360 ONE Asset Unveils Early-Stage VC Strategy to Back Next-Gen Unicorns
The early-stage VC strategy is central to 360 ONE Asset's "Idea to IPO" capital stack, providing a seamless investment journey for category-defining startups across consumer technology, fintech Infrastructure, generative AI, and frontier technologies, including spacetech, defence, and precision manufacturing.
You're reading Entrepreneur India, an international franchise of Entrepreneur Media.
360 ONE Asset, a wholly-owned subsidiary of 360 ONE WAM, has launched its early-stage venture capital strategy, aiming to fuel India's most ambitious startups from inception to IPO. With this move, the firm reinforces its integrated lifecycle investing model, anchored by its broader INR 25,000 crore (USD 3+ billion) private equity platform.
The early-stage VC strategy is central to 360 ONE Asset's "Idea to IPO" capital stack, providing a seamless investment journey for category-defining startups across consumer technology, fintech Infrastructure, generative AI, and frontier technologies, including spacetech, defence, and precision manufacturing.
"As India approaches its next wave of startup-led economic transformation, 360 ONE Asset's early-stage strategy aims to be at the forefront – identifying, backing, and shaping the companies that will define the next generation of unicorns," said Sameer Nath, CIO and Head, Private Equity and Venture Capital, 360 ONE Asset. "Our strategy is backed by a highly experienced team and distinguished by proprietary deal flow through a network of over 7,000 founders and domain experts."
Led by a seasoned team, the strategy takes a high-conviction approach — marked by significant ownership, board involvement, and active value creation. Founders also gain strategic support and access to 360 ONE's ecosystem, including scale-stage capital.
"India's early-stage ecosystem is entering a pivotal decade. With our early-stage strategy, we aim to bridge the white space between India's robust micro-VC ecosystem and the large global funds – by backing exceptional founders early and supporting them with patient, long-term capital throughout their growth journey," said Abhishek Nag, Senior Fund Manager and Strategy Head, Early-Stage VC.
He added, "We follow a disciplined investment process with rigorous diligence, clear value creation plans, and defined exit strategies. We also offer active co-investment opportunities for strategic partners – all while staying focused on long-term macro trends like domestic consumption, financial infrastructure, healthcare, AI-led services, and deep tech innovation."
A robust deal pipeline is already underway, including:
A hybrid-casual gaming startup with over 10 million downloads in three months.
A hot sauce brand popularizing Indian flavours globally.
A SaaS startup building a "mutual fund AMC in a box."
A space-tech firm led by ex-ISRO scientists, working on indigenous SAR tech.
Backed by a strong advisory board, including leaders like Gaurav Kushwaha (Bluestone) and Nigel Vaz (Publicis Sapient), 360 ONE Asset's early-stage strategy aims to power the next era of Indian innovation.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Drive
an hour ago
- The Drive
After 66 Years of the Same Old Seatbelt, Volvo Tries Something New
The latest car news, reviews, and features. The electric 2026 Volvo EX60 will be the Swedish automaker's first model to feature its new 'multi-adaptive safety belts.' This new-gen seat belt is designed to more effectively protect you in an accident with a rapid download of impending-crash data from external and internal sensors, optimizing for everything from impact speed to your posture while driving. Modern seat belts are more complicated than they might look—it's not just a ribbon of fabric stapling you into your seat. In any car, pretensioners cinch up on you in extreme deceleration, and load limiters tactically release tension to prevent the belt from hurting you. In most cars made in the last couple of decades, crash sensors communicate with the airbags and speed sensors for some range of load-limiting force adjustment. Volvo holds the honor of having introduced the now-ubiquitous three-point belt to the auto industry. Its 1959 invention is credited to Nils Bohlin. Back then, Volvo described the function of the belt: '[it] effectively, and in a physiologically favorable manner, prevents the body of the strapped person being thrown forward.' That patent was released to the public, and basically every automaker ultimately adopted it. Now, Volvo's taking that same mission, and the systemization of safety equipment, further with the multi-adaptive belt (which, surprisingly, does not have an acronym or cool-sounding proprietary brand name). Building on the idea of pretensioners and load limiters, the EX60's belts will integrate an immense amount of information—about the vehicle and passenger—to more effectively protect whoever's in the seats. An isolated view of the new belt. Volvo From the outside, vehicle direction and speed are factored in. From the inside, the EX60 will include passenger height, weight, and even posture to calculate how best to hold its passengers. 