COMPILATION OF UPDATES – JUNE

SL. NO. PARTICULARS PAGE NO.

1. AMAZON SELLER SERVICES AND ORS. v. CCI 2-4

2. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED v. M/s. JALDHI OVERSEAS PVT LTD. 4-6
3. OTT PLATFORMS & GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL: AN OVERVIEW 6-7
4. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CONSUMER PROTECTION (E-COMMERCE) RULES, 2020 7-13
5. WIPO REPORT ON ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY, 2021 13-29

6. KSHITIZ ARYA AND ANOTHER V. GOOGLE LLC & ORS 29-30

7. WHATSAPP LLC VS COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ANR. 30-31

8. CHANGE IN GST RATES ON GOODS BEING USED IN COVID-19 RELIEF AND MANAGEMENT 31-34

9. CLARIFICATIONS ISSUED BY CBIC REGARDING RECOMMENDATIONS BY GST COUNCIL 34-37

10. ASSESSEE PERMITTED TO AVAIL CREDIT OF THE REFUND SANCTIONED 37-39

Shivadass & Shivadass (Law Chambers) ® 1|P a g e

#501 – 503, Level V, Prestige Centre Point, No. 7, Cunningham Road, Bangalore – 560052
Ph: +91 80 43779955 | E: admin@sdlaw.co.in | W: www.sdlaw.co.in
 1. AMAZON SELLER SERVICES & ORS. V. CCI
The High Court of Karnataka on June 11, 2021, issued an order
dismissing the Writ Petition filed by 2 major e-commerce entities
Amazon Seller Services Pvt. Ltd. (‘Amazon’) and Flipkart Internet Pvt.
Ltd. (‘Flipkart’) challenging the investigation ordered by Competition
Commission of India (‘CCI’) under Section 26(1) of the Competition
Act, 2002 (‘Act’) and sought for quashing and setting aside the order of
the CCI in Case No. 40 / 2019 (‘impugned order’).
The information before the CCI was filed by the Delhi Vyapar
Mahasangh (‘Informant’) under Section 19(1) of the Act alleging
contravention of Section 3(4) read with Section 3(1) and Section 4(2)
read with Section 4(1) of the Act by Amazon and Flipkart. The
Informants alleged Amazon and Flipkart entering into vertical
agreements with preferred seller, preferential listing and deep
discounting, and exclusive tie ups. In this regard, the CCI directed the
Director General to cause an investigation and submit the investigation
report within 60 days from receipt of the order.
Subsequently, aggrieved by the impugned order, Amazon and Flipkart
(‘Petitioners’) have filed these writ petitions no. 3363 of 2020 connected
with 4334 of 2020 to quash the impugned order passed by the CCI
(‘Respondent’). The Writ was filed on the grounds that that the
Shivadass & Shivadass (Law Chambers) ®
#501 – 503, Level V, Prestige Centre Point, No. 7, Cunningham Road, Bangalore – 560052
Ph: +91 80 43779955 | E: admin@sdlaw.co.in | W: www.sdlaw.co.in
impugned order was ultra vires the object and purpose of the Act, and
that the CCI has passed the Order without application mind, additional
justifications were provided by the Respondents in the statement of
objections which is not allowed, no notice was issued to the Petitioners
before initiating proceedings before the CCI, the CCI has approached the
High Court without jurisdiction as the investigation is already pending.
The issues for consideration in the petition are as follows:
a. What is the nature of the impugned order passed under Section
26(1) of the Act?
b. Whether a prior notice and opportunity of hearing is mandatory
at the stage of issuing direction to the Director General to hold
inquiry under Section 26(1) of the Act?
c. Whether impugned order calls for interference?
While addressing issues ‘a’ and ‘b’ the Court opined that CCI under
Section 19 of the Act has the power to inquire into the allegations either
on its own motion or on receipt of any information or upon a reference
made by the Central Government or the State Government or a Statutory
Authority. Deep discounting given to its preferred sellers by both
Amazon and Flipkart, were considered to be detriment of non-preferred
2|P a g e
sellers, as they are not compensated for the amount of loss likely to be
incurred due to the incentives received by the preferred sellers for selling
at ‘predatory pricing’. Preferential Listing by Amazon was considered to
be creating bias as the practice of such listing was keeping its preferred
sellers on the first few pages of the search result, while the other non-
preferred sellers were listed in the last pages. Flipkart tags their preferred
sellers as ‘assured’ which also creates bias.
It was alleged by the Respondents that Amazon and Flipkart have
exclusive tie-ups with few sellers. In this regard, the Court opined that
providing discounts and preferential listing to preferential sellers creates
defacto exclusivity to the detriment of other sellers. The Respondents
further alleged that Flipkart indulges in ‘loss funding’ in case of
preferred sellers, and the same was recorded in an earlier hearing in the
case of Flipkart India Pvt. Ltd. v. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax
reported at ITA no. 202 & 693/Bang/2018, in respect of ‘cash burning’
the Respondents alleged that Flipkart has strategically sold their products
at a predatory price in order to capture the market and earn profits in the
long run. However, the Court remained silent in this regard.
Further, the Respondents contended that the impugned order was an
administrative order and in support of the same referred to the cases of
CCI v. SAIL1 and CCI v. Bharti Airtel2. Basis the authorities cited, the
Court opined that the impugned order is an ‘administrative direction’,
and that any order issued by the Section 26(1) of the Act does not require
issuing of any notice to any party before or at the time of formation of
an opinion by CCI based the information received by it.
The Court while analysing the correctness of the direction by CCI to
conduct an investigation against the Petitioner, opined that the CCI has
explored the information in detail and applied its mind while issuing the
impugned order.
In this regard, the Petitioner placed reliance on various cases in order to
show that the informants has not approached the CCI with right
intensions.
The Court after hearing both the parties at length, opined that the in a
Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking
judicial review, the High Court can examine the decision making process
only in cases involving violation of fundamental human rights. The
Court further went on to state that the irrespective of the extensive
jurisdiction held by the High Courts, the same cannot be widened to
convert itself into a Court of Appeal and examine the correctness of the
impugned order and pass orders accordingly.

1 2
CCI v. SAIL, (2010) 10 SCC 744. CCI v. Bharathi Airtel, (2019) 2 SCC 521.
Shivadass & Shivadass (Law Chambers) ® 3|P a g e

