First Solar an US solar panel manufacturer, has initiated legal action against JinkoSolar (Chinese solar panel manufacturer), alleging infringement of its U.S. Patent No. 9,130,074, which pertains to tunnel oxide passivated contact (TOPCon) solar technology. This patent was obtained by First Solar in 2013 through its aquiring of TetraSun, Inc.
The lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. First Solar claims that JinkoSolar’s use of TOPCon technology infringes upon its patent rights. In defense, a JinkoSolar spokesperson stated that the company is having proof that the claims lack merit and intends to vigorously defend itself against what it considers baseless allegations by First solar.
Currently, the legal action is part of a broader trend in the solar industry, where several major manufacturers are engaged in patent disputes over TOPCon technology. In October 2024, First Solar notified several large competitors, including JinkoSolar, of alleged infringements on its TOPCon patents.
The outcome of this lawsuit could have significant implications for the solar industry market and manufacturers , particularly concerning the development and commercialization of advanced solar technologies like TOPCon worldwide.
Uncategorized
Amazon to pay $39M to Lifestyle for trademark infringement
The Delhi High Court in a recent order on February 26, 2025, ordered Amazon to pay $39 million (approximately ₹340 crore) in damages to Lifestyle Equities CV for infringing upon its ‘Beverly Hills Polo Club’ trademark.
Lifestyle Equities had filed a trademark infringement suit in 2020, alleging that Amazon Technologies and associated sellers of amazon used a deceptively similar mark on apparel and other products sold on Amazon’s platform. The court had previously issued an interim injunction in October 2020, restraining Amazon and others from using the infringing logo and directing Amazon Seller Services to remove the infringing products from its platform.
During the proceedings it is found that the Cloudtail India, a major seller on Amazon.in, acknowledged its involvement in the sale of the infringing products and proposed a settlement that would include damages. The court also awarded damages of ₹4,78,484 against Cloudtail, representing 20% of its revenue from infringing products. Amazon Seller Services was removed from the list of involved parties, as it agreed to remove any future listings of infringing products.
This ruling has the importance of trademark protection and the legal consequences of infringement of intellectual property, particularly in the e-commerce sector.
Lifestyle Equities had filed a trademark infringement suit in 2020, alleging that Amazon Technologies and associated sellers of amazon used a deceptively similar mark on apparel and other products sold on Amazon’s platform. The court had previously issued an interim injunction in October 2020, restraining Amazon and others from using the infringing logo and directing Amazon Seller Services to remove the infringing products from its platform.
During the proceedings it is found that the Cloudtail India, a major seller on Amazon.in, acknowledged its involvement in the sale of the infringing products and proposed a settlement that would include damages. The court also awarded damages of ₹4,78,484 against Cloudtail, representing 20% of its revenue from infringing products. Amazon Seller Services was removed from the list of involved parties, as it agreed to remove any future listings of infringing products.
This ruling has the importance of trademark protection and the legal consequences of infringement of intellectual property, particularly in the e-commerce sector.
“Linezolid” Patent Revoked After Post-Grant Opposition by Symed Labs
The Indian Patent Office has revoked Patent No. 281489 (Application No. 201641013830) following a post-grant opposition filed by Symed Labs. The patent was granted on 20 March, 2017 and the post grant opposition was filed on 5 March, 2018. The patentee had also amended its claims during the opposition proceedings and urged that the application under Form 13 (for amendment of claims) be disposed of so as to be certain of the final set of allowed claims for the hearing. The revocation was based on several grounds:
Lack of Inventive Step (Obviousness): The controller concluded that the patent was found to lack an inventive step, meaning the claimed invention was obvious to someone skilled in the field.
Non-Patentability Under Section 3(d): The invention also did not meet the criteria for patentability under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, which states that new forms of known substances that do not result in enhanced efficacy.
Failure to Disclose Information Under Section 8: The patent holder failed to disclose required information as per Section 8 of the Patents Act 1970, which mandates the disclosure of including the disclosure of status of those applications, at the time of filing and during the prosecution of the patent. regarding corresponding foreign applications of this invention.
This patent pertained to Linezolid, an antibiotic used to treat pneumonia, skin infections, and drug-resistant tuberculosis. The earlier patent for Linezolid had expired on January 1, 2012. The revocation of this patent may have implications for the availability and pricing of Linezolid in India. This decision has highlighted the need for quality standards and more careful examination when it is about critical drugs, particularly in light of public health considerations and the potential for monopolistic practices.
Lack of Inventive Step (Obviousness): The controller concluded that the patent was found to lack an inventive step, meaning the claimed invention was obvious to someone skilled in the field.
