In a notable step toward advancing real-world applications of quantum computing, Bengaluru-based IT services company Mphasis announced on Wednesday that it has been granted a U.S. patent titled “System and method for optimized processing of information on quantum systems.” This new intellectual property milestone positions Mphasis at the forefront of innovation in Quantum Machine Learning (QML)—a field rapidly reshaping the future of artificial intelligence and data processing.
🚀 A New Era for Quantum-AI Integration
As quantum computing evolves from theory to practice, one of the major challenges lies in efficiently translating classical data into quantum-compatible formats. Mphasis’ patented solution directly tackles this issue by providing a pipeline for transforming high-dimensional classical data into an optimized quantum feature space. This ensures that data is not only properly prepared for quantum processing, but also that it maximizes performance while minimizing resource usage—a key concern with today’s qubit-limited quantum systems.
The technology is designed to:
Reduce the need for additional qubits when dealing with complex, high-dimensional data
Manage large feature sets and data volumes with efficiency
Improve convergence speed during QML model training, thereby shortening time-to-insight
In simpler terms, this patent paves the way for faster, more scalable, and more cost-effective quantum machine learning models—making QML a more viable tool for businesses and researchers alike.
💬 Industry Perspective
Srikumar Ramanathan, Chief Solutions Officer at Mphasis, emphasized the transformative nature of the development:
This sentiment reflects a growing consensus in the tech world that quantum computing—particularly in synergy with AI—holds immense potential to solve complex problems in fields ranging from finance and healthcare to logistics and cybersecurity.
🧩 Why This Patent Matters
While quantum computing remains in its nascent stage, the importance of developing hardware-aware, forward-compatible algorithms and data pipelines cannot be overstated. Most current quantum devices have limited qubit counts and high error rates. By creating methods that optimize data preparation and quantum state loading, Mphasis is future-proofing its QML capabilities for both near-term quantum simulators and more powerful systems to come.
Furthermore, this development is in line with a broader industry trend of investing in hybrid computing solutions—where classical and quantum processors collaborate, each handling tasks they’re best suited for.
🌐 Mphasis: Driving Innovation Beyond Traditional IT
Known for its expertise in cloud, cognitive services, and digital transformation, Mphasis has steadily expanded its footprint in cutting-edge technology domains, including AI, blockchain, and now quantum computing. The new patent is not just a technological feat—it’s a strategic asset that strengthens the firm’s position as a forward-looking technology partner for enterprises navigating the quantum era.
🔮 Looking Ahead
Quantum computing may still be a few years away from widespread enterprise adoption, but milestones like this show that companies like Mphasis are not waiting for the future—they’re building it. By addressing core technical bottlenecks in quantum machine learning today, Mphasis is laying the groundwork for solutions that could redefine what’s possible in data-driven innovation tomorrow.
Uncategorized
CERo Therapeutics Expands Patent Portfolio with Two Key Approvals for Cancer-Fighting T Cell Therapy
In a significant step forward for next-generation immunotherapy, CERo Therapeutics Holdings, Inc. (Nasdaq: CERO) has announced the allowance of two patent applications by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). These approvals further strengthen the company’s intellectual property portfolio and advance its mission to revolutionize cancer treatment through engineered T cell technology.
🧬 What the New Patents Cover
The first allowance, Patent Application No. 17/040,472, titled “Cellular Immunotherapy Compositions and Uses Thereof,” provides coverage for both the composition and methods of use for CERo’s lead therapeutic candidate, CER-1236.
This patent secures protection for a combination of phosphatidylserine-targeting CD4+ CER-T cells alongside either CD8+ CAR-T cells or CD8+ recombinant TCR-T cells — a potentially powerful duo in the fight against cancer. The application was allowed on March 13, 2025, and is expected to formally issue as a U.S. patent pending final administrative steps.
The second allowance, Patent Application No. 17/040,317, focuses on the design elements of CER-1236.
Together, these new additions bring CERo’s total IP protection to 17 issued and allowed patents globally, covering 9 patent families and ensuring exclusivity through at least 2039 in the U.S.
🚀 Why This Matters
According to Chris Ehrlich, CEO of CERo Therapeutics:
This announcement comes on the heels of two major developments for CERo — the opening of its first clinical trial site for a Phase 1 trial in Acute Myeloid Leukemia (AML) and the FDA’s clearance of an Investigational New Drug (IND) application to begin human trials targeting ovarian and non-small cell lung cancers.