#501 – 503, Level V, Prestige Centre Point, No. 7, Cunningham Road, Bangalore – 560052
Ph: +91 80 43779955 | E: admin@sdlaw.co.in | W: www.sdlaw.co.in
In light of the arguments presented in extenso by the parties, the court
held that the investigation ordered under the impugned order is supported
by required reasoning and therefore, any interference by the High Court
shall cause hinderance in the investigation. Hence, the Writ Petition is
dismissed. An intra-court Writ Appeal was filed by both Amazon and
Flipkart before the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court.
Arguments have been concluded and the decision of the Court is awaited.
2. STEEL AUTHORITY OF INDIA LIMITED V. M/S JALDHI
OVERSEAS PVT LTD.
In the case of Steel Authority v. M/s Jaldhi Overseas Pvt Ltd, the Delhi
High Court observed that given the contract between the two parties was
a commercial contract, interests awarded for such contracts must be
considered in line with various prevailing commercial practices. It is
common for banks to charge compound interests on monthly or quarterly
rests, therefore, awarding compound interest in respect of sums found
payable under a commercial contract cannot be held to be contrary to the
fundamental policy of Indian law.
Facts of the case:
The Parties herein had entered into a Contract of Affreightment (‘CoA’),
wherein the Respondent was to load and discharge cargo at various
Shivadass & Shivadass (Law Chambers) ®
#501 – 503, Level V, Prestige Centre Point, No. 7, Cunningham Road, Bangalore – 560052
Ph: +91 80 43779955 | E: admin@sdlaw.co.in | W: www.sdlaw.co.in
Indian ports. The heart of the dispute lay in Clause 74 of the CoA which
provided that all shipments were to be completed in 12 months, with an
option to the Petitioner, to suspend shipment for a period of 2 months
and extend deliveries for 3 months. While the Respondent claimed that
the contract expired after 12 months from the date of the execution of the
CoA – July 2017, the Petitioner claimed that the period ought to begin
from the date of declaration of the first laycan – September 2017.
Additionally, the Petitioner claimed that it was also entitled to the
extensions provided in Clause 74. Ultimately, due to the Respondent’s
denial to provide any further shipments, the Petitioner claimed damages
and breach of contract.
Procedural History:
The dispute was referred to an arbitral tribunal wherein it was held that
the Petitioner misunderstood the terms of the contract, and the shipment
period ought to have begun from the date of the execution of the CoA.
Further, the extensions could not be availed by the Petitioner due to the
failure to comply with procedure, such as providing notice to the
Respondent. Having rejected the challenges made by the Petitioner, the
Tribunal noted that the Petitioner had received tenders for subsequent
shipments at a rate that was otherwise not prevailing during the period
of the alleged breach of contract. Therefore, it awarded a particular sum
4|P a g e
to be paid by the Petitioner at 12% rate of interest to be compounded
quarterly from the date when the amount becomes due.
As a result, the Petitioner approached the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi,
to set aside this award under Section 34 of the Arbitration and
Conciliation Act, 1996 (‘Act’), and alleged that the Award pertaining to
the compound interest was against public policy, as envisaged under
Section 34 of the Act.
Judgment:
The High Court upheld the observation and interpretation of the Tribunal
with respect to its interpretation of the CoA. It concluded that the phrase
“likely commencement in July 2017”, interpreted from a commercial
perspective, cannot be open-ended, giving the Petitioner the discretion
to choose the first date of shipment as it deemed fit. The term ‘likely’
denoted that the parties had agreed on the date of the first shipment.
Moreover, the case dealt with an international commercial arbitration
and therefore, the challenges to an award can only be under Section 34(2)
(b) of the Act i.e., an arbitral award may be set aside if the court finds
that the subject – matter of dispute is not capable of settlement under the
current arbitration laws or is in conflict with the public policy of India.
The Court observed that the provision prohibits Courts from acting as
the first appellate authority and can only set aside an award if it is
Shivadass & Shivadass (Law Chambers) ®
#501 – 503, Level V, Prestige Centre Point, No. 7, Cunningham Road, Bangalore – 560052
Ph: +91 80 43779955 | E: admin@sdlaw.co.in | W: www.sdlaw.co.in
contrary to the fundamental policy of Indian law. This ground does not
cover an interpretation of an Arbitral Tribunal, even if erroneous.
The Court also rejected the arguments put forward by the Petitioner
regarding the award being delivered with no evidence from the
Respondent. The Court concluded that the Respondent was not required
to produce any evidence since its claims were broadly accepted by the
Petitioner. Moreover, the burden of proof was on the Petitioner to prove
its claims before the Arbitrator. Lastly, since this claim was not raised
before the Arbitral Tribunal itself, it cannot be raised at this stage of the
proceedings.
The Court, in order to determine this issue, relied on various cases
interpreting the term fundamental policy of India under Section 34,
including the decisions in Ssangyong Engineering & Construction Co.
Limited v. NHAI reported in (2019) 15 SCC 131 and Renusagar Power
Co. Ltd v. General Electric Co. reported in 1994 Supp (1) SCC 644
which laid down the general grounds of the challenge to an arbitral award.
Specifically, the Court found assistance in the case of Associate Builders
v. Delhi Development Authority reported in (2015) 3 SCC 49 where it
was held that any recovery of compound interest, being only in
contravention to the statute, would not be in contravention to the
fundamental policy of Indian law.
5|P a g e
Further, the Court opined that the CoA being a commercial contract,
must be considered in line with commercial practices. It is a common
practice for banks to charge compound interest on monthly or quarterly
basis. In this regard, the Court relied on the decision of the Supreme
Court in Renusagar Power Co., wherein it was held that provisions of
compound interest in contracts are inserted by banks and enforced by
Courts, and thus, they are not in contravention to the public policy of
India. Therefore, the Court concluded that awarding compound interest
for sums under a commercial contract cannot be held to be contrary to
the fundamental policy of India.
3. OTT PLATFORMS & GRIEVANCE REDRESSAL: AN OVERVIEW
The Government of India notified the Information Technology
(Intermediary Guidelines Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules,
2021 (“Rules”) on February 25, 2021, which were framed under Section
87(2) of the Information Technology Act, 2000. The Rules have been
declared to govern intermediaries such as Over-The-Top (“OTT”)
content streaming platforms, social media platforms, etc. The said rules
mandates that a Code of Ethics and a three-tier grievance redressal
mechanism be put in place. In light of the Rules, The Internet and Mobile
Association of India (“IAMAI”) announced the establishment of the
Digital Publisher Content Grievance Council (“DPCGC”) which would
act as the Level-II Self-Regulatory Body for publishers of Online
Shivadass & Shivadass (Law Chambers) ®
#501 – 503, Level V, Prestige Centre Point, No. 7, Cunningham Road, Bangalore – 560052
Ph: +91 80 43779955 | E: admin@sdlaw.co.in | W: www.sdlaw.co.in
Curated Content as required under Rule 12 of the recently introduced IT
Rules, with the intent to empower consumers to make informed viewing
choices and to additionally, ensure OTT players’ compliances with the
new guidelines.
Formed as a part of the DPCGC, is a Grievance Redressal Board (“GRB”)
has been established to address content grievances related to any of the
DPCGC members’ video streaming services. The DPCGC member
streaming services include Amazon Prime Video, Netflix, Eros Now, etc.
Notably, IAMAI has recently notified that former Supreme Court Justice
(Retd.) Arjan Kumar Sikri will chair the GRB. The GRB aims to provide
independent adjudication on content grievances escalated to it under
Justice Sikri’s leadership. The GRB has other members on board as well.
The members of the GRB include well-known personalities from the
media and entertainment industry, online curated content providers,
experts from various fields including child rights, women rights, and
media laws. Members of IAMAI’s grievance redressal board include
Suhasini Maniratnam (Actor), Madhu Bhojwani, (Producer), Gopal Jain
(Senior Advocate, Supreme Court of India) and Ranjana Kumari (a civil
society representative; Director, Centre for Social Research). Two
members from the Online Curated Content Providers too, have formed a
part of the members.
6|P a g e
The appointment of GRB members is pertinent towards setting up an
independent grievance redressal mechanism in alignment with IT Rules
2021. The GRB will oversee and ensure the adherence to the Code of
Ethics by the DPCG Council members, provide guidance to member
entities on the Code of Ethics and address grievances that have not been
resolved within the stipulated time by the publisher. A similar body has
been created for broadcasters-led streaming platforms called the Indian
Broadcasting and Digital Foundation which has formed a self-regulatory
body called Digital Media Content Regulatory Council for digital OTT
platforms, which is a second-tier complaints mechanism.
4. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO CONSUMER PROTECTION (E-
COMMERCE) RULES, 2020
The Central Government proposed certain amendments to the Consumer
Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020 (“CPER”), originally notified on
July 23,2020. The amendments are expected to impact growth and
increase the burden of compliance mechanism for e-commerce entities
as they revisit their existing business structure. This proposal is based on
the complaints received by the Government against widespread cheating
and certain unfair trade practices that were observed in the e-commerce
environment.
Insertions to Section 3 – Definitions
Shivadass & Shivadass (Law Chambers) ®
#501 – 503, Level V, Prestige Centre Point, No. 7, Cunningham Road, Bangalore – 560052
Ph: +91 80 43779955 | E: admin@sdlaw.co.in | W: www.sdlaw.co.in
The following definitions are proposed to be included and/or amended:
1. E-commerce Entity: includes such entity engaged by an e-
commerce owner/operator for the purpose of fulfilment or orders
placed by the users on its platform. It also includes related parties
defined under Section 2 (76) of the Companies Act, 2013. However,
it excludes sellers offering goods or services on the marketplace of
the e-commerce entity.
2. Cross-selling: Sale of goods/services which are related or
complementary to a purchase made by a consumer at a time from any
e-commerce entity with an intent to maximise the revenue of such
entity.
3. Fall back liability: Liability of a marketplace in case of any failure
of the seller to deliver the goods or services ordered by a consumer.
The failure could be due to negligent conduct, omission or
commission of any act by such seller in fulfilling his duties and
liabilities prescribed by the e-commerce entity.
4. Flash sale: A sale organized by an e-commerce entity, for specific
products at significantly lower prices and other promotional offers
for a pre-determined period of time with an intention to draw large
number of consumers. Provided that the sale is organized by fraud
7|P a g e
 to promote a seller or a group of sellers on the entity’s platform. This
includes intercepting the ordinary course of business on the e- 6. Associated enterprise of an e-commerce platform- Any entity
commerce platform. having 10 percent or more common ultimate beneficial ownership
shall be an associate enterprise.
5. Mis-selling: Goods sold by an e-commerce entity by intentional
misrepresentation of information in a way that the goods or services
are suitable for the buyer.

New Section 4 – Registration of e-commerce entities:

Previously Section 4 prescribed the duties of e-commerce entities. In the proposal, newly inserted Section 4 prescribes registration for e-commerce
entities. The new Section 4 is as follows:

Section 4 (1) Section 4 (2)

Every e-commerce entity intending to operate in India must register itself Registration number and invoice of everyday order must be displayed to
with the Department for Promotion of Industry and Internal Trade (DPIIT) the users in a clear and a prominent manner.
within the prescribed period for allotment of the registration number. The
said period may be extended upon application in writing along-with a
sufficient reason.

Amendment to new Section 5 – Duties of e-commerce entities:

New Section 5 prescribes the duties of e-commerce entities wherein certain amendments and insertions are proposed which are as follows:

Shivadass & Shivadass (Law Chambers) ® 8|P a g e

#501 – 503, Level V, Prestige Centre Point, No. 7, Cunningham Road, Bangalore – 560052
Ph: +91 80 43779955 | E: admin@sdlaw.co.in | W: www.sdlaw.co.in
Sub-section Amendment/Insertion to Section 5

(1) E-commerce companies now include a partnership under the Indian Partnership Act, 1932 or a Limited Liability Partnership under
Limited Liability Partnership Act, 2008 for the purpose of appointment of a nodal person of contact or an alternate senior designated
functionary who is a resident of India.

(4) E-commerce entities must not allow misleading advertisements to be displayed on its platform.

