infringement

Align Technology Sues Angelalign Technology Over Patent Infringement

by

Align Technology, the maker of Invisalign clear aligners, has launched a series of patent infringement lawsuits against Shanghai-based Angelalign Technology. The cases have been filed in the United States, Europe, and China, targeting Angelalign’s aligner products and digital orthodontic software.

According to Align Technology, the lawsuits accuse Angelalign of infringing patents related to multilayer aligner materials, advanced treatment planning systems, and proprietary aligner designs. The company is seeking both injunctions to block sales and monetary damages.

Align Defends Innovation

Align emphasized its long-term commitment to research and development. The company invests more than $300 million annually and has spent nearly $2 billion since 2001 on new technologies. Executives said these lawsuits are necessary to protect Align’s intellectual property portfolio and ensure “fair competition” in the global clear-aligner market.

“Intellectual property is the foundation of our leadership in digital orthodontics,” Align stated in its announcement.

Global Enforcement Strategy

The decision to file cases across three major markets signals a broad legal strategy. The U.S. and Europe remain Align’s largest commercial regions, while China is a fast-growing market where Angelalign has a strong presence. By pursuing parallel lawsuits, Align is increasing the legal and commercial pressure on its rival.

Industry observers believe the outcome could reshape competition in the clear-aligner sector. If courts issue injunctions, Angelalign may face restrictions on selling its aligners in critical markets.

Legal Battles in Context

This is not the first time Align has turned to litigation. In 2019, the company reached a $35 million settlement with ClearCorrect after years of disputes (Straumann). In 2022, it settled patent and antitrust claims with 3Shape, a leading scanner manufacturer (Dentistry Today).

More recently, Align prevailed in antitrust lawsuits in the U.S. and secured preliminary approval of a $31.75 million settlement tied to SmileDirectClub-related claims (ClassAction.org).

What’s Next

The litigation against Angelalign is expected to proceed over the coming months. Patent cases in multiple jurisdictions can be lengthy and complex, often involving parallel hearings and appeals.

For Align, the lawsuits reinforce its aggressive stance on protecting innovation. For Angelalign, they represent a significant challenge that could limit expansion in key global markets.

As the legal process unfolds, orthodontists, patients, and investors will closely watch whether courts uphold Align’s claims or allow Angelalign to continue its international growth.

Delhi High Court Clarifies Patent Law Standards in Landmark Ruling on Section 3(d) of the Indian Patents Act, 1970

by
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.

Delhi High Court Grants Relief to Indian Businessman in ‘ELFY’ Trademark Dispute with Pakistani National

by

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.

Metro Brands Gets Interim Relief from Bombay High Court in Trademark Dispute with MetBrands

by

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.

“Judge Signals Sanctions Against Patent Attorney for Sharing Netflix’s Confidential Data with Litigation Funder”

by
A federal judge in Oakland has signaled his intent to impose sanctions on patent attorney Bill Ramey and his firm, Ramey LLP, for violating a protective order by sharing Netflix Inc.’s confidential information with a litigation funder. The case stems from a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Finnish inventor Lauri Valjakka against Netflix, in which Ramey represented Valjakka.

During a hearing the U.S. District Court indicated that attorneys’ fees would be an appropriate sanction, noting that they would likely be substantial. The dispute centers on Ramey’s disclosure of Netflix’s source code and financial information to AiPi LLC, a litigation funding company, without proper authorization. Netflix contends that these materials, described as the “crown jewels of its business,” were shared in violation of the court’s protective order, which restricts access to sensitive information to authorized individuals only.

At the hearing, Netflix’s attorney, Sarah Piepmeier of Perkins Coie, argued that AiPi had access to the confidential information before Netflix was aware of the funding arrangement. She expressed concern that AiPi’s possession of Netflix’s proprietary data could influence its decisions in future litigation or inspire new lawsuits. Ramey defended his actions, asserting that the protective order allowed him to share the information with “affiliates,” a category he believed included AiPi’s attorneys. He further claimed that no harm had occurred because AiPi’s lawyers assured him they hadn’t used the materials inappropriately.

