As World Intellectual Property (IP) Day is observed globally, India has emerged as a prominent player in the international innovation ecosystem.
India maintained its rank as the fifth-largest patent filer worldwide in FY24, with over 90,000 patents submitted—a milestone marking seven consecutive years of growth. A notable portion of these patents, more than 25%, are linked to AI technologies, underlining India’s growing reputation as a center for advanced technological development.
The report also reveals a steady rise in the country’s innovation output. India’s patent-to-GDP ratio more than doubled in a decade, increasing from 144 in 2013 to 381 in 2023. Additionally, India’s share in global patent grants grew from 1.7% in 2022 to 3.8% in 2023—a 149% year-on-year increase.
For the first time, the number of granted patents in India crossed 100,000 in FY24, indicating both enhanced operational efficiency at the Indian Patent Office and an improvement in the quality of applications. A growing share of these filings—over 55%—were submitted by Indian residents, compared to 52.3% the previous year. Contributions from startups, academic institutions, and small and medium enterprises (SMEs) are playing an increasingly vital role, showing a broadening base of innovation.
Artificial Intelligence remains a major driver of this progress. Since 2010, India has filed more than 86,000 AI-related patents, with filings between 2021 and 2025 rising seven times compared to the 2010–2015 period. Indian entities were responsible for 63% of these filings, signaling strong domestic innovation leadership in AI.
Machine Learning (ML) continues to dominate AI-related patents, accounting for over half of them. Within ML, Generative AI (GenAI) has become a significant focus area. In India, GenAI makes up 28% of AI patents, far exceeding the global average of just 6%, placing the country among the top five globally in this space.
Key sectors driving AI patent activity include transportation, which accounts for more than 70% of AI filings, as well as computer vision and natural language processing, which together represent over 90% of India’s AI-related patents.
India’s grant rate for AI patents stands at only 0.37%, significantly behind global leaders such as the United States and China. The gap is even wider in academia, where the approval rate is just 1%, compared to 40% for corporate applicants.
This gap reflects the need for improved research capabilities, stronger institutional support, and a greater emphasis on producing high-quality intellectual property.
Rajesh Nambiar, President of Nasscom, recognized India’s progress but emphasized that more work is needed. “While the increase in filings and patent office responsiveness are encouraging, delays in approvals and inconsistent patent quality remain barriers to matching global benchmarks,” he stated.
To support ongoing improvements, Nasscom has introduced the IP Enablement Initiative. This program aims to boost IP literacy and infrastructure across academia, startups, and industry. It also calls for policy reforms and a cultural shift to encourage innovation and higher-quality IP creation nationwide.
infringement
AI Boom: Over 86,000 AI Patents Filed Between 2010–2025, Representing Over a Quarter of All Tech Patents
The rapid ascent of artificial intelligence (AI) is not only transforming industries but is also reshaping the intellectual property landscape. Recent data reveals that more than 86,000 AI-related patents have been filed globally between 2010 and 2025, marking a dramatic surge in innovation and investment in the field. These AI patents now account for over 25% of all technology-related patent filings during the same period, underscoring AI’s central role in shaping the future of technology.
Accelerated Growth in AI Innovation
The number of AI patent filings has seen exponential growth, especially in the last five years, driven by breakthroughs in machine learning, natural language processing, computer vision, and generative AI. The surge reflects both the maturity of AI research and its widespread commercial adoption across industries ranging from healthcare and finance to automotive and entertainment.
Leading patent offices, including the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), the European Patent Office (EPO), and the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA), have all reported significant increases in AI-related submissions. China and the United States are at the forefront of this trend, with companies like IBM, Microsoft, Google, Baidu, and Alibaba leading the charge in filing AI innovations.
Key Areas of AI Patent Activity
The 86,000+ patents span a wide range of applications, including:
Autonomous vehicles and driver-assistance systems
AI-powered healthcare diagnostics and drug discovery tools
Smart assistants and voice recognition platforms
AI in cybersecurity, including threat detection and automated response
The expansion of AI into nearly every facet of modern life has fueled demand for proprietary protection, as businesses race to secure their intellectual property in a competitive and fast-moving market.
Implications for the Tech Industry
The fact that more than a quarter of all tech patents in the past 15 years are AI-related signals a major paradigm shift. According to intellectual property analysts, this shift highlights both the strategic importance of AI and the increasing complexity of patent landscapes, which may lead to a rise in patent disputes and licensing negotiations in the near future.
Legal experts warn that the rush to patent AI innovations also raises questions about patent quality, the scope of protection, and ethical considerations, particularly when it comes to inventions generated by AI itself.
The Road Ahead
With ongoing advancements in generative AI, robotics, and quantum computing, the number of AI-related patent filings is expected to keep climbing. Governments and regulatory bodies are also paying closer attention to how AI patents are evaluated, ensuring that innovation is balanced with responsibility and legal clarity.
Accelerated Growth in AI Innovation
The number of AI patent filings has seen exponential growth, especially in the last five years, driven by breakthroughs in machine learning, natural language processing, computer vision, and generative AI. The surge reflects both the maturity of AI research and its widespread commercial adoption across industries ranging from healthcare and finance to automotive and entertainment.
Leading patent offices, including the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), the European Patent Office (EPO), and the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA), have all reported significant increases in AI-related submissions. China and the United States are at the forefront of this trend, with companies like IBM, Microsoft, Google, Baidu, and Alibaba leading the charge in filing AI innovations.
Key Areas of AI Patent Activity
The 86,000+ patents span a wide range of applications, including:
Autonomous vehicles and driver-assistance systems
AI-powered healthcare diagnostics and drug discovery tools
Smart assistants and voice recognition platforms
AI in cybersecurity, including threat detection and automated response
The expansion of AI into nearly every facet of modern life has fueled demand for proprietary protection, as businesses race to secure their intellectual property in a competitive and fast-moving market.
Implications for the Tech Industry
The fact that more than a quarter of all tech patents in the past 15 years are AI-related signals a major paradigm shift. According to intellectual property analysts, this shift highlights both the strategic importance of AI and the increasing complexity of patent landscapes, which may lead to a rise in patent disputes and licensing negotiations in the near future.
Legal experts warn that the rush to patent AI innovations also raises questions about patent quality, the scope of protection, and ethical considerations, particularly when it comes to inventions generated by AI itself.