(5) (a) A Chief Compliance Officer must be appointed who will be responsible for ensuring compliance with the Act and Rules. Further, the
officer shall be liable in those proceedings where the e-commerce entity fails to observe due diligence while discharging its duties.
The entity must be given an opportunity of being heard.

The officer must be managerial personnel or a senior employee of the e-commerce entity who is a citizen and resident of India.

(5) (b) Appointment of a nodal contact person, who is a citizen and resident of India, for round the clock coordination with law enforcement
agencies and officer to ensure compliance with orders and requisitions.

(5) (c) Appointment of a Resident Grievance Officer who shall be responsible for functions as per sub-rule (2) of Rule 3.

(5) (d) (a) Publication of the name of the Grievance officer and contact details along with the complaint mechanism to address matters
pertaining to the resources and service available on the platform. The Grievance officer shall:

Shivadass & Shivadass (Law Chambers) ® 9|P a g e

#501 – 503, Level V, Prestige Centre Point, No. 7, Cunningham Road, Bangalore – 560052
Ph: +91 80 43779955 | E: admin@sdlaw.co.in | W: www.sdlaw.co.in
 (i) receive and acknowledge any order, notice or direction issued by the Appropriate Government, any competent authority or
a court of competent jurisdiction.

(6) Name and details of the importer must be mentioned on the platform by the seller who has imported such goods.

(7) Where imported goods or services are offered for sale:

(a) Name and Details of importer

(b) Identification of the goods based on the country of origin, provision of a filter mechanism on the website, notification regarding
the origin of goods before the stage of purchase, at the time of purchase, suggestions of alternatives to ensure a fair opportunity
for domestic goods;

(c) Provision of ranking for goods and ensure that the parameters are not discriminatory against domestic goods and sellers.

(11) E-commerce entities shall not indulge in mis-selling of goods or services on its platform

(12) Adequate disclosure must be prominently disclosed to users in case the e-commerce entity is engaged in cross selling of goods or
services.

(a) Name of the entity providing data for cross-selling

(b) Data of the entity used for cross-selling

(14) No e-commerce entity shall:

Shivadass & Shivadass (Law Chambers) ® 10 | P a g e

#501 – 503, Level V, Prestige Centre Point, No. 7, Cunningham Road, Bangalore – 560052
Ph: +91 80 43779955 | E: admin@sdlaw.co.in | W: www.sdlaw.co.in
 (a) mislead users by manipulating search results or search index;
(b) permit usage of the name or brand associated with that of the marketplace e-commerce entity for promoting or offering the
sale of goods;

(c) make the information of a consumer available to any person without the express and affirmative consent. Further, no entity
shall record consent automatically, including in the form of pre-ticked checkboxes;

(d) use information collected by marketplace e-commerce entities, for the purpose of sale bearing a brand or a name that is common
with that of the marketplace e-commerce entity if it amounts to unfair trade practice and influence consumer interest.

(15) E-commerce entity must ensure that all sponsored listings are identified with clear and prominent disclosures.

(16) Flash sale cannot be organized for goods or services offered on its platform

(17) E-commerce entities holding dominant position in the market must not abuse such position as per Section 4 of the Competition Act,
2002.

(18) E-commerce entity must provide information to the Government agency within 72 hours from the receipt of the order. The purpose is
to verify the identity or for the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of offences for cyber security incidents or any other
law in force.

(19) Name of the seller must be displayed clearly and prominently in the invoice, in the same font size as the e-commerce entity’s name.

Insertion to Section 6 – Liabilities of marketplace e-commerce entities:

Shivadass & Shivadass (Law Chambers) ® 11 | P a g e

#501 – 503, Level V, Prestige Centre Point, No. 7, Cunningham Road, Bangalore – 560052
Ph: +91 80 43779955 | E: admin@sdlaw.co.in | W: www.sdlaw.co.in
Before the amendment, there was no compulsion to display the country of origin and the “best before” date for products listed on the marketplace offered
for sale. Further, certain sub-sections expressly prohibit discrimination among sellers, use of consumer information or sale of goods by e-commerce
entity to its sellers. The amendment is as follows:

(3) Marketplace e-commerce entity shall provide the following information in a clear and accessible manner, displayed prominently to its users at the
appropriate place on its platform:

(a) The country of origin must be provided clearly to its users on the platform.
(c) The ‘best before’ or ‘use before’ date must be prominently displayed.

(5) Differential treatment between sellers of the same category is not allowed by a logistics service provider. In the alternative, a disclaimer along with
the terms and conditions governing their relationship with the sellers must be provided.

(6) Every marketplace e-commerce entity shall:

(a) information collected through its platform must not be used for an unfair advantage of its related parties.
(b) Ensure that the related parties and associated enterprises are enlisted as sellers for sale to consumer directly.
(c) Ensure that nothing is done by related parties or associated enterprises which the e-commerce entity cannot do itself.

(7) A seller on the marketplace shall not be the buyer of goods from the marketplace e-commerce entity.

(8) The marketplace e-commerce entity must not advertise a body of sellers for the purpose of subsidizing a sale on its platform.

Shivadass & Shivadass (Law Chambers) ® 12 | P a g e

#501 – 503, Level V, Prestige Centre Point, No. 7, Cunningham Road, Bangalore – 560052
Ph: +91 80 43779955 | E: admin@sdlaw.co.in | W: www.sdlaw.co.in
(9) A marketplace e-commerce entity will be subject to a fall-back liability if a seller registered on its platform fails to deliver goods or services ordered
by a consumer owing to negligence conduct, omission or commission of any act by such seller in fulfilling the duties and liabilities in the manner as
prescribed by the marketplace e-commerce entity, which causes loss to the consumer.

Amendment to Section 7: Duties of sellers on marketplace

(5) (d) relevant details must be disclosed i.e., the best before or use before date, information related to return, refund, exchange, expiration date, details
of best before usage, warranty and guarantee, delivery and shipment, cost and return shipping, mode of payments, and any other similar information.

Amendment to Section 8: Duties and liabilities of inventory e-commerce entities:

(1) (a) Every inventory e-commerce entity shall provide the best before or use before date in a clear and accessible manner, displayed prominently to its
users.

5. WIPO REPORT ON ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY, 2021
The World Intellectual Property Organisation (‘WIPO’) released its
Technology Trends Report 2021 on Assistive Technologies, 3 which
intends to provide a comprehensive analysis of assistive product
innovations. Assistive technology covers a broad range of both simple
and high-tech technologies and products, such as walking sticks,
assistive robots, reading glasses, emotions recognition software, et al.4
The primary purpose of such technologies is to maintain or improve the
individual’s functioning and independence to facilitate participation and
enhance their overall well-being.5

3
The World Intellectual Property Organisation, ‘WIPO Technology Trends 4
The World Health Organisation, ‘Assistive Technology’ (WHO, 18 May 2018)
Report 2021: Assistive Technologies’ (WIPO, 23 March 2021) https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/assistive-technology accessed
https://www.wipo.int/edocs/pubdocs/en/wipo_pub_1055_2021.pdf accessed 26 26 June 2021.
5
June 2021. ibid.
Shivadass & Shivadass (Law Chambers) ® 13 | P a g e

