In a landmark judgment, the Delhi High Court has provided critical clarity on the interpretation and application of Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970, particularly in cases concerning pharmaceutical innovations. The decision, rendered in the matter of Ischemix LLC v. The Controller of Patents, emphasizes the standards of patentability and the admissibility of post-filing data in applications involving new forms of known substances.
Section 3(d): A Barrier to Evergreening
Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act is a unique provision designed to prevent the “evergreening” of patents—where pharmaceutical companies attempt to extend patent monopolies by making minor modifications to known substances. The provision stipulates that a new form of a known substance is patentable only if it results in a significant enhancement of efficacy. In the context of pharmaceutical inventions, the Supreme Court, in its 2013 ruling in Novartis AG v. Union of India, interpreted “efficacy” to mean “therapeutic efficacy.”
The Ischemix LLC Case: Background
Ischemix LLC filed an appeal against the rejection of its patent application (No. 9739/DELNP/2011) by the Indian Patent Office on the grounds of Section 3(d). The applicant argued that they had submitted robust data—spanning in-vitro, in-vivo, and clinical trial results—along with expert opinions to demonstrate the enhanced therapeutic efficacy of the compound.
The Patent Office, however, rejected the application, noting that while comparative data had been submitted after the oral hearing, the data was not clearly explained or sufficiently correlated to therapeutic enhancement as claimed in the specification.
High Court’s Ruling: Key Takeaways
1. Therapeutic Efficacy as the Benchmark
The Delhi High Court reaffirmed the principle established in Novartis AG v. Union of India—that efficacy in the context of pharmaceutical patents must be understood as therapeutic efficacy. Mere improvements in physicochemical properties like stability or solubility are insufficient unless they translate to demonstrable therapeutic benefits.
2. Comparative Data: A Necessary Requirement
Drawing from its earlier ruling in DS Biopharma Limited v. Controller of Patents, the Court stressed that applicants must furnish comparative efficacy data to demonstrate enhancement over known substances. Importantly, this data should be provided in the form of structured comparative tables and supported by appropriate scientific evidence.
3. Admissibility of Post-Filing Data
The Court recognized the inherent delay in generating empirical efficacy data, especially in the pharmaceutical sector where clinical trials are time-intensive. It ruled that while some indication of efficacy should be included at the time of filing, post-filing data may be considered if it corroborates the technical effects disclosed in the original specification. This position is consistent with the Calcutta High Court’s judgment in Oyster Point Pharma Inc. v. Controller of Patents, which acknowledged the prolonged timeline for drug development.
4. Timing and Explanation of Additional Data
The Court made it clear that post-filing data must be submitted well before the final hearing at the Patent Office and should be clearly explained. Submitting complex efficacy data during written submissions post-hearing without oral explanation could render it ineffective, as the Controller may struggle to appreciate the technical details.
5. Requirement for Correlation with Specification
Referring to AstraZeneca AB v. Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd., the Court ruled that post-filing data should only confirm technical effects already hinted at or described in the specification. It cannot be used to introduce an entirely new technical effect.
Court’s Direction in Ischemix Case
Recognizing the importance of the data but noting the lack of explanation linking the data to therapeutic efficacy, the Court directed Ischemix LLC to submit an explanatory note correlating the submitted evidence to enhanced efficacy. Upon the Patent Office’s consent, the Court remanded the application for re-examination, thereby allowing a fair opportunity for reconsideration.
Broader Implications for Patent Law
This judgment offers significant guidance to pharmaceutical companies and patent practitioners navigating Section 3(d). It strikes a delicate balance between encouraging genuine innovation and preventing the misuse of the patent system to monopolize marginal improvements. The judgment also reinforces procedural discipline, requiring that critical data be timely, complete, and clearly presented.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s decision in Ischemix LLC v. The Controller of Patents builds upon the jurisprudence laid down in Novartis and contributes to a growing body of case law interpreting Section 3(d). As patent litigation continues to evolve in India’s dynamic pharmaceutical sector, such decisions will serve as important references for determining the scope of patentable subject matter and the treatment of post-filing evidence.
Legal experts expect that the continued engagement of the judiciary with Section 3(d) will bring greater predictability and transparency to India’s patent system, particularly for drug-related inventions.