The Road Ahead
With ongoing advancements in generative AI, robotics, and quantum computing, the number of AI-related patent filings is expected to keep climbing. Governments and regulatory bodies are also paying closer attention to how AI patents are evaluated, ensuring that innovation is balanced with responsibility and legal clarity.
SK bioscience Claims Final Victory in mRNA Patent Dispute Against Moderna
South Korea’s SK bioscience, the biopharmaceutical subsidiary of SK Group, announced on Wednesday that it has secured a decisive win in a patent dispute against U.S.-based biotechnology company Moderna, known globally for its development of mRNA COVID-19 vaccines.
The legal challenge, initiated in 2023, contested Moderna’s South Korean patent concerning the use and modification of nucleosides, nucleotides, and nucleic acids in mRNA technology. According to SK bioscience, the patent posed a significant barrier to domestic research and innovation by granting what it called “unjust priority rights.” This patent, reportedly the only one of its kind registered in South Korea related to mRNA production, was viewed as crucial to SK bioscience’s ongoing projects, including its experimental mRNA vaccine for Japanese encephalitis, GBP560.
The vaccine project is being conducted in partnership with the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), a global health organization supported by funding from philanthropist Bill Gates.
A spokesperson for the company highlighted that, if successful, its mRNA-based vaccines could be distributed in developing regions such as Africa, Southeast Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East—areas where Moderna has not yet secured intellectual property rights for its mRNA technology.
The ruling in SK bioscience’s favor came from the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board last month, and with Moderna opting not to appeal within the designated timeframe, the decision stands as final. The company believes this outcome will accelerate its ambitions to become a key player in the mRNA vaccine space, which analysts project could surpass 84 trillion won (around $58.9 billion) in market value by 2033.
SK bioscience now aims to develop a robust mRNA platform that can be used to combat not just pandemics, but a broader array of infectious diseases worldwide.
The legal challenge, initiated in 2023, contested Moderna’s South Korean patent concerning the use and modification of nucleosides, nucleotides, and nucleic acids in mRNA technology. According to SK bioscience, the patent posed a significant barrier to domestic research and innovation by granting what it called “unjust priority rights.” This patent, reportedly the only one of its kind registered in South Korea related to mRNA production, was viewed as crucial to SK bioscience’s ongoing projects, including its experimental mRNA vaccine for Japanese encephalitis, GBP560.
The vaccine project is being conducted in partnership with the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), a global health organization supported by funding from philanthropist Bill Gates.
A spokesperson for the company highlighted that, if successful, its mRNA-based vaccines could be distributed in developing regions such as Africa, Southeast Asia, Latin America, and the Middle East—areas where Moderna has not yet secured intellectual property rights for its mRNA technology.
The ruling in SK bioscience’s favor came from the Intellectual Property Trial and Appeal Board last month, and with Moderna opting not to appeal within the designated timeframe, the decision stands as final. The company believes this outcome will accelerate its ambitions to become a key player in the mRNA vaccine space, which analysts project could surpass 84 trillion won (around $58.9 billion) in market value by 2033.
SK bioscience now aims to develop a robust mRNA platform that can be used to combat not just pandemics, but a broader array of infectious diseases worldwide.
USPTO Suspends Expedited Examination for Design Applications Amid Fraud Concerns and Case Backlog
In a decisive move aimed at improving efficiency and safeguarding the integrity of the U.S. intellectual property system, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has announced the suspension of expedited examination for design patent applications, effective April 17, 2025. The policy change was officially detailed in a notice published in the USPTO’s Official Gazette on April 14.
The decision comes in response to a 560% surge in requests for expedited design application reviews—a trend the USPTO attributes in large part to a rise in fraudulent filings. This suspension is part of a broader strategy to reduce the growing inventory of unexamined design applications, curb misuse of the system, and ensure accurate and fair processing for legitimate applicants.
Key Reasons Behind the Suspension
According to the USPTO, the unexpected spike in expedited examination requests has placed significant pressure on examiners and contributed to increased backlogs in the design application pipeline. Much of this rise, the agency notes, is linked to fraudulent filings, which not only distort processing timelines but also pose risks to the integrity of the U.S. intellectual property system.
The USPTO also cites a rise in erroneous micro entity certifications—false claims to fee discounts intended for small applicants—as a factor in its decision. These certifications have become a growing concern in recent years, complicating the patent review process and necessitating additional scrutiny.
What the Suspension Means for Applicants
Starting April 17, 2025, the USPTO will no longer grant requests for expedited examination of design applications, including any renewed or pending requests submitted on or after that date. In line with this change:
Associated fees will be refunded in full for requests made after the effective date.
The USPTO will continue to examine design applications under its standard timeline, as it works to reduce overall pendency and inventory.
Impact on the Design Patent Community
The suspension will have a notable impact on companies and individuals relying on faster design patent protection for products with short market cycles, particularly in sectors like fashion, consumer electronics, and packaging design. However, the USPTO maintains that ensuring quality and transparency in the application process outweighs the short-term disruption caused by the policy shift.
Industry analysts suggest that while the suspension may create delays for some innovators, the move is likely to improve the reliability and credibility of granted design patents in the long run, which is critical for both domestic and international enforcement.
Broader Reform Efforts
This policy change is one component of the USPTO’s wider agenda to combat abuse and strengthen the integrity of the IP system. The office has been ramping up enforcement against fraudulent filings, improving data analytics to detect suspicious activity, and refining procedures for certifying applicant eligibility for reduced fees.
The USPTO also continues to explore new technologies and staffing solutions to address examination delays and ensure legitimate applications are processed efficiently.
Delhi High Court Denies Roche Injunction Against Natco, Puts Public Health Over Patent in Rare Disease Drug Case
The case, centered on Roche’s high-priced drug risdiplam used to treat Spinal Muscular Atrophy (SMA), brought public health and drug affordability to the forefront of the legal discourse.
Justice Mini Pushkarna, delivering the verdict on March 24, underscored the primacy of public health in patent litigation involving critical medications. “Public health is not something that should be dealt with lightly,” she wrote, adding that when a drug is the only available treatment for a rare disease in India, its affordable availability to the public becomes a “material factor” in deciding whether to grant an injunction. Notably, she emphasized that while pharmaceutical companies can be compensated monetarily, the public “has no such right to compensate itself.”
Roche vs Natco: The Core Dispute
Roche had filed a patent infringement suit seeking to block Natco from manufacturing a generic version of risdiplam, marketed by Roche as Evrysdi. The oral medication is the only approved treatment for SMA in India, a rare and progressive genetic disorder that impairs motor function and eventually leads to loss of movement and breathing capability.
