti: Top of the world !!! It feels amazing to see your parents happy because of you and more than anything else, the feeling that you have given something to your school is amazing. It feels great to feel that the school will always remember you.

Paresh: Saying "it feels good" is not enough to express how it feels. All happiness ..!!

Preeti: Overwhelming. I'm glad to have been able to make the school proud. I have a feeling our school will win Jessop (International Law) Moot as well now.

2. What challenged you to go for Symbiosis - B.Krishna Memorial National IPR Moot Court            Competition? The prestige of the Competition, the subject or the problem statement?

Akriti: Frankly, first it was the trust that my team mates reposed in me. Secondly, it was my inclination for IP. Thirdly, I have always had it in my mind that since we are the only IP law school in the country, it is not only our duty but also our responsibility to bag a position in a national IP moot court competition. Most of all, I guess it was my love for IP.

Paresh: The problem of this competition in the year 2013 attracted my attention and I gave it a shot but was not successful. Since then I decided that, I will be going next year, so I tighten my shoelaces and I told myself that no matter what happens I am going for this competition. The prestige of this moot was a big attraction which encouraged me to participate.

“It is not important to fill your memo with a plethora of cases and articles.”

3. How did you go about the preparation of the moot? What strategies did you make for the memo     preparation?

Akriti: Yes. Definitely, we strategized our every step of preparation. The biggest key to succeed in a moot, I feel is team work. Right from the beginning, all the three of us discussed every little detail, idea, concept, everything. We would brainstorm for hours together and decide our arguments. We would explain any strong point we found to everyone, discuss all the doubts and clarifications together. Once we knew what we had to write, we split the drafting of the issues.  As far as memo is concerned exclusively, it is very important to research in detail. Once we were ready with our research, I would write all that I wanted to incorporate from articles, judgments, books etc in a document file. Then, I would rephrase it all adding my ideas and arguments and with all this understanding I would link my arguments to the facts.

Finally, structuring is very important. Correctly structuring the arguments so as to make them sound logical and in a flow and dividing issues into clear sub issues makes it very easy and interesting for a third person to read and understand. It is not important to fill your memo with a plethora of cases and articles. Although you cant really ignore them all, it is good to have a decent number of authorities, sufficient enough to make your memo look well researched. And i feel, footnoting is the best space to speak your mind, beautify your memo, and also reflect all the research you have done. It does create an impression.

Preeti: There were four issues given. We had a couple of elaborate discussions on the facts of the problem, that takes a lot of time and you tend to feel like you're wasting time, but that's not the case. We all have a tendency to Google the minute we finish reading the problem. But it's really important to understand what the problem actually is. At times your own logic is better than what Google can give, so give it a chance. Once we know what we want, this comes after thorough discussions and some self-thinking which might confuse and annoy you at the same time, however in the end it helps.

“At times your own logic is better than what Google can give, so give it a chance.”

4. What were the major roadblocks that you faced when working for the moot? How were you able    to overcome those road blocks?

Akriti: I had a difficulty in completing my arguments well in time and answering to the point. I used to fumble initially, talk at a very high rate of speech and I tend to forget long questions put to me while answering. Although I would not venture say I fully overcame it, but a lot of practice helped me improve it. We did some 10-15 demo moots rounds before leaving. We would time them, tried to answer as appropriately as possible and it helped.

Paresh: We were facing a lot of difficulties with respect to the Jurisdiction issue. We discussed with our faculty and our seniors who asked us to read couple of decisions by the Supreme Court which resolved our problem and we were good to go...!!

Preeti: Laziness of course!!! Though the pressure in our minds was immense, we buckled up and started meeting almost everyday. I personally had other other engagements and initially, more than working for any of these Ijust kept wondering what if I screw up all of them and disappoint people. Paresh and Akriti were really helpful, and since my ability to Google is not commendable compared to using my head I chose to work on the issue which related mainly to facts of the case. That worked well. So managing all the things was tough. But Hats off..!! We really worked for this. Sleepless nights, disturbed sleeps and unanswered calls and messages, all helped. Oh how can I forget, I made Akriti also get addicted to benedryl, cause we had problems sleeping.