🧪 What Sets CERo Apart
CERo’s platform centers on what it calls Chimeric Engulfment Receptor T cells (CER-T) — a unique blend of adaptive and innate immune functionalities. Unlike traditional CAR-T cells, which rely on antigen recognition and activation, CER-T cells incorporate engulfment pathways that allow them to phagocytose and destroy cancer cells — mimicking a mechanism usually seen in innate immune cells.
This hybrid design could position CER-Ts as a more versatile alternative, with the potential to treat both blood cancers and solid tumors, a key limitation in current CAR-T therapies.
🧭 Looking Ahead
CERo is preparing to initiate clinical trials for CER-1236 in hematologic malignancies in 2025, and with its fortified patent portfolio, the company is well-positioned to push its immunotherapy pipeline forward — both scientifically and commercially.
The additional patent protections will not only support ongoing R&D and commercialization efforts but also provide a competitive moat in an increasingly crowded cell therapy space.
Conclusion:
As CERo advances toward clinical trials, these patent approvals reflect growing validation for its novel T cell engineering approach. With a focus on real innovation and strong IP protection, CERo Therapeutics continues to stake its claim as a leader in the evolving world of cellular immunotherapy.
📱 Apple’s Foldable iPhone Inches Closer to Reality with New Divisional Patent Filing
In a move that further fuels speculation about a foldable iPhone or iPad, the U.S. Patent Office has just published a divisional patent application from Apple—and it’s all about foldable displays supported by a flexible housing design.
But before we dive into what this might mean for the future of Apple devices, let’s quickly unpack what a divisional patent application actually is.
🧠 What’s a Divisional Patent, and Why Does It Matter?
In simple terms, a divisional patent application is a type of follow-up patent that’s spun off from a broader, original “parent” patent. This happens when the original filing includes more than one invention, and Apple decides to focus on just one of them—like in this case, where the foldable display design is being pursued independently, while the previous scrollable/rollable display concept has been removed.
Importantly, divisional applications retain the original filing date and priority, giving Apple a stronger patent position without losing time on the innovation timeline. It’s a clever way to secure IP rights for multiple related ideas without compromising legal protection.
🔍 So What’s in the New Patent?
The newly published patent zeroes in on an electronic device—likely an iPhone or iPad—that features a foldable display housed in a foldable body. Here are some of the key highlights from the filing:
Foldable Housing: The device is made up of two primary sections joined by hinge structures that allow the device to bend smoothly.
Flexible Display: Apple describes the use of an OLED (organic light-emitting diode) display that stretches across both halves of the device and even over the hinge area.
Support Layer: A flexible sheet metal layer may be used underneath the screen to provide structural support without restricting movement.
Virtual Pivot Points: The design cleverly incorporates virtual hinge pivots that lie outside the hinge mechanism itself, minimizing stress on fragile display layers and ensuring durability.
Sliding Hinge Mechanism: In some configurations, a sliding hinge pin support plate allows the hinge to dynamically shift during folding, helping the screen wrap around the curve without wrinkling or breaking.
Apple even visualizes the device bending at various angles—including 90° (like a laptop) and 180° (folded shut like a book).
📸 A Peek into the Patent Figures
Though we can’t show the actual images here, Apple’s patent illustrations provide a variety of form factors, including:
A foldable iPhone/iPad with a center fold (FIG. 1)
Side and cross-sectional views showing how the hinge interacts with the flexible display (FIGs. 4, 8)
Multiple folding positions from 90° to 180° (FIGs. 22, 23)
Detailed hinge mechanics and link systems (FIGs. 36, 37)
Each figure reveals how much engineering is going into making sure the fold not only works—but also protects the screen and provides a premium feel.
🔮 What This Means for Apple’s Foldable Future
While this is still a patent filing—not an official product announcement—it’s clear that Apple is actively developing the foundation for a foldable iDevice. From flexible OLED panels to intricate hinge engineering, the company is laying the groundwork for a device that could challenge the likes of Samsung’s Galaxy Z Fold and Google’s Pixel Fold.
Apple is known for waiting until a new form factor is just right before launching, and this patent suggests they’re getting close. With years of research and IP filings now focused on foldables, it’s only a matter of time before Cupertino reveals what could be the next evolution of the iPhone or iPad.
📣 Final Thoughts
This latest divisional patent is more than just legal paperwork—it’s a sign of how seriously Apple is taking foldable tech. And with every new filing, the dream of a foldable iPhone becomes a little more tangible.
