IP Law

IP law analysis

Chinese Scientists Patent New Norbornene Derivatives for Heart and Brain Disorders

by

Chinese researchers have patented a new class of norbornene derivatives that show promise in treating cardiovascular and neurological disorders. The compounds were developed by scientists at Jiangsu Hengrui Pharmaceuticals Co. Ltd., Shanghai Senhui Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., and Shanghai Shengdi Medicine Co. Ltd.

Patent Covers Broad Therapeutic Use

The new patent claims chemical structures derived from norbornene, a bicyclic hydrocarbon known for its strong and flexible molecular framework. According to the filing, the compounds may be used to treat cerebral infarction, coronary heart disease, myocardial infarction, and cerebral ischemia.

Researchers say the derivatives can help reduce brain and heart tissue damage caused by restricted blood flow, a key factor in stroke and heart attack.

Promising Preclinical Data

One example compound, identified as Compound 1 (Example 1) in the patent, showed encouraging results in animal tests. In a rat model of middle cerebral artery occlusion (MCAO)—a standard method for studying stroke—the compound improved neurological function scores and significantly reduced cerebral infarct size.

These findings suggest that the norbornene-based molecules may protect brain tissue from ischemic injury and improve recovery after a stroke.

A Step Toward Novel Cardiovascular Therapies

Cardiovascular and ischemic brain disorders remain major global health challenges. Current treatments often focus on managing symptoms rather than repairing damage. The new patent could open the door to novel neuroprotective and cardioprotective drugs that act at the molecular level to limit cell death.

The involvement of Jiangsu Hengrui, one of China’s leading pharmaceutical innovators, highlights the country’s growing role in global drug discovery and intellectual property generation.

Early Stage, but Strong Potential

The norbornene derivatives are still at an early research stage. Human trials have not yet been announced. However, securing a patent gives the developers exclusive rights to further research, licensing, or partnership opportunities.

Experts note that norbornene’s unique ring structure allows scientists to design molecules with precise pharmacological activity and stability, making it a versatile scaffold in modern medicinal chemistry.

China’s Rising Innovation in Medicinal Chemistry

In recent years, Chinese pharmaceutical firms have filed a growing number of patents in cardiovascular, oncology, and neurological drug categories. This trend reflects China’s ambition to shift from generic drug manufacturing toward innovative, IP-driven R&D.

The latest norbornene patent strengthens that trajectory and adds another example of homegrown chemical innovation aimed at life-threatening diseases.

Ola Electric Files Design Patent for Compact Urban EV

by

Ola Electric appears to be working on a compact electric car as a new design patent surfaces online. The patent hints at a shift in the company’s focus from premium sedans to affordable, urban electric vehicles aimed at mass adoption.

The design, filed in India, showcases a futuristic compact hatchback with short overhangs and a minimalist exterior. The model seems to have a two-row layout and a full-width LED light bar at the front. The overall design suggests a city-friendly car tailored for dense urban environments.

According to reports, the upcoming model will likely use Ola’s Gen 4 platform. This new modular platform can support two-, three-, and four-wheeled electric vehicles. Ola aims to use it for scooters, small cars, and light commercial vehicles.

The company’s in-house developed 4680 Bharat cell could power the car. The locally produced cell promises better energy density and lower cost, helping Ola reduce dependence on imported components. This aligns with Ola’s plan to make India self-reliant in electric mobility technology.

The compact EV marks a clear change in Ola’s product strategy. The firm had earlier teased a sleek performance-oriented electric sedan, but the latest patent shows a move toward the volume-driven small car segment. Industry experts say this decision could open new opportunities in the growing affordable EV market.

If Ola succeeds, it could compete directly with the Tata Tiago EV, MG Comet EV, and Citroën eC3, all positioned below ₹10 lakh in India. A well-priced Ola hatchback with a real-world range of around 200 to 300 km could attract first-time EV buyers and daily city commuters.

