Macsen Labs Achieves Major Breakthrough in Sodium-Ion Battery Technology

by

In a significant development in the field of energy storage, Macsen Labs has announced a key innovation in sodium-ion battery chemistry. The company has successfully synthesized a high-performance, air-stable form of Prussian White, a sodium-rich material used as a cathode in sodium-ion batteries. This milestone not only brings India closer to energy self-reliance but also strengthens the global push for sustainable battery alternatives.

What is the Breakthrough?

Macsen’s innovation lies in producing Prussian White, known for its high sodium content and electrochemical performance comparable to Lithium Iron Phosphate (LFP). This new material is non-toxic, thermally stable, and offers faster charge-discharge cycles, making it an ideal candidate for grid energy storage, electric vehicles, and portable electronics.

For reference, Prussian White is a widely researched material in sodium-ion battery systems for its cost-effectiveness and eco-friendliness.


Patent Filed and Pilot Scale Ready

Macsen Labs has filed a provisional patent for its novel cathode chemistry based on this form of Prussian White. The company is now preparing to scale the innovation beyond the lab. According to their announcement, a dedicated battery research lab has been set up to develop, test, and manufacture sodium-ion cells at pilot scale.

The development positions Macsen as one of the first Indian companies to push forward in sodium-ion battery manufacturing. For more on their initiatives, visit Macsen’s official site.

Why Sodium-Ion Matters

Lithium-ion batteries dominate the energy market today, but sodium-ion batteries are emerging as a sustainable and cost-effective alternative. Sodium is more abundant than lithium, which reduces dependency on expensive and geopolitically sensitive lithium supply chains.

No cobalt or nickel needed.

Uses abundant raw materials.

Safer due to lower risk of thermal runaway.

Suitable for stationary storage and EVs.


For more insight, check this overview of sodium-ion battery technology.

Global and Indian Industry Trends

Macsen’s announcement puts India on the global map of this technology shift.

As per industry forecasts, the sodium-ion battery market is expected to witness strong growth in the next 5–7 years, especially in applications like renewable energy storage, solar grids, and two-wheel EVs.

What’s Next for Macsen?

Macsen Labs has shared that they are open to collaborations with academic institutions and industry partners. Their next steps include:

Full patent filing and validation.

Scaling to commercial-grade production.

Explore their battery materials R&D portfolio for technical insights.

Disclaimer:

This article is based on publicly available information and press releases. For further technical details, please refer to Macsen Labs’ official website.

Nokia Moves Delhi High Court Over Rejection of 5G Network Slicing Patent by Indian Patent Office

by

Nokia Technologies has filed a legal challenge in the Delhi High Court after the Indian Patent Office (IPO) declined to grant its patent application related to 5G network slicing technology. The court’s decision could have far-reaching effects on how India treats software-based inventions in the telecom sector.

Understanding Network Slicing

Network slicing is an advanced feature of 5G infrastructure that creates isolated virtual networks within a single physical system. Each slice can be tailored to serve a specific purpose—such as telemedicine, online gaming, or smart factories. Nokia’s patent focused on improving device registration through third-party authentication, enhancing security and speed for network access.

Why the Patent Was Rejected

On January 8, 2025, the IPO rejected the application on several grounds:

The invention was considered obvious, referencing existing 3GPP standards.

It was viewed as a software-only innovation, making it ineligible under Section 3(k) of the Indian Patents Act.

The claims were poorly structured and lacked clarity, with improper dependencies and missed procedural updates.

Nokia’s Legal Argument

In its writ petition, Nokia defended its invention as novel and innovative. The company emphasized that the same patent has been approved in several major markets, including the United States, Japan, and South Korea. Nokia maintained that its technology supports mission-critical services, such as connected ambulances, real-time gaming, and autonomous transport.

High Court’s Action

The Delhi High Court has taken note of the petition and issued a notice to the IPO. The patent office has six weeks to respond. Nokia may file a rejoinder thereafter. The case is scheduled for the next hearing in November 2025.

Broader Implications

This case could set a major precedent for patent protection in India, particularly for software-integrated technologies. If the court rules in Nokia’s favor, it may lead to a more inclusive interpretation of what qualifies as patentable subject matter.

Tech firms such as Samsung, Ericsson, Qualcomm, and Huawei are closely observing the developments. The judgment may influence how global companies file for patents in India and invest in research and innovation.

Patent Law Challenges in India

India’s patent law, especially Section 3(k), restricts patents on software and algorithms unless they produce a technical effect or hardware improvement. Legal experts believe this case could clarify how future software-based telecom inventions are evaluated by the IPO.

