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.
infringement
Navigating the Genomics Revolution: The Evolving Role of Intellectual Property Protection
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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.
DCRUST Researcher Secures Patent for Energy-Efficient Clay Cooler
Mukesh Kumar, a research scholar from the Mechanical Engineering Department at Deenbandhu Chhotu Ram University of Science and Technology (DCRUST), Murthal, has developed an innovative clay-based cooler that uses only half the electricity of conventional air coolers. This eco-friendly invention has now been granted a patent by the Central Government’s Patent Office.
The energy-efficient cooler was developed under the guidance of Prof. Amit Sharma, Associate Professor in the same department. The project was recently recognized at the university, where Vice-Chancellor Prof. Prakash Singh honored both Mukesh Kumar and Prof. Sharma for their contribution to sustainable technology.
Prof. Singh highlighted the importance of research in enhancing the academic standing of universities and praised the clay cooler as an initiative aligned with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, especially those focusing on affordable and clean energy solutions.
This innovation not only represents a step forward in green technology but also holds socio-economic promise. By involving traditional potter communities in the production process, it can potentially improve their livelihoods and create new employment opportunities. The biodegradable nature of the cooler ensures it leaves no harmful residue, contributing positively to environmental sustainability.
Describing the project as a blend of innovation and environmental responsibility, Prof. Sharma said the cooler utilizes the natural cooling properties of soil to deliver efficiency and eco-friendliness. He also emphasized its potential to support the government’s Make in India campaign by fostering domestic innovation and production.
The development of the cooler involved extensive testing and experimentation. Mukesh Kumar collected soil samples from various states. After rigorous trials, soil from Sohna, Haryana, was selected as the most suitable material. Despite facing over a hundred failed attempts, Kumar’s persistence paid off with a working model that is both practical and environmentally conscious.
This breakthrough demonstrates how traditional materials, combined with modern engineering, can lead to sustainable solutions with real-world impact.
The energy-efficient cooler was developed under the guidance of Prof. Amit Sharma, Associate Professor in the same department. The project was recently recognized at the university, where Vice-Chancellor Prof. Prakash Singh honored both Mukesh Kumar and Prof. Sharma for their contribution to sustainable technology.
Prof. Singh highlighted the importance of research in enhancing the academic standing of universities and praised the clay cooler as an initiative aligned with the United Nations’ Sustainable Development Goals, especially those focusing on affordable and clean energy solutions.
This innovation not only represents a step forward in green technology but also holds socio-economic promise. By involving traditional potter communities in the production process, it can potentially improve their livelihoods and create new employment opportunities. The biodegradable nature of the cooler ensures it leaves no harmful residue, contributing positively to environmental sustainability.
Describing the project as a blend of innovation and environmental responsibility, Prof. Sharma said the cooler utilizes the natural cooling properties of soil to deliver efficiency and eco-friendliness. He also emphasized its potential to support the government’s Make in India campaign by fostering domestic innovation and production.
The development of the cooler involved extensive testing and experimentation. Mukesh Kumar collected soil samples from various states. After rigorous trials, soil from Sohna, Haryana, was selected as the most suitable material. Despite facing over a hundred failed attempts, Kumar’s persistence paid off with a working model that is both practical and environmentally conscious.
This breakthrough demonstrates how traditional materials, combined with modern engineering, can lead to sustainable solutions with real-world impact.
Flux Power Holdings Secures Patent for Groundbreaking AI-Powered Battery Cycle Life Maximization Algorithm
Flux Power Holdings, Inc. (NASDAQ: FLUX), a pioneering developer of advanced lithium-ion energy storage solutions, today announced that it has been granted a patent for its innovative Intelligent Battery Cycle Life Maximization Algorithm. This proprietary AI-driven technology is designed to optimize the performance and longevity of its battery systems by leveraging machine learning to adapt to real-world usage. With this breakthrough, Flux Power is positioning itself as a leader not only in energy storage but also in the development of software-driven electrification solutions for commercial and industrial sectors.
A Leap Forward in Battery Management
Flux Power’s latest patent reflects a major step forward in the evolution of battery management technologies. The Intelligent Battery Cycle Life Maximization Algorithm uses machine learning to continuously monitor and adjust the charging behavior of lithium-ion battery packs based on real-time usage data. By dynamically optimizing the maximum charge value for each battery pack depending on its actual field usage, the algorithm extends the cycle life of the batteries, improving both efficiency and operational performance.
Paulus Geantil, Chief Technology Officer (CTO) of Flux Power, explained the significance of the development:
“This algorithm uses real-time machine learning to tune battery cycling behavior based on actual usage patterns in the field, significantly extending system life and efficiency,” he said. “We’ve moved beyond conventional battery management systems. This algorithm not only optimizes the performance of each battery pack but learns and evolves with its application over time to deliver superior and sustainable performance.”