India Breaks into Top Six Globally in 6G Patent Filings: MoS Telecom
India has achieved a significant milestone in the global race for next-generation wireless technology by ranking among the top six nations in 6G patent filings. This advancement underscores the country’s growing influence in shaping the future of telecommunications.
Strategic Push for 6G Leadership
Under the ‘Bharat 6G Vision,’ India aims to become a leader in the design, development, and deployment of 6G technology by 2030. The government is actively supporting this initiative through various programs, including funding research and development, establishing testbeds, and fostering collaborations between academia and industry. These efforts are expected to contribute to India’s goal of securing a 10% share of global 6G patents and one-sixth of contributions to global standards within the next three years .
Terahertz Frequency Bands: The Heart of 6G Innovation
6G technology is set to revolutionize wireless communication by operating in terahertz (THz) frequency bands, specifically between 95 GHz and 3 THz. This spectrum allows for data rates up to 1 terabit per second, marking a hundredfold increase over 5G speeds. Such capabilities will enable applications like immersive extended reality, digital twins, and seamless integration of terrestrial and non-terrestrial networks .
To facilitate research and development in these high-frequency bands, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has recommended setting up experimental authorizations for operations in the THz spectrum. This move is expected to position India as a global hub for 6G R&D .
Collaborative Efforts and Future Outlook
India’s ascent in 6G patent filings is attributed to a combination of government initiatives, private sector investments, and academic collaborations. Telecom giants like Reliance Jio, Bharti Airtel, and Tata Communications are investing heavily in 6G research, establishing research centers, and forming international partnerships to drive innovation .
Looking ahead, India is set to host the World Telecommunications Standardisation Assembly (WTSA) in Delhi from October 14 to 24, 2024.
Conclusion
India’s entry into the top six nations for 6G patent filings signifies a strategic leap towards becoming a global leader in next-generation wireless technology. With continued investment in research, infrastructure, and international collaboration, India is poised to play a pivotal role in defining the future of telecommunications.
Strategic Push for 6G Leadership
Under the ‘Bharat 6G Vision,’ India aims to become a leader in the design, development, and deployment of 6G technology by 2030. The government is actively supporting this initiative through various programs, including funding research and development, establishing testbeds, and fostering collaborations between academia and industry. These efforts are expected to contribute to India’s goal of securing a 10% share of global 6G patents and one-sixth of contributions to global standards within the next three years .
Terahertz Frequency Bands: The Heart of 6G Innovation
6G technology is set to revolutionize wireless communication by operating in terahertz (THz) frequency bands, specifically between 95 GHz and 3 THz. This spectrum allows for data rates up to 1 terabit per second, marking a hundredfold increase over 5G speeds. Such capabilities will enable applications like immersive extended reality, digital twins, and seamless integration of terrestrial and non-terrestrial networks .
To facilitate research and development in these high-frequency bands, the Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) has recommended setting up experimental authorizations for operations in the THz spectrum. This move is expected to position India as a global hub for 6G R&D .
Collaborative Efforts and Future Outlook
India’s ascent in 6G patent filings is attributed to a combination of government initiatives, private sector investments, and academic collaborations. Telecom giants like Reliance Jio, Bharti Airtel, and Tata Communications are investing heavily in 6G research, establishing research centers, and forming international partnerships to drive innovation .
Looking ahead, India is set to host the World Telecommunications Standardisation Assembly (WTSA) in Delhi from October 14 to 24, 2024.
Conclusion
India’s entry into the top six nations for 6G patent filings signifies a strategic leap towards becoming a global leader in next-generation wireless technology. With continued investment in research, infrastructure, and international collaboration, India is poised to play a pivotal role in defining the future of telecommunications.
Delhi High Court Grants Relief to Indian Businessman in ‘ELFY’ Trademark Dispute with Pakistani National
In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has granted relief to an Indian businessman in a trademark dispute involving the mark ‘ELFY’ against Pakistani national Mohammed Younus Sheikh. The court’s decision underscores the importance of protecting intellectual property rights and upholding fair business practices.
Background of the Case
The dispute centers around the use of the ‘ELFY’ trademark, which the Indian businessman claims to have developed and used in commerce for several years. Mohammed Younus Sheikh, a Pakistani national, had claimed that his company had been using the ‘ELFY’ mark for industrial adhesives since 1981. Sheikh’s company had registered the mark in Pakistan and asserted that it had acquired a transborder reputation, particularly in India.
