In a move that further fuels speculation about a foldable iPhone or iPad, the U.S. Patent Office has just published a divisional patent application from Appleâand itâs all about foldable displays supported by a flexible housing design.
But before we dive into what this might mean for the future of Apple devices, letâs quickly unpack what a divisional patent application actually is.
đ§ Whatâs a Divisional Patent, and Why Does It Matter?
In simple terms, a divisional patent application is a type of follow-up patent that’s spun off from a broader, original âparentâ patent. This happens when the original filing includes more than one invention, and Apple decides to focus on just one of themâlike in this case, where the foldable display design is being pursued independently, while the previous scrollable/rollable display concept has been removed.
Importantly, divisional applications retain the original filing date and priority, giving Apple a stronger patent position without losing time on the innovation timeline. It’s a clever way to secure IP rights for multiple related ideas without compromising legal protection.
đ So Whatâs in the New Patent?
The newly published patent zeroes in on an electronic deviceâlikely an iPhone or iPadâthat features a foldable display housed in a foldable body. Here are some of the key highlights from the filing:
Foldable Housing: The device is made up of two primary sections joined by hinge structures that allow the device to bend smoothly.
Flexible Display: Apple describes the use of an OLED (organic light-emitting diode) display that stretches across both halves of the device and even over the hinge area.
Support Layer: A flexible sheet metal layer may be used underneath the screen to provide structural support without restricting movement.
Virtual Pivot Points: The design cleverly incorporates virtual hinge pivots that lie outside the hinge mechanism itself, minimizing stress on fragile display layers and ensuring durability.
Sliding Hinge Mechanism: In some configurations, a sliding hinge pin support plate allows the hinge to dynamically shift during folding, helping the screen wrap around the curve without wrinkling or breaking.
Apple even visualizes the device bending at various anglesâincluding 90° (like a laptop) and 180° (folded shut like a book).
đ¸ A Peek into the Patent Figures
Though we canât show the actual images here, Appleâs patent illustrations provide a variety of form factors, including:
A foldable iPhone/iPad with a center fold (FIG. 1)
Side and cross-sectional views showing how the hinge interacts with the flexible display (FIGs. 4, 8)
Multiple folding positions from 90° to 180° (FIGs. 22, 23)
Detailed hinge mechanics and link systems (FIGs. 36, 37)
Each figure reveals how much engineering is going into making sure the fold not only worksâbut also protects the screen and provides a premium feel.
đŽ What This Means for Appleâs Foldable Future
While this is still a patent filingânot an official product announcementâitâs clear that Apple is actively developing the foundation for a foldable iDevice. From flexible OLED panels to intricate hinge engineering, the company is laying the groundwork for a device that could challenge the likes of Samsungâs Galaxy Z Fold and Googleâs Pixel Fold.
Apple is known for waiting until a new form factor is just right before launching, and this patent suggests theyâre getting close. With years of research and IP filings now focused on foldables, itâs only a matter of time before Cupertino reveals what could be the next evolution of the iPhone or iPad.
đŁ Final Thoughts
This latest divisional patent is more than just legal paperworkâitâs a sign of how seriously Apple is taking foldable tech. And with every new filing, the dream of a foldable iPhone becomes a little more tangible.
Would you buy a foldable iPhone or iPad? Or are you still not sold on the bendy screen trend? Letâs chat in the comments đ
AI
Patents: A Hidden Cost Trap for Startups â How to Navigate Without Overspending
For many startups, patents seem like a necessary but one-time expense. However, the reality is far more complicated. Filing a patent might appear straightforward, but the costs involved are anything but. From legal fees and government charges to international filings and ongoing maintenance costs, the true expense of a U.S. patent can easily exceed $50,000 over its lifetime.
This hefty price tag raises questions for founders: Is patenting worth it? Iâve seen firsthand how many entrepreneurs hesitate to move forward with patent filings, uncertain whether the return on investment justifies the expenditure. However, skipping patents altogether can present even more dire consequences for your business:
A competitor could beat you to the patent office, locking you out of your own market.
Investors may lose interest if they donât see a clear intellectual property (IP) strategy.
A legal battle might emerge just as your business gains momentum, forcing you into costly litigation.
So, the question isnât whether you should patent, but rather how you can do so without draining your resources.
Strategies for Smart Patent Filing on a Budget
The key to navigating the patent process effectively is knowing where to focus your budget. Fortunately, it’s easier than you think. Here are some proven strategies to help you patent without overspending.
1. Identify High-Value Innovations for Patent Protection
Startups often make two costly mistakes when it comes to patents: over-patenting or under-patenting. Both can harm your business.
Under-patenting happens when startups fail to document and protect innovations, allowing valuable ideas to slip through the cracks. Without a structured process like Invention Disclosure Forms (IDFs), innovations may not be patented in time, especially when funds are limited.
Over-patenting involves filing patents for ideas that donât significantly strengthen your market position. Itâs akin to betting on every horse instead of choosing the one with the best odds of winning. Instead, focus on innovations that have the potential to generate revenue or block competitors.
