With plastic pollution reaching critical levels, a growing number of innovators and companies are racing to develop sustainable alternatives. A new patent landscape analysis from Questel, led by chemistry specialist and business intelligence consultant Donia Ben Zakour, offers a comprehensive look into the evolving world of biodegradable plastics—and the findings suggest a wave of green innovation is gaining serious momentum.
A Growing Crisis Demands a Sustainable Response
Conventional plastics have become synonymous with environmental harm. Every year, an estimated 12.7 million tonnes of plastic waste enter the oceans. Meanwhile, only 9% of all plastic ever produced has been recycled. As global concern deepens, the spotlight is turning to biodegradable plastics as a promising solution.
What Are Biodegradable Plastics—and Why Do They Matter?
Biodegradable plastics are engineered to degrade through microbial activity, breaking down into natural substances such as carbon dioxide, water, and biomass within a defined timeframe. These materials, which include polylactic acid (PLA), polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA), and starch-based compounds, are particularly suited for single-use applications like packaging.
Their chemical structures and environmental degradability make them a vital alternative in sectors looking to cut their plastic footprint.
The Patent Landscape: Questel’s Key Findings
Questel’s in-depth analysis examines more than 9,000 patent families related to biodegradable plastics filed over the past two decades (excluding Chinese non-extended patents). It provides valuable insights into trends in innovation, market leaders, and regional activity.
📈 Patent Filing Trends (2005–2023)
2005–2018: Patent activity was relatively steady, with 200–300 new filings annually. However, many early patents are now considered “dead” due to abandonment or expiration.
2015–2023: A dramatic surge in activity, particularly from 2018 onward, saw annual filings exceed 1,000 by 2021. The growing number of “pending” applications reflects a vibrant pipeline of new technologies.
Filings from 2024 and 2025 appear lower but are likely underreported due to the standard 18-month delay between filing and publication.
🌍 Geographical Hotspots
Patent data shows that innovation is concentrated in Japan, South Korea, and the United States. These regions account for the majority of first-priority filings:
Japan was an early leader but saw a lull before a recent rebound.
South Korea took the lead after 2018, driven by aggressive R&D from major firms.
India is emerging as a noteworthy player, while Europe maintains consistent, though fragmented, contributions.
🏢 Leading Innovators in the Space
Top contributors include:
LG Chem – developing bio-based polymers for industrial and packaging use.
Hyundai Motor – incorporating biodegradable materials into vehicle interiors.
CJ CheilJedang – advancing PHA-based biodegradable plastic technologies for a wide range of applications.
⚙️ Key Technologies and Manufacturing Processes
Dominant areas of innovation include:
Core materials: PLA, PHA, starch-based bioplastics, biodegradable polyesters.
Processing methods: Injection molding, extrusion, and polymer blending.
Real-World Adoption and the Push for Sustainability
Biodegradable plastics are increasingly making the leap from labs to commercial shelves. Global brands are actively seeking replacements for conventional plastics in packaging, while automotive and electronics industries are integrating biodegradable materials into their design and production processes.
Zakour emphasizes that this movement reflects more than just a trend—it’s a systemic shift in how innovation meets sustainability. “We’re witnessing a convergence of environmental responsibility, regulatory pressure, and consumer demand,” she explains. “Biodegradable plastics are now seen not just as an alternative, but as a necessity for sustainable growth.”
Looking Ahead
Despite economic uncertainties and regulatory complexity, Questel’s report points to a dynamic and competitive innovation landscape. With global filings surging and real-world applications expanding, biodegradable plastics are rapidly becoming a key pillar of environmental strategy for forward-thinking companies.
The global patent race is far from over—but one thing is clear: the future of plastic is biodegradable.
Gayatri
China Sees Sharp Decline in Invention Patent Grants in Q1 2025, Reflecting Shift Toward Patent Quality Over Quantity
China’s National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) released new statistics on April 15, 2025, revealing a significant decline in invention patent grants during the first quarter of the year. According to the official data, the number of invention patents granted between January and March 2025 dropped by 20.99% year-on-year, amounting to a reduction of 52,870 patents, with a total of 199,012 invention patents granted during the period.
The downward trend was not isolated to invention patents alone. Utility model grants, another category of intellectual property protection frequently used in China, also saw a marginal decline of 2.33%, decreasing by 11,032 grants compared to the first quarter of 2024, bringing the total to 408,419 utility model grants.
However, in contrast to the broader decline, design patent grants recorded a notable increase. The CNIPA reported a 10.11% year-on-year growth, with 161,058 design patents granted in Q1 2025—an increase of 14,788 grants compared to the same period last year.
Trademark Registrations Also Down
The downturn extended into trademark registrations. From January to March 2025, the number of new trademarks registered in China fell by 193,996, reflecting a 14.97% decline compared to the first quarter of 2024. This slump may reflect broader economic uncertainties or shifts in business activity.
Factors Behind the Decline
While CNIPA has not issued an official explanation for the steep decline in invention patent grants, several contributing factors appear to be at play—chief among them, China’s evolving strategy around intellectual property quality and enforcement.
End of Patent Subsidies: Government subsidies for patent grants, once a major driver behind China’s patent filing boom, have officially ended in 2025. This move was aimed at reducing low-quality and opportunistic filings.
Crackdown on “Abnormal” Applications: Chinese authorities have continued to intensify scrutiny on fraudulent or low-value patent applications. This regulatory push has likely discouraged mass filing practices that previously inflated patent figures.
Shift Toward High-Value Patents: China has reoriented its IP strategy from emphasizing sheer volume to focusing on the number of high-value patents per 10,000 people, moving away from raw patent filing counts as the primary performance metric.
In addition, the broader slowdown in China’s economy may be influencing innovation output and intellectual property activity. However, due to the nature of patent processing timelines, such effects may manifest with a delay, making patent grants a lagging indicator of underlying economic trends.