Roche argued that Natco’s generic infringed on its Indian species patent, valid until 2035. Natco, however, challenged the legitimacy of the patent, citing an earlier genus patent filed internationally, claiming Roche was attempting to extend its monopoly illegitimately.
The Affordability Crisis
One of the case’s most compelling elements was the stark reality of Evrysdi’s cost. For an SMA patient weighing over 20 kg, that equates to ₹1.8 crore annually—a prohibitive amount for most Indian families.
Seba P. A., an SMA patient, and Purva Mittal, who is awaiting treatment at Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Hospital in Delhi, both intervened in the suit, highlighting the devastating impact of the drug’s unaffordability.
Roche’s Limited Patient Assistance Programme Rejected
Roche, like many multinational pharmaceutical firms, proposed offering risdiplam at a subsidized rate under a Patient Assistance Programme (PAP). But the court found this insufficient. The judge noted that the programme was too limited in scope, benefiting only a select group of patients, and would still exclude a significant number of SMA sufferers.
Furthermore, Roche’s plan to work with the National Rare Diseases Committee was seen as impractical, given limited funding under the National Policy for Rare Diseases (NPRD). The court referenced a 2024 government release stating that while up to ₹50 lakh is allocated per patient, only 1,118 patients had received support for any rare disease, despite 63 such diseases being recognized.
Court Favors Balance of Convenience
In assessing whether to grant the injunction, the court applied the principle of balance of convenience—weighing which party would suffer more harm from the interim decision. Justice Pushkarna concluded that Natco stood on stronger ground, especially since damages could compensate Roche if it ultimately prevailed, whereas denying access to a life-saving drug could not be reversed for patients.
The judge also drew parallels to a prior case in 2008, where Roche had sought to block Cipla’s generic version of the cancer drug erlotinib (marketed as Tarceva). That case also emphasized affordability, with the court refusing an injunction because Cipla’s generic cost ₹48,000 per month, while Roche’s version was priced at ₹1.4 lakh.
A Global Legal Battle
While Natco has prevailed in India for now, the battle over risdiplam continues elsewhere. In the United States, Roche is pursuing legal action against Natco and other generic makers who have filed Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) with the FDA. Despite SMA being a rare condition, Evrysdi’s U.S. sales hit $1.8 billion in 2024, bolstered by its oral formulation, which provides a less invasive option compared to competitor drugs that require spinal injections.
Patent Complexity: Genus vs. Species
At the heart of the legal challenge is the distinction between genus and species patents. Roche holds a species patent for risdiplam in India, valid until 2035, while the earlier genus patent—covering a broader class of compounds—expires in 2033. Natco argues that risdiplam was already disclosed in the genus patent and that Roche is attempting to unfairly extend patent protection through strategic filings. Similar allegations of patent misuse have emerged against Roche in other international jurisdictions.
A Turning Point for Access and IP Law?
Justice Pushkarna’s ruling is being hailed as a significant judicial stance on the issue of drug affordability, especially in the context of rare diseases. While Indian courts have occasionally refused to grant injunctions against generic firms in the past, few have spoken as plainly about the right to health and the public’s interest in affordable medicine.
The case is far from over—trial proceedings will continue to decide the validity of Roche’s patent. However, the court has made it clear: innovation must not come at the cost of accessibility.
As the world grapples with balancing intellectual property rights and public health imperatives, this decision may serve as a legal and moral benchmark—especially for lower-income countries navigating similar dilemmas.
Justice Mini Pushkarna, delivering the verdict on March 24, underscored the primacy of public health in patent litigation involving critical medications. “Public health is not something that should be dealt with lightly,” she wrote, adding that when a drug is the only available treatment for a rare disease in India, its affordable availability to the public becomes a “material factor” in deciding whether to grant an injunction. Notably, she emphasized that while pharmaceutical companies can be compensated monetarily, the public “has no such right to compensate itself.”
Roche vs Natco: The Core Dispute
Roche had filed a patent infringement suit seeking to block Natco from manufacturing a generic version of risdiplam, marketed by Roche as Evrysdi. The oral medication is the only approved treatment for SMA in India, a rare and progressive genetic disorder that impairs motor function and eventually leads to loss of movement and breathing capability.
Roche argued that Natco’s generic infringed on its Indian species patent, valid until 2035. Natco, however, challenged the legitimacy of the patent, citing an earlier genus patent filed internationally, claiming Roche was attempting to extend its monopoly illegitimately.
The Affordability Crisis
One of the case’s most compelling elements was the stark reality of Evrysdi’s cost. For an SMA patient weighing over 20 kg, that equates to ₹1.8 crore annually—a prohibitive amount for most Indian families.
Seba P. A., an SMA patient, and Purva Mittal, who is awaiting treatment at Lok Nayak Jai Prakash Hospital in Delhi, both intervened in the suit, highlighting the devastating impact of the drug’s unaffordability.
Roche’s Limited Patient Assistance Programme Rejected
Roche, like many multinational pharmaceutical firms, proposed offering risdiplam at a subsidized rate under a Patient Assistance Programme (PAP). But the court found this insufficient. The judge noted that the programme was too limited in scope, benefiting only a select group of patients, and would still exclude a significant number of SMA sufferers.
Furthermore, Roche’s plan to work with the National Rare Diseases Committee was seen as impractical, given limited funding under the National Policy for Rare Diseases (NPRD). The court referenced a 2024 government release stating that while up to ₹50 lakh is allocated per patient, only 1,118 patients had received support for any rare disease, despite 63 such diseases being recognized.
Court Favors Balance of Convenience
In assessing whether to grant the injunction, the court applied the principle of balance of convenience—weighing which party would suffer more harm from the interim decision. Justice Pushkarna concluded that Natco stood on stronger ground, especially since damages could compensate Roche if it ultimately prevailed, whereas denying access to a life-saving drug could not be reversed for patients.
The judge also drew parallels to a prior case in 2008, where Roche had sought to block Cipla’s generic version of the cancer drug erlotinib (marketed as Tarceva). That case also emphasized affordability, with the court refusing an injunction because Cipla’s generic cost ₹48,000 per month, while Roche’s version was priced at ₹1.4 lakh.