PLEASE ASK FOR HELP. After you know the problem well, discuss with people. Professors, batch-mates, seniors, alumnus. This really helps. Don't think you're pestering them or that you know much better than them; don't let your ego take over you, just talk to them. People can be generous, so smart and that you never thought on those lines of arguments. So never hesitate.

Another important thing I have noticed, the enthusiasm one has while giving their names for the moot gradually dies down. So don't give up. Just make a memo and submit, but ensure you put your heart and soul into it.

“I made Akriti also get addicted to benedryl, cause we had problems sleeping.”

5. Which teams did you face in your journey to the finals? Which team was in your opinion the          toughest competitors and why?

Akriti: We faced Nirma University in the first prelims. In the quarter finals, we were against RMNLU Lucknow, in the semi's against Symbiosis Law School, Noida and in the finals we were against DSNLU Vishakahapatnam. I guess, Nirma university was our toughest competitor. Their memo and arguments were just a replica of ours. It was like we had a similar line of thought. even the references and quoted lines were similar. The speakers were well prepared. So I guess, they were a cut throat competition, and honestly I feel, they were one team capable of making their way to the finale.

Preeti: Let me tell you, the Symbiosis Noida team we faced had a fabulous etiquette, there are things to learn from them.

"Common sense is quite uncommon these days", its quite true from what I saw at the competition”

6. Any major takeaways of the prelims or quarters that helped you in the advanced rounds of the     competition?

Paresh: Our arguments got mature and better with every advancing rounds based on the questions we faced by the Judges.

Preeti: One thing I have noticed is that you have to be very attentive to what each speaker of the opposing team has got to say, more so what judges are asking both the teams. You build on your arguments from there. The moot problem we had was very interesting; it can have so many different angles, so it's always insightful to know how the other team has approached the problem. You'll realize either you are better than them or not. If you are not, you'll know what to do next. Though the memos have been submitted, in your orals you can add to the arguments in the memo by analysing how to fit in the new argument to yours.

And finally, it comes to 'Is your common sense in it's right place?'. As my dad keeps telling, c, we made sure our team was not that. Al you have to do is just trust your line of thinking, discuss with the team and there you are, you have some brilliant arguments.

“Taking deep breaths helped me personally”

7. How was your final Round Competition against DSNLU? What strategy did you adopt while    approaching the finals? Did you feel nervous or exited or were you relaxed?

Akriti: The final rounds were pretty interesting. We decided, not to do anything new and follow the approach we used before. We decided, not to modify anything and just put forward whatever and however we had prepared our arguments. We did not do any new experiments and continued our arguments like the way we thought initially.It was a mixed feeling. The fact that the event will be streamed live, it will be a constitutional bench with sitting SC and HC judges created some pressure. But at the same time, we were excited and looking forward to it. The feeling that we could manage to the finals, gave us confidence that we are on the right track and we just followed our heart and tried to give in our best."

Paresh: There was no nervousness, as I said earlier, our arguments were mature and got better with advancing rounds, so we were kind of relaxed even if we were having butterflies in our stomachs still we knew what we were supposed to do.

Preeti: We didn't have time for any feelings at all. It all happened so soon. Before we realize we have come till here the finals. You know, Luck also has a role in moots, I'm sure you'll agree. But what we were going through was a kind of "When luck meets preparation" scenario. We were lucky to be the petitioners. So we didn't have to worry. We had our arguments in place; we had to just stick to it. The fact that we have to argue before such a distinguished panel was scary, and that it was being live streamed! It is really important to keep your calm. Taking deep breaths helped me personally. Good thing about mooting is, you're facing five people and not the entire crowd which is behind you.

“Good thing about mooting is, you're facing five people and not the entire crowd which is behind you”

8. Describe the feeling of winning the moot competition just seconds after the Winners were    announced?

Akriti: Honestly, it wasn't as good as we thought. We were disappointed with the judges' criticism. But when we got to know that we have also won the best memo, cheered us up again. We had worked really hard for it and the victory did not come easy. But the fact that all our friends and family and faculty saw us live, saw us win, saw us argue, and all the feedback and appreciation they gave, made us feel really wonderful and happy. That was our real trophy.