The new algorithm is a pivotal component of Flux Power’s broader strategy to evolve from being a battery manufacturer to a technology-driven energy solutions provider. This move aligns with the company’s goal of building smart, connected, and autonomous energy ecosystems that extend far beyond the simple manufacture of energy storage hardware.
Shaping the Future of Energy with AI
As the demand for sustainable and efficient energy solutions grows, Flux Power is looking to meet this demand by incorporating artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning into its core products. The company’s CEO, Krishna Vanka, highlighted the shift towards AI-driven solutions, emphasizing the added value customers will gain from the new technology:
As the electrification of commercial and industrial equipment continues to accelerate, Flux Power is well-poised to capitalize on the shift towards battery-powered solutions that provide longer life cycles, improved operational efficiency, and reduced environmental impact. With the addition of this cutting-edge AI technology, Flux Power is positioning itself as a key player in the energy transformation landscape.
About Flux Power Holdings, Inc.
Flux Power Holdings, Inc. These sectors include material handling, airport ground support equipment (GSE), and stationary energy storage. Flux Power’s products provide a high-performance, environmentally friendly, and cost-effective alternative to traditional energy solutions, such as lead-acid and propane-based systems. By focusing on battery management systems (BMS), telemetry, and AI-driven innovations, Flux Power continues to expand its footprint in the energy storage industry.
Forward-Looking Statements
This release contains forward-looking statements that involve estimates, assumptions, risks, and other uncertainties, which may cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated. These statements are not guarantees of future results, and actual results could vary based on a range of factors including market conditions, customer acceptance, product development, and other business risks. Investors are encouraged to review the risk factors outlined in Flux Power’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for further details.
A Leap Forward in Battery Management
Flux Power’s latest patent reflects a major step forward in the evolution of battery management technologies. The Intelligent Battery Cycle Life Maximization Algorithm uses machine learning to continuously monitor and adjust the charging behavior of lithium-ion battery packs based on real-time usage data. By dynamically optimizing the maximum charge value for each battery pack depending on its actual field usage, the algorithm extends the cycle life of the batteries, improving both efficiency and operational performance.
Paulus Geantil, Chief Technology Officer (CTO) of Flux Power, explained the significance of the development:
“This algorithm uses real-time machine learning to tune battery cycling behavior based on actual usage patterns in the field, significantly extending system life and efficiency,” he said. “We’ve moved beyond conventional battery management systems. This algorithm not only optimizes the performance of each battery pack but learns and evolves with its application over time to deliver superior and sustainable performance.”
The new algorithm is a pivotal component of Flux Power’s broader strategy to evolve from being a battery manufacturer to a technology-driven energy solutions provider. This move aligns with the company’s goal of building smart, connected, and autonomous energy ecosystems that extend far beyond the simple manufacture of energy storage hardware.
Shaping the Future of Energy with AI
As the demand for sustainable and efficient energy solutions grows, Flux Power is looking to meet this demand by incorporating artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning into its core products. The company’s CEO, Krishna Vanka, highlighted the shift towards AI-driven solutions, emphasizing the added value customers will gain from the new technology:
As the electrification of commercial and industrial equipment continues to accelerate, Flux Power is well-poised to capitalize on the shift towards battery-powered solutions that provide longer life cycles, improved operational efficiency, and reduced environmental impact. With the addition of this cutting-edge AI technology, Flux Power is positioning itself as a key player in the energy transformation landscape.
About Flux Power Holdings, Inc.
Flux Power Holdings, Inc. These sectors include material handling, airport ground support equipment (GSE), and stationary energy storage. Flux Power’s products provide a high-performance, environmentally friendly, and cost-effective alternative to traditional energy solutions, such as lead-acid and propane-based systems. By focusing on battery management systems (BMS), telemetry, and AI-driven innovations, Flux Power continues to expand its footprint in the energy storage industry.
Forward-Looking Statements
This release contains forward-looking statements that involve estimates, assumptions, risks, and other uncertainties, which may cause actual results to differ materially from those anticipated. These statements are not guarantees of future results, and actual results could vary based on a range of factors including market conditions, customer acceptance, product development, and other business risks. Investors are encouraged to review the risk factors outlined in Flux Power’s filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) for further details.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Invalidates Patents Over Functional Claim Language in “Payment Handler” Case: Implications for AI Patents
In a precedential decision issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in February 2025, the court affirmed a district court ruling that the term “payment handler” in a patent claim was a “nonce” term—a placeholder for functional language. This ruling invoked 35 U.S.C. § 112, sixth paragraph, governing means-plus-function claiming, leading to the invalidation of the associated patents. The decision raises crucial questions about the drafting of patent claims in industries like artificial intelligence (AI), where functional language is often used to describe complex systems.
