Navigating Patent Law

The European Commission’s decision to withdraw the proposed Standard Essential Patents (SEP) regulation is a major setback for fair and transparent licensing in the tech industry. At Fairphone, we know firsthand how crucial it is to balance intellectual property protection with accessibility, especially for smaller players. The initial proposal had the potential to create a more level playing field, reducing legal uncertainty and preventing unfair exploitation. As being quoted in POLITICO: “This proposal had been a potential lifeline for SMEs — without it, they are left defenseless in a minefield of opaque negotiations, legal threats, and exploitation by patent assertion entities.” We urge policymakers to continue working toward a framework that fosters both innovation and fairness. The industry needs it and so do the businesses trying to drive meaningful change. Read all about it here: https://lnkd.in/d6AwqA-S #StandardEssentialPatents #SEPRegulation #FairLicensing #PatentTransparency #EuropeanCommission #Fairphone

L’Occitane discovered that Andorheal, sold by Zhejiang Junda Biotechnology and Guangzhou Ailian Cosmetics in China, closely copied its "Cherry Blossom Shimmering Lotion" in packaging. The product replicated the bottle shape, floral design, and promotional language of L’Occitane. L’Occitane sued for trademark infringement and unfair competition, and the first-instance court ruled in its favour. The defendants appealed. But in 2021, the Zhejiang Higher People’s Court upheld the decision, finding the copying deliberate, the products weren’t just similar by accident, they were designed to profit from L’Occitane’s reputation, and the defendants continued selling them even after the lawsuit. The court awarded RMB 9 million (USD 1.3 million) and ordered Andorheal to stop sales permanently. While social media may call "dupes" budget alternatives, the law treats copying a product’s look and feel as unlawful use of a brand’s reputation and investment. Copying packaging may seem cheaper, but it carries serious legal and financial risks, sometimes costing millions. Even without a brand name, similar design and overall appearance can trigger legal action. Copying another brand’s packaging or look to benefit from its reputation is unlawful and risky. Avoid imitating other products.

🧱 From cliff to wall: How AbbVie saved Humira patent... Following up on our recent discussion about Merck and Keytruda, I was reminded of a great historical example of patent protection: AbbVie’s Humira. I’ve been digging into the story, and it's a perfect case study. For years, Humira was an absolute titan, bringing in over $200 BILLION for AbbVie. But with its patents expiring, everyone expected sales to fall off a cliff. Humira's last full year before US biosimilars arrived was 2022, and it pulled in a staggering $21 billion. The collapse seemed inevitable. But AbbVie had a genius plan: 1. Building a patent fortress: They stacked a “patent wall” of over 100 patents around Humira, which delayed US biosimilar competitors until 2023. These were for new formulations (like the citrate-free version that caused less stinging), new dosing regimens, and the delivery device. This bought them years of massive revenue to prepare for the inevitable. 2. Making clever deals: AbbVie partnered with Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) on rebate and discount deals. This made Humira financially attractive even when cheaper alternatives were available. 3. Getting ahead of the PBM shift: When PBMs eventually started pushing biosimilars more aggressively, AbbVie was already one step ahead. 4. Lining up the next stars: Most importantly, they used Humira’s incredible revenue to build the next generation of blockbuster drugs: Skyrizi and Rinvoq. These are already on track to surpass Humira’s peak sales. They also diversified the company by acquiring small companies and expanding into oncology and eye care. By 2023, Humira's sales had dropped to $14.4 billion, but AbbVie's total revenue held strong, thanks to these new drugs and strategic diversification. It's an incredible playbook on how to survive the sunset of your biggest franchise. What do you think, was this a genius business move or an overreach of patent law? #Pharma #AbbVie #Humira #BusinessStrategy #Innovation