Paresh: We were happy no doubt about that, but somewhere we felt more satisfied and content than being happy. All the hard work we put in was paying of in that moment.

Preeti: It was wonderful. Especially when we got the best memo as well.

“Mooting is no rocket science”

9. What advice will you give to the other mooters?

Akriti: It is very important to have a good team, and strategize every move. Consult your seniors, friends and faculty as much as you can. It is not a week's job. It requires atleast 1-2 months of your time. And it is no rocket science. We as an IP school are much better, logical and mature than a lot of other out there in the field. Practice your arguments at least 10-15 times before going.  Do as many demo moots as possible. Practice with different people so that you get different opinions and different kinds of questions that can be put. It prepares you for almost every kind of possible question. Do give a demo moot to 2-3 faculties before going. We just need to focus more and the sky is ours.

Paresh: I am sorry to mention here, there is no word like "Mooter" a lingo.

Anyway, the only advice I can give is - Take this exercise seriously and give more than 100% without focusing on the results. You will feel the ultimate satisfaction.

 10. And finally, describe your entire moot court competition experience in one sentence.

Akriti: Out of the world !!

Paresh: It was a content and relishing experience for all of us..

Preeti: If you are interested in litigation, you need to moot, to realize how good you are and how good you could be.

Thank you very much for talking with IIT Law Blog. Hope this will connect your experience with everyone. We wish you best of luck for future endeavours.

Cheers!!!!

Read More

The fall of Collegium - Should we be concerned?

Introduction

The 64th Report of the Parliamentary Standing Committee on the Judicial Appointments Commission Bill, 2013 seeks to set up a six member body under the Chairmanship of Chief Justice of India for the purpose of recommending names of individuals to the post of Judges of Supreme Court and the High Courts, to the President of India. By replacing the Supreme Court’s collegium system (Chief Justice and four senior most judges), the Judicial Appointments Commission (JAC) seeks to bring back the equal and active participation of both the Executive and the Judiciary in collaborative and participatory manner.

Approximately 275 posts of judges in various High Courts are lying vacant. The collegium system is ridden with inherent deficiencies which the present Bill seeks to cure such as opaqueness, lack of transparency, biasness and prejudice and minimum accountability.¹ The issue before us is that whether the Bill compromises, in any way, the independence of Judiciary which is the basic structure of the Constitution of India.²

Background

When Article 124(2)³ and 217(1)⁴ provide procedure for appointment of judges in higher judiciary, how did the ‘collegium’ come into existence? There is no mention of ‘collegium’ in the Constitution. The collegium system emerged when the word ‘consultation’ was subjected to interpretation in the following two judgements of the Court. The Supreme Court Advocates on Record Association v. Union of India⁵ gave primacy to the opinion of the Chief Justice of India, while In the Presidential reference⁶  case gave the concept of the collegium system which is being followed till the present times. It has been a matter of great criticism that the direction contained in those judgements can be done only through a proper legislation and through Constitutional amendment and not through adjudication.⁷

Tug of war between the Judiciary and the Executive, who is superior?

Can Judiciary’s view totally eclipse the view of the executive forbidding the executive to evaluate it before formulating its advice to be tendered to the President? When the view of the Judiciary is same as that of the Executive, there is no question of primacy. The question of giving primacy to the opinion of any of the consultees arises only when there is conflict of opinion. The Judiciary would have the advantage of the views of both these consultees because it is best suited to assess the question of suitability on the proposed candidates. From that point of view great weight must be attached to the opinion of the Chief Justice of the High Court. In the overruled case of S. P. Gupta v. Union of India⁸, the opinion of the Executive regarding appointment was held more important on the ground that the Executive through the Legislators is answerable to the people regarding the functioning of the Judiciary.

The Bill appears to further the constitutional purpose that the selection should be made as a result of a participatory consultative process in which the executive and judiciary both are working together, none overpowering the other.

Now to the basic question of whether the increase of executive’s participation in appointments threatens the independence of Judiciary in any way.