However, challenges remain. Manufacturing a car requires large investments in design validation, safety testing, and production infrastructure. Ola’s experience so far lies mainly in electric scooters. Scaling up to four-wheelers will test its technical and operational capabilities.

The company has not confirmed specifications, pricing, or launch timelines yet. But experts expect the first compact EV from Ola to arrive by 2026 or 2027, following the completion of its cell manufacturing facility and platform readiness.

If executed well, the compact EV could become a game-changer for Ola and for India’s electric mobility landscape. With localized batteries, a scalable platform, and an urban-friendly design, Ola Electric might finally bring a truly homegrown electric car to Indian roads.

Big Tech Patents: Mind Reading and Dream Control Devices

by

Big Tech is pushing the limits of innovation with patents that sound more like science fiction than science. Recent filings reveal a race to develop technologies that can read thoughts, interpret emotions, and even control dreams. These patents show where the future of human–machine interaction may be headed — and why it worries privacy experts.

Companies such as Google, Meta, Microsoft, and Samsung are investing heavily in brainwave and neural interface research. Their goal is to create seamless communication between human thoughts and digital systems. Some patents describe sensors that can detect a user’s emotional state through brain activity. Others aim to translate thoughts into digital commands without speaking or typing.

One example is the U.S. patent US20110298706A1, titled “Brainwave Actuated Apparatus.” It outlines a device that reads brain signals to control electronic actions. Meta, formerly Facebook, has filed similar patents for mind-controlled interfaces in its augmented and virtual reality projects. These systems could let users navigate digital worlds using only their thoughts.

Even more astonishing is a patent called US20160119391A1, the “Dream Sharing, Visualization, and Realization Platform.” It proposes a technology that records and analyzes dreams to create visual or virtual representations. The system could also use this subconscious data for personalized advertising or market research. The patent even suggests waking a person with an alarm that can be turned off only by describing their dream.

Experts say these inventions represent the next frontier of data collection. Neural data — information drawn directly from the brain — is more personal than any biometric or behavioral data used today. Scientists and privacy advocates warn that such data must be protected with strict laws before it reaches commercial use.

Ethicists fear misuse of brain and dream data for manipulation or surveillance. Governments around the world have not yet created clear rules for neural interfaces. Without regulation, ownership and consent issues could become major challenges.

Despite the risks, tech giants see huge potential. Brain–computer interfaces could revolutionize communication, healthcare, gaming, and marketing. Imagine controlling a smartphone, designing art, or communicating feelings — all through thought.

However, industry watchers urge caution. “Filing a patent doesn’t mean the technology is ready or even possible yet,” one analyst noted. “But it shows where Big Tech wants to go — inside the human mind.”

The battle for these futuristic patents is not just about innovation. It’s about who will own the next generation of human experience — our thoughts, emotions, and dreams.

India Targets 10% of Global 6G Patents by 2030 with Strong AI Focus

by

India has set an ambitious target to capture 10% of global 6G patents by 2030, marking a strong step toward technological self-reliance. The Department of Telecommunications (DoT) announced the goal during the Emerging Science, Technology and Innovation Conclave (ESTIC) 2025.

Telecom Secretary Neeraj Mittal said India aims to be a global leader in next-generation communication technologies. He stressed that Artificial Intelligence (AI) will play a central role in shaping 6G networks. AI will help create intelligent, self-healing, and energy-efficient communication systems that adapt to real-time demands.

The government is working to build a strong ecosystem for research, patents, and innovation. It plans to connect academia, industry, and startups through collaborative projects. The initiative includes over 100 R&D programs focused on 6G technologies, open radio access networks (Open RAN), and indigenous chipset development.

India is also developing test beds and regulatory sandboxes to accelerate experiments in terahertz and optical communication domains. These facilities will support researchers and companies in testing next-gen communication tools under real-world conditions.

Officials said that the 6G roadmap aligns with the “Atmanirbhar Bharat” and “Viksit Bharat 2047” visions. The goal is to transform India from a telecom consumer into a global innovator and exporter of advanced technologies.

