NEGOTIATION COMPETITION

MASTER SCRIPT
TechNova Solutions vs. Riya Malhotra
Patent Infringement | AR Technology | Biometric Adaptation
Legalite Law Fest | Bennett University

⚡ AGGRESSIVE. ASSERTIVE. UNCOMPROMISING. ⚡

HOW TO USE THIS SCRIPT
This script is your backbone — not a cage.
You receive Confidential Information (CI) 30 minutes before your round. This script is built so
that the CI only fills in blanks — it does not change your strategy, your tone, or your demands.
Here is how to use the CI:
1. Figures: Wherever you see [FLOOR / TARGET / CEILING], replace with your CI
numbers. Do not go below your floor — ever.
2. Facts: If CI reveals a specific damage figure, prior art document, or timeline detail, slot it
into the bolded [CI SLOT] markers.
3. Everything else: Do not change. The tone, the pressure tactics, the walkout triggers, the
sequence — all stay the same.
ROLES IN THE ROOM:
COUNSEL Leads legally. Sets the frame. Delivers demands with authority.
Handles legal arguments, figures, and pressure tactics.
CLIENT (Riya) Delivers emotional weight. Speaks to personal stakes. Is NOT soft —
she is firm, dignified, and immovable on core interests.
FIGURES & HOW TO NEGOTIATE NUMBERS
Understanding your number ranges before the CI arrives is critical. Here is the full financial
map:

OPTION A — LICENSING
PARAMETER OUR POSITION ZONE OF AGREEMENT

Upfront Payment ₹4–5 Crore (TARGET) [CI: ₹60L – ₹3 Crore

confirm floor]

Running Royalty 5–7% (OPEN with 7%) 2–5%

Min Annual Guarantee ₹[CI SLOT] / year Negotiable

Cross-License Full international suite Key jurisdictions only

OPTION B — CO-DEVELOPMENT REVENUE SHARE

PARAMETER OUR POSITION ZONE OF AGREEMENT

Revenue Share 45–50% for Riya 35–50%

IP Ownership Joint — equal rights Majority TechNova with

royalties

Development Role Active, credited Advisory minimum

HOW TO NEGOTIATE NUMBERS — THE FOUR RULES

RULE 1 — ALWAYS OPEN HIGH: Open with your ceiling, never your target. Say ₹5 crore
upfront. You can come down; you cannot go up.
RULE 2 — NEVER GIVE A BARE CONCESSION: Every time you move on a number,
extract something in return. "We can move to ₹3.5 crore if you confirm non-opposition in the
USPTO."
RULE 3 — SHRINK YOUR CONCESSIONS: First move: big (e.g., ₹5Cr → ₹4Cr). Second
move: medium (₹4Cr → ₹3.5Cr). Third move: tiny (₹3.5Cr → ₹3.2Cr). This signals you are
approaching your floor.
RULE 4 — NEVER ACCEPT A ROUND NUMBER: If they offer ₹1 crore, counter with ₹3.2
crore. Odd numbers signal precision and preparation. "₹1 crore does not cover two years of
commercial use of my client's patented technology."

THE WALKOUT THRESHOLD: If TechNova's final offer falls below ₹60 lakhs upfront + 2%
royalty + international market access — that is below our ZOPA. Do not settle. Say the line
and walk out or call a recess.
PHASE 1 — OPENING THE ROOM
Both teams enter. Counsel places documents on table. No smiling first. Steady eye contact. Sit,
settle, then speak.

COUNSEL (RIYA'S SIDE) — OPENING:

COUNSEL: "Good [morning/afternoon]. Before we begin, let me be clear about why we are
here. My client, Ms. Riya Malhotra, holds a registered patent under the Patents Act, 1970.
MindScape was commercially launched after NeuroLens. The functional overlap at the core of
biometric emotional adaptation is documented and undeniable. We are here to resolve this —
but we are not here to give anything away."
[TONE] Firm, controlled, no filler phrases. Do not say 'hopefully' or 'we think.' You know.