The Case: Payment Handler as Functional Language
The case, involving a dispute over software patents related to payment processing technologies, centered on the term “payment handler.” The court examined whether this term invoked means-plus-function claiming under § 112 ¶6, which applies when a claim term is expressed in purely functional terms, without reciting sufficient structural detail. Under this provision, if a claim lacks structural detail, it is considered indefinite unless the specification provides enough supporting structure or an algorithm corresponding to the claimed function.
The Federal Circuit began by discussing whether the term “payment handler” overcame the presumption against invoking means-plus-function claiming. The court ruled that the term indeed lacked sufficient structural specificity, as it only described the function of handling payments without specifying how this was achieved. The court likened the term “payment handler” to “module”, which has previously been considered a nonce term in patent law, representing a vague description of a software or hardware component that performs a specified function.
Why “Payment Handler” Was Deemed Indefinite
The court rejected several arguments put forth by the patent holder. For one, the plaintiff argued that terms like “operable to,” “configured to,” and “that” used in the claim language conferred sufficient structure to avoid means-plus-function treatment. The Federal Circuit noted that while these terms are often used in structural contexts, they do not automatically prevent means-plus-function claiming. Citing the case Rain Computing, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics America, the court pointed out that the applicability of § 112 ¶6 depends on the specific context and nature of the claims.
The court also addressed the argument that the “payment handler” terms were part of a recognized class of software structures like “code” or “applications,” which the court in Dyfan, LLC v. Target Corp. found to be sufficiently structural. However, the Federal Circuit emphasized that, unlike “code” or “application,” the term “payment handler” had no established meaning within the software development community. The patent holder had failed to provide expert testimony or concrete examples showing how the term conveyed structure.
Additionally, the court rejected the argument that the surrounding claim language—such as defining inputs, outputs, and operation of the payment handler—provided enough detail to make the term structural. The claim did not explain how the payment handler functioned, nor did it outline the specific “rules” or algorithm that would govern its operation. The Federal Circuit noted that the specification of the patent simply repeated the claim language without offering any substantial details about the underlying structure of the payment handler.
In essence, the court concluded that the term “payment handler” was functionally indefinite and did not include the necessary structural disclosure to satisfy § 112 ¶6. As a result, the court invalidated the patent claims that relied on this vague term.
Implications for AI Patent Applications
Although this decision did not directly address artificial intelligence (AI), it offers significant insights for AI-related patent drafting, where functional terms are often used to describe complex technologies. AI inventions, particularly those involving machine learning models, neural networks, and other advanced algorithms, may face similar challenges when their claims rely heavily on functional descriptions.
In AI patents, terms like “classifier,” “predictive model,” or “neural network” are often used to describe the operations of a system without fully detailing the underlying algorithm or architecture. While these terms may be widely accepted in the field, patent drafters must be cautious when they lack sufficient structural disclosure in the specification.
Provide Detailed Structural Descriptions: Instead of relying on broad, functional terms like “classifier” or “model,” drafters should disclose as much structural detail as possible, including algorithms and specific AI techniques used. For example, terms like “feed-forward neural network,” “convolutional neural network,” or “generative pre-trained transformer” provide concrete examples of structures and algorithms that could support the claims and avoid indefiniteness challenges.
Avoid Ambiguous Terminology: Terms like “handler” or “module,” which are commonly used as placeholders for functional components, should be avoided or supplemented with detailed explanations of their structure and operation. If a term like “payment handler” is essential, ensure the patent specification includes an in-depth description of the specific software or hardware involved and how it performs its function.
Use Recognized AI Terms for Structure: Where possible, use terms that are already well understood to connote structure in the AI field. For instance, the term “model” could be more structural in the AI context than terms like “classifier,” especially when it is described with reference to specific AI architectures and algorithms.
Include Dependent Claims for Clarity: Dependent claims can be used to provide more specific details on the structure of AI systems, such as the type of neural network or the algorithm being used.
Don’t Rely Solely on Claim Language: As the court emphasized, merely parroting the claim language in the specification is not enough. It’s crucial to explain the structural components in detail, particularly for AI inventions that involve complex algorithms and system architectures.
Conclusion: The Need for Clarity in AI Patents
The Federal Circuit’s decision underscores the importance of clarity and specificity in patent claims, particularly in fields like software and AI, where functional terms are commonly used. Patent applicants must ensure that functional language is supported by concrete structural details to avoid claims being deemed indefinite under § 112 ¶6. By providing comprehensive descriptions of the structure and algorithms underlying their inventions, AI patent drafters can strengthen their patent applications and reduce the risk of invalidation due to indefiniteness.
As AI technologies continue to evolve, patent law will need to adapt, and the case serves as a timely reminder that functional claims must be backed by sufficient structure to withstand legal scrutiny.