#501 – 503, Level V, Prestige Centre Point, No. 7, Cunningham Road, Bangalore – 560052
Ph: +91 80 43779955 | E: admin@sdlaw.co.in | W: www.sdlaw.co.in
This report reveals an increasing interest in the industrial growth and
research related to assistive technology. It landscapes the trends in
emerging innovative products that incorporate enabling technologies.
The report showcases those innovations, ranging from small
improvements to the existing technologies to cutting-edge developments,
can significantly improve the day-to-day lives of persons with varying
functional limitations. These path-breaking new technologies assist such
functionally limited persons in overcoming daily obstacles faced while
navigating their environment, work, and their independent life.
This report has employed patent and other data to provide reliable,
factual evidence on such innovations in the assistive technology sphere.
It, therefore, helps in creating a knowledge base to inform and support
business leaders, researchers and policymakers in formulating their
policies.
KEY FINDINGS:
I. ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY PATENT LANDSCAPE:
This chapter of the report seeks to examine the technology and patenting
trends within assistive technologies across seven different functional
categories in order to provide a holistic picture of the global landscape
of assistive technology patents.
Shivadass & Shivadass (Law Chambers) ®
#501 – 503, Level V, Prestige Centre Point, No. 7, Cunningham Road, Bangalore – 560052
Ph: +91 80 43779955 | E: admin@sdlaw.co.in | W: www.sdlaw.co.in
1. Cognition:
This filed mainly focuses on memory support and medication dispensing
devices as well as the timers.
• There were 1,416 patent families filed in the last two decades in
36 patent offices.
• Over 42% of the filings were for medication dispensing and
management technologies which consists of devices to help
measure and modify medication.
• 29% of the filings were for clocks and timepieces, while memory
support products such as audio picture books and memory
support notebooks, covered 18% of the filings. 10% of the filings
related to time management products, 7% related to a variety of
technologies such as timers, while over 2% of the filings were
regarding calculations function devices.
• There has been a tremendous growth in the filings for cognitive
assistive technologies, with the number of patent applications
growing over 157% from 2010 to 2019. Medication dispensing
and management technology filings increased by 10% from 2013
to 2017.
14 | P a g e
• China was the leading patent office with three times more patent
applications than the USA and Japan.
• Over 53% of the patent activity in cognitive assistive technology
came from the corporate sector, while 30% were individual
applicants and 17% were from research organisations and
universities.
• Seiko led the applicants list with 21 patent families.
2. Communication:
• Communication domain is majorly based on software – based
assistive technology in area of communication Moat of the
filings under emerging communication is related to smart
assistants. Areas of recent development with great potential are
brain–computer interface-based control of devices and sensory
substitution technology, etc.
a. Conventional technologies
• There were 6,899 patent families filed in the last two decades in
43 patent offices.
Shivadass & Shivadass (Law Chambers) ®
#501 – 503, Level V, Prestige Centre Point, No. 7, Cunningham Road, Bangalore – 560052
Ph: +91 80 43779955 | E: admin@sdlaw.co.in | W: www.sdlaw.co.in
• 59% of the filings were related to special software and services,
which includes text editing software, graphical user interfaces, et
al.
• 25% of the filings were related to visual communication
technology, 11% related to audio communication technology,
8% related to switches and input devices, and 7% related to text-
to-speech technology.
• Speech-input technology (growth rate of 39% from 2013 and
2017) and emulations software (increased fourfold from 2011 to
2016) were the fastest-growing technologies in the conventional
communication technology sphere.
• Over 64% of the patent activity in conventional communication
technology came from the corporate sector, while 25% were
individual applicants and 10% were from research organisations
and universities.
• Both China and the USA were the leasing patent offices with
38% and 36% of the patent families, respectively.
• IBM led the applicants list with 149 patent families.
15 | P a g e
b. Emerging technologies
• There were 1,599 patent families filed in the last two decades.
• 68% of the filings related to navigational aids, 15% related to
sensory substitution aids, 11% related to brain-computer
interface, and 8% related to smart assistant technology.
• Sensory substitution aids (growth rate of 71% from 2013 and
2017), brain-computer interface technology (growth rate of 20%
from 2013 and 2017), and navigational aids (growth rate of 18%
from 2013 and 2017), were the fastest-growing technologies in
the emerging communication technology sphere.
• 47% of the patent activity in emerging communication
technology came from the corporate sector, while 27% were
individual applicants and 25% were from research organisations
and universities.
• China, with 39% of the filings, was the top patent office,
followed by the USA, Japan, and South Korea.
• IBM again led the applicants list with 32 patent families.
Shivadass & Shivadass (Law Chambers) ®
#501 – 503, Level V, Prestige Centre Point, No. 7, Cunningham Road, Bangalore – 560052
Ph: +91 80 43779955 | E: admin@sdlaw.co.in | W: www.sdlaw.co.in
3. Environment:
This market is dedicated towards facilitating smart technologies that
includes connected and robotic future involving smart homes (including
smart appliances at homes and smart toilets), smart cities (smart
pavements and navigation aids in public spaces) and assistive robots
(companion and pet robots), etc.
a. Conventional technologies
• There were 21,326 patent families filed in the last two decades
in 51 patent offices.
• 68% of the filings related to domestic/workplace assistive
technology and devices, 14% related to cultural, recreational and
leisure technologies, 12% related to alarms, and 7% related to
assistive products for vertical accessibility technology.
• Assistive products for vertical accessibility (growth rate of 41%
from 2013 and 2017), was the fastest-growing technologies in
the conventional environmental technology sphere.
• 45% of the patent activity in the conventional environmental
technology came from individual applicants, while 44% were
16 | P a g e
 from the corporate sector, and 25% were from research
organisations and universities.
• China was the top patent office, followed by Japan, the USA, and
South Korea.
• Panasonic led the applicants list with 282 patent families.
b. Emerging Technologies
• There were 1,157 patent families filed in the last two decades in
34 patent offices.
• 44% of the filings related to smart home devices, 38% related to
assistive robots, and 24% related to smart cities technology.
• Environment (growth rate of 42% from 2013 and 2017),
companion robots (growth rate of 55% from 2013 and 2017), and
vertical movement technologies (growth rate of 52% from 2013
and 2017), were the fastest-growing technologies in the
emerging environmental technology sphere.
• Over 54% of the patent activity in emerging environmental
technology came from the corporate sector, while 23% were
Shivadass & Shivadass (Law Chambers) ®
#501 – 503, Level V, Prestige Centre Point, No. 7, Cunningham Road, Bangalore – 560052
Ph: +91 80 43779955 | E: admin@sdlaw.co.in | W: www.sdlaw.co.in
from research organisations and universities, and 21% were
individual applicants.
• China, with 57% of the filings, was the top patent office,
followed by the USA, Japan, and South Korea.
• Panasonic again led the applicants list with 19 patent families.
4. Hearing:
Emerging assistive products include environment-controlling and mind-
controlled hearing aids, etc.
a. Conventional technologies
• There were 14,198 patent families filed in the last two decades
in 47 patent offices.
• 73% of the filings related to hearing aids and induction loops,
27% related to signalling products, 5% related to closed
captioning devices, 1% related to video interpretation services,
and 0.2% related to lip reading technologies.
17 | P a g e
• Spectacle hearing aids (growth rate of 10% from 2013 and 2017), • Non-invasive bone conduction (growth rate of 31% from 2013
tactile hearing aids (growth rate of 20% from 2013 and 2017), and 2017), and gesture-to-voice and text technology (growth rate
and video interpretation services (growth rate of 16% from 2013 of 24% from 2013 and 2017), were the fastest-growing
and 2017), were the fastest-growing technologies in the technologies in the emerging hearing technology sphere.
conventional hearing technology sphere.
• Over 72% of the patent activity in emerging hearing technology
• 75% of the patent activity in conventional hearing technology came from the corporate sector, while 13% were from research
came from the corporate sector, while 17% were individual organisations and universities, and 13% were individual
applicants and 8% were from research organisations and applicants.
universities.
• The USA, with 24% of the applications, was the top patent office,
• The USA was the top patent office, followed by China, European followed by China, WIPO, European Patent Office, Japan, South
Patent Office, WIPO, Japan, and South Korea. Korea and Australia.

• WS Audiology led the applicants list with 1,188 patent families. • Cochlear led the applicants list with 507 patent families.

b. Emerging Technologies 5. Mobility:

• There were 4,968 patent families filed in the last two decades in Under the mobility domain, the inventions of assistive technology
40 patent offices. mostly cater to individuals with reduced physical mobility.

• 46% of the filings related to cochlear implants, 36% related to a. Conventional technologies
non-invasive bone conduction, and 10% related to gesture-to-
voice and text technology.
Shivadass & Shivadass (Law Chambers) ® 18 | P a g e