The Indian businessman contended that he had been using the ‘ELFY’ mark in India since 1988 and had built a significant reputation and goodwill associated with the mark. He argued that Sheikh’s adoption of the same mark in India was likely to cause confusion among consumers and harm his business interests.
Court’s Findings
The Delhi High Court examined the evidence presented by both parties, including the dates of adoption and use of the ‘ELFY’ mark, marketing materials, and consumer testimonials. The court found that the Indian businessman had established prior use of the mark in India and had built a recognizable brand associated with ‘ELFY.’
In contrast, the court noted that Mohammed Younus Sheikh had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate prior use or registration of the ‘ELFY’ mark in India. The court emphasized the principle of territoriality in trademark law, asserting that the rights to a trademark are generally confined to the jurisdiction where the mark is used and recognized.
Legal Implications
This ruling reinforces the importance of establishing and maintaining clear records of trademark use and registration. It also highlights the challenges businesses may face when operating in international markets, where the risk of trademark disputes can arise due to similarities in branding.
Legal experts suggest that businesses should conduct thorough trademark searches before adopting new marks and consider registering their trademarks in key markets to protect their brand identity and prevent potential conflicts.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s decision serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in trademark law and the need for businesses to be vigilant in protecting their intellectual property. As global commerce continues to expand, understanding and navigating trademark rights across different jurisdictions will be crucial for businesses seeking to safeguard their brands.
Anthropic Faces Legal Scrutiny Over AI-Fabricated Citation in Copyright Lawsuit
Anthropic, the AI company known for its chatbot Claude, is under legal scrutiny after an expert witness allegedly cited a fabricated academic article in a copyright infringement case. The lawsuit, filed by music publishers including Universal Music Group, Concord, and ABKCO, accuses Anthropic of using copyrighted song lyrics without permission to train Claude.
The Alleged Fabrication
During a recent court hearing, Matt Oppenheim, representing the plaintiffs, claimed that Olivia Chen, an Anthropic data scientist, cited a non-existent academic paper to support arguments about how often Claude reproduces copyrighted lyrics. The article was allegedly generated by Anthropic’s AI and falsely attributed to a reputable journal. Judge mentioned the incident as a “serious issue” and demanded a prompt response from Anthropic. However, she denied an immediate deposition of Chen.
Anthropic’s Response
Anthropic acknowledged the citation error but suggested it might relate to a different, legitimate article. The company has not provided further details on how the AI-generated citation occurred or what measures are being taken to prevent such incidents in the future.
Broader Legal Implications
This development adds to the mounting legal challenges faced by Anthropic and other AI companies over the use of copyrighted materials in training data. In a separate lawsuit, authors Andrea Bartz, Charles Graeber, and Kirk Wallace Johnson allege that Anthropic used pirated books, including their own works, to train Claude. The authors claim that Anthropic’s AI model profits from “strip-mining the human expression and ingenuity” behind their works.
Computerworld
The legal landscape is evolving as courts grapple with the intersection of AI technology and intellectual property rights. While AI companies argue that training models on existing content falls under “fair use,” copyright holders contend that their works are being exploited without permission or compensation.
Conclusion
The alleged AI-generated citation in the copyright lawsuit against Anthropic underscores the complexities and challenges of integrating AI into legal and creative domains. As the case progresses, it may set important precedents for how AI companies handle copyrighted materials and the ethical considerations surrounding AI-generated content.
The Alleged Fabrication
During a recent court hearing, Matt Oppenheim, representing the plaintiffs, claimed that Olivia Chen, an Anthropic data scientist, cited a non-existent academic paper to support arguments about how often Claude reproduces copyrighted lyrics. The article was allegedly generated by Anthropic’s AI and falsely attributed to a reputable journal. Judge mentioned the incident as a “serious issue” and demanded a prompt response from Anthropic. However, she denied an immediate deposition of Chen.
Anthropic’s Response
Anthropic acknowledged the citation error but suggested it might relate to a different, legitimate article. The company has not provided further details on how the AI-generated citation occurred or what measures are being taken to prevent such incidents in the future.