Independence of Judiciary has two different aspects to it⁹

1. Administrative or Institutional Independence        
2. Decisional or Individual Independence   

While the latter is imperative for maintaining the dignity of judiciary and maintenance of impartiality, the former is also essential to curb any indirect interference in judicial function. Although the interpretations appear similar, they differ in terms of what constitutes a breach of the separation of powers. The doctrine of separation of power, so far as our Constitution is concerned, reveals an artistic blending and an adroit admixture of judicial and executive functions. The separation sought to be achieved by our Constitution is not absolute or complete. So far as the framers of our Constitution are concerned they had deliberately rejected the theory of complete insulation of the judicial system from the executive control. A breach under formalism would be a breach under functionalism only if the power in question either infringed on the core function of another branch or increased another branch's power.¹⁰ Thus, technically it does not violate the basic structure of the independence of Judiciary, but the adverse effect of political influences must be taken into account.

Lastly, An issue of concern

The Bill nowhere states that the recommendation of the said Committee would be binding, and therefore, the President is not barred from going against the recommendation of the committee. The word ‘consultation’ is different from ‘recommendation’.¹¹ While the quintessence of 'consultation' is deliberation, ‘recommendation’ may be subject to both acceptance or rejection much like the recommendations of the Law Commission.

Appointments of judges must, in themselves constitute a strong factor for independence and cannot be left to the exclusive discretion of the Executive and Legislature.¹² 

---

^{1. See Government Of India Law Commission Of India, 'Reforms In The Judiciary – Some Suggestions' [2009] Report No. 230 1, 8 “As a matter of practice, a person, who has worked as a District Judge or has practiced in the High Court in a State, is appointed as a Judge of the High Court in the same State. Often we hear complaints about ‘Uncle Judges’. If a person has practiced in a High Court, say, for 20-25 years and is appointed a Judge in the same High Court, overnight change is not possible. He has his colleague advocates – both senior and junior - as well as his kith and kin, who had been practicing with him. Even wards of some District Judges, elevated to a High Court, are in practice in the same High Court. There are occasions, when advocate judges either settle their scores with the advocates, who have practiced with them, or have soft corner for them. In any case, this affects their impartiality and justice is the loser. The equity demands that the justice shall not only be done but should also appear to have been done.”↩} 

^{2. Sub-committee on Judicial Accountability v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 320; Kumar Padma Prasad v. Union of India, AIR 1992 SC 1213; High Court of Judicature, Bombay v. Shirish Kumar R. Patil, AIR 1997 SC 2631.↩} 

^{3. Article 124(2) reads as “Every Judge of the Supreme Court shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal after consultation with such of the Judges of the Supreme Court and of the High Courts in the States as the President may deem necessary for the purpose... “↩} 

^{4. Article 217(1) reads as “Every Judge of a High Court shall be appointed by the President by warrant under his hand and seal after consultation with the Chief Justice of India, the Governor of the State, and, in the case of appointment of a Judge other than the chief Justice, the chief Justice of the High court, and shall hold office, in the case of an additional or acting Judge, as provided in Article 224, and in any other case, until he attains the age of sixty two years.. “↩} 

^{5. Supreme Court Advocates-on-Record Association v. Union of India, AIR 1994 SC 268↩} 

^{6. In Re Special Reference, AIR 1999 SC 1↩} 

^{7. H.M.Seervai, Constitutional Law of India, (Silver Jubilee 4th Edition, Vol.1)↩} 

^{8. S. P. Gupta v. President of India, AIR 1982 SC 149↩} 

^{9. Frances Kahn Zemans, The Accountable Judge: Guardian of Judicial Independence, (1999) 72 S. CAL. L. Rev., p 625 “Dr. Zemans urges readers to consider the distinctions between decisional independence and institutional independence”↩} 

^{10. "Federalism." Free Online Law Dictionary. http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Federalism. Web. 9 Feb. 2014↩} 

^{11. Union of India v. Sankalchand Himmatlal Seth, AIR 1977 SC 2328; R. Pushpam v. State of Madras, AIR 1953 Mad 392↩} 

^{12. Principle 10 of the Basic Principles on the Independence of the Judiciary, 1985↩}

^{Author -  Vighnesh Kamat}

Read More

Three patent searching tools you should know!

