Battery X Metals Inc. has announced a major leap forward in battery rebalancing technology through its fully owned subsidiary, Battery X Rebalancing Technologies Inc. The company is pushing boundaries in battery diagnostics and lifespan extension, reinforcing its role in the evolving energy transition space.
New Patent Filings for Battery Optimization
Battery X Rebalancing Technologies has filed two provisional patent applications with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The applications cover proprietary software and hardware systems developed to identify, rebalance, and extend the lifespan of lithium-ion and electric vehicle (EV) batteries. These innovations are the result of extensive research and years of development aimed at improving battery performance and sustainability.
Independent Validation by NRC
In a significant endorsement, the National Research Council of Canada (NRC) has independently verified the effectiveness of Battery X’s core rebalancing technology. Test results revealed the system’s ability to recover nearly all capacity lost due to cell imbalances—an issue that commonly affects battery efficiency over time. The validation confirms not only the effectiveness of the technology but also its safety and reliability in real-world applications.
Next-Generation Prototype Nearing Completion
Development is underway on Prototype 2.0, the next iteration of Battery X’s rebalancing unit. This version will include refined hardware, enhanced diagnostic tools, and improved connectivity features. The company anticipates finalizing the prototype by the end of April 2025, signaling a move toward potential commercialization and broader industry adoption.
Rebranding Reflects Unified Vision
Alongside these technical milestones, the company has rebranded its subsidiary from Li-ion Renewable Technologies Inc. to Battery X Rebalancing Technologies Inc. The rebrand follows the full acquisition of the subsidiary and reflects a strategic alignment with Battery X Metals’ overarching goals in battery innovation and resource optimization.
Driving the Energy Transition
Battery X Rebalancing Technologies continues to develop solutions that support battery longevity, reduce electronic waste, and advance the electric vehicle ecosystem. The company is positioned at the intersection of resource exploration and clean tech innovation, committed to enabling a more sustainable, efficient energy future.
About Battery X Metals Inc.
Battery X Metals is a Canadian company focused on energy transition initiatives, combining resource exploration with cutting-edge battery technology development to support the growing demand for sustainable energy solutions.
infringement
💡 Why VCs Are Betting Big on Patent-Led Startups in India
In India’s ever-evolving startup landscape, one thing is becoming crystal clear: ideas alone aren’t enough. Investors are now looking for proof of real innovation, and the clearest sign of that? Intellectual Property (IP) — especially patents.
Gone are the days when startups could raise millions based on flashy pitches or vague promises of AI-powered disruption. In 2025, IP is the new currency, and deep-tech startups are leading the charge.
🚀 The Numbers Tell the Story
According to Tracxn, Indian startups focused on deep technology and backed by solid IP portfolios raised a whopping $994 million across 284 deals in 2024. And the momentum is only building — 47 IP-led startups have already attracted $220.5 million this year alone.
Names like Infinite Uptime, Bellatrix Aerospace, SpotDraft, and Attentive AI are drawing serious investor interest — and for good reason.
🛡️ Why Patents Matter More Than Ever
Venture capitalists are becoming increasingly cautious, especially in sectors like AI, where hype often outpaces substance. “We’re looking for proof of technical depth,” says Manu Iyer, Co-founder at Bluehill.vc.
Patents create barriers to entry, signal technical competence, and offer strategic advantages in global markets. They also act as safety nets — providing potential licensing revenues or sale value even if a startup needs to pivot.
🧠 The IP-Driven Startups Drawing Big Checks
Startups with a solid patent strategy are standing out. Think:
Ather Energy – innovating in EV and battery tech
Agnikul & Skyroot – pushing boundaries in space tech
Log9 Materials & Lohum – leading battery and recycling innovation
IdeaForge – soaring with drone technology
Niramai – reimagining health diagnostics with AI
These startups are backed by heavyweights like pi Ventures, Axilor, Temasek, GIC, Tiger Global, and InnoVen Capital — all of whom are putting their faith (and funds) into IP-backed innovation.
🔧 Real Innovation Over Assembly
Take Raptee. HV, a Chennai-based electric motorcycle startup. Unlike many others in the space, Raptee designs everything in-house — including its high-voltage powertrain. The company has filed 156 patents around its tech.
“We’re not just assembling off-the-shelf components,” says Co-founder and CEO Dinesh Arjun. “Our IP is what sets us apart — it proves we’re solving real problems with original engineering.”
🌍 Beyond India: IP Opens Global Doors
Beyond just securing funding, IP helps startups scale globally. It opens up new revenue streams through licensing, enables strategic partnerships, and most importantly, acts as a shield against legal battles or copycat competitors.
