Google Files Patent for Face Detection Tech to Seamlessly Activate Gemini AI

by


The new system could replace “Hey Google” with silent, face-based activation for faster and more natural AI interactions.

Google has filed a new patent for a face-detection technology designed to make its Gemini AI assistant activate automatically when a user’s face comes near the device. The innovation could eliminate the need for voice hotwords such as “Hey Google” and deliver a smoother, hands-free experience.

How the system works

The patent describes a method that uses capacitive sensors built into modern touchscreens. These sensors measure small changes in electric fields. When a face or mouth moves close to the screen, it alters the field in a recognizable way. The device can then identify this “face-near” signature and activate Gemini for a short listening window.

Unlike camera-based recognition, this approach does not rely on capturing or storing facial images. Instead, it detects proximity, ensuring faster response and lower power consumption. The patent shows that the feature can run continuously in the background without draining the battery or compromising user privacy.

Benefits for users

The new technology could make AI access more natural. Users will no longer need to say “Hey Google” or press any button. They can simply lift the phone or move closer to the screen and speak directly to Gemini.

This hands-free method could also perform better in noisy environments, where voice triggers often fail. It might prove especially useful when users are wearing masks or in situations where speaking the wake phrase is inconvenient.

A step toward ambient AI

Google’s patent aligns with its vision of ambient computing — a world where AI assistants operate seamlessly in the background. The Gemini model already powers smarter responses and generative capabilities across Google’s ecosystem. Adding face-proximity activation could make interactions even more effortless.

The system could later extend to other devices such as smart glasses, smart speakers, or in-car displays, allowing Gemini to recognize intent through presence rather than speech.

Privacy and control

Although the feature detects faces, it does not identify individual users. The system focuses on sensing movement and proximity, not identity. However, experts say Google will need to offer strong privacy controls and opt-out options when rolling out the feature. Users will expect transparency about what data is processed and how it is stored.

Challenges and concerns

Like any sensor-based system, false triggers are a risk. The assistant might activate accidentally if a hand or another object moves near the screen. The patent mentions using machine-learning filters to reduce such errors over time.

Battery optimization will also be important. Even though capacitive sensing uses less power than microphones or cameras, continuous background operation still requires efficient software design.

Patent does not guarantee release

Google’s filing does not confirm that the feature will appear in upcoming devices. Companies often patent experimental technologies to secure intellectual property before commercialization. If implemented, the face-detection trigger could debut in future Pixel smartphones or as a Gemini feature update within Android.

Conclusion

Google’s face-detection patent hints at a future where AI assistants respond intuitively — without wake words or button presses. The approach combines convenience, speed, and lower energy use. Still, its success will depend on accuracy, privacy protection, and user trust.

If brought to market, this innovation could redefine how people interact with their devices and move one step closer to truly context-aware artificial intelligence.

Genentech Wins $124 Million in Cabilly Patent Dispute Against Biogen

by

California Court Orders Biogen to Pay Royalties for Tysabri Sales

A California federal judge has ruled in favor of Genentech, awarding the Roche subsidiary $124 million in royalties from Biogen. The payment relates to the use of Genentech’s patented antibody manufacturing technology, known as the Cabilly patents.

Background of the Dispute
The Cabilly patents, developed over four decades ago, form the foundation for producing monoclonal antibodies. These antibodies are key components in drugs like Tysabri, used to treat multiple sclerosis and Crohn’s disease.

Genentech filed a breach of contract lawsuit in 2023. The company alleged that Biogen failed to pay royalties on Tysabri vials produced before the patents expired in December 2018 but sold afterward, with some sales extending as late as 2022.

Court Ruling and Financials
Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers sided with Genentech. The court ordered Biogen to pay $88 million in royalties. An additional $36 million in interest was included, bringing the total to $124 million. The judge highlighted that such “tail royalties” are common practice in the biopharma industry.