Star Scientific Vs Controller of patents What happens when you don’t attend a hearing? Should the application be deemed to be abandoned? This is the precise question that fell for consideration before the Delhi High Court. Star Scientific, had filed a patent application in India against which FER was issued raising certain objections. Star responded with amendments to claims and addressed objections. The Controller issued a hearing notice for December 2023. Due to financial difficulties, Star did not attend the hearing nor seek an adjournment. Thus the hearing was missed. Then Star sent emails to the Controller, explaining financial difficulties that prevented attendance. Despite this, the Controller rejected the application, stating that objections raised in FER remained unresolved due to appellant’s absence at the hearing. In an appeal before Delhi High Court, Star contended that the detailed reply submitted to the FER ought to have been considered and that absence from the hearing should not be considered as abandonment of application, the Controller was obligated to pass a reasoned order, taking into account their submissions; cited Rule 28(5) of the Patent Rules was cited – that a decision can be made even if applicant does not attend hearing. Moreover, the patent had been granted in nine other countries, which was a relevant consideration. The Controller of Patents, argued that appeal was baseless, as Controller had acted within the bounds of law. They also accused Star of providing contradictory reasons for missing the hearing, pointing out that no proof of financial difficulties or technical issues (like server up-gradation) was provided. Additionally, they argued that appellant had shown no real intention to pursue the patent application, as evidenced by the communications before and after the hearing. Upon reviewing the case, the court noted that the Controller's order lacked any substantive analysis of the appellant's reply to the FER and did not provide specific reasons for the rejection. The court ruled that the Controller was required to pass a reasoned order, irrespective of appellant’s non-attendance at the hearing. The court also rejected the argument that Star had abandoned the application, as there was no clear intention of abandonment, especially given the detailed response to the FER. Consequently, the court set aside Controller’s decision and remanded case for reconsideration. As such, it is an ordinary case. But the ruling of the High Court is significant. “Abandonment” is the act of intentionally and voluntarily irrevocably relinquishing or giving up a claim. It is a conscious decision or action. Under patent law, abandonment would mean an applicant failed to respond to objections, or does not actively pursue their patent application.nAbandonment must typically involve an explicit or implicit intention to give up the rights- this is not to be assumed by the Controller which is the manifest error.  

When medicines become costly, what happens to those who can’t afford them? We often hear that high drug prices are due to R&D costs. But pause — how much is a human life worth? Meet Seba, a young child fighting Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA) - a rare genetic disease that slowly robs children of their ability to move, eat, even breathe. There are only 3 treatment options: Zolgensma – ₹17 crore (one-time gene therapy) Nusinersen – ₹87 lakh Risdiplam – ₹6.2 lakh per bottle Seba needs 30 bottles of Risdiplam each year. Total cost? ₹61.15 lakh annually. The Indian government caps rare disease aid at ₹50 lakh — not enough. So what happens to Seba? What happens to thousands like her? Medicine is meant to heal, not punish the poor. Innovation must walk with access. Profit must never outweigh human life. Dr. Melissa Barber, a Yale drug pricing expert, revealed that the actual cost to produce Risdiplam in India could be just ₹3,000 per year. Even with a 1,000% profit margin, it would still be 99% cheaper than current global prices. So why the sky-high cost? Because until the 1990s, India didn’t grant patents on drug products, only the process. Indian pharma companies could reverse-engineer life-saving medicines and offer generics to the world. That’s how India became the pharmacy of the Global South. But in 1995, India signed the TRIPS agreement under the WTO. By 2005, we had to align with global patent laws — including 20-year exclusivity for new drugs. No more reverse engineering No more affordable generics Prices skyrocketed. Access collapsed. Still, TRIPS wasn’t all bad — it included flexibilities. Like compulsory licensing, which allows governments to override patents if a drug is unaffordable or inaccessible. We’ve used it before. In 2012, NATCO Pharma was granted permission to make a low-cost version of Bayer’s cancer drug, cutting costs by over 95%. Today, NATCO Pharma is trying again — this time with Risdiplam. They’ve priced their generic version at ₹15,900 per bottle — a fraction of Roche’s ₹6.2 lakh. But Roche has gone to court to block it. The Delhi High Court’s appellate bench is reviewing the case. A single bench earlier rejected Roche’s plea for an injunction — but now, everything is on hold. So here we are. The generic drug is ready. The need is urgent. But access is stuck behind a courtroom door. Seba waits. And so do thousands more. Time is not on their side. We must stop treating healthcare as a luxury. It’s a right. Choose people over patents. Choose justice over profit. Choose Seba.