#501 – 503, Level V, Prestige Centre Point, No. 7, Cunningham Road, Bangalore – 560052
Ph: +91 80 43779955 | E: admin@sdlaw.co.in | W: www.sdlaw.co.in
• There were 63,245 patent families filed in the last two decades
in 56 patent agencies.
• 31% of the filings related to orthoses, 27% related to walking
aids, 20% related to wheelchair accessories, 11% related to
wheelchairs, and 8% related to accessories for walking aids.
• Accessories for walking aids (growth rate of 14% from 2013 and
2017), was the fastest-growing technology in the conventional
mobility technology sphere.
• 44% of the patent activity in conventional mobility technology
came from individuals, while 43% belonged to the corporate
sectors, and 13% were from research organisations and
universities.
• China was the top patent office, followed by the USA, Japan,
WIPO, and the European Patent Office.
• Toyota led the applicants list with 462 patent families.
b. Emerging Technologies
Shivadass & Shivadass (Law Chambers) ®
#501 – 503, Level V, Prestige Centre Point, No. 7, Cunningham Road, Bangalore – 560052
Ph: +91 80 43779955 | E: admin@sdlaw.co.in | W: www.sdlaw.co.in
• There were 4,526 patent families filed in the last two decades in
41 patent offices.
• 43% of the filings related to advanced prosthetics, 21% related
to advanced walking aids, 19% related to advanced wheelchairs
and 19% related to exoskeletons technology.
• Advanced wheelchairs (growth rate of 34% from 2013 and
2017), advanced prosthetics (growth rate of 24% from 2013 and
2017), exoskeletons (growth rate of 24% from 2013 and 2017),
and 3D printed prosthetics (growth rate of 89% from 2013 and
2017), were the fastest-growing technologies in the emerging
mobility technology sphere.
• Over 44% of the patent activity in emerging mobility technology
came from the corporate sector, while 34% were from research
organisations and universities, and 19% were individual
applicants.
• China was the top patent office, followed by the USA, WIPO,
Japan, European Patent Office, and South Korea.
• Toyota again led the applicants list with 62 patent families.
19 | P a g e
6. Self-Care:
This area focuses on the assistive technology under the self-care domain
that promote independent living by assisting individuals with functional
lacks in order to carry out daily chores, for example, eating, personal
care, with reduced caregivers’ contribution.
a. Conventional technologies
• There were 6,410 patent families filed in the last two decades in
45 patent offices.
• 50% of the filings related to adaptive clothing, 21% related to
adaptive eating devices, 13% related to incontinence products,
9% related to products for manicure, pedicure, and hair/facial
care, and 8% related to dental care technology.
• Incontinence products (annual growth rate of 68%), and assistive
clothing accessories (growth rate of 7% from 2013 and 2017),
were the fastest-growing technologies in the conventional self-
care technology sphere.
• 59% of the patent activity in conventional self-care technology
came from individuals, while 31% belonged to the corporate
Shivadass & Shivadass (Law Chambers) ®
#501 – 503, Level V, Prestige Centre Point, No. 7, Cunningham Road, Bangalore – 560052
Ph: +91 80 43779955 | E: admin@sdlaw.co.in | W: www.sdlaw.co.in
sectors, and 9% were from research organisations and
universities.
• China, with 40% of the filings, was the top patent office,
followed by Japan, the USA, South Korea, WIPO, and Germany.
• Oji Paper led the applicants list with 99 patent applications
followed by Uni – charm, Kao, Panasonic and Daio Paper.
b. Emerging Technologies
• Emergent assistive technology under self-care employs
technology using Artificial Intelligence, Internet of Things,
Connectivity Instruments and follows the ongoing trend towards
wearables and health monitoring
• There were 497 patent families filed in the last two decades in 29
patent offices.
• 43% of the filings related to health and emotional monitoring,
19% related to smart diapers, 19% related to smart medication
dispensing and management, and 9% feeding assistant robot
technology.
20 | P a g e
• Devices for health and emotional monitoring (77% of the
applications published after 2010), which includes non-wearable
(growth rate of 38% from 2013 and 2017) and wearable (growth
rate of 26% from 2013 and 2017), were the fastest-growing
technologies in the emerging self-care technology sphere.
• Over 50% of the patent activity in emerging self-care technology
came from the corporate sector, while 29% were from individual
applicants and 20% were from research organisations and
universities.
• China, with 38% of the filings, was the top patent office,
followed by the USA, South Korea, Japan, WIPO, and European
Patent Office.
• Google led the applicants list with 13 patent families.
7. Vision:
This sphere focuses on the assistive visual aids and devices related to
visual impairment.
a. Conventional technologies
Shivadass & Shivadass (Law Chambers) ®
#501 – 503, Level V, Prestige Centre Point, No. 7, Cunningham Road, Bangalore – 560052
Ph: +91 80 43779955 | E: admin@sdlaw.co.in | W: www.sdlaw.co.in
• There were 8,133 patent families filed in the last two decades in
53 patent offices.
• 52% of the filings related to spectacles, 28% related to tactile
devices, 16% related to magnifiers, and 5% related to interactive
product technology.
• Tactile devices (growth rate of 14% from 2013 and 2017), and
interactive products (growth rate of 27% from 2013 and 2017),
were the fastest-growing technologies in the conventional vision
technology sphere.
• 54% of the patent activity in conventional vision technology
came from the corporate sector, while 35% came from
individuals and 10% were from research organisations and
universities.
• China was the top patent office, followed by the USA, Japan,
WIPO, European Patent Office and South Korea.
• Seiko led the applicants list with 158 patent families.
b. Emerging Technologies
21 | P a g e
• There were 3,036 patent families filed in the last two decades in
44 patent offices.
• 44% of the filings related to intraocular lenses, 22% related to
artificial silicon retina/retinal prostheses, 11% related to smart
eyewear, 10% related to cortical implants, and 8% related to
augmented reality devices technology.
• Intraocular lenses (growth rate of 48% from 2013 and 2017),
augmented reality devices (growth rate of 38% from 2013 and
2017), and artificial silicon retina/retinal prostheses and smart
eyewear (both with the growth rate of 35% from 2013 and 2017),
were the fastest-growing technologies in the emerging vision
technology sphere.
• Over 58% of the patent activity in emerging vision technology
came from the corporate sector, while 24% were from research
organisations and universities, and 16% from individual
applicants.
• The USA, with 55% of the filings, was the top patent office,
followed by WIPO, China, European Patent Office, Japan,
Australia, and Russia.
Shivadass & Shivadass (Law Chambers) ®
#501 – 503, Level V, Prestige Centre Point, No. 7, Cunningham Road, Bangalore – 560052
Ph: +91 80 43779955 | E: admin@sdlaw.co.in | W: www.sdlaw.co.in
• Top four patent applications among corporates were from
Second Sight Medical (U.S.), S. Fyodorov Eye Microsurgery
Federal State Institution (Russian Federation) Johnson &
Johnson (U.S.), Allergan (Ireland)
II. TRENDS IN ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY:
This chapter identifies the evolution from conventional technology to
emerging technologies, further it also identifies the cross – cutting
technology trends, in filing, market trends and profiles and strategies.
a. Conventional Technology
• About 117398 patent families were overall filed under the
Conventional Assistive Technology sphere across 56 patent
agencies
• Mobility (54%) remained the domain that received most filings
followed by Environment (18%), Hearing (12%), Vision (7%),
Communication (6%), Self-care (5%) and Cognition (<1%)
• Mobility is the fastest growing domain with around 9% “average
annual growth rate” between 2013-2017 followed by
22 | P a g e
 Environment (7%), Vision (5%), Cognition (3%) and finally
self-care (2%)
Mobility
• Under the mobility domain, China (41%), Japan (26%) and US
(17%) emerged as the top 3 patent agencies
• Top 3 applicants under the mobility domain are Toyota, Össur
and Ottobock
• Individuals with 44% applications under the mobility domain
topped the applicant profile followed by Corporates (43%) and
Academia (13%)
Environment
• Under the environment domain, China (39%), Japan (28%) and
US (13%) emerged as the top 3 patent agencies
• Panasonic, Toto and Sekisui emerged as top 3 applicants under
the environment domain
Shivadass & Shivadass (Law Chambers) ®
#501 – 503, Level V, Prestige Centre Point, No. 7, Cunningham Road, Bangalore – 560052
Ph: +91 80 43779955 | E: admin@sdlaw.co.in | W: www.sdlaw.co.in
• Individuals with 45% applications under the environment
domain topped the applicant profile followed by Corporates
(44%) and Academia (10%)
Hearing
• Under the hearing domain, US (50%), China (37%) and
European Patent Office (26%) emerged as the top 3 patent
agencies
• WS Audiology, Sonova and Demant emerged as top 3 patent
applicants under the hearing domain
• Corporates with 74% applications under the hearing domain
topped the applicant profile followed by Individuals (17%) and
Academia (8%)
Vision
• Under the vision domain, China (50%), U.S. (28%) and Japan
(25%) emerged as the top 3 patent agencies
• Seiko, Essilor and Hoya emerged as top 3 patent applicants under
the visual domain
23 | P a g e
• Corporates with 54% applications under the vision domain • Individuals with 59% applications under the self-care domain
topped the applicant profile followed by Individuals (35%) and topped the applicant profile followed by Corporates (31%) and
Academia (10%) Academia (9%)

Communication Cognition

• Under the communication domain, China (38%), U.S. (36%) and • Under the cognition domain, China (55%), U.S. (18%) and Japan
Japan (25%) emerged as the top 3 patent agencies (17%) emerged as the top 3 patent agencies

• IBM, Panasonic and Samsung emerged as top 3 patent applicants • Seiko, Honeywell and Hon Hai Precision emerged as top 3 patent
under the communication domain applicants under the cognition domain

• Corporates with 64% applications under the communication • Corporates with 52% applications under the self-care domain
domain topped the applicant profile followed by Individuals topped the applicant profile followed by Individuals (30%) and
(25%) and Academia (10%) Academia (17%)

Self-care Total

• Under the self-care domain, China (40%), Japan (34%) and U.S. • In total, China (41%), U.S. (27%) and Japan (21%) emerged as
(12%) emerged as the top 3 patent agencies top 3 patent agencies

• Oji Paper, Uni-Charm and Kao emerged as top 3 patent • In total, WS Audiology, Panasonic and Sonova emerged as top 3
applicants under the self-care domain patent applicants