Judge Tigar expressed skepticism about Ramey’s defense, stating that having individuals affiliated with a litigation funder review Netflix’s source code constituted a situation of harm. He also indicated that he would consider referring Ramey to the California State Bar or another disciplinary body for further review.

This development adds to a series of legal challenges faced by Ramey and his firm. Earlier this year, Judge Tigar denied Ramey’s application for pro hac vice admission in a separate case, CyboEnergy Inc. v. Netflix Inc., ruling that Ramey had been practicing law in California without a state bar license. Additionally, Ramey has faced scrutiny over his firm’s handling of multiple patent cases in California without proper licensure, leading to questions about his compliance with state ethical standards .

The case, Valjakka v. Netflix Inc., continues to unfold, with potential implications for the intersection of patent law, litigation funding, and the protection of confidential business information.

Unilin Technologies Secures European Patent for Groundbreaking Osiris Wood Recycling Technology

by
Unilin Technologies, the intellectual property division of Unilin, has been awarded European patent EP 4114629 for its pioneering Osiris recycling technology. This patent marks a significant milestone in the company’s mission to foster circular practices in the wood industry and reflects Unilin’s ongoing investment in sustainable innovation.

The patented Osiris system represents the first industrial-scale technology capable of recycling fiberboards—a long-standing challenge in the wood-based panel industry. Historically, the composite structure of fiberboards, which combines wood fibers with adhesives and resins, made them difficult to disassemble and therefore unfit for effective recycling. As a result, these boards typically ended up in landfills or were incinerated, contributing to environmental degradation.

With Osiris, Unilin has developed a scalable and practical solution to this issue. The technology enables the efficient separation of wood fibers from waste fiberboards, which can then be reintegrated with virgin wood to manufacture new fiberboards. This process not only reduces waste but also conserves natural resources by decreasing reliance on fresh wood material.

The Osiris technology is exclusively offered for licensing by Unilin Technologies in partnership with Dieffenbacher, a leading provider of wood-based panel production systems.

“We are proud to receive this patent, which underscores the innovation behind Osiris and the impact it can have on the sustainability of the fiberboard industry,” said a spokesperson from Unilin Technologies. “Our goal is to create real-world solutions that allow manufacturers to reduce their environmental footprint while maintaining high production standards.”

The granting of this European patent further strengthens Unilin’s intellectual property portfolio and opens the door for wider adoption of circular technologies across the board manufacturing sector. With global attention increasingly focused on sustainable production methods, Osiris offers a viable path forward for companies seeking to align with environmental targets without compromising efficiency or quality.

Navigating the Genomics Revolution: The Evolving Role of Intellectual Property Protection

by
More than two decades after the landmark announcement of the Human Genome Project’s completion in 2003, the field of genomics is undergoing a profound transformation. What began as a focus on decoding linear DNA sequences has expanded into a multidisciplinary understanding of the genome’s structural and functional complexity. This includes insights into protein folding, post-translational modifications like glycosylation, and the critical functions of non-coding DNA segments once dismissed as “junk,” such as introns.

In healthcare, personalized medicine, pharmacogenomics, and CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing are transitioning from research to real-world application. Genomic research is also driving the development of disease-resistant crops in agriculture and, in the biotech industry, is converging with artificial intelligence (AI) to accelerate innovations like next-generation sequencing and data interpretation.

This rapid evolution brings renewed focus on how intellectual property (IP) laws can safeguard innovation while keeping pace with scientific complexity. A strategic approach to IP is essential to protect genomics-related breakthroughs across multiple domains.

Patents: The Traditional Tool — and Its Limitations
Utility patents remain a cornerstone of IP strategy in genomics. In the competitive life sciences market, such exclusivity can determine commercial viability. However, the scope of what is patentable, especially in the U.S., is becoming increasingly restrictive.

