The R&D Engine: How an Indian Hardware Firm Filed 77 Patents (and Why Most Don’t)

By /

Teaching case shell · Technology & Operations Management · Prepared from primary essays on kunwersachdev.com · Protagonist: Kunwer Sachdev, Founder & MD (1988–2019)

The R&D Engine: How an Indian Hardware Firm Filed 77 Patents (and Why Most Don’t)

Capex, tooling, and indigenous IP versus Chinese CKD assembly — a classroom dilemma for operations and technology strategy courses.

Status. Formal business-school companion to published field essays. Full Harvard-style case packet coming. Educators may assign this online shell and the linked primary readings today.
Kunwer Sachdev hardware R&D test facility and power electronics engineering bench
R&D test bench — the physical infrastructure behind patent filings that trading houses never build.
Shop-floor hardware assembly line with workers at benches, wiring and testing power electronics
Shop-floor assembly and hardware testing — where indigenous design either becomes a product line or stays a drawing.
Su-Kam automated manufacturing plant assembly line and testing machines
Automated assembly and test stations — the capex CKD importers avoid and deep-tech firms must carry.

Executive Summary

Most Indian “hardware” firms never become deep-tech manufacturers. They assemble. The cheaper path is CKD / SKD import kits, thin local value-add, and marketing spend. The harder path is in-house circuit design, tooling, reliability labs, and a patent portfolio that must be maintained year after year.

Su-Kam’s public record on this site documents the hard path: MOSFET topologies, static bypass, solar hybrid controllers, and a granted portfolio counted in the 77–102 range across essays and the Innovation Archive. This shell frames the classroom choice: Why invest in indigenous R&D when import assembly clears quarterly revenue faster?

Core Teaching Dilemma

Capex vs. CKD. A founder can ship boxes next quarter by importing kits — or spend years building lab benches, dies, and patents that competitors can copy only after expensive reverse engineering. Which strategy survives a working-capital squeeze, a currency shock, or an insolvency process that treats IP as scrap?

  • Operations lens: What fixed costs (test jigs, skilled engineers, patent annuities) does deep tech lock in — and how should working capital be sized for seasonal demand?
  • Strategy lens: When does category leadership require proprietary waveforms and form factors, not only channel reach?
  • Policy lens: If CIRP cannot value patents, does the private R&D calculus change for the next founder?

Classroom Discussion Questions

  1. Map the cost stack of a CKD assembler vs. an indigenous design house over a five-year horizon. Where does the R&D firm’s break-even sit?
  2. How should a bank underwrite drawing power for a manufacturer whose “inventory” includes unfinished prototypes and calibration fixtures?
  3. If 77 granted patents enter CIRP with an RP who cannot read a schematic, what governance redesign would you propose before admission?
  4. Compare Israel / Taiwan / Korea hardware ecosystems (as discussed in the R&D policy brief) with India’s incentive structure for shop-floor IP.
Instructor note. Pair this shell with the primary essays below. Student packs can omit this yellow box. For printable PDF packs and slides, verified faculty may write research@kunwersachdev.com.

Primary Readings (on this site)

Kunwer Sachdev

Kunwer Sachdev

Founder & MD, Su-Kam Power Systems (1988–2019). Read his story →

Disclaimer: Kunwer Sachdev exited Su-Kam in 2019 and is not responsible for any activity of the company since. Anyone dealing with Su-Kam does so solely with its current management. Full disclaimer →
Scroll to Top