As Bhaskar Majumdar, Managing Partner at Unicorn India Ventures, puts it: “Startups with strong technical foundations and proprietary IP stand out in today’s noisy innovation landscape.”
📈 The Bottom Line
India’s startup ecosystem is maturing, and with it, VC expectations are evolving. The message is clear: deeptech, defensibility, and differentiation matter more than ever. In this new era, patents aren’t just paperwork — they’re power.
So, if you’re building the next big thing, don’t just chase the buzz. Build real tech. File those patents. And let your innovation speak for itself.
Navigating the Complexities of Biotech Patent Law: A Look at REGENXBIO v. Sarepta Therapeutics
The rapidly evolving field of biotech patent law continues to present significant challenges, particularly when it comes to innovations involving recombinant nucleic acids and biological sequences. A recent ruling in REGENXBIO v. Sarepta Therapeutics by the US District Court for the District of Delaware has brought to light critical issues regarding patent eligibility for biotechnological inventions. Judge Richard Andrews ruled that the mere act of combining natural AAV (adeno-associated virus) sequences with heterologous (non-AAV) sequences in a cultured host cell—without further modifications—does not satisfy the requirements for patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
This decision has stirred discussions within the biotech community, as it reflects an ongoing trend of courts scrutinizing the extent of modifications required to make genetic and biological innovations eligible for patent protection. The ruling suggests that simply combining existing natural biological sequences may not meet the necessary standards for patent eligibility unless the innovation includes further modifications that can be considered novel or non-obvious.
What Does the Court’s Ruling Mean for the Biotech Industry?
The REGENXBIO v. Sarepta Therapeutics case builds on the precedent set by Funk Brothers Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., where the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that naturally occurring substances could not be patented unless they had been modified in a way that created new and non-obvious properties. In this case, the court applied the same logic, finding that simply combining natural sequences from AAV with other biological materials does not meet the standards of patentability under 35 U.S.C. § 101, which requires inventions to be novel, non-obvious, and useful.
This decision has significant implications for gene therapy innovations and other biotech patent strategies. It raises important questions about the scope of patent protection available for new biotechnologies, especially in cases where the innovation involves natural biological elements. For biotech companies and researchers, this ruling emphasizes the importance of demonstrating how their innovations go beyond simple combinations of natural materials and truly push the boundaries of scientific knowledge and utility.
Join the Discussion: Biotech Patent Eligibility and Innovation
To further explore the impact of this ruling and the broader challenges within the realm of biotech patent law, a key discussion will be held on Tuesday, April 15. WilmerHale Partner Omar Khan will be joined by Christen DiPetrillo, Head of Intellectual Property, and Kevin Marks, Chief Legal Officer at the Parker Institute for Cancer Immunotherapy, at Biocom California’s joint meeting of the IP and Cellular Gene Therapy Committees.
During this session, the panel will explore:
The historical context of biotech patent eligibility.
The implications of the ruling for gene therapy innovations and biotech patent strategies moving forward.
This discussion will offer valuable insights into the complexities of patenting biotechnological innovations and the legal hurdles that companies face when seeking patent protection for cutting-edge research in genetic therapies and biologics.
Conclusion
As the biotech industry continues to push the boundaries of science, navigating the complexities of patent law becomes increasingly critical. The REGENXBIO v. Sarepta Therapeutics decision highlights the challenges companies face when attempting to secure patent protection for genetic and biological innovations. As more companies and researchers grapple with patent eligibility, understanding the intricacies of patent law and its evolving landscape will be essential to fostering continued innovation and growth in the biotech sector.
For those looking to stay at the forefront of these developments, attending the upcoming discussion on biotech patent eligibility is an excellent opportunity to deepen your understanding of the legal challenges and strategies shaping the future of gene therapy and biotechnology.
Landmark Delhi High Court Ruling Prioritizes Access to Life-Saving Drugs Over Patent Protection
In a powerful judgment that resonates with the ongoing global debate on healthcare access versus intellectual property rights, Justice Mini Pushkarna of the Delhi High Court has delivered a standout ruling that places public health and patient affordability at the heart of India’s patent law jurisprudence.
On March 24, 2025, the Court dismissed a patent infringement suit filed by Swiss pharmaceutical giant Hoffman-La Roche against Hyderabad-based Natco Pharma, in a case involving the prohibitively expensive spinal muscular atrophy (SMA) drug, risdiplam, marketed internationally as Evrysdi.
💊 The High Stakes: Life-Saving Medicine or Legal Monopoly?
Spinal muscular atrophy is a rare genetic disorder that progressively weakens muscles used for breathing, walking, and other vital functions. Risdiplam is the only approved oral treatment available in India for SMA, and its cost places it far out of reach for most patients. One bottle reportedly costs ₹6 lakh, with a typical patient requiring 30 bottles a year—a staggering ₹1.8 crore annually.