AI will serve as a “horizontal technology”, supporting multiple layers of 6G — from network management to predictive maintenance. This will enable faster, smarter, and more secure connectivity.

The DoT is also preparing to make new spectrum bands available for 6G and strengthen the Open RAN ecosystem. Efforts are underway to empower MSMEs and startups to contribute to India’s 6G innovation drive.

Experts view this 10% patent target as ambitious but achievable if India sustains its investment in innovation. The challenge lies in scaling domestic manufacturing, strengthening IP frameworks, and improving international collaboration.

If successful, India could become a key contributor to global telecom standards and a hub for AI-driven 6G technologies, redefining its position in the global digital economy.

Samsung Faces $191 Million Verdict in OLED Patent Lawsuit

by

In a major legal setback, a U.S. federal jury in Texas has ordered Samsung Electronics to pay $191.4 million to Pictiva Displays International Ltd for infringing two OLED display technology patents.

The verdict came from the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, a venue known for high-stakes patent trials. The jury found that Samsung violated two patents—known as the ‘547’ and ‘425’ patents—covering innovations that enhance the resolution, brightness, and energy efficiency of OLED screens.

Pictiva, which holds the rights to these patents originally developed by OSRAM GmbH, argued that Samsung used the protected technology across its smartphones, televisions, laptops, and wearable devices without authorization. The jury agreed, awarding damages totaling $191.4 million.

Samsung has denied the allegations and announced plans to appeal the verdict. The company also filed petitions with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to invalidate the two patents.

The lawsuit, filed in 2023, is part of a broader wave of patent enforcement actions targeting large tech firms over OLED and display technologies. Legal experts note that the Eastern District of Texas has long been a favorable forum for patent owners and licensing entities.

For Pictiva, the ruling marks a significant victory, strengthening its position as a major holder of OLED-related intellectual property. For Samsung, the decision adds to ongoing legal pressures in the U.S. market and could influence future OLED product designs.

Industry analysts believe the outcome underscores the rising value of OLED innovation patents in a competitive display technology landscape. Companies that rely heavily on OLED screens may now face higher licensing costs or renewed efforts to secure exclusive patent rights.

Despite the verdict, Samsung continues to dominate the global display market and remains one of the leading OLED manufacturers worldwide. The company said it remains confident in its legal stance and will “vigorously defend its technology” during the appeal process.

NCLAT Rules CCI Has No Power to Probe Patented Drug Disputes

by


In a landmark judgment, the National Company Law Appellate Tribunal (NCLAT) has ruled that the Competition Commission of India (CCI) has no authority to investigate anti-competitive allegations involving patented products. The tribunal upheld the closure of a case filed against Swiss drugmaker Vifor International AG, marking a key precedent in the ongoing debate between competition law and patent rights.

Background of the Case

The dispute began when Swapna Dey, a complainant, accused Vifor International of abusing its dominant position by making its patented drug, Ferric Carboxymaltose (FCM), unaffordable and inaccessible. The FCM injection is widely used for treating Iron Deficiency Anaemia (IDA), a condition affecting millions in India.

In October 2022, the CCI closed the case, stating there was no prima facie evidence of abuse of dominance under Sections 3(4) and 4 of the Competition Act, 2002. The complainant later appealed this decision before the NCLAT.

NCLAT’s Key Findings

The appellate tribunal observed that Vifor’s product was protected by a valid patent under the Patents Act, 1970. It ruled that once a product enjoys patent protection, the CCI cannot question the manner in which the patent rights are exercised.

The bench relied on Section 3(5) of the Competition Act, which explicitly exempts actions taken to protect intellectual property rights from being treated as anti-competitive. The tribunal noted that the Patents Act is a “self-contained code” for regulating patent rights and related disputes.

NCLAT clarified that the Patent Act prevails in cases where allegations arise from the use or pricing of a patented product. Hence, CCI’s jurisdiction does not extend to such matters.

Patent Expiry and Market Impact

The tribunal also pointed out that Vifor’s patent for FCM expired on October 21, 2023. After expiry, generic drugmakers are free to enter the market, ensuring competition and lower prices.