A Global Legal Battle
While Natco has prevailed in India for now, the battle over risdiplam continues elsewhere. In the United States, Roche is pursuing legal action against Natco and other generic makers who have filed Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) with the FDA. Despite SMA being a rare condition, Evrysdi’s U.S. sales hit $1.8 billion in 2024, bolstered by its oral formulation, which provides a less invasive option compared to competitor drugs that require spinal injections.
Patent Complexity: Genus vs. Species
At the heart of the legal challenge is the distinction between genus and species patents. Roche holds a species patent for risdiplam in India, valid until 2035, while the earlier genus patent—covering a broader class of compounds—expires in 2033. Natco argues that risdiplam was already disclosed in the genus patent and that Roche is attempting to unfairly extend patent protection through strategic filings. Similar allegations of patent misuse have emerged against Roche in other international jurisdictions.
A Turning Point for Access and IP Law?
Justice Pushkarna’s ruling is being hailed as a significant judicial stance on the issue of drug affordability, especially in the context of rare diseases. While Indian courts have occasionally refused to grant injunctions against generic firms in the past, few have spoken as plainly about the right to health and the public’s interest in affordable medicine.
The case is far from over—trial proceedings will continue to decide the validity of Roche’s patent. However, the court has made it clear: innovation must not come at the cost of accessibility.
As the world grapples with balancing intellectual property rights and public health imperatives, this decision may serve as a legal and moral benchmark—especially for lower-income countries navigating similar dilemmas.
Biodegradable Plastics Enter the Mainstream as Global Patent Race Heats Up, Says Questel Report
With plastic pollution reaching critical levels, a growing number of innovators and companies are racing to develop sustainable alternatives. A new patent landscape analysis from Questel, led by chemistry specialist and business intelligence consultant Donia Ben Zakour, offers a comprehensive look into the evolving world of biodegradable plastics—and the findings suggest a wave of green innovation is gaining serious momentum.
A Growing Crisis Demands a Sustainable Response
Conventional plastics have become synonymous with environmental harm. Every year, an estimated 12.7 million tonnes of plastic waste enter the oceans. Meanwhile, only 9% of all plastic ever produced has been recycled. As global concern deepens, the spotlight is turning to biodegradable plastics as a promising solution.
What Are Biodegradable Plastics—and Why Do They Matter?
Biodegradable plastics are engineered to degrade through microbial activity, breaking down into natural substances such as carbon dioxide, water, and biomass within a defined timeframe. These materials, which include polylactic acid (PLA), polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA), and starch-based compounds, are particularly suited for single-use applications like packaging.
Their chemical structures and environmental degradability make them a vital alternative in sectors looking to cut their plastic footprint.
The Patent Landscape: Questel’s Key Findings
Questel’s in-depth analysis examines more than 9,000 patent families related to biodegradable plastics filed over the past two decades (excluding Chinese non-extended patents). It provides valuable insights into trends in innovation, market leaders, and regional activity.
📈 Patent Filing Trends (2005–2023)
2005–2018: Patent activity was relatively steady, with 200–300 new filings annually. However, many early patents are now considered “dead” due to abandonment or expiration.
2015–2023: A dramatic surge in activity, particularly from 2018 onward, saw annual filings exceed 1,000 by 2021. The growing number of “pending” applications reflects a vibrant pipeline of new technologies.
Filings from 2024 and 2025 appear lower but are likely underreported due to the standard 18-month delay between filing and publication.
🌍 Geographical Hotspots
Patent data shows that innovation is concentrated in Japan, South Korea, and the United States. These regions account for the majority of first-priority filings:
Japan was an early leader but saw a lull before a recent rebound.
South Korea took the lead after 2018, driven by aggressive R&D from major firms.
India is emerging as a noteworthy player, while Europe maintains consistent, though fragmented, contributions.
🏢 Leading Innovators in the Space
Top contributors include:
LG Chem – developing bio-based polymers for industrial and packaging use.
Hyundai Motor – incorporating biodegradable materials into vehicle interiors.
CJ CheilJedang – advancing PHA-based biodegradable plastic technologies for a wide range of applications.
⚙️ Key Technologies and Manufacturing Processes
Dominant areas of innovation include:
Core materials: PLA, PHA, starch-based bioplastics, biodegradable polyesters.
Processing methods: Injection molding, extrusion, and polymer blending.
Real-World Adoption and the Push for Sustainability
Biodegradable plastics are increasingly making the leap from labs to commercial shelves. Global brands are actively seeking replacements for conventional plastics in packaging, while automotive and electronics industries are integrating biodegradable materials into their design and production processes.
Zakour emphasizes that this movement reflects more than just a trend—it’s a systemic shift in how innovation meets sustainability. “We’re witnessing a convergence of environmental responsibility, regulatory pressure, and consumer demand,” she explains. “Biodegradable plastics are now seen not just as an alternative, but as a necessity for sustainable growth.”
Looking Ahead
Despite economic uncertainties and regulatory complexity, Questel’s report points to a dynamic and competitive innovation landscape. With global filings surging and real-world applications expanding, biodegradable plastics are rapidly becoming a key pillar of environmental strategy for forward-thinking companies.
The global patent race is far from over—but one thing is clear: the future of plastic is biodegradable.
A Growing Crisis Demands a Sustainable Response
Conventional plastics have become synonymous with environmental harm. Every year, an estimated 12.7 million tonnes of plastic waste enter the oceans. Meanwhile, only 9% of all plastic ever produced has been recycled. As global concern deepens, the spotlight is turning to biodegradable plastics as a promising solution.
What Are Biodegradable Plastics—and Why Do They Matter?
Biodegradable plastics are engineered to degrade through microbial activity, breaking down into natural substances such as carbon dioxide, water, and biomass within a defined timeframe. These materials, which include polylactic acid (PLA), polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA), and starch-based compounds, are particularly suited for single-use applications like packaging.
Their chemical structures and environmental degradability make them a vital alternative in sectors looking to cut their plastic footprint.
The Patent Landscape: Questel’s Key Findings
Questel’s in-depth analysis examines more than 9,000 patent families related to biodegradable plastics filed over the past two decades (excluding Chinese non-extended patents). It provides valuable insights into trends in innovation, market leaders, and regional activity.
📈 Patent Filing Trends (2005–2023)
2005–2018: Patent activity was relatively steady, with 200–300 new filings annually. However, many early patents are now considered “dead” due to abandonment or expiration.