Key genomic discoveries — like isolated human genes — when naturally occurring, are not patentable under U.S. law. Similarly, diagnostic methods that link biomarkers with disease states often fall outside the scope of patent-eligible subject matter. AI-driven components, such as algorithms used to interpret genomic data, also face hurdles, as abstract ideas and software in isolation typically don’t qualify for patent protection.

Disclosure Challenges in Patent Law
Patents require inventors to fully disclose their invention. This becomes problematic when critical elements of an innovation — like proprietary algorithms or data models — aren’t patentable but are vital to the invention’s function. In such cases, companies may be reluctant to disclose sensitive information that could be exploited by competitors, forcing them to weigh the benefits of limited patent protection against the risk of exposing valuable trade secrets.

Trade Secrets: A Flexible but Fragile Option
When patenting isn’t viable or would reveal too much, trade secrets offer an alternative. This form of protection doesn’t require disclosure and isn’t limited by subject matter rules or duration, as long as the information remains confidential. Genomics-based innovations — such as algorithm development, data modeling, and experimental optimization — are well-suited to trade secret strategies.

However, trade secrets are vulnerable. A single leak — from an employee, partner, or regulatory disclosure — can irreversibly compromise protection. Therefore, robust internal controls, clear access policies, and legal safeguards are essential to maintain secrecy.

Copyright: Protecting the Expression of Genomic Insights
While traditionally associated with creative works, copyright law has found new relevance in the digital era. It now extends to software, source code, and potentially, some aspects of genomics-related data and algorithms. Unlike patents, copyright protects the expression of an idea, not the idea itself — which means competitors can replicate the core concept using different language or methods, provided they don’t copy the exact expression.

For genomics, copyright might apply to algorithmic code, databases, or visualization tools used in analyzing genetic data. However, it is a limited tool that works best in conjunction with other forms of IP protection.

Toward an Integrated IP Strategy for Genomics
As genomics continues to push scientific boundaries, no single form of IP protection is sufficient. A multi-layered approach is often required — combining patents for core inventions, trade secrets for proprietary methods or data, and copyright for software or data presentation.

Careful coordination is essential. Over-disclosure in a patent could undermine trade secret protection, while an overly secretive approach might prevent the grant of a meaningful patent. Developing a clear, strategic IP roadmap that aligns with scientific goals and commercial interests is critical for ensuring innovations are protected without sacrificing competitive advantage.

China Strengthens IP Protection with New Fast-Track Service Center in Shenzhen’s Futian District

by

In a significant move to bolster the nation’s innovation ecosystem, China has approved the establishment of a new national-level fast-track intellectual property rights (IPR) protection service center in Shenzhen’s Futian district. The announcement was made by the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA), marking another milestone in the country’s expanding IP protection infrastructure.

Futian, located in the core of Shenzhen’s central business area, is widely recognized for its vibrant fashion industry. The new IPR center is expected to provide significant support to these businesses by offering streamlined services for securing design patents.

According to CNIPA, the new facility will be focused on expediting the design patent application process. Typically, it takes around six months for a design patent to be approved in China. However, with the assistance of the new service center, this duration can be reduced to within three months, enabling companies to protect their innovations more quickly and effectively.

“Fast-track services like those offered by the Futian center are essential for industries where product design changes rapidly and time-to-market is critical,” said a CNIPA spokesperson. “By accelerating the IP protection process, we aim to enhance innovation capabilities and create a more favorable environment for creative industries.”

Design patents represent a substantial portion of China’s intellectual property filings. In 2023 alone, China granted 638,000 design patents, and in 2024, the country maintained its position as the global leader in international design patent filings. The introduction of fast-track services in innovation-driven zones like Futian is seen as a strategic step toward sustaining this momentum.

The center will also contribute to the local economy by attracting more fashion designers and creative talent to the district. Small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), in particular, are expected to benefit, as they often face resource constraints when navigating traditional IP processes. By offering efficient services, the new center aims to reduce barriers for these businesses and empower them to compete on a larger scale.

This initiative is part of a broader national effort to create a comprehensive IP protection

Agfa Loses Patent Dispute Against Gucci Over Leather Decoration Method

by
Printing technology company Agfa has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against luxury fashion house Gucci, alleging unauthorized use of its patented method for decorating natural leather. The legal battle centered on Agfa’s European patent EP 3 388 490, which covers a process for embellishing leather surfaces with decorative images—a technique the company considers vital to its future innovation strategy.

The dispute specifically involved Gucci’s Pikarar Collection, which Agfa claimed employed its patented method without authorization. However, the Local Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) in Hamburg dismissed both Agfa’s infringement claim and Gucci’s counterclaim for patent invalidation (Case ID: ACT_561734/2023).

Presiding Judge Sabine Klepsch and her panel deemed both the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim admissible, but ultimately ruled against both parties. The court’s decision was based on a detailed analysis of the patent language, drawing on precedent established in earlier UPC rulings, such as the NanoString vs. 10x Genomics case. The court concluded that the interpretation of certain terms in the patent should differ from their conventional meanings, resulting in a finding of no infringement on Gucci’s part.

This case marks the first time a luxury fashion brand has been involved in litigation before the newly established Unified Patent Court. The ruling offers some relief to the fashion industry, although Agfa still has the option to appeal.

Agfa was represented by a legal team jointly led by Daan de Lange of the Netherlands and Kai Rüting of Germany. The case also marked the first major matter handled by Vossius Brinkhof UPC Litigators, a new collaboration between Dutch and German law firms. Other members of the legal team included Stefan Fickert, Ananda Landwehr, Leonie Dissmann-Fuchs, Elard Schenck zu Schweinsberg, Isabelle Kleinveld, and Alexander de Leeuw. Hans Louis Strijckers managed the case internally for Agfa.

Although the decision did not go in Agfa’s favor, the company’s aggressive defense of its patent portfolio signals its strategic focus on emerging technologies in leather decoration.

Heron Therapeutics Reaches Patent Settlement with Mylan Over Cancer-Related Drugs

by
Heron Therapeutics, Inc. (NASDAQ: HRTX), a commercial-stage biopharmaceutical firm valued at approximately $324 million, has resolved ongoing patent litigation with Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Viatris Inc. subsidiary.

Under the terms of the agreement, Heron has granted Mylan the right to begin selling generic alternatives to both drugs starting June 1, 2032. This resolution ends two separate legal proceedings filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, which were initiated in September 2023 and January 2024 after Mylan sought FDA approval for generics ahead of the drugs’ patent expirations in 2035. As part of the agreement, both companies will ask the court to dismiss the lawsuits.

CINVANTI® and APONVIE® are formulations of the active ingredient aprepitant, used to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. The deal allows for the possibility of an earlier launch of Mylan’s generics under standard conditions, although the formal market entry date remains set for 2032.

Heron, known for its focus on acute care and oncology-related treatments, continues to show signs of financial health and strategic growth. InvestingPro data shows a solid current ratio of 2.29, indicating strong short-term liquidity. The company has also reported a 13.57% increase in revenue over the last 12 months.

The patent settlement comes on the heels of a strong fourth quarter for Heron. The company reported adjusted earnings of $0.02 per share, outperforming analysts’ expectations of a $0.03 loss. Quarterly revenue reached $40.78 million—above the $37.3 million forecast—and reflected a 19.1% increase year-over-year. A significant contributor was ZYNRELEF, Heron’s pain management therapy, which brought in $8.5 million in Q4, up nearly 49% from the same period last year.

For the full year 2024, Heron posted total revenue of $144.2 million, a 13.6% increase compared to 2023. Looking ahead, the company projects 2025 revenues between $153 million and $163 million, in line with analyst expectations. Additionally, Heron estimates adjusted EBITDA between $0 and $8 million for the year.

In December 2024, the company expanded the label indications for ZYNRELEF and introduced a new vial access needle, further enhancing its product offerings. Heron closed the year with $59.3 million in cash and short-term investments, reinforcing its financial stability as it continues to grow its commercial footprint.