The Case: Payment Handler as Functional Language
The case, involving a dispute over software patents related to payment processing technologies, centered on the term “payment handler.” The court examined whether this term invoked means-plus-function claiming under § 112 ¶6, which applies when a claim term is expressed in purely functional terms, without reciting sufficient structural detail. Under this provision, if a claim lacks structural detail, it is considered indefinite unless the specification provides enough supporting structure or an algorithm corresponding to the claimed function.
The Federal Circuit began by discussing whether the term “payment handler” overcame the presumption against invoking means-plus-function claiming. The court ruled that the term indeed lacked sufficient structural specificity, as it only described the function of handling payments without specifying how this was achieved. The court likened the term “payment handler” to “module”, which has previously been considered a nonce term in patent law, representing a vague description of a software or hardware component that performs a specified function.
Why “Payment Handler” Was Deemed Indefinite
The court rejected several arguments put forth by the patent holder. For one, the plaintiff argued that terms like “operable to,” “configured to,” and “that” used in the claim language conferred sufficient structure to avoid means-plus-function treatment. The Federal Circuit noted that while these terms are often used in structural contexts, they do not automatically prevent means-plus-function claiming. Citing the case Rain Computing, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics America, the court pointed out that the applicability of § 112 ¶6 depends on the specific context and nature of the claims.
The court also addressed the argument that the “payment handler” terms were part of a recognized class of software structures like “code” or “applications,” which the court in Dyfan, LLC v. Target Corp. found to be sufficiently structural. However, the Federal Circuit emphasized that, unlike “code” or “application,” the term “payment handler” had no established meaning within the software development community. The patent holder had failed to provide expert testimony or concrete examples showing how the term conveyed structure.
Additionally, the court rejected the argument that the surrounding claim language—such as defining inputs, outputs, and operation of the payment handler—provided enough detail to make the term structural. The claim did not explain how the payment handler functioned, nor did it outline the specific “rules” or algorithm that would govern its operation. The Federal Circuit noted that the specification of the patent simply repeated the claim language without offering any substantial details about the underlying structure of the payment handler.
In essence, the court concluded that the term “payment handler” was functionally indefinite and did not include the necessary structural disclosure to satisfy § 112 ¶6. As a result, the court invalidated the patent claims that relied on this vague term.
Implications for AI Patent Applications
Although this decision did not directly address artificial intelligence (AI), it offers significant insights for AI-related patent drafting, where functional terms are often used to describe complex technologies. AI inventions, particularly those involving machine learning models, neural networks, and other advanced algorithms, may face similar challenges when their claims rely heavily on functional descriptions.
In AI patents, terms like “classifier,” “predictive model,” or “neural network” are often used to describe the operations of a system without fully detailing the underlying algorithm or architecture. While these terms may be widely accepted in the field, patent drafters must be cautious when they lack sufficient structural disclosure in the specification.
Provide Detailed Structural Descriptions: Instead of relying on broad, functional terms like “classifier” or “model,” drafters should disclose as much structural detail as possible, including algorithms and specific AI techniques used. For example, terms like “feed-forward neural network,” “convolutional neural network,” or “generative pre-trained transformer” provide concrete examples of structures and algorithms that could support the claims and avoid indefiniteness challenges.
Avoid Ambiguous Terminology: Terms like “handler” or “module,” which are commonly used as placeholders for functional components, should be avoided or supplemented with detailed explanations of their structure and operation. If a term like “payment handler” is essential, ensure the patent specification includes an in-depth description of the specific software or hardware involved and how it performs its function.
Use Recognized AI Terms for Structure: Where possible, use terms that are already well understood to connote structure in the AI field. For instance, the term “model” could be more structural in the AI context than terms like “classifier,” especially when it is described with reference to specific AI architectures and algorithms.
Include Dependent Claims for Clarity: Dependent claims can be used to provide more specific details on the structure of AI systems, such as the type of neural network or the algorithm being used.
Don’t Rely Solely on Claim Language: As the court emphasized, merely parroting the claim language in the specification is not enough. It’s crucial to explain the structural components in detail, particularly for AI inventions that involve complex algorithms and system architectures.
Conclusion: The Need for Clarity in AI Patents
The Federal Circuit’s decision underscores the importance of clarity and specificity in patent claims, particularly in fields like software and AI, where functional terms are commonly used. Patent applicants must ensure that functional language is supported by concrete structural details to avoid claims being deemed indefinite under § 112 ¶6. By providing comprehensive descriptions of the structure and algorithms underlying their inventions, AI patent drafters can strengthen their patent applications and reduce the risk of invalidation due to indefiniteness.
As AI technologies continue to evolve, patent law will need to adapt, and the case serves as a timely reminder that functional claims must be backed by sufficient structure to withstand legal scrutiny.