CLIENT (RIYA) — PERSONAL STATEMENT:

RIYA: "I spent years building NeuroLens on my own, with no corporate backing, no institutional
funding. When MindScape launched — with the same core biometric adaptation technology that
I had already patented — I did not panic. I filed. I documented. And I came to this table with a
registered right, not a request. I want resolution, but I will not accept something that treats my
patent as if it has no value."
[NOTE] Riya is not emotional here — she is dignified and unyielding. No tears, no hedging.

PHASE 2 — ESTABLISHING LEVERAGE

Do this before any numbers are discussed. This sets the psychological and legal frame for the
entire room.
COUNSEL: "Let me put the legal position on the table. Under Section 48 of the Patents Act, my
client holds the exclusive right to use and license this invention. The doctrine of equivalents —
as affirmed in Biswanath Prasad Radhey Shyam — means that even functional similarity
constitutes infringement. MindScape launched after NeuroLens. The timing, the overlap, and the
filings tell a story that TechNova will find difficult to answer in court."
[PRESSURE] Pause after 'difficult to answer in court.' Let it sit. Do not break the silence first.
COUNSEL: "Additionally — and I want to be direct — my client has standing to oppose
TechNova's pending applications at the USPTO, the EPO, and under WIPO. NeuroLens is prior
art. Every jurisdiction TechNova is trying to enter is a jurisdiction where my client has a basis to
intervene. That is not a threat. That is a legal fact."
RIYA: "I did not come here to block TechNova's growth. But I also did not spend years in
research and development to watch someone else build a company on my invention. What I am
asking for is proportional. What I am willing to do if we do not reach an agreement is also
proportional."
[CI SLOT] If your CI reveals a specific internal document or timeline that supports Riya's claim,
insert: 'And I should note — [CI DETAIL] — which speaks directly to the question of independent
development.'
PHASE 3 — ANCHORING: MAKING THE FIRST OFFER
Whoever anchors first controls the room. We anchor. Deliver this with full confidence — no
qualifiers.
COUNSEL: "We have structured our proposed resolution as a package. This is not our opening
bid on a single issue — it is a comprehensive commercial framework, and we expect it to be
treated as such."
DELIVER THE ANCHOR:
COUNSEL: "First — a compensatory upfront payment of ₹5 crore, reflecting past and
continuing use of Ms. Malhotra's patented invention. Second — a running royalty of 7% on all
revenue attributable to biometric adaptive features in MindScape. Third — a minimum annual
guarantee of [CI SLOT] to ensure the licence remains meaningful. Fourth — cross-licensing of
TechNova's distribution infrastructure and non-overlapping patents for NeuroLens' international
expansion. Fifth — a formal commitment of non-opposition to Ms. Malhotra's filings in key
jurisdictions, including the US, EU, and Japan."
[DELIVERY] Read each item slowly and clearly. Place the paper down after. Lean back. You are not
nervous about these numbers.
RIYA: "These are not demands born of aggression. This is what fair compensation looks like for
two years of commercial benefit derived from my invention. I am prepared to be flexible on
structure — but not on value."
[ANCHOR PSYCHOLOGY] ₹5 crore sets the ceiling of the ZOPA at your favour. Even if you settle at
₹2.5–3 crore, that is still above TechNova's internal target. Never open lower than your ceiling.
PHASE 4 — HANDLING PUSHBACK & COUNTEROFFERS
TechNova will push back. Below are the six most likely pushback lines and your exact
responses.

PUSHBACK 1: 'Our product was independently developed. There is no infringement.'

COUNSEL: "Independent development is an affirmative defence. It requires evidence —
internal R&D records, timestamps, development logs. We have reviewed the public record and
the product timeline. MindScape launched after NeuroLens was in the market. If TechNova has
documentation of prior development at the feature level, we will review it. If not, then we are
talking about a product that entered the market using technology that was already patented."
[FOLLOW UP] If they say they have documentation — say: 'We look forward to reviewing it. For now,
our position stands.'

PUSHBACK 2: 'Your patent is narrow. It may not cover what we have done.'
COUNSEL: "The scope of the patent is for the court to decide — and the doctrine of equivalents
does not require identical implementation. It requires substantially the same function, achieved
in substantially the same way, to produce the same result. Biometric-driven emotional
adaptation in augmented reality is exactly that function. The question is not whether the code is
identical. The question is whether the invention was taken. Our answer is yes."