Anyone who's read or looked up patents has probably used various countries' intellectual property databases and of course the subscription databases, to search through different categories and display results in various graphic formats. But it doesn't take much to realize that there're many online tools available as free or trial versions that will many times, if not get the job done, do an adequate job. We discuss some of the key features of a few Patent search tools below.

1. AcclaimIP

AcclaimIP is a patent search and analysis platform developed by Free Patents, LLC. The database includes US Patents, US Applications, Japanese Patent Abstracts, World (PCT) Applications and European Patents in the collection.

AcclaimIP permits a fielded search (useful for beginners) as well as a natural language search across several fields within the patent document. AcclaimIP has the snazzy feature of refining patent search along 15 different fields. Browsing through the definitions of the most repetitive classes in the initial search by simply pointing the mouse at a class makes refinement along classes a breeze. What is worth a special mention is that the variations in the assignee names are normalized.  Also, the active patents can be separated from the expired patents using the legal status filter. The results obtained can be visualized through several instant charts to make meaningful inferences out of the data at a click of a button.

AcclaimIP provides automated and semi-automated approaches to search for patents similar to a focus patent, i.e. the patent of interest. AcclaimIP builds a set of most repetitive keywords and phrases from the focus patent, which is used to find patents with similar text either within the claims or the entire patent document. This feature comes in handy for carrying out prior art searches.

 

Hits displaying patents containing "WiFi" within patent title and also the definition of most frequent IPC class.

2. Amberscope

Amberscope is a prior-art searching tool that is built upon the idea called “Network Patent Analysis”. It builds the patent network around the focus patent using the patent citations. The network is graphically represented, showing a clear distinction between more similar and less similar patents. Within a network, similar patents are linked to the focus patent with a thicker line or are placed closer than the others. Also, all the patents within the network containing a specific keyword could be filtered using the keyword search feature.

Patent network for the US patent "US6623698"

Amberscope also displays patents indirectly connected to the focus patents, called the “ghost patents”. These patents are the ones cited or citing the patents cited in the focus patent.

Ghost patents are cited or citing the patents that are directly connected to the focus patent. Ghost patents are selected based on three criteria:

1. Amberscore (shows the relative network influence of the patent)

2. Connections to first order connections to the focus patent

3. The number of first order patents - if there are lots of first order patents, AmberScope will show fewer ghost patents

Amberscope uses an unique scoring algorithm to determine the closely related “ghost patents” and only display the ones closely related to the focus patent, thus providing a broader yet precise citation search.

Thus with such functionality, Amberscope would certainly complement the regular patent search.

3. Patexia

Unlike the other tools reviewed above, Patexia is useful to spot the patenting trends within a specific technology. This tool rather comes in handy for landscape analysis, as it provides a simple visual representation of the patenting trend in a technology within the USA.

One could just do a keyword search within the various fields of a patent and Patexia would instantly display the hits along with a trend-line chart. The hits can be further filtered by adding in criteria such as Assignee, Inventor, IPC classes etc. A significant feature is that Patexia allows multiple assignee names to be added and displays comparative charts showing patents held by each of the assignee. This chart can further be customized using the criteria in the drop-down menu below the chart

Though the visualization is not on par with the subscription databases, what Patexia offers for free is informative enough and more than you'd hope for.

Filing trend of patents containing "bluetooth" in title, abstract or claims of patent.

Chart indicating the filing trend of "Apple" and "Samsung Electronics Co." in the area of "bluetooth" technoloy.

Patexia offers more than patent searching. It also offers details on US Patent lawsuits which is updated every night with all the latest lawsuits showing on the top. You can sift through them by keying in a company of your interest or check the litigation info based on filing dates.

Hits showing "Apple" as one of the parties to the suit

Comparitive charts showing either "Apple" or "Samsung Electronics Co." as defendants to a suit.

To conclude, the tools above would suffice for getting some quick information. This can only serve to complement a professional search. Please do try them out and tell us about your experiences in the comments below. More inquisitive of the minds can browse through the links below:

Intellogist - Patexia

 Intellogist - AcclaimIP

 AcclaimIP - Features

Amberscope

Author - Ajay Sethuraman

Read More