Significance of the Cabilly Patents
The Cabilly patents have been central to multiple legal battles over the years. Notably, the 2007 U.S. Supreme Court case MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. confirmed that licensees can challenge a patent’s validity while the license is active.

This ruling emphasizes the long-lasting impact of the Cabilly patents. Licensing agreements and royalty obligations in the biopharma sector continue to hinge on these foundational patents.

Industry Impact
The decision may influence how pharmaceutical companies handle post-expiration sales and royalties. Experts note that tail royalties are critical for compensating original patent holders for continued use of their innovations.

PTAB Upholds Wireless Patent Against Nokia and Ericsson

by

The U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has ruled against Nokia and Ericsson in their bid to invalidate a wireless communication patent. The decision preserves 15 key claims from U.S. Patent No. 10,715,235, which focuses on improving data transmission and reducing interference in modern wireless systems.

The ruling marks a significant win for the patent owner, reinforcing the validity of technology used in advanced communication networks.

Patent Focus: Beamforming and Signal Optimization

The patent centers on beamforming and signal management techniques that enhance communication between multiple antennas. It aims to minimize interference, strengthen data transfer, and improve overall network efficiency—core elements in 5G and future wireless infrastructure.

The PTAB concluded that Nokia and Ericsson did not present sufficient evidence to prove the patent claims were unpatentable. The Board found that the prior art references and expert testimony failed to demonstrate clear overlap with the patented invention.

PTAB Rejects Invalidity Arguments

Both telecom companies had argued that the patent’s claims were invalid due to anticipation and obviousness. However, the Board determined that the patent represented a distinct technical advancement in wireless signal processing.

This decision reflects the PTAB’s increasingly rigorous approach to inter partes review (IPR) petitions, particularly in cases involving next-generation communication technologies.

Legal and Industry Implications

The outcome limits Nokia and Ericsson’s ability to use similar invalidity arguments in any future litigation under AIA estoppel provisions. It also strengthens the patent holder’s position in ongoing and future licensing discussions, potentially increasing royalty demands.

Industry experts suggest that the ruling reinforces the importance of robust patent strategies as 5G innovation continues to expand globally. The case highlights how high-value patents in wireless communication remain key competitive assets in the telecom sector.

Broader Context: PTAB’s Changing Dynamics

The PTAB has shown a trend toward upholding more patents amid a rise in challenges from major technology firms. Recent patterns suggest a stricter review process, with the Board emphasizing the need for strong technical and evidentiary support in IPR filings.

This shift may encourage companies to pursue collaborative licensing or design-around strategies rather than relying solely on invalidity petitions to weaken competitors’ portfolios.

What’s Next for Nokia and Ericsson

Both firms are expected to evaluate their legal options, including a potential appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. However, appellate courts typically give deference to the PTAB’s technical findings, making reversals rare.

The decision is likely to influence future patent challenges involving wireless infrastructure, signal processing, and 5G deployment technologies, where innovation and patent rights remain critical to market leadership.

UK Consumer Group Takes Qualcomm to Court

by

U.S. chipmaker Qualcomm is facing a major legal challenge in the United Kingdom over alleged abuse of market dominance in its patent licensing and chip supply practices.
Consumer watchdog Which? has brought a £480 million (US$647 million) lawsuit before the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) in London. The group claims Qualcomm imposed unfair conditions on smartphone manufacturers, leading to inflated prices for millions of UK consumers.

According to Which?, Qualcomm’s “no licence, no chips” policy forced companies like Apple and Samsung to obtain patent licenses before they could purchase Qualcomm’s chipsets. The consumer group argues that this practice created an “industry-wide private tax”, ultimately passed on to smartphone buyers.

Read more on Reuters

Allegations of Market Abuse

The lawsuit accuses Qualcomm of abusing its dominant position in the markets for both mobile chipsets and standard-essential patents (SEPs). These SEPs are crucial for mobile communication standards such as 4G and 5G, and patent holders are generally required to license them on Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms.