Akums Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Secures Patent for Extended-Release Doxylamine and Pyridoxine Formulation for Nausea and Vomiting in Pregnancy
In a significant breakthrough for maternal healthcare, Akums Drugs & Pharmaceuticals has been granted a patent for its extended-release combination formulation of Doxylamine and Pyridoxine, developed to manage nausea and vomiting in pregnancy (NVP). The formulation, which utilizes Akums’ proprietary “tablet-in-tablet” technology, has recently received approval from the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI).
Addressing a Widespread Issue in Pregnancy Care
NVP can severely impact a woman’s nutrition, daily activities, and overall well-being, creating a need for effective treatments that address both the short-term and long-term needs of expectant mothers.
Akums’ innovative formulation provides an effective solution to this problem by combining the benefits of immediate and extended drug release in a single tablet. This novel combination is designed to offer prolonged symptom relief and reduce the frequency of dosing, improving patient adherence to the treatment regimen.
Dual-Action Mechanism for Improved Convenience
The tablet-in-tablet technology developed by Akums is a significant advancement in drug delivery. The formulation consists of two layers: an outer layer that provides a rapid onset of action to quickly alleviate the symptoms of nausea, and an inner core that ensures a longer therapeutic effect. This dual-action mechanism aims to enhance the convenience of treatment by reducing the need for frequent dosing and improving overall symptom management.
The company believes that this formulation will offer better symptom control for expectant mothers, allowing them to manage NVP more effectively and comfortably throughout their pregnancy.
Key Approvals and Regulatory Considerations
The DCGI approval marks a pivotal moment in Akums’ journey to provide a solution for a widespread condition that affects many pregnant women. The formulation has already undergone a bioequivalence study, and while the specific number of subjects in the study remains confidential due to regulatory norms, Akums confirmed that the data submitted was sufficient for obtaining the DCGI’s approval.
The company emphasizes that the approval of this extended-release formulation provides a new treatment option for expectant mothers, addressing a significant gap in pregnancy care by offering long-lasting control of nausea and vomiting. Akums has designed the formulation with a focus on safety, efficacy, and patient adherence, ensuring that it can be a trusted part of pregnancy care routines.
The launch of this new formulation underscores Akums’ commitment to innovative drug delivery technologies and their ongoing efforts to address significant unmet needs in the pharmaceutical market. The company is known for its robust contract development and manufacturing organization (CDMO) services, and this latest development adds to its growing portfolio of drug delivery innovations.
Akums’ Expansive Operations and Product Portfolio
Akums operates with a large-scale infrastructure that includes 12 manufacturing units, four R&D centers, and over 16,000 employees. The company reports having successfully commercialized over 4,100 formulations and has more than 220 products under development across various therapeutic categories.
The approval of the Doxylamine and Pyridoxine combination formulation is part of Akums’ broader strategic initiative to enhance its presence in both domestic and export pharmaceutical markets. The company’s growing product pipeline spans a wide range of dosage forms and therapeutic areas, reflecting its ability to innovate in diverse segments of the pharmaceutical industry.
A Key Step in Pregnancy Care
This development is a step forward in addressing the challenges faced by pregnant women suffering from NVP. By offering an extended-release formulation, Akums has created a treatment that not only provides effective symptom control but also improves the convenience and adherence to medication, which is often a challenge for expectant mothers managing NVP.
The formulation is poised to meet the growing demand for more accessible and effective healthcare options for pregnant women. Akums’ focus on patient-centric innovation positions the company as a key player in improving maternal health outcomes, particularly in regions where access to modern treatments remains a challenge.
Looking Ahead
With the DCGI’s approval, Akums is now poised to roll out this extended-release Doxylamine and Pyridoxine formulation to a wide market, benefiting pregnant women across India and potentially beyond. As the company continues to expand its research and development efforts, it is likely to remain at the forefront of pharmaceutical innovation, developing new treatments that meet the evolving needs of patients in both domestic and international markets.
In summary, Akums’ patented formulation for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy represents a significant achievement in the realm of maternal health. By leveraging its proprietary drug delivery technology and addressing a critical gap in pregnancy care, Akums is setting new standards for how pharmaceutical companies can innovate to improve the quality of life for expectant mothers.
Addressing a Widespread Issue in Pregnancy Care
NVP can severely impact a woman’s nutrition, daily activities, and overall well-being, creating a need for effective treatments that address both the short-term and long-term needs of expectant mothers.
Akums’ innovative formulation provides an effective solution to this problem by combining the benefits of immediate and extended drug release in a single tablet. This novel combination is designed to offer prolonged symptom relief and reduce the frequency of dosing, improving patient adherence to the treatment regimen.
Dual-Action Mechanism for Improved Convenience
The tablet-in-tablet technology developed by Akums is a significant advancement in drug delivery. The formulation consists of two layers: an outer layer that provides a rapid onset of action to quickly alleviate the symptoms of nausea, and an inner core that ensures a longer therapeutic effect. This dual-action mechanism aims to enhance the convenience of treatment by reducing the need for frequent dosing and improving overall symptom management.