33% of Patent Orders Reversed Due to Misinterpretation of Law: A 2025 Analysis In 2025, the High Court reversed a significant number of decisions made by the Controller of Patents due to critical infirmities. A specific analysis of 21 reported reversals reveals a startling breakdown of why these orders are being overturned. Here is what the data shows: 1. Misinterpreting the Law (33.3%) - The largest chunk of reversals occurred because Controllers incorrectly applied statutory exclusions, particularly regarding software, drugs, and Section 3. In many cases, the Controllers simply did not understand or interpret the law correctly. 2. Violation of Natural Justice (19%) - Nearly one-fifth of the reversals happened because the basics of fairness were ignored—such as failing to hear the other side or admitting evidence without giving notice to the parties. 3. "Telegraphic" Orders (19%) - Courts criticized many orders as "laconic," meaning they lacked detail and reasoning. As a quasi-judicial function, the Controller must issue "speaking orders" that explain the logic behind a conclusion, yet many orders simply jumped to a verdict without addressing arguments. 4. Procedural & Administrative Failures - 14% involved the mishandling of applications or amendments, such as issues with divisional applications. 10% were due to unacceptable administrative delays—including one extreme outlier with a delay of 18 years. 5% prioritized strict procedure over merit, leaving applicants no choice but to seek correction from the High Court. The Root Cause? The core issue is that Controllers are typically from scientific backgrounds rather than legal ones. While they are subject matter experts in science, they lack sufficient training in legal interpretation and the drafting of reasoned orders. When High Courts reverse these decisions, they usually send the case back to a new officer to avoid predetermination. However, the long-term solution requires more stringent training for Controllers on legal principles and the requirements of natural justice. #IPLaw #Patents #HighCourt #CGPDTM #2025Trends #IntellectualProperty #LawReform #indianpatentagentexam

While New Year greetings to all of my wonderful connections are in order :), here is an important legislative update from India, which has quietly changed the way inventions related to nuclear energy might be evaluated from now on. On 21st December, 2025, the Indian Parliament passed the "Sustainable Harnessing and Advancement of Nuclear Energy for Transforming India Act, 2025" (the Act). The 3rd Schedule of this Act has amended Section 4 of the Patents Act, which until now excluded patenting of inventions related to atomic energy. The amended Section 4 now permits patenting of inventions relating to the peaceful uses of nuclear energy, subject to the safeguards laid down in Section 38 of the Act. While I am still reviewing the Act, the relevant takeaways from Section 38 for patent stakeholders are as follows: • Patents may be granted only where, in the opinion of the Central Government, the invention relates to peaceful uses of nuclear energy and radiation. • Exclusions remain strict – inventions connected with activities under Section 3(5) of the Act, or those considered sensitive or having national security implications, are not patentable. • Mandatory government oversight – the Controller must refer applications to the Central Government wherever questions arise on sensitivity or security, and is bound by its directions. • Pre-disclosure obligation – inventors who believe their invention relates to nuclear energy must inform the Central Government before disclosing it to any third party. • Foreign filing controls continue – overseas patent filings remain governed by Section 39 of the Patents Act. • Inspection powers – the Central Government may inspect pending applications at any time and direct refusal if the invention is found to fall outside permissible peaceful uses. #IndianPatentLaw #NuclearEnergy #Patents #IPLaw #LegislativeUpdate Cheers for a fantastic new year!