Broader Legal Implications
This development adds to the mounting legal challenges faced by Anthropic and other AI companies over the use of copyrighted materials in training data. In a separate lawsuit, authors Andrea Bartz, Charles Graeber, and Kirk Wallace Johnson allege that Anthropic used pirated books, including their own works, to train Claude. The authors claim that Anthropic’s AI model profits from “strip-mining the human expression and ingenuity” behind their works.
Computerworld
The legal landscape is evolving as courts grapple with the intersection of AI technology and intellectual property rights. While AI companies argue that training models on existing content falls under “fair use,” copyright holders contend that their works are being exploited without permission or compensation.
Conclusion
The alleged AI-generated citation in the copyright lawsuit against Anthropic underscores the complexities and challenges of integrating AI into legal and creative domains. As the case progresses, it may set important precedents for how AI companies handle copyrighted materials and the ethical considerations surrounding AI-generated content.
Delhi High Court Affirms Mandatory Timelines Under Rule 100 of Trade Marks Rules 2017
In the ruling, the Delhi High Court emphasized that timelines are mandatory and cannot be waived, even in exceptional circumstances.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a trademark opposition filed by Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. against Dabur India Ltd. Sun Pharma had submitted its evidence within the prescribed two-month period; however, there was a delay of three days in serving the evidence to Dabur. The Registrar of Trade Marks deemed the opposition abandoned due to this delay. Sun Pharma appealed the decision, arguing that the filing was timely, and the delay in service should not result in abandonment.
Court’s Analysis
The Delhi High Court examined the evolution of the Trade Marks Rules, noting that previous versions allowed for discretionary extensions of time. However, under the 2017 Rules, such discretion has been removed, indicating a legislative intent to enforce strict adherence to timelines. The Court referred to Rule 100, which specifies that evidence must be filed within two months from the date of service of the counter-statement.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s ruling serves as a clear reminder to stakeholders in the trademark domain about the critical importance of adhering to statutory timelines. With the removal of discretionary powers to extend deadlines, parties must exercise due diligence to comply with all procedural requirements within the stipulated timeframes.
Legal professionals and businesses are advised to stay informed about the implications of this judgment and ensure that all actions in trademark opposition proceedings are completed within the prescribed timelines to safeguard their interests.
Background of the Case
The case arose from a trademark opposition filed by Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. against Dabur India Ltd. Sun Pharma had submitted its evidence within the prescribed two-month period; however, there was a delay of three days in serving the evidence to Dabur. The Registrar of Trade Marks deemed the opposition abandoned due to this delay. Sun Pharma appealed the decision, arguing that the filing was timely, and the delay in service should not result in abandonment.
Court’s Analysis
The Delhi High Court examined the evolution of the Trade Marks Rules, noting that previous versions allowed for discretionary extensions of time. However, under the 2017 Rules, such discretion has been removed, indicating a legislative intent to enforce strict adherence to timelines. The Court referred to Rule 100, which specifies that evidence must be filed within two months from the date of service of the counter-statement.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s ruling serves as a clear reminder to stakeholders in the trademark domain about the critical importance of adhering to statutory timelines. With the removal of discretionary powers to extend deadlines, parties must exercise due diligence to comply with all procedural requirements within the stipulated timeframes.
Legal professionals and businesses are advised to stay informed about the implications of this judgment and ensure that all actions in trademark opposition proceedings are completed within the prescribed timelines to safeguard their interests.
Metro Brands Gets Interim Relief from Bombay High Court in Trademark Dispute with MetBrands
In a significant development in a closely watched intellectual property dispute, the Bombay High Court has granted interim relief to Metro Brands Ltd., a leading Indian footwear retailer, in its trademark infringement case against a startup operating under the name “MetBrands.”
On Monday, the court acknowledged Metro Brands’ longstanding presence in the Indian market and the strong consumer association with its brand name. Justice Manish Pitale, presiding over the matter, directed MetBrands to refrain from using the contested name or any deceptively similar mark until further orders.
Background of the Dispute
Metro Brands, incorporated in 1955, is a household name in Indian footwear retail with a wide footprint across premium malls and shopping destinations. The company claimed that MetBrands, a relatively new player in the fashion and lifestyle segment, was deliberately using a name strikingly similar to its own, thereby creating confusion in the minds of consumers and riding on the goodwill it has established over decades.