The company believes that this formulation will offer better symptom control for expectant mothers, allowing them to manage NVP more effectively and comfortably throughout their pregnancy.
Key Approvals and Regulatory Considerations
The DCGI approval marks a pivotal moment in Akums’ journey to provide a solution for a widespread condition that affects many pregnant women. The formulation has already undergone a bioequivalence study, and while the specific number of subjects in the study remains confidential due to regulatory norms, Akums confirmed that the data submitted was sufficient for obtaining the DCGI’s approval.
The company emphasizes that the approval of this extended-release formulation provides a new treatment option for expectant mothers, addressing a significant gap in pregnancy care by offering long-lasting control of nausea and vomiting. Akums has designed the formulation with a focus on safety, efficacy, and patient adherence, ensuring that it can be a trusted part of pregnancy care routines.
The launch of this new formulation underscores Akums’ commitment to innovative drug delivery technologies and their ongoing efforts to address significant unmet needs in the pharmaceutical market. The company is known for its robust contract development and manufacturing organization (CDMO) services, and this latest development adds to its growing portfolio of drug delivery innovations.
Akums’ Expansive Operations and Product Portfolio
Akums operates with a large-scale infrastructure that includes 12 manufacturing units, four R&D centers, and over 16,000 employees. The company reports having successfully commercialized over 4,100 formulations and has more than 220 products under development across various therapeutic categories.
The approval of the Doxylamine and Pyridoxine combination formulation is part of Akums’ broader strategic initiative to enhance its presence in both domestic and export pharmaceutical markets. The company’s growing product pipeline spans a wide range of dosage forms and therapeutic areas, reflecting its ability to innovate in diverse segments of the pharmaceutical industry.
A Key Step in Pregnancy Care
This development is a step forward in addressing the challenges faced by pregnant women suffering from NVP. By offering an extended-release formulation, Akums has created a treatment that not only provides effective symptom control but also improves the convenience and adherence to medication, which is often a challenge for expectant mothers managing NVP.
The formulation is poised to meet the growing demand for more accessible and effective healthcare options for pregnant women. Akums’ focus on patient-centric innovation positions the company as a key player in improving maternal health outcomes, particularly in regions where access to modern treatments remains a challenge.
Looking Ahead
With the DCGI’s approval, Akums is now poised to roll out this extended-release Doxylamine and Pyridoxine formulation to a wide market, benefiting pregnant women across India and potentially beyond. As the company continues to expand its research and development efforts, it is likely to remain at the forefront of pharmaceutical innovation, developing new treatments that meet the evolving needs of patients in both domestic and international markets.
In summary, Akums’ patented formulation for nausea and vomiting in pregnancy represents a significant achievement in the realm of maternal health. By leveraging its proprietary drug delivery technology and addressing a critical gap in pregnancy care, Akums is setting new standards for how pharmaceutical companies can innovate to improve the quality of life for expectant mothers.
Philips Wins Landmark Patent Case in India, Strengthening Enforcement of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs)
In a significant ruling delivered in February 2025, the Delhi High Court reinforced the enforcement of Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) in India, delivering a victory to Philips Koninklijke Philips N.V. (Philips) in its long-standing legal battle against three Indian digital versatile disc (DVD) manufacturers. The case, titled Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. v Maj (Retd) Sukesh Behl & Anr, centered around Philips’ patented Eight-to-Fourteen Modulation Plus (EFM+) technology, an innovation crucial to the production of DVDs with minimal error rates and maximum storage capacity.
The case, which dates back to 2012, saw Philips accuse the defendants—Pearl Engineering Company, Powercube Infotech, and Siddharth Optical Disc Private Ltd—of using its EFM+ technology in their DVD production processes without obtaining a proper license. The technology, part of the DVD standard, plays a pivotal role in ensuring compatibility across devices by encoding data in a way that maximizes storage while minimizing data corruption. Philips sought a permanent injunction to halt further infringement and sought compensatory damages for the losses caused by the defendants’ actions.
The Legal Battle: Defendants’ Claims and Philips’ Counterarguments
The defendants countered the accusations of patent infringement, arguing that their DVD production methods did not use the patented EFM+ technology.
Non-compliance with Section 8: They argued that Philips had failed to disclose necessary information regarding foreign filings of the patent.
False Suggestions: The defendants claimed that the patent was granted due to false representations or suggestions made during the filing process.
Patent Eligibility: They contested the patent’s eligibility, claiming that it covered a method of performing mental acts (Section 3(m)) or a computer program per se (Section 3(k)), both of which are excluded from patentability under the Act.
Lack of Novelty and Inventive Step: The defendants further contended that the technology lacked novelty and inventive step, referencing a prior patent owned by Sony.