'For example, a larger occupant in a serious crash will receive a higher belt load setting to help reduce the risk of head injury. While a smaller occupant in a milder crash will receive a lower belt load setting to reduce the risk of rib fractures,' Volvo said. While Volvo's traditional seat belt has three different load-limiting profiles it can apply, this new setup has 11. That's certainly a lot more precision in the care of your body in a crash, though it's tough to extrapolate exactly how much injury reduction that will lead to. This quick teaser from Volvo's ES90 reveal video is all we've really seen of the upcoming EX60 so far. Volvo With the EX60, Volvo's promising to continuously evolve the operating scheme of the system as it gathers more real-world crash data, and apply improved logic via over-the-air updates. 'As Volvo Cars gathers more data and insights, the car can improve its understanding of the occupants, new scenarios and response strategies,' the brand stated. I haven't fallen in love with the idea of feeding my telemetry to the company that sold me my car, but this kind of safety innovation does make a case for it. Seat belts are something you never think about until you really need them. And if that ever happens, you're going to want the smartest seat belt ever engineered. Got a tip? Send us a note at tips@
Forbes
an hour ago
- Forbes
A Chinese Firm That Lost In U.S. Trade Court May Get A Do-Over
Under Secretary of Commerce and Director of the US Patent and Trademark Office Kathi Vidal speaks ... More during a visit in Beijing on April 16, 2024. (Photo by Tatan Syuflana / POOL / AFP) (Photo by TATAN SYUFLANA/POOL/AFP via Getty Images) Very soon, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office will decide whether to change a controversial ruling – one that risks undermining the future of American innovation. The case involves Efficient Power Conversion Corporation, a California-based company that holds patents on core semiconductor technology. After developing and patenting this innovation under U.S. law, the company found itself undercut by a Chinese competitor, Innoscience, which began selling copycat products in the U.S. market at artificially low prices. The American company, EPC, did exactly what innovators are supposed to do in such cases: it sought relief from the U.S. International Trade Commission, the federal agency tasked with investigating – and, when necessary, halting – unfair imports. The ITC's process is deliberately rigorous. First, an administrative law judge conducts a full evidentiary hearing. Then the six-member Commission – three Republicans, three Democrats, all confirmed by the Senate – reviews the ruling and decides whether to affirm it. Finally, the President has 60 days to intervene if the result conflicts with broader policy interests. In this case, every step played out in favor of EPC. The administrative law judge ruled that Innoscience had violated U.S. trade law by importing products that infringed EPC's valid patents. The Commission affirmed that finding. The White House declined to intervene. The result was a binding exclusion order, blocking the infringing Chinese products from entering the U.S. market. But even as the ITC investigation was already well underway, a separate administrative panel – the Patent Trial and Appeal Board – decided to launch its own, duplicative review. And just weeks after the ITC's exclusion order became final, the PTAB issued a ruling that directly contradicted the ITC's carefully considered judgment. Its finding? That some of the claims of the key EPC patents were invalid and should never have been granted in the first place. Put simply, two parts of the same government reached opposite conclusions on identical legal issues involving the same companies. Unsurprisingly, the losing Chinese company – already found to have violated U.S. trade law – is now trying to use the PTAB's ruling to overturn the ITC's order so it can resume unfair sales on the U.S. market. PTAB was created under the 2011 America Invents Act to serve as a supposedly faster and cheaper alternative to patent litigation in other forums. Instead, it has slowed things down and added costs by being used to relitigate patent validity decisions reached by other bodies, including federal district courts and the ITC. PTAB can even agree to repeatedly review the same patent by focusing on different patent claims each time, an incredibly wasteful practice. This is economically costly and highly inefficient, at a time when efficiency in government is a stated Administration priority. It is also highly inappropriate and leads to bad results, including weaker patents and potentially reduced innovation. PTAB 'judges' actually are mere 'inferior' officers (government employees appointed by the Commerce Secretary and supervised by the PTO Director). In marked contrast, ITC Commissioners and federal district court judges are 'principal' officers of the United States nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate. PTAB should not be in a position to overrule superior officers on patent questions. There's another major issue with PTAB. Patents, once issued are important property rights that drive innovation and thus should not be easily undone after being granted. Thus it is entirely appropriate that the ITC and federal courts can only strike down patents based on 'clear and convincing evidence,' a tough standard which means that the evidence is highly probable. In contrast, PTAB boards can strike down patent claims based on 'the preponderance of the evidence,' a low bar (probability just above 50-50) that makes it relatively easy to 'kill' patents. Indeed, a high percentage of patent claims