Delhi High Court Rules on Software Piracy and Digital IP Enforcement

Prusa just released CORE One CAD files under a new open-source license. You can modify, share, and use them internally—but reselling requires an agreement. Discover what’s possible with the STEP and Fusion 360 files. Read more: #4additive #innovation #technology

💡𝗛𝗼𝘄 𝗘𝘅𝗰𝗹𝘂𝗱𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗗𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻𝗲𝗿 𝗠𝗮𝗸𝗲𝘀 𝗮 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗻𝘆'𝘀 𝗣𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗪𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗵𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀 When a company files a utility patent in India incorporating a designer’s work without naming them as an inventor, they hand that designer the power to 𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗱𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗿𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗳𝗶𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴. Under 𝗦𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝟲𝟰 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗜𝗻𝗱𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗣𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗔𝗰𝘁 𝟭𝟵𝟳𝟬, this constitutes "wrongful entitlement." By omitting the true creator, the company files an illegal application, giving the designer the 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗹 𝗽𝗼𝘄𝗲𝗿 to: ▪️𝗦𝘂𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗻𝘆 for the illegal filing. ▪️𝗥𝗲𝘃𝗼𝗸𝗲 𝗼𝗿 𝗰𝗮𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗹 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁 entirely. In the attempt to bypass the inventor, the company inadvertently creates a legal liability that can void their entire asset. ⚖️ 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗟𝗮𝘄: 𝘚𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 64(1) 𝘴𝘵𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢 𝘱𝘢𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘮𝘢𝘺 𝘣𝘦 𝙧𝙚𝙫𝙤𝙠𝙚𝙙 𝘪𝘧 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘢𝘴 𝘨𝘳𝘢𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘵𝘰 𝘢 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘰𝘯 "𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙩𝙡𝙚𝙙" 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘱𝘱𝘭𝘺 (64-1-𝘣) 𝘰𝘳 𝘸𝘢𝘴 "𝙤𝙗𝙩𝙖𝙞𝙣𝙚𝙙 𝙬𝙧𝙤𝙣𝙜𝙛𝙪𝙡𝙡𝙮" 𝘪𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘷𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵𝘰𝘳'𝘴 𝘳𝘪𝘨𝘩𝘵𝘴 (64-1-𝘤). ❤️ Join 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗦𝗧𝗨𝗗𝗜𝗢 on https://lnkd.in/gjfczTNs

𝗣𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗗𝗿𝗮𝘄𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗢𝗯𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀? 𝗗𝗼𝗻'𝘁 𝗣𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗰 – 𝗠𝗮𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗔𝗺𝗲𝗻𝗱𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗟𝗶𝗸𝗲 𝗮 𝗣𝗿𝗼! Facing Office Actions on your patent drawings? Our latest blog breaks down everything you need to know about handling patent drawing amendments during USPTO examination – from common pitfalls to foolproof fixes.   • 𝗦𝗽𝗼𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗧𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗴𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗘𝗮𝗿𝗹𝘆: Tackle line quality issues, shading errors, missing reference numerals, scale problems, and margin violations before they derail your application.[query]   • 𝗙𝗼𝗹𝗹𝗼𝘄 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝟱-𝗦𝘁𝗲𝗽 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀: Review the Office Action meticulously, assess changes (minor to major), prepare compliant drawings with CAD tools, submit via Patent Center with clear remarks, and document every tweak.[query]   • 𝗣𝗿𝗼 𝗧𝗶𝗽𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗔𝘃𝗼𝗶𝗱 𝗥𝗲𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀: Hire USPTO-savvy illustrators, add comprehensive views (exploded, cross-sections), sync drawings with claims/specs, and reference MPEP guidelines upfront.[query]   • 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗜𝘁 𝗠𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗿𝘀: Compliant amendments not only speed up approval but boost your patent's enforceability with crystal-clear visuals of your invention.[query] 𝗔𝘁 𝗣𝗮𝘁𝗗𝗿𝗮𝘄, we handle complex amendments swiftly – no new matter added, Six Sigma precision, deadline-beating delivery. 𝗥𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝘂𝗹𝗹 𝗴𝘂𝗶𝗱𝗲 𝗵𝗲𝗿𝗲: https://lnkd.in/gnGuEqc5 #PatentDrawings #PatentAmendment #USPTO #IntellectualProperty #PatentProsecution #Invention #IPLaw #PatentAttorney #Innovation #PatDraw