Insufficient Description: They also argued that the patent lacked a clear and sufficient description to allow replication by a skilled person in the field.
It asserted that any omission in the disclosure of foreign filings was unintentional and based on the available data within their records. Regarding the patent’s subject matter, Philips argued that the EFM+ technology involved a technical process that required hardware components, such as circuits and buses, and could not be performed mentally or abstractly. Therefore, it should not be classified under the excluded categories of Section 3(m) or Section 3(k).
The company further defended its technology, emphasizing that the EFM+ system was a novel invention in the field of digital storage, contributing to substantial technical advancements. Philips argued that the invention was not a mere software-based process but incorporated hardware elements that led to significant improvements in DVD manufacturing and storage capacity.
The Court’s Ruling: Affirming the SEP and Infringement
The Delhi High Court, in its judgment, sided with Philips, affirming the patent’s status as a Standard Essential Patent (SEP). It ruled that the defendants had indeed infringed upon Philips’ patent by utilizing the patented EFM+ technology in their DVD production without obtaining the necessary license.
The Court took a meticulous approach to the issue of FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory) licensing, emphasizing the global significance of SEPs in ensuring consistent and interoperable standards across industries. Despite the patent having expired during the course of the litigation, the Court highlighted that the defendants’ continued use of the patented technology without engaging in fair licensing negotiations violated the obligations under FRAND terms. As a result, the Court ruled in favor of awarding damages to Philips, emphasizing that the infringement had caused significant harm to the company.
Award of Damages: A Detailed Breakdown
The Court awarded Philips significant damages based on the established FRAND royalty rate for the patented technology. Philips had set a standard royalty rate of $0.03 per DVD. The defendants, however, had failed to disclose their actual sales figures, forcing the Court to estimate the number of DVDs that were manufactured using the EFM+ technology. The estimated sales figures for the defendants were as follows:
Pearl Engineering: Approximately 250 million DVDs.
Siddharth Optical: Around 65 million DVDs.
Powercube Infotech: Close to 499.3 million DVDs.
Using these estimates, the Court calculated the damages and converted the total sum into Indian Rupees at the current exchange rate of INR 83 per USD. The Court also took into account the time value of money during the prolonged litigation period, awarding interest at 12% per annum from the date the lawsuit was filed until the date of actual payment.
Furthermore, aggravated damages were imposed on the defendants due to their willful infringement and deliberate nondisclosure of sales records. This penalty was designed to reflect the defendants’ procedural misconduct and failure to comply with the legal requirements.
Breakdown of Financial Penalties
Pearl Engineering: Ordered to pay INR 6.22 crores (approx. USD 8,70,000) in royalty damages, plus INR 1 crore in aggravated damages, with interest accruing at 12% per annum from July 24, 2012 to February 25, 2025.
Siddharth Optical: Liable for approximately INR 1.61 crore in royalty damages and INR 1 crore in aggravated damages (approx. USD 3,14,458), with interest from May 28, 2012 to February 25, 2025.
Powercube Infotech: Faced the largest financial penalty, totaling INR 12.43 crore in royalty damages, plus INR 1 crore in aggravated damages (approx. USD 1,61,807), with interest from September 4, 2012 to February 20, 2025.
In addition to the damages, the Court mandated that the defendants cover the full costs of the litigation, citing the delay tactics used by the defendants that led to the prolonged legal proceedings.
A Landmark Judgment for SEP Enforcement
This ruling marks a critical milestone for the enforcement of Standard Essential Patents in India. It not only underscores the importance of adhering to FRAND terms but also sets a precedent for how similar cases might be handled in the future. The judgment highlights India’s increasing commitment to respecting and enforcing international patent licensing standards, especially in the realm of technology that has global implications for industry standards.
The case also demonstrates the growing importance of intellectual property rights (IPR) in India’s expanding technological and digital landscape. As the country continues to be an emerging hub for innovation and manufacturing, decisions like this reinforce the need for robust protections for innovators and patent holders.
In conclusion, this case reinforces the legal protections for SEPs in India, signaling to global markets that India is serious about enforcing patent rights and ensuring fair, non-discriminatory licensing in critical industries like electronics and telecommunications.
The case, which dates back to 2012, saw Philips accuse the defendants—Pearl Engineering Company, Powercube Infotech, and Siddharth Optical Disc Private Ltd—of using its EFM+ technology in their DVD production processes without obtaining a proper license. The technology, part of the DVD standard, plays a pivotal role in ensuring compatibility across devices by encoding data in a way that maximizes storage while minimizing data corruption. Philips sought a permanent injunction to halt further infringement and sought compensatory damages for the losses caused by the defendants’ actions.
The Legal Battle: Defendants’ Claims and Philips’ Counterarguments
The defendants countered the accusations of patent infringement, arguing that their DVD production methods did not use the patented EFM+ technology.
Non-compliance with Section 8: They argued that Philips had failed to disclose necessary information regarding foreign filings of the patent.
False Suggestions: The defendants claimed that the patent was granted due to false representations or suggestions made during the filing process.
Patent Eligibility: They contested the patent’s eligibility, claiming that it covered a method of performing mental acts (Section 3(m)) or a computer program per se (Section 3(k)), both of which are excluded from patentability under the Act.
Lack of Novelty and Inventive Step: The defendants further contended that the technology lacked novelty and inventive step, referencing a prior patent owned by Sony.
Insufficient Description: They also argued that the patent lacked a clear and sufficient description to allow replication by a skilled person in the field.
It asserted that any omission in the disclosure of foreign filings was unintentional and based on the available data within their records. Regarding the patent’s subject matter, Philips argued that the EFM+ technology involved a technical process that required hardware components, such as circuits and buses, and could not be performed mentally or abstractly. Therefore, it should not be classified under the excluded categories of Section 3(m) or Section 3(k).
The company further defended its technology, emphasizing that the EFM+ system was a novel invention in the field of digital storage, contributing to substantial technical advancements. Philips argued that the invention was not a mere software-based process but incorporated hardware elements that led to significant improvements in DVD manufacturing and storage capacity.
The Court’s Ruling: Affirming the SEP and Infringement
The Delhi High Court, in its judgment, sided with Philips, affirming the patent’s status as a Standard Essential Patent (SEP). It ruled that the defendants had indeed infringed upon Philips’ patent by utilizing the patented EFM+ technology in their DVD production without obtaining the necessary license.
The Court took a meticulous approach to the issue of FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory) licensing, emphasizing the global significance of SEPs in ensuring consistent and interoperable standards across industries. Despite the patent having expired during the course of the litigation, the Court highlighted that the defendants’ continued use of the patented technology without engaging in fair licensing negotiations violated the obligations under FRAND terms. As a result, the Court ruled in favor of awarding damages to Philips, emphasizing that the infringement had caused significant harm to the company.
Award of Damages: A Detailed Breakdown
The Court awarded Philips significant damages based on the established FRAND royalty rate for the patented technology. Philips had set a standard royalty rate of $0.03 per DVD. The defendants, however, had failed to disclose their actual sales figures, forcing the Court to estimate the number of DVDs that were manufactured using the EFM+ technology. The estimated sales figures for the defendants were as follows:
Pearl Engineering: Approximately 250 million DVDs.
Siddharth Optical: Around 65 million DVDs.
Powercube Infotech: Close to 499.3 million DVDs.
Using these estimates, the Court calculated the damages and converted the total sum into Indian Rupees at the current exchange rate of INR 83 per USD. The Court also took into account the time value of money during the prolonged litigation period, awarding interest at 12% per annum from the date the lawsuit was filed until the date of actual payment.
Furthermore, aggravated damages were imposed on the defendants due to their willful infringement and deliberate nondisclosure of sales records. This penalty was designed to reflect the defendants’ procedural misconduct and failure to comply with the legal requirements.
Breakdown of Financial Penalties
Pearl Engineering: Ordered to pay INR 6.22 crores (approx. USD 8,70,000) in royalty damages, plus INR 1 crore in aggravated damages, with interest accruing at 12% per annum from July 24, 2012 to February 25, 2025.
Siddharth Optical: Liable for approximately INR 1.61 crore in royalty damages and INR 1 crore in aggravated damages (approx. USD 3,14,458), with interest from May 28, 2012 to February 25, 2025.
Powercube Infotech: Faced the largest financial penalty, totaling INR 12.43 crore in royalty damages, plus INR 1 crore in aggravated damages (approx. USD 1,61,807), with interest from September 4, 2012 to February 20, 2025.
In addition to the damages, the Court mandated that the defendants cover the full costs of the litigation, citing the delay tactics used by the defendants that led to the prolonged legal proceedings.
A Landmark Judgment for SEP Enforcement
This ruling marks a critical milestone for the enforcement of Standard Essential Patents in India. It not only underscores the importance of adhering to FRAND terms but also sets a precedent for how similar cases might be handled in the future. The judgment highlights India’s increasing commitment to respecting and enforcing international patent licensing standards, especially in the realm of technology that has global implications for industry standards.
The case also demonstrates the growing importance of intellectual property rights (IPR) in India’s expanding technological and digital landscape. As the country continues to be an emerging hub for innovation and manufacturing, decisions like this reinforce the need for robust protections for innovators and patent holders.
In conclusion, this case reinforces the legal protections for SEPs in India, signaling to global markets that India is serious about enforcing patent rights and ensuring fair, non-discriminatory licensing in critical industries like electronics and telecommunications.