This observation further supported NCLAT’s view that during the patent’s validity period, the patent law framework—not competition law—should govern disputes involving pricing or supply.

Industry and Legal Implications

The judgment delivers a strong message on the separation of powers between patent law and competition law in India. Legal experts believe it reinforces the rights of patent holders while limiting the scope of antitrust intervention during the patent term.

Pharmaceutical companies see the ruling as a protective precedent that safeguards innovation and patent exclusivity. However, public health advocates warn that it could restrict regulatory tools available to address high drug prices and limited access during the patent period.

The decision may also push policymakers to reconsider the interface between IP law and competition law, especially in the pharmaceutical sector where affordability and innovation must coexist.

Global Context

In contrast to the NCLAT’s stance, courts in the European Union and United States have occasionally allowed antitrust authorities to intervene when patent rights are allegedly used to block competition. The European Court of Justice, in the AstraZeneca case, held that misleading actions to delay generics could amount to abuse of dominance.

India’s latest ruling, however, takes a more conservative approach by prioritizing patent protection over competition concerns, at least while a patent remains valid.

What Lies Ahead

The ruling may be challenged in higher courts, but for now, it sets a clear precedent. The CCI will likely refrain from investigating conduct involving patented products unless a broader market abuse beyond patent rights is proven.

As India continues to balance innovation incentives with public access to medicines, this judgment could shape future disputes in the fast-growing pharmaceutical sector.

Japan Patent Office Rejects Nintendo Patent Linked to Palworld Dispute

by

The Japan Patent Office (JPO) has rejected one of Nintendo’s key patent applications related to the ongoing Palworld dispute. The decision marks a setback for Nintendo as it continues its legal efforts against Palworld developer Pocketpair.

Patent Application Rejected

The rejected application, numbered 2024-031879, is part of Nintendo’s “monster capture” patent family. The patent was among several Nintendo filings believed to support its legal claims against Pocketpair. However, the JPO ruled that the invention lacked an inventive step. In other words, the claimed concept was considered obvious when compared with earlier games and technologies.

Prior Games Influenced the Decision

According to the JPO, existing games such as ARK: Survival Evolved, Monster Hunter 4, and Craftopia already featured similar mechanics. The examiner concluded that Nintendo’s claims did not present enough novelty or creativity to justify a new patent. This conclusion significantly weakens the company’s argument that its gameplay systems were unique innovations.

Legal Context and Options

Nintendo can still respond to the decision. It may amend the claims to address the examiner’s objections or appeal to the JPO’s appeals board. The company also has the option to abandon the rejected application while maintaining its other patents in the same family.

The rejection does not directly impact Nintendo’s other active patents, including JP7493117 and JP7545191, which are currently cited in the Palworld litigation. However, it raises questions about the overall strength of Nintendo’s patent strategy in this case.

Implications for the Palworld Case

For Pocketpair, this decision provides indirect support. While the rejection does not automatically win the lawsuit for the Palworld creator, it helps build an argument that Nintendo’s patents lack originality. It may also influence the Tokyo District Court, where the main legal battle continues under Judge Motoyuki Nakashima.

Industry Reaction

Analysts say the JPO’s decision reflects growing scrutiny over broad patent claims in the gaming industry. Patent offices now demand stronger evidence of originality, especially when game mechanics overlap with existing titles.

The rejection could also encourage developers to rethink how they protect in-game features and mechanics. Instead of relying on general gameplay ideas, future patents may need to focus on more technical or specific innovations.

What Comes Next

Nintendo has not yet commented publicly on the decision. Legal experts expect the company to continue defending its broader patent portfolio in the ongoing court case. A final ruling in the Palworld dispute is not expected before 2026.

The JPO’s decision underscores a shifting trend in intellectual property law for the gaming sector—one that prioritizes innovation over repetition.