Natco Pharma has developed a generic version of risdiplam, challenging Roche’s patent rights. Roche, in response, approached the court to halt the sale of Natco’s version, claiming patent infringement and requesting an interim injunction.
⚖️ Justice Pushkarna’s Clear Stand: People First
In a firm and clear ruling, Justice Pushkarna refused the injunction, emphasizing that public health cannot be treated lightly. She wrote:
She also highlighted a critical point in patent law: while pharma companies can be compensated later through damages, there is no mechanism to compensate the public for a lack of access to essential medicine.
This case stands out because the voice of patients was directly heard in court. Two SMA patients intervened to share their lived experiences—stating unequivocally that they could not afford Roche’s drug and had no alternative treatment available.
💸 Big Pharma’s “Patient Assistance” Argument Falls Flat
Roche attempted to soften the blow by pointing to its Patient Assistance Programme (PAP)—an initiative that offers discounted medication to a limited number of patients. But the court saw through the strategy.
Justice Pushkarna called the program “far too limited” and noted that even the proposed reduced prices (revealed in a sealed cover) were insufficient to address widespread affordability. Only a fraction of patients could potentially benefit, leaving many out in the cold.
She also acknowledged budgetary limitations of the National Policy for Rare Diseases (NPRD)—a government scheme that provides up to ₹50 lakh per patient but has only been able to support 1,118 patients, despite India recognizing 63 rare diseases.
🔄 Global Implications & Legal Loopholes
Interestingly, this is not the only battleground for Roche and Natco. In the U.S., Natco is seeking approval to launch its generic risdiplam through an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA), and is currently facing another infringement suit there. Despite being a rare disease drug, Evrysdi clocked $1.8 billion in U.S. sales in 2024, a growth of 18%, thanks to its user-friendly oral format.
Back in India, the patent debate hinges on Roche’s attempt to claim protection under a “species patent”, even though a broader “genus patent” had been filed earlier internationally. Natco argues that Roche is trying to extend its monopoly by segmenting patents, which is not allowed under Indian law if the new invention was already disclosed.
🧠 A Legal Shift in Priorities
The ruling isn’t just about one drug or one company. It signals a broader shift in judicial thinking, where courts are weighing public health more heavily in patent disputes, especially for essential or life-saving medicines.
This isn’t the first time Indian courts have leaned this way. In a 2008 case, Roche sought an injunction against Cipla over its cancer drug erlotinib (Tarceva). The court refused, noting that Cipla’s version was significantly cheaper, and the balance of convenience lay with affordable treatment.
🧬 What This Means for Patients and Policy
This case is likely to become a benchmark in how rare disease drugs are treated in Indian courts, especially when affordability is at stake. It also brings renewed focus on the inadequacy of current government schemes to support patients with ultra-expensive therapies.
For pharmaceutical companies, it’s a wake-up call: patent rights do not guarantee exclusivity if access is denied to the vast majority.
For patients, it is a glimmer of hope—an acknowledgment that their right to live cannot be outweighed by corporate profits.
📝 Final Thoughts
In Justice Pushkarna’s words, “There exists no right for the public to lessen or compensate itself.” This ruling flips the script, putting people before patents, and serves as a reminder that innovation must go hand in hand with access.
India has long been seen as the pharmacy of the developing world, and rulings like this ensure that mantle remains intact.
Could Intellectual Property Retaliation Be the Game-Changer in Trade Wars?
In response to President Donald Trump’s tariff policies, many countries are considering retaliation, primarily through higher tariffs and import restrictions. While these measures may impact the U.S. economy, they also pose risks for the countries imposing them. The goal is to make the pain felt in the U.S. greater than the consequences suffered by the retaliating nation. While this strategy may hold true in many cases, countries like the European Union (EU), Canada, and other trading partners could take a more direct and potentially more damaging approach—targeting the United States’ intellectual property (IP) rights.
Intellectual property, particularly patents and copyrights, has long been a cornerstone of U.S. economic dominance. In 2024, the United States received nearly $150 billion in royalties and licensing fees alone, which makes up over 5% of total after-tax corporate profits. But these fees represent only the direct payments for IP use; they don’t account for embedded costs in products like software and technology, which are often used globally in consumer goods.
One possible retaliatory strategy involves countries announcing that they will no longer respect U.S. patents and copyrights for as long as Donald Trump continues his tariff policies. This kind of action would target U.S. companies that rely on their intellectual property rights for profit, such as tech giants like Microsoft and pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer and Merck.
