battle

Delhi High Court Denies Patent for Kroll’s P2P Monitoring System, Citing Software Exclusion Under Section 3(k)

by

In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has refused to grant a patent to Kroll Information Assurance LLC, a US-based company, for a system designed to track users who share sensitive content through peer-to-peer (P2P) networks. The Court determined that the invention falls under the excluded category of computer programs or algorithms, as outlined in Section 3(k) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970.

🔍 About the Patent Application

The Indian patent application (No. 8100/DELNP/2007), originating from a US priority application filed in April 2005, proposed a monitoring tool. This tool was intended to search P2P networks using keywords and identify users distributing confidential or protected files. The system aimed to create detailed user profiles and support data loss investigations.

According to the patent claim, the system functioned via basic computing infrastructure—processors, memory, storage devices—and relied heavily on software-based algorithms for search and analysis.

⚖️ Key Objections Raised by the Patent Office

The Indian Patent Office previously refused the application for the following reasons:

  1. Lack of Inventive Step: As per Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act, the claimed invention was seen as obvious, offering no technical advancement over existing solutions.
  2. Ineligible Subject Matter: Under Section 3(k), the system was deemed a software algorithm or computer program, which is excluded from patentability in India.
  3. Improper Amendments: The amended claims were said to introduce elements not disclosed in the original filing, allegedly violating Section 59 of the Act.

🧑‍⚖️ Court’s Analysis and Final Verdict

The matter was heard by Justice Prathiba M. Singh, who offered a nuanced interpretation of Indian patent law:

  • On Amendments: The Court held that the claim amendments were valid. They were supported by the original specification and only narrowed the claims, which is permitted under Section 59.
  • On Technical Advancement: Despite allowing the amendments, the Court found the invention lacked any real technical contribution. It merely applied a known method—keyword searching—on a P2P platform using conventional computing resources.
  • On Section 3(k): The bench concluded that the claims represented a computer program per se, and thus clearly fell within the scope of the non-patentable subject matter under Section 3(k).

The Court relied on key precedents, including:

  • Ferid Allani v. Union of India – Read here
  • Microsoft Corp. v. Assistant Controller of Patents
  • Lava International Ltd. v. Ericsson

These rulings reaffirm that software without a technical effect or hardware integration is not eligible for patent protection in India.

🧠 Implications for Software Patentability

This judgment underscores India’s strict interpretation of Section 3(k). Patent claims that describe an algorithm or software-based method without technological innovation are likely to be denied, regardless of commercial or investigative utility.

To secure patent protection for software inventions in India, applicants must demonstrate that their innovation results in a technical effect or enhancement of a computing process or hardware function.

🌐 Useful Resources:

Delhi High Court Rejects Toyota’s Plea for Interim Relief in Patent Infringement Case Against Indian Company

by

New Delhi, July 5, 2025 — The Delhi High Court has refused to grant interim relief to global automobile major Toyota in a patent infringement lawsuit it filed against an Indian company. The Court’s order signals a firm approach to evaluating intellectual property claims, especially in complex technology-related cases.

🔎 The Lawsuit

Toyota, a leading Japanese car manufacturer, approached the Delhi High Court claiming that an Indian firm had unlawfully used its patented automotive technology. Though details of the patent involved were not made public, Toyota argued that the Indian company’s products infringed upon its exclusive intellectual property rights.

The company sought a court-ordered injunction, hoping to immediately stop the Indian firm from using or selling the allegedly infringing products in the Indian market. Toyota emphasized the importance of protecting its technological innovations and preventing damage to its brand and business.

⚖️ Court’s Stand

The case was heard by Justice Anish Dayal, who declined Toyota’s request for interim relief. The Court ruled that holding a patent alone is not enough to justify an injunction at the preliminary stage.

Justice Dayal observed that patent disputes often involve technical complexities and require deeper investigation. He stated that a mere claim of infringement cannot result in a blanket order against the defendant without careful judicial scrutiny.

The Court emphasized the importance of considering all sides. It weighed the “balance of convenience” and the potential hardship that an injunction could cause to the Indian company. The judge ruled that an immediate halt to operations could unfairly affect the Indian firm before the matter is fully adjudicated.

🧩 Legal Significance

This decision reinforces the judiciary’s cautious approach in IP matters. It highlights that patent holders — even large multinational corporations — must present strong, clear evidence before expecting urgent court action.

The Court’s refusal does not end the matter. Instead, it means the case will now move forward through the regular judicial process. Both parties will have the opportunity to present their arguments and technical evidence in detail.

🏭 Implications for the Indian Company

The Indian firm, whose identity remains undisclosed in initial reports, has gained temporary relief through the Court’s decision. It will be allowed to continue its business activities for now. This ruling offers reassurance to Indian businesses that patent enforcement actions will be tested thoroughly and fairly, especially when initiated by foreign giants.

🌐 Industry Context

Toyota is known for vigorously defending its intellectual property globally. As India’s automotive sector continues to grow, patent disputes between local manufacturers and global players are becoming more common. This case is an example of the challenges multinational corporations face when navigating India’s legal landscape.

The ruling also underlines the importance of strong legal documentation and evidence when initiating IP litigation in India. Courts are unlikely to grant early-stage relief without thoroughly understanding the technical merits of the case.

📌 Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s decision to reject Toyota’s plea for interim relief underscores its commitment to due process in patent cases. While the matter is still under legal review, the Court has sent a clear message — all parties, regardless of their size or origin, must meet the same standards of proof before expecting judicial intervention.

⚠️ Disclaimer:

This article is based on publicly available reports and is for informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice. For accurate legal interpretation, readers should refer to official court documents or consult legal professionals.

Samsung Faces Legal Battle for Alleged eSIM Patent Violations

by

In a significant development in the world of intellectual property and telecommunications, Network-1 Technologies, Inc. (NYSE: NTIP) has initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. The suit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, a jurisdiction known for handling complex patent litigation.

The case revolves around Samsung’s alleged unauthorized use of Network-1’s eSIM and 5G authentication technologies in a wide range of its mobile devices, including smartphones, tablets, and smartwatches.

🔍 Allegations and Patent Details

Network-1 asserts that six U.S. patents from its M2M/IoT (Machine-to-Machine/Internet of Things) portfolio are being violated. These patents—acquired by Network-1 in December 2017—are said to cover core authentication and secure communication technologies used in eSIM-based mobile devices.

The patents in question are expected to remain valid until 2033–2034, placing them well within their enforceable lifespan.

The complaint alleges that Samsung incorporated these patented technologies into its Galaxy series of devices without obtaining a proper license, thereby violating Network-1’s intellectual property rights.

📈 Market Relevance and Timing

The timing of the lawsuit is strategic. According to the Trusted Connectivity Alliance, more than 500 million eSIM-capable devices were shipped globally in 2024 alone—a 56% rise in eSIM profile downloads from the previous year. Samsung is a major player in this fast-growing market.

With the rapid expansion of 5G and eSIM adoption, Network-1’s patented technologies play a critical role in ensuring secure authentication and connectivity—making them highly valuable in today’s mobile device ecosystem.

🧠 About Network-1 Technologies

Network-1 is a well-known intellectual property licensing company that specializes in acquiring and enforcing technology patents. The company does not manufacture products but focuses on monetizing its IP assets through licensing and litigation.

Their M2M/IoT patent portfolio includes:

41 U.S. patents

15 international patents

25 pending applications globally

⚖️ Legal Strategy and Implications

Filing in the Eastern District of Texas—a patent-holder-friendly court—could give Network-1 a strategic advantage. Samsung, on the other hand, is expected to vigorously defend its position, potentially challenging the validity, enforceability, or scope of the patents.

Legal experts suggest that if Network-1 prevails, it could result in:

A licensing agreement worth millions

Monetary damages

A possible injunction against the sale of infringing devices

Given the global scale of Samsung’s product distribution, the outcome of this case could have far-reaching consequences for both parties.

🔮 What’s Next?

Both parties are likely to engage in extensive pre-trial activities, including evidence discovery and expert testimony. The tech industry will be closely watching the case, which could reshape licensing norms in the high-growth sectors of 5G, IoT, and mobile security.

Court Rules in Favor of WEE POWER Trademark Over Ferrari

by

In a significant legal decision, the Kuala Lumpur High Court has ruled in favor of Sunrise-Mark Sdn Bhd, a Malaysian company that produces the energy drink WEE POWER, in a trademark dispute brought by luxury Italian carmaker Ferrari SpA.

Ferrari alleged that the WEE POWER logo, which features two rearing horses on either side of a prominent “W”, bore too close a resemblance to Ferrari’s iconic single rearing horse emblem, potentially misleading consumers and damaging Ferrari’s brand identity. However, the court dismissed these claims, stating that the trademarks are distinct in design, context, and usage.

Case Overview

The dispute arose when Sunrise-Mark applied to register the WEE POWER trademark in Malaysia. Ferrari objected, arguing that the drink’s branding, particularly the horse imagery, could cause brand confusion and infringe upon Ferrari’s intellectual property.

The court, however, found the argument to be without sufficient basis. Presiding judge Justice Wong Kian Kheong highlighted that while both logos contain horse figures, their visual representation and overall branding are clearly distinguishable.

Court’s Findings

In the detailed judgment, the court noted several key differences:

Logo Structure: Ferrari’s emblem is a solitary horse standing on its hind legs, a symbol tightly associated with its automotive legacy. In contrast, WEE POWER’s mark features two horses, each facing inward with a stylized “W” at the center and the words “WEE POWER” below.

Sector Disparity: Ferrari is a luxury automobile brand, while Sunrise-Mark produces consumer beverages. The judge stated that it is unlikely any reasonable consumer would associate an energy drink with a supercar manufacturer.

Meaning of “WEE”: The name “WEE” was accepted by the court as being derived from the name of the company’s founder, Wee Juan Chien, rather than an attempt to imitate or draw attention through the use of the English word.

Due to these factors, the court ruled there was no risk of public confusion nor evidence of any intention by Sunrise-Mark to exploit Ferrari’s brand image.

Sunrise-Mark Can Proceed with Trademark

As a result of the decision, Sunrise-Mark is now legally permitted to register and use the WEE POWER logo in Malaysia. The court also ordered Ferrari to bear the legal costs of the proceedings, solidifying the judgment in favor of the Malaysian company.

Company Reactions

Sunrise-Mark issued a statement celebrating the decision as a win for local entrepreneurs and fair competition. The company emphasized that its branding was designed independently and intended to reflect its identity, not to mimic or capitalize on any global trademarks.

Ferrari has not yet released an official statement regarding the ruling or whether it plans to appeal.

Implications of the Ruling

This case highlights the boundaries of trademark protection, especially when large international brands attempt to challenge local firms in unrelated sectors. The decision reinforces that context, industry, and branding clarity are critical in determining trademark conflicts.

This article is for informational purposes only and is based on publicly available reports as of June 2025. It does not offer legal advice. All brand names and logos mentioned are the property of their respective owners.

Madras High Court ruled in favor of Pfizer’s patent rights

by
In a recent global patent disputes, the Madras High Court has pronounced a ruling concerning the ongoing patent dispute in the United States involving Pfizer’s drug, VYNDAMAX (also known as TAFAMIDIS), which is used to treat a rare heart condition called transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy (ATTR-CM).

The case is in focus due to the high stakes involved, as Pfizer holds a patent for VYNDAMAX, which is a formulation of TAFAMIDIS, a drug that stabilizes transthyretin (TTR) protein in the heart, which reduces the life-threatening effects of ATTR-CM. Pfizer’s patent rights on the drug have been contested in several jurisdictions, but this ruling in the Madras High Court is particularly noteworthy, as it reflects the broader international implications of the ongoing patent conflict.

In its order, the Madras High Court emphasized the importance of protecting intellectual property, especially for life-saving drugs like VYNDAMAX in pharma sector. The court ruled that Pfizer’s patent for TAFAMIDIS must be upheld in India, despite challenges from generic manufacturers. This ruling reinforces Pfizer’s exclusive rights over the formulation, production or distribution of VYNDAMAX in the Indian market.

The Madras High Court’s decision is groundbreaking for the global pharmaceutical industry, particularly in the realm of patent enforcement. The ongoing patent dispute in the other countries like United States has sparked heated debates over access to affordable medicines versus protecting the intellectual property rights of pharmaceutical companies. VYNDAMAX is considered a breakthrough in the treatment of a condition that severely impacts the heart, and its exclusivity remains a point of contention in markets where generic alternatives are being sought.

Pfizer has expressed its satisfaction with the ruling, stating that it affirms the company’s commitment to innovation and patient care. The company further emphasized that the decision will help ensure that VYNDAMAX remains available to those who need it while protecting the intellectual property rights of pharmaceutical innovators.

Although, it is expected that this ruling will have limited direct effect on markets outside of India, but it does signify the growing importance of patent protection in the global pharmaceutical landscape. Stakeholders, including patients, healthcare providers, and competitors, are keenly awaiting further developments in this high-profile case.

As the patent battle continues across borders, it remains to be seen how other jurisdictions will respond to similar challenges regarding VYNDAMAX and whether further legal actions will alter the course of the ongoing dispute.

“Linezolid” Patent Revoked After Post-Grant Opposition by Symed Labs

by
The Indian Patent Office has revoked Patent No. 281489 (Application No. 201641013830) following a post-grant opposition filed by Symed Labs. The patent was granted on 20 March, 2017 and the post grant opposition was filed on 5 March, 2018. The patentee had also amended its claims during the opposition proceedings and urged that the application under Form 13 (for amendment of claims) be disposed of so as to be certain of the final set of allowed claims for the hearing. The revocation was based on several grounds:

Lack of Inventive Step (Obviousness): The controller concluded that the patent was found to lack an inventive step, meaning the claimed invention was obvious to someone skilled in the field.

Non-Patentability Under Section 3(d): The invention also did not meet the criteria for patentability under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, which states that new forms of known substances that do not result in enhanced efficacy.

Failure to Disclose Information Under Section 8: The patent holder failed to disclose required information as per Section 8 of the Patents Act 1970, which mandates the disclosure of including the disclosure of status of those applications, at the time of filing and during the prosecution of the patent. regarding corresponding foreign applications of this invention.

This patent pertained to Linezolid, an antibiotic used to treat pneumonia, skin infections, and drug-resistant tuberculosis. The earlier patent for Linezolid had expired on January 1, 2012. The revocation of this patent may have implications for the availability and pricing of Linezolid in India. This decision has highlighted the need for quality standards and more careful examination when it is about critical drugs, particularly in light of public health considerations and the potential for monopolistic practices.

Longi sues JinkoSolar for infringement of new patent technology

by
Longi, has filed lawsuits against JinkoSolar for their patent infringement, both the companies are leading players in the solar industry. The legal actions have been initiated in both countries China and the United States.
In China, Longi has filed the lawsuit at the Jinan Intermediate People’s Court in Shandong and requested an immediate halt to the manufacturing, sales, and offers to sell the allegedly infringing products and other related activities to it. The Court has accepted the case, with an expected trial date of March 20.

In the United States, the lawsuit was filed at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging patent infringement of Jinko Solar’s TOPCon and multiple other unspecified photovoltaic module products.

Longi claims that JinkoSolar has infringed upon its intellectual property (IP) related to solar technology, specifically patents concerning the production and design of solar cells and panels. This dispute comes out as both companies are at the forefront of solar technology innovation. The patents plays a critical role in protecting advancements in the highly competitive solar energy sector.

The lawsuits highlight the ongoing tensions in the renewable energy industry, where patent disputes are becoming increasingly common as companies rush to secure a competitive edge in the rapidly growing market for solar energy products. In these types of cases, the outcome can impact product sales, partnerships, and overall market positioning for the companies involved.

It remains to be seen how these lawsuits will unfold, but they signal the importance of intellectual property rights in the clean energy sector.

Mixed result for Nokia and Amazon in dispute over streaming technology

by

Nokia and Amazon had a mixed outcome at the Düsseldorf Regional Court as both companies were navigate legal disputes related to streaming technology.
Amazon and Nokia are involved in a legal dispute concerning multiple streaming technology patents, with the Regional Court Düsseldorf playing a key role in the rulings.

Patent EP 2 271 048 B1 (EP 048) filed by Amazon, explains a method for provisioning multimedia services that display additional information (like actor details) alongside streaming video. The court ruled that Amazon infringed this patent (case ID: 4c O 49/23). The court ordered Amazon to stop using the infringing technology in their video software and devices. Additionally, Amazon must provide information regarding the use of the technology since January 1, 2023, and compensate Nokia for damages incurred due to the infringement. To enforce this ruling, Nokia has to provide security in the amount of €646.75 million.

Patent EP 2 130 150 B1 (EP 150) filed by Nokia, discloses a systems and methods for arranging media files, such as recommending additional content to users. The court dismissed the infringement claim for this patent (case ID 4c O 50/23), meaning Amazon was not found to infringe on this specific technology.

The case was overseen by a panel of three judges namely Sabine Wimmers, Stephan Janich, and presiding judge Sabine Klepsch.