To avoid these pitfalls, use a structured patentability assessment. This process, which involves input from R&D, legal teams, and business leaders, evaluates the patentâs business value, the likelihood of patenting success, and the associated costs. Only the most valuable ideas should move forward.
As a rule of thumb: If losing an idea wouldnât hurt your business, donât patent it.
2. Plan Your IP Budget Wisely
Filing a patent without a clear budget is risky and irresponsible. Many startups rush into patent applications, only to run out of funds midway through the process, leaving their filings incomplete or allowing issued patents to expire.
Patent costs accumulate in phasesâdrafting fees, prosecution costs, government fees, and maintenance costs after the patent is granted. The total cost can soar, especially when foreign patents are involved. If you only budget for the initial filing, you may be forced to abandon a patent midway as costs balloon.
To prevent this, set a comprehensive patent budget before you file. Ensure you account for all phases of the patenting process, from drafting through maintenance. Itâs also crucial to discuss fixed-fee structures or end-to-end budgets with your attorney to avoid any surprise costs. Once the patent is in progress, use cost estimation tools to track your ongoing expenses.
A well-planned budget ensures that your patents work for you, not against you.
3. Use Smart Filing Strategies to Cut Costs
Cutting corners on patent filings can be tempting, but it often leads to rejections, poor strategy, or patents that are ineffective when needed most. Here are some smarter ways to save:
Provisional Patents: Start with a provisional patent. For as little as $140 in USPTO fees (with lower legal fees as well), a provisional patent locks in your filing date and gives you 12 months to refine your invention before committing to a full application.
Government Fee Discounts: If you qualify as a small or micro-entity, you can save 50-75% on USPTO fees. Many startups overlook this, leaving money on the table.
Foreign Filings: Avoid rushing into international filings unless youâre committed to those markets. Foreign patent costs can range from $5,000-$10,000 per country initially, with total costs reaching $25,000-$75,000. Start with U.S. filings, then use the PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty) system to delay foreign decisions for up to 30 months, giving you more time to assess demand.
Avoid Excessive Prosecution: Donât waste money on tough examination areas. Use predictor tools to steer clear of technologies where patenting is challenging. You can also analyze examiner statistics and request interviews to improve your chances of success. If your application is unlikely to succeed, consider abandoning it early to avoid sinking more money into a lost cause.
4. Prune Low-Value Patents to Cut Unnecessary Fees
Many startups waste up to 20% of their patent budget on patents that no longer serve their business needs. If a patent is no longer protecting a key technology or providing a competitive edge, there’s no reason to keep paying for it.
Review your patent portfolio annually and study does this patent still align with my business strategy? If not, consider dropping it, selling it, or licensing it to recover costs. If your business has exited a market, stop paying for patents in that market.
5. Use Data, Not Guesswork
Smart patenting isnât about making intuitive decisionsâitâs about using data to guide your moves. The right tools can assess the likelihood of approval, predict overall patenting costs, and reveal cost-saving opportunities. This data-driven approach helps you determine which patents are worth pursuing and maintaining.
Successful innovation managers donât file patents blindly; they track, analyze, and adjust based on data. If you want to win, adopt the same strategy.
OpenAI and Microsoft to Face Copyright Lawsuits in New York, U.S. Judicial Panel Rules
A series of high-profile copyright lawsuits filed by prominent authors and major news outlets against artificial intelligence developer OpenAI and its key investor Microsoft will now be consolidated and heard in New York, following a significant ruling by a U.S. judicial panel on Thursday.
According to Reuters, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation decided to combine multiple legal actions, including those filed in California by well-known figures such as author Ta-Nehisi Coates and comedian Sarah Silverman, into a single federal court case in Manhattan. The panel’s decision also includes lawsuits brought by other influential plaintiffs, including The New York Times and renowned authors such as John Grisham, Jonathan Franzen, and George R.R. Martin.
This consolidation marks a crucial step in the ongoing wave of litigation targeting tech companies that utilize large datasets to train generative AI models. Plaintiffs allege that OpenAI and Microsoft used their copyrighted material without permission, infringing intellectual property rights in the process.
OpenAI had advocated for the lawsuits to be consolidated in Northern California, where the company is headquartered. However, most of the plaintiffs opposed this move, citing significant differences among the individual cases. Despite these objections, the panel ruled that centralizing the lawsuits in New York would “serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation.”
The panelâs decision comes amid increasing scrutiny of AI companies’ practices, particularly concerning the training of generative AI models on vast amounts of data, including copyrighted content. As Reuters reports, the plaintiffs argue that OpenAI and Microsoftâs use of their works constitutes an infringement of copyright law, while OpenAI maintains that its models are trained on publicly available data and fall under the “fair use” doctrine.