What should you be prepared to provide a patent illustrator? A: Clear, complete info so they can accurately turn your invention into patent-ready drawings. Here’s what helps most: - Written description of your invention (what it is and how it works) - Sketches or rough drawings (even hand-drawn is fine) - Photos or prototypes if you have them - CAD files, if available - Key features you want protected (especially for utility patents) - Similar products or patents (for reference and context) If you’re filing a non-provisional patent, make sure your drawings match your claims and detailed description, that’s what defines your protection. For design patents, drawings matter even more, they are the invention. Bottom line: the clearer your inputs, the stronger and more accurate your patent drawings will be. https://lnkd.in/d3amY2-6 #boldpatents #inventions #patents #entrepreneur #brands #trademarks

⚙ Behind every successful patent filing is a precise and standards-compliant technical illustration. At BMT IP Solution, we specialize in transforming engineering concepts into publication-ready Patent Drawings that meet USPTO, EPO, and WIPO standards. Our expertise includes: ✔ Utility Patent Drawings ✔ Design Patent Illustrations ✔ Mechanical & Technical Drawings ✔ 3D Exploded Views ✔ Electrical & Electronic Schematics ✔ Flowcharts & Block Diagrams Using advanced CAD tools and technical drafting practices, we help innovators, startups, and patent professionals protect their ideas with clarity and precision. 📌 Accuracy. Compliance. Fast Turnaround. We are committed to delivering high-quality IP support solutions that simplify the patent filing process and strengthen innovation globally. 📩 Let’s connect and collaborate. #PatentDrawings #TechnicalIllustration #Engineering #CAD #IPSupport #PatentServices #Innovation #MechanicalDesign #USPTO #WIPO #attorney #PatentProsecution #Drafting #Application #PTO

Engineering teams often need advanced functionality for specific projects, but not on a full-time basis. Designcenter X NX value-based licensing provides access to more than 100 add-on modules through a shared token pool, allowing organizations to extend CAD, CAM, and CAE capabilities without overbuying licenses. This model supports experimentation, scaling, and cross-team collaboration without delays tied to new procurement cycles. As your partner, we help align licensing strategy with your operational goals. Download the guide to learn more: https://imptr.io/2s1k3j

PTC News! Today we announced the integration between Onshape by PTC and Altium®, which allows engineering teams to collaborate more effectively by bringing PCB designs directly into Onshape and keeping changes synchronized across both platforms. This means no file conversions, exports, or imports. Check out the press release to learn more: https://lnkd.in/gBMnH553