PUSHBACK 3: 'The figures you are proposing are completely unrealistic.'

COUNSEL: "They are grounded in standard industry licensing benchmarks for patented AR
technology and reflect approximately [CI SLOT] in estimated commercial benefit derived from
the disputed features. If TechNova believes the figures are unrealistic, we invite a counter-
proposal with supporting data. We are not negotiating against ourselves."
[HOLD FIRM] Do not reduce the number in response to this alone. Wait for an actual counter with a
number attached.

PUSHBACK 4: 'We cannot accept any admission of infringement.'

COUNSEL: "We are not asking for an admission. The agreement will include a non-admission
clause — standard in commercial settlements. What the agreement will reflect is a licensing
arrangement for the patented technology. TechNova gets legal certainty. Ms. Malhotra gets
compensation. Neither party needs to characterize the past in order to structure the future."

PUSHBACK 5: 'We are willing to offer ₹[LOW NUMBER].'

COUNSEL: "That figure does not reflect the commercial value of the patented technology, the
duration of use, or the scale of MindScape's revenue. We are not in a position to move to that
level. If TechNova is serious about resolution, we need a number that falls within a defensible
commercial range. What we have proposed is ₹5 crore upfront with a 7% royalty. We can
discuss structure, but we cannot discuss a number that is this far from the value we have put on
the table."
[TONE] Calm. No raised voice. You are disappointed, not angry.

PUSHBACK 6: 'We need more time to consider / consult internally.'

COUNSEL: "We understand. We are prepared to take a short recess. However, I want to note
for the record — the longer this remains unresolved, the stronger our basis for filing opposition
proceedings internationally becomes. Time does not work in TechNova's favour on the IP
calendar."
[RECESS TACTIC] Use the recess to regroup, not to soften. Return with the same position unless a
genuine move was made.
PHASE 5 — CONCESSION STRATEGY
Concessions are strategic. Never give one without getting something back. Never give more
than three.
MOVE WE CONCEDE WE DEMAND IN RETURN LINE TO SAY

Move 1 ₹5Cr → ₹4Cr upfront Confirm non-opposition at "We can move to ₹4 crore
USPTO + EPO if TechNova commits to
non-opposition in writing in
the US and EU."
Move 2 7% → 5% royalty Minimum annual "We are prepared to
guarantee of [CI FLOOR] reduce the royalty to 5%
— but we need a floor
guarantee to ensure this
licence retains commercial
meaning."
Move 3 Royalty cap or sunset Formal acknowledgment + "That is our final
clause cross-license for movement on royalty. In
international markets exchange, we need the
cross-license confirmed
and market access
committed."

HARD STOPS — THINGS WE NEVER CONCEDE:

— International market access for NeuroLens. Non-negotiable. Full stop.
— Any settlement below our ZOPA floor (₹60L + 2% + market access). Below this, we
walk.
— Waiving the right to oppose international filings as a condition of settlement.

PHASE 6 — DEADLOCK, RECESS & WALKOUT

If the room stalls — use these tactics in order. Escalate only when needed.

TACTIC 1 — REFRAME TO SHARED RISK

COUNSEL: "Let us step back from the figures for a moment. Both parties are sitting at this table
because neither side wants what happens if we do not settle. For TechNova — an injunction
mid-product cycle, opposition proceedings in three jurisdictions, and a public narrative about IP
appropriation. For my client — a long, expensive battle she did not start. The question is not
whether either party can take this to court. The question is whether this table is better than a
court. We believe it is. But we need TechNova to meet us at a number that makes that true."

TACTIC 2 — CALL FOR RECESS

COUNSEL: "I think we need to pause. Let's take [10/15] minutes. We will come back with a
revised structure — but I want to be clear, the value being sought is not changing."
 [IN THE RECESS] Regroup with client. Decide if you move on structure (not value). Return sharper,
not softer.

TACTIC 3 — SUSPENSION (THE SOFT WALKOUT)

COUNSEL: "We appear to have reached a point where further discussion today is not
productive. I propose we formally suspend this session. My client is not withdrawing from
negotiation — but we are not prepared to continue in the absence of a credible counter-proposal
that falls within commercial reason. We can reconvene. But the offer on the table has a shelf
life."
[DELIVERY] Stand up when you say this. Counsel closes notebook. Riya remains seated for a beat,
then stands.