Non-Patentability Under Section 3(d): The invention also did not meet the criteria for patentability under Section 3(d) of the Patents Act, which states that new forms of known substances that do not result in enhanced efficacy.
Failure to Disclose Information Under Section 8: The patent holder failed to disclose required information as per Section 8 of the Patents Act 1970, which mandates the disclosure of including the disclosure of status of those applications, at the time of filing and during the prosecution of the patent. regarding corresponding foreign applications of this invention.
This patent pertained to Linezolid, an antibiotic used to treat pneumonia, skin infections, and drug-resistant tuberculosis. The earlier patent for Linezolid had expired on January 1, 2012. The revocation of this patent may have implications for the availability and pricing of Linezolid in India. This decision has highlighted the need for quality standards and more careful examination when it is about critical drugs, particularly in light of public health considerations and the potential for monopolistic practices.
Government can invoke section 100 of Patent for Rare Disease Medicine
In a recent news MP Haris Beeran (Rajya Sabha) wrote to the Minister of Health and Family Welfare on December 20, 2024, urging the Central Government to invoke Section 100 (1) of the Patents Act with respect to local production of the rare disease Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA) treating drug Risdiplam. SMA is a genetic disease affecting the nerve cells that control voluntary muscle movement. SMA incidence in India is one in 10,000 live-born babies. Risdiplam is currently under patent protection in India till May 11, 2035 (subject to payment of Patent renewal fees) and is Patented as Indian Patent No. IN 334397.
Key Points:
High Treatment Costs: The annual cost of Risdiplam treatment is approximately ₹1 crore, which is huge and unaffordable for patients.
Government Intervention: Section 100 of the Patents Act empowers the government of India to authorize the local manufacturing of patented drugs in the extreme urgency, potentially reducing costs significantly.
Public Health Impact: SMA affects thousands of children in India annually, and the high cost of treatment has led to calls for government action to ensure access to essential medications.
By invoking Section 100, the government can enable local production of Risdiplam, potentially reducing the annual treatment cost to around ₹3,024, thereby improving access for patients in need. Section 100 empowers the central government to use, or authorise to use, an invention (application or grant) for the purposes of the government, on a non-commercial basis. Importantly, this is not a provision that requires abuse of patent by the patentee. This includes but is not limited to using the invention in case of national emergency or other situations of extreme urgency.
Key Points:
High Treatment Costs: The annual cost of Risdiplam treatment is approximately ₹1 crore, which is huge and unaffordable for patients.
Government Intervention: Section 100 of the Patents Act empowers the government of India to authorize the local manufacturing of patented drugs in the extreme urgency, potentially reducing costs significantly.
Public Health Impact: SMA affects thousands of children in India annually, and the high cost of treatment has led to calls for government action to ensure access to essential medications.
By invoking Section 100, the government can enable local production of Risdiplam, potentially reducing the annual treatment cost to around ₹3,024, thereby improving access for patients in need. Section 100 empowers the central government to use, or authorise to use, an invention (application or grant) for the purposes of the government, on a non-commercial basis. Importantly, this is not a provision that requires abuse of patent by the patentee. This includes but is not limited to using the invention in case of national emergency or other situations of extreme urgency.
Honda filed a new technology Patent for CG 160 motorcycle
Honda Motorcycle & Scooter India has recently filed a patent for the design of the CG 160, indicating plans to introduce this model to the Indian market. However, Honda CG 160 is already available in Brazil and is popular commuter motorcycle, known for its reliability and efficiency.
Technical Features:
Engine: The news coming out is that CG 160 is powered by a 162.7cc single-cylinder, air-cooled engine. This engine is compatible with both gasoline and ethanol fuels, offering flexibility and improved performance when using ethanol.
Power Output: It delivers approximately 14.4 horsepower at 8,000 rpm and produces 13.8 Nm of torque at 7,000 rpm.
Transmission: The engine is mated to a 5-speed gearbox, providing smooth gear transitions suitable for urban commuting.
Frame and Suspension: The motorcycle features a diamond frame with telescopic front forks and twin shock absorbers at the rear to provide a comfortable ride on various road conditions.
Braking System: It is equipped with disc brakes at both the front and rear wheels, this will enhance stopping power and safety.
Tires: The CG 160 rides on 18-inch alloy wheels, with an 80/100-18 tire at the front and a 90/90-18 tire at the rear end, this configuration provides stability and grip to the vehicle.