Conclusion

Nokia’s legal challenge may prove to be a turning point in India’s approach to next-generation patent rights. With global attention focused on this case, the final verdict will impact not just Nokia but the broader telecom and digital innovation ecosystem.

Calcutta High Court Clarifies Patentability Under Section 3(b), Reverses Indian Patent Office Decision

by

In a significant ruling, the Calcutta High Court overturned a refusal order by the Indian Patent Office (IPO), providing crucial clarity on the scope of Section 3(b) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970. The court held that the IPO had misapplied the section while rejecting ITC Limited’s patent application for a heater-based aerosol generation device.

The court emphasized that patentability cannot be denied merely on presumptions regarding possible harmful use, such as tobacco consumption.

🔍 Background of the Case

ITC filed a patent application for a non-electronic heater assembly that generates aerosols from substrates. While tobacco was mentioned as one potential substrate, the invention also allowed for non-tobacco applications.

Despite this, the IPO refused the application citing Section 3(b), claiming that the invention could be “injurious to public health.” The office referred to reports by the World Health Organization (WHO) and Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) without notifying ITC, denying the company an opportunity to respond.

Full judgment available at IAM Media.

⚖️ Court’s Observations

Justice Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, delivering the verdict, highlighted the following:

1. Misapplication of Section 3(b)

The court ruled that Section 3(b) — which bars patents on inventions “contrary to public order or morality” or “injurious to human, animal or plant life” — must be narrowly interpreted.

The judge stated:

“The mere presence of tobacco in the claims does not mean the invention is inherently injurious. There is no proof that the primary purpose is to aid tobacco consumption.”

This sets a precedent that patentability should be judged based on the primary function and not on speculative or optional uses.

2. Violation of Natural Justice

The IPO introduced external evidence (WHO/ICMR reports) at the final stage without giving ITC a chance to rebut. The court called this a procedural violation, stating that:

“Natural justice requires the applicant to be heard before new grounds are introduced.”

This procedural lapse led the court to send the case back for re-examination.

📌 Implications for Patent Law

This ruling could reshape how Section 3(b) is interpreted in India. Key takeaways include:

  • Restricting subjective interpretation of “morality” and “health” under Section 3(b).
  • Reinforcing natural justice in patent proceedings.
  • Emphasizing evidence-based examination over assumptions or regulatory bias.

This decision aligns Indian patent law with international standards, including TRIPS and European Patent Convention (EPC) frameworks.

For more insights on Indian patent rulings, visit our Intellectual Property section.

🔗 Related Readings

🧠 Expert Opinion

Legal experts hail this judgment as a landmark in balancing public health concerns with innovation rights.

“The court has rightly differentiated between public health policy and patent eligibility. It’s a much-needed check on arbitrary refusal trends,” said Raghav Mehra, IP attorney at LexOrbis.

📣 Conclusion

The Calcutta High Court’s judgment is expected to have a lasting impact on patent examination practices in India. It clearly draws the line between actual harm and hypothetical misuse, emphasizing due process and fair hearing for innovators.

As India pushes for more innovation and R&D, this ruling comes as a strong signal to protect inventors’ rights within the legal and constitutional framework.

NIFT Bengaluru Student Creates Eco-Friendly Wristwatch Inspired by Karnataka’s Channapatna Craft

by

Prithwiraj, originally from Singur near Kolkata, grew up surrounded by stories of art and culture thanks to his father, a Bengali literature professor and folk researcher. This early exposure inspired him to explore traditional Indian crafts. For his final-year project, he chose to study the **Channapatna craft**, Karnataka’s age-old wooden toy-making tradition, known for its distinctive lacquered wooden products. His innovation recently earned him an international design patent, marking a significant achievement in eco-conscious fashion design.

Over several weeks, Prithwiraj worked closely with Channapatna artisans. He learned their techniques, materials, and the cultural significance of their craft. Drawing from this experience, he designed the watch’s dial using lacquered wood colored with natural dyes sourced from the region, including the famous red color extracted from local soil. This authentic touch preserves the cultural legacy while giving the watch a warm, traditional appeal.

The watch case is crafted from recycled aluminum, sourced from discarded automobile engine parts and machinery. This sustainable choice reduces industrial waste and lowers the environmental footprint of the product. Olavu’s modular design allows users to swap wooden dials easily. This feature promotes personalization and prolongs the product’s life, contrasting with the disposable nature of many fashion accessories today.

Functionality is also a priority. The watch is water-resistant up to 200 meters (10-bar rating), thanks to the lacquer finish that prevents the wood from swelling or warping due to moisture. The precision of the watch is maintained with an accuracy of up to 0.5 mm, combining modern engineering with traditional craftsmanship.

The name “Olavu” means “love and affection” in Kannada, reflecting the emotional connection Prithwiraj wants to foster between the wearer and the watch. The international design patent recognizes the innovation and cultural significance of this creation, emphasizing how heritage and sustainability can coexist in modern design.

Prithwiraj’s work highlights the potential of young Indian designers to reshape fashion by integrating indigenous knowledge with contemporary needs. Olavu stands as a symbol of eco-friendly innovation rooted in tradition.

For more information about **Channapatna craft**, visit the [Karnataka Handicrafts Development Corporation](https://khandicrafts.karnataka.gov.in/).

To explore more on sustainable fashion and accessories, check out the [Sustainable Fashion Guide](https://www.sustainablefashionguide.org/).

Delhi High Court Awards ₹8 Lakh to Puma in Trademark Infringement Suit Over Counterfeit Goods

by

The Delhi High Court has awarded ₹8 lakh in damages to global sportswear giant PUMA SE in a trademark infringement case against a seller of counterfeit products. The court also issued a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from using Puma’s registered trademarks.

⚖️ Court Decision

Justice Saurabh Banerjee, presiding over the case, held that the defendant had willfully violated Puma’s trademark rights by selling fake products bearing identical marks. The court observed that the imitation was not accidental but a deliberate attempt to deceive consumers.

The court noted:

“The products being sold by the defendant are counterfeit, carrying the same logos, marks, and branding, which clearly shows the intent to ride upon the reputation of the plaintiff.”

Since the defendant failed to appear or submit any response despite several notices—especially after February 2024—the case proceeded ex parte.

🔗 Read full judgment coverage on LiveLaw

🛑 Counterfeiting and Consumer Deception

The court emphasized that Puma’s trademarks are well-known globally and have established significant goodwill and consumer trust in India. The defendant, by selling goods with identical marks in the same trade channels, violated the Trade Marks Act, 1999, and engaged in unfair competition.

This judgment aims to set a precedent for stricter action against counterfeiters who infringe on the rights of established brands and mislead Indian consumers.

“This is not a mere case of passing off; it is a case of outright counterfeiting,” the court held.

💰 Damages and Penalty

The High Court awarded Puma ₹8 lakh as compensation, citing the following reasons:

  • The damage to the brand’s reputation.
  • The loss of genuine sales and business.
  • The need to deter such unlawful conduct.

The court rejected symbolic damages and instead granted substantial monetary relief, reinforcing the seriousness of trademark violations.

🧾 Background of the Case

Puma filed the lawsuit after discovering the unauthorized sale of counterfeit Puma products by a local trader. The company sought:

  • A permanent injunction.
  • Damages for trademark infringement.
  • Disclosure of profits earned from fake goods.

Despite several summonses and notices, the defendant remained absent, prompting the court to decide based on the material available.

🔍 Legal Significance

This case highlights India’s growing judicial commitment to protecting IP rights, especially for well-known trademarks. Courts are increasingly awarding higher damages to deter counterfeiting, sending a clear signal to violators.

A similar ruling by the Delhi High Court in March 2025 also awarded ₹11 lakh in damages to Puma in a separate counterfeit case, showing judicial consistency in protecting brand owners.

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

by

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

🔍 About the Patent Application

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

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

⚖️ Key Objections Raised by the Patent Office

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

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

🧑‍⚖️ Court’s Analysis and Final Verdict

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

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

The Court relied on key precedents, including:

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

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

🧠 Implications for Software Patentability

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

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

🌐 Useful Resources:

Rajasthan High Court: Registrar Cannot Remove Trademark Without Serving Notice

by

In a key ruling, the Rajasthan High Court has declared that a registered trademark cannot be removed from the Trade Marks Register without issuing a mandatory notice under Section 25(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

The Court criticized the Registrar of Trademarks for removing a mark without serving Notice O-3, as required under Rule 58 of the Trade Marks Rules, 2017.

⚖️ What the Court Said

Justice Uma Shanker Vyas held that:

  • Issuing notice is mandatory before deleting any trademark.
  • Even if a renewal application is not filed, removal cannot happen without prior warning.
  • The Registrar’s duty is to comply with Section 25(3) and Rule 58.

The Court concluded that failure to issue Notice O-3 violates the rights of trademark holders. It set aside the removal and ordered the restoration of the trademark.

📌 Case Background

The petitioner held a valid trademark that had expired over seven years ago. However, they did not receive any notice from the Registry before the mark was deleted.

The Registrar acted unilaterally, without following the legal process. This prompted the petitioner to challenge the move in court.

📘 Legal Position: Section 25 and Rule 58

  • Section 25(1): Trademark registration is valid for ten years.
  • Section 25(3): Registrar must serve notice before removal if renewal is not filed.
  • Rule 58: Requires the issuance of Notice O-3 at least one month before expiry.

If the Registrar skips this process, the removal becomes illegal. This ruling follows the precedent set by the Bombay High Court in a similar case.

⚠️ Disclaimer:

This article is for informational purposes only. It is based on official legal documents and public court records. It does not constitute legal advice. Please consult an intellectual property lawyer for case-specific guidance.

Crunchfish Receives Patent in Taiwan for Offline Payment Breakthrough

by

Taiwan has officially granted a patent to Crunchfish Digital Cash AB, a Sweden-based fintech company, for its cutting-edge offline payment solution. The newly awarded patent (No. I888477) covers Crunchfish’s “Reserve–Pay–Settle” technology that enables digital payments to occur securely without an internet connection. The patent will remain valid until January 2041.

The announcement comes after similar patents were approved in the United States in July 2024 and in the European Union, with a decision to grant issued in December 2024 and confirmed in June 2025.

🔗 Full story on TradingView via Reuters

What Is Crunchfish’s Patent About?

Crunchfish’s patented system allows payments to be made even when devices are offline. The process works in three stages:

  1. Reserve: The payer locks funds for the transaction.
  2. Pay: The transaction is digitally signed offline.
  3. Settle: Once the payer or payee reconnects to the internet, the transaction is settled online.

This approach solves a major challenge in digital payments by providing resilience in areas with limited connectivity or during network outages. It also supports Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) initiatives where offline capability is crucial.

📘 For more on Crunchfish’s Digital Cash platform, visit the official site.

Expanding Global IP Footprint

Taiwan becomes the third major jurisdiction to grant Crunchfish a patent for its offline payment system. The company’s technology is now protected in:

  • 🇺🇸 United States – Patent granted in July 2024
  • 🇪🇺 European Union – Patent finalized in June 2025
  • 🇹🇼 Taiwan – Patent issued in July 2025

Patent applications are also pending in India and China. A hearing in India is expected later in July 2025.

Leadership Statement

Joachim Samuelsson, CEO of Crunchfish, commented on the milestone:

“Securing the patent in Taiwan confirms the global value of our innovation. This technology addresses the future of payments, especially in challenging environments.”

📢 See more from Crunchfish in their newsroom

Why This Matters

The patent is crucial for:

  • Boosting financial inclusion in offline areas
  • Enhancing payment reliability during internet failures
  • Supporting CBDC rollouts with offline functionality
  • Protecting Crunchfish’s innovation in key Asian markets

The development also increases Crunchfish’s leverage in licensing and future partnerships.

Disclaimer:

This article is based on information available as of July 12, 2025. All IP rights belong to their respective owners. Please consult crunchfish.com and official IP databases for verification and updates.

Big Pharma Faces $180 Billion ‘Patent Cliff’ Threat by 2028

by

Global pharmaceutical giants are preparing for a major challenge as patents on many best-selling drugs near expiration. Analysts warn of a looming “patent cliff” set to hit the industry between 2027 and 2028. This wave of expirations could erase $180 billion in annual revenues, or about 12% of global pharma sales.

What is a Patent Cliff?

A patent cliff refers to a sharp revenue drop that occurs when patents on high-earning drugs expire. Once exclusivity ends, generic and biosimilar competitors can enter the market, driving prices down rapidly.

One of the biggest drugs facing expiry is Keytruda, a cancer therapy by Merck. The drug earned nearly $30 billion in 2024, making it the world’s top-selling drug. Keytruda’s patent is set to expire in 2028, opening the floodgates to biosimilars.

Pharma’s Strategic Shift

To offset future losses, Big Pharma is shifting away from mega-mergers and embracing targeted acquisitions.

For instance, Merck recently acquired Verona Pharma for $10 billion. Verona’s lead drug, Ohtuvayre, treats chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) and recently received FDA approval. Analysts project this therapy could generate $4 billion in annual sales by the mid-2030s.

Read more: Merck’s Verona Pharma deal – FT

More than Just Mergers

Beyond acquisitions, companies are also using patent-extension tactics. This includes reformulating drugs or introducing new delivery systems to create fresh patents — a controversial method often called “patent thicketing.”

Some firms are also accelerating R&D, especially in oncology, immunotherapy, and gene editing. Despite the uncertainty, the industry sits on $1.3 trillion in deal-making capital.

Risks on the Horizon

The path ahead is not without risk.

  • Regulatory uncertainty in the U.S. and Europe could impact drug pricing and market access.
  • Investor sentiment is also shifting. Shareholders now favor innovation-led growth over cost-cutting from large-scale mergers.
  • Biosimilar competition is rising slowly but surely, particularly for complex biologics like Humira and Keytruda.

The Road Ahead

Industry leaders must act fast. Without fresh blockbusters, companies could lose tens of billions in yearly revenue.

Pharma is in a race — not only to find the next big drug — but also to navigate a complex legal and regulatory environment. The next 12 to 18 months could determine which companies stay ahead and which fall behind.

Disclaimer:

This article is based on publicly available information sourced from the Financial Times. For the full original article, visit FT.com.

India’s IP Laws Struggle to Protect Traditional Cultural Expressions Amid Rising Cultural Appropriation

by

India’s diverse cultural heritage faces increasing threats from misappropriation. Yet, its legal framework remains unequipped to protect Traditional Cultural Expressions (TCEs). Experts warn that India’s current intellectual property (IP) laws fail to address the communal and evolving nature of these traditions.—What Are Traditional Cultural Expressions?Traditional Cultural Expressions (TCEs) include folk art, music, dance, crafts, and rituals passed down by indigenous communities. They reflect generations of collective creativity. But they often lack a single author or fixed form—two key criteria under India’s copyright and trademark laws. Learn more about TCEs from the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).—

Legal Gap in India’s IPR Framework

India’s Copyright Act, 1957 protects works with identifiable authors and finite durations. But TCEs are communal, anonymous, and timeless. As a result, communities cannot claim legal ownership. Trademarks and patents also focus on commercial inventiveness and brand identity—not traditional heritage. Even when designs or art styles are used commercially without consent, communities have limited legal options. A 2023 study published by Harvard ILJ emphasized the mismatch between modern IP tools and ancient traditions.—

The Case for Geographical Indications (GIs)

India has made progress with Geographical Indications (GI) under the GI Act, 1999. Art forms like Madhubani paintings, Warli motifs, and Channapatna toys have secured GI status.But GI protection only applies when a product is clearly linked to a geographical origin. It doesn’t cover broader cultural styles or evolving oral traditions. Moreover, many communities lack resources to register or enforce these rights.Explore registered Indian GIs on the Geographical Indications Registry website.—

Defensive Measures So Far

To prevent bio-piracy and knowledge theft, India established the Traditional Knowledge Digital Library (TKDL) in 2001. It catalogs ancient medicinal knowledge to block false patent claims.Experts now recommend creating a similar database for TCEs. Such a registry could document cultural expressions and acknowledge community origins, discouraging unauthorized use.—

Demand for Sui Generis Protection

Lawmakers and scholars are pushing for a sui generis (custom) law that gives collective and perpetual rights to communities. The law would include:Community ownership and control

Licensing systems for commercial use

Protection against distortion or misuse

Moral rights for attribution

Proposed drafts like the Traditional Knowledge (Protection and Promotion) Bill have surfaced in recent years. However, none have been enacted yet.More on this from Know Law.—

Recent Examples of Cultural Appropriation

In 2023, a major fashion label used tribal designs from Odisha without credit or compensation. Similarly, Bollywood films have used folk music and dances with no benefit to the original communities.These incidents highlight how vulnerable communities are to commercial exploitation. They also fuel calls for urgent legal reform.—The Way Forward

India must strengthen its IP laws to protect its living cultural heritage. Experts recommend:1. Enacting sui generis legislation 2. Building a national TCE registry 3. Supporting community-led IP enforcement 4. Raising awareness through legal aid and education 5. Aligning with global efforts under WIPO frameworks–

Conclusion

India is rich in traditions, but poor in legal tools to protect them. Without timely action, cultural appropriation will continue unchecked. Stronger laws and grassroots empowerment are essential to safeguard the identity and dignity of indigenous communities.—

Disclaimer:

This article is a journalistic synthesis based on publicly available legal sources and policy documents. It is intended for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.