The concept of not honoring foreign patents is not without precedent. During World War I, the U.S. invoked the Trading with the Enemy Act to allow the compulsory licensing of patents held by German companies. This measure allowed U.S. businesses to use these patents without permission, as long as they paid a minimal licensing fee set by the U.S. government. Countries like Canada, the EU, and others could implement a similar policy to challenge the United States’ trade practices.
The potential benefits of this type of retaliation are twofold. First, it would allow consumers in the retaliating countries to access cheaper products—such as generic drugs, which could drastically reduce the cost of life-saving medications like those used in cancer and heart disease treatments. Second, it would lower the cost of everyday goods like computers, by bypassing the licensing fees for software from companies like Microsoft.
For consumers, this could mean cheaper access to essential products and technologies, making it a win-win situation. Imagine having access to affordable generics of expensive drugs or the latest software without the added cost of licensing fees. This approach would directly benefit the people in those countries, and it would provide a powerful counterweight to the economic challenges posed by Trump’s tariffs.
Such an approach would also hit U.S. corporations where it hurts—potentially changing the landscape of global trade in ways that tariffs alone may not. If other nations got accustomed to accessing cheap drugs, software, and entertainment content, it could shift global perceptions of U.S. intellectual property practices. This shift could permanently disrupt the revenue models of many major U.S. companies that rely on high licensing fees and patent monopolies. For instance, without the constraints of patent monopolies, Americans themselves could spend far less on prescription drugs—possibly saving around $550 billion annually.
Intellectual property, particularly patents and copyrights, has long been a cornerstone of U.S. economic dominance. In 2024, the United States received nearly $150 billion in royalties and licensing fees alone, which makes up over 5% of total after-tax corporate profits. But these fees represent only the direct payments for IP use; they don’t account for embedded costs in products like software and technology, which are often used globally in consumer goods.
One possible retaliatory strategy involves countries announcing that they will no longer respect U.S. patents and copyrights for as long as Donald Trump continues his tariff policies. This kind of action would target U.S. companies that rely on their intellectual property rights for profit, such as tech giants like Microsoft and pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer and Merck.
The concept of not honoring foreign patents is not without precedent. During World War I, the U.S. invoked the Trading with the Enemy Act to allow the compulsory licensing of patents held by German companies. This measure allowed U.S. businesses to use these patents without permission, as long as they paid a minimal licensing fee set by the U.S. government. Countries like Canada, the EU, and others could implement a similar policy to challenge the United States’ trade practices.
The potential benefits of this type of retaliation are twofold. First, it would allow consumers in the retaliating countries to access cheaper products—such as generic drugs, which could drastically reduce the cost of life-saving medications like those used in cancer and heart disease treatments. Second, it would lower the cost of everyday goods like computers, by bypassing the licensing fees for software from companies like Microsoft.
For consumers, this could mean cheaper access to essential products and technologies, making it a win-win situation. Imagine having access to affordable generics of expensive drugs or the latest software without the added cost of licensing fees. This approach would directly benefit the people in those countries, and it would provide a powerful counterweight to the economic challenges posed by Trump’s tariffs.
Such an approach would also hit U.S. corporations where it hurts—potentially changing the landscape of global trade in ways that tariffs alone may not. If other nations got accustomed to accessing cheap drugs, software, and entertainment content, it could shift global perceptions of U.S. intellectual property practices. This shift could permanently disrupt the revenue models of many major U.S. companies that rely on high licensing fees and patent monopolies. For instance, without the constraints of patent monopolies, Americans themselves could spend far less on prescription drugs—possibly saving around $550 billion annually.
Ericsson and Lenovo Settle Patent Licensing Dispute, Arbitration to Resolve Remaining Issues
Ericsson and Lenovo have reached a settlement to partially resolve their ongoing patent licensing dispute, stemming from a multi-year, global patent cross-license agreement between the two companies.
Under the terms of the settlement, all current lawsuits and administrative proceedings initiated by both parties across multiple jurisdictions, including those before the United States International Trade Commission (USITC), will be withdrawn, effectively ending all ongoing patent-related legal proceedings.
Financial impacts from the partial settlement are expected to be recognized starting in Q2 2025. However, the two companies have agreed to pursue arbitration to fully and finally resolve the remaining issues related to their patent licensing dispute.
Ericsson, a leading player in mobile technology and a key contributor to 3GPP and global mobile standards, holds a robust patent portfolio of over 60,000 granted patents, further bolstered by its leadership in 5G technology. The company continues to invest heavily in research and development, with annual expenditures exceeding SEK 50 billion. Ericsson is optimistic about increasing its intellectual property revenues, particularly through new 5G agreements and expansion into other licensing areas in the long term.
The settlement between Ericsson and Lenovo marks a significant step in resolving the patent dispute, providing both companies the opportunity to focus on their business activities moving forward while continuing to engage in discussions through arbitration to address remaining licensing matters.