Supreme Court Transfers Eureka Forbes–Atomberg Patent Case to Bombay High Court

by

The Supreme Court of India has ordered the transfer of the ongoing patent infringement dispute between Eureka Forbes Limited and Atomberg Technologies Private Limited from the Delhi High Court to the Bombay High Court. The apex court took this step to prevent duplication of proceedings and avoid conflicting judgments on overlapping issues.

A bench comprising Justice Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha and Justice Atul S. Chandurkar delivered the ruling. The court found that both companies had initiated separate but related legal actions concerning the same patented technology used in Atomberg’s “Intellon” water purifier.

Background of the Dispute

Atomberg launched its Intellon water purifier on June 20, 2025. Soon after, the company filed a suit in the Bombay High Court on July 1, 2025, under Section 106 of the Patents Act, 1970, alleging groundless threats of patent infringement from Eureka Forbes.

Eureka Forbes responded by filing a patent infringement suit in the Delhi High Court on July 7, 2025, invoking Section 104 of the Patents Act. The company claimed Atomberg had violated its patent rights related to water purification technology.

The key issue was jurisdiction. Eureka Forbes argued that Delhi had jurisdiction because an online purchase and delivery of Atomberg’s product took place there. Atomberg countered that both companies’ registered offices were in Mumbai, and that the Bombay High Court was already hearing its first-filed suit on the same matter.

Supreme Court’s Findings

The Supreme Court agreed with Atomberg’s position. It noted that although the two cases were filed under different provisions of the Patents Act, the facts, evidence, and central questions were substantially identical.

The bench emphasized that allowing the cases to continue in separate courts could lead to conflicting decisions. It ruled that the Delhi High Court’s suit should be transferred to the Bombay High Court for joint consideration.

The Court further observed that the Delhi suit’s jurisdiction was based solely on a single online transaction, while the bulk of corporate activity and the first suit were linked to Mumbai.

Court’s Direction

The Supreme Court directed that the Delhi case be transferred immediately to the Bombay High Court. It also instructed both parties to seek an early hearing on the pending injunction applications to ensure swift resolution.

With this order, Atomberg’s transfer petition was allowed, and Eureka Forbes’ counter-petition seeking to move Atomberg’s case to Delhi was dismissed.

Legal and Industry Implications

The judgment highlights the Supreme Court’s effort to promote judicial efficiency and consistency in intellectual property litigation. It reinforces that when two suits involve the same facts and parties, the first-filed suit will often determine the proper jurisdiction.

The ruling also clarifies that online sales or deliveries alone do not automatically grant jurisdiction to a particular court if the primary connection and business operations lie elsewhere.

This case will likely serve as a precedent for future patent disputes, especially in the technology and consumer electronics sectors where companies frequently operate across multiple jurisdictions.

Calcutta High Court Sets Aside Patent Office Refusal of Pharmacyclics Application

by

The Calcutta High Court has overturned the Indian Patent Office’s (IPO) refusal of a divisional patent application filed by Pharmacyclics LLC, a U.S.-based biopharmaceutical company. The ruling reaffirms that divisional applications in India can be valid even if their claims differ from the parent application, as long as they find support in the original specification.

Court Restores Fair Examination

The case involved Pharmacyclics’ divisional application concerning a Bruton’s tyrosine kinase (BTK) inhibitor, used in combination therapies for cancer treatment. The IPO had earlier rejected the application, saying the divisional claims were not disclosed in the parent application’s claims and that the shift from method to product claims made it invalid.

However, the Calcutta High Court found that the IPO’s stance was inconsistent. In the first office action, the examiner had accepted the divisional as maintainable. Later, during the hearing stage, the IPO reversed its position and rejected the application on procedural grounds.

Justice observed that such a sudden change violated the principle of natural justice. Once the IPO accepted maintainability, it was obliged to proceed with substantive examination on merits instead of questioning the divisional’s validity.

Specification Support Is Key

The Court also clarified that Section 16 of the Indian Patents Act, 1970 does not restrict divisional claims to those identical to the parent application. What matters, it said, is that the divisional claims are “fairly based” on the complete specification of the parent.