In its petition, Metro Brands argued that “MetBrands” not only shares phonetic and visual similarities but also overlaps in the domain of lifestyle and fashion retail, increasing the likelihood of trademark dilution and brand misappropriation.
Court’s Observations
The Bombay High Court, while hearing the interim plea, noted the potential harm to Metro Brands’ reputation and consumer trust due to the similarity between the two names. The court stated that prima facie, the use of “MetBrands” could amount to infringement under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.
Justice Pitale observed: “Given the longevity and recognition enjoyed by the plaintiff [Metro Brands] in the Indian market, and the phonetic resemblance of the defendant’s brand name, a case for interim injunction is clearly made out.”
Response from MetBrands
MetBrands, in its defense, claimed that the brand name was independently conceived and not intended to mislead consumers. The company also emphasized its limited operational scale compared to Metro Brands, suggesting there was no deliberate attempt to confuse or exploit.
Despite this, the court ruled in favor of granting temporary relief to Metro Brands, citing the need to prevent potential consumer deception and preserve brand integrity.
Legal and Industry Implications
Legal experts see the decision as a strong reinforcement of the importance of brand protection and the judiciary’s proactive stance in safeguarding intellectual property rights. “This interim order sends a clear message to emerging businesses about the necessity of conducting thorough trademark checks and building brand identities distinct from existing market players,” said Renu Arora, a Mumbai-based IP attorney.
What’s Next
The matter is scheduled for further hearing in July 2025, when the court will examine the merits of the case in greater detail. Until then, MetBrands has been restrained from using the disputed mark in any commercial context, including advertising, packaging, and digital presence.
For now, the order comes as a strategic win for Metro Brands, reinforcing its hold over its brand identity while the legal proceedings continue.
Trina Solar Leads Global Perovskite Solar Cell Patent Rankings
Trina Solar, a global leader in photovoltaic (PV) technology, has emerged at the forefront of perovskite solar cell innovation, boasting a significant portfolio of patents in this cutting-edge field. The company’s extensive research and development efforts have positioned it as a key player in advancing perovskite-based solar technologies.
Pioneering Perovskite Innovations
Since initiating research into perovskite and crystalline silicon tandem cell technology in 2014, Trina Solar has accumulated a substantial number of technological innovations. These advancements underscore the company’s commitment to enhancing solar cell efficiency and performance through novel materials and structures.
Robust Patent Portfolio
Trina Solar’s dedication to innovation is reflected in its impressive patent holdings. The company has applied for over 5,000 patents worldwide, with more than 3,000 granted, including over 500 patents specifically related to TOPCon (Tunnel Oxide Passivated Contact) cells and modules. This extensive patent portfolio not only safeguards Trina’s technological advancements but also reinforces its leadership in the solar industry.
Strategic Legal Actions
To protect its intellectual property, Trina Solar has actively pursued legal measures against entities infringing upon its patented technologies. A lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court of Delaware and a complaint with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) against Canadian Solar, Inc., alleging infringement of its TOPCon technology patents. These actions underscore Trina’s commitment to defending its innovations and maintaining fair competition in the industry.
Global Impact and Future Outlook
Trina Solar’s advancements in perovskite solar cell technology have significant implications for the global renewable energy landscape. By pushing the boundaries of solar cell efficiency and performance, the company contributes to the broader adoption of clean energy solutions worldwide. As the demand for high-efficiency solar technologies continues to grow, Trina Solar’s pioneering work in perovskite solar cells positions it to play a pivotal role in shaping the future of sustainable energy.
*For more information on Trina Solar’s innovations and patent portfolio, visit www.trinasolar.com.*
IIIT-Bangalore Hosts Patent Workshop to Boost Academic Innovation
In a significant move to strengthen the intellectual property (IP) landscape within Karnataka’s academic institutions, the International Institute of Information Technology Bangalore (IIIT-B) organized a one-day workshop titled “Patent Proficiency for Academic Innovators.” The event, held under the New Age Innovation Network (NAIN) 2.0 program, aimed to equip students, faculty, and innovators with practical knowledge on innovation.
Empowering Academic Innovators
The workshop was conducted in collaboration with Startup Karnataka and the Department of IT, BT, Government of Karnataka. Distinguished speakers included Nithin Chakki, KAS, General Manager of the Karnataka Innovation and Technology Society (KITS); Cmd. Sridhar, Registrar of IIIT-B; Prakash Balekundri, CEO of Unique Patent Solutions. They emphasized the critical role of intellectual property rights (IPR) in translating academic research into market-ready solutions.