Under the terms of the settlement, all current lawsuits and administrative proceedings initiated by both parties across multiple jurisdictions, including those before the United States International Trade Commission (USITC), will be withdrawn, effectively ending all ongoing patent-related legal proceedings.
Financial impacts from the partial settlement are expected to be recognized starting in Q2 2025. However, the two companies have agreed to pursue arbitration to fully and finally resolve the remaining issues related to their patent licensing dispute.
Ericsson, a leading player in mobile technology and a key contributor to 3GPP and global mobile standards, holds a robust patent portfolio of over 60,000 granted patents, further bolstered by its leadership in 5G technology. The company continues to invest heavily in research and development, with annual expenditures exceeding SEK 50 billion. Ericsson is optimistic about increasing its intellectual property revenues, particularly through new 5G agreements and expansion into other licensing areas in the long term.
The settlement between Ericsson and Lenovo marks a significant step in resolving the patent dispute, providing both companies the opportunity to focus on their business activities moving forward while continuing to engage in discussions through arbitration to address remaining licensing matters.
GSK Resolves Patent Lawsuit Against Pfizer Over RSV Vaccines
Pharmaceutical giants GSK and Pfizer have reached a settlement to resolve a long-running patent dispute related to respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccines. The legal battle, which revolved around patent infringement claims, has now been brought to a close through an agreement between the two companies.
The lawsuit centered on allegations that Pfizer’s RSV vaccine infringed on patents held by GSK, specifically related to the technology behind the development and production of vaccines targeting the virus. RSV, a major cause of respiratory illness, has long been a focus of vaccine research, especially as both companies have worked to bring their respective RSV vaccines to market.
In a joint statement, both companies confirmed that the settlement would allow them to avoid further litigation and continue their efforts in addressing the global health threat posed by RSV. The terms of the settlement were not disclosed, but both GSK and Pfizer emphasized that the agreement would not affect their ongoing work on RSV vaccines, nor would it impact the availability of these vaccines for public health use.
The resolution of the patent dispute comes at a crucial time as RSV continues to strain healthcare systems worldwide, particularly among vulnerable populations like infants, elderly adults, and individuals with underlying health conditions. Both GSK and Pfizer are major players in the global vaccine market, with their respective RSV vaccines being part of a growing effort to combat the virus.
This settlement marks the end of a significant chapter in the intellectual property conflicts between the two pharmaceutical leaders, allowing both to focus on advancing their respective vaccine candidates in the fight against RSV
The lawsuit centered on allegations that Pfizer’s RSV vaccine infringed on patents held by GSK, specifically related to the technology behind the development and production of vaccines targeting the virus. RSV, a major cause of respiratory illness, has long been a focus of vaccine research, especially as both companies have worked to bring their respective RSV vaccines to market.
In a joint statement, both companies confirmed that the settlement would allow them to avoid further litigation and continue their efforts in addressing the global health threat posed by RSV. The terms of the settlement were not disclosed, but both GSK and Pfizer emphasized that the agreement would not affect their ongoing work on RSV vaccines, nor would it impact the availability of these vaccines for public health use.
The resolution of the patent dispute comes at a crucial time as RSV continues to strain healthcare systems worldwide, particularly among vulnerable populations like infants, elderly adults, and individuals with underlying health conditions. Both GSK and Pfizer are major players in the global vaccine market, with their respective RSV vaccines being part of a growing effort to combat the virus.
This settlement marks the end of a significant chapter in the intellectual property conflicts between the two pharmaceutical leaders, allowing both to focus on advancing their respective vaccine candidates in the fight against RSV
Conflict Between Plant Variety Denominations and Trademarks: A Comparative Analysis Across Jurisdictions
In today’s globalized marketplace, intellectual property (IP) law plays a critical role in protecting the rights of creators, innovators, and businesses. Two common forms of IP protection that frequently intersect are plant variety denominations (PVDs) and trademarks. While both legal mechanisms serve distinct purposes, the conflict between them has become increasingly relevant in agricultural and commercial sectors, especially as the international trade of genetically modified (GM) crops and plant products has expanded. This article provides a comprehensive multi-jurisdictional comparison of the conflict between plant variety denominations and trademarks, highlighting the legal frameworks, challenges, and strategies employed by various jurisdictions to address this issue.
Understanding Plant Variety Denominations and Trademarks
Plant Variety Denominations (PVDs)
A Plant Variety Denomination (PVD) refers to the name given to a new plant variety to distinguish it from other varieties. Under the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV), breeders of new plant varieties are required to assign a unique denomination. The main objective of a PVD is to provide uniformity and consistency in identifying plant varieties and ensuring that breeders and farmers can clearly distinguish one variety from another.
