Hoth Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: HOTH), a biopharmaceutical company focused on pioneering therapies for allergic and inflammatory diseases, today revealed two significant advancements in the development of its proprietary antisense oligonucleotide (ASO) cancer-fighting drug candidate, HT-KIT.
The company has filed amended claims with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office to further strengthen the intellectual property protection for HT-KIT. This ASO technology targets MS4A6A and FcεRIβ—genes that are associated with allergic inflammation and mast cell-related diseases. The updated claims enhance HT-KIT’s intellectual property portfolio, reinforcing its position as a unique therapeutic platform with the potential to treat conditions like anaphylaxis, mastocytosis, and allergic asthma.
In addition, Hoth Therapeutics has initiated a Good Laboratory Practice (GLP)-compliant 4-week intravenous toxicity study with a 14-day recovery period in C57BL/6 mice. Conducted in partnership with OnTargetx R&D Inc. and ITR Laboratories, this preclinical study aims to assess the safety profile of HT-KIT in preparation for future regulatory filings. The study will include multiple dose groups, comprehensive pathology assessments, and pharmacokinetic profiling.
Next Steps in Development
Hoth Therapeutics remains dedicated to advancing HT-KIT toward clinical evaluation. The company is conducting additional preclinical studies to further validate the drug’s efficacy and safety profile, and plans to begin regulatory discussions for first-in-human trials soon.
For more information on Hoth Therapeutics and its innovative pipeline, visit www.hoththerapeutics.com.
About Hoth Therapeutics, Inc.
Hoth Therapeutics is a clinical-stage biopharmaceutical company committed to developing groundbreaking treatments aimed at improving patient quality of life. We focus on early-stage pharmaceutical research and development, progressing drugs from the bench to preclinical and clinical testing. By partnering with a team of scientists, clinicians, and key opinion leaders, we aim to discover therapeutics that hold the potential for breakthroughs and offer diverse treatment options. To learn more, visit https://ir.hoththerapeutics.com.
Gayatri
Jio Platforms Achieves Milestone with Two Major Intellectual Property Awards, Strengthening India’s Digital Sovereignty
Jio Platforms Limited (JPL), a leading technology company, today announced a momentous achievement in its journey towards advancing India’s technological sovereignty and digital independence. The Jio was honored with two prestigious intellectual property awards by the Government of India and WIPO for its outstanding contributions to technology and innovation. The awards were presented at a ceremony held in New Delhi.
These accolades not only celebrate JPL’s remarkable intellectual property achievements but also highlight the company’s significant role in supporting India’s Aatmanirbhar (self-reliant) vision, particularly within the telecommunications sector.
JPL’s intellectual property strategy is closely aligned with the Government of India’s ‘Viksit Bharat 2047’ initiative, which aims to transform India into a developed economy by promoting technological innovation, digital transformation, and fostering homegrown technological capabilities. As the Indian government works to realize the Bharat 6G vision, JPL is positioned at the forefront of this technological revolution.
With a strong foundation in research and development and a proven track record of deploying indigenous technologies in 5G and Artificial Intelligence (AI), JPL is set to play a key role in shaping the future of India’s telecommunications landscape. Over the past three years, the company has filed more than 4,000 global patent applications, marking a significant leap in India’s intellectual property ecosystem.
These patents span cutting-edge domains in telecommunications, digital technologies, AI, and other emerging fields, establishing JPL as a global leader in technological innovation.
About Jio Platforms Limited:
Jio Platforms Limited, a subsidiary of Reliance Industries Limited, has built a world-class, future-proof, all-IP data network with state-of-the-art 5G and 4G LTE technology through its wholly owned subsidiary, Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited. The network is the only one conceived and built as a Mobile Video Network from the ground up, supporting Voice over LTE technology. It is designed to be future-ready, with easy scalability to support more data as technologies evolve toward 6G and beyond.
Jio has been a transformative force in India’s digital services landscape, enabling the vision of Digital India for over 1.4 billion Indians. The company’s ecosystem encompasses networks, devices, applications, content platforms, service experiences, and affordable tariffs, empowering everyone to live the Jio Digital Life.
China’s Patent Filings Reach Record High in 2024, Cementing Its Role in Global Innovation
Patent filings from China reached an all-time high in 2024, according to a recent report released by the European Patent Office (EPO) on Tuesday. The surge highlights the growing influence of Chinese companies in the European technology market and their expanding global innovation footprint.
The report reveals that Chinese companies and researchers filed a total of 20,081 patent applications with the EPO in 2024, securing the fourth position globally. This accounts for 10.1% of all applications filed at the office, following behind the United States (47,787 applications), Germany (25,033 applications), and Japan (21,062 applications).
While patent filings from China experienced steady growth over the past decade, the increase in 2024 was modest, with a 0.5% rise compared to 2023. However, the numbers reveal a remarkable long-term trend: applications from China have more than doubled since 2018 and have quadrupled since 2014, underscoring the country’s continued commitment to innovation.
Huawei Leads the Charge
The momentum of China’s innovation ecosystem remains strong, with Huawei Technologies emerging as the top Chinese applicant. In 2024, Huawei filed 4,322 patent applications, ranking second overall at the EPO, only behind Samsung. Other major players from China in the top 50 include LG, Qualcomm, and RTX.
Huawei’s strong showing is indicative of China’s broader presence in global technological innovation. The company’s significant investment in research and development (R&D) continues to drive its dominance in the tech industry. Alongside Huawei, five additional Chinese companies ranked among the top 50 applicants at the EPO, a testament to the growing innovation capabilities of Chinese firms. These companies include:
CATL (14th place, 1,163 applications)
ZTE (16th place, 999 applications)
Xiaomi (20th place, 763 applications)
Vivo Mobile (28th place, 622 applications)
Tencent (49th place, 446 applications)
These rankings showcase the diverse sectors in which Chinese companies are making their mark, ranging from consumer electronics to telecommunications and beyond.
Battery Technologies Fuel Growth
One of the most notable trends highlighted in the report is the surge in patent filings related to battery technologies. Chinese firms saw significant growth in this area, especially in electrical machinery, apparatus, and energy, with a remarkable 32.2% year-on-year increase in 2024. A standout contributor to this growth was a sharp rise in patent applications for battery-related technologies, which soared by 79%. As a result, four Chinese companies—CATL, Eve Energy, BYD, and Zhuhai CosMX Battery—now rank among the top 15 applicants for battery technologies, up from just two in 2023.
This surge reflects China’s increasing focus on energy transition solutions, particularly in the rapidly expanding electric vehicle (EV) market. According to Luis Berenguer, a spokesperson for the European Patent Office, the innovation in battery technology is central to global efforts to transition to cleaner energy sources, making it a key area of technological advancement.
China’s Leading Technological Sectors
For China, the top three technical fields for EPO filings in 2024 were:
Digital communication
Electrical machinery and apparatus
Computer technology
These sectors mirror global trends, signaling China’s specialization in high-tech industries that are central to the digital transformation and the development of emerging technologies such as 5G, artificial intelligence (AI), and the Internet of Things (IoT).
China’s Growing Global Patent Influence
The strong showing by Chinese companies at the EPO is not only a testament to their innovation but also to China’s increasing integration into the global patent landscape. As Chinese firms continue to file more patents, they are helping shape the future of technology, particularly in high-growth sectors like renewable energy, telecommunications, and computing.
The growing number of patent filings also indicates that China is positioning itself as a leader in technological advancements that will have global impact. With continued investment in R&D, China’s influence on the global stage is expected to strengthen, fostering even more innovation across various industries.
As the global technology landscape continues to evolve, China’s rising patent filings at the EPO reflect the country’s central role in shaping the future of innovation.
Apple’s Future Smartwatch May Feature a Foldable Display and Dual Cameras, Patent Reveals
In an exciting development for wearable technology, Apple may be gearing up to take the Apple Watch to the next level with a foldable display, according to a recently published patent application. Originally filed in September 2023, the patent was published by the US Patent and Trademark Office earlier this month, revealing new details about a potential future Apple Watch design that could rival the functionality of smartphones.
The patent application describes an innovative smartwatch with a flexible, foldable display that could open to reveal a secondary screen. The new design aims to transform the Apple Watch into an even more powerful device, providing users with enhanced functionality and additional features typically associated with smartphones.
A New Vision for the Apple Watch
Apple’s foldable smartwatch concept highlights the company’s desire to push the boundaries of wearable tech. The foldable screen, which would be incorporated into the device’s existing display, would enable users to expand the watch’s screen when needed. This would allow for more on-screen content, offering a tablet-like experience but in a compact, wearable form.
The two displays would be designed to fold seamlessly into each other, much like modern foldable phones, offering users the flexibility to switch between a compact smartwatch mode and a larger, more expansive display when required. This feature would dramatically improve user interaction, enabling tasks such as reading emails, viewing detailed maps, and multitasking, which are typically difficult on the small screen of a traditional Apple Watch.
Dual Cameras for Enhanced Functionality
One of the standout features of the patent is the inclusion of two separate cameras on the foldable smartwatch. While details on their specific functions are not fully outlined, the cameras could be used for a range of applications, such as FaceTime calls, scanning barcodes, or capturing photos and videos. This addition could make the foldable Apple Watch a far more capable device, combining the functions of a smartphone, smartwatch, and even a basic camera, all into one wearable gadget.
The incorporation of dual cameras is particularly notable, as it could allow the Apple Watch to take high-quality photos or video while remaining compact and portable. Additionally, having two cameras could open the door to more advanced features like 3D scanning, augmented reality (AR) experiences, and improved video conferencing capabilities.
Improved Usability and User Experience
The design described in the patent also takes into consideration the user experience, featuring a hinge mechanism that would allow the Apple Watch to fold and unfold smoothly. This hinge system would ensure that the device maintains its sleek and minimalistic design, even while offering expanded functionality.
The foldable display would also aim to improve multitasking capabilities. A larger screen would allow users to engage with more apps simultaneously, such as viewing maps, checking notifications, or controlling music, without feeling cramped on a single, small display.
Additionally, Apple’s focus on incorporating cameras could indicate a greater push towards making the Apple Watch a more independent device. This could minimize the need to rely on the iPhone for tasks like video calls, photography, or augmented reality applications, making the smartwatch a more self-sufficient tool.
Expanding the Apple Ecosystem
If realized, this foldable Apple Watch could represent a major leap in the evolution of wearables. Apple’s current smartwatch lineup is already known for its seamless integration with the broader Apple ecosystem, including the iPhone, iPad, and Mac. By introducing a foldable display and cameras, the company would further enhance this integration, offering a device that can handle more tasks while keeping users connected to the Apple ecosystem.
Such a device could serve as a bridge between traditional smartphones and wearables, offering the convenience of a smartwatch with the added capabilities of a foldable smartphone. This would make the Apple Watch a more attractive option for users seeking an all-in-one device that can handle communication, media, and productivity without needing to pull out their phone.
Challenges and Possibilities
While the foldable Apple Watch concept sounds promising, there are still several challenges to overcome before such a device becomes a reality. Foldable displays, while increasingly common in smartphones, are still a relatively new technology in the wearable space. Ensuring that the display is durable, flexible, and able to withstand the wear and tear of daily use will be a key concern for Apple’s engineers.
Additionally, integrating dual cameras into the small form factor of a smartwatch could present design challenges. Cameras typically require space for lenses and sensors, which may conflict with the compact, minimalist design Apple is known for. Achieving the balance between a larger display and maintaining the signature slim profile of the Apple Watch would require significant innovation.
That said, Apple’s track record of pioneering new technology in its devices, coupled with its deep expertise in the smartwatch market, means that the company is well-positioned to tackle these challenges. The foldable smartwatch could usher in a new era of wearables that are more versatile, functional, and integrated into users’ daily lives.
Looking Ahead: When Could We See This Foldable Apple Watch?
As with many Apple patents, it is important to note that the filing does not necessarily mean the foldable Apple Watch will arrive in stores anytime soon. Apple files numerous patents each year for a variety of potential products, and not all of them come to fruition. However, the foldable smartwatch concept aligns with Apple’s ongoing efforts to innovate and expand the capabilities of its wearable devices.
If Apple decides to move forward with this foldable design, it could be several years before we see it hit the market. The company would need to refine the technology, ensure durability, and undergo extensive testing to ensure the product meets Apple’s high standards. Additionally, the company may want to see how the market for foldable devices evolves before committing to a release.
Regardless, the publication of this patent signals that Apple is actively exploring new ways to revolutionize the smartwatch market. Whether or not a foldable Apple Watch becomes a reality, the idea shows that Apple is thinking ahead and continuously striving to improve its products in innovative ways.
Conclusion
Apple’s recent patent application hints at the future of smartwatches—one that is more powerful, more versatile, and more integrated into our daily lives. The potential for a foldable Apple Watch with dual cameras could blur the lines between smartwatches and smartphones, providing users with a truly all-in-one device. While there are challenges to overcome, Apple’s reputation for innovation and design excellence suggests that we may soon see a wearable that offers functionality previously reserved for larger devices, all within the convenience of a smartwatch.
Conflict Between Plant Variety Denominations and Trademarks: A Comparative Analysis Across Jurisdictions
In today’s globalized marketplace, intellectual property (IP) law plays a critical role in protecting the rights of creators, innovators, and businesses. Two common forms of IP protection that frequently intersect are plant variety denominations (PVDs) and trademarks. While both legal mechanisms serve distinct purposes, the conflict between them has become increasingly relevant in agricultural and commercial sectors, especially as the international trade of genetically modified (GM) crops and plant products has expanded. This article provides a comprehensive multi-jurisdictional comparison of the conflict between plant variety denominations and trademarks, highlighting the legal frameworks, challenges, and strategies employed by various jurisdictions to address this issue.
Understanding Plant Variety Denominations and Trademarks
Plant Variety Denominations (PVDs)
A Plant Variety Denomination (PVD) refers to the name given to a new plant variety to distinguish it from other varieties. Under the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV), breeders of new plant varieties are required to assign a unique denomination. The main objective of a PVD is to provide uniformity and consistency in identifying plant varieties and ensuring that breeders and farmers can clearly distinguish one variety from another.
Trademarks
It typically consists of a word, logo, slogan, or other design element, and is registered with the relevant IP office for protection against unauthorized use by competitors. Trademarks serve to protect the reputation of a product or service and ensure consumers can identify the source of goods.
The Conflict
The conflict arises when the same name is used for both a plant variety denomination and a trademark. This situation creates confusion in the marketplace and may lead to legal disputes. On one hand, PVDs are intended to be public identifiers that cannot be monopolized for commercial purposes, while trademarks serve to protect commercial interests. The tension arises when these distinct legal protections overlap, leading to complex legal questions regarding priority, use, and enforcement.
The Key Issues in the Conflict Between PVDs and Trademarks
Prioritization of Rights
The most fundamental issue is which right takes precedence: the plant variety denomination or the trademark? For instance, a company may register a trademark for a product using a specific plant variety’s name, but a breeder may later apply for a PVD for that very variety. Which right should prevail when the two overlap?
Geographical Jurisdictions and Conflicting Laws
The regulation of plant variety denominations and trademarks varies widely across jurisdictions, creating additional layers of complexity. Some countries, such as the United States and the European Union, have distinct laws regarding PVDs and trademarks, with clear guidelines on how to handle conflicts. Others, like India, have emerging or less defined laws that can lead to uncertainty for businesses and breeders.
Market Confusion and Consumer Protection
Both PVDs and trademarks are intended to prevent consumer confusion. However, when a plant variety name is also used as a trademark, it can be unclear whether the product in question refers to the plant variety or the commercial source. This confusion can lead to misbranding, deceptive advertising, and unfair competition, all of which affect consumer choice and protection.
Global Trade and Plant Breeding Innovation
The international trade of plants and plant products has amplified the need for clarity regarding the protection of plant variety denominations and trademarks. The rise of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and cross-border plant sales has made it more crucial than ever to determine the rules for competing intellectual property claims that affect international trade.
Multi-Jurisdictional Approaches to the Conflict
United States
In the United States, plant variety denominations are governed by the Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Plant Variety Protection Office (PVPO). Under the PVPA, a plant variety is granted protection if it is novel, distinct, uniform, and stable. The denomination given to the variety must not conflict with any existing trademarks.
However, the U.S. allows for the coexistence of PVDs and trademarks. When a plant variety denomination is similar to an existing trademark, the trademark holder may challenge the use of the name in court, citing the likelihood of confusion. Additionally, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) evaluates trademark applications to ensure that they do not conflict with prior PVDs.
In practice, this means that while a plant variety name may be protected as a PVD, it could be subject to trademark protection if used commercially for branding purposes, provided that there is no conflict with existing trademarks. In case of conflicts, courts or administrative bodies can weigh the competing rights and determine which right prevails.
European Union
In the European Union, the conflict between PVDs and trademarks is addressed through a well-established legal framework. The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) handles trademark registration, while the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) manages plant variety denominations.
Under EU law, a plant variety denomination cannot be registered as a trademark if it is identical or confusingly similar to an existing PVD. This rule is designed to prevent consumers from being misled about the nature of the product. Additionally, the CPVO requires that any name used for a plant variety must not conflict with existing trademarks in the marketplace.
In the case of a trademark conflict with a PVD, the EUIPO and CPVO cooperate to assess the potential for consumer confusion. If a trademark application conflicts with a registered PVD, the trademark registration is likely to be refused. This system ensures that plant variety names are kept distinct and not used in a way that could deceive consumers.
India
India has a unique approach to plant variety denominations and trademarks. The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act (PPV&FR Act) governs the registration of plant variety denominations in India. The Indian Trademark Act allows for the registration of trademarks related to plants and agricultural products, but there are no specific provisions dealing with conflicts between PVDs and trademarks.
In practice, Indian authorities evaluate whether a plant variety denomination conflicts with a trademark on a case-by-case basis. If the same name is used for both a plant variety and a trademark, Indian courts may rule that the trademark has priority if it was registered first, or they may enforce the PVD if it is determined to be the dominant interest.
Given the developing nature of India’s IP laws, there is still a level of uncertainty in the enforcement of rights related to plant varieties and trademarks. However, the Indian government has been working toward improving the legal framework to ensure clearer distinctions between the two.
Australia
Australia’s approach to the conflict between PVDs and trademarks is guided by the Plant Breeder’s Rights Act (PBR Act) and the Trade Marks Act. Under the PBR Act, the name of a plant variety must be distinctive and not cause confusion with existing trademarks. If there is a conflict, the trademark may be denied if it is found to infringe upon the rights of a registered plant variety denomination.
The Australian system allows for the coexistence of PVDs and trademarks, but businesses must carefully navigate both legal processes to avoid conflicts. When a plant variety denomination and a trademark are identical or confusingly similar, the Australian IP office assesses the likelihood of confusion and takes necessary action to ensure consumer protection and prevent unfair competition.
Conclusion
The conflict between plant variety denominations and trademarks is a complex and evolving issue in global intellectual property law. While PVDs and trademarks serve distinct functions, their overlap in the marketplace presents significant challenges for businesses, breeders, and IP authorities. Jurisdictions such as the United States, European Union, India, and Australia have developed frameworks to handle these conflicts, though the solutions often vary based on local legal cultures and practices.
As international trade and agricultural innovations continue to advance, it is crucial for policymakers to refine existing laws and ensure that the interests of plant breeders, trademark holders, and consumers are balanced. Stakeholders in the agricultural sector must be aware of the potential for conflict and consider legal strategies to protect their interests in both plant variety denominations and trademarks.
U.S. Supreme Court Rules on Corporate Separateness in Trademark Infringement Damages – Key Implications for Lanham Act Claims
In a landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued a unanimous ruling in Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc. that underscores the importance of corporate separateness in calculating damages for trademark infringement. The Court vacated a $43 million profit disgorgement award, a ruling that has far-reaching implications for corporate liability and the recovery of profits under the Lanham Act.
Case Overview: Dewberry Engineers vs. Dewberry Group
The case centers around Dewberry Engineers, a holder of the “Dewberry” trademark, which filed a lawsuit against Dewberry Group, a competing real estate management company. Dewberry Engineers alleged trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, along with a breach of contract claim under state law. The dispute arose from Dewberry Group’s unauthorized use of the Dewberry trademark in promoting its real estate services, despite a prior settlement agreement that prohibited such use.
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that Dewberry Group violated the Lanham Act, concluding that the infringement was “intentional, willful, and in bad faith.” Despite Dewberry Group reporting no profits and relying on cash infusions from its owner, the District Court aggregated the profits of Dewberry Group and its affiliates—non-party entities that held income-generating properties—to calculate the damages, awarding nearly $43 million. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, citing the “economic reality” of Dewberry Group’s operations.
Supreme Court’s Holding: Corporate Separateness Matters
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision, ruling that profit disgorgement under the Lanham Act is limited to the profits of the named defendant—Dewberry Group in this case—and does not extend to its non-party affiliates. The Court emphasized the longstanding legal principle that separately incorporated entities are distinct legal units with their own rights and obligations.
In this case, because Dewberry Group’s affiliates were not named as defendants and no evidence was presented to pierce the corporate veil, the Court held that the profits of these affiliates could not be included in calculating “defendant’s profits” under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a). As the Court noted in remanding the case for a new damages award, “The ‘defendant’s profits’ are the defendant’s profits, not its plus its affiliates.”
Key Unanswered Questions
While the Court addressed the issue of corporate separateness, it did not fully resolve several critical aspects of the case. Specifically, the Court declined to comment on whether the lower court could have used the Lanham Act’s “just-sum” provision (15 U.S.C. § 1117(a)) to award a more equitable recovery by considering affiliate profits. This provision allows courts to adjust profit-based recovery when it is deemed “inadequate or excessive,” but the Supreme Court did not rule on whether this approach would have been appropriate.
Additionally, the Court did not address whether plaintiffs could rely on other methods—such as looking beyond a defendant’s accounting records—to assess the “true financial gain” of an infringing party. Nor did it definitively rule on the potential for veil-piercing, leaving open the possibility for future arguments regarding corporate formalities and liability.
Justice Sotomayor’s Concurring Opinion: A Caution on Creative Accounting
In her concurring opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor raised concerns that corporate separateness could be exploited by defendants to avoid liability through creative accounting. She urged that courts remain vigilant in considering “economic realities” when calculating trademark infringement damages. Justice Sotomayor suggested that the trial court might reopen the record to explore methods of calculating profits that go beyond a defendant’s books, particularly when analyzing financial inflows from affiliates.
Implications for Trademark Owners and Businesses
The Supreme Court’s ruling highlights the importance of corporate formalities and the need for careful litigation strategy. Trademark owners pursuing Lanham Act claims must ensure they identify and include all relevant entities from the outset of litigation, especially when dealing with related or affiliate companies that may have benefited from the infringement.
Failing to name all responsible parties could result in an unenforceable judgment, even if the defendant is found liable. Plaintiffs should also consider whether a veil-piercing argument could be made in cases where affiliates may be used to shield profits from infringement.
While the Court’s decision focused narrowly on the aggregation of affiliate profits, it left open significant questions regarding the methods available for determining a defendant’s true financial gain. This leaves room for further litigation on the most accurate and fair way to calculate damages under the Lanham Act.
Conclusion
The Dewberry Group decision reinforces the principle that corporate separateness must be respected in calculating trademark infringement damages under the Lanham Act. It also raises important considerations for plaintiffs in trademark disputes, urging early and strategic planning to ensure a comprehensive approach to damages. While the Court’s ruling narrows the scope of profit recovery, it also leaves open avenues for creative legal arguments and future litigation on corporate liability.
Autonomix Medical, Inc. Awarded U.S. Patent for Advanced Sensing Data Collection and Processing with Proprietary Catheter-Based Technology
Autonomix Medical, Inc., a leader in cutting-edge medical technology, is proud to announce the granting of a new U.S. patent that reinforces the company’s position at the forefront of the healthcare industry. The patent covers the innovative sensing data collection and processing capabilities of the company’s proprietary catheter-based technology, a breakthrough that is set to revolutionize diagnostic procedures.
This newly granted patent enhances the efficiency and accuracy of real-time data capture during medical procedures. The technology provides clinicians with unprecedented insights, improving patient outcomes and streamlining medical interventions. With its ability to capture and process complex sensing data, Autonomix Medical’s catheter-based solution offers significant advantages in precision medicine, diagnostics, and treatment delivery.
The proprietary catheter design integrates advanced sensors that enable dynamic, high-quality data collection with minimal disruption to patients, ensuring a safer, more effective diagnostic experience. This latest patent further solidifies Autonomix Medical’s commitment to innovation and excellence in the medical device field.
“We are thrilled to receive this patent, which underscores the potential of our technology to transform diagnostic practices and enhance the quality of patient care,” said [Name, Title], of Autonomix Medical, Inc. “Our catheter-based solution represents a critical step forward in how medical professionals access and interpret patient data during procedures, ultimately improving treatment strategies and clinical outcomes.”
This patent grant marks another milestone in Autonomix Medical’s ongoing efforts to drive advancements in medical technologies, and it opens the door for future applications of the technology across various healthcare sectors. With its strong intellectual property portfolio, Autonomix Medical is poised to continue leading the way in the development of next-generation medical devices.
About Autonomix Medical, Inc.
Autonomix Medical, Inc. is a pioneering company focused on developing innovative catheter-based medical devices and technologies designed to enhance diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. With a commitment to improving patient outcomes, Autonomix Medical continues to lead in the advancement of precision medicine and healthcare solutions.
Johnson & Johnson’s Stelara, Regeneron’s Eylea, and Amgen’s Prolia Among the Key Drugs Facing Biosimilars and Generics in 2025 Patent Cliff
As patents for some of the pharmaceutical industry’s blockbuster drugs set to expire in 2025, the market is poised for a wave of new biosimilars and generics that will create significant competition. This is the focus of Fierce Pharma’s latest annual special report, which tracks the top 10 drugs facing patent expirations and their resulting impact on the industry.
Among the major drugs featured are Johnson & Johnson’s Stelara, Regeneron’s Eylea, and Amgen’s Prolia – each set to lose U.S. exclusivity in 2025 and face off against an influx of biosimilars or generics, potentially reshaping the competitive landscape for these therapies.
Stelara: A Blockbuster Facing a Steep Decline
Johnson & Johnson’s Stelara, a widely used immunology drug, is one of the most prominent drugs in the lineup. Stelara is used to treat conditions such as psoriasis, Crohn’s disease, and ulcerative colitis, and has been a significant revenue driver for the company. However, its patent is set to expire in 2025, and it will soon face the challenge of biosimilar competition.
This year, biosimilars aiming for Stelara’s spot in the market are expected to enter, offering more affordable alternatives. The loss of exclusivity for Stelara will not only diminish J&J’s revenue from the drug, but it will also force the company to adjust its market strategy as biosimilar products carve out their share of the market.
Eylea: Regeneron’s Blockbuster Faces Generic Challenges
Regeneron’s Eylea, a leading drug for age-related macular degeneration (AMD), will also lose its U.S. patent exclusivity in 2025, opening the door for generic and biosimilar versions. With Eylea generating billions in revenue for Regeneron, the patent cliff poses a serious threat to the company’s bottom line.
As new competitors, including biosimilars, enter the market, the pricing pressure on Eylea will intensify. In particular, the launch of biosimilars could drive down the cost of treatment for AMD, but also challenge Regeneron’s established market dominance. The impact of these new entrants will likely be felt both by Regeneron and the broader ophthalmology space.
Prolia: Amgen’s Bone Drug Faces Biosimilars
Amgen’s Prolia, an osteoporosis drug, is another significant therapy nearing the end of its patent exclusivity in 2025. Prolia has long been a cornerstone of Amgen’s portfolio, providing treatment for osteoporosis and other bone-related disorders. As Prolia’s patent expires, biosimilars will enter the market, offering lower-cost alternatives.
The arrival of biosimilars in the osteoporosis space will likely cause a shift in market dynamics, with patients and healthcare providers opting for more affordable versions of the drug. For Amgen, the loss of exclusivity for Prolia represents a significant revenue loss and a reminder of the competitive pressures in the biologics market as more biosimilars come to market.
The 2025 Patent Cliff: What It Means for the Industry
Fierce Pharma’s report highlights the magnitude of the 2025 patent cliff, where multiple major biologics and medications are set to lose their U.S. exclusivity. The expiration of patents for these blockbuster drugs opens the door for biosimilars and generics to enter the market, providing more affordable alternatives for patients, but also creating a challenge for the companies that have relied on these drugs for significant revenue.
In this week’s episode of The Top Line, Fierce Pharma’s Eric Sagonowsky and Angus Liu discuss the industry implications of the 2025 patent cliff. They dive into the stories behind these 10 key drugs, offering their perspectives on the anticipated shifts in the market and the broader effects these patent expirations could have on the pharmaceutical industry.
The competition from generics and biosimilars will likely result in lower drug prices, which is generally beneficial for patients but also challenging for drug manufacturers who will need to adapt their strategies to manage revenue loss and maintain market share. As biosimilars and generics continue to gain traction, pharmaceutical companies may focus more on innovation, exploring new indications, or expanding existing drug portfolios to offset the revenue impact from patent expirations.
The industry also anticipates that patent cliffs such as these will intensify as more biologics and blockbuster drugs approach the end of their exclusivity periods. This shift marks a turning point in the industry, as the balance between protecting intellectual property and fostering competition in the healthcare market continues to evolve.
A New Era for the Pharmaceutical Industry
2025’s significant patent cliff will challenge established pharmaceutical companies to rethink their market strategies, as new entrants disrupt the landscape. With the potential for lower drug prices and increased accessibility, patients may ultimately benefit from these developments, while manufacturers will need to find ways to innovate and protect their market positions.
As we move further into 2025, all eyes will be on the evolving competition, as Stelara, Eylea, Prolia, and other blockbuster drugs face off against the growing force of biosimilars and generics. The pharmaceutical industry’s response will be critical in shaping the future of drug pricing, patient access, and innovation.
UserTesting Granted U.S. Patent for AI-Powered Intent Customization Technology to Enhance Industry-Specific Insights
UserTesting, a leading provider of human insights, has been granted U.S. Patent No. 12,242,515 B2 for its groundbreaking artificial intelligence-powered intent customization technology. This innovation allows organizations to adapt AI-generated insights to their industry-specific terminology, enabling more relevant and actionable data without compromising global consistency.
The newly patented technology represents a significant advancement in UserTesting’s Custom Insights feature, which allows businesses to refine AI-generated insights using their own industry-specific language. Powered by machine learning, the innovation offers several key benefits:
Relevance: AI intent labels can be dynamically adjusted to align with the language used in a specific industry, surfacing more pertinent insights.
Consistency: The technology ensures consistency across teams by establishing a shared language for experience research, making insights easier to interpret and apply organization-wide.
Clarity: Key moments in video feedback can be pinpointed and analyzed with greater ease, providing a more in-depth understanding of customer experiences.
Ranjitha Kumar, Chief Scientist at UserTesting, highlighted the importance of this technology: “Handling the tedious parts of your job and increasing the speed to insight is one of the best uses of AI. Every company thinks and talks about customer experience (CX) in their own unique way. ”
This patent marks another milestone in UserTesting’s mission to provide businesses with more personalized, relevant, and actionable insights. By leveraging AI to fine-tune experience research with industry-specific terminology, the company empowers organizations to stay ahead in an increasingly competitive landscape, making it easier to understand and respond to customer needs in real time.
About UserTesting
UserTesting is a leading provider of human insights that enable organizations to make data-driven decisions based on real customer experiences. Through its platform, businesses can capture and analyze authentic user feedback, helping them to enhance their digital products and services. The company’s AI-powered tools, including the patented Custom Insights feature, streamline the process of gaining relevant insights, offering a powerful solution for businesses seeking to improve customer experience.
Recent Developments in U.S. Intellectual Property Rights
Recent events in the United States have spotlighted the dynamic landscape of intellectual property rights (IPR), encompassing high-profile legal actions, policy debates, and strategic industry shifts.
High-Profile Legal Action: Eminem’s Unreleased Music Theft
Joseph Strange, a former employee of rapper Eminem (born Marshall Mathers), has been charged with criminal infringement of copyright and interstate transportation of stolen goods. Strange allegedly sold over 25 unreleased tracks online without Eminem’s consent. The FBI’s investigation traced the unauthorized distribution to a studio hard drive linked to Strange. Facing up to 15 years in prison if convicted, Strange’s defense challenges the charges, questioning their evidentiary strength.
EW.COM
Policy Debate: AI Firms Advocate for Unrestricted Use of Copyrighted Content
Leading AI companies, including OpenAI and Google, are lobbying for the unrestricted use of copyrighted materials in their training processes. They argue that limiting access could hinder U.S. competitiveness in AI development, especially against nations like China. This stance has sparked opposition from creative professionals, such as actors, filmmakers, and publishers, who stress the importance of protecting original content. Numerous lawsuits have been filed against AI firms alleging violations of intellectual property laws.
AXIOS
Enforcement Efforts: New Leadership at the IPR Center
Ivan J. Arvelo has been appointed as the Director of the National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center (IPR Center), enhancing the U.S. government’s efforts to combat global intellectual property theft. The IPR Center collaborates with federal agencies, international law enforcement, academia, and private sector partners to protect businesses and consumers from counterfeit and pirated goods.
IPRCENTER.GOV
International Advocacy: State Department Champions Global IP Protection
The U.S. Department of State’s Office of International Intellectual Property Enforcement continues to advocate for effective IP protection worldwide. The office works closely with U.S. ambassadors and diplomats to represent American rights holders abroad, emphasizing the role of IP in fostering global innovation and economic growth.
STATE DEPARTMENT
IP UPDATE
These developments underscore the evolving challenges and strategic responses within the U.S. intellectual property landscape, highlighting the balance between innovation, protection, and enforcement.