𝗡𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗵𝘄𝗲𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗻 𝗕𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗹𝗲𝘀 𝗥𝗼𝗯𝗼𝘁 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗢𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝗖𝗼𝗯𝗼𝘁 𝗣𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗜𝗻𝗳𝗿𝗶𝗻𝗴𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀—𝗔𝗻𝗱 𝗪𝗶𝗻𝘀 Northwestern University waged a multi-year battle to defend its foundational cobot patents against industry leaders, including ABB, Universal Robots, Mitsubishi, Yaskawa, Fanuc, and KUKA. These lawsuits centered on patents developed by Professors J. Edward Colgate and Michael Peshkin, whose pioneering work in collaborative robotics revolutionized human-robot interaction. 𝗞𝗲𝘆 𝗣𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗟𝗮𝘄𝘀𝘂𝗶𝘁𝘀 1. U.S. Patent No. 6,928,336 – “Intelligent assist system” 2. U.S. Patent No. 6,907,317 – “Robotic system providing operator assistance” 3. U.S. Patent No. 7,120,508 – “Modular architecture for intelligent assist systems” 𝗥𝗲𝘀𝘂𝗹𝘁𝘀 𝗯𝘆 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗻𝘆 • Universal Robots: Resolved after 4.5 years with a $6.6 million settlement. A jury found UR liable for patent infringement but did not find the violation willful, meaning UR avoided the risk of triple damages. • ABB Robotics: Settled after its dismissal motion failed. • KUKA: Initially sought dismissal but later settled. • Mitsubishi Corporation and Yaskawa Motoman: Both settled early. • FANUC America Corporation: Case dismissed in 2022, likely due to a settlement. 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗣𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗦𝘂𝗿𝘃𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗱 𝗗𝗶𝘀𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘀𝗮𝗹 Universal Robots, ABB, and KUKA sought to dismiss under 35 U.S.C. § 101, arguing Northwestern’s patents covered abstract ideas. Here’s why the courts disagreed: 1. Specific Technical Improvements: The patents solved real-world challenges in cobot-human interaction, including safety and adaptability, through tangible system improvements like force sensors and modular architectures. 2. Not Abstract Ideas: Judges ruled the patents were not generic goals like “human-robot collaboration” but specific solutions to technical problems. 3. Inventiveness Beyond Generic Components: The inventions combined standard robotic components in unique ways, making them patent-eligible. For instance, Judge Maryellen Noreika in the Universal Robots case stated the patents represented a “specific improvement in the field of robotics,” while Judge Matthew Kennelly in the KUKA case affirmed they offered “tangible solutions to challenges in cobot safety.” 𝗖𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗹𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 Having experienced patent infringement lawsuits before, I can say the journey is both financially and mentally draining for everyone involved. I credit Mitsubishi and Yaskawa for settling early—it’s often the pragmatic choice. Still, if you believe you’re right and can afford the process, stick to your guns. In the end, Northwestern had a strong case, and their persistence paid off. They deserved the recognition and protection their foundational research received. Case: https://lnkd.in/eM5CHdeC #robotics