have been wiped out by PTAB. This has happened despite studies showing that initial patent examining is very high quality and 'that examiners are far more likely to reject patents that should have been issued than they are to issue patents that should have been rejected.' The PTAB's interference in the EPC-Innoscience dispute was enabled by a 2022 Biden PTO policy memo that eliminated longstanding safeguards that prevented this kind of inter-agency conflict. The 2022 policy memo instructed PTAB not to deny a requested patent review when the request was based on a parallel ITC proceeding. Trump-appointed Acting PTO Director Coke Stewart rescinded the 2022 memo in February 2025, but by then the PTAB EPC case had already been instituted under the old rules. Weeks after Stewart's rescission of the Biden-era policy, in March 2025, the PTAB issued its decision, striking down an EPC patent and directly contradicting the ITC's final judgment. Under current rules, the Director has full authority to review and overturn that decision. A formal request for Director Review is now pending. Acting Director Stewart could act decisively by reversing the PTAB's EPC ruling. That could help restore the consistency and coherence the law requires and innovators deserve. This case is about much more than any one company or patent. It is a test of whether American agencies can act coherently – and whether we will allow foreign companies to exploit internal contradictions in our legal system. The ITC plays a critical role in protecting American innovation. It remains one of the few venues where U.S. companies can obtain timely, enforceable relief against unfair foreign competition. Without it, these cases drag on for years while patent-infringing products, often subsidized by foreign governments, flood American markets. The facts here are clear: An American company proved its case through proper legal channels and won. Then, at the eleventh hour, a separate agency claimed the patents never should have existed – even though the matter had already been fully tried before the ITC, with live witnesses, fact discovery, and a complete evidentiary record. The PTO still has a chance to restore order. Swift action overturning the PTAB's ruling would send the clearest possible message: final decisions by the U.S. government – reached through proper legal process and presidential review – cannot be casually undone by conflicting bureaucratic panels. The PTO's decision in this case will send an important signal about the Trump administration's commitment to eliminating bureaucratic barriers that stifle patent-driven American innovation.
Fox News
an hour ago
- Fox News
Trump touts 'very positive' breakthrough with Xi after slamming China for trade violation
President Donald Trump spoke with Chinese President Xi Jinping Thursday in a lengthy call amid economic and national security friction regarding trade between Washington and Beijing. "I just concluded a very good phone call with President Xi, of China, discussing some of the intricacies of our recently made, and agreed to, Trade Deal," Trump said in a Thursday Truth Social post. "The call lasted approximately one and a half hours, and resulted in a very positive conclusion for both Countries." Trump said the conversation focused "almost entirely" on trade, and that Xi invited the U.S. president and first lady Melania Trump to visit China. Trump also said he extended an invitation to Xi and his wife, Peng Liyuan. Chinese media first reported the call between the two leaders Thursday, and claimed that the call occurred per Trump's request. White House National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett had told ABC News Sunday that Trump was expected to talk with the Chinese president this week. The call comes nearly a week after Trump condemned China for violating an initial trade agreement that the U.S. and China hashed out in May, and a day after Trump said Xi was "extremely hard to make a deal with" in a Truth Social post. The negotiations led both countries to agree that the U.S. would ramp down its tariffs against Chinese imports from 145% to 30%, and China would cut its tariffs against U.S. imports from 125% to 10%. But Trump accused China on Friday of not holding up its end of the bargain, although he refrained from disclosing specifics. "The bad news is that China, perhaps not surprisingly to some, HAS TOTALLY VIOLATED ITS AGREEMENT WITH US," Trump said in a social media post Friday. "So much for being Mr. NICE GUY!" U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said Friday in an interview with CNBC that China had failed to lift its non-tariff barriers, as outlined in the deal. "The United States did exactly what it was supposed to do, and the Chinese are slow-rolling their compliance, which is completely unacceptable and has to be addressed," Greer said Friday. Meanwhile, China pressed the U.S. to reverse course and address its own mistakes. "China once again urges the US to immediately correct its erroneous actions, cease discriminatory restrictions against China and jointly uphold the consensus reached at the high-level talks in Geneva," Chinese embassy spokesperson Liu Pengyu said in a Friday statement. Meanwhile, Trump's invitation to Xi and Peng to visit the U.S. comes as Trump's administration cracks down on student visa holders in the U.S. and as Trump has threatened to "aggressively" rescind visas of students from China.