Which? claims that Qualcomm violated these principles by tying chip sales to costly patent licenses. The group says this practice distorted competition and inflated royalties that device makers paid for access to Qualcomm’s technology.

Qualcomm Defends Licensing Practices

Qualcomm has denied all allegations of wrongdoing. The company argues that its licensing terms are consistent with global industry norms and that manufacturers such as Apple and Samsung possess substantial bargaining power.

A Qualcomm spokesperson said the company’s business model is lawful and has been upheld in previous court decisions. The firm pointed to the U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that overturned a similar case filed by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), which found Qualcomm’s licensing model to be legitimate under U.S. antitrust law.

Consumer Impact and Wider Implications

Which? estimates that around 29 million UK consumers who purchased iPhones or Samsung devices since 2015 were affected by Qualcomm’s practices. The lawsuit argues that inflated royalty costs were passed on to customers in the form of higher handset prices.

If the tribunal rules in favor of Which?, Qualcomm could be ordered to pay hundreds of millions in damages and alter its licensing policies in the UK. The case could also influence how standard-essential patent licensing is handled across Europe and other markets.

The trial, expected to run for five weeks, will determine whether Qualcomm’s conduct breached UK competition law. A separate hearing may follow to decide the amount of compensation if the company is found liable.

Broader Context

This case echoes regulatory scrutiny Qualcomm has faced worldwide. In 2018, the European Commission fined the firm €997 million for abusing its dominance in LTE chipsets. Similar disputes have arisen in South Korea, China, and the United States, where authorities have examined Qualcomm’s licensing policies.

A ruling against Qualcomm in the UK could set a major precedent for how tech giants manage their intellectual property and pricing models in the mobile industry.

Singapore’s AEM Faces Patent Challenge

by

Singapore-based AEM Holdings Ltd has strongly denied allegations of patent infringement filed by a U.S. semiconductor company. The complaint, lodged in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California, accuses AEM of infringing patents related to advanced wafer-level testing systems.

The lawsuit reportedly focuses on patents covering wafer test systems equipped with thermal control technologies. The U.S. firm alleges that AEM’s testing solutions use similar methods without authorization.

AEM dismissed the claims, describing them as baseless and lacking merit. The company stated that it operates within international intellectual property laws and owns a strong portfolio of patents supporting its innovations.

“AEM strongly denies these allegations and believes the lawsuit lacks merit. We are confident this matter will not have a material impact on our operations,” the company said in an official SGX filing.

Sharp Decline in Share Value

Following the announcement, AEM’s stock fell by 9.3% on Tuesday as investors reacted to the legal development. The decline reflected market concerns over potential litigation costs, possible injunctions, and uncertainty surrounding the dispute’s outcome.

Analysts note that patent lawsuits in the semiconductor industry can take years to resolve and often involve high legal expenses. Even if a company ultimately prevails, the process can temporarily affect investor confidence and market performance.

This legal challenge comes at a time when global semiconductor manufacturers are ramping up innovation in testing and automation systems to meet rising chip demand. Intellectual property protection has therefore become a key competitive factor for industry players.

Implications for the Semiconductor Sector

The case highlights the growing frequency of intellectual property disputes within the semiconductor sector. As companies push the boundaries of chip testing and design technology, patent overlaps and legal confrontations have become more common.

If the court rules against AEM, it may face monetary penalties, licensing obligations, or the need to redesign affected products. However, if the company successfully defends itself, it could reaffirm the strength of its technology portfolio and restore market confidence.

Industry experts often observe that such disputes eventually lead to settlements or cross-licensing arrangements, allowing both parties to move forward without long-term disruptions.

AEM’s Response and Future Outlook

AEM confirmed that it has engaged legal counsel in the United States and intends to vigorously defend its position. The company reiterated that the case would not affect its business operations or financial performance.

AEM continues to expand its global presence in semiconductor test solutions, automation systems, and equipment engineering. The firm maintains that its technologies are independently developed and compliant with all applicable IP regulations.