Shivadass & Shivadass (Law Chambers) ® 24 | P a g e

#501 – 503, Level V, Prestige Centre Point, No. 7, Cunningham Road, Bangalore – 560052
Ph: +91 80 43779955 | E: admin@sdlaw.co.in | W: www.sdlaw.co.in
• In total under applicant profiles Corporates contributed to 48%,
Individuals 30% and Academia about 11%.
b. Emerging Technology
• The development of emerging assistive devices and products is
facilitated by enabling novel technologies including Artificial
Intelligence, Internet of Things, etc.
• About 15592 patent families were overall filed under the
Emerging Assistive Technology sphere across 51 patent agencies
• Hearing (32%) remained the domain that received most filings
followed by Mobility (29%), Vision (19%), Communication
(10%), Self-care (5%) and Environment (7%)
Hearing
• Under the hearing domain, US (48%), China (42%) and WIPO
(30%) emerged as the top 3 patent agencies
• Cochlear, Sonova and MED-EL emerged as top 3 patent
applicants under the hearing domain
Shivadass & Shivadass (Law Chambers) ®
#501 – 503, Level V, Prestige Centre Point, No. 7, Cunningham Road, Bangalore – 560052
Ph: +91 80 43779955 | E: admin@sdlaw.co.in | W: www.sdlaw.co.in
• Corporates with 72% applications under the hearing domain
topped the applicant profile followed by Academia (13%) and
Individuals (13%)
Mobility
• Under the mobility domain, China (50%), Japan (27%) and US
(20%) emerged as the top 3 patent agencies
• Top 3 patent applicants under the mobility domain are Toyota,
Honda and Tsinghua University
• Corporates with 44% applications under the mobility domain
topped the applicant profile followed by Academia (34%) and
Individuals (19%)
Vision
• Under the vision domain, U.S. (55%), WIPO (36%) and China
(32%) emerged as the top 3 patent agencies
• Second Sight Medical, Fyodorov Eye Microsurgery Federal
State Institution and Johnson & Johnson emerged as top 3 patents
under the visual domain
25 | P a g e
• Corporates with 58% applications under the vision domain
topped the applicant profile followed by Academia (24%) and
Individuals (10%)
Communication
• Under the communication domain, China (39%), Japan (19%)
and U.S. (19%) emerged as the top 3 patent agencies
• IBM, Panasonic and NEC emerged as top 3 patents under the
communication domain
• Corporates with 47% applications under the communication
domain topped the applicant profile followed by Individuals
(27%) and Academia (25%)
Environment
• Under the environment domain, China (62%), Japan (19%) and
US (19%) emerged as the top 3 patent office
• Panasonic, Toyota and Chongqing Youbanjia Technology
emerged as top 3 applicants under the environment domain
Shivadass & Shivadass (Law Chambers) ®
#501 – 503, Level V, Prestige Centre Point, No. 7, Cunningham Road, Bangalore – 560052
Ph: +91 80 43779955 | E: admin@sdlaw.co.in | W: www.sdlaw.co.in
• Corporates with 54% applications under the environment domain
topped the applicant profile followed by Academia (23%) and
Individuals (21%)
Self-care
• Under the self-care domain, China (59%), U.S. (21%) and
Republic of Korea (15%) emerged as the top 3 patent agencies
• Google, Liuzhou Yiwang Technology, National Rehabilitation
Center; Kimberly-Clark; Johnson & Johnson; Chengdu
Shouzhang Technology emerged as top 3 patents under the self-
care domain
• Corporates with 50% applications under the self-care domain
topped the applicant profile followed by Individuals (29%) and
Academia (20%)
Total
• In total, China (44%), U.S. (38%) and WIPO (25%) emerged as
top 3 patent agencies
26 | P a g e
• In total, Cochlear, Sonova and MED-EL emerged as top 3 patent
applicants
• In total under applicant profiles Corporates contributed to 57%,
Academia 23% and Individuals about 18%
III. ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY – THE WIDER CONTEXT:
• This chapter examines the numerous challenges in the assistive
technology domain of which policymakers and other
stakeholders require to be informed. The Report suggests that
these challenges must be addressed which will, in turn, help aid
innovators reach intended targets and help consumers in
obtaining “assistive technology”.
• This section additionally investigates the wider shift towards the
sustenance for the rights of individuals with inabilities by
advancing regional and international assistive technology
frameworks. The report suggests that the adoption of these policy
approaches and initiatives aid in the realization of admittance to
assistive technology as a part of the “human right” of consumers.
• The Chapter elucidates several issues related to the present
policy landscape with respect to assistive technology. It suggests
Shivadass & Shivadass (Law Chambers) ®
#501 – 503, Level V, Prestige Centre Point, No. 7, Cunningham Road, Bangalore – 560052
Ph: +91 80 43779955 | E: admin@sdlaw.co.in | W: www.sdlaw.co.in
the incorporation of R&D prioritization, Intellectual Property
strategy, regulative or surety requirements and the synthesis of
assistive technology into national health systems.
• Another issue highlighted by the report is accessibility. Digital
accessibility attributes to producing products to the one unable
to access it due to functional limitations such as vision and
hearing impairments. In this regard, the report suggests that
assistive technology could improve end-users’ access to content,
for instance, using Braille displays, screen readers, etc. The
Report suggests the need to emphasize accessibility at the mere
design stage itself. This can happen through the incorporation of
subtitles, captions. Further, enabling artificial intelligence too,
play a great role in supporting accessibility.
• Several frameworks such as “the Convention of the Rights of
Persons with Disabilities” and the “Sustainable Developmental
Goals” have been incorporated at the international stage by
lawmakers. The Report suggests that the incorporation of
assistive technology in the worldwide policy devices indicates
broader importance on accommodating individuals with
incapacities in all prongs of life.
27 | P a g e
• In conclusion, the Report suggests that the above-mentioned
factors influence the entry of any device to the market and its
availability to consumers.
IV. THE FUTURE OF ASSISTIVE TECHNOLOGY:
• This Chapter elucidates in what way assistive technology can
advance with regards to technology and policymaking keeping
in mind the potential IP implications. The market demographics
for assistive technology is dynamic in nature. This can be
demonstrated by the ageing population, existing chances to the
inventors and a possible shift of pattern in the market share
amidst enhanced representations of end-users and added diverse
requirements for assistive technology.
• The Report suggests that while some upcoming devices are
tested, recognised and accepted by users, several sorts of
technologies could convert to conventional products rather than
specific ones. This would be the instance if developers of
conventional technologies use inclusive design ethics. However,
there is a need for these possible developments to be addressed
adjacent ethical considerations. The issues of social exclusion,
intellectual property, the procurement and admission to data and
Shivadass & Shivadass (Law Chambers) ®
#501 – 503, Level V, Prestige Centre Point, No. 7, Cunningham Road, Bangalore – 560052
Ph: +91 80 43779955 | E: admin@sdlaw.co.in | W: www.sdlaw.co.in
privacy, particularly concerning fast paced developments such as
AI.
• As per the report, emerging technologies seem to not replace the
conventional products presently. Currently, both the orthodox
and emerging assistive technologies seem to be emerging in
parallel. However, the reports suggests that this trend can change
in the future. This is possibly due to the emerging being
perceived more adequate by end-users. However, novel
technologies bring novel challenges with them. These challenges
as suggested by the Report can be in terms of intellectual
property and data & privacy. Further, the licensing of these
products requires evolving at the pace of these inventions if it is
to incorporate the implications of enabling technology in the
creation of new Intellectual Property. The receptiveness of the
Intellectual Property ecosystem could as a result effect the
momentum of the expansion of assistive technology.
In conclusion, it can be observed that Universities and public
organisations are predominantly emerging in assistive technology
dataset and are particularly active in the filed of mobility. Whereas
Corporates are leading the development of the assistive technology
especially companies such as WS Audiology, Sonova, Second sight etc.
28 | P a g e
The research elucidated on how the assistive technology could possibly
develop with regards to policymaking and technology while factoring in
potential Intellectual Property implications. WIPO aims to provide
knowledge base to support discussions on assistive technology that come
under the umbrella of United Nations Convention on Rights for People
with Disabilities (UNCRPD) and the World Health Organisation for
promoting greater access to assistive technologies.
6. KSHITIZ ARYA AND ANOTHER V. GOOGLE LLC & ORS.
In a recent decision by The Competition Commission of India (‘CCI’),
in the case of Kshitiz Arya and another v. Google LLC & Ors., Case No.
19 of 2020, the Director-General (‘DG’) was directed to conduct an
investigation under the provisions of Section 26(1) of the Competition
Act, 2002 (‘the Act’) against Google for alleged anti-competitive
practices in the market for smart television operating systems.6 It was
directed that the investigation must be completed within 60 days.
In an information filed by Kshitiz Aryna (‘informants’), it is alleged that
Google is guilty of anti-competitive practices which violates Section 3
and 4 read with Section 32 of the Act.
Issues:
1. Google enters into ‘Television Application Distribution
Agreements’ (‘TADA’) and Android Compatibility Commitments
(‘ACC’), that places restrictions on the inclusion and distribution of
applications developed by Google, and such a restriction is allegedly
an abuse of dominant position by Google in violation of Section 3
read with Section 32 of the Act.
2. Third parties may obtain a license under the Android Open Source
Project (“AOSP”). However, this is accompanied by a restrictive
scope where Google does not grant the following rights to the
Original Equipment Manufacturer (‘OEM’):
• Right to distribute Google’s proprietary applications such as
YouTube, Play store, and others.
• Right to use Android logo or any related trademarks of
Android.