These lawsuits are part of a broader legal battle involving tech giants like OpenAI, Microsoft, and Meta Platforms, which are facing increasing scrutiny over the use of proprietary materials in the development of AI models. A central issue in the cases is whether the use of such copyrighted works falls under the “fair use” provision of U.S. copyright law, which permits limited use of protected works without permission under certain circumstances.
OpenAI has argued that the lawsuits share a common foundation: the claim that its large language models were trained using copyrighted works without consent. However, the plaintiffs contend that their individual cases are distinct and should be evaluated independently.
The consolidated lawsuits will now proceed under the supervision of U.S. District Judge Sidney Stein, who will oversee pretrial matters and guide the complex litigation moving forward. The outcome of these cases could have significant implications for the future of AI development and the legal landscape surrounding copyright protection in the age of generative technology.
According to Reuters, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation decided to combine multiple legal actions, including those filed in California by well-known figures such as author Ta-Nehisi Coates and comedian Sarah Silverman, into a single federal court case in Manhattan. The panel’s decision also includes lawsuits brought by other influential plaintiffs, including The New York Times and renowned authors such as John Grisham, Jonathan Franzen, and George R.R. Martin.
This consolidation marks a crucial step in the ongoing wave of litigation targeting tech companies that utilize large datasets to train generative AI models. Plaintiffs allege that OpenAI and Microsoft used their copyrighted material without permission, infringing intellectual property rights in the process.
OpenAI had advocated for the lawsuits to be consolidated in Northern California, where the company is headquartered. However, most of the plaintiffs opposed this move, citing significant differences among the individual cases. Despite these objections, the panel ruled that centralizing the lawsuits in New York would “serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation.”
The panelâs decision comes amid increasing scrutiny of AI companies’ practices, particularly concerning the training of generative AI models on vast amounts of data, including copyrighted content. As Reuters reports, the plaintiffs argue that OpenAI and Microsoftâs use of their works constitutes an infringement of copyright law, while OpenAI maintains that its models are trained on publicly available data and fall under the “fair use” doctrine.
These lawsuits are part of a broader legal battle involving tech giants like OpenAI, Microsoft, and Meta Platforms, which are facing increasing scrutiny over the use of proprietary materials in the development of AI models. A central issue in the cases is whether the use of such copyrighted works falls under the “fair use” provision of U.S. copyright law, which permits limited use of protected works without permission under certain circumstances.
OpenAI has argued that the lawsuits share a common foundation: the claim that its large language models were trained using copyrighted works without consent. However, the plaintiffs contend that their individual cases are distinct and should be evaluated independently.
The consolidated lawsuits will now proceed under the supervision of U.S. District Judge Sidney Stein, who will oversee pretrial matters and guide the complex litigation moving forward. The outcome of these cases could have significant implications for the future of AI development and the legal landscape surrounding copyright protection in the age of generative technology.
Panjab University Granted Patent for Innovative UV-C Radiation Absorbing Coating
Panjab University (PU) has secured a patent for a groundbreaking, multifunctional surface coating capable of absorbing up to 96% of harmful Ultraviolet-C (UV-C) radiation. This innovative coating was developed by Gaurav Verma, a material nanotechnologist at the Dr. SSB University Institute of Chemical Engineering and Technology (UICET), and Anjali Sharma, a student at PU. The project represents a fusion of ancient Indian knowledge with cutting-edge nanotechnology.
Verma, who also serves as the director of sophisticated instrumentation laboratories at PU, explained that the new coating presents a significant advancement in protecting both living beings and materials from the harmful effects of high-energy UV-C radiation. “This multifunctional innovation is crucial for industries like healthcare, aerospace, automotive, and construction, where equipment and infrastructure are often exposed to UV-C rays for sterilization and disinfection purposes. Prolonged exposure to such radiation can lead to material degradation, increased maintenance costs, and health risks,” Verma said.
The novel coating is created by combining nanocurcumin, a natural antioxidant derived from turmeric, with modified clay to form a hybrid nanofiller. Verma drew inspiration from the traditional Indian haldi ceremony, which uses turmeric as a key element, and proposed using curcumin in its nanoform to create the coating. The resultant nanohybrid filler features platelet-like structures with orb-like shapes adhered to them, providing an innovative solution with enhanced protective properties.
This development not only integrates modern nanotechnology but also reflects a return to ancient Indian practices, proving that traditional wisdom can be harnessed in the advancement of modern science. The coating’s ability to absorb harmful UV-C radiation is set to have wide-reaching applications, particularly in sectors where UV-C light is extensively used, such as in hospitals for sterilization and in aerospace for material protection.
The patent marks a major milestone for PU, contributing to the growing field of nanotechnology and offering a promising solution to address global concerns about UV radiation exposure.
Verma, who also serves as the director of sophisticated instrumentation laboratories at PU, explained that the new coating presents a significant advancement in protecting both living beings and materials from the harmful effects of high-energy UV-C radiation. “This multifunctional innovation is crucial for industries like healthcare, aerospace, automotive, and construction, where equipment and infrastructure are often exposed to UV-C rays for sterilization and disinfection purposes. Prolonged exposure to such radiation can lead to material degradation, increased maintenance costs, and health risks,” Verma said.