Trademarks
It typically consists of a word, logo, slogan, or other design element, and is registered with the relevant IP office for protection against unauthorized use by competitors. Trademarks serve to protect the reputation of a product or service and ensure consumers can identify the source of goods.
The Conflict
The conflict arises when the same name is used for both a plant variety denomination and a trademark. This situation creates confusion in the marketplace and may lead to legal disputes. On one hand, PVDs are intended to be public identifiers that cannot be monopolized for commercial purposes, while trademarks serve to protect commercial interests. The tension arises when these distinct legal protections overlap, leading to complex legal questions regarding priority, use, and enforcement.
The Key Issues in the Conflict Between PVDs and Trademarks
Prioritization of Rights
The most fundamental issue is which right takes precedence: the plant variety denomination or the trademark? For instance, a company may register a trademark for a product using a specific plant variety’s name, but a breeder may later apply for a PVD for that very variety. Which right should prevail when the two overlap?
Geographical Jurisdictions and Conflicting Laws
The regulation of plant variety denominations and trademarks varies widely across jurisdictions, creating additional layers of complexity. Some countries, such as the United States and the European Union, have distinct laws regarding PVDs and trademarks, with clear guidelines on how to handle conflicts. Others, like India, have emerging or less defined laws that can lead to uncertainty for businesses and breeders.
Market Confusion and Consumer Protection
Both PVDs and trademarks are intended to prevent consumer confusion. However, when a plant variety name is also used as a trademark, it can be unclear whether the product in question refers to the plant variety or the commercial source. This confusion can lead to misbranding, deceptive advertising, and unfair competition, all of which affect consumer choice and protection.
Global Trade and Plant Breeding Innovation
The international trade of plants and plant products has amplified the need for clarity regarding the protection of plant variety denominations and trademarks. The rise of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and cross-border plant sales has made it more crucial than ever to determine the rules for competing intellectual property claims that affect international trade.
Multi-Jurisdictional Approaches to the Conflict
United States
In the United States, plant variety denominations are governed by the Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Plant Variety Protection Office (PVPO). Under the PVPA, a plant variety is granted protection if it is novel, distinct, uniform, and stable. The denomination given to the variety must not conflict with any existing trademarks.
However, the U.S. allows for the coexistence of PVDs and trademarks. When a plant variety denomination is similar to an existing trademark, the trademark holder may challenge the use of the name in court, citing the likelihood of confusion. Additionally, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) evaluates trademark applications to ensure that they do not conflict with prior PVDs.
In practice, this means that while a plant variety name may be protected as a PVD, it could be subject to trademark protection if used commercially for branding purposes, provided that there is no conflict with existing trademarks. In case of conflicts, courts or administrative bodies can weigh the competing rights and determine which right prevails.
European Union
In the European Union, the conflict between PVDs and trademarks is addressed through a well-established legal framework. The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) handles trademark registration, while the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) manages plant variety denominations.
Under EU law, a plant variety denomination cannot be registered as a trademark if it is identical or confusingly similar to an existing PVD. This rule is designed to prevent consumers from being misled about the nature of the product. Additionally, the CPVO requires that any name used for a plant variety must not conflict with existing trademarks in the marketplace.
In the case of a trademark conflict with a PVD, the EUIPO and CPVO cooperate to assess the potential for consumer confusion. If a trademark application conflicts with a registered PVD, the trademark registration is likely to be refused. This system ensures that plant variety names are kept distinct and not used in a way that could deceive consumers.
India
India has a unique approach to plant variety denominations and trademarks. The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act (PPV&FR Act) governs the registration of plant variety denominations in India. The Indian Trademark Act allows for the registration of trademarks related to plants and agricultural products, but there are no specific provisions dealing with conflicts between PVDs and trademarks.
In practice, Indian authorities evaluate whether a plant variety denomination conflicts with a trademark on a case-by-case basis. If the same name is used for both a plant variety and a trademark, Indian courts may rule that the trademark has priority if it was registered first, or they may enforce the PVD if it is determined to be the dominant interest.
Given the developing nature of India’s IP laws, there is still a level of uncertainty in the enforcement of rights related to plant varieties and trademarks. However, the Indian government has been working toward improving the legal framework to ensure clearer distinctions between the two.
Australia
Australia’s approach to the conflict between PVDs and trademarks is guided by the Plant Breeder’s Rights Act (PBR Act) and the Trade Marks Act. Under the PBR Act, the name of a plant variety must be distinctive and not cause confusion with existing trademarks. If there is a conflict, the trademark may be denied if it is found to infringe upon the rights of a registered plant variety denomination.