𝗧 𝟵𝟬𝟯/𝟮𝟰: 𝗥𝗲𝗳𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘀𝗶𝗴𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗚 𝟭/𝟮𝟰 - 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗹𝗶𝗺𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴, 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝗲𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿   Reference signs in claims are easy to overlook. But T 903/24 shows that they can matter when a claim term has to be understood in its technical context.   The case concerned the meaning of “𝘀𝘂𝗽𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗲𝗱 𝗹𝗮𝘆𝗲𝗿𝘀”. Did the term require direct contact between the layers?   A figure played a central role. It showed several layers, with another element arranged between two of them. A dependent claim referred to that configuration using reference signs and described the elements as “superimposed layers”.   The patentee relied on the second sentence of Rule 43(7) EPC: “… reference signs shall not be construed as limiting the claim.” Hence, reference signs in a claim could not be used to limit the claim to a specific embodiment shown in the drawings.   The Board agreed with the principle — but drew an important distinction.   Reference signs must not reduce the claim to the exact arrangement shown in a figure. In other words, the claim was not restricted to the precise embodiment in the drawing, for example to exactly three layers.   But that does not mean that reference signs must be ignored.   Their function is to facilitate understanding of the claim. In this case, the reference signs helped identify which elements in the figure corresponded to the claimed “superimposed layers”. Since one of those layers was separated from another by an intervening element, the Board concluded that “superimposed” did not require direct contact.   The interesting point is not only the result, but the route by which the Board got there.   The Board placed the analysis within the framework of 𝗚 𝟭/𝟮𝟰: claims are to be interpreted by consulting the description and drawings. The figure was part of that disclosure. The reference signs did not, by themselves, decide the case. But they helped connect the claim language to the embodiment that informed the technical meaning of the term.   For practice, the takeaway is simple:   Reference signs are not claim limitations. But they are not meaningless decoration either. They can guide the reader to the relevant part of the drawings and thereby contribute to the interpretation of a claim term. That is, as long as they are not used to confine the claim to the exact embodiment shown.   For patent 𝗱𝗿𝗮𝗳𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴, it is one more reason to treat reference signs consistently and carefully.   For 𝗼𝗽𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 and 𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗹 proceedings, Rule 43(7) EPC should not be treated as a shield against consulting the drawings. Its role is different: it prevents drawings from being turned into unintended claim limitations.   Various arguments of this kind have started to appear after G 1/24, and I suspect more of them are to come.

Question 31: Quantum-Alloys Pvt. Ltd.' executes the following patent filing sequence for a new heat-resistant metal: 1 The Provisional: On Jan 1, 2025, they file a Provisional Specification (P1) containing 15 pages of highly detailed, A4-sized CAD drawings showcasing the crystalline structure of the metal under heat stress. 2 The Complete: On Dec 1, 2025, they file the Complete Specification. To save on official page fees, they do not attach the drawings again. Instead, they insert a written statement: "The drawings submitted with Provisional Specification P1 are hereby requested to be adopted and deemed to form part of this Complete Specification." 3 The Scope Expansion: The original Provisional Specification only described the "Heat-Resistant Alloy." However, the Complete Specification now includes claims for: Claim 1: The Heat-Resistant Alloy. Claim 2: The specific high-pressure furnace process used to manufacture the Alloy. 4 The Objection: The Controller issues a First Examination Report (FER) rejecting the adoption of the drawings, demanding fresh sheets under Rule 15. Furthermore, the Controller raises a Section 10(5) objection, arguing that an Alloy (Product) and a Furnace Process (Method) are two distinct inventions requiring a Divisional Application. ⚖️ EVALUATE THE LEGALITY OF THIS EXCHANGE: Conclusion I: The Controller is legally incorrect regarding the drawings. The Patents Act explicitly empowers the Controller to deem drawings filed with a provisional application as part of the complete specification. Conclusion II: The applicant's inclusion of the "Furnace Process" in the Complete Specification is illegal because a Complete Specification cannot claim an invention (the process) that was not explicitly disclosed in the Provisional Specification. Conclusion III: The Controller's Section 10(5) objection is legally invalid. Under the established rules of claim drafting, a product and a specifically adapted process for making that exact product are recognized as a "single inventive concept." Which of the following represents the correct legal position? A) Only I and II are correct. B) Only I and III are correct. C) Only II and III are correct. D) All conclusions are correct.

Keep your software up to date. 💻 ⚙️ In CAD/CAM environments, you know what happens when software isn’t updated. Compatibility issues, production errors, and slower processes start to appear. And when it happens, the cost isn’t just technical. It’s operational. That’s why updating isn’t just a choice — it’s a production necessity. Did you know? With Taglio, every update includes technical support. So you can ensure continuity and full control over your process. Contact us for a consultation and discover the 2026 releases 👉 https://lnkd.in/dDwgeAUD  #tagliosoftwarehouse #CADCAM #upgrade #DigitalManufacturing #SoftwareCNC