The novel coating is created by combining nanocurcumin, a natural antioxidant derived from turmeric, with modified clay to form a hybrid nanofiller. Verma drew inspiration from the traditional Indian haldi ceremony, which uses turmeric as a key element, and proposed using curcumin in its nanoform to create the coating. The resultant nanohybrid filler features platelet-like structures with orb-like shapes adhered to them, providing an innovative solution with enhanced protective properties.
This development not only integrates modern nanotechnology but also reflects a return to ancient Indian practices, proving that traditional wisdom can be harnessed in the advancement of modern science. The coating’s ability to absorb harmful UV-C radiation is set to have wide-reaching applications, particularly in sectors where UV-C light is extensively used, such as in hospitals for sterilization and in aerospace for material protection.
The patent marks a major milestone for PU, contributing to the growing field of nanotechnology and offering a promising solution to address global concerns about UV radiation exposure.
Kawasaki India Set to Launch Updated Z900 with Refreshed Design and Features
Kawasaki India is preparing to expand its lineup with an updated version of the popular Z900, following reports of the company filing a patent design for the new model. As anticipation builds, images of the design patent have surfaced online, offering a glimpse into the motorcycle’s updated look and some key features.
The updated Z900, which made its global debut last year, is set to arrive with a refreshed aesthetic and a few tweaks to its overall design. Early leaked images suggest that the new version will have a more aggressive appearance compared to its predecessor. One of the most notable changes is the introduction of a new twin-pod LED headlight setup, which gives the front-end a sharper, more modern look. The rear of the bike also appears to feature a redesigned taillight and revised bodywork, adding to the overall streamlined and muscular presence.
For rider comfort, the Z900 will maintain its signature slip seating arrangement and inclined riding position. Additionally, it is expected to retain its stylish exhaust system, which has been a defining feature of the bike. New alloy wheels, as hinted in the patent images, could further enhance the bikeâs visual appeal, giving it a more premium and dynamic presence on the road.
Current Z900 Model Features
At present, the Z900 is available in its top-end “SE” trim in India, offering an impressive list of features aimed at enhancing both performance and comfort. Among its highlights are a Bluetooth-enabled 5-inch digital instrument console, which allows for seamless connectivity with smartphones, and an array of advanced features like traction control, ride-by-wire throttle, and multiple power modes. The bike also comes equipped with cruise control and several riding modes, offering a customizable riding experience.
Engine and Performance
The Z900 is powered by a 948cc, in-line 4-cylinder engine that delivers a maximum power output of 121 horsepower at 9,500 rpm and a torque of 97.4 Nm at 7,700 rpm. This engine is mated to a 6-speed gearbox and comes with a bi-directional quick-shifter, ensuring smooth and quick gear shifts. These powertrain features combine to make the Z900 a formidable contender in the naked bike segment, delivering both power and precision.
With these updates and its already impressive features, the new Z900 is expected to make a strong impact when it arrives in India. As Kawasaki prepares for the official launch, enthusiasts are eagerly awaiting the arrival of this aggressive and refined motorcycle, which promises to offer an exhilarating riding experience both on and off the track.
Could Intellectual Property Retaliation Be the Game-Changer in Trade Wars?
In response to President Donald Trumpâs tariff policies, many countries are considering retaliation, primarily through higher tariffs and import restrictions. While these measures may impact the U.S. economy, they also pose risks for the countries imposing them. The goal is to make the pain felt in the U.S. greater than the consequences suffered by the retaliating nation. While this strategy may hold true in many cases, countries like the European Union (EU), Canada, and other trading partners could take a more direct and potentially more damaging approachâtargeting the United Statesâ intellectual property (IP) rights.
Intellectual property, particularly patents and copyrights, has long been a cornerstone of U.S. economic dominance. In 2024, the United States received nearly $150 billion in royalties and licensing fees alone, which makes up over 5% of total after-tax corporate profits. But these fees represent only the direct payments for IP use; they donât account for embedded costs in products like software and technology, which are often used globally in consumer goods.
One possible retaliatory strategy involves countries announcing that they will no longer respect U.S. patents and copyrights for as long as Donald Trump continues his tariff policies. This kind of action would target U.S. companies that rely on their intellectual property rights for profit, such as tech giants like Microsoft and pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer and Merck.
The concept of not honoring foreign patents is not without precedent. During World War I, the U.S. invoked the Trading with the Enemy Act to allow the compulsory licensing of patents held by German companies. This measure allowed U.S. businesses to use these patents without permission, as long as they paid a minimal licensing fee set by the U.S. government. Countries like Canada, the EU, and others could implement a similar policy to challenge the United Statesâ trade practices.