The coming months will be crucial as AEM presents its defense and the court reviews the claims. The outcome will likely shape how technology companies manage and safeguard intellectual property in an increasingly competitive semiconductor landscape.

Volkswagen Patents Controversial Eye-Tracking Tech to Replace Car Buttons

by

Volkswagen has filed a new patent that could revolutionize — or complicate — how drivers interact with their cars. The German automaker is developing an eye-tracking control system designed to replace physical buttons and switches with intelligent gaze-based commands.

How the Eye-Tracking System Works

According to the patent, Volkswagen’s system uses cameras and sensors to monitor where a driver is looking. When the driver focuses on a particular component — such as the air vents, music controls, or window buttons — the system identifies the intended target.

Once selected, the driver uses a universal joystick-style controller on the steering wheel to execute the action. This controller can be pressed, rotated, or moved to adjust functions like temperature, volume, or mirror angle.

The technology aims to merge eye movement detection with a single multifunction control, minimizing dashboard clutter and reducing the number of physical buttons.

Potential Benefits of the Technology

Volkswagen says the innovation could create cleaner interiors and offer intuitive control over in-car systems. By combining gaze detection with a single control unit, the system could simplify the driving experience while keeping hands closer to the steering wheel.

The automaker suggests this feature could also apply to trucks, boats, and aircraft, hinting at wider use beyond traditional cars.

Concerns Over Driver Distraction

However, not everyone is convinced. Critics argue that eye-tracking could be more distracting than traditional tactile buttons. Drivers may need to look around the cabin to activate features, diverting attention from the road.

There are also concerns about accuracy, especially in challenging conditions — such as bright sunlight or when drivers wear sunglasses. Any lag or misinterpretation could make the system frustrating or unsafe.

Automotive experts stress that such systems must pass strict safety and reliability tests before being integrated into production models.

A Step Toward Button-Free Cars

Volkswagen is not the first automaker to explore gesture- and gaze-based interfaces. Brands like BMW and Mercedes-Benz have already tested similar technologies, blending AI and human-machine interfaces.

Still, this patent suggests Volkswagen sees a future without buttons, where smart software interprets a driver’s intent through sight and minimal movement.

What Comes Next

For now, the technology remains a patent concept, not a confirmed production feature. Automakers often file patents to secure intellectual property and explore potential innovations.

If developed further, Volkswagen’s gaze-based control could debut in premium electric or autonomous models before filtering into mainstream vehicles.

Delhi High Court Stops Indian Firm from Using Barbie Trademark

by

Mattel Secures Interim Relief in Trademark Dispute

The Delhi High Court has restrained an Indian firm from using the globally recognized Barbie trademark. The order was passed on September 9, 2025, in the case of Mattel Inc. v. Padum Borah & Ors.

Mattel, the American toy giant, approached the court after discovering that the defendants were operating under names such as Barbie Enterprises, Barbie Kitchen, and Barbie Catering. The company argued that such usage was not only unauthorized but also misleading to customers.

The court agreed and held that Mattel had established a prima facie case of trademark infringement. It also noted that continuing use of the name could cause irreparable harm to the brand’s reputation.
(Bar & Bench)

Background of the Case

Mattel has owned the Barbie trademark in India since 1985. The company holds registrations across multiple classes, including toys, fashion, lifestyle, and entertainment.

Despite this, the defendants filed trademark applications for:

  • BARBIE One Stop Solution for HORECA Foods
  • BARBIE Enterprises
  • BARBIE Hospitality

These marks were linked to catering services and commercial kitchen equipment. The Trademarks Registry had already flagged conflicts between these applications and Mattel’s existing registrations.

Mattel issued a cease-and-desist notice, but the defendants failed to respond. This inaction strengthened Mattel’s case before the court.

Court’s Observations

Justice Prathiba M. Singh, who heard the matter, observed that the defendant’s adoption of the Barbie mark was clearly aimed at drawing business attention.