2015–2023: A dramatic surge in activity, particularly from 2018 onward, saw annual filings exceed 1,000 by 2021. The growing number of “pending” applications reflects a vibrant pipeline of new technologies.
Filings from 2024 and 2025 appear lower but are likely underreported due to the standard 18-month delay between filing and publication.
🌍 Geographical Hotspots
Patent data shows that innovation is concentrated in Japan, South Korea, and the United States. These regions account for the majority of first-priority filings:
Japan was an early leader but saw a lull before a recent rebound.
South Korea took the lead after 2018, driven by aggressive R&D from major firms.
India is emerging as a noteworthy player, while Europe maintains consistent, though fragmented, contributions.
🏢 Leading Innovators in the Space
Top contributors include:
LG Chem – developing bio-based polymers for industrial and packaging use.
Hyundai Motor – incorporating biodegradable materials into vehicle interiors.
CJ CheilJedang – advancing PHA-based biodegradable plastic technologies for a wide range of applications.
⚙️ Key Technologies and Manufacturing Processes
Dominant areas of innovation include:
Core materials: PLA, PHA, starch-based bioplastics, biodegradable polyesters.
Processing methods: Injection molding, extrusion, and polymer blending.
Real-World Adoption and the Push for Sustainability
Biodegradable plastics are increasingly making the leap from labs to commercial shelves. Global brands are actively seeking replacements for conventional plastics in packaging, while automotive and electronics industries are integrating biodegradable materials into their design and production processes.
Zakour emphasizes that this movement reflects more than just a trend—it’s a systemic shift in how innovation meets sustainability. “We’re witnessing a convergence of environmental responsibility, regulatory pressure, and consumer demand,” she explains. “Biodegradable plastics are now seen not just as an alternative, but as a necessity for sustainable growth.”
Looking Ahead
Despite economic uncertainties and regulatory complexity, Questel’s report points to a dynamic and competitive innovation landscape. With global filings surging and real-world applications expanding, biodegradable plastics are rapidly becoming a key pillar of environmental strategy for forward-thinking companies.
The global patent race is far from over—but one thing is clear: the future of plastic is biodegradable.
China Sees Sharp Decline in Invention Patent Grants in Q1 2025, Reflecting Shift Toward Patent Quality Over Quantity
China’s National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) released new statistics on April 15, 2025, revealing a significant decline in invention patent grants during the first quarter of the year. According to the official data, the number of invention patents granted between January and March 2025 dropped by 20.99% year-on-year, amounting to a reduction of 52,870 patents, with a total of 199,012 invention patents granted during the period.
The downward trend was not isolated to invention patents alone. Utility model grants, another category of intellectual property protection frequently used in China, also saw a marginal decline of 2.33%, decreasing by 11,032 grants compared to the first quarter of 2024, bringing the total to 408,419 utility model grants.
However, in contrast to the broader decline, design patent grants recorded a notable increase. The CNIPA reported a 10.11% year-on-year growth, with 161,058 design patents granted in Q1 2025—an increase of 14,788 grants compared to the same period last year.
Trademark Registrations Also Down
The downturn extended into trademark registrations. From January to March 2025, the number of new trademarks registered in China fell by 193,996, reflecting a 14.97% decline compared to the first quarter of 2024. This slump may reflect broader economic uncertainties or shifts in business activity.
Factors Behind the Decline
While CNIPA has not issued an official explanation for the steep decline in invention patent grants, several contributing factors appear to be at play—chief among them, China’s evolving strategy around intellectual property quality and enforcement.
End of Patent Subsidies: Government subsidies for patent grants, once a major driver behind China’s patent filing boom, have officially ended in 2025. This move was aimed at reducing low-quality and opportunistic filings.
Crackdown on “Abnormal” Applications: Chinese authorities have continued to intensify scrutiny on fraudulent or low-value patent applications. This regulatory push has likely discouraged mass filing practices that previously inflated patent figures.
Shift Toward High-Value Patents: China has reoriented its IP strategy from emphasizing sheer volume to focusing on the number of high-value patents per 10,000 people, moving away from raw patent filing counts as the primary performance metric.
In addition, the broader slowdown in China’s economy may be influencing innovation output and intellectual property activity. However, due to the nature of patent processing timelines, such effects may manifest with a delay, making patent grants a lagging indicator of underlying economic trends.
Long-Term Outlook Remains Ambitious
Despite the recent decline, CNIPA’s 2025 budget signals continued confidence in long-term innovation momentum. The agency expects to receive over 5 million patent applications this year and plans to examine more than 2 million invention patent applications. These targets reflect China’s sustained investment in intellectual property infrastructure and commitment to fostering innovation at scale.
The full dataset, published in Chinese under the title “2025年3月国家知识产权局审查注册登记统计月报（外部版)”, offers a detailed monthly breakdown of IP activity and can be accessed through CNIPA’s official platform.
As China continues to prioritize patent quality and reform its intellectual property system, the first quarter data may represent more than just a temporary dip—it could signal a lasting transformation in how innovation is measured and rewarded in the world’s second-largest economy.
The downward trend was not isolated to invention patents alone. Utility model grants, another category of intellectual property protection frequently used in China, also saw a marginal decline of 2.33%, decreasing by 11,032 grants compared to the first quarter of 2024, bringing the total to 408,419 utility model grants.
However, in contrast to the broader decline, design patent grants recorded a notable increase. The CNIPA reported a 10.11% year-on-year growth, with 161,058 design patents granted in Q1 2025—an increase of 14,788 grants compared to the same period last year.
Trademark Registrations Also Down
The downturn extended into trademark registrations. From January to March 2025, the number of new trademarks registered in China fell by 193,996, reflecting a 14.97% decline compared to the first quarter of 2024. This slump may reflect broader economic uncertainties or shifts in business activity.
Factors Behind the Decline
While CNIPA has not issued an official explanation for the steep decline in invention patent grants, several contributing factors appear to be at play—chief among them, China’s evolving strategy around intellectual property quality and enforcement.
End of Patent Subsidies: Government subsidies for patent grants, once a major driver behind China’s patent filing boom, have officially ended in 2025. This move was aimed at reducing low-quality and opportunistic filings.
Crackdown on “Abnormal” Applications: Chinese authorities have continued to intensify scrutiny on fraudulent or low-value patent applications. This regulatory push has likely discouraged mass filing practices that previously inflated patent figures.
Shift Toward High-Value Patents: China has reoriented its IP strategy from emphasizing sheer volume to focusing on the number of high-value patents per 10,000 people, moving away from raw patent filing counts as the primary performance metric.