6
Kshitiz Arya and another v. Google LLC & Ors., Case No. 19 of 2020,
Competition Commission of India, Order dated June 22, 2021
Shivadass & Shivadass (Law Chambers) ® 29 | P a g e

#501 – 503, Level V, Prestige Centre Point, No. 7, Cunningham Road, Bangalore – 560052
Ph: +91 80 43779955 | E: admin@sdlaw.co.in | W: www.sdlaw.co.in
3. Such rights can be availed by the OEMs only by signing a non-
exclusive agreement which is optional in nature, i.e., TADA which
ensures the OEMs to function in compliance adhering to the terms
of the agreement with a valid and effective ACC.
4. The ACC enables device manufacturers to pre-install Google’s
proprietary applications for manufacturing, marketing and
distribution of devices running Google’s version of Android. This is
alleged to restrict device manufacturers from using their creativity
and ability to generate and sell devices operating on alternative
versions of Android.
5. Further Allegations include violation of Section 4 (2) (b) of the Act,
wherein it limits the technical and scientific development relating to
goods or services to the prejudice of consumers.
Held:
Google’s suite of applications are essential for the experience of Android
with respect to the majority of the userbase. Imposing restrictions on the
installation and accompanying mode of distribution is an inherent abuse
of the marketability of the Android devices. Since the licence to pre-
install Play Store is entirely dependent upon the execution of TADA and
Shivadass & Shivadass (Law Chambers) ®
#501 – 503, Level V, Prestige Centre Point, No. 7, Cunningham Road, Bangalore – 560052
Ph: +91 80 43779955 | E: admin@sdlaw.co.in | W: www.sdlaw.co.in
ACC between Google and OEMs, it makes the agreements to become de
facto compulsory.
CCI is of the opinion that the mandatory pre-installation of Google
applications under TADA amounts to imposition of unfair condition on
the manufacturers of Smart TVs and hence Google is in contravention of
Section 4 (2) (a) (i). It was also held that the dominance of Play Store in
the market by Google and stands violative of Article 4(2) (e) of the Act.
CCI has ordered a detailed investigation directing the DG to conduct the
same and submit the report within 60 days from the receipt of the order.
7. WHATSAPP LLC VS COMPETITION COMMISSION OF INDIA & ANR.
The Delhi High Court on 21.06.2021, rejected the stay application filed
by the WhatsApp LLP against the notice dated 04.06.2021 issued by the
Competition Commission of India (‘CCI’) and held that the notice issued
by the CCI is a preliminary step in Suo-Motu case No. 01/2021 pursuant
to order dated 24.03.2021 which is the subject matter of the present LPA.
While hearing the Stay application filed by WhatsApp LLP, it was
contented that an LPA is pending before the Division Bench of the Court
and the Director General, CCI issued a notice seeking information from
WhatsApp LLP within 15 days failing which, penalty will be imposed
by the DG as per the Act. The CCI on the other hand contended that
30 | P a g e
notice issued by the DG is perfectly in line with the procedure
contemplated under the statute to take forward the investigation on
which there is no stay by the Division Bench.
The Division Bench in this regard held that the application for stay had
already been filed by the Appellant (Whatsapp LLC) in which the notice
has been issued and listed for further consideration and the Court was of
the view that there the present IA is an overlap of the earlier application
with the same prayer.
In this regard, the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) vide
Notification No. 33/2021-Customs dated 14 June 2021 rescinded the
Notification No. 30/2021-Customs dated 01 May 2021 which stated an
exemption from levy of IGST in excess of 12% on oxygen concentrators
imported for personal use.
The following Notifications were issued to give the effect of relief to
items used for treatment of COVID-19:

8. CHANGE IN GST RATES ON GOODS BEING USED IN COVID – 19

RELIEF AND MANAGEMENT

In its 44th Council meeting dated 12 June 2021, certain decisions were
taken regarding reduction in rate on items used in respect of COVID
relief. The said reduction in rate will be in effect until 30 September 2021.
The meeting was convened for the sole purpose of considering the
recommendations in the 43rd GST Council meeting dated 28 May 2021
regarding rate of GST on goods and services utilized in the treatment and
management of COVID-19.

S. No Notification Particulars

Shivadass & Shivadass (Law Chambers) ® 31 | P a g e

#501 – 503, Level V, Prestige Centre Point, No. 7, Cunningham Road, Bangalore – 560052
Ph: +91 80 43779955 | E: admin@sdlaw.co.in | W: www.sdlaw.co.in
 1. Notification 04/2021 – Central Tax (Rate) dated 14 Amendment to Notification 11/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 restricting
June 2021 the levy of GST to 2.5% on goods in clause (f) of column (4)

2. Notification 04/2021 – Integrated Tax (Rate) dated Amendment to Notification 08/2017-Integrated Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017
14 June 2021 restricting the levy of GST to 5% on goods in clause (f) of column (4)

3. Notification 04/2021 – Union Territory Tax (Rate) Amendment to Notification 11/2017-Union Territory Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017
dated 14 June 2021 restricting the levy of GST to 2.5% on goods in clause (f) of column (4)

The GST rate cut on covid related items and sharing of revenue from GST on Covid vaccine by the Centre with the States, shall benefit and aid the States
financially.

Pursuant to the reduction, the rate of GST stands as follows:

S. No Description Of Goods CGST IGST UTGST

1. Medical Grade Oxygen 2.5% 5% 2.5%

2. Tocilizumab Nil Nil Nil
3. Amphotericin B Nil Nil Nil
4. Remdesivir 2.5% 5% 2.5%
5. Heparin (anti-coagulant) 2.5% 5% 2.5%
6. Covid-19 testing kits 2.5% 5% 2.5%

Shivadass & Shivadass (Law Chambers) ® 32 | P a g e

#501 – 503, Level V, Prestige Centre Point, No. 7, Cunningham Road, Bangalore – 560052
Ph: +91 80 43779955 | E: admin@sdlaw.co.in | W: www.sdlaw.co.in
 7. Inflammatory Diagnostic (marker) kits, namely- IL6, D- Dimer, CRP (C-Reactive Protein), LDH
(Lactate De- Hydrogenase), Ferritin, Pro Calcitonin (PCT) and blood gas reagents. 2.5% 5% 2.5%
8. Hand Sanitizer 2.5% 5% 2.5%
9. Helmets for use with non-invasive ventilation 2.5% 5% 2.5%
10. Gas/Electric/other furnaces for crematorium 2.5% 5% 2.5%
11. Pulse Oximeter 2.5% 5% 2.5%
12. High flow nasal canula device 2.5% 5% 2.5%
13. Oxygen Concentrator/ generator 2.5% 5% 2.5%
14. Ventilators 2.5% 5% 2.5%
15. BiPAP Machine 2.5% 5% 2.5%
16. (i) Non-invasive ventilation nasal or oronasal masks for ICU ventilators
2.5% 5% 2.5%
(i) Canula for use with ventilators
17. Temperature check equipment 2.5% 5% 2.5%
18. Ambulance 6% 12% 6%

Certain other amendments include:
1. GST levy on Covid vaccine remains unchanged at 5%, as it may
not impact the public at large. Currently 75% of the vaccines are
provided free to citizens wherein tax is borne by the Central
Government and only 25% are available upon actual payment.
Shivadass & Shivadass (Law Chambers) ®
2. GST on supply by way of construction, renovation, maintenance,
or alteration of a structure for the purpose of funeral or cremation
of deceased has been reduced from 12% to 5%
However, in case of exempt supplies, the manufacturers may find it
difficult to set off input tax credit. Where the rate of tax is zero/nil, no
input tax credit shall be available and may impact the prices to the extent
of tax for consumers. Hence no input tax credit may be available to
businesses where output is exempt. This would cause a hindrance since
33 | P a g e

#501 – 503, Level V, Prestige Centre Point, No. 7, Cunningham Road, Bangalore – 560052
Ph: +91 80 43779955 | E: admin@sdlaw.co.in | W: www.sdlaw.co.in
there is no reduction of cost to the extent of GST reduced but the market
may expect price reduction to pass on such benefit.
9. CLARIFICATIONS ISSUED BY CBIC REGARDING
RECOMMENDATIONS BY GST COUNCIL
Certain recommendations were made in the 43rd GST Council meeting
held on 28 May 2021. In this regard, the Central Board of Indirect Taxes
and Customs issued various circulars on 17 June 2021 which clarified
the rate of GST on specific goods and services.
Applicability of GST on supply of food in Anganwadis and schools
Circular Title Dated
149/05/2021-GST No GST on supply of food in 17/06/2021
Anganwadis and Schools
Entry 66 clause (b)(ii) of Notification 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate)
dated 28 June 2017:
Exemption available for “Services provided to an educational institution
by way of catering including any mid-day meals scheme sponsored by
the Central Government”. The scope of the entry is wide enough to cover
any serving of any food to a school, including pre-school. Since
Shivadass & Shivadass (Law Chambers) ®
#501 – 503, Level V, Prestige Centre Point, No. 7, Cunningham Road, Bangalore – 560052
Ph: +91 80 43779955 | E: admin@sdlaw.co.in | W: www.sdlaw.co.in
Anganwadi inter alia provides pre-school non-formal education, the
same is covered by the definition of educational institution.
Hence, no GST on Supply of Food in Anganwadis and Schools, whether
sponsored by Government of through donation from corporates.
Applicability of GST on the activity of road construction where
considerations are received in deferred payment (annuity):
Circular Title Dated
150/06/2021-GST GST on annuities paid for 17/06/2021
construction of road
Entry 23 of Notification No.12/2017- Central Tax (Rate) dated 28 June
2017 exempts “service by way of access to a road or a bridge on
payment of toll”. Entry 23A of the notification, exempts “service by way
of access to a road or a bridge on payment of annuity”. The said entries
exempt levy of tax on consideration received from access of road or
bridge, whether it is received in the form of toll or annuity.
Services by way of access to a road or a bridge on payment of annuity,
covered under Heading 9967 are exempt from levy of GST. Services by
way of construction of a road falling under Heading 9954, are not exempt
34 | P a g e
since the above-mentioned entries are not applicable to services under
Heading 9954.
Hence, Entry 23A of Notification 12/2017-CT(R) dated 28.06.2017 does
not exempt GST on annuity paid for construction of roads.
GST on supply of various services by Central and State board (such
as national board of examination)
Circular Title Dated
151/07/2021-GST GST on services provided by 17/06/2021
Central or State Boards
As per explanation 3(iv) of Notification 12/2017-CTR, Central and State
Boards are treated as Education Boards to the extent they provide
services by way of conducting examinations to the students. Services
supplied by an educational institution are exempt from levy of GST.
Similarly, services provided to an educational institution relating to or
admission to or conduct of examination is also exempt from levy of GST.
Therefore, GST shall not apply to any fee or amount charged by such
Boards for conduct of such examinations including entrance
examinations.
GST is exempt on services provided by the Central or State board for
conducting examinations including entrance examination for admission
to an institution.
The exemption extends to input services related to admission or
conducting examinations such as online testing service, publication of
result, printing of notification for examination, admit card and questions
papers etc, when provided to such Boards [S. No. 66 (b) (iv) of
Notification No. 12/2017- Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017].
GST is leviable at 18% on other services provided by such Boards
namely, providing accreditation to an institution or to a professional
(accreditation fee or registration fee. Ex: FMGE screening test fee). This
is to empower the service recipients to provide their respective services.
Rate of tax applicable on construction services provided to a
government entity, in relation to construction such as of a ropeway
on turnkey basis –
Circular Title Dated
152/08/2021-GST GST on works contract 17/06/2021
service by way of
construction of rope way