Would you buy a foldable iPhone or iPad? Or are you still not sold on the bendy screen trend? Let’s chat in the comments 👇
Navigating the Complexities of Biotech Patent Law: A Look at REGENXBIO v. Sarepta Therapeutics
The rapidly evolving field of biotech patent law continues to present significant challenges, particularly when it comes to innovations involving recombinant nucleic acids and biological sequences. A recent ruling in REGENXBIO v. Sarepta Therapeutics by the US District Court for the District of Delaware has brought to light critical issues regarding patent eligibility for biotechnological inventions. Judge Richard Andrews ruled that the mere act of combining natural AAV (adeno-associated virus) sequences with heterologous (non-AAV) sequences in a cultured host cell—without further modifications—does not satisfy the requirements for patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
This decision has stirred discussions within the biotech community, as it reflects an ongoing trend of courts scrutinizing the extent of modifications required to make genetic and biological innovations eligible for patent protection. The ruling suggests that simply combining existing natural biological sequences may not meet the necessary standards for patent eligibility unless the innovation includes further modifications that can be considered novel or non-obvious.
What Does the Court’s Ruling Mean for the Biotech Industry?
The REGENXBIO v. Sarepta Therapeutics case builds on the precedent set by Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that naturally occurring substances could not be patented unless they had been modified in a way that created new and non-obvious properties. In this case, the court applied the same logic, finding that simply combining natural sequences from AAV with other biological materials does not meet the standards of patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 101, which requires inventions to be novel, non-obvious, and useful.
This decision has significant implications for gene therapy innovations and other biotech patent strategies. It raises important questions about the scope of patent protection available for new biotechnologies, especially in cases where the innovation involves natural biological elements. For biotech companies and researchers, this ruling emphasizes the importance of demonstrating how their innovations go beyond simple combinations of natural materials and truly push the boundaries of scientific knowledge and utility.
Join the Discussion: Biotech Patent Eligibility and Innovation
To further explore the impact of this ruling and the broader challenges within the realm of biotech patent law, a key discussion will be held on Tuesday, April 15. WilmerHale Partner Omar Khan will be joined by Christen DiPetrillo, Head of Intellectual Property, and Kevin Marks, Chief Legal Officer at the Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy, at Biocom California’s joint meeting of the IP and Cellular Gene Therapy Committees.
During this session, the panel will explore:
The historical context of biotech patent eligibility.
The implications of the ruling for gene therapy innovations and biotech patent strategies moving forward.
This discussion will offer valuable insights into the complexities of patenting biotechnological innovations and the legal hurdles that companies face when seeking patent protection for cutting-edge research in genetic therapies and biologics.
Conclusion
As the biotech industry continues to push the boundaries of science, navigating the complexities of patent law becomes increasingly critical. The REGENXBIO v. Sarepta Therapeutics decision highlights the challenges companies face when attempting to secure patent protection for genetic and biological innovations. As more companies and researchers grapple with patent eligibility, understanding the intricacies of patent law and its evolving landscape will be essential to fostering continued innovation and growth in the biotech sector.
For those looking to stay at the forefront of these developments, attending the upcoming discussion on biotech patent eligibility is an excellent opportunity to deepen your understanding of the legal challenges and strategies shaping the future of gene therapy and biotechnology.
Landmark Delhi High Court Ruling Prioritizes Access to Life-Saving Drugs Over Patent Protection
In a powerful judgment that resonates with the ongoing global debate on healthcare access versus intellectual property rights, Justice Mini Pushkarna of the Delhi High Court has delivered a standout ruling that places public health and patient affordability at the heart of India’s patent law jurisprudence.
On March 24, 2025, the Court dismissed a patent infringement suit filed by Swiss pharmaceutical giant Hoffman-La Roche against Hyderabad-based Natco Pharma, in a case involving the prohibitively expensive spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) drug, risdiplam, marketed internationally as Evrysdi.
💊 The High Stakes: Life-Saving Medicine or Legal Monopoly?
Spinal muscular atrophy is a rare genetic disorder that progressively weakens muscles used for breathing, walking, and other vital functions. Risdiplam is the only approved oral treatment available in India for SMA, and its cost places it far out of reach for most patients. One bottle reportedly costs ₹6 lakh, with a typical patient requiring 30 bottles a year—a staggering ₹1.8 crore annually.
Natco Pharma has developed a generic version of risdiplam, challenging Roche’s patent rights. Roche, in response, approached the court to halt the sale of Natco’s version, claiming patent infringement and requesting an interim injunction.
⚖️ Justice Pushkarna’s Clear Stand: People First
In a firm and clear ruling, Justice Pushkarna refused the injunction, emphasizing that public health cannot be treated lightly. She wrote:
She also highlighted a critical point in patent law: while pharma companies can be compensated later through damages, there is no mechanism to compensate the public for a lack of access to essential medicine.
This case stands out because the voice of patients was directly heard in court. Two SMA patients intervened to share their lived experiences—stating unequivocally that they could not afford Roche’s drug and had no alternative treatment available.
💸 Big Pharma’s “Patient Assistance” Argument Falls Flat
Roche attempted to soften the blow by pointing to its Patient Assistance Programme (PAP)—an initiative that offers discounted medication to a limited number of patients. But the court saw through the strategy.
Justice Pushkarna called the program “far too limited” and noted that even the proposed reduced prices (revealed in a sealed cover) were insufficient to address widespread affordability. Only a fraction of patients could potentially benefit, leaving many out in the cold.
She also acknowledged budgetary limitations of the National Policy for Rare Diseases (NPRD)—a government scheme that provides up to ₹50 lakh per patient but has only been able to support 1,118 patients, despite India recognizing 63 rare diseases.
🔄 Global Implications & Legal Loopholes
Interestingly, this is not the only battleground for Roche and Natco. In the U.S., Natco is seeking approval to launch its generic risdiplam through an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA), and is currently facing another infringement suit there. Despite being a rare disease drug, Evrysdi clocked $1.8 billion in U.S. sales in 2024, a growth of 18%, thanks to its user-friendly oral format.
Back in India, the patent debate hinges on Roche’s attempt to claim protection under a “species patent”, even though a broader “genus patent” had been filed earlier internationally. Natco argues that Roche is trying to extend its monopoly by segmenting patents, which is not allowed under Indian law if the new invention was already disclosed.
🧠 A Legal Shift in Priorities
The ruling isn’t just about one drug or one company. It signals a broader shift in judicial thinking, where courts are weighing public health more heavily in patent disputes, especially for essential or life-saving medicines.
This isn’t the first time Indian courts have leaned this way. In a 2008 case, Roche sought an injunction against Cipla over its cancer drug erlotinib (Tarceva). The court refused, noting that Cipla’s version was significantly cheaper, and the balance of convenience lay with affordable treatment.
🧬 What This Means for Patients and Policy
This case is likely to become a benchmark in how rare disease drugs are treated in Indian courts, especially when affordability is at stake. It also brings renewed focus on the inadequacy of current government schemes to support patients with ultra-expensive therapies.
For pharmaceutical companies, it’s a wake-up call: patent rights do not guarantee exclusivity if access is denied to the vast majority.
For patients, it is a glimmer of hope—an acknowledgment that their right to live cannot be outweighed by corporate profits.
📝 Final Thoughts
In Justice Pushkarna’s words, “There exists no right for the public to lessen or compensate itself.” This ruling flips the script, putting people before patents, and serves as a reminder that innovation must go hand in hand with access.
India has long been seen as the pharmacy of the developing world, and rulings like this ensure that mantle remains intact.
Patents: A Hidden Cost Trap for Startups – How to Navigate Without Overspending
For many startups, patents seem like a necessary but one-time expense. However, the reality is far more complicated. Filing a patent might appear straightforward, but the costs involved are anything but. From legal fees and government charges to international filings and ongoing maintenance costs, the true expense of a U.S. patent can easily exceed $50,000 over its lifetime.
This hefty price tag raises questions for founders: Is patenting worth it? I’ve seen firsthand how many entrepreneurs hesitate to move forward with patent filings, uncertain whether the return on investment justifies the expenditure. However, skipping patents altogether can present even more dire consequences for your business:
A competitor could beat you to the patent office, locking you out of your own market.
Investors may lose interest if they don’t see a clear intellectual property (IP) strategy.
A legal battle might emerge just as your business gains momentum, forcing you into costly litigation.
So, the question isn’t whether you should patent, but rather how you can do so without draining your resources.
Strategies for Smart Patent Filing on a Budget
The key to navigating the patent process effectively is knowing where to focus your budget. Fortunately, it’s easier than you think. Here are some proven strategies to help you patent without overspending.
1. Identify High-Value Innovations for Patent Protection
Startups often make two costly mistakes when it comes to patents: over-patenting or under-patenting. Both can harm your business.
Under-patenting happens when startups fail to document and protect innovations, allowing valuable ideas to slip through the cracks. Without a structured process like Invention Disclosure Forms (IDFs), innovations may not be patented in time, especially when funds are limited.
Over-patenting involves filing patents for ideas that don’t significantly strengthen your market position. It’s akin to betting on every horse instead of choosing the one with the best odds of winning. Instead, focus on innovations that have the potential to generate revenue or block competitors.
To avoid these pitfalls, use a structured patentability assessment. This process, which involves input from R&D, legal teams, and business leaders, evaluates the patent’s business value, the likelihood of patenting success, and the associated costs. Only the most valuable ideas should move forward.
As a rule of thumb: If losing an idea wouldn’t hurt your business, don’t patent it.
2. Plan Your IP Budget Wisely
Filing a patent without a clear budget is risky and irresponsible. Many startups rush into patent applications, only to run out of funds midway through the process, leaving their filings incomplete or allowing issued patents to expire.
Patent costs accumulate in phases—drafting fees, prosecution costs, government fees, and maintenance costs after the patent is granted. The total cost can soar, especially when foreign patents are involved. If you only budget for the initial filing, you may be forced to abandon a patent midway as costs balloon.
To prevent this, set a comprehensive patent budget before you file. Ensure you account for all phases of the patenting process, from drafting through maintenance. It’s also crucial to discuss fixed-fee structures or end-to-end budgets with your attorney to avoid any surprise costs. Once the patent is in progress, use cost estimation tools to track your ongoing expenses.
A well-planned budget ensures that your patents work for you, not against you.
3. Use Smart Filing Strategies to Cut Costs
Cutting corners on patent filings can be tempting, but it often leads to rejections, poor strategy, or patents that are ineffective when needed most. Here are some smarter ways to save:
Provisional Patents: Start with a provisional patent. For as little as $140 in USPTO fees (with lower legal fees as well), a provisional patent locks in your filing date and gives you 12 months to refine your invention before committing to a full application.
Government Fee Discounts: If you qualify as a small or micro-entity, you can save 50-75% on USPTO fees. Many startups overlook this, leaving money on the table.
Foreign Filings: Avoid rushing into international filings unless you’re committed to those markets. Foreign patent costs can range from $5,000-$10,000 per country initially, with total costs reaching $25,000-$75,000. Start with U.S. filings, then use the PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty) system to delay foreign decisions for up to 30 months, giving you more time to assess demand.
Avoid Excessive Prosecution: Don’t waste money on tough examination areas. Use predictor tools to steer clear of technologies where patenting is challenging. You can also analyze examiner statistics and request interviews to improve your chances of success. If your application is unlikely to succeed, consider abandoning it early to avoid sinking more money into a lost cause.
4. Prune Low-Value Patents to Cut Unnecessary Fees
Many startups waste up to 20% of their patent budget on patents that no longer serve their business needs. If a patent is no longer protecting a key technology or providing a competitive edge, there’s no reason to keep paying for it.
Review your patent portfolio annually and study does this patent still align with my business strategy? If not, consider dropping it, selling it, or licensing it to recover costs. If your business has exited a market, stop paying for patents in that market.
5. Use Data, Not Guesswork
Smart patenting isn’t about making intuitive decisions—it’s about using data to guide your moves. The right tools can assess the likelihood of approval, predict overall patenting costs, and reveal cost-saving opportunities. This data-driven approach helps you determine which patents are worth pursuing and maintaining.
Successful innovation managers don’t file patents blindly; they track, analyze, and adjust based on data. If you want to win, adopt the same strategy.
OpenAI and Microsoft to Face Copyright Lawsuits in New York, U.S. Judicial Panel Rules
A series of high-profile copyright lawsuits filed by prominent authors and major news outlets against artificial intelligence developer OpenAI and its key investor Microsoft will now be consolidated and heard in New York, following a significant ruling by a U.S. judicial panel on Thursday.
According to Reuters, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation decided to combine multiple legal actions, including those filed in California by well-known figures such as author Ta-Nehisi Coates and comedian Sarah Silverman, into a single federal court case in Manhattan. The panel’s decision also includes lawsuits brought by other influential plaintiffs, including The New York Times and renowned authors such as John Grisham, Jonathan Franzen, and George R.R. Martin.
This consolidation marks a crucial step in the ongoing wave of litigation targeting tech companies that utilize large datasets to train generative AI models. Plaintiffs allege that OpenAI and Microsoft used their copyrighted material without permission, infringing intellectual property rights in the process.
OpenAI had advocated for the lawsuits to be consolidated in Northern California, where the company is headquartered. However, most of the plaintiffs opposed this move, citing significant differences among the individual cases. Despite these objections, the panel ruled that centralizing the lawsuits in New York would “serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation.”
The panel’s decision comes amid increasing scrutiny of AI companies’ practices, particularly concerning the training of generative AI models on vast amounts of data, including copyrighted content. As Reuters reports, the plaintiffs argue that OpenAI and Microsoft’s use of their works constitutes an infringement of copyright law, while OpenAI maintains that its models are trained on publicly available data and fall under the “fair use” doctrine.
These lawsuits are part of a broader legal battle involving tech giants like OpenAI, Microsoft, and Meta Platforms, which are facing increasing scrutiny over the use of proprietary materials in the development of AI models. A central issue in the cases is whether the use of such copyrighted works falls under the “fair use” provision of U.S. copyright law, which permits limited use of protected works without permission under certain circumstances.
OpenAI has argued that the lawsuits share a common foundation: the claim that its large language models were trained using copyrighted works without consent. However, the plaintiffs contend that their individual cases are distinct and should be evaluated independently.
The consolidated lawsuits will now proceed under the supervision of U.S. District Judge Sidney Stein, who will oversee pretrial matters and guide the complex litigation moving forward. The outcome of these cases could have significant implications for the future of AI development and the legal landscape surrounding copyright protection in the age of generative technology.
According to Reuters, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation decided to combine multiple legal actions, including those filed in California by well-known figures such as author Ta-Nehisi Coates and comedian Sarah Silverman, into a single federal court case in Manhattan. The panel’s decision also includes lawsuits brought by other influential plaintiffs, including The New York Times and renowned authors such as John Grisham, Jonathan Franzen, and George R.R. Martin.
This consolidation marks a crucial step in the ongoing wave of litigation targeting tech companies that utilize large datasets to train generative AI models. Plaintiffs allege that OpenAI and Microsoft used their copyrighted material without permission, infringing intellectual property rights in the process.
OpenAI had advocated for the lawsuits to be consolidated in Northern California, where the company is headquartered. However, most of the plaintiffs opposed this move, citing significant differences among the individual cases. Despite these objections, the panel ruled that centralizing the lawsuits in New York would “serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation.”
The panel’s decision comes amid increasing scrutiny of AI companies’ practices, particularly concerning the training of generative AI models on vast amounts of data, including copyrighted content. As Reuters reports, the plaintiffs argue that OpenAI and Microsoft’s use of their works constitutes an infringement of copyright law, while OpenAI maintains that its models are trained on publicly available data and fall under the “fair use” doctrine.
These lawsuits are part of a broader legal battle involving tech giants like OpenAI, Microsoft, and Meta Platforms, which are facing increasing scrutiny over the use of proprietary materials in the development of AI models. A central issue in the cases is whether the use of such copyrighted works falls under the “fair use” provision of U.S. copyright law, which permits limited use of protected works without permission under certain circumstances.
OpenAI has argued that the lawsuits share a common foundation: the claim that its large language models were trained using copyrighted works without consent. However, the plaintiffs contend that their individual cases are distinct and should be evaluated independently.
The consolidated lawsuits will now proceed under the supervision of U.S. District Judge Sidney Stein, who will oversee pretrial matters and guide the complex litigation moving forward. The outcome of these cases could have significant implications for the future of AI development and the legal landscape surrounding copyright protection in the age of generative technology.
Panjab University Granted Patent for Innovative UV-C Radiation Absorbing Coating
Panjab University (PU) has secured a patent for a groundbreaking, multifunctional surface coating capable of absorbing up to 96% of harmful Ultraviolet-C (UV-C) radiation. This innovative coating was developed by Gaurav Verma, a material nanotechnologist at the Dr. SSB University Institute of Chemical Engineering and Technology (UICET), and Anjali Sharma, a student at PU. The project represents a fusion of ancient Indian knowledge with cutting-edge nanotechnology.
Verma, who also serves as the director of sophisticated instrumentation laboratories at PU, explained that the new coating presents a significant advancement in protecting both living beings and materials from the harmful effects of high-energy UV-C radiation. “This multifunctional innovation is crucial for industries like healthcare, aerospace, automotive, and construction, where equipment and infrastructure are often exposed to UV-C rays for sterilization and disinfection purposes. Prolonged exposure to such radiation can lead to material degradation, increased maintenance costs, and health risks,” Verma said.
The novel coating is created by combining nanocurcumin, a natural antioxidant derived from turmeric, with modified clay to form a hybrid nanofiller. Verma drew inspiration from the traditional Indian haldi ceremony, which uses turmeric as a key element, and proposed using curcumin in its nanoform to create the coating. The resultant nanohybrid filler features platelet-like structures with orb-like shapes adhered to them, providing an innovative solution with enhanced protective properties.
This development not only integrates modern nanotechnology but also reflects a return to ancient Indian practices, proving that traditional wisdom can be harnessed in the advancement of modern science. The coating’s ability to absorb harmful UV-C radiation is set to have wide-reaching applications, particularly in sectors where UV-C light is extensively used, such as in hospitals for sterilization and in aerospace for material protection.
The patent marks a major milestone for PU, contributing to the growing field of nanotechnology and offering a promising solution to address global concerns about UV radiation exposure.
Verma, who also serves as the director of sophisticated instrumentation laboratories at PU, explained that the new coating presents a significant advancement in protecting both living beings and materials from the harmful effects of high-energy UV-C radiation. “This multifunctional innovation is crucial for industries like healthcare, aerospace, automotive, and construction, where equipment and infrastructure are often exposed to UV-C rays for sterilization and disinfection purposes. Prolonged exposure to such radiation can lead to material degradation, increased maintenance costs, and health risks,” Verma said.
The novel coating is created by combining nanocurcumin, a natural antioxidant derived from turmeric, with modified clay to form a hybrid nanofiller. Verma drew inspiration from the traditional Indian haldi ceremony, which uses turmeric as a key element, and proposed using curcumin in its nanoform to create the coating. The resultant nanohybrid filler features platelet-like structures with orb-like shapes adhered to them, providing an innovative solution with enhanced protective properties.
This development not only integrates modern nanotechnology but also reflects a return to ancient Indian practices, proving that traditional wisdom can be harnessed in the advancement of modern science. The coating’s ability to absorb harmful UV-C radiation is set to have wide-reaching applications, particularly in sectors where UV-C light is extensively used, such as in hospitals for sterilization and in aerospace for material protection.
The patent marks a major milestone for PU, contributing to the growing field of nanotechnology and offering a promising solution to address global concerns about UV radiation exposure.
Kawasaki India Set to Launch Updated Z900 with Refreshed Design and Features
Kawasaki India is preparing to expand its lineup with an updated version of the popular Z900, following reports of the company filing a patent design for the new model. As anticipation builds, images of the design patent have surfaced online, offering a glimpse into the motorcycle’s updated look and some key features.
The updated Z900, which made its global debut last year, is set to arrive with a refreshed aesthetic and a few tweaks to its overall design. Early leaked images suggest that the new version will have a more aggressive appearance compared to its predecessor. One of the most notable changes is the introduction of a new twin-pod LED headlight setup, which gives the front-end a sharper, more modern look. The rear of the bike also appears to feature a redesigned taillight and revised bodywork, adding to the overall streamlined and muscular presence.
For rider comfort, the Z900 will maintain its signature slip seating arrangement and inclined riding position. Additionally, it is expected to retain its stylish exhaust system, which has been a defining feature of the bike. New alloy wheels, as hinted in the patent images, could further enhance the bike’s visual appeal, giving it a more premium and dynamic presence on the road.
Current Z900 Model Features
At present, the Z900 is available in its top-end “SE” trim in India, offering an impressive list of features aimed at enhancing both performance and comfort. Among its highlights are a Bluetooth-enabled 5-inch digital instrument console, which allows for seamless connectivity with smartphones, and an array of advanced features like traction control, ride-by-wire throttle, and multiple power modes. The bike also comes equipped with cruise control and several riding modes, offering a customizable riding experience.
Engine and Performance
The Z900 is powered by a 948cc, in-line 4-cylinder engine that delivers a maximum power output of 121 horsepower at 9,500 rpm and a torque of 97.4 Nm at 7,700 rpm. This engine is mated to a 6-speed gearbox and comes with a bi-directional quick-shifter, ensuring smooth and quick gear shifts. These powertrain features combine to make the Z900 a formidable contender in the naked bike segment, delivering both power and precision.
With these updates and its already impressive features, the new Z900 is expected to make a strong impact when it arrives in India. As Kawasaki prepares for the official launch, enthusiasts are eagerly awaiting the arrival of this aggressive and refined motorcycle, which promises to offer an exhilarating riding experience both on and off the track.
Could Intellectual Property Retaliation Be the Game-Changer in Trade Wars?
In response to President Donald Trump’s tariff policies, many countries are considering retaliation, primarily through higher tariffs and import restrictions. While these measures may impact the U.S. economy, they also pose risks for the countries imposing them. The goal is to make the pain felt in the U.S. greater than the consequences suffered by the retaliating nation. While this strategy may hold true in many cases, countries like the European Union (EU), Canada, and other trading partners could take a more direct and potentially more damaging approach—targeting the United States’ intellectual property (IP) rights.
Intellectual property, particularly patents and copyrights, has long been a cornerstone of U.S. economic dominance. In 2024, the United States received nearly $150 billion in royalties and licensing fees alone, which makes up over 5% of total after-tax corporate profits. But these fees represent only the direct payments for IP use; they don’t account for embedded costs in products like software and technology, which are often used globally in consumer goods.
One possible retaliatory strategy involves countries announcing that they will no longer respect U.S. patents and copyrights for as long as Donald Trump continues his tariff policies. This kind of action would target U.S. companies that rely on their intellectual property rights for profit, such as tech giants like Microsoft and pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer and Merck.
The concept of not honoring foreign patents is not without precedent. During World War I, the U.S. invoked the Trading with the Enemy Act to allow the compulsory licensing of patents held by German companies. This measure allowed U.S. businesses to use these patents without permission, as long as they paid a minimal licensing fee set by the U.S. government. Countries like Canada, the EU, and others could implement a similar policy to challenge the United States’ trade practices.
The potential benefits of this type of retaliation are twofold. First, it would allow consumers in the retaliating countries to access cheaper products—such as generic drugs, which could drastically reduce the cost of life-saving medications like those used in cancer and heart disease treatments. Second, it would lower the cost of everyday goods like computers, by bypassing the licensing fees for software from companies like Microsoft.
For consumers, this could mean cheaper access to essential products and technologies, making it a win-win situation. Imagine having access to affordable generics of expensive drugs or the latest software without the added cost of licensing fees. This approach would directly benefit the people in those countries, and it would provide a powerful counterweight to the economic challenges posed by Trump’s tariffs.
Such an approach would also hit U.S. corporations where it hurts—potentially changing the landscape of global trade in ways that tariffs alone may not. If other nations got accustomed to accessing cheap drugs, software, and entertainment content, it could shift global perceptions of U.S. intellectual property practices. This shift could permanently disrupt the revenue models of many major U.S. companies that rely on high licensing fees and patent monopolies. For instance, without the constraints of patent monopolies, Americans themselves could spend far less on prescription drugs—possibly saving around $550 billion annually.
Intellectual property, particularly patents and copyrights, has long been a cornerstone of U.S. economic dominance. In 2024, the United States received nearly $150 billion in royalties and licensing fees alone, which makes up over 5% of total after-tax corporate profits. But these fees represent only the direct payments for IP use; they don’t account for embedded costs in products like software and technology, which are often used globally in consumer goods.
One possible retaliatory strategy involves countries announcing that they will no longer respect U.S. patents and copyrights for as long as Donald Trump continues his tariff policies. This kind of action would target U.S. companies that rely on their intellectual property rights for profit, such as tech giants like Microsoft and pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer and Merck.
The concept of not honoring foreign patents is not without precedent. During World War I, the U.S. invoked the Trading with the Enemy Act to allow the compulsory licensing of patents held by German companies. This measure allowed U.S. businesses to use these patents without permission, as long as they paid a minimal licensing fee set by the U.S. government. Countries like Canada, the EU, and others could implement a similar policy to challenge the United States’ trade practices.
The potential benefits of this type of retaliation are twofold. First, it would allow consumers in the retaliating countries to access cheaper products—such as generic drugs, which could drastically reduce the cost of life-saving medications like those used in cancer and heart disease treatments. Second, it would lower the cost of everyday goods like computers, by bypassing the licensing fees for software from companies like Microsoft.
For consumers, this could mean cheaper access to essential products and technologies, making it a win-win situation. Imagine having access to affordable generics of expensive drugs or the latest software without the added cost of licensing fees. This approach would directly benefit the people in those countries, and it would provide a powerful counterweight to the economic challenges posed by Trump’s tariffs.
Such an approach would also hit U.S. corporations where it hurts—potentially changing the landscape of global trade in ways that tariffs alone may not. If other nations got accustomed to accessing cheap drugs, software, and entertainment content, it could shift global perceptions of U.S. intellectual property practices. This shift could permanently disrupt the revenue models of many major U.S. companies that rely on high licensing fees and patent monopolies. For instance, without the constraints of patent monopolies, Americans themselves could spend far less on prescription drugs—possibly saving around $550 billion annually.