The potential benefits of this type of retaliation are twofold. First, it would allow consumers in the retaliating countries to access cheaper productsâsuch as generic drugs, which could drastically reduce the cost of life-saving medications like those used in cancer and heart disease treatments. Second, it would lower the cost of everyday goods like computers, by bypassing the licensing fees for software from companies like Microsoft.
For consumers, this could mean cheaper access to essential products and technologies, making it a win-win situation. Imagine having access to affordable generics of expensive drugs or the latest software without the added cost of licensing fees. This approach would directly benefit the people in those countries, and it would provide a powerful counterweight to the economic challenges posed by Trumpâs tariffs.
Such an approach would also hit U.S. corporations where it hurtsâpotentially changing the landscape of global trade in ways that tariffs alone may not. If other nations got accustomed to accessing cheap drugs, software, and entertainment content, it could shift global perceptions of U.S. intellectual property practices. This shift could permanently disrupt the revenue models of many major U.S. companies that rely on high licensing fees and patent monopolies. For instance, without the constraints of patent monopolies, Americans themselves could spend far less on prescription drugsâpossibly saving around $550 billion annually.
Intellectual property, particularly patents and copyrights, has long been a cornerstone of U.S. economic dominance. In 2024, the United States received nearly $150 billion in royalties and licensing fees alone, which makes up over 5% of total after-tax corporate profits. But these fees represent only the direct payments for IP use; they donât account for embedded costs in products like software and technology, which are often used globally in consumer goods.
One possible retaliatory strategy involves countries announcing that they will no longer respect U.S. patents and copyrights for as long as Donald Trump continues his tariff policies. This kind of action would target U.S. companies that rely on their intellectual property rights for profit, such as tech giants like Microsoft and pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer and Merck.
The concept of not honoring foreign patents is not without precedent. During World War I, the U.S. invoked the Trading with the Enemy Act to allow the compulsory licensing of patents held by German companies. This measure allowed U.S. businesses to use these patents without permission, as long as they paid a minimal licensing fee set by the U.S. government. Countries like Canada, the EU, and others could implement a similar policy to challenge the United Statesâ trade practices.
The potential benefits of this type of retaliation are twofold. First, it would allow consumers in the retaliating countries to access cheaper productsâsuch as generic drugs, which could drastically reduce the cost of life-saving medications like those used in cancer and heart disease treatments. Second, it would lower the cost of everyday goods like computers, by bypassing the licensing fees for software from companies like Microsoft.
For consumers, this could mean cheaper access to essential products and technologies, making it a win-win situation. Imagine having access to affordable generics of expensive drugs or the latest software without the added cost of licensing fees. This approach would directly benefit the people in those countries, and it would provide a powerful counterweight to the economic challenges posed by Trumpâs tariffs.
Such an approach would also hit U.S. corporations where it hurtsâpotentially changing the landscape of global trade in ways that tariffs alone may not. If other nations got accustomed to accessing cheap drugs, software, and entertainment content, it could shift global perceptions of U.S. intellectual property practices. This shift could permanently disrupt the revenue models of many major U.S. companies that rely on high licensing fees and patent monopolies. For instance, without the constraints of patent monopolies, Americans themselves could spend far less on prescription drugsâpossibly saving around $550 billion annually.
Innovation Thrives Amid Global Uncertainty: EPO Patent Index 2024 Reports Robust Activity
Despite ongoing global economic uncertainties, innovation continues to thrive as companies and inventors worldwide filed a total of 199,264 patent applications at the European Patent Office (EPO) in 2024, according to the newly released Patent Index 2024. This marks a slight dip of 0.1% compared to the previous year, which saw 199,452 applications. The stability in patent filings follows three years of substantial growth, underscoring the resilience of the innovation ecosystem.
The report highlights a 0.3% increase in patent filings from European countries, which include all 39 EPO member states. Meanwhile, filings from outside Europe showed a marginal decline of 0.4%. EPO President AntĂłnio Campinos emphasized that the robust patent activity amid global challenges reflects the ongoing commitment to research and development across industries, particularly in Europe.
“Despite political and economic challenges, European companies and inventors have maintained their momentum in filing patents, showcasing their technological capabilities and ongoing investments in R&D,” said Campinos. “The EPO’s data serves as a strategic roadmap for industries, policymakers, and investors. As outlined in the Draghi and Letta reports, Europe must continue to strengthen its innovation ecosystem, particularly in critical sectors such as green technologies, artificial intelligence, and semiconductors, to remain competitive on the global stage.”
Technological Leadership in Computer and Clean Energy Fields
In 2024, computer technology emerged as the leading sector for patent filings, with a total of 16,815 applications. This category, which includes artificial intelligence innovations like machine learning and pattern recognition, marked the first time it topped the patent charts. Meanwhile, the electrical machinery and clean energy sectors experienced the most significant growth, with a notable 8.9% increase in patent filings. Within this, innovations in battery technology were particularly prominent, surging by 24% as the world continues to push for advancements in sustainable energy.