The court applied the principle of “initial interest confusion.” It explained that even if customers later realized the services had no connection with Mattel, the defendants would have already benefited from the goodwill and reputation attached to Barbie.

The judge found that such conduct could mislead consumers and unfairly exploit the international brand’s reputation.

Directions by the Court

The Delhi High Court issued strict directions against the defendants. These included:

  • Immediate stop on the use of “Barbie” or similar marks in any business activities.
  • Takedown orders for all social media posts, pages, and accounts carrying the Barbie name.
  • Suspension of domain names containing the Barbie mark.

The order will remain in force until the next hearing. It is an interim injunction, meaning the court has yet to decide the case fully on merits.

Significance for Trademark Law in India

This ruling once again highlights the protection available to well-known trademarks under Indian law.

Section 29 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 gives trademark owners the right to stop others from using identical or deceptively similar marks, even for unrelated goods or services. The Barbie case shows that businesses cannot rely on unrelated industries, such as hospitality or catering, to justify adopting a famous name.

Legal experts say the order is consistent with global practice. Courts across jurisdictions often prevent brand dilution by restricting use of iconic trademarks in unrelated fields.

Broader Impact

  • For global companies like Mattel, the judgment is a reassurance that their intellectual property will receive strong judicial protection in India.
  • For Indian businesses, it is a warning that adopting globally known marks, even indirectly, can invite swift legal action.
  • For consumers, it ensures that the brand identity of Barbie remains intact and free from market confusion.

Delhi HC Cancels “Croose” Trademark, Upholds Crocs’ Rights in Footwear Dispute

by

Court Finds “Croose” Deceptively Similar to “CROCS”

The Delhi High Court has cancelled the trademark registration of “Croose” after ruling that the mark was deceptively similar to “CROCS”, the globally recognized footwear brand. The decision comes as a significant relief for Crocs, Inc., which has been battling misuse of its brand identity in India.

The Case

Crocs, Inc. filed a rectification petition under Sections 47 and 57 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999. The company argued that the “Croose” mark (Registration No. 3409214 in Class 25 for footwear) created confusion in the minds of consumers.

The petitioner claimed that the impugned mark was phonetically, visually, and structurally similar to “CROCS.” It further alleged that the respondent adopted the mark dishonestly to ride on Crocs’ goodwill in the Indian footwear market.

Court’s Findings

Justice Prathiba M. Singh of the Delhi High Court agreed with Crocs’ submissions.

  • The court noted that both marks were used for identical goods — footwear.
  • The similarity in sound and appearance between “Croose” and “Crocs” was held sufficient to create a likelihood of consumer confusion.
  • The adoption of the mark was deemed dishonest, with an intent to exploit Crocs’ established reputation.

Based on these observations, the court directed the Registrar of Trademarks to remove “Croose” from the register.

Why This Matters

Protection for Global Brands

The ruling reaffirms Indian courts’ strong stance on protecting well-known trademarks. Companies with established reputations can expect judicial support against infringing or deceptively similar marks.

Consumer Interest

The decision also safeguards consumers, ensuring they are not misled by products marketed under confusingly similar names.

Market Implications

By cancelling the “Croose” registration, the court has sent a clear signal to businesses that piggybacking on popular brands will not be tolerated.

Broader Context

Crocs has been expanding aggressively in India and has previously taken action against infringers and copycat products. This judgment strengthens its legal position in future disputes.

Trademark experts note that such rulings will deter small and mid-level players from choosing names that mimic established global brands. It also contributes to a healthier competitive environment in India’s fast-growing footwear market.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s decision to cancel the “Croose” trademark marks a decisive victory for Crocs. By protecting a well-known brand and curbing dishonest adoption of similar marks, the court has reinforced the principle that trademark law is both a shield for businesses and a safeguard for consumers.

Sun Pharma May Face Limited Impact from US Tariff on Patented Medicines

by

US Slaps 100% Tariff on Patented Drugs

The United States has announced a 100% tariff on imports of branded and patented medicines from October 1. Generic and off-patent products will remain exempt. The move aims to push drugmakers to shift production to domestic facilities.