Shivadass & Shivadass (Law Chambers) ® 35 | P a g e

#501 – 503, Level V, Prestige Centre Point, No. 7, Cunningham Road, Bangalore – 560052
Ph: +91 80 43779955 | E: admin@sdlaw.co.in | W: www.sdlaw.co.in
Works contract service provided by way of construction such as of rope
way shall fall under entry at Sl. No. 3(xii) of notification 11/2017-(CTR)
and attract GST at the rate of 18%.
GST on milling of wheat into flour or paddy into rice for distribution
by state governments under public distribution system
Circular Title Dated
153/09/2021-GST GST on milling of wheat into 17/06/2021
flour or paddy into rice for
distribution by Govt
Entry 3A would apply to composite supply of milling of wheat and
fortification thereof by miller, or of paddy into rice, provided that value
of goods supplied in such composite supply (goods used for fortification,
packing material etc) does not exceed 25% of the value of composite
supply.
The applicable rate of GST would be 5% in case the supply of service by
way of milling of wheat into flour or of paddy into rice, is not eligible
for exemption under Sl. No. 3 A of Notification No. 12/2017- Central
Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 for the reason that value of goods supply in
such a composite supply exceeds 25%. However, it is subject to the
condition that such composite supply is provided to a registered person,
Shivadass & Shivadass (Law Chambers) ®
#501 – 503, Level V, Prestige Centre Point, No. 7, Cunningham Road, Bangalore – 560052
Ph: +91 80 43779955 | E: admin@sdlaw.co.in | W: www.sdlaw.co.in
being a job work service (Entry 26 of Notification 11/2017- Central Tax
(Rate) dated 28.06.2017).
For the purpose of the above-mentioned Entry 26, the definition of job
work makes it clear that a person who is registered only for tax deduction
purposes under Section 51 of the CGST Act is considered to be a
registered person. The rate of tax is 5% on supply to such a person.
GST on service supplied by State Govt. to their undertakings or
PSUs by way of guaranteeing loans taken by them
Circular Title Dated
154/10/2021-GST No GST on guaranteeing of 17/06/2021
loans by Govt for their
undertaking or PSU
Guaranteeing of loans by Central or State Government for their
undertaking or PSU is specifically exempt under Entry 34A of
Notification 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017.
Entry no. 34A of Notification no. 12/2017-Central Tax (Rate) dated
28.06.2017 exempts “Services supplied by Central Government, State
Government, Union territory to their undertakings or Public Sector
Undertakings (PSUs) by way of guaranteeing the loans taken by such
36 | P a g e
undertakings or PSUs from the banking companies and financial
institutions.” “The intention of this entry has been to cover laterals (pipes to
be used solely with sprinklers/drip irrigation system) and such
GST rate on laterals/parts of sprinklers or drip irrigation system parts that are suitable for use solely or principally with
‘sprinklers or drip irrigation system’, as classifiable under
Circular Title Dated heading 8424 as per Note 2 (b) to Section XVI to the HSN.“
155/11/2021-GST GST rate on laterals/parts of 17/06/2021
Sprinklers or Drip Irrigation Hence, laterals/parts to be used solely or principally with sprinklers or
System drip irrigation systems, which are classifiable under heading 8424,
would attract a GST of 12%, even if supplied separately.
The intention of notifying GST rate on laterals/parts of Sprinklers or
Drip irrigation System at 6% (each CGST and SGST) was clarified. However, any part of general use, which gets classified in a heading
other than 8424, in terms of Section Note and Chapter Notes to HSN,
S.No Chapter Description GST shall attract GST as applicable to the respective heading.
Heading Rate
195B 8424 Sprinklers, drip irrigation systems, 12% 10. ASSESSEE PERMITTED TO AVAIL CREDIT OF THE REFUND
including laterals, mechanism SANCTIONED
sprayer
A Writ Petition was filed challenging the denial of both re-credit and
\The GST rate on Sprinklers or Drip Irrigation System along with their refund of excess tax paid inadvertently through e-credit ledger in GST.
laterals/parts are governed by S.No. ‘195B’ under Schedule II of The Assessee in the present case, is engaged in the business of operating
notification No. 1/2017- Central Tax (Rate), dated 28.06.2017 inserted an e-commerce platform and partners with sellers who offer products to
vide Notification 6/2018- Central Tax (Rate), dated 25.01.2018 which customers on Assessee’s platform. The CBIC vide Circular No.
reads as follows: 26/26/2017-GST dated 29.12.2017 issued a clarification that any excess

Shivadass & Shivadass (Law Chambers) ® 37 | P a g e

#501 – 503, Level V, Prestige Centre Point, No. 7, Cunningham Road, Bangalore – 560052
Ph: +91 80 43779955 | E: admin@sdlaw.co.in | W: www.sdlaw.co.in
taxes paid can either be adjusted in the subsequent months. In case such
adjustment is not possible, then it can be claimed as refund.
Facts:
1. The Assessee had inadvertently declared an excess outward
IGST liability for a particular month due to a clerical error that
occurred while filing the summary return. In order to set right the
accounts, the Assessee re-credited the electronic credit ledger to
the extent of excess tax paid in the summary return filed for the
subsequent month.
2. The said position was explained to the Department however, the
Assessee was directed to reverse the ITC claim in the ground that
the said amount was eligible as refund to the Assessee. However,
when the Assessee filed a refund application, the same was
rejected by the Department on the ground that the Circular
provides for adjustment of the excess paid amount.
3. Subsequently, Rules 86(4A) and 92(1A) were inserted to CGST
Rule, 2017, wherein refund of excess paid tax through e-credit
ledger was allowed to be recredited to the ledger, upon filing of
refund application.
Shivadass & Shivadass (Law Chambers) ®
#501 – 503, Level V, Prestige Centre Point, No. 7, Cunningham Road, Bangalore – 560052
Ph: +91 80 43779955 | E: admin@sdlaw.co.in | W: www.sdlaw.co.in
Proceedings:
1. It was the contention of the Assessee, for whom arguments were
led by Mr. G Shivadass, Senior Advocate, assisted by attorneys
from S&S, that the Department cannot contradict their stand
when it was directed by them that the Assessee reverse the excess
ITC and file a claim for refund.
2. During the course of hearing, the Court instructed the
Department to get back with instructions on the exact mechanism
to adjust the excess paid tax amount in line with the Circular
dated 29.12.2017. Upon no proper submissions by the
Department Counsel, the Hon’ble Court directed the Department
to alternatively to take necessary steps to refund the excess tax
paid, either in cash or by re-crediting the same in the electronic
credit ledger.
3. Subsequently, the Counsel for the Department filed an
undertaking along with Form GST PMT-03 to re-credit the
refund amount to the credit ledger. However, the Senior
Advocate showed the Hon’ble Court that the facility to re-credit
the refund amount to the credit ledger of the Assessee is not
available since the ITC is auto populated by the GSTN portal on
the basis of the GSTR-2A and any discrepancy thereto could lead
38 | P a g e
 4. to severe consequences, including cancellation of registration. Therefore, it was submitted that the Department may re-credit the amount at their
end or the Assessee be permitted to take credit of refund sanctioned, based on Form PMT-03 that has been issued manually, by way of the Court’s
direction.

Judgment:

At this juncture, the Counsel for the Department indicated that the Assessee could take credit of the refund sanctioned based on the Form PMT-03 issued
manually by accounting the same in their Form GSTR-3B. Based on the said submissions, the Hon’ble Judge was pleased to allow the Writ Petition,
indicating that no further proceeding be initiated by the Department in consonance with the said undertaking filed before the Court.

Shivadass & Shivadass (Law Chambers) ® 39 | P a g e

#501 – 503, Level V, Prestige Centre Point, No. 7, Cunningham Road, Bangalore – 560052
Ph: +91 80 43779955 | E: admin@sdlaw.co.in | W: www.sdlaw.co.in