Global Patent Trends: Shifts in Origins and Growth Patterns
The United States remained the leading country of origin for EPO patent applications, followed by Germany, Japan, China, and South Korea. Collectively, EPO member states accounted for 43% of total filings, while 57% came from outside Europe. South Korea showed the most notable growth, with a 4.2% increase in applications, while filings from the U.S. and Japan saw slight declines of 0.8% and 2.4%, respectively. China, on the other hand, saw a modest increase of 0.5%.
The Role of Large Corporations in Driving Innovation
Large companies continue to dominate the patenting landscape. South Korea’s Samsung emerged as the top applicant in 2024, a position it last held in 2020. The company overtook Huawei, which dropped to second place. Other major players in the top 10 include LG, Qualcomm, and RTX. Notably, the list includes companies from diverse regions: four from Europe, two from South Korea, two from the United States, and one each from China and Japan.
Supporting Small Businesses and Individual Inventors
The EPO also reported a significant contribution from smaller entities. In 2024, 22% of patent applications from Europe came from individual inventors or small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which are defined as companies with fewer than 250 employees. Furthermore, 7% of the applications originated from universities and public research institutions. This highlights the appeal of the patent system to smaller innovators, a trend that has been reinforced by the EPO’s 2024 fee reductions for micro-enterprises, non-profits, and academic institutions.
Progress in Gender Diversity
Another noteworthy development is the growing inclusion of women in the innovation process. In 2024, 25% of all patent applications to the EPO from Europe listed at least one female inventor. Among major filing countries, Spain led the way with 42% female inventor participation, followed by Belgium (32%) and France (31%).
As Europe continues to navigate political and economic challenges, the Patent Index 2024 demonstrates that innovation remains a key pillar of economic resilience. The steady stream of patent filings reflects not only technological advancement but also the enduring global commitment to shaping a more sustainable and digitally advanced future.
Apple Granted Patent for Glass Enclosures with Multi-Sided Displays in Future Devices
Apple has a long history of patent applications focused on the development of glass-based device designs, dating back to at least 2014, particularly with concepts like an all-glass iPhone. Today, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office granted Apple a significant patent, which could be considered a key patent for glass enclosures in electronic devices. This patent covers a variety of devices, including the Apple Watch, iPhone, Mac, and introduces a distinctive iPhone design with displays on both sides of the device. In addition, Apple was granted three design patents today, further emphasizing their commitment to advancing this area of technology.
The granted patent applies to electronic devices such as iPhones, iPads, Macs, and Apple Watches, where the enclosures are made from glass. Traditionally, glass has been used primarily as a transparent cover for the touchscreen. However, the new patent introduces a novel concept where glass forms multiple sides of the device’s enclosure.
For example, an enclosure with a rectangular shape could feature glass on the front, back, and sides. In some designs, the entire device could be made from glass, including the front, back, and all sides, creating a seamless, unified appearance. Although the enclosure could be made of multiple separate glass pieces, it would appear as if it were one continuous piece.
This innovative glass-enclosure design opens up several new possibilities for functionality. For instance, transparent glass on the back and sides of the device could allow for additional displays, which users could view and interact with. These side and back displays could be equipped with touch or force-sensing capabilities, turning them into interactive input surfaces for the user.
The patent also covers a specific design where a glass element forms part of the six-sided enclosure of the device, with varying thicknesses along the peripheral side. In the patentâs illustrations (FIGS. 26A to 26C), one display component could be used to create six distinct display regionsâone for each side of the transparent enclosure. Not all sides of the device may feature a display, in which case those sections would be either inactive or omitted.
This patent represents an important advancement in Apple’s work on innovative device designs, potentially paving the way for new, interactive devices with unique user experiences.
The granted patent applies to electronic devices such as iPhones, iPads, Macs, and Apple Watches, where the enclosures are made from glass. Traditionally, glass has been used primarily as a transparent cover for the touchscreen. However, the new patent introduces a novel concept where glass forms multiple sides of the device’s enclosure.
For example, an enclosure with a rectangular shape could feature glass on the front, back, and sides. In some designs, the entire device could be made from glass, including the front, back, and all sides, creating a seamless, unified appearance. Although the enclosure could be made of multiple separate glass pieces, it would appear as if it were one continuous piece.
This innovative glass-enclosure design opens up several new possibilities for functionality. For instance, transparent glass on the back and sides of the device could allow for additional displays, which users could view and interact with. These side and back displays could be equipped with touch or force-sensing capabilities, turning them into interactive input surfaces for the user.
The patent also covers a specific design where a glass element forms part of the six-sided enclosure of the device, with varying thicknesses along the peripheral side. In the patentâs illustrations (FIGS. 26A to 26C), one display component could be used to create six distinct display regionsâone for each side of the transparent enclosure. Not all sides of the device may feature a display, in which case those sections would be either inactive or omitted.
This patent represents an important advancement in Apple’s work on innovative device designs, potentially paving the way for new, interactive devices with unique user experiences.
