Gayatri

Singapore’s AEM Faces Patent Challenge

by

Singapore-based AEM Holdings Ltd has strongly denied allegations of patent infringement filed by a U.S. semiconductor company. The complaint, lodged in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, accuses AEM of infringing patents related to advanced wafer-level testing systems.

The lawsuit reportedly focuses on patents covering wafer test systems equipped with thermal control technologies. The U.S. firm alleges that AEM’s testing solutions use similar methods without authorization.

AEM dismissed the claims, describing them as baseless and lacking merit. The company stated that it operates within international intellectual property laws and owns a strong portfolio of patents supporting its innovations.

“AEM strongly denies these allegations and believes the lawsuit lacks merit. We are confident this matter will not have a material impact on our operations,” the company said in an official SGX filing.

Sharp Decline in Share Value

Following the announcement, AEM’s stock fell by 9.3% on Tuesday as investors reacted to the legal development. The decline reflected market concerns over potential litigation costs, possible injunctions, and uncertainty surrounding the dispute’s outcome.

Analysts note that patent lawsuits in the semiconductor industry can take years to resolve and often involve high legal expenses. Even if a company ultimately prevails, the process can temporarily affect investor confidence and market performance.

This legal challenge comes at a time when global semiconductor manufacturers are ramping up innovation in testing and automation systems to meet rising chip demand. Intellectual property protection has therefore become a key competitive factor for industry players.

Implications for the Semiconductor Sector

The case highlights the growing frequency of intellectual property disputes within the semiconductor sector. As companies push the boundaries of chip testing and design technology, patent overlaps and legal confrontations have become more common.

If the court rules against AEM, it may face monetary penalties, licensing obligations, or the need to redesign affected products. However, if the company successfully defends itself, it could reaffirm the strength of its technology portfolio and restore market confidence.

Industry experts often observe that such disputes eventually lead to settlements or cross-licensing arrangements, allowing both parties to move forward without long-term disruptions.

AEM’s Response and Future Outlook

AEM confirmed that it has engaged legal counsel in the United States and intends to vigorously defend its position. The company reiterated that the case would not affect its business operations or financial performance.

AEM continues to expand its global presence in semiconductor test solutions, automation systems, and equipment engineering. The firm maintains that its technologies are independently developed and compliant with all applicable IP regulations.

The coming months will be crucial as AEM presents its defense and the court reviews the claims. The outcome will likely shape how technology companies manage and safeguard intellectual property in an increasingly competitive semiconductor landscape.

Volkswagen Patents Controversial Eye-Tracking Tech to Replace Car Buttons

by

Volkswagen has filed a new patent that could revolutionize — or complicate — how drivers interact with their cars. The German automaker is developing an eye-tracking control system designed to replace physical buttons and switches with intelligent gaze-based commands.

How the Eye-Tracking System Works

According to the patent, Volkswagen’s system uses cameras and sensors to monitor where a driver is looking. When the driver focuses on a particular component — such as the air vents, music controls, or window buttons — the system identifies the intended target.

Once selected, the driver uses a universal joystick-style controller on the steering wheel to execute the action. This controller can be pressed, rotated, or moved to adjust functions like temperature, volume, or mirror angle.

The technology aims to merge eye movement detection with a single multifunction control, minimizing dashboard clutter and reducing the number of physical buttons.

Potential Benefits of the Technology

Volkswagen says the innovation could create cleaner interiors and offer intuitive control over in-car systems. By combining gaze detection with a single control unit, the system could simplify the driving experience while keeping hands closer to the steering wheel.

The automaker suggests this feature could also apply to trucks, boats, and aircraft, hinting at wider use beyond traditional cars.

Concerns Over Driver Distraction

However, not everyone is convinced. Critics argue that eye-tracking could be more distracting than traditional tactile buttons. Drivers may need to look around the cabin to activate features, diverting attention from the road.

There are also concerns about accuracy, especially in challenging conditions — such as bright sunlight or when drivers wear sunglasses. Any lag or misinterpretation could make the system frustrating or unsafe.

Automotive experts stress that such systems must pass strict safety and reliability tests before being integrated into production models.

A Step Toward Button-Free Cars

Volkswagen is not the first automaker to explore gesture- and gaze-based interfaces. Brands like BMW and Mercedes-Benz have already tested similar technologies, blending AI and human-machine interfaces.

Still, this patent suggests Volkswagen sees a future without buttons, where smart software interprets a driver’s intent through sight and minimal movement.

What Comes Next

For now, the technology remains a patent concept, not a confirmed production feature. Automakers often file patents to secure intellectual property and explore potential innovations.

If developed further, Volkswagen’s gaze-based control could debut in premium electric or autonomous models before filtering into mainstream vehicles.

Delhi High Court Stops Indian Firm from Using Barbie Trademark

by

Mattel Secures Interim Relief in Trademark Dispute

The Delhi High Court has restrained an Indian firm from using the globally recognized Barbie trademark. The order was passed on September 9, 2025, in the case of Mattel Inc. v. Padum Borah & Ors.

Mattel, the American toy giant, approached the court after discovering that the defendants were operating under names such as Barbie Enterprises, Barbie Kitchen, and Barbie Catering. The company argued that such usage was not only unauthorized but also misleading to customers.

The court agreed and held that Mattel had established a prima facie case of trademark infringement. It also noted that continuing use of the name could cause irreparable harm to the brand’s reputation.
(Bar & Bench)

Background of the Case

Mattel has owned the Barbie trademark in India since 1985. The company holds registrations across multiple classes, including toys, fashion, lifestyle, and entertainment.

Despite this, the defendants filed trademark applications for:

  • BARBIE One Stop Solution for HORECA Foods
  • BARBIE Enterprises
  • BARBIE Hospitality

These marks were linked to catering services and commercial kitchen equipment. The Trademarks Registry had already flagged conflicts between these applications and Mattel’s existing registrations.

Mattel issued a cease-and-desist notice, but the defendants failed to respond. This inaction strengthened Mattel’s case before the court.

Court’s Observations

Justice Prathiba M. Singh, who heard the matter, observed that the defendant’s adoption of the Barbie mark was clearly aimed at drawing business attention.

The court applied the principle of “initial interest confusion.” It explained that even if customers later realized the services had no connection with Mattel, the defendants would have already benefited from the goodwill and reputation attached to Barbie.

The judge found that such conduct could mislead consumers and unfairly exploit the international brand’s reputation.

Directions by the Court

The Delhi High Court issued strict directions against the defendants. These included:

  • Immediate stop on the use of “Barbie” or similar marks in any business activities.
  • Takedown orders for all social media posts, pages, and accounts carrying the Barbie name.
  • Suspension of domain names containing the Barbie mark.

The order will remain in force until the next hearing. It is an interim injunction, meaning the court has yet to decide the case fully on merits.

Significance for Trademark Law in India

This ruling once again highlights the protection available to well-known trademarks under Indian law.

Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 gives trademark owners the right to stop others from using identical or deceptively similar marks, even for unrelated goods or services. The Barbie case shows that businesses cannot rely on unrelated industries, such as hospitality or catering, to justify adopting a famous name.

Legal experts say the order is consistent with global practice. Courts across jurisdictions often prevent brand dilution by restricting use of iconic trademarks in unrelated fields.

Broader Impact

  • For global companies like Mattel, the judgment is a reassurance that their intellectual property will receive strong judicial protection in India.
  • For Indian businesses, it is a warning that adopting globally known marks, even indirectly, can invite swift legal action.
  • For consumers, it ensures that the brand identity of Barbie remains intact and free from market confusion.

Delhi HC Cancels “Croose” Trademark, Upholds Crocs’ Rights in Footwear Dispute

by

Court Finds “Croose” Deceptively Similar to “CROCS”

The Delhi High Court has cancelled the trademark registration of “Croose” after ruling that the mark was deceptively similar to “CROCS”, the globally recognized footwear brand. The decision comes as a significant relief for Crocs, Inc., which has been battling misuse of its brand identity in India.

The Case

Crocs, Inc. filed a rectification petition under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The company argued that the “Croose” mark (Registration No. 3409214 in Class 25 for footwear) created confusion in the minds of consumers.

The petitioner claimed that the impugned mark was phonetically, visually, and structurally similar to “CROCS.” It further alleged that the respondent adopted the mark dishonestly to ride on Crocs’ goodwill in the Indian footwear market.

Court’s Findings

Justice Prathiba M. Singh of the Delhi High Court agreed with Crocs’ submissions.

  • The court noted that both marks were used for identical goods — footwear.
  • The similarity in sound and appearance between “Croose” and “Crocs” was held sufficient to create a likelihood of consumer confusion.
  • The adoption of the mark was deemed dishonest, with an intent to exploit Crocs’ established reputation.

Based on these observations, the court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to remove “Croose” from the register.

Why This Matters

Protection for Global Brands

The ruling reaffirms Indian courts’ strong stance on protecting well-known trademarks. Companies with established reputations can expect judicial support against infringing or deceptively similar marks.

Consumer Interest

The decision also safeguards consumers, ensuring they are not misled by products marketed under confusingly similar names.

Market Implications

By cancelling the “Croose” registration, the court has sent a clear signal to businesses that piggybacking on popular brands will not be tolerated.

Broader Context

Crocs has been expanding aggressively in India and has previously taken action against infringers and copycat products. This judgment strengthens its legal position in future disputes.

Trademark experts note that such rulings will deter small and mid-level players from choosing names that mimic established global brands. It also contributes to a healthier competitive environment in India’s fast-growing footwear market.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s decision to cancel the “Croose” trademark marks a decisive victory for Crocs. By protecting a well-known brand and curbing dishonest adoption of similar marks, the court has reinforced the principle that trademark law is both a shield for businesses and a safeguard for consumers.

Sun Pharma May Face Limited Impact from US Tariff on Patented Medicines

by

US Slaps 100% Tariff on Patented Drugs

The United States has announced a 100% tariff on imports of branded and patented medicines from October 1. Generic and off-patent products will remain exempt. The move aims to push drugmakers to shift production to domestic facilities.

Sun Pharma’s Exposure

Analysts say Sun Pharmaceutical Industries could feel some pressure as it earns nearly 17% of its FY25 revenue from patented medicines in the US market. Patented drug sales contribute almost 8–10% to its consolidated earnings per share.

You can read more about Sun Pharma’s global expansion strategy and its performance in the US market.

Why Analysts Expect a Limited Hit

Experts believe the impact on Sun Pharma will remain contained. The company has options to pass on part of the cost to consumers or insurers. It can also explore shifting production to the US or to contract manufacturers with American operations.

Relocating manufacturing could take between 6 and 24 months. The process will require capital and regulatory approvals, but Sun Pharma has a strong balance sheet. The company holds around USD 3 billion in cash reserves, which can support new investments.

For other Indian drugmakers, the impact is expected to be minimal. Most of them focus on generics, which fall outside the scope of the new tariff. Learn more about India’s generic drug exports.

Risks and Opportunities

Analysts caution that Sun Pharma’s margins may come under short-term pressure. Passing on costs may not be fully possible because of regulatory and competitive factors. Any delay in shifting manufacturing could also affect profitability.

At the same time, Sun Pharma’s financial strength and partnerships may help it adapt. If it expands production within the US, it could even strengthen its market position in the long run.

Outlook

Market watchers will track Sun Pharma’s next steps closely. The company’s ability to navigate tariffs, protect margins, and sustain its patented drug portfolio in the US will decide the real impact of this policy shift.

AMD’s New DDR5 Patent Promises to Double RAM Speed, But Adoption Faces Hurdles

by

Patent Highlights a High-Bandwidth DIMM Design

AMD has filed a patent for a new High-Bandwidth DIMM (HB-DIMM) design that could revolutionize system memory performance. The technology aims to double the bandwidth of DDR5 RAM without changing the DRAM chips themselves. Instead, the innovation lies in adding advanced buffer chips and smarter on-module logic.

The patent describes the use of pseudo-channels that split and combine data streams. This allows two memory streams to merge into a single, faster output. In theory, speeds could jump from 6.4 Gbps to 12.8 Gbps per pin.

For a deeper look at semiconductor patent developments, click here.

How It Works

The new design uses a register/clock driver (RCD) and additional routing logic. These components manage the flow of commands and data between the memory controller and DRAM chips. Unlike conventional DIMMs, this setup enhances throughput while relying on standard DDR5 dies.

This approach reduces the need for expensive new DRAM manufacturing processes. Instead, it shifts complexity to the memory module itself.

Learn more about how Intel’s MRDIMM technology is reshaping memory standards in this article.

Challenges Ahead

Despite the promising design, adoption will not be easy. For HB-DIMMs to succeed, CPUs, motherboards, and chipsets must support the new module format. Proprietary memory standards often fail unless approved by JEDEC and widely adopted by the ecosystem.

Latency, power consumption, and heat could also increase because of the additional buffer logic. These factors may limit mainstream use in consumer PCs.

To read about a recent patent infringement lawsuit in biotechnology, click here.

Server Market Could See It First

Analysts believe this design is more likely to debut in data centers and high-performance computing (HPC). These sectors prioritize bandwidth and can absorb the higher cost of advanced DIMMs.

Intel is already pushing its Multiplexed Rank DIMM (MRDIMM) in server platforms. AMD’s approach may serve as a competitive alternative or even influence the next generation of DDR6 standards.

For updates on global memory disputes and licensing deals, see this coverage on solar patent settlements.

Conclusion

AMD’s HB-DIMM patent showcases bold innovation in memory design. If successful, it could significantly boost RAM speeds. However, widespread adoption remains uncertain due to technical, economic, and industry-standard challenges.

For now, consumers should not expect to see HB-DIMMs in gaming rigs or desktops soon. Instead, the first real-world applications may appear in enterprise servers and HPC environments.

Factor Bioscience Sues AstraZeneca and Cellectis Over Gene-Editing Patent Infringement

by

Factor Targets mRNA + TALEN Technology in Lawsuit

Biotechnology company Factor Bioscience has taken legal action against AstraZeneca and French biotech firm Cellectis, accusing them of infringing patents linked to its gene-editing technology. The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

Factor alleges that the companies misused its mRNA and TALEN (Transcription Activator-Like Effector Nucleases) platform, a method used to create engineered cells for cancer treatments. The case, Factor Bioscience Inc v. Cellectis Inc, is registered under case number 1:25-cv-01197.

Claims Against AstraZeneca and Cellectis

According to the complaint, Cellectis, which is collaborating with AstraZeneca on oncology research, copied Factor’s patented methods to design cell therapies. These therapies aim to fight cancers such as leukemia and lymphoma.

Factor argues that the alleged infringement undermines the contributions of smaller biotech innovators. The company said that if larger pharmaceutical corporations are allowed to exploit these breakthroughs, it would discourage future innovation in the gene-editing field.

What Factor Wants From the Case

Factor Bioscience is seeking monetary damages. The company has not disclosed a specific amount. Legal experts note that Factor could also ask the court for injunctive relief to stop the use of its patented methods in ongoing projects.

Broader Impact on Biotech

The case highlights growing disputes in the biopharmaceutical industry, where small firms hold critical patents but lack the same resources as global pharma companies. Gene-editing platforms such as TALENs and CRISPR are central to next-generation therapies, making intellectual property rights a key battleground.

Legal analysts suggest that this lawsuit could influence how biotech firms license, enforce, and defend gene-editing patents in the United States.

AT&T and Nokia Overturn $166 Million Patent Verdict in Federal Appeal

by

U.S. Court of Appeals rules in favor of telecom giants

AT&T and Nokia have successfully overturned a $166 million patent infringement verdict in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The ruling favored AT&T’s use of Nokia equipment in its 4G and 5G networks. The court found insufficient evidence supporting the jury’s original findings.

Background of the Case

Finesse Wireless, a Utah-based patent-holding company, filed the lawsuit against AT&T in 2021. The company claimed AT&T misused technology designed to reduce wireless signal interference. Nokia, which supplied base stations to AT&T, joined the case later to defend its products.

In 2023, a Texas jury had initially sided with Finesse Wireless, awarding over $166 million in damages. However, the appeals court reviewed the case and ruled in favor of AT&T and Nokia, stating that the infringement claims lacked solid evidence.

Reactions from Companies

Both AT&T and Nokia welcomed the appellate decision. A Nokia spokesperson stated that the court “reached the right conclusion.” AT&T also expressed relief at the ruling, emphasizing its commitment to lawful technology use.

Finesse Wireless has a history of filing patent disputes against telecom companies. It has previously reached settlements with major players like Ericsson and Verizon Wireless, highlighting the recurring tension over wireless technology patents.

Implications for the Telecom Sector

The verdict reversal reinforces the need for solid evidence in patent infringement cases. It also underscores the challenges patent-holding companies face when pursuing litigation against large telecom providers.

This ruling could influence ongoing and future patent lawsuits, especially involving critical 4G and 5G infrastructure. Telecom companies now have a reference case for defending against unsubstantiated infringement claims.

Internal Links:

Via LA Launches Semiconductor Patent Pool to Target Memory Technologies

by

New Licensing Initiative for Memory Patents

Via Licensing Alliance (Via LA) has announced the launch of a new patent pool focused on semiconductor memory technologies. The move aims to streamline licensing in one of the most critical areas of the semiconductor industry. By creating a unified pool, Via LA seeks to reduce complexity for licensees and patent holders.

Why Memory Technologies Matter

Memory technologies play a central role in artificial intelligence (AI), cloud computing, and high-performance devices. Demand for DRAM, NAND flash, and emerging memory solutions continues to grow as industries adopt faster and more efficient chips. A patent pool in this space could help reduce fragmentation and improve access to innovation.

Benefits of the Patent Pool

The new pool will allow companies to license a wide set of patents through a single agreement. This model is expected to:

  • Lower transaction costs.
  • Reduce legal disputes.
  • Provide transparency in royalty rates.
  • Accelerate adoption of new memory standards.

For smaller companies, such a framework could open doors to essential patents without lengthy negotiations.

Industry Context

The semiconductor industry is facing rising competition and supply chain challenges. Memory components are particularly strategic as AI workloads require large volumes of data processing. Patent pools like this one often attract attention from regulators, especially if licensing terms raise fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) concerns.

What Comes Next

Via LA has not disclosed detailed royalty structures or the full list of participants in the memory patent pool. Analysts expect leading memory manufacturers and technology developers to evaluate whether to join. The success of this initiative will depend on participation and the fairness of licensing conditions.

Suggested Internal Links

Moleculin Secures Canadian Patent Allowance for Cancer Drug Annamycin

by

Patent Strengthens Drug Development Pipeline

Moleculin Biotech has received a notice of allowance from the Canadian Intellectual Property Office for a key patent linked to its lead drug candidate, Annamycin. The patent covers methods of producing a pre-liposomal Annamycin lyophilizate with improved stability and purity. Once granted, the protection will last until June 2040, with the possibility of extensions based on regulatory timelines.

The allowance marks an important milestone in the company’s efforts to expand its global intellectual property portfolio. Moleculin already has pending patent applications in the U.S. and Europe, further strengthening the international protection of its oncology pipeline.

Focus on Safer Anthracyclines

Annamycin is being developed as a non-cardiotoxic anthracycline, a critical improvement compared with traditional anthracyclines that often cause long-term heart damage. The company is targeting acute myeloid leukemia (AML) and soft tissue sarcoma lung metastases as primary indications.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has granted Fast Track Designation and Orphan Drug Status for Annamycin in AML. The European Medicines Agency (EMA) has also recognized its potential by awarding Orphan Drug designation.

For more details on FDA orphan drug designations, visit the official agency page.

Clinical Development Advances

Moleculin has launched a pivotal Phase 3 trial, known as MIRACLE, which is evaluating Annamycin in combination with cytarabine for patients with relapsed or refractory AML. The trial outcome will play a decisive role in the drug’s regulatory future.

If successful, Annamycin could offer oncologists a safer alternative in settings where current chemotherapy options remain limited by toxicity.

Financial Challenges Remain

Despite the scientific and regulatory progress, Moleculin continues to face financial pressure. Analysts rate the company’s financial health as weak, highlighting the need for additional funding or strategic partnerships to support ongoing clinical development.

Investors will be closely watching for updates on both trial results and capital-raising strategies, as these will determine the company’s ability to advance Annamycin toward market approval.

Outlook

The Canadian patent allowance adds another layer of protection to Moleculin’s lead asset. Combined with U.S. and European filings, the company is positioning itself for long-term market exclusivity. However, successful commercialization will depend on trial data, regulatory approval, and financial stability.