TACTIC 4 — FULL WALKOUT TRIGGER

USE THIS ONLY IF: TechNova's final offer is below ZOPA floor AND they refuse to move on
market access AND time permits a strategic walkout.
COUNSEL: "We have negotiated in good faith. We have moved — on royalty, on structure, on
terms. What is on the table from TechNova does not represent a fair commercial value for the
rights that have been used. We are not in a position to accept it. Ms. Malhotra's BATNA is clear
— and we are prepared to execute it."
RIYA: "I hope TechNova reconsiders. But I am not willing to leave this room having given more
than I received. If we cannot find a number today, I will find one in court."
[EXIT] Both rise. Counsel collects papers. No handshake unless they initiate. Walk out steadily.
PHASE 7 — CLOSING THE DEAL
When TechNova comes close to your acceptable range — do not rush. Close deliberately.
COUNSEL: "We are close. I want to be direct about what a final agreement needs to include for
this to be executable. We need: a confirmed upfront figure of [AGREED NUMBER — not below
₹1.5 crore], a royalty rate of [AGREED %], non-opposition committed in the US, EU, and Japan,
cross-license for NeuroLens in those same markets, and a non-admission clause protecting
TechNova's legal position globally. If those five elements are confirmed, we have a deal."
[CLOSE TECHNIQUE] Name all five elements. Do not leave anything hanging. A partial close is not
a close.
RIYA: "I want this resolved today. But I also need to be able to look at the agreement and say
— my work was valued. If TechNova can meet us on those terms, I am ready to sign."
COUNSEL: "Then we are agreed. We will draft heads of terms to reflect what has been
confirmed today, subject to confidentiality and the non-admission language. We recommend
both parties sign a term sheet before leaving this room."
CLOSING STATEMENTS (COMPETITION FORMAT)
If the competition requires a formal closing statement at the end of the session, use the below.
Deliver standing, without notes if possible.

COUNSEL — CLOSING:
COUNSEL: "What has happened in this room today is exactly what the law contemplates when
parties choose negotiation over litigation. My client holds a valid, registered patent. The
commercial overlap is documented. The leverage is real. What Ms. Malhotra has demonstrated
today is that protecting intellectual property does not require aggression — it requires clarity,
preparation, and the willingness to hold your position. The agreement we have reached — or
the terms we have put on the table — reflect fair value for a real legal right. This table was the
right place to resolve this. And we leave it stronger than we entered."

CLIENT (RIYA) — CLOSING:

RIYA: "I built NeuroLens because I believed in what it could do. I am here today because I also
believe in what the law can do. This negotiation was not about defeating TechNova. It was
about ensuring that innovation — regardless of who funds it — is protected. I leave this table
satisfied that my rights were represented with the seriousness they deserve. Whatever the
outcome, I made clear: my patent has value, my contribution has value, and I am not someone
who walks away from either."
QUICK REFERENCE CARD — PRINT & KEEP IN FRONT OF YOU

OUR OPENING NUMBERS ₹5Cr upfront | 7% royalty | Global market access

MOVE 1 (after genuine counter) ₹4Cr | 5% | Non-opposition in US + EU
MOVE 2 (only if needed) ₹3–3.5Cr | 4% + Min guarantee | [CI SLOT]
FLOOR (NEVER GO BELOW) ₹60L upfront | 2% royalty | International access
HARD STOPS No market blockade | No waiver of opposition
rights | No admission of weakness
RECESS TRIGGER If no credible counter after 2 rounds of dialogue
SUSPENSION LINE "We are not prepared to continue without a
credible counter-proposal."
WALKOUT LINE "Ms. Malhotra's BATNA is clear — and we are
prepared to execute it."
NON-NEGOTIABLE #1 Market access for NeuroLens in international
jurisdictions
NON-NEGOTIABLE #2 No settlement below ZOPA floor
CI SLOT Fill in: exact floor figures, any specific damages
estimate, any document reference

— END OF MASTER SCRIPT —

Legalite Law Fest | Bennett University | Bargaining for Justice