The Australian system allows for the coexistence of PVDs and trademarks, but businesses must carefully navigate both legal processes to avoid conflicts. When a plant variety denomination and a trademark are identical or confusingly similar, the Australian IP office assesses the likelihood of confusion and takes necessary action to ensure consumer protection and prevent unfair competition.
Conclusion
The conflict between plant variety denominations and trademarks is a complex and evolving issue in global intellectual property law. While PVDs and trademarks serve distinct functions, their overlap in the marketplace presents significant challenges for businesses, breeders, and IP authorities. Jurisdictions such as the United States, European Union, India, and Australia have developed frameworks to handle these conflicts, though the solutions often vary based on local legal cultures and practices.
As international trade and agricultural innovations continue to advance, it is crucial for policymakers to refine existing laws and ensure that the interests of plant breeders, trademark holders, and consumers are balanced. Stakeholders in the agricultural sector must be aware of the potential for conflict and consider legal strategies to protect their interests in both plant variety denominations and trademarks.
U.S. Supreme Court Rules on Corporate Separateness in Trademark Infringement Damages – Key Implications for Lanham Act Claims
In a landmark decision, the U.S. Supreme Court has issued a unanimous ruling in Dewberry Group, Inc. v. Dewberry Engineers Inc. that underscores the importance of corporate separateness in calculating damages for trademark infringement. The Court vacated a $43 million profit disgorgement award, a ruling that has far-reaching implications for corporate liability and the recovery of profits under the Lanham Act.
Case Overview: Dewberry Engineers vs. Dewberry Group
The case centers around Dewberry Engineers, a holder of the “Dewberry” trademark, which filed a lawsuit against Dewberry Group, a competing real estate management company. Dewberry Engineers alleged trademark infringement and unfair competition under the Lanham Act, along with a breach of contract claim under state law. The dispute arose from Dewberry Group’s unauthorized use of the Dewberry trademark in promoting its real estate services, despite a prior settlement agreement that prohibited such use.
The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia ruled that Dewberry Group violated the Lanham Act, concluding that the infringement was “intentional, willful, and in bad faith.” Despite Dewberry Group reporting no profits and relying on cash infusions from its owner, the District Court aggregated the profits of Dewberry Group and its affiliates—non-party entities that held income-generating properties—to calculate the damages, awarding nearly $43 million. The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed this decision, citing the “economic reality” of Dewberry Group’s operations.
Supreme Court’s Holding: Corporate Separateness Matters
The U.S. Supreme Court reversed the lower court’s decision, ruling that profit disgorgement under the Lanham Act is limited to the profits of the named defendant—Dewberry Group in this case—and does not extend to its non-party affiliates. The Court emphasized the longstanding legal principle that separately incorporated entities are distinct legal units with their own rights and obligations.
In this case, because Dewberry Group’s affiliates were not named as defendants and no evidence was presented to pierce the corporate veil, the Court held that the profits of these affiliates could not be included in calculating “defendant’s profits” under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a). As the Court noted in remanding the case for a new damages award, “The ‘defendant’s profits’ are the defendant’s profits, not its plus its affiliates.”
Key Unanswered Questions
While the Court addressed the issue of corporate separateness, it did not fully resolve several critical aspects of the case. Specifically, the Court declined to comment on whether the lower court could have used the Lanham Act’s “just-sum” provision (15 U.S.C. § 1117(a)) to award a more equitable recovery by considering affiliate profits. This provision allows courts to adjust profit-based recovery when it is deemed “inadequate or excessive,” but the Supreme Court did not rule on whether this approach would have been appropriate.
Additionally, the Court did not address whether plaintiffs could rely on other methods—such as looking beyond a defendant’s accounting records—to assess the “true financial gain” of an infringing party. Nor did it definitively rule on the potential for veil-piercing, leaving open the possibility for future arguments regarding corporate formalities and liability.
Justice Sotomayor’s Concurring Opinion: A Caution on Creative Accounting
In her concurring opinion, Justice Sonia Sotomayor raised concerns that corporate separateness could be exploited by defendants to avoid liability through creative accounting. She urged that courts remain vigilant in considering “economic realities” when calculating trademark infringement damages. Justice Sotomayor suggested that the trial court might reopen the record to explore methods of calculating profits that go beyond a defendant’s books, particularly when analyzing financial inflows from affiliates.
Implications for Trademark Owners and Businesses
The Supreme Court’s ruling highlights the importance of corporate formalities and the need for careful litigation strategy. Trademark owners pursuing Lanham Act claims must ensure they identify and include all relevant entities from the outset of litigation, especially when dealing with related or affiliate companies that may have benefited from the infringement.
Failing to name all responsible parties could result in an unenforceable judgment, even if the defendant is found liable. Plaintiffs should also consider whether a veil-piercing argument could be made in cases where affiliates may be used to shield profits from infringement.