Apple’s Future Smartwatch May Feature a Foldable Display and Dual Cameras, Patent Reveals
In an exciting development for wearable technology, Apple may be gearing up to take the Apple Watch to the next level with a foldable display, according to a recently published patent application. Originally filed in September 2023, the patent was published by the US Patent and Trademark Office earlier this month, revealing new details about a potential future Apple Watch design that could rival the functionality of smartphones.
The patent application describes an innovative smartwatch with a flexible, foldable display that could open to reveal a secondary screen. The new design aims to transform the Apple Watch into an even more powerful device, providing users with enhanced functionality and additional features typically associated with smartphones.
A New Vision for the Apple Watch
Apple’s foldable smartwatch concept highlights the company’s desire to push the boundaries of wearable tech. The foldable screen, which would be incorporated into the device’s existing display, would enable users to expand the watch’s screen when needed. This would allow for more on-screen content, offering a tablet-like experience but in a compact, wearable form.
The two displays would be designed to fold seamlessly into each other, much like modern foldable phones, offering users the flexibility to switch between a compact smartwatch mode and a larger, more expansive display when required. This feature would dramatically improve user interaction, enabling tasks such as reading emails, viewing detailed maps, and multitasking, which are typically difficult on the small screen of a traditional Apple Watch.
Dual Cameras for Enhanced Functionality
One of the standout features of the patent is the inclusion of two separate cameras on the foldable smartwatch. While details on their specific functions are not fully outlined, the cameras could be used for a range of applications, such as FaceTime calls, scanning barcodes, or capturing photos and videos. This addition could make the foldable Apple Watch a far more capable device, combining the functions of a smartphone, smartwatch, and even a basic camera, all into one wearable gadget.
The incorporation of dual cameras is particularly notable, as it could allow the Apple Watch to take high-quality photos or video while remaining compact and portable. Additionally, having two cameras could open the door to more advanced features like 3D scanning, augmented reality (AR) experiences, and improved video conferencing capabilities.
Improved Usability and User Experience
The design described in the patent also takes into consideration the user experience, featuring a hinge mechanism that would allow the Apple Watch to fold and unfold smoothly. This hinge system would ensure that the device maintains its sleek and minimalistic design, even while offering expanded functionality.
The foldable display would also aim to improve multitasking capabilities. A larger screen would allow users to engage with more apps simultaneously, such as viewing maps, checking notifications, or controlling music, without feeling cramped on a single, small display.
Additionally, Appleâs focus on incorporating cameras could indicate a greater push towards making the Apple Watch a more independent device. This could minimize the need to rely on the iPhone for tasks like video calls, photography, or augmented reality applications, making the smartwatch a more self-sufficient tool.
Expanding the Apple Ecosystem
If realized, this foldable Apple Watch could represent a major leap in the evolution of wearables. Appleâs current smartwatch lineup is already known for its seamless integration with the broader Apple ecosystem, including the iPhone, iPad, and Mac. By introducing a foldable display and cameras, the company would further enhance this integration, offering a device that can handle more tasks while keeping users connected to the Apple ecosystem.
Such a device could serve as a bridge between traditional smartphones and wearables, offering the convenience of a smartwatch with the added capabilities of a foldable smartphone. This would make the Apple Watch a more attractive option for users seeking an all-in-one device that can handle communication, media, and productivity without needing to pull out their phone.
Challenges and Possibilities
While the foldable Apple Watch concept sounds promising, there are still several challenges to overcome before such a device becomes a reality. Foldable displays, while increasingly common in smartphones, are still a relatively new technology in the wearable space. Ensuring that the display is durable, flexible, and able to withstand the wear and tear of daily use will be a key concern for Appleâs engineers.
Additionally, integrating dual cameras into the small form factor of a smartwatch could present design challenges. Cameras typically require space for lenses and sensors, which may conflict with the compact, minimalist design Apple is known for. Achieving the balance between a larger display and maintaining the signature slim profile of the Apple Watch would require significant innovation.
That said, Appleâs track record of pioneering new technology in its devices, coupled with its deep expertise in the smartwatch market, means that the company is well-positioned to tackle these challenges. The foldable smartwatch could usher in a new era of wearables that are more versatile, functional, and integrated into users’ daily lives.
Looking Ahead: When Could We See This Foldable Apple Watch?
As with many Apple patents, it is important to note that the filing does not necessarily mean the foldable Apple Watch will arrive in stores anytime soon. Apple files numerous patents each year for a variety of potential products, and not all of them come to fruition. However, the foldable smartwatch concept aligns with Apple’s ongoing efforts to innovate and expand the capabilities of its wearable devices.
If Apple decides to move forward with this foldable design, it could be several years before we see it hit the market. The company would need to refine the technology, ensure durability, and undergo extensive testing to ensure the product meets Apple’s high standards. Additionally, the company may want to see how the market for foldable devices evolves before committing to a release.
Regardless, the publication of this patent signals that Apple is actively exploring new ways to revolutionize the smartwatch market. Whether or not a foldable Apple Watch becomes a reality, the idea shows that Apple is thinking ahead and continuously striving to improve its products in innovative ways.
Conclusion
Apple’s recent patent application hints at the future of smartwatchesâone that is more powerful, more versatile, and more integrated into our daily lives. The potential for a foldable Apple Watch with dual cameras could blur the lines between smartwatches and smartphones, providing users with a truly all-in-one device. While there are challenges to overcome, Appleâs reputation for innovation and design excellence suggests that we may soon see a wearable that offers functionality previously reserved for larger devices, all within the convenience of a smartwatch.
U.S. Supreme Court Rules on Corporate Separateness in Trademark Infringement Damages â Key Implications for Lanham Act Claims
In a landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued a unanimous ruling in Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc. that underscores the importance of corporate separateness in calculating damages for trademark infringement. The Court vacated a $43 million profit disgorgement award, a ruling that has far-reaching implications for corporate liability and the recovery of profits under the Lanham Act.
Case Overview: Dewberry Engineers vs. Dewberry Group
The case centers around Dewberry Engineers, a holder of the âDewberryâ trademark, which filed a lawsuit against Dewberry Group, a competing real estate management company. Dewberry Engineers alleged trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, along with a breach of contract claim under state law. The dispute arose from Dewberry Groupâs unauthorized use of the Dewberry trademark in promoting its real estate services, despite a prior settlement agreement that prohibited such use.
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that Dewberry Group violated the Lanham Act, concluding that the infringement was âintentional, willful, and in bad faith.â Despite Dewberry Group reporting no profits and relying on cash infusions from its owner, the District Court aggregated the profits of Dewberry Group and its affiliatesânon-party entities that held income-generating propertiesâto calculate the damages, awarding nearly $43 million. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, citing the âeconomic realityâ of Dewberry Groupâs operations.
Supreme Court’s Holding: Corporate Separateness Matters
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the lower courtâs decision, ruling that profit disgorgement under the Lanham Act is limited to the profits of the named defendantâDewberry Group in this caseâand does not extend to its non-party affiliates. The Court emphasized the longstanding legal principle that separately incorporated entities are distinct legal units with their own rights and obligations.
In this case, because Dewberry Groupâs affiliates were not named as defendants and no evidence was presented to pierce the corporate veil, the Court held that the profits of these affiliates could not be included in calculating âdefendantâs profitsâ under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a). As the Court noted in remanding the case for a new damages award, âThe âdefendantâs profitsâ are the defendantâs profits, not its plus its affiliates.â
Key Unanswered Questions
While the Court addressed the issue of corporate separateness, it did not fully resolve several critical aspects of the case. Specifically, the Court declined to comment on whether the lower court could have used the Lanham Actâs âjust-sumâ provision (15 U.S.C. § 1117(a)) to award a more equitable recovery by considering affiliate profits. This provision allows courts to adjust profit-based recovery when it is deemed âinadequate or excessive,â but the Supreme Court did not rule on whether this approach would have been appropriate.
Additionally, the Court did not address whether plaintiffs could rely on other methodsâsuch as looking beyond a defendantâs accounting recordsâto assess the âtrue financial gainâ of an infringing party. Nor did it definitively rule on the potential for veil-piercing, leaving open the possibility for future arguments regarding corporate formalities and liability.
Justice Sotomayorâs Concurring Opinion: A Caution on Creative Accounting
In her concurring opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor raised concerns that corporate separateness could be exploited by defendants to avoid liability through creative accounting. She urged that courts remain vigilant in considering âeconomic realitiesâ when calculating trademark infringement damages. Justice Sotomayor suggested that the trial court might reopen the record to explore methods of calculating profits that go beyond a defendantâs books, particularly when analyzing financial inflows from affiliates.
Implications for Trademark Owners and Businesses
The Supreme Courtâs ruling highlights the importance of corporate formalities and the need for careful litigation strategy. Trademark owners pursuing Lanham Act claims must ensure they identify and include all relevant entities from the outset of litigation, especially when dealing with related or affiliate companies that may have benefited from the infringement.
Failing to name all responsible parties could result in an unenforceable judgment, even if the defendant is found liable. Plaintiffs should also consider whether a veil-piercing argument could be made in cases where affiliates may be used to shield profits from infringement.
While the Courtâs decision focused narrowly on the aggregation of affiliate profits, it left open significant questions regarding the methods available for determining a defendantâs true financial gain. This leaves room for further litigation on the most accurate and fair way to calculate damages under the Lanham Act.
Conclusion
The Dewberry Group decision reinforces the principle that corporate separateness must be respected in calculating trademark infringement damages under the Lanham Act. It also raises important considerations for plaintiffs in trademark disputes, urging early and strategic planning to ensure a comprehensive approach to damages. While the Courtâs ruling narrows the scope of profit recovery, it also leaves open avenues for creative legal arguments and future litigation on corporate liability.