Sun Pharma’s Exposure

Analysts say Sun Pharmaceutical Industries could feel some pressure as it earns nearly 17% of its FY25 revenue from patented medicines in the US market. Patented drug sales contribute almost 8–10% to its consolidated earnings per share.

You can read more about Sun Pharma’s global expansion strategy and its performance in the US market.

Why Analysts Expect a Limited Hit

Experts believe the impact on Sun Pharma will remain contained. The company has options to pass on part of the cost to consumers or insurers. It can also explore shifting production to the US or to contract manufacturers with American operations.

Relocating manufacturing could take between 6 and 24 months. The process will require capital and regulatory approvals, but Sun Pharma has a strong balance sheet. The company holds around USD 3 billion in cash reserves, which can support new investments.

For other Indian drugmakers, the impact is expected to be minimal. Most of them focus on generics, which fall outside the scope of the new tariff. Learn more about India’s generic drug exports.

Risks and Opportunities

Analysts caution that Sun Pharma’s margins may come under short-term pressure. Passing on costs may not be fully possible because of regulatory and competitive factors. Any delay in shifting manufacturing could also affect profitability.

At the same time, Sun Pharma’s financial strength and partnerships may help it adapt. If it expands production within the US, it could even strengthen its market position in the long run.

Outlook

Market watchers will track Sun Pharma’s next steps closely. The company’s ability to navigate tariffs, protect margins, and sustain its patented drug portfolio in the US will decide the real impact of this policy shift.

AMD’s New DDR5 Patent Promises to Double RAM Speed, But Adoption Faces Hurdles

by

Patent Highlights a High-Bandwidth DIMM Design

AMD has filed a patent for a new High-Bandwidth DIMM (HB-DIMM) design that could revolutionize system memory performance. The technology aims to double the bandwidth of DDR5 RAM without changing the DRAM chips themselves. Instead, the innovation lies in adding advanced buffer chips and smarter on-module logic.

The patent describes the use of pseudo-channels that split and combine data streams. This allows two memory streams to merge into a single, faster output. In theory, speeds could jump from 6.4 Gbps to 12.8 Gbps per pin.

For a deeper look at semiconductor patent developments, click here.

How It Works

The new design uses a register/clock driver (RCD) and additional routing logic. These components manage the flow of commands and data between the memory controller and DRAM chips. Unlike conventional DIMMs, this setup enhances throughput while relying on standard DDR5 dies.

This approach reduces the need for expensive new DRAM manufacturing processes. Instead, it shifts complexity to the memory module itself.

Learn more about how Intel’s MRDIMM technology is reshaping memory standards in this article.

Challenges Ahead

Despite the promising design, adoption will not be easy. For HB-DIMMs to succeed, CPUs, motherboards, and chipsets must support the new module format. Proprietary memory standards often fail unless approved by JEDEC and widely adopted by the ecosystem.

Latency, power consumption, and heat could also increase because of the additional buffer logic. These factors may limit mainstream use in consumer PCs.

To read about a recent patent infringement lawsuit in biotechnology, click here.

Server Market Could See It First

Analysts believe this design is more likely to debut in data centers and high-performance computing (HPC). These sectors prioritize bandwidth and can absorb the higher cost of advanced DIMMs.

Intel is already pushing its Multiplexed Rank DIMM (MRDIMM) in server platforms. AMD’s approach may serve as a competitive alternative or even influence the next generation of DDR6 standards.

For updates on global memory disputes and licensing deals, see this coverage on solar patent settlements.

Conclusion

AMD’s HB-DIMM patent showcases bold innovation in memory design. If successful, it could significantly boost RAM speeds. However, widespread adoption remains uncertain due to technical, economic, and industry-standard challenges.

For now, consumers should not expect to see HB-DIMMs in gaming rigs or desktops soon. Instead, the first real-world applications may appear in enterprise servers and HPC environments.