These are I think fairly general features which apply generally to a philosophy, to the extent it can - meaning in competition or dialogue with another philosophy. Say, in choosing Descartes Philosophy - though Spinoza could do equally as well:
For example, one says a firm or assured cognition which does not stand in need of confirmation by other cognitions constitutes valid knowledge.
This is the context in which Descarte begins with his cogito; but this is through his encounter with Avicennas Floating Man.
In other words, free from doubt and true.
In itself the cogito is free of doubt and true; but just by itself it leads to solipsism, or men considered as mental atoms; hence the modern theory of the Subject in European philosophy is more about inter-subjectivity.
Another says it must also be novel
The cogito when understood to be in descent from Avicenna is not novel; for Avicenna too, was arguing for what constitutes certain knowledge; but is novel in how it is later theorised (see above).
a knowledge which does not add something to our present stock of information cannot be valid.
Physicists have been arguing that philosophers have done nothing for physics (a charge they don't level to other disciplines of the intellect - ie historians) due to their historical relationship; but one needs to recall those philosophers were called philosophers of Nature - and in a different aspect that tradition has continued - ie Naess's deep ecology; of which Naess admits an influence from Gandhi
There are many more examples.
One fascinating link for me is how language itself informed early Indian philosophy; for example Paninis grammar as a form of the axiomatic, which in the Western tradition is traditionally indexed by Euclid.
It is true though that Indian philosophy in the west is hardly engaged on its own terms; with even the influence that it has had as an underground influence, say on Emerson or Schopenhauer barely acknowledged; but is this also the case for Indian philosophy in India? Garfield and Bhushan for example in this essay explores the situation for such philosophy written in English taking a single exemplar, Mukherjee of Allahabad and concluding:
This period saw a vibrant engagement with philosophical ideas and questions emerging from the Indian Vedic tradition
But languished in obscurity since the institutional support wasn't there; with Mukherjees work, published in the Allahabad University Studies which was never distributed nationally and exist only in:
seriously moth and termite-infested almirahs scattered through India.
To which situation they have mounted a limited rescue operation, publishing a selection of essays from these thinkers in Indian Philosophy in English; to which the NDPR respond that the complaint by Daya Krishna that Indian Philosophy isn't taken seriously by Western philosophers, have been shown the evidence; and it's a matter now of its reception.