Although, the exact launch date in India has not been officially announced, but the recent patent filing suggests that Honda plans to introduce the CG 160 to the Indian market in the near future. The model has been a best-seller in Brazil since 2015, and Honda’s move to patent its design in India indicates a strategic expansion into the Indian commuter motorcycle segment to create place in Indian auto market.
Delhi High Court upheld Controller’s decision under section 10(4)
The Delhi High Court’s decision highlights the importance of fulfilling the detailed disclosure requirements under the Patents Act 1970, particularly in terms of the scope of the claims made in a patent application. The ruling on the patent application by the Regents of the University of California relates to a recombinant Salmonella microorganism-based live vaccine designed to prevent enteric bacterial infections
Key points from the ruling:
Insufficient Disclosure: The court emphasized that the patent application needed for a clear and comprehensive understanding of the invention. This failure resulted in non-compliance with Section 10(4) of the Patents Act, which requires a full description of the invention and the best method of performing it.
Scope of Claims: The Court found that the application broadly claimed the disruption of the gene product in any form, not just through deliberate genetic modifications. This broadness could have led to the inclusion of naturally occurring mutations, which are excluded from patentability under Section 3(c) of the Act. Therefore, the application lacked clarity and precision in defining the scope of what it intended to patent.
Failure to Enable a Skilled Person: The court noted that the patent application did not provide sufficient details for a person skilled in microbiology subject matter to carry out the invention, which is required under Section 10(4)(b) of the Patent Act. The application was seen as incomplete, leaving out important details needed for the invention’s practical implementation.
Incomplete Disclosure: Although the application included examples of deletion mutations in Salmonella, it did not sufficiently cover other forms of mutations, like insertion or substitution. This partial disclosure further contributed to the application’s failure to meet the standards of Section 10(4)(a), which mandates that the invention be fully disclosed.
Impact of the Decision: The Court’s decision focuses the necessity of precise and detailed disclosures in patent applications, particularly when the scope of the invention could potentially cover a wide variety of methods or naturally occurring phenomena. It also highlights the potential issues with vague claims that might lead to patenting something that should not be patentable, such as naturally mutated organisms.
In conclusion, the Delhi High Court upheld the controller’s decision of refusal to grant a patent, reinforcing the importance of clarity and completeness in patent applications for biotechnology-related inventions.
Advanced rainwater harvesting technology Design registered in India
In a recent news, the Indian government has registered a design (431236-001) for an advanced rainwater harvesting system designed to address water scarcity and promote groundwater revival. This innovative model ensures effective rainwater harvesting and wastewater management, offering a sustainable solution for drought-prone regions.
The research behind this system was conducted by Dr. Ashok Divekar, Head of the Geography Department at Subhash Baburao Kul College, and Dr. Rajesh Survase, Professor of Geography at Eknath Sitaram Divekar College, Varvand. Their expertise in geography and hydrogeology was instrumental in developing the model. The Design is held under the names of Adv. Rahul Subhash Kool, Dr. Rajesh Bhaskar Survase, and Dr. Ashok Bhagwan Divekar.
This model is already implemented for piolet run at subhash Baburao Kul college, Daund Taluka. This system has already contributed in recharging the ground water in nearby area which encourage to expand it at various locations.
This development represents a significant advancement in water conservation efforts, providing a practical and effective method for rainwater harvesting that can be implemented in various regions to combat water scarcity.
Pharma consultant Agrawal filed patent for new anti-ageing drug
Sanjay Agrawal, a scientific advisor for the US-based Alkomex GBN Pharma Group and an Ahmedabad-based researcher, has filed for a patent for an anti-aging drug formulation aimed at combating aging at the cellular level. The formulation is designed to address the underlying biological processes of aging, potentially offering a groundbreaking approach to age-related issues.
The patent application has been submitted to the Indian Patent Office, marking an important step in the development of this novel treatment. If granted, this patent would secure intellectual property rights for the formulation, allowing Agrawal and the associated pharmaceutical group to potentially commercialize the drug and offer it as a solution to slow or reverse cellular aging.
Agrawal, already holds over 42 patents for unique drug formulations. He claims that other than addressing ageing at a cellular level, this drug has the potential to significantly improve skin health and boost energy levels and enhance overall vitality.
He explained that while chronological ageing is inevitable, biological and psychological ageing differ significantly from one individual to another, influenced by intrinsic and extrinsic factors such as hormonal changes, stress, and lifestyle.
Currently the demand for anti-aging treatments is increasing rapidly in market. This development could spark significant interest in the pharmaceutical industry. However, the drug will undergo extensive testing and regulatory approval to be fully realized in the market, which could take several years.
The patent application has been submitted to the Indian Patent Office, marking an important step in the development of this novel treatment. If granted, this patent would secure intellectual property rights for the formulation, allowing Agrawal and the associated pharmaceutical group to potentially commercialize the drug and offer it as a solution to slow or reverse cellular aging.
Agrawal, already holds over 42 patents for unique drug formulations. He claims that other than addressing ageing at a cellular level, this drug has the potential to significantly improve skin health and boost energy levels and enhance overall vitality.
He explained that while chronological ageing is inevitable, biological and psychological ageing differ significantly from one individual to another, influenced by intrinsic and extrinsic factors such as hormonal changes, stress, and lifestyle.
Currently the demand for anti-aging treatments is increasing rapidly in market. This development could spark significant interest in the pharmaceutical industry. However, the drug will undergo extensive testing and regulatory approval to be fully realized in the market, which could take several years.
Longi sues JinkoSolar for infringement of new patent technology
Longi, has filed lawsuits against JinkoSolar for their patent infringement, both the companies are leading players in the solar industry. The legal actions have been initiated in both countries China and the United States.
In China, Longi has filed the lawsuit at the Jinan Intermediate People’s Court in Shandong and requested an immediate halt to the manufacturing, sales, and offers to sell the allegedly infringing products and other related activities to it. The Court has accepted the case, with an expected trial date of March 20.
In the United States, the lawsuit was filed at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging patent infringement of Jinko Solar’s TOPCon and multiple other unspecified photovoltaic module products.
Longi claims that JinkoSolar has infringed upon its intellectual property (IP) related to solar technology, specifically patents concerning the production and design of solar cells and panels. This dispute comes out as both companies are at the forefront of solar technology innovation. The patents plays a critical role in protecting advancements in the highly competitive solar energy sector.
The lawsuits highlight the ongoing tensions in the renewable energy industry, where patent disputes are becoming increasingly common as companies rush to secure a competitive edge in the rapidly growing market for solar energy products. In these types of cases, the outcome can impact product sales, partnerships, and overall market positioning for the companies involved.
It remains to be seen how these lawsuits will unfold, but they signal the importance of intellectual property rights in the clean energy sector.
In China, Longi has filed the lawsuit at the Jinan Intermediate People’s Court in Shandong and requested an immediate halt to the manufacturing, sales, and offers to sell the allegedly infringing products and other related activities to it. The Court has accepted the case, with an expected trial date of March 20.
In the United States, the lawsuit was filed at the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, alleging patent infringement of Jinko Solar’s TOPCon and multiple other unspecified photovoltaic module products.
Longi claims that JinkoSolar has infringed upon its intellectual property (IP) related to solar technology, specifically patents concerning the production and design of solar cells and panels. This dispute comes out as both companies are at the forefront of solar technology innovation. The patents plays a critical role in protecting advancements in the highly competitive solar energy sector.
The lawsuits highlight the ongoing tensions in the renewable energy industry, where patent disputes are becoming increasingly common as companies rush to secure a competitive edge in the rapidly growing market for solar energy products. In these types of cases, the outcome can impact product sales, partnerships, and overall market positioning for the companies involved.
It remains to be seen how these lawsuits will unfold, but they signal the importance of intellectual property rights in the clean energy sector.
Innocan Pharma secure first patent in India for Liposome Injection
Innocan Pharma Corporation has granted its first patent in India for its Liposomal CBD Injection platform. This patent protects the company’s synthetic Cannabidiol-loaded Liposome Injection Platform (LPT-CBD), designed for precise dosing and sustained release of synthetic CBD into the bloodstream.
The LPT-CBD platform has received positive feedback from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) following a successful pre-Investigational New Drug (pre-IND) meeting, advancing its development as a non-opioid alternative for chronic pain management.
Developed in collaboration with Professor Chezy Barenholz and Dr. Ahuva Cern from the Hebrew University in Jerusalem, the liposomal drug delivery platform allows for prolonged exposure and maximizes the bioavailability and therapeutic effects of cannabinoids.
This granted patent enhances Innocan’s proprietary value in India’s $55 billion pharmaceutical market, complementing its global patent applications and strengthening its position in the cannabinoid-based therapeutic sector.
Innocan Pharma’s CEO, Iris Bincovich, expressed his views about the patent grant and highlighted the company’s commitment to innovation and the advancement of non-opioid alternatives for chronic pain management.
This development in IP underscores Innocan Pharma’s dedication to expanding its intellectual property portfolio and advancing cannabinoid-based therapies on a global scale.