Citing earlier precedents such as Syngenta Crop Protection AG v Controller of Patents and Designs, the Court reaffirmed that divisional applications can stand on their own if supported by the parent disclosure, even when their claims vary in scope or type.

Fresh Review Ordered

The Court set aside the IPO’s refusal order and directed it to re-examine the divisional application on substantive grounds, such as novelty and inventive step. It also instructed the office to ensure that applicants receive consistent and transparent treatment during prosecution.

Broader Impact on Patent Practice

This ruling strengthens the position of patent applicants in India, especially in the pharmaceutical and life-sciences sector, where divisional filings are common to protect different aspects of complex inventions.

Experts say the decision promotes procedural fairness and aligns Indian patent practice with global standards. It also encourages applicants to draft comprehensive specifications that can support multiple claim sets for future divisional filings.

While the ruling applies directly to this case, it is expected to influence other High Courts and the IPO’s approach to divisional patents in ongoing and future cases.

Novo Nordisk and D Young Defend Key Patent for Oral Semaglutide Tablet

by

Novo Nordisk and its legal team at D Young & Co are defending a crucial patent for the tablet version of semaglutide, the active ingredient used in the blockbuster diabetes and weight-loss drugs Rybelsus, Ozempic, and Wegovy. The patent dispute has gained global attention as it could determine the future of oral semaglutide’s market exclusivity.

Patent Dispute at the European Patent Office

The case centers on European Patent No. 2 827 885, which covers Novo Nordisk’s innovative oral formulation of semaglutide. The company claimed a unique two-granule system designed to improve absorption of the peptide drug in tablet form. One granule type contains semaglutide, while the other holds an absorption enhancer called SNAC (sodium N-(8-(2-hydroxybenzoyl)amino) caprylate).

This separation, according to Novo Nordisk, allows the drug to dissolve effectively and remain stable through the digestive process. However, the European Patent Office (EPO) Board of Appeal revoked the patent, ruling that it lacked an inventive step. The Board concluded that Novo Nordisk’s design was too similar to earlier known formulations and did not demonstrate a clear technical advantage across all claims.

Legal and Market Implications

The loss of this patent weakens Novo Nordisk’s intellectual property position in Europe. It may allow generic drug manufacturers to move closer to producing their own oral versions of semaglutide once other protections expire.

Despite the setback, Novo Nordisk still holds a series of related patents protecting semaglutide’s composition, dosage methods, and manufacturing processes in multiple countries. These patents could extend exclusivity into the early 2030s, particularly in the United States and select Asian markets.

A spokesperson from D Young & Co emphasized that Novo Nordisk “remains committed to defending its innovation portfolio” and continues to explore all legal and strategic options to preserve market exclusivity.

Why the Oral Formulation Matters

The tablet version of semaglutide, marketed as Rybelsus, represents a major scientific milestone. It allows patients to take the once-weekly GLP-1 therapy orally, eliminating the need for injections. This has significantly expanded the drug’s market reach and patient acceptance.

If generic competition enters earlier than expected, Novo Nordisk could face price erosion across its GLP-1 product range. Analysts note that even a modest loss in exclusivity for Rybelsus could impact billions in annual revenue, given the current surge in demand for semaglutide-based therapies worldwide.

Global Impact and Next Steps

In markets such as India and China, generic drugmakers are already preparing for opportunities in the oral semaglutide space. Industry experts expect these regions to play a key role in the next phase of the GLP-1 patent landscape.

Novo Nordisk may file divisional or secondary patents to reinforce protection of its technology. The company also retains regulatory data exclusivity in several jurisdictions, offering temporary protection even without patent coverage.

Outlook

While the EPO’s ruling marks a setback, Novo Nordisk’s dominance in the GLP-1 market remains strong. Its pipeline of next-generation weight-management and diabetes drugs continues to grow. However, the patent decision highlights a growing challenge for pharmaceutical leaders — maintaining long-term protection for complex formulations as global demand and generic pressure intensify.