In addition, the broader slowdown in China’s economy may be influencing innovation output and intellectual property activity. However, due to the nature of patent processing timelines, such effects may manifest with a delay, making patent grants a lagging indicator of underlying economic trends.
Long-Term Outlook Remains Ambitious
Despite the recent decline, CNIPA’s 2025 budget signals continued confidence in long-term innovation momentum. The agency expects to receive over 5 million patent applications this year and plans to examine more than 2 million invention patent applications. These targets reflect China’s sustained investment in intellectual property infrastructure and commitment to fostering innovation at scale.
The full dataset, published in Chinese under the title “2025年3月国家知识产权局审查注册登记统计月报（外部版)”, offers a detailed monthly breakdown of IP activity and can be accessed through CNIPA’s official platform.
As China continues to prioritize patent quality and reform its intellectual property system, the first quarter data may represent more than just a temporary dip—it could signal a lasting transformation in how innovation is measured and rewarded in the world’s second-largest economy.
USPTO Streamlines Patent Issuance Timeline with Faster Turnaround Starting May 13
In a move that promises to bring greater efficiency to the U.S. patent system, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has announced a major update to its patent issuance process.
This improvement marks a significant shift in the patenting landscape, providing faster legal recognition of inventions and reducing administrative lag for both individual inventors and companies awaiting protection for their intellectual property.
Transition to Digital Patent Grants Accelerates the Process
The accelerated timeline has been made possible in large part due to the USPTO’s adoption of electronic patent grants (eGrants). With the USPTO now fully transitioned to digital issuance, those time-consuming steps have been eliminated, allowing for quicker finalization of granted patents.
The agency has stated that, once all requirements are met and the Issue Fee is paid, inventors typically receive an Issue Notification within one to two weeks. Under the new process, the formal patent will be granted just two weeks after this notification, as opposed to the previous three-week standard.
Benefits for Inventors and Legal Professionals
This change not only shortens the waiting period for inventors eager to see their rights formally granted, but it also has strategic legal benefits. The reduced timeline cuts down the so-called “lame duck” period—a window of time during which inventors and their legal counsel are still required to submit any known prior art that might affect the patent’s validity. During this period, submissions of relevant information could cause delays in issuance.
By shortening this window, the USPTO effectively reduces the likelihood of last-minute delays caused by prior art disclosures, allowing for smoother and more predictable patent finalizations.
A Win for Innovation and IP Management
The streamlined process is being welcomed by the patent community as a step in the right direction. Faster issuance allows inventors to enforce their rights sooner, boosts the value of patent portfolios more quickly, and provides an advantage to companies working in fast-moving sectors such as technology, pharmaceuticals, and biotech.
“This is a smart move by the USPTO,” said a patent attorney at a Washington-based IP law firm. “In a time where speed to market can make or break an invention’s commercial potential, cutting down unnecessary administrative lag can be a game-changer.”
Looking Ahead
The USPTO has been steadily modernizing its systems to better serve inventors, including the roll-out of digital filing systems, the modernization of examiner tools, and now this reduction in issuance lag. These changes reflect the agency’s ongoing commitment to streamlining operations while maintaining high standards for patent examination and grant quality.
As of May 13, inventors who receive their issue notifications can expect to see their patents granted just two weeks later—giving them the legal recognition and rights they’ve earned, faster than ever before.
This improvement marks a significant shift in the patenting landscape, providing faster legal recognition of inventions and reducing administrative lag for both individual inventors and companies awaiting protection for their intellectual property.
Transition to Digital Patent Grants Accelerates the Process
The accelerated timeline has been made possible in large part due to the USPTO’s adoption of electronic patent grants (eGrants). With the USPTO now fully transitioned to digital issuance, those time-consuming steps have been eliminated, allowing for quicker finalization of granted patents.
The agency has stated that, once all requirements are met and the Issue Fee is paid, inventors typically receive an Issue Notification within one to two weeks. Under the new process, the formal patent will be granted just two weeks after this notification, as opposed to the previous three-week standard.
Benefits for Inventors and Legal Professionals
This change not only shortens the waiting period for inventors eager to see their rights formally granted, but it also has strategic legal benefits. The reduced timeline cuts down the so-called “lame duck” period—a window of time during which inventors and their legal counsel are still required to submit any known prior art that might affect the patent’s validity. During this period, submissions of relevant information could cause delays in issuance.
By shortening this window, the USPTO effectively reduces the likelihood of last-minute delays caused by prior art disclosures, allowing for smoother and more predictable patent finalizations.
A Win for Innovation and IP Management
The streamlined process is being welcomed by the patent community as a step in the right direction. Faster issuance allows inventors to enforce their rights sooner, boosts the value of patent portfolios more quickly, and provides an advantage to companies working in fast-moving sectors such as technology, pharmaceuticals, and biotech.
“This is a smart move by the USPTO,” said a patent attorney at a Washington-based IP law firm. “In a time where speed to market can make or break an invention’s commercial potential, cutting down unnecessary administrative lag can be a game-changer.”
Looking Ahead
The USPTO has been steadily modernizing its systems to better serve inventors, including the roll-out of digital filing systems, the modernization of examiner tools, and now this reduction in issuance lag. These changes reflect the agency’s ongoing commitment to streamlining operations while maintaining high standards for patent examination and grant quality.
As of May 13, inventors who receive their issue notifications can expect to see their patents granted just two weeks later—giving them the legal recognition and rights they’ve earned, faster than ever before.
Shares of Lupin and Zydus Life Slide After Losing US Patent Case to Astellas Pharma
Shares of Indian pharmaceutical giants Lupin and Zydus Lifesciences came under significant selling pressure on April 16, falling by 3% and 4.5% respectively. The decline followed a ruling by the U.S. District Court in Delaware in favor of Astellas Pharma, the original patent holder of Myrbetriq, a drug used to treat overactive bladder (OAB). The court determined that Lupin and Zydus had infringed upon Astellas’s patent rights, potentially paving the way for the withdrawal of their generic versions from the U.S. market.
Court Ruling Favors Astellas
The dispute centers around the ‘780 patent, which protects the formulation of Mirabegron, the active ingredient in Myrbetriq. Astellas Pharma filed a lawsuit claiming that the generic products manufactured by Lupin and Zydus violated this patent.