While the Court’s decision focused narrowly on the aggregation of affiliate profits, it left open significant questions regarding the methods available for determining a defendant’s true financial gain. This leaves room for further litigation on the most accurate and fair way to calculate damages under the Lanham Act.
Conclusion
The Dewberry Group decision reinforces the principle that corporate separateness must be respected in calculating trademark infringement damages under the Lanham Act. It also raises important considerations for plaintiffs in trademark disputes, urging early and strategic planning to ensure a comprehensive approach to damages. While the Court’s ruling narrows the scope of profit recovery, it also leaves open avenues for creative legal arguments and future litigation on corporate liability.
Madras High Court ruled in favor of Pfizer’s patent rights
In a recent global patent disputes, the Madras High Court has pronounced a ruling concerning the ongoing patent dispute in the United States involving Pfizer’s drug, VYNDAMAX (also known as TAFAMIDIS), which is used to treat a rare heart condition called transthyretin amyloid cardiomyopathy (ATTR-CM).
The case is in focus due to the high stakes involved, as Pfizer holds a patent for VYNDAMAX, which is a formulation of TAFAMIDIS, a drug that stabilizes transthyretin (TTR) protein in the heart, which reduces the life-threatening effects of ATTR-CM. Pfizer’s patent rights on the drug have been contested in several jurisdictions, but this ruling in the Madras High Court is particularly noteworthy, as it reflects the broader international implications of the ongoing patent conflict.
In its order, the Madras High Court emphasized the importance of protecting intellectual property, especially for life-saving drugs like VYNDAMAX in pharma sector. The court ruled that Pfizer’s patent for TAFAMIDIS must be upheld in India, despite challenges from generic manufacturers. This ruling reinforces Pfizer’s exclusive rights over the formulation, production or distribution of VYNDAMAX in the Indian market.
The Madras High Court’s decision is groundbreaking for the global pharmaceutical industry, particularly in the realm of patent enforcement. The ongoing patent dispute in the other countries like United States has sparked heated debates over access to affordable medicines versus protecting the intellectual property rights of pharmaceutical companies. VYNDAMAX is considered a breakthrough in the treatment of a condition that severely impacts the heart, and its exclusivity remains a point of contention in markets where generic alternatives are being sought.
Pfizer has expressed its satisfaction with the ruling, stating that it affirms the company’s commitment to innovation and patient care. The company further emphasized that the decision will help ensure that VYNDAMAX remains available to those who need it while protecting the intellectual property rights of pharmaceutical innovators.
Although, it is expected that this ruling will have limited direct effect on markets outside of India, but it does signify the growing importance of patent protection in the global pharmaceutical landscape. Stakeholders, including patients, healthcare providers, and competitors, are keenly awaiting further developments in this high-profile case.
As the patent battle continues across borders, it remains to be seen how other jurisdictions will respond to similar challenges regarding VYNDAMAX and whether further legal actions will alter the course of the ongoing dispute.
The case is in focus due to the high stakes involved, as Pfizer holds a patent for VYNDAMAX, which is a formulation of TAFAMIDIS, a drug that stabilizes transthyretin (TTR) protein in the heart, which reduces the life-threatening effects of ATTR-CM. Pfizer’s patent rights on the drug have been contested in several jurisdictions, but this ruling in the Madras High Court is particularly noteworthy, as it reflects the broader international implications of the ongoing patent conflict.
In its order, the Madras High Court emphasized the importance of protecting intellectual property, especially for life-saving drugs like VYNDAMAX in pharma sector. The court ruled that Pfizer’s patent for TAFAMIDIS must be upheld in India, despite challenges from generic manufacturers. This ruling reinforces Pfizer’s exclusive rights over the formulation, production or distribution of VYNDAMAX in the Indian market.
The Madras High Court’s decision is groundbreaking for the global pharmaceutical industry, particularly in the realm of patent enforcement. The ongoing patent dispute in the other countries like United States has sparked heated debates over access to affordable medicines versus protecting the intellectual property rights of pharmaceutical companies. VYNDAMAX is considered a breakthrough in the treatment of a condition that severely impacts the heart, and its exclusivity remains a point of contention in markets where generic alternatives are being sought.
Pfizer has expressed its satisfaction with the ruling, stating that it affirms the company’s commitment to innovation and patient care. The company further emphasized that the decision will help ensure that VYNDAMAX remains available to those who need it while protecting the intellectual property rights of pharmaceutical innovators.
Although, it is expected that this ruling will have limited direct effect on markets outside of India, but it does signify the growing importance of patent protection in the global pharmaceutical landscape. Stakeholders, including patients, healthcare providers, