IP Law

IP law analysis

Fitterfly Patent Victory: AI-Driven PGR Tech Secures IP, Revolutionizes Diabetes Care in India

by
Fitterfly PGR technology patent diagram showing AI analysis of CGM data for diabetes outcomes

Digital health just scored a decisive victory. Fitterfly, the pioneering digital therapeutics arm of PB Health, secured a crucial Government of India patent. This patent protects its proprietary Personalised Glycemic Response (PGR) technology. The move cements Fitterfly’s dominant position. It dramatically alters the future of chronic disease management in India.

AI Engine Powers Precision Care

The patent covers the core of Fitterfly’s diabetes program. This AI-led engine is the PGR technology. It allows data-driven care at massive scale. PGR helps millions manage diabetes better. It predicts how specific foods and activities impact blood sugar. It makes this prediction up to three hours in advance.

This prediction power is a game-changer. It removes the daily burden of food decisions for patients. PGR moves far beyond standard, generic advice.

The model boasts a huge training dataset. It analysed over 10 lakh (1 million) Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) data points. It studied over 1.21 lakh individual meals. The algorithm factors in every critical metric. These include age, BMI, heart rate, sleep, and co-morbidities. This process delivers highly accurate, personalised glucose predictions.

Clinical Outcomes Prove Efficacy

The technology already boasts unmistakable clinical success. Over 40,000 members have benefited from the PGR-powered programs. The results are clinically significant, matching high-grade pharmaceutical interventions.

In 2025, 94% of members with very high baseline HbA1c levels (above 9%) saw massive improvement. They recorded an average reduction of 2.8 points within 6 to 12 months. This outcome is comparable to standard multi-drug regimens.

Furthermore, Fitterfly’s data confirms that diabetes remission is possible. It applies to a large number of Type 2 Diabetes cases, particularly in the early stages. The program also delivers holistic health gains. Members improved critical markers. These include reduced serum cholesterol, lower triglycerides, and better blood pressure control. This success transforms patients’ quality of life. It substantially reduces future complication risks.

Dr. Vineet Nair, Head of Program Design at Fitterfly, affirmed the approach. “PGR helps us go beyond standard protocols,” he said. “It delivers care that adapts to each member’s data. This drives better adherence. It guarantees improved glucose control and more consistent progress.”

Patent Builds a Commercial Fortress

The patent acquisition is a legal triumph. It gives Fitterfly a formidable fortress of Intellectual Property (IP).

The Government of India approval confirms the unique nature of the PGR algorithm. It grants Fitterfly exclusive commercial rights. This protection shields the company from direct competition. It also exponentially increases PB Health’s valuation. The technology shifts from a service model to a protected, scalable asset.

Dr. Arbinder Singal, Head of Preventive and Digital Health at PB Health and Co-founder at Fitterfly, emphasized the strategic importance. “Our proven outcomes and proprietary technology add significant value,” he stated. “The patent secures the technical core of our chronic disease management offering.”

The move reinforces PB Health’s vision. They aim to create a tech-first, integrated healthcare ecosystem. Fitterfly’s digital expertise becomes the crucial preventative arm. This balances PB Health’s growing hospital network in the Delhi-NCR region.

India’s Health System Faces Transformation

Chronic conditions devastate India’s population. Nearly 40 percent of Indian adults suffer from diabetes, hypertension, or obesity. This is an immense, growing crisis.

Technology like PGR offers the only viable path to scale positive change. It empowers patients, doctors, and insurers alike.

For Insurers: Diabetes remains the biggest cost driver. Fitterfly’s outcome-led programs offer a clear solution. They reduce the risk of progression and expensive hospitalizations. Several leading insurance companies already recognize this shift. They integrate Fitterfly’s programs into their policyholder ecosystem. This acts as a proactive risk management measure. It lowers long-term claims.

For Patients: PGR grants control. It is a fundamental shift from reactive treatment. It establishes continuous, outcome-led management. This approach improves long-term disease stability. It leads to huge cost savings and boosts work productivity.

Dr. Singal added, “We are working closely with leading insurers. We are shifting the focus from treatment to long-term health stability. This is a crucial step. It builds a more sustainable, future-ready healthcare model for India.”

The successful patenting of PGR technology marks a definitive moment. It confirms that Digital Therapeutics (DTx) is not a supplement. DTx is becoming the first line of defence against India’s escalating chronic disease epidemic. This victory is a resounding signal. Personalised, AI-driven healthcare is now locked in. It is set to dominate the market.

Delhi HC Strikes Down AstraZeneca Patent, Upholds Rejection

by
Delhi High Court ruling upholding patent rejection for AstraZeneca sustained-release Exenatide formulation under Section 3d

The Delhi High Court delivered a decisive verdict against pharmaceutical titans Amylin Pharmaceuticals and AstraZeneca. The court upheld the rejection of their patent application for a sustained-release diabetes injection. This pivotal ruling reinforces India’s strict standards for inventive step and enhanced efficacy. It sends a clear warning: routine modification will not secure a monopoly.

The Exenatide Formulation: A High-Stakes Battle

The legal challenge centered on Patent Application No. 1498/DELNP/2011. This application sought protection for a specific formulation of Exenatide, a blockbuster drug managing Type 2 diabetes. The formulation was designed as a one-component injectable microsphere system. This system was meant to simplify treatment. The applicants claimed it offered practical advantages over existing multi-component kits.

The initial rejection came from the Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs. The Controller argued the invention failed on two critical counts. The High Court, after meticulous review, firmly agreed with the Patent Office.

The First Strike: Lack of Inventive Step

The primary ground for refusal was the lack of inventive step under Section 2(1)(ja) of the Patents Act. This legal standard demands true technical advancement.

The High Court affirmed the Controller’s core finding: the invention was obvious to any Person Skilled In The Art (PSITA). The court argued that the claimed formulation was merely a predictable combination of existing knowledge .

  • Prior Art Combination: The invention simply utilised a known pre-mixed formulation (containing Exenatide and a stability agent like sugar) and integrated it into a known micro sphere delivery system.
  • Routine Improvement: This combination, the court reasoned, was an expected step. It involved no surprising technical effect. It constituted nothing more than “mill on the run” improvement, according to patent jurisprudence. The change lacked the necessary creative spark to merit a 20-year exclusive right.

The Second Barrier: India’s Efficacy Hurdle

The judgement also invoked India’s most powerful safeguard against ever greening: Section 3(d) of the Patents Act.

This section bars the patenting of a new form of a known substance unless it demonstrates significantly enhanced therapeutic efficacy. Mere discovery of a new form is insufficient. It must offer a substantial biological or clinical benefit to the patient.

The applicants stressed the convenience of their one-component system. They highlighted easier administration and better shelf-life. However, the court strictly interpreted the law. It deemed these practical, non-therapeutic benefits inadequate.

The High Court confirmed the Controller’s position: Technical convenience does not equate to enhanced therapeutic efficacy. The applicants failed to provide sufficient comparative data proving their new formulation worked better in the body than the existing drug. This failure to clear the Section 3(d) hurdle proved fatal to the application.

The Applicants’ Defence: Arguments Dismissed

Amylin and AstraZeneca mounted a fierce defence. They contested the use of prior art.

  • Teaching Away: They argued some prior art actually discouraged polymer-based micro spheres, implying their solution was unexpected.
  • Specific Carrier: They claimed their specific use of a non-aqueous carrier, comprising triglycerides of C6 to C12 fatty acids, was nowhere disclosed in a single document.

The High Court dismantled these arguments. It held that the prior art, when read by an expert, provided a clear road map to the claimed invention. The failure to secure a patent rested on the lack of a genuine inventive breakthrough, not on legal technicalities.

Repercussions: A Global Wake-Up Call

This landmark verdict sends an unmistakable message to the global pharmaceutical industry.

It solidifies India’s role as a sovereign state determined to protect public health. The High Court judgement firmly validates the rigorous standards set by Indian patent law.

  1. Generic Market Boost: The decision clears the landscape. It reduces uncertainty for Indian generic manufacturers planning future production of affordable Exenatide versions.
  2. Section 3(d) Power: It confirms Section 3(d) as a pivotal guardian against monopolies based on minor chemical or formulation changes.
  3. Mandatory Disclosure: Innovators seeking protection in India must now meet the highest standard. They must provide definitive proof of enhanced therapeutic efficacy.

The judgement affirms that patent rights are statutory creations, not inherent rights. They must fall within the four corners of the Patents Act. The court successfully prevented the undue extension of a pharmaceutical monopoly, ensuring that only true innovation receives legal protection. The fight for accessible diabetes treatment gains ground.

Patent War: Court Allows Dr. Reddy’s to Export Wegovy Generic

by
Delhi High Court ruling on Novo Nordisk Wegovy semaglutide patent dispute with Dr Reddy's

The battle over the world’s most sought-after weight-loss drug escalated this week. The Delhi High Court made a pivotal decision. It cleared the path for Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories (DRL) to manufacture and export generic semaglutide. This is the key component in Novo Nordisk’s blockbuster drugs, Wegovy and Ozempic. The ruling marks a serious legal challenge to the Danish pharmaceutical giant’s exclusivity in India. Experts call it a potential watershed moment for global access to affordable anti-obesity medicines.

High-Stakes Legal Siege

Novo Nordisk initiated the legal siege. The company sued DRL for patent infringement. Novo Nordisk claimed DRL was importing the active ingredient. DRL was allegedly producing finished formulations without consent. The Danish firm asserted its right to full exclusivity. Its Indian patent for the semaglutide formulation, IN 262697, remains valid until March 2026. Novo Nordisk is aggressively protecting this intellectual property. It is preparing for the highly anticipated launch of Wegovy in the Indian market.

The market value is enormous. Semaglutide treatments generate billions globally. India’s anti-obesity drug market is experiencing a massive surge. It has grown exponentially in recent years. This lawsuit is not just a domestic quarrel. Its outcome will fundamentally disrupt future sourcing strategies worldwide.

Court Rules: India Sales Barred, Export is Free

The Delhi High Court delivered a carefully balanced interim order. Justice Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora made a crucial distinction. The court restrained DRL from selling or marketing its generic version within India. This injunction will remain in force until Novo Nordisk’s patent expires. The court upheld Novo Nordisk’s domestic exclusivity for now.

However, the ruling offered a huge victory to Dr. Reddy’s. The court allowed DRL to continue manufacturing and exporting the drug. This export is permitted to any country where Novo Nordisk does not hold a valid patent. DRL successfully presented its case for export-only manufacturing.

Crucially, the court stated DRL established a prima facie credible challenge against the validity of Novo Nordisk’s patent. This observation severely weakens the foundation of Novo Nordisk’s claim. It signals the court’s skepticism regarding the patent’s full enforceability.

DRL’s Powerful Defiance

Dr. Reddy’s based its defense on two powerful points. First, DRL challenged the patent’s legitimacy. The firm filed a separate revocation petition. It claimed Novo Nordisk was engaging in evergreening. Evergreening is a controversial tactic. It involves making minor modifications to an existing molecule. Companies use it to extend their patent monopoly beyond the intended period. DRL argued the semaglutide formulation lacked genuine novelty. It contended that the core innovation was already disclosed in an earlier patent.

Second, DRL invoked India’s Bolar exemption (Section 107A(b)). This law is vital for generic manufacturers. It permits the making, constructing, or selling of a patented invention. These actions must be solely for uses reasonably related to regulatory approval. DRL argued its exports fall under this exemption. The products are intended for markets where the patent no longer applies. This defense is a cornerstone of India’s robust generic pharmaceutical industry.

DRL’s legal counsel assured the court of compliance. They affirmed DRL holds a license to manufacture. However, they confirmed DRL lacks a license to sell domestically. This undertaking proved critical in securing the export allowance.

The Generic Wave Looms Large

The legal uncertainty creates immediate market anxiety. Novo Nordisk faces mounting pressure. Eli Lilly’s rival drug, Mounjaro (tirzepatide), has already entered the Indian market. Novo Nordisk must now defend its patent rights aggressively. It must also accelerate its commercial strategy. The company recently reduced Wegovy’s price by 37%. It partnered with Emcure Pharma for wider distribution. These moves signal a fierce battle for market share.

Other Indian drugmakers are watching closely. Cipla, Lupin, and Glenmark are reportedly preparing for the generic wave. A successful challenge by DRL could trigger a flurry of similar generic launches. Industry analysts predict massive price drops. Generic entry could slash treatment costs by nearly 80%. This would make life-changing anti-obesity treatments accessible to millions.

The Delhi High Court’s decision to allow exports is a clear boost. It validates India’s position as a global manufacturing hub for affordable medicines. It also highlights the growing international tension. Companies must balance intellectual property rights with public health needs. The final verdict on the patent’s validity will redefine this multi-billion dollar fight. The outcome remains one of the most keenly watched legal developments in the global pharmaceutical landscape today. Novo Nordisk must now mount a final, definitive defense of its prized intellectual property. DRL stands ready to disrupt the market with its generic defiance.

Karnataka High Court Restores “Yezdi” Trademark to Classic Legends of Boman Irani

by
Digital news graphic showing Karnataka High Court building with Yezdi motorcycle silhouette and trademark symbol representing the Yezdi trademark ruling

The iconic Yezdi motorcycle brand has finally received legal clarity. The Karnataka High Court has ruled that Classic Legends Pvt Ltd and its co-founder Boman R. Irani legally own the “Yezdi” trademark. The judgment ends years of uncertainty. It also overturns a 2022 ruling that had temporarily halted the company from using the brand.

Court Overturns Earlier Verdict

In 2022, a single-judge bench had held that Ideal Jawa (India) Ltd — the original manufacturer of Yezdi motorcycles — owned the trademark. The judge stated that the brand remained under the custody of the court because Ideal Jawa was under liquidation. That order cancelled the registrations obtained by Classic Legends and restricted the company from using the Yezdi name.

The new ruling takes a completely different view. The division bench declared that Ideal Jawa had abandoned the Yezdi trademark long ago. The company stopped manufacturing motorcycles in 1996. It entered liquidation in 2001. Its registered trademarks expired in 2007–2008. No renewal was filed. No effort was made to protect or revive the brand.

The court held that such prolonged inaction resulted in the trademark losing its legal protection. The judges noted that trademarks survive only when they are used, renewed, and defended. When a company ignores them for over a decade, the rights lapse permanently.

Why Classic Legends Won

The court recognised that Classic Legends took proactive steps to revive the Yezdi brand. Beginning in 2013, Boman Irani registered new Yezdi trademarks in his own name and later transferred them to Classic Legends. The company used the marks in branding, online presence, marketing, and manufacturing. It also defended the registrations in legal proceedings.

The judges agreed that these actions showed genuine intent to bring the brand back to life. They found that Classic Legends had followed legal procedures and secured registrations after the old ones had lapsed. The court ruled that these were valid registrations obtained in good faith.

The bench also stated that Ideal Jawa’s past glory could not grant it automatic rights. Nostalgia alone cannot revive a trademark. Only active use, market presence, and legal maintenance can protect a brand’s identity.

“Use It or Lose It”: A Clear Legal Message

The ruling sends a strong reminder: a trademark is not a permanent property. It requires continuous care. The court emphasised that trademarks depend on active use and timely renewal. When a company ignores a mark for many years, its goodwill disappears. Without goodwill, the mark loses its legal standing.

This principle shaped the entire verdict. The abandonment of the mark by Ideal Jawa created a legal vacuum. Classic Legends stepped into that vacuum by applying for new registrations, building a product lineup, and taking the brand forward.

What the Ruling Means for the Yezdi Brand

The decision removes all doubt surrounding the Yezdi name. Classic Legends can now invest confidently in expanding its operations. The ruling strengthens the company’s long-term plans and enables stable production and supply.

✔ Dealers and suppliers gain clarity

There is no longer a risk of trademark challenges disrupting sales, distribution, or service arrangements.

✔ Consumers get more certainty

Yezdi owners and enthusiasts can expect stronger support networks, reliable parts supply, and upgraded product lines.

✔ The brand gets a clean identity

The court’s decision ensures that the Yezdi name is free from legal entanglements. This provides a foundation for future launches and expansion.

Industry Impact

The ruling will influence how companies handle legacy brands in India. Many old trademarks lie dormant because companies failed to renew or protect them. The court’s message is clear: a legacy name cannot be claimed without proof of continuous use.

This may encourage companies to be more disciplined in maintaining their intellectual property. Brands with historical value will need to be actively protected. Liquidators and defunct companies may also rethink how they handle dormant trademarks in the future.

What Happens Next

Classic Legends is expected to accelerate its expansion plans. The company has already revived several heritage models. With legal barriers gone, it can introduce new motorcycles, strengthen dealership networks, and explore retro-inspired designs that appeal to modern riders.

The judgment also closes the door for Ideal Jawa’s liquidator, who hoped to treat the Yezdi brand as a saleable asset. Since the court recognised that the trademark was abandoned long ago, it cannot be auctioned or monetised.

Motorcycle fans can now expect a stronger, more stable Yezdi presence in the market. The ruling paves the way for more investment, better service infrastructure, and a long-term revival of the nostalgic name.

Conclusion

The Karnataka High Court’s verdict marks a turning point in the Yezdi story. By awarding trademark rights to Classic Legends and Boman Irani, the court affirmed that active use, not past association, determines ownership. The ruling gives Yezdi a legally secure future. It empowers the brand to grow without fear of disputes. For enthusiasts, it promises new chapters for one of India’s most cherished motorcycle names.

Next Biometrics Wins U.S. Patent for Full-Screen Smartphone Fingerprint Technology

by
Full-screen fingerprint sensor concept showing biometric scan across entire smartphone display.

Next Biometrics has achieved a major milestone with the grant of a new U.S. patent that could redefine mobile security worldwide. The company received U.S. Patent No. 12,471,807 for an advanced full-screen fingerprint-on-display system designed for next-generation smartphones. The innovation, highlighted by Biometric Update, introduces a powerful method that enables biometric authentication across an entire screen rather than a limited sensor area.

The patented technology integrates a micro-heater and a micro-temperature sensor directly within or adjacent to display pixels. This design enables active-thermal fingerprint detection, a cutting-edge technique that reads the unique heat transfer patterns of a user’s fingerprint. Unlike traditional optical or capacitive sensors, this method relies on thermal behavior to create a detailed, high-contrast fingerprint map.

According to Next Biometrics, the system captures precise thermal signatures when a finger touches the screen. Ridges and valleys create different heat pathways, forming a unique thermal fingerprint pattern. The technology also supports 3D imaging, which enhances accuracy and strengthens spoof resistance. With this dual mechanism, devices can achieve improved liveness detection, reducing the risk of fake fingerprint attacks—one of the biggest challenges in biometric security.

The company notes that the new sensor can be applied in both in-cell and out-cell configurations. This flexibility means smartphone makers can integrate the technology into a wide range of display architectures. In practical terms, smartphone users could unlock their devices by touching any point on the screen, marking a dramatic shift from current fingerprint-on-display systems that work only in small, predefined zones.

In a statement published on the official Next Biometrics website, the company emphasized that the innovation delivers several benefits. First, it boosts speed and reliability. Active-thermal sensing operates consistently in various lighting environments, unlike optical sensors that struggle in bright or direct light. Second, it reduces power consumption, making it energy-efficient for mobile devices. Third, it enhances durability because the sensor relies on thermal detection rather than fragile optical components.

This patent also follows the company’s earlier collaborative efforts with a major smartphone manufacturer. In recent months, Next Biometrics signed a confidential agreement with what it described as a “leading global smartphone brand.” Although the company has not disclosed the partner, analysts believe that onboarding such a high-profile manufacturer could accelerate the technology’s adoption. The new patent strengthens that possibility by protecting the core intellectual property behind the system.

With this latest achievement, Next Biometrics expands its intellectual property portfolio to 22 patents, reinforcing its position as a global innovator in secure identity technologies. Over the past two decades, the company has shipped more than 10 million fingerprint sensors worldwide. Its products are already certified under major global identity frameworks, including Aadhaar, MOSIP, and FBI-PIV standards.

Security experts say the new patent arrives at a critical time for the smartphone industry. Users are increasingly demanding seamless authentication experiences, and manufacturers are seeking more secure and intuitive alternatives. Full-screen fingerprint authentication offers both. It eliminates the need for dedicated sensor areas and provides greater flexibility for phone design. With this innovation, manufacturers could create edge-to-edge displays without sacrificing biometric performance.

Industry analysts also highlight that Next Biometrics’ active-thermal solution addresses several weaknesses found in current under-display sensors. Optical sensors often fail with wet or oily fingers. Ultrasonic sensors, though more advanced, face limitations in speed and cost. A full-screen thermal sensor delivers faster recognition, improved moisture tolerance, and lower risk of spoofing—all while being easier to integrate into modern OLED and LCD panels.

Reports from Biometric Update suggest that full-screen fingerprint technology has been a long-standing ambition across the mobile industry. Several smartphone companies, including major Chinese manufacturers, previously explored similar ideas but struggled with cost, reliability, and mass-production challenges. Next Biometrics’ patented system promises a more practical and scalable solution.

Looking ahead, the company sees vast market potential. Beyond smartphones, full-screen fingerprint interfaces could be used in tablets, laptops, point-of-sale terminals, and secure enterprise devices. The technology can also support applications in national identity systems, border control devices, and secure access systems—areas where Next Biometrics already has an established presence.

However, questions remain. The industry will closely watch how quickly smartphone manufacturers begin adopting the technology. Partners will need to validate performance, integrate software protocols, and ensure compatibility with operating systems such as Android. Mass production scalability and cost optimization will also play crucial roles in determining market success.

Despite these challenges, the company’s leadership is confident. Executives described the patent as a “transformative breakthrough” and expressed optimism that it will “reshape the future of mobile authentication.” They reaffirmed their commitment to delivering secure, intuitive, and cost-effective biometric solutions for global markets.

As digital identity systems expand and mobile payments continue rising, the demand for powerful biometric technologies is increasing rapidly. Next Biometrics’ new thermal-based, full-screen fingerprint system could emerge as a defining innovation in that landscape. With a robust patent in place, industry partnerships forming, and strong commercial momentum, the company appears well-positioned to lead the next wave of biometric evolution.

JA Solar and Chint New Energy Strike Landmark Patent Settlement Amid China’s Solar Market Collapse

by
JA Solar and Chint New Energy settle global patent dispute as China’s solar panel market faces oversupply and falling prices

On 29 November 2025, JA Solar announced that it has reached a global settlement with rival Chint New Energy to end all ongoing litigation over proprietary solar-cell technology. The agreement ends lawsuits worldwide and establishes a cross-licensing pact covering their respective “TOPCon” patents.

Under the accord, neither party will file any new patent suits concerning those TOPCon patents. The move draws a line under a bitter legal battle over advanced solar-cell designs — and signals a shift in approach for China’s embattled photovoltaic (PV) industry.

Context: From price wars to patent wars

The settlement comes against a backdrop of severe stress in China’s solar-panel sector. In the first half of 2025, JA Solar — along with other major PV producers — reported steep losses as falling module prices and persistent oversupply eroded profitability.

Analysts warn that this downturn is more than cyclical. After rapid capacity expansion between 2020 and 2023, China’s PV production capacity now far exceeds global demand. According to the company’s own filings, wafer, cell, and module production have all outgrown realistic market needs — triggering a prolonged slump in prices across the supply chain.∙

In response, many firms have cut jobs and scaled down operations: collectively, the top solar manufacturers shed nearly one-third of their workforce in the past year.

As competition intensified, the industry’s battleground shifted from pricing to intellectual property. Companies staked their future on advanced technologies like TOPCon — a next-gen solar-cell design — and used their patent portfolios as strategic weapons.

In that context, the settlement between JA Solar and Chint New Energy stands out. It reflects a pragmatic pivot: instead of draining scarce resources on costly lawsuits, big players appear to be seeking stability and reducing legal risk.

What the Truce Means for the PV Industry

By crossing licensing rights to TOPCon technology, JA Solar and Chint New Energy effectively neutralize one dimension of internal conflict. This could ease tensions, reduce legal overhead, and help firms redirect efforts to production, innovation, or survival.

For the broader industry, the deal might mark a turning point. If other leading rivals follow suit, the era of patent-driven warfare could give way to cooperation, licensing deals, and — potentially — consolidation. Indeed, similar truce agreements have already occurred elsewhere: earlier in 2025, JinkoSolar and LONGi Green Energy ended their own global patent conflict via a cross-licensing deal.

Given the brutal economics — chronic oversupply, slim margins, and falling demand — industry insiders say cooperation may be the only path forward. Consolidation, capacity cuts, and patent sharing may be vital for survival.

What Remains at Stake

Yet, the settlement does not erase deeper structural problems facing China’s solar-panel industry. The volume of capacity far exceeds the actual demand. As a result, many firms — especially smaller manufacturers — may struggle to stay afloat.

Even large companies like JA Solar cannot guarantee profitability soon. To break even, firms may need price stabilization, capacity consolidation, cost reductions, or new demand surges — none of which are assured anytime soon.

Further, while cross-licensing may bring calm, it could also set the stage for consolidation. Companies that fail to keep up may be forced to exit — leaving fewer, more powerful players controlling the global supply of solar modules. That could reshape global solar-module sourcing, trade, and pricing for years ahead.

Why This Matters Globally — and for Solar Buyers

For markets importing Chinese solar modules — including India — the truce could lead to a more stable supply environment. Reduced legal uncertainty and potential consolidation may result in steadier module availability.

At the same time, fewer but larger players controlling core technologies could reshape competition. Buyers may face a narrower pool of module suppliers, and prices may become more rigid.

In short: while the patent battle is over, a larger fight — for survival and dominance in a global oversupplied solar market — has just begun.

Bottom line: JA Solar’s settlement with Chint New Energy closes a chapter of acrid patent warfare. Yet, it does not signal a rebound. Instead, it highlights a harsh reality: China’s solar-panel giants must adapt — or risk being swept away in a global shake-out.

India’s Patent Rules Under Fire as Lenacapavir Crisis Threatens HIV Treatment Worldwide

by
Digital news-style image showing a Lenacapavir HIV drug vial placed on a table with blurred hospital equipment in the background, symbolizing India’s Lenacapavir supply crisis and global treatment impact

A major global health breakthrough is facing a shocking roadblock. Lenacapavir, a long-acting HIV prevention drug hailed as a game-changer, is now trapped in a web of patent disputes, regulatory hurdles, and manufacturing delays. The crisis threatens HIV-prevention programs worldwide, including in India, where millions hoped for rapid access to the powerful medicine.

Lenacapavir drew global attention because of its remarkable clinical performance. Trials showed near-perfect protection against HIV for many participants, raising hopes for an effective tool that needs dosing only twice a year. Health experts described it as one of the most promising interventions in decades.

However, the promise is now overshadowed by a deepening supply crisis — one driven by patent restrictions, stringent approval rules, and slow action from key regulatory agencies.

A Drug with Massive Potential — Now Stalled

Lenacapavir was developed by Gilead Sciences, a major US-based pharmaceutical firm. The company invested years of research and significant resources to create the drug. The injectable version quickly gained recognition for its convenience and effectiveness. For many communities, especially high-risk groups, it offered hope for a new era in HIV prevention.

Global regulators also moved fast. The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorised Lenacapavir for treatment, and international bodies praised its preventive potential. Expectations soared when Gilead signed voluntary licensing agreements with several Indian manufacturers. Companies like Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories and Hetero Labs received permission to produce affordable generics for up to 120 low- and middle-income countries.
(Details: https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/gilead-signs-deals-with-6-generic-drugmakers-sell-hiv-drug-low-income-countries-2024-10-02/)

The agreements were supposed to ensure wide global access. Experts predicted that generic Lenacapavir could cost less than USD 40 per year — far below Western prices.

But reality has unfolded differently.

Regulatory Hurdles in India Trigger a Crisis

India is a crucial player in global generic drug supply. Yet, the country’s regulatory framework has unexpectedly slowed Lenacapavir’s entry. The Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO) has not yet granted the needed waivers for local clinical trials. Without this waiver, Indian generic makers must complete extensive human studies before manufacturing and sale.

These requirements conflict with the urgent global need for rapid deployment.

Public health advocates argue that Lenacapavir already has strong safety data from international trials. They believe India should fast-track approval as it has done for other drugs in the past.
A related regulatory discussion: https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/pune/regulatory-intellectual-property-barriers-hinder-access-to-new-hiv-prevention-tool-experts-10391830/

For now, the approval delay means generic production cannot begin. That pushes widespread availability into 2026 or later, according to several analysts.

Patent Battles Intensify the Challenge

Patent issues further complicate the landscape. Gilead has filed multiple patent applications in India to expand protection for Lenacapavir. Civil society groups and patient-advocacy organisations have challenged many of these claims. They argue that some patents lack genuine innovation and could unfairly extend monopoly control.

Patent hearings continue at the Indian Patent Office.
Context: https://www.business-standard.com/india-news/indian-patent-office-to-hear-objections-on-gilead-s-hiv-drug-patent-claims-124091700981_1.html

If the patents are upheld, they could block or delay generic versions for years.

Global Impact: Programs at Risk

The supply crisis is not an isolated problem. It is rippling across continents.

Countries in Africa, Southeast Asia, and Latin America — regions with some of the highest HIV burdens — expected Indian generic manufacturers to supply affordable injections. Health ministries had already begun planning distribution pathways.

Now, those plans are on hold.

International NGOs fear a surge in new infections if prevention tools remain inaccessible. UNAIDS and global health researchers have consistently warned that long-acting treatment is essential for vulnerable groups who struggle with daily pills.

A detailed global perspective:
https://www.ianslive.in/india-must-ensure-equitable-timely-access-to-lenacapavir-to-tackle-global-hiv-cases–20250929171938

The delay also places financial strain on governments. Without generics, only the expensive branded version remains available — unaffordable for most public health programs.

Experts Call for Urgent Action

Public health experts are urging immediate reforms. They want India to:

  • Fast-track regulatory approvals for generic Lenacapavir.
  • Streamline clinical trial requirements when robust international data exists.
  • Resolve patent disputes swiftly to prevent monopolistic delays.
  • Coordinate with global health agencies to avoid supply imbalances.

Only decisive action can prevent a prolonged shortage.

Conclusion

Lenacapavir promised a revolution in HIV prevention. Its power, convenience, and long-acting profile generated global hope. But today, the supply crisis has become a serious threat. Patent battles, regulatory delays, and slow policy responses have created a bottleneck with real human consequences.

Millions await access. The world cannot afford to let bureaucracy stall a breakthrough that could save countless lives.

If authorities act with urgency, Lenacapavir can still fulfill its promise. But every month lost increases the risk — and the cost — of inaction.

USPTO Issues New AI Inventorship Guidelines: No Special Standard for AI-Driven Inventions

by

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has released new guidance that reshapes the debate on artificial intelligence in patent law. The agency has made it clear that AI systems cannot be recognised as inventors. Only human beings with genuine inventive contribution can hold that status. The announcement delivers clarity at a time when AI-assisted innovation is booming across sectors.

The USPTO confirmed that it will not introduce a special or separate test for inventions created with the help of AI. It withdrew its earlier proposal that sought to rely on the Pannu factors, a legal framework used to evaluate joint inventorship. The office said those factors were not designed for AI and should not apply to human inventors who merely use advanced tools. The agency stressed that the traditional inventorship standard remains fully intact.

Officials stated that generative AI, machine learning engines, and other computational systems function as sophisticated tools. They do not possess legal identity, intent, or the ability to conceive an invention. As a result, they cannot fulfil the legal requirements for inventorship. The office added that inventorship demands a human mind capable of forming the key inventive concept.

The guidance aims to prevent confusion as AI becomes more deeply embedded in research and development. Many applicants have questioned how to attribute inventorship when AI plays a major role in idea generation. The USPTO’s ruling places the burden on humans to show clear inventive contributions. Researchers must document how they shaped the idea, selected AI outputs, refined the concept, or solved the underlying technical problem.

The move brings the United States in line with major global jurisdictions. The European Patent Office, the UK Intellectual Property Office, Japan, China, and India also reject the idea of AI as an inventor. Only South Africa has accepted an AI-named inventor, and that decision was based on a procedural system that does not examine substantive requirements.

Industry experts view the USPTO’s decision as a stabilising force in a fast-moving landscape. They say the clarity will help companies file cleaner applications and avoid costly legal battles. They also note that the ruling could push lawmakers to consider future legislative changes as AI systems grow more independent.

The agency reaffirmed that AI-assisted inventions remain fully patentable. It emphasised that the decisive factor is human contribution, not the involvement of intelligent software. Innovators can freely use AI to ideate, analyse data, generate designs, or simulate outcomes. The key requirement is that a human must ultimately conceive the inventive idea and meet established patentability standards.

The USPTO’s guidance marks a pivotal moment in the evolution of intellectual property law. It reinforces human creativity as the foundation of inventorship while allowing powerful AI tools to accelerate innovation. The agency’s stance sends a strong message: AI can transform invention, but it cannot replace the human mind behind it.

Sun Pharma Achieves a High-Impact Breakthrough as Delhi HC Clears Trademark Suit to Proceed

by

The Delhi High Court has delivered a powerful setback to Artura Pharmaceuticals by refusing to return the plaint in Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.’s trademark infringement suit. The Court ruled that a part of the cause of action arose in Delhi, making the suit maintainable.

Court Rejects Artura’s Jurisdiction Challenge

Artura argued that the Delhi High Court lacked territorial jurisdiction because the company operates from Chennai and manufactures in Andhra Pradesh. The company insisted that its website was only informational and did not target Delhi consumers.

The Court disagreed.

It held that Artura’s online presence — including its website, brochure downloads, and enquiry mechanisms — showed that its products were accessible to consumers in Delhi. The Court stated that these features created a prima facie connection to the Delhi market.

Digital Footprints Matter, Says Court

The Bench highlighted that website accessibility, enquiry forms, and product brochures can amount to purposeful targeting of consumers in a jurisdiction. It emphasised that such online activities cannot be dismissed as passive.

The Court ruled that these factors were enough to demonstrate that the dispute was not confined to Artura’s home states.

Issues Require Trial, Not Pre-Trial Dismissal

The Court noted that determining the nature and impact of online activity involves mixed questions of fact and law. Such questions cannot be settled at a preliminary stage.

The Court stressed that only a full-fledged trial can determine:

  • Whether Artura’s website led to actual sales in Delhi
  • Whether Delhi-based consumers made enquiries
  • Whether confusion between the marks occurred
  • Whether Sun Pharma faced commercial harm in the capital

Sun Pharma’s Case Moves Forward

The decision keeps Sun Pharma’s suit alive. The Court has already granted Sun Pharma an interim injunction, and now the full trial will examine whether Artura’s marks are deceptively similar to Sun Pharma’s well-known brands.

A Powerful Message for Online Businesses

The ruling sends a clear and compelling message:
If your products are accessible online, your legal exposure can extend beyond your physical location.

This precedent strengthens the hands of trademark owners operating in the digital era.

What’s Next

The Court will frame jurisdiction as a preliminary issue during the trial. Both parties will present evidence on actual consumer interaction, website activity, and the likelihood of confusion.

The outcome may set a defining benchmark for Internet-based trademark jurisdiction in India.

Delhi High Court Delivers Major Relief, Revives Trident’s Air-Rich Yarn Patent Battle

by

The Delhi High Court has set aside the Patent Office’s 2021 order rejecting Trident Limited’s patent application for its “air-rich” yarn and fabric technology. The Court directed the Patent Office to conduct a fresh review and assess the application on its merits.

Court finds major flaws in earlier rejection

The Court observed that the Patent Office failed to properly examine the core inventive feature of the claimed invention. Trident had highlighted that its yarn contains pores distributed uniformly across the entire radial cross-section. The Court held that this structural feature was central to determining novelty and inventive step.

The earlier decision had questioned whether Trident used any special means to achieve this uniform pore structure. The Court disagreed. It noted that Trident had submitted detailed manufacturing parameters, and these disclosed how the unique pore distribution was achieved. It ruled that this evidence should have been assessed more carefully.

Trident’s claim and technical advantages

Trident’s technology relates to air-rich yarns and fabrics and the process for manufacturing them. The company claims its yarn improves wettability, absorbency, and drying speed. The fabric also offers enhanced thickness and a softer feel. Trident asserts that its terry fabrics can absorb water instantly and dry significantly faster than conventional fabrics.

Fresh hearing ordered

The Court reversed the earlier rejection and remanded the case to the Patent Office. It ordered that a different Controller must hear and decide the matter. The fresh examination must take place within six months. The Court also instructed the authority to evaluate the invention independently and without influence from the previous decision.

Significance for the textile industry

The ruling reinforces the requirement for reasoned and technically grounded decisions in patent matters. It highlights that structural and functional features of textile innovations must be examined thoroughly. The decision may encourage more patent filings in the textile and fibre-engineering sectors. For Trident, the judgement offers a renewed opportunity to secure exclusive rights over its air-rich yarn technology in India.