The judgment emphasized that the defendants failed to demonstrate that the patent was invalid on grounds such as lack of enablement, inadequate written description, or indefiniteness. With the court upholding the validity of the ‘780 patent, the generics produced by Lupin and Zydus are now under threat of being barred from sale in the U.S.
Financial Implications Loom
Market analysts have raised concerns over the financial impact this legal defeat could have on the Indian pharma companies. Myrbetriq was anticipated to contribute nearly $30 million in quarterly revenues to each company, according to some industry estimates. The ruling could not only impact future earnings but also result in penalties.
Vishal Manchanda, a pharmaceutical sector analyst at Systematix Group, told CNBC-TV18, “We expect a tangible hit to FY26 earnings for both Zydus Life and Lupin due to this development. Moreover, damages and potential penalties, if levied by the jury trial, could further strain their financials.”
The final determination of damages and any remaining disputes over infringement or validity will be taken up in a consolidated jury trial scheduled for 2026.
Companies Respond
In a post-market statement, Zydus Lifesciences acknowledged the verdict and said it is currently reviewing the court order and assessing its implications. “We are evaluating the potential impact of the said order on the operations of the Company and the legal remedies available with the Company,” the statement read.
Both Zydus and Lupin have filed a ‘Motion to Clarify’ in an effort to assert additional arguments regarding the patent’s validity, which the court will consider during the 2026 trial.
Background on Myrbetriq and the Patent Dispute
Myrbetriq, approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2012, has been a high-value product in the OAB treatment category, with global sales reaching over a billion dollars annually in recent years. The drug works by relaxing the bladder muscle to increase storage capacity and reduce urinary urgency.
The ‘780 patent, central to the lawsuit, covers specific formulations and the method of administration of Mirabegron. Patent infringement in this context refers to manufacturing or selling a product that falls within the patent’s claim scope without authorization from the patent holder.
The ruling highlights the risks generic manufacturers face when attempting to enter markets dominated by patented medications. It also reaffirms the legal strength of patent protections in the U.S., particularly for high-value pharmaceutical products.
Market Reaction
Investors reacted swiftly to the news, with both Lupin and Zydus Life stocks falling sharply in trading. Analysts believe the market is pricing in not only the potential loss of revenue but also uncertainty around future legal proceedings and penalties.
The verdict serves as a cautionary tale for generics manufacturers and underscores the importance of thorough patent analysis before launching competing products in major markets like the United States.
As the legal battle progresses, the pharmaceutical sector will be closely watching the developments in the run-up to the 2026 trial, which will determine the extent of financial liability and the long-term market prospects for generic versions of Myrbetriq.
Court Ruling Favors Astellas
The dispute centers around the ‘780 patent, which protects the formulation of Mirabegron, the active ingredient in Myrbetriq. Astellas Pharma filed a lawsuit claiming that the generic products manufactured by Lupin and Zydus violated this patent.
The judgment emphasized that the defendants failed to demonstrate that the patent was invalid on grounds such as lack of enablement, inadequate written description, or indefiniteness. With the court upholding the validity of the ‘780 patent, the generics produced by Lupin and Zydus are now under threat of being barred from sale in the U.S.
Financial Implications Loom
Market analysts have raised concerns over the financial impact this legal defeat could have on the Indian pharma companies. Myrbetriq was anticipated to contribute nearly $30 million in quarterly revenues to each company, according to some industry estimates. The ruling could not only impact future earnings but also result in penalties.
Vishal Manchanda, a pharmaceutical sector analyst at Systematix Group, told CNBC-TV18, “We expect a tangible hit to FY26 earnings for both Zydus Life and Lupin due to this development. Moreover, damages and potential penalties, if levied by the jury trial, could further strain their financials.”
The final determination of damages and any remaining disputes over infringement or validity will be taken up in a consolidated jury trial scheduled for 2026.
Companies Respond
In a post-market statement, Zydus Lifesciences acknowledged the verdict and said it is currently reviewing the court order and assessing its implications. “We are evaluating the potential impact of the said order on the operations of the Company and the legal remedies available with the Company,” the statement read.
Both Zydus and Lupin have filed a ‘Motion to Clarify’ in an effort to assert additional arguments regarding the patent’s validity, which the court will consider during the 2026 trial.
Background on Myrbetriq and the Patent Dispute
Myrbetriq, approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 2012, has been a high-value product in the OAB treatment category, with global sales reaching over a billion dollars annually in recent years. The drug works by relaxing the bladder muscle to increase storage capacity and reduce urinary urgency.
The ‘780 patent, central to the lawsuit, covers specific formulations and the method of administration of Mirabegron. Patent infringement in this context refers to manufacturing or selling a product that falls within the patent’s claim scope without authorization from the patent holder.
The ruling highlights the risks generic manufacturers face when attempting to enter markets dominated by patented medications. It also reaffirms the legal strength of patent protections in the U.S., particularly for high-value pharmaceutical products.
Market Reaction
Investors reacted swiftly to the news, with both Lupin and Zydus Life stocks falling sharply in trading. Analysts believe the market is pricing in not only the potential loss of revenue but also uncertainty around future legal proceedings and penalties.
The verdict serves as a cautionary tale for generics manufacturers and underscores the importance of thorough patent analysis before launching competing products in major markets like the United States.
As the legal battle progresses, the pharmaceutical sector will be closely watching the developments in the run-up to the 2026 trial, which will determine the extent of financial liability and the long-term market prospects for generic versions of Myrbetriq.
Dorsey and Musk Call to ‘Delete All IP Law’ Sparks Backlash Amid AI Copyright Battles
In a cryptic yet explosive post on X, Twitter co-founder Jack Dorsey called for the wholesale abolition of intellectual property law, declaring simply: “delete all IP law.” The message, posted without explanation or context, quickly drew a wave of attention — and an immediate show of support from Elon Musk, who replied in agreement.
While both tech billionaires are known for their provocative online personas, this statement has ignited a serious debate about the future of intellectual property (IP) in the digital age — particularly as artificial intelligence continues to test the boundaries of content ownership, authorship, and creative rights.
What Exactly Do They Want to Delete?
Dorsey’s call raises more questions than it answers. “All IP law” could encompass a broad swath of legal protections, including:
Patent law, which protects inventions and technological processes
Copyright law, which guards original works of authorship
Trademark law, which ensures brand and consumer recognition
Rights of publicity, which allow individuals to control the use of their name, image, and likeness
The ambiguity of Dorsey’s post leaves it unclear whether he is advocating for the dismantling of all of these systems or speaking more narrowly. What is clear is that both Dorsey and Musk have long been critical of formal IP protections.