The sessions provided attendees with insights into identifying patentable ideas, navigating the patent filing process, and enhancing the quality of patent applications. Real-world case studies and expert guidance were integral to the workshop, offering participants a comprehensive understanding of the journey from research ideation to securing intellectual property.
Extending Reach to Tier-2 Institutions
As an anchor institute for the NAIN 2.0 program, IIIT-B extended the workshop’s benefits to several affiliated institutions, including Jain (Deemed-to-be University), Bapuji Institute of Engineering & Technology in Davangere, Malnad College of Engineering, Mangalore Institute of Technology and Engineering, and St. Philomena College in Puttur. This initiative reflects a growing commitment among Tier-2 city institutions to build robust IPR ecosystems and contribute to the state’s innovation goals.
Fostering a Culture of Innovation
Dr. Lakshmi Jagannathan stressed the importance of guiding these innovators in protecting their work, commercializing it, and contributing meaningfully to the economy. The workshop also focused on strengthening the capabilities of Technology Transfer Offices (TTOs) within institutions, emphasizing their role in bridging the gap between innovative ideas and IP protection.
About IIIT-Bangalore and Its Innovation Centre
The IIIT-B Innovation Centre serves as a dynamic hub for fostering innovation, entrepreneurship, and cutting-edge research. As a not-for-profit Section 8 company hosted by IIIT-Bangalore, the centre offers state-of-the-art incubation facilities, advanced labs, and access to expert mentorship. It supports projects across various domains, including artificial intelligence, data science, Internet of Things (IoT), and digital health. Having supported over 100 startups, the centre plays a pivotal role in nurturing emerging talent and driving technological advancements, positioning itself as a key enabler of innovation and collaboration in India’s tech ecosystem.
IIIT-Bangalore, Situated in the heart of Electronic City, Bangalore, it holds a prominent position in the academic landscape and is graded A+ by the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC).
The successful execution of the “Patent Proficiency for Academic Innovators” workshop marks a significant step forward in Karnataka’s vision to cultivate a knowledge-led innovation economy, ensuring that academic discoveries translate into impactful, real-world solutions.
CarbonScape Awarded EU Patent, Poised to Transform EV Battery Supply Chain with Sustainable Biographite
In a major milestone for sustainable technology, New Zealand-based clean-tech company CarbonScape has been officially granted a European Union patent for its innovative biographite production process. The development is expected to dramatically reshape the electric vehicle (EV) battery supply chain by offering an eco-friendly alternative to traditional graphite—a key material in lithium-ion batteries.
The Challenge with Traditional Graphite
Graphite plays a critical role in EV batteries as the primary material used in anodes. However, the global supply of graphite has long been fraught with environmental and geopolitical challenges. Synthetic graphite, commonly used in high-performance batteries, is energy-intensive and derived from petroleum coke, resulting in high carbon emissions. Natural graphite, often sourced through mining, raises concerns about ecological degradation and unsustainable extraction practices.
CarbonScape’s Breakthrough: Biographite
This novel material serves as a carbon-negative substitute for synthetic and mined graphite, aligning with global efforts to reduce the carbon footprint of EVs.
Unlike traditional graphite production methods that require extreme heat of up to 3,000°C, CarbonScape’s process operates at significantly lower temperatures, around 1,500°C. Most notably, the production of biographite can actually remove more carbon dioxide from the atmosphere than it emits, making it a potentially revolutionary contributor to climate change mitigation.
EU Patent Strengthens Global Reach
With the newly issued EU patent, CarbonScape secures exclusive rights to its biographite technology in one of the world’s largest EV markets. The patent provides legal and commercial leverage as the company accelerates its plans to scale up production in Europe and beyond.
“It not only validates the uniqueness of our technology but also paves the way for localizing battery supply chains with a sustainable, homegrown solution.”
Localizing and Decarbonizing the Battery Supply Chain
One of CarbonScape’s major strategic advantages lies in its ability to decentralize production. By building smaller, localized plants near battery manufacturing hubs, the company can reduce transportation emissions and improve supply chain resilience.