𝗪𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗮 𝗽𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝘁𝗲𝗰𝗵𝗻𝗼𝗹𝗼𝗴𝘆. 𝗧𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝘄𝗲'𝗿𝗲 𝗳𝗿𝗲𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝗶𝘁, 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁? This is one of the most common—and dangerous—misconceptions I encounter. Founders invest in patenting their innovations, receive granted patents, and assume they've cleared the path to market. Then they're blindsided when a competitor alleges infringement. Here's what many don't realize: 𝗬𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗽𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗴𝗶𝘃𝗲𝘀 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗲𝘅𝗰𝗹𝘂𝗱𝗲 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴, 𝘂𝘀𝗶𝗻𝗴, 𝗼𝗿 𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿 𝗶𝗻𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻. 𝗜𝘁 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀𝗻'𝘁 𝗴𝗶𝘃𝗲 𝘆𝗼𝘂 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗿𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗺𝗮𝗸𝗲, 𝘂𝘀𝗲, 𝗼𝗿 𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗹 𝗶𝘁 𝘆𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗳. Think of it this way: A patent is an offensive tool that lets you stop competitors from copying your specific innovation. But if your innovation builds on or incorporates someone else's patented technology, you may still need their permission to practice your own invention. A simple example makes this clear: • Company A patents a "smartphone with a touchscreen." • Company B later patents a "smartphone with a touchscreen and facial recognition." Company B's facial recognition patent is valid. But if Company B manufactures their smartphone, they're still using Company A's touchscreen patent. Company B can exclude others from making smartphones with touchscreen and facial recognition, but they can't make their own product without potentially infringing Company A's patent. Both patents can exist. Both can be valid. And both companies may need to negotiate a license. This distinction matters enormously for strategic planning: • 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗔 obtains a patent on their AI model architecture. They assume the patent gives them clearance to deploy the model. They never conduct FTO analysis. Later, they discover their training methodology infringes a competitor's earlier patent. The granted patent they celebrated doesn't protect them from this infringement claim. • 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗕 obtains a similar patent but understands it answers a different question. They conduct FTO analysis on their complete system—not just the patented component. They identify a potential issue with their data preprocessing approach and modify it before launch. Their patent protects their innovation while their FTO analysis protects their business. Patentability analysis asks: Is your innovation novel and non-obvious enough to deserve a patent? FTO analysis asks: Does making and selling your product infringe anyone else's patents? These are separate questions requiring separate analyses. You need both for a complete IP strategy.

𝗘𝗣𝗢 𝗕𝗼𝗮𝗿𝗱 𝗼𝗳 𝗔𝗽𝗽𝗲𝗮𝗹 𝗖𝗹𝗮𝗿𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝗗𝗶𝘀𝗰𝗹𝗼𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲 𝗥𝗲𝗾𝘂𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗠𝗮𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗣𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀: 𝗔 𝗠𝘂𝘀𝘁-𝗥𝗲𝗮𝗱 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗣𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝗲𝗿𝘀 The EPO's recent decision in T 1669/21, concerning a method for predicting wear in metallurgical vessels using a "computational model", offers valuable insights into the current EPO approach to examining machine learning patent applications. The case, which was rejected due to insufficient disclosure, provides important lessons for patent practitioners. 𝗪𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗱𝗼𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝗻 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗽𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗽𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗲? The decision underscores the need for meticulous attention to detail when drafting patent applications for machine learning inventions. Specificity is paramount. While the EPO accepts broad claims, these must be supported by a commensurately detailed and enabling disclosure. Here's what the EPO expects - 𝗖𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗮𝗰𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗺𝗼𝗱𝗲𝗹: The type of model (e.g., neural network, support vector machine), its architecture, and the specific algorithms used must be explicitly stated. Simply referring to a generic "computational model" is insufficient. 𝗗𝗲𝘁𝗮𝗶𝗹𝗲𝗱 𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗮𝗺𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗺𝗮𝗽𝗽𝗶𝗻𝗴: The application must provide clear guidance on how to select, pre-process, and represent input parameters within the model. This includes specifying how to handle time-varying or multi-dimensional parameters. Examples are crucial for illustrating these steps. 𝗧𝗿𝗮𝗻𝘀𝗽𝗮𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗲𝗱𝘂𝗿𝗲𝘀: The description should cover the training data used, the training process, and the criteria for evaluating model performance. It should also address potential challenges such as data scarcity and the prevention of artefacts from random correlations. 𝗪𝗼𝗿𝗸𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗲𝘅𝗮𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗲𝘀: Where possible, include concrete, workable examples demonstrating the implementation of the invention. This could involve providing sample data, model configurations, and training scripts. 𝗪𝗵𝘆 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁? The EPO's focus on specificity stems from the Article 83 EPC requirement for sufficient disclosure. The patent application must enable a skilled person to carry out the invention without undue burden. This is particularly challenging for machine learning inventions, which often involve complex models and data-driven processes. 𝘓𝘪𝘯𝘬𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘧𝘶𝘭𝘭 𝘣𝘭𝘰𝘨 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘦𝘤𝘪𝘴𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴. #EPO #MachineLearning #Patents #SufficiencyOfDisclosure #PatentPractice #CaseLaw