Musk, in particular, has famously stated that “patents are for the weak,” suggesting that true innovation doesn’t rely on legal shields. Yet, critics argue that such a stance reflects a privileged position — one made possible by enormous capital, market dominance, and access to elite legal teams.
IP as a Shield for the Powerless
While tech titans may view IP law as an inconvenience, others see it as a vital safeguard — especially for independent creators, startups, and inventors. Intellectual property laws serve as a means of leveling the playing field, providing smaller players a tool to protect their work and negotiate with larger, more powerful entities.
“This idea that IP protections are unnecessary ignores the reality of how innovation happens outside of billion-dollar companies,” said one Washington-based legal scholar. “The rule of law, including IP rights, is often the only recourse small creators have to protect their contributions.”
USPTO Pushes Back
In response to Dorsey and Musk’s remarks, Coke Morgan Stewart, the Acting Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), issued a rebuttal defending the IP system. Citing examples ranging from President Biden and Vice President Harris, to J.D. Vance’s “Hillbilly Elegy” and Donald Trump’s trademarks, Stewart argued that IP laws underpin creativity, entrepreneurship, and economic opportunity.
She also referenced the popular show Shark Tank, where patent and trademark protections are often pivotal to whether an entrepreneur secures funding. “IP rights are not abstract legal constructs,” Stewart emphasized. “They are practical tools that empower innovation, protect integrity in the marketplace, and help turn ideas into viable businesses.”
Silicon Valley’s Complicated Relationship with IP
Silicon Valley has long walked a tightrope when it comes to intellectual property. Many of its biggest success stories — from Google’s search engine, which indexes others’ work, to social media platforms like X and Instagram that depend entirely on user-generated content — have been built on models that leverage the creativity of the masses.
Meanwhile, the rise of artificial intelligence has introduced a new layer of complexity. Modern AI systems are trained on massive datasets, often scraped from publicly available — but still copyrighted — sources. This has triggered a wave of lawsuits from authors, artists, and rights holders who argue their works have been co-opted without permission or compensation.
That includes legal action against companies like OpenAI (which Musk co-founded), as well as lawsuits against image and video generators. Both Musk and Dorsey are reportedly developing or investing in their own AI ventures, making their recent anti-IP remarks appear less like philosophical positions and more like preemptive strikes against legal obstacles.
The Bigger Picture: Control vs. Creativity
For critics, the timing of Dorsey’s and Musk’s statements is telling. As the legal landscape tightens around AI training data and content use, the call to abolish IP law seems less about freeing innovation and more about escaping accountability. Yet, for the creative community — from musicians and writers to small software developers — IP remains one of the few tools available to ensure fair treatment in a tech-dominated economy.
“The strongest don’t need the law,” one commentator noted. “But the rest of us do.”
While both tech billionaires are known for their provocative online personas, this statement has ignited a serious debate about the future of intellectual property (IP) in the digital age — particularly as artificial intelligence continues to test the boundaries of content ownership, authorship, and creative rights.
What Exactly Do They Want to Delete?
Dorsey’s call raises more questions than it answers. “All IP law” could encompass a broad swath of legal protections, including:
Patent law, which protects inventions and technological processes
Copyright law, which guards original works of authorship
Trademark law, which ensures brand and consumer recognition
Rights of publicity, which allow individuals to control the use of their name, image, and likeness
The ambiguity of Dorsey’s post leaves it unclear whether he is advocating for the dismantling of all of these systems or speaking more narrowly. What is clear is that both Dorsey and Musk have long been critical of formal IP protections.
Musk, in particular, has famously stated that “patents are for the weak,” suggesting that true innovation doesn’t rely on legal shields. Yet, critics argue that such a stance reflects a privileged position — one made possible by enormous capital, market dominance, and access to elite legal teams.
IP as a Shield for the Powerless
While tech titans may view IP law as an inconvenience, others see it as a vital safeguard — especially for independent creators, startups, and inventors. Intellectual property laws serve as a means of leveling the playing field, providing smaller players a tool to protect their work and negotiate with larger, more powerful entities.
“This idea that IP protections are unnecessary ignores the reality of how innovation happens outside of billion-dollar companies,” said one Washington-based legal scholar. “The rule of law, including IP rights, is often the only recourse small creators have to protect their contributions.”
USPTO Pushes Back
In response to Dorsey and Musk’s remarks, Coke Morgan Stewart, the Acting Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), issued a rebuttal defending the IP system. Citing examples ranging from President Biden and Vice President Harris, to J.D. Vance’s “Hillbilly Elegy” and Donald Trump’s trademarks, Stewart argued that IP laws underpin creativity, entrepreneurship, and economic opportunity.
She also referenced the popular show Shark Tank, where patent and trademark protections are often pivotal to whether an entrepreneur secures funding. “IP rights are not abstract legal constructs,” Stewart emphasized. “They are practical tools that empower innovation, protect integrity in the marketplace, and help turn ideas into viable businesses.”
Silicon Valley’s Complicated Relationship with IP
Silicon Valley has long walked a tightrope when it comes to intellectual property. Many of its biggest success stories — from Google’s search engine, which indexes others’ work, to social media platforms like X and Instagram that depend entirely on user-generated content — have been built on models that leverage the creativity of the masses.
Meanwhile, the rise of artificial intelligence has introduced a new layer of complexity. Modern AI systems are trained on massive datasets, often scraped from publicly available — but still copyrighted — sources. This has triggered a wave of lawsuits from authors, artists, and rights holders who argue their works have been co-opted without permission or compensation.
That includes legal action against companies like OpenAI (which Musk co-founded), as well as lawsuits against image and video generators. Both Musk and Dorsey are reportedly developing or investing in their own AI ventures, making their recent anti-IP remarks appear less like philosophical positions and more like preemptive strikes against legal obstacles.
The Bigger Picture: Control vs. Creativity
For critics, the timing of Dorsey’s and Musk’s statements is telling. As the legal landscape tightens around AI training data and content use, the call to abolish IP law seems less about freeing innovation and more about escaping accountability. Yet, for the creative community — from musicians and writers to small software developers — IP remains one of the few tools available to ensure fair treatment in a tech-dominated economy.
“The strongest don’t need the law,” one commentator noted. “But the rest of us do.”