According to internal estimates, producing biographite could avoid up to 30 tons of CO₂ emissions for every ton manufactured, compared to traditional graphite. As countries strive to meet ambitious net-zero goals, this kind of innovation could become indispensable.
Global Expansion and Strategic Partnerships
CarbonScape has already begun setting the groundwork for expansion. Commercial-scale production is projected to begin by 2029, with a goal of meeting at least 50% of the projected graphite demand for EV and grid-scale batteries by 2030.
These partnerships are expected to provide both financial support and industrial know-how needed to accelerate commercialization.
Sustainability at the Forefront
The move to biographite underscores a larger trend in the EV industry toward greener and more ethical sourcing of battery materials. As regulatory bodies in the EU and elsewhere implement stricter sustainability requirements, CarbonScape’s technology positions itself as a forward-looking solution ready for rapid adoption.
“With this patent, we’re not just protecting a technology—we’re setting a new standard for what sustainable battery materials should look like,” Williams emphasized.
Outlook
As the automotive world shifts gears toward zero-emission mobility, innovations like biographite could be the missing link in creating truly green batteries—from the source to the road.
If scaled effectively, CarbonScape’s approach could offer the EV industry a blueprint for sustainable growth—one that is not only more environmentally responsible but also more resilient to supply chain disruptions.
Nobel Prize Winners Convince Court to Revive CRISPR Patent Dispute
In a significant legal development with profound implications for the future of genetic engineering, a U.S. federal appeals court has agreed to revisit a high-stakes patent battle over CRISPR-Cas9 gene-editing technology. This decision follows a petition spearheaded by Nobel Prize-winning scientists Jennifer Doudna and Emmanuelle Charpentier, who are seeking to reclaim intellectual property rights over one of the most groundbreaking discoveries in modern biology.
The CRISPR Breakthrough
CRISPR-Cas9, a revolutionary tool that enables precise editing of DNA, has transformed the field of genetics since its development in the early 2010s. The technology allows scientists to alter genes with unprecedented ease and accuracy, offering promise in treating genetic diseases, improving crops, and even combating climate change. In 2020, Doudna and Charpentier were awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for their pioneering work on CRISPR.
A Complex Legal Landscape
The CRISPR patent battle has pitted the University of California, Berkeley—where Doudna conducted much of her research—against the Broad Institute of MIT and Harvard. In 2022, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) ruled in favor of the Broad Institute, recognizing its claim over the use of CRISPR in eukaryotic cells, including human cells.
UC Berkeley had earlier filed for the foundational CRISPR patent, but the Broad Institute’s expedited filing and specific focus on eukaryotic applications earned it a separate, and so far, legally upheld claim. The dispute centers on whether the Broad’s innovations were obvious extensions of the original CRISPR work or merited independent patent protection.
The Revival of the Case
In a rare move, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has agreed to review the previous ruling, citing newly presented arguments and scientific evidence by the UC Berkeley team and their legal representatives. Doudna and her colleagues argue that the Broad Institute’s patents should be invalidated on the grounds that the underlying concept of CRISPR in eukaryotic cells was an “obvious” step from their foundational research.
“The decision to revisit the case acknowledges the evolving understanding of CRISPR’s development and the need to fairly assign credit for its invention,” said a UC Berkeley spokesperson.
Legal analysts believe that the court’s decision could reshape the landscape of biotechnology patents. “This is not just about who owns CRISPR,” said Lisa Morgan, a biotech patent attorney in Washington. “It’s about how intellectual property is awarded in rapidly advancing scientific fields.”
Scientific and Commercial Stakes
The implications of the patent dispute are enormous. CRISPR-based therapies are currently in clinical trials for conditions such as sickle cell anemia, cancer, and blindness. With billions of dollars in potential revenue at stake, the ownership of key CRISPR patents determines who can license the technology and at what cost.
The legal battle has also sparked concern within the scientific community over how intellectual property law intersects with collaborative research and open science. Many researchers argue that patent disputes could stifle innovation and slow the development of life-saving treatments.
What’s Next?
The appeals court is expected to hear oral arguments later this year, with a decision anticipated in early 2026. Until then, the scientific community, biotech firms, and investors will be closely watching the proceedings.
As the legal saga unfolds, the core of the dispute remains a fundamental question about innovation in science: Who truly owns a discovery when multiple researchers contribute to a single transformative breakthrough?