Long-Term Outlook Remains Ambitious
Despite the recent decline, CNIPA’s 2025 budget signals continued confidence in long-term innovation momentum. The agency expects to receive over 5 million patent applications this year and plans to examine more than 2 million invention patent applications. These targets reflect China’s sustained investment in intellectual property infrastructure and commitment to fostering innovation at scale.
The full dataset, published in Chinese under the title “2025年3月国家知识产权局审查注册登记统计月报（外部版)”, offers a detailed monthly breakdown of IP activity and can be accessed through CNIPA’s official platform.
As China continues to prioritize patent quality and reform its intellectual property system, the first quarter data may represent more than just a temporary dip—it could signal a lasting transformation in how innovation is measured and rewarded in the world’s second-largest economy.
The downward trend was not isolated to invention patents alone. Utility model grants, another category of intellectual property protection frequently used in China, also saw a marginal decline of 2.33%, decreasing by 11,032 grants compared to the first quarter of 2024, bringing the total to 408,419 utility model grants.
However, in contrast to the broader decline, design patent grants recorded a notable increase. The CNIPA reported a 10.11% year-on-year growth, with 161,058 design patents granted in Q1 2025—an increase of 14,788 grants compared to the same period last year.
Trademark Registrations Also Down
The downturn extended into trademark registrations. From January to March 2025, the number of new trademarks registered in China fell by 193,996, reflecting a 14.97% decline compared to the first quarter of 2024. This slump may reflect broader economic uncertainties or shifts in business activity.
Factors Behind the Decline
While CNIPA has not issued an official explanation for the steep decline in invention patent grants, several contributing factors appear to be at play—chief among them, China’s evolving strategy around intellectual property quality and enforcement.
End of Patent Subsidies: Government subsidies for patent grants, once a major driver behind China’s patent filing boom, have officially ended in 2025. This move was aimed at reducing low-quality and opportunistic filings.
Crackdown on “Abnormal” Applications: Chinese authorities have continued to intensify scrutiny on fraudulent or low-value patent applications. This regulatory push has likely discouraged mass filing practices that previously inflated patent figures.
Shift Toward High-Value Patents: China has reoriented its IP strategy from emphasizing sheer volume to focusing on the number of high-value patents per 10,000 people, moving away from raw patent filing counts as the primary performance metric.
In addition, the broader slowdown in China’s economy may be influencing innovation output and intellectual property activity. However, due to the nature of patent processing timelines, such effects may manifest with a delay, making patent grants a lagging indicator of underlying economic trends.
Long-Term Outlook Remains Ambitious
Despite the recent decline, CNIPA’s 2025 budget signals continued confidence in long-term innovation momentum. The agency expects to receive over 5 million patent applications this year and plans to examine more than 2 million invention patent applications. These targets reflect China’s sustained investment in intellectual property infrastructure and commitment to fostering innovation at scale.
The full dataset, published in Chinese under the title “2025年3月国家知识产权局审查注册登记统计月报（外部版)”, offers a detailed monthly breakdown of IP activity and can be accessed through CNIPA’s official platform.
As China continues to prioritize patent quality and reform its intellectual property system, the first quarter data may represent more than just a temporary dip—it could signal a lasting transformation in how innovation is measured and rewarded in the world’s second-largest economy.
USPTO Streamlines Patent Issuance Timeline with Faster Turnaround Starting May 13
In a move that promises to bring greater efficiency to the U.S. patent system, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has announced a major update to its patent issuance process.
This improvement marks a significant shift in the patenting landscape, providing faster legal recognition of inventions and reducing administrative lag for both individual inventors and companies awaiting protection for their intellectual property.
Transition to Digital Patent Grants Accelerates the Process
The accelerated timeline has been made possible in large part due to the USPTO’s adoption of electronic patent grants (eGrants). With the USPTO now fully transitioned to digital issuance, those time-consuming steps have been eliminated, allowing for quicker finalization of granted patents.
The agency has stated that, once all requirements are met and the Issue Fee is paid, inventors typically receive an Issue Notification within one to two weeks. Under the new process, the formal patent will be granted just two weeks after this notification, as opposed to the previous three-week standard.
Benefits for Inventors and Legal Professionals
This change not only shortens the waiting period for inventors eager to see their rights formally granted, but it also has strategic legal benefits. The reduced timeline cuts down the so-called “lame duck” period—a window of time during which inventors and their legal counsel are still required to submit any known prior art that might affect the patent’s validity. During this period, submissions of relevant information could cause delays in issuance.
By shortening this window, the USPTO effectively reduces the likelihood of last-minute delays caused by prior art disclosures, allowing for smoother and more predictable patent finalizations.
A Win for Innovation and IP Management
The streamlined process is being welcomed by the patent community as a step in the right direction. Faster issuance allows inventors to enforce their rights sooner, boosts the value of patent portfolios more quickly, and provides an advantage to companies working in fast-moving sectors such as technology, pharmaceuticals, and biotech.
“This is a smart move by the USPTO,” said a patent attorney at a Washington-based IP law firm. “In a time where speed to market can make or break an invention’s commercial potential, cutting down unnecessary administrative lag can be a game-changer.”
Looking Ahead
The USPTO has been steadily modernizing its systems to better serve inventors, including the roll-out of digital filing systems, the modernization of examiner tools, and now this reduction in issuance lag. These changes reflect the agency’s ongoing commitment to streamlining operations while maintaining high standards for patent examination and grant quality.
As of May 13, inventors who receive their issue notifications can expect to see their patents granted just two weeks later—giving them the legal recognition and rights they’ve earned, faster than ever before.
This improvement marks a significant shift in the patenting landscape, providing faster legal recognition of inventions and reducing administrative lag for both individual inventors and companies awaiting protection for their intellectual property.
Transition to Digital Patent Grants Accelerates the Process
The accelerated timeline has been made possible in large part due to the USPTO’s adoption of electronic patent grants (eGrants). With the USPTO now fully transitioned to digital issuance, those time-consuming steps have been eliminated, allowing for quicker finalization of granted patents.
The agency has stated that, once all requirements are met and the Issue Fee is paid, inventors typically receive an Issue Notification within one to two weeks. Under the new process, the formal patent will be granted just two weeks after this notification, as opposed to the previous three-week standard.
Benefits for Inventors and Legal Professionals
This change not only shortens the waiting period for inventors eager to see their rights formally granted, but it also has strategic legal benefits. The reduced timeline cuts down the so-called “lame duck” period—a window of time during which inventors and their legal counsel are still required to submit any known prior art that might affect the patent’s validity. During this period, submissions of relevant information could cause delays in issuance.
By shortening this window, the USPTO effectively reduces the likelihood of last-minute delays caused by prior art disclosures, allowing for smoother and more predictable patent finalizations.
A Win for Innovation and IP Management
The streamlined process is being welcomed by the patent community as a step in the right direction. Faster issuance allows inventors to enforce their rights sooner, boosts the value of patent portfolios more quickly, and provides an advantage to companies working in fast-moving sectors such as technology, pharmaceuticals, and biotech.
“This is a smart move by the USPTO,” said a patent attorney at a Washington-based IP law firm. “In a time where speed to market can make or break an invention’s commercial potential, cutting down unnecessary administrative lag can be a game-changer.”
Looking Ahead
The USPTO has been steadily modernizing its systems to better serve inventors, including the roll-out of digital filing systems, the modernization of examiner tools, and now this reduction in issuance lag. These changes reflect the agency’s ongoing commitment to streamlining operations while maintaining high standards for patent examination and grant quality.
As of May 13, inventors who receive their issue notifications can expect to see their patents granted just two weeks later—giving them the legal recognition and rights they’ve earned, faster than ever before.
Tata Motors Achieves Record IP Milestone with 250 Patent Filings in FY25, Focuses on Future Mobility
Tata Motors, India’s leading automotive manufacturer, announced on Thursday that it has achieved a record-breaking milestone in intellectual property filings, with 250 patents and 148 design applications submitted during FY2024-25, the highest in the company’s history for a single financial year.
In a statement highlighting its innovation-driven strategy, Tata Motors emphasized that these filings span a wide array of product and process innovations that align with key global automotive megatrends — Connectivity, Electrification, Sustainability, and Safety (CESS) — along with next-generation technologies such as hydrogen-powered vehicles and fuel cell systems.
Innovations Driving the Future of Mobility
The patents and design applications represent advancements across core automotive systems, including:
Battery technology
Powertrain systems
Vehicle body and trim
Suspension and braking systems
Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC)
Emission control technologies
These innovations are part of Tata Motors’ broader commitment to creating sustainable and intelligent mobility solutions, reinforcing its position at the forefront of India’s transition to green and connected transportation.
Strengthening IP Portfolio
In addition to the patent and design filings, Tata Motors also submitted 81 copyright applications and secured 68 patent grants in the fiscal year, bringing the company’s total granted patents to 918 — a substantial number underscoring its deep focus on research and development.
“Our growing portfolio of pioneering technologies demonstrates our steadfast commitment to nation-building through cutting-edge automotive solutions,” said Rajendra Petkar, President and Chief Technology Officer, Tata Motors. “We continue to invest in future-ready technologies that not only meet customer needs but also support environmental goals.”
Commitment to R&D and Innovation
The company’s FY25 filings reflect its ongoing investment in R&D and advanced engineering, with a strong emphasis on decarbonization, intelligent vehicle architecture, and alternative fuels.
Tata Motors has been a key contributor to India’s electric mobility revolution, with its EV offerings gaining substantial traction in both passenger and commercial segments. The company is also actively exploring hydrogen internal combustion engines and fuel cell electric vehicle (FCEV) technologies, in line with the government’s push for a diversified clean mobility strategy.
Vision for the Future
Looking forward, Tata Motors reiterated its long-term vision to shape the future of mobility, catering to the evolving expectations of modern consumers and contributing to sustainable community development.
“Our efforts are rooted in anticipating the future and delivering innovations that transform the way India moves,” added Petkar.
With this significant leap in intellectual property filings, Tata Motors not only reinforces its innovation leadership in the Indian automotive sector but also demonstrates its growing influence on the global stage, where technological IP is becoming a key differentiator in the race toward next-gen mobility.
Astellas Pharma Prevails in German Patent Dispute Over Prostate Cancer Drug Xtandi
Astellas Pharma, alongside the Regents of the University of California, has secured a major legal victory in Germany as the Federal Patent Court rejected a nullity suit challenging one of its key intellectual property rights protecting the blockbuster prostate cancer treatment Xtandi. The decision strengthens Astellas’ position as it continues to defend its IP portfolio for the drug across multiple jurisdictions.
The patent at the center of the dispute is European Patent EP 1 893 196, which protects the active pharmaceutical ingredient enzalutamide, the core compound in Xtandi. In Germany, the Supplementary Protection Certificate (SPC 12 2013 000 155.0) linked to EP 196 extends market exclusivity until June 25, 2028, beyond the patent’s official expiry in May 2026.
A Coordinated Challenge by Generics
The challenge was led by Hexal, a subsidiary of Sandoz, with Accord Healthcare, Synthon, and Stada joining the suit in a bid to invalidate the patent and gain earlier access to the market for generic enzalutamide formulations. However, in the recently concluded German case (3 Ni 20/23), the court sided with the patent holders.
Astellas, the exclusive sub-licensee of the patent rights for enzalutamide, participated in the proceedings as an intervenor, backing the University of California, which holds the original rights. The court found no grounds to invalidate the patent, thus preserving Astellas’ market exclusivity in Germany.
Wider Legal Landscape in the UK and Netherlands
The German case is part of a broader litigation strategy by generic manufacturers to challenge enzalutamide-related patents across Europe.
In October 2024, the UK High Court upheld both the British portion of EP 196 and the associated SPC in full. However, the ruling is currently under appeal.
In the Netherlands, the District Court of The Hague is expected to deliver its decision on EP 196 soon. Earlier this year, the same court upheld a related patent—EP 3 725 778, which protects enzalutamide’s formulation—marking another win for Astellas and its partners.
Legal Teams Behind the Battle
The high-profile nature of the case brought out some of Europe’s most experienced IP law firms specializing in life sciences:
Hexal was represented by patent specialists from df-mp Dörries Frank-Molnia & Pohlmann, a Munich-based firm with a strong track record in pharmaceutical patent disputes. Lead partner Elisabeth Greiner, supported by Holger Schimmel and Tom Schwarzer, led the challenge.
Accord Healthcare received support from patent attorneys Christian Hollatz and Veronika Müller at Ter Meer Steinmeister, and litigator Daniel Hoppe from the newly formed boutique Bonabry. Hoppe was joined by colleagues Konstantin Schallmoser and Sarah Salaschek, representing Synthon.
Stada’s case was handled by Alexander Wittkopp of Hamm & Wittkopp, another firm deeply entrenched in generic pharmaceutical patent litigation.
On the defence side, the Regents of the University of California and Astellas relied on the well-regarded Hoffmann Eitle team, led by Peter Klusmann and Dirk Schüßler-Langeheine, with assistance from Jan Zillies and Melanie Schain.
In UK proceedings, Kirkland & Ellis represented Astellas and the University, while the claimants were advised by Pinsent Masons.
In the Dutch litigation, Brinkhof is handling representation for the generics challengers, while Hoyng ROKH Monegier is acting for Astellas.
A Strategic Asset in Astellas’ Oncology Portfolio
Xtandi (enzalutamide) is a cornerstone of Astellas’ oncology franchise and one of the most commercially successful treatments for advanced prostate cancer, with global sales running into billions of dollars. Despite being indicated for a rare form of advanced cancer, the drug has seen significant market growth, especially in oral formulations that offer ease of use over competing treatments requiring injection.
The ongoing court battles underscore the value of enzalutamide’s exclusivity, and the resilience of Astellas’ legal defense so far suggests a robust IP strategy.
What Comes Next?
As litigation continues in the UK and Netherlands, and likely other markets, Astellas will aim to maintain its competitive edge through the strength of its patent portfolio. The latest German ruling will likely bolster its position in future proceedings, serving as a precedent that supports the validity and enforceability of EP 196 and its SPC.
For generic manufacturers, the fight isn’t over—but their path to market is now more complex, as courts increasingly affirm Astellas’ rights to protect a therapy that has reshaped treatment protocols for prostate cancer patients worldwide.
The patent at the center of the dispute is European Patent EP 1 893 196, which protects the active pharmaceutical ingredient enzalutamide, the core compound in Xtandi. In Germany, the Supplementary Protection Certificate (SPC 12 2013 000 155.0) linked to EP 196 extends market exclusivity until June 25, 2028, beyond the patent’s official expiry in May 2026.
A Coordinated Challenge by Generics
The challenge was led by Hexal, a subsidiary of Sandoz, with Accord Healthcare, Synthon, and Stada joining the suit in a bid to invalidate the patent and gain earlier access to the market for generic enzalutamide formulations. However, in the recently concluded German case (3 Ni 20/23), the court sided with the patent holders.
Astellas, the exclusive sub-licensee of the patent rights for enzalutamide, participated in the proceedings as an intervenor, backing the University of California, which holds the original rights. The court found no grounds to invalidate the patent, thus preserving Astellas’ market exclusivity in Germany.
Wider Legal Landscape in the UK and Netherlands
The German case is part of a broader litigation strategy by generic manufacturers to challenge enzalutamide-related patents across Europe.
In October 2024, the UK High Court upheld both the British portion of EP 196 and the associated SPC in full. However, the ruling is currently under appeal.
In the Netherlands, the District Court of The Hague is expected to deliver its decision on EP 196 soon. Earlier this year, the same court upheld a related patent—EP 3 725 778, which protects enzalutamide’s formulation—marking another win for Astellas and its partners.
Legal Teams Behind the Battle
The high-profile nature of the case brought out some of Europe’s most experienced IP law firms specializing in life sciences:
Hexal was represented by patent specialists from df-mp Dörries Frank-Molnia & Pohlmann, a Munich-based firm with a strong track record in pharmaceutical patent disputes. Lead partner Elisabeth Greiner, supported by Holger Schimmel and Tom Schwarzer, led the challenge.
Accord Healthcare received support from patent attorneys Christian Hollatz and Veronika Müller at Ter Meer Steinmeister, and litigator Daniel Hoppe from the newly formed boutique Bonabry. Hoppe was joined by colleagues Konstantin Schallmoser and Sarah Salaschek, representing Synthon.
Stada’s case was handled by Alexander Wittkopp of Hamm & Wittkopp, another firm deeply entrenched in generic pharmaceutical patent litigation.
On the defence side, the Regents of the University of California and Astellas relied on the well-regarded Hoffmann Eitle team, led by Peter Klusmann and Dirk Schüßler-Langeheine, with assistance from Jan Zillies and Melanie Schain.
In UK proceedings, Kirkland & Ellis represented Astellas and the University, while the claimants were advised by Pinsent Masons.
In the Dutch litigation, Brinkhof is handling representation for the generics challengers, while Hoyng ROKH Monegier is acting for Astellas.
A Strategic Asset in Astellas’ Oncology Portfolio
Xtandi (enzalutamide) is a cornerstone of Astellas’ oncology franchise and one of the most commercially successful treatments for advanced prostate cancer, with global sales running into billions of dollars. Despite being indicated for a rare form of advanced cancer, the drug has seen significant market growth, especially in oral formulations that offer ease of use over competing treatments requiring injection.
The ongoing court battles underscore the value of enzalutamide’s exclusivity, and the resilience of Astellas’ legal defense so far suggests a robust IP strategy.
What Comes Next?
As litigation continues in the UK and Netherlands, and likely other markets, Astellas will aim to maintain its competitive edge through the strength of its patent portfolio. The latest German ruling will likely bolster its position in future proceedings, serving as a precedent that supports the validity and enforceability of EP 196 and its SPC.
For generic manufacturers, the fight isn’t over—but their path to market is now more complex, as courts increasingly affirm Astellas’ rights to protect a therapy that has reshaped treatment protocols for prostate cancer patients worldwide.
Shares of Lupin and Zydus Life Slide After Losing US Patent Case to Astellas Pharma
Shares of Indian pharmaceutical giants Lupin and Zydus Lifesciences came under significant selling pressure on April 16, falling by 3% and 4.5% respectively. The decline followed a ruling by the U.S. District Court in Delaware in favor of Astellas Pharma, the original patent holder of Myrbetriq, a drug used to treat overactive bladder (OAB). The court determined that Lupin and Zydus had infringed upon Astellas’s patent rights, potentially paving the way for the withdrawal of their generic versions from the U.S. market.
Court Ruling Favors Astellas
The dispute centers around the ‘780 patent, which protects the formulation of Mirabegron, the active ingredient in Myrbetriq. Astellas Pharma filed a lawsuit claiming that the generic products manufactured by Lupin and Zydus violated this patent.
The judgment emphasized that the defendants failed to demonstrate that the patent was invalid on grounds such as lack of enablement, inadequate written description, or indefiniteness. With the court upholding the validity of the ‘780 patent, the generics produced by Lupin and Zydus are now under threat of being barred from sale in the U.S.
Financial Implications Loom
Market analysts have raised concerns over the financial impact this legal defeat could have on the Indian pharma companies. Myrbetriq was anticipated to contribute nearly $30 million in quarterly revenues to each company, according to some industry estimates. The ruling could not only impact future earnings but also result in penalties.
Vishal Manchanda, a pharmaceutical sector analyst at Systematix Group, told CNBC-TV18, “We expect a tangible hit to FY26 earnings for both Zydus Life and Lupin due to this development. Moreover, damages and potential penalties, if levied by the jury trial, could further strain their financials.”
The final determination of damages and any remaining disputes over infringement or validity will be taken up in a consolidated jury trial scheduled for 2026.
Companies Respond
In a post-market statement, Zydus Lifesciences acknowledged the verdict and said it is currently reviewing the court order and assessing its implications. “We are evaluating the potential impact of the said order on the operations of the Company and the legal remedies available with the Company,” the statement read.
Both Zydus and Lupin have filed a ‘Motion to Clarify’ in an effort to assert additional arguments regarding the patent’s validity, which the court will consider during the 2026 trial.
Background on Myrbetriq and the Patent Dispute
Myrbetriq, approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2012, has been a high-value product in the OAB treatment category, with global sales reaching over a billion dollars annually in recent years. The drug works by relaxing the bladder muscle to increase storage capacity and reduce urinary urgency.
The ‘780 patent, central to the lawsuit, covers specific formulations and the method of administration of Mirabegron. Patent infringement in this context refers to manufacturing or selling a product that falls within the patent’s claim scope without authorization from the patent holder.
The ruling highlights the risks generic manufacturers face when attempting to enter markets dominated by patented medications. It also reaffirms the legal strength of patent protections in the U.S., particularly for high-value pharmaceutical products.
Market Reaction
Investors reacted swiftly to the news, with both Lupin and Zydus Life stocks falling sharply in trading. Analysts believe the market is pricing in not only the potential loss of revenue but also uncertainty around future legal proceedings and penalties.
The verdict serves as a cautionary tale for generics manufacturers and underscores the importance of thorough patent analysis before launching competing products in major markets like the United States.
As the legal battle progresses, the pharmaceutical sector will be closely watching the developments in the run-up to the 2026 trial, which will determine the extent of financial liability and the long-term market prospects for generic versions of Myrbetriq.
Court Ruling Favors Astellas
The dispute centers around the ‘780 patent, which protects the formulation of Mirabegron, the active ingredient in Myrbetriq. Astellas Pharma filed a lawsuit claiming that the generic products manufactured by Lupin and Zydus violated this patent.
The judgment emphasized that the defendants failed to demonstrate that the patent was invalid on grounds such as lack of enablement, inadequate written description, or indefiniteness. With the court upholding the validity of the ‘780 patent, the generics produced by Lupin and Zydus are now under threat of being barred from sale in the U.S.
Financial Implications Loom
Market analysts have raised concerns over the financial impact this legal defeat could have on the Indian pharma companies. Myrbetriq was anticipated to contribute nearly $30 million in quarterly revenues to each company, according to some industry estimates. The ruling could not only impact future earnings but also result in penalties.
Vishal Manchanda, a pharmaceutical sector analyst at Systematix Group, told CNBC-TV18, “We expect a tangible hit to FY26 earnings for both Zydus Life and Lupin due to this development. Moreover, damages and potential penalties, if levied by the jury trial, could further strain their financials.”
The final determination of damages and any remaining disputes over infringement or validity will be taken up in a consolidated jury trial scheduled for 2026.
Companies Respond
In a post-market statement, Zydus Lifesciences acknowledged the verdict and said it is currently reviewing the court order and assessing its implications. “We are evaluating the potential impact of the said order on the operations of the Company and the legal remedies available with the Company,” the statement read.
Both Zydus and Lupin have filed a ‘Motion to Clarify’ in an effort to assert additional arguments regarding the patent’s validity, which the court will consider during the 2026 trial.
Background on Myrbetriq and the Patent Dispute
Myrbetriq, approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2012, has been a high-value product in the OAB treatment category, with global sales reaching over a billion dollars annually in recent years. The drug works by relaxing the bladder muscle to increase storage capacity and reduce urinary urgency.
The ‘780 patent, central to the lawsuit, covers specific formulations and the method of administration of Mirabegron. Patent infringement in this context refers to manufacturing or selling a product that falls within the patent’s claim scope without authorization from the patent holder.
The ruling highlights the risks generic manufacturers face when attempting to enter markets dominated by patented medications. It also reaffirms the legal strength of patent protections in the U.S., particularly for high-value pharmaceutical products.
Market Reaction
Investors reacted swiftly to the news, with both Lupin and Zydus Life stocks falling sharply in trading. Analysts believe the market is pricing in not only the potential loss of revenue but also uncertainty around future legal proceedings and penalties.
The verdict serves as a cautionary tale for generics manufacturers and underscores the importance of thorough patent analysis before launching competing products in major markets like the United States.
As the legal battle progresses, the pharmaceutical sector will be closely watching the developments in the run-up to the 2026 trial, which will determine the extent of financial liability and the long-term market prospects for generic versions of Myrbetriq.
Google’s Pixel 10 Pro Could Feature Touch-Sensitive Back Panel for Gesture Controls
A newly published patent hints at a bold innovation that could define the Pixel 10 Pro: a touch-sensitive rear panel that recognizes gestures, expanding how users interact with their smartphones beyond the traditional touchscreen.
Filed with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), the patent, titled “Leveraging Inactive Touchpoints For Gesture Recognition and User Interface Configuration,” outlines a system that transforms the typically dormant backside of a smartphone into a dynamic, gesture-sensitive surface.
Turning the Back of the Phone Into a Control Panel
Unlike current Pixel models, where interaction is limited to the display or frame buttons, the Pixel 10 Pro could allow users to perform actions simply by swiping or tapping on the back of the device. Suggested functions include:
Volume adjustment
Media controls (play, pause, skip)
Zoom level changes in the camera app
UI navigation or customization triggers
While some of these features may sound familiar — Google’s Quick Tap already allows double-tapping the back of the phone to activate specific actions — the newly patented system goes far beyond. Instead of a basic on/off gesture, this technology would recognize more nuanced and customizable gestures, likely powered by machine learning to personalize the experience per user.
For instance, the system would distinguish between someone simply holding their phone versus intentionally swiping across the back. This type of input detection could enhance accessibility and streamline how users multitask on their devices — a natural evolution as phones become more reliant on AI-powered assistance and minimal UI design.
Why Now?
With expectations growing around the Pixel 10 Pro, likely to debut in 2025, Google appears to be aiming for a blend of form, function, and futuristic user interaction.
In a smartphone market saturated with similar-looking devices and iterative updates, a touch-sensitive rear panel could give Google a competitive edge. The tech would also complement the company’s continued AI focus, allowing gesture models to adapt to each user’s patterns, habits, and preferences over time.
The Rear of the Phone: A New Frontier?
The back of smartphones remains an underutilized canvas. Some brands have experimented with mini displays, notification strips, or thermal cooling systems for gamers — but none have made rear touch interaction a mainstream feature.
However, as with any patent filing, there’s no guarantee the technology will appear in the final retail model. Some features described in patents never make it past the prototype stage, while others appear years later in refined forms. Still, this gesture system feels like a logical next step, especially as mobile UIs continue to prioritize fluidity and personalization.
A Natural Evolution of Quick Tap?
It’s worth noting that the groundwork is already in place. Google introduced Quick Tap on recent Pixel models, letting users assign a double-tap gesture on the back of the phone to trigger specific functions like screenshots or Google Assistant. A more advanced gesture system would build directly on that foundation — moving from binary tap detection to multi-dimensional gesture recognition.
Dorsey and Musk Call to ‘Delete All IP Law’ Sparks Backlash Amid AI Copyright Battles
In a cryptic yet explosive post on X, Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey called for the wholesale abolition of intellectual property law, declaring simply: “delete all IP law.” The message, posted without explanation or context, quickly drew a wave of attention — and an immediate show of support from Elon Musk, who replied in agreement.
While both tech billionaires are known for their provocative online personas, this statement has ignited a serious debate about the future of intellectual property (IP) in the digital age — particularly as artificial intelligence continues to test the boundaries of content ownership, authorship, and creative rights.
What Exactly Do They Want to Delete?
Dorsey’s call raises more questions than it answers. “All IP law” could encompass a broad swath of legal protections, including:
Patent law, which protects inventions and technological processes
Copyright law, which guards original works of authorship
Trademark law, which ensures brand and consumer recognition
Rights of publicity, which allow individuals to control the use of their name, image, and likeness
The ambiguity of Dorsey’s post leaves it unclear whether he is advocating for the dismantling of all of these systems or speaking more narrowly. What is clear is that both Dorsey and Musk have long been critical of formal IP protections.
Musk, in particular, has famously stated that “patents are for the weak,” suggesting that true innovation doesn’t rely on legal shields. Yet, critics argue that such a stance reflects a privileged position — one made possible by enormous capital, market dominance, and access to elite legal teams.
IP as a Shield for the Powerless
While tech titans may view IP law as an inconvenience, others see it as a vital safeguard — especially for independent creators, startups, and inventors. Intellectual property laws serve as a means of leveling the playing field, providing smaller players a tool to protect their work and negotiate with larger, more powerful entities.
“This idea that IP protections are unnecessary ignores the reality of how innovation happens outside of billion-dollar companies,” said one Washington-based legal scholar. “The rule of law, including IP rights, is often the only recourse small creators have to protect their contributions.”
USPTO Pushes Back
In response to Dorsey and Musk’s remarks, Coke Morgan Stewart, the Acting Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), issued a rebuttal defending the IP system. Citing examples ranging from President Biden and Vice President Harris, to J.D. Vance’s “Hillbilly Elegy” and Donald Trump’s trademarks, Stewart argued that IP laws underpin creativity, entrepreneurship, and economic opportunity.
She also referenced the popular show Shark Tank, where patent and trademark protections are often pivotal to whether an entrepreneur secures funding. “IP rights are not abstract legal constructs,” Stewart emphasized. “They are practical tools that empower innovation, protect integrity in the marketplace, and help turn ideas into viable businesses.”
Silicon Valley’s Complicated Relationship with IP
Silicon Valley has long walked a tightrope when it comes to intellectual property. Many of its biggest success stories — from Google’s search engine, which indexes others’ work, to social media platforms like X and Instagram that depend entirely on user-generated content — have been built on models that leverage the creativity of the masses.
Meanwhile, the rise of artificial intelligence has introduced a new layer of complexity. Modern AI systems are trained on massive datasets, often scraped from publicly available — but still copyrighted — sources. This has triggered a wave of lawsuits from authors, artists, and rights holders who argue their works have been co-opted without permission or compensation.
That includes legal action against companies like OpenAI (which Musk co-founded), as well as lawsuits against image and video generators. Both Musk and Dorsey are reportedly developing or investing in their own AI ventures, making their recent anti-IP remarks appear less like philosophical positions and more like preemptive strikes against legal obstacles.
The Bigger Picture: Control vs. Creativity
For critics, the timing of Dorsey’s and Musk’s statements is telling. As the legal landscape tightens around AI training data and content use, the call to abolish IP law seems less about freeing innovation and more about escaping accountability. Yet, for the creative community — from musicians and writers to small software developers — IP remains one of the few tools available to ensure fair treatment in a tech-dominated economy.
“The strongest don’t need the law,” one commentator noted. “But the rest of us do.”
While both tech billionaires are known for their provocative online personas, this statement has ignited a serious debate about the future of intellectual property (IP) in the digital age — particularly as artificial intelligence continues to test the boundaries of content ownership, authorship, and creative rights.
What Exactly Do They Want to Delete?
Dorsey’s call raises more questions than it answers. “All IP law” could encompass a broad swath of legal protections, including:
Patent law, which protects inventions and technological processes
Copyright law, which guards original works of authorship
Trademark law, which ensures brand and consumer recognition
Rights of publicity, which allow individuals to control the use of their name, image, and likeness
The ambiguity of Dorsey’s post leaves it unclear whether he is advocating for the dismantling of all of these systems or speaking more narrowly. What is clear is that both Dorsey and Musk have long been critical of formal IP protections.
Musk, in particular, has famously stated that “patents are for the weak,” suggesting that true innovation doesn’t rely on legal shields. Yet, critics argue that such a stance reflects a privileged position — one made possible by enormous capital, market dominance, and access to elite legal teams.
IP as a Shield for the Powerless
While tech titans may view IP law as an inconvenience, others see it as a vital safeguard — especially for independent creators, startups, and inventors. Intellectual property laws serve as a means of leveling the playing field, providing smaller players a tool to protect their work and negotiate with larger, more powerful entities.
“This idea that IP protections are unnecessary ignores the reality of how innovation happens outside of billion-dollar companies,” said one Washington-based legal scholar. “The rule of law, including IP rights, is often the only recourse small creators have to protect their contributions.”
USPTO Pushes Back
In response to Dorsey and Musk’s remarks, Coke Morgan Stewart, the Acting Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), issued a rebuttal defending the IP system. Citing examples ranging from President Biden and Vice President Harris, to J.D. Vance’s “Hillbilly Elegy” and Donald Trump’s trademarks, Stewart argued that IP laws underpin creativity, entrepreneurship, and economic opportunity.
She also referenced the popular show Shark Tank, where patent and trademark protections are often pivotal to whether an entrepreneur secures funding. “IP rights are not abstract legal constructs,” Stewart emphasized. “They are practical tools that empower innovation, protect integrity in the marketplace, and help turn ideas into viable businesses.”
Silicon Valley’s Complicated Relationship with IP
Silicon Valley has long walked a tightrope when it comes to intellectual property. Many of its biggest success stories — from Google’s search engine, which indexes others’ work, to social media platforms like X and Instagram that depend entirely on user-generated content — have been built on models that leverage the creativity of the masses.
Meanwhile, the rise of artificial intelligence has introduced a new layer of complexity. Modern AI systems are trained on massive datasets, often scraped from publicly available — but still copyrighted — sources. This has triggered a wave of lawsuits from authors, artists, and rights holders who argue their works have been co-opted without permission or compensation.
That includes legal action against companies like OpenAI (which Musk co-founded), as well as lawsuits against image and video generators. Both Musk and Dorsey are reportedly developing or investing in their own AI ventures, making their recent anti-IP remarks appear less like philosophical positions and more like preemptive strikes against legal obstacles.
The Bigger Picture: Control vs. Creativity
For critics, the timing of Dorsey’s and Musk’s statements is telling. As the legal landscape tightens around AI training data and content use, the call to abolish IP law seems less about freeing innovation and more about escaping accountability. Yet, for the creative community — from musicians and writers to small software developers — IP remains one of the few tools available to ensure fair treatment in a tech-dominated economy.
“The strongest don’t need the law,” one commentator noted. “But the rest of us do.”
Peraso Secures Key Patent Approval for Resilient Wireless Network Technology
Peraso Inc., a leading innovator in millimeter-wave (mmWave) wireless technology, has announced that it has received a Notice of Allowance from the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for its patent application 17/846275, titled “System for Seamless Recovery of Distributed Access Points in a Wireless Local Area Network.” The patent is expected to be formally granted in 2025, providing intellectual property protection extending into the year 2042.
The newly approved patent highlights Peraso’s efforts to solve a persistent challenge in large-scale wireless networks — service disruptions caused by the failure or reintegration of access points (APs). As modern networks increasingly rely on numerous APs to maintain connectivity, disruptions due to lost or rejoining nodes can degrade performance and require full system resets. Peraso’s technology aims to eliminate this issue through intelligent, automated AP recovery and seamless reintegration, boosting both reliability and user experience.
Key innovations covered by the forthcoming patent include:
Seamless roaming for client devices when AP connections are lost.
Instant detection of dropped APs and recognition when they rejoin the network.
A secure protocol for restoring encryption keys during AP recovery.
Automatic reconnection of devices to ensure uninterrupted performance.
“This advancement reflects our ongoing commitment to developing cutting-edge solutions in the mmWave wireless space,” said Ron Glibbery, CEO of Peraso. “Protecting our innovations through a strong patent portfolio not only safeguards our work but also delivers long-term value for our customers, partners, and shareholders.”
Peraso has been steadily expanding its intellectual property holdings as it continues to push the boundaries of high-frequency wireless communications. This latest development reinforces the company’s strategic focus on enabling smarter, more resilient wireless systems across enterprise, industrial, and consumer applications.
The newly approved patent highlights Peraso’s efforts to solve a persistent challenge in large-scale wireless networks — service disruptions caused by the failure or reintegration of access points (APs). As modern networks increasingly rely on numerous APs to maintain connectivity, disruptions due to lost or rejoining nodes can degrade performance and require full system resets. Peraso’s technology aims to eliminate this issue through intelligent, automated AP recovery and seamless reintegration, boosting both reliability and user experience.
Key innovations covered by the forthcoming patent include:
Seamless roaming for client devices when AP connections are lost.
Instant detection of dropped APs and recognition when they rejoin the network.
A secure protocol for restoring encryption keys during AP recovery.
Automatic reconnection of devices to ensure uninterrupted performance.
“This advancement reflects our ongoing commitment to developing cutting-edge solutions in the mmWave wireless space,” said Ron Glibbery, CEO of Peraso. “Protecting our innovations through a strong patent portfolio not only safeguards our work but also delivers long-term value for our customers, partners, and shareholders.”
Peraso has been steadily expanding its intellectual property holdings as it continues to push the boundaries of high-frequency wireless communications. This latest development reinforces the company’s strategic focus on enabling smarter, more resilient wireless systems across enterprise, industrial, and consumer applications.
USPTO Releases New Guidance on Patent Eligibility for AI-Based Inventions
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has issued updated guidance to help innovators, examiners, and stakeholders better understand how AI-related inventions can meet the standards for patent eligibility under U.S. law.
As artificial intelligence continues to evolve and reshape industries, the USPTO has provided detailed insights into how patent claims involving AI technology are assessed—particularly those involving neural networks and machine learning algorithms.
Three Key Takeaways from the USPTO’s Hypothetical Scenarios
To clarify its approach, the USPTO introduced a set of hypothetical AI inventions, including one focused on data anomaly detection using artificial neural networks. The invention is claimed in three different formats to illustrate various outcomes in the patent eligibility process:
Hardware-Based Implementation Supports Eligibility
When an AI system is described as running on specific hardware or integrated with a technical apparatus, it is more likely to be viewed as patent eligible. This approach grounds the invention in a concrete technological framework.
Abstract Model Training Alone May Be Ineligible
Claims that focus only on the high-level process of training and using a model—without grounding it in a technical application—are likely to be considered abstract ideas and therefore patent ineligible under current legal standards.
System Behavior Based on AI Output Boosts Eligibility
The most nuanced insight reveals that how a system reacts to the AI’s output can be crucial. If the invention includes specific actions triggered by the AI’s decision or analysis, this interaction may constitute a patent-eligible technological improvement.
Why This Matters
These insights reflect a growing effort by the USPTO to balance innovation with legal clarity in the rapidly advancing field of AI. The guidance helps applicants craft claims that are more likely to survive scrutiny, especially during examination, appeals, and post-grant reviews.
The update also introduces a new set of AI-specific examples to guide both patent examiners and inventors in determining what constitutes eligible subject matter under existing laws.
Looking Ahead
As AI technologies become more sophisticated and embedded in everyday systems, the USPTO’s 2024 guidance serves as a critical roadmap for innovators seeking robust intellectual property protection. Those developing AI-driven solutions should consider these factors carefully to enhance their chances of securing a valid, enforceable patent.
As artificial intelligence continues to evolve and reshape industries, the USPTO has provided detailed insights into how patent claims involving AI technology are assessed—particularly those involving neural networks and machine learning algorithms.
Three Key Takeaways from the USPTO’s Hypothetical Scenarios
To clarify its approach, the USPTO introduced a set of hypothetical AI inventions, including one focused on data anomaly detection using artificial neural networks. The invention is claimed in three different formats to illustrate various outcomes in the patent eligibility process:
Hardware-Based Implementation Supports Eligibility
When an AI system is described as running on specific hardware or integrated with a technical apparatus, it is more likely to be viewed as patent eligible. This approach grounds the invention in a concrete technological framework.
Abstract Model Training Alone May Be Ineligible
Claims that focus only on the high-level process of training and using a model—without grounding it in a technical application—are likely to be considered abstract ideas and therefore patent ineligible under current legal standards.
System Behavior Based on AI Output Boosts Eligibility
The most nuanced insight reveals that how a system reacts to the AI’s output can be crucial. If the invention includes specific actions triggered by the AI’s decision or analysis, this interaction may constitute a patent-eligible technological improvement.
Why This Matters
These insights reflect a growing effort by the USPTO to balance innovation with legal clarity in the rapidly advancing field of AI. The guidance helps applicants craft claims that are more likely to survive scrutiny, especially during examination, appeals, and post-grant reviews.
The update also introduces a new set of AI-specific examples to guide both patent examiners and inventors in determining what constitutes eligible subject matter under existing laws.
Looking Ahead
As AI technologies become more sophisticated and embedded in everyday systems, the USPTO’s 2024 guidance serves as a critical roadmap for innovators seeking robust intellectual property protection. Those developing AI-driven solutions should consider these factors carefully to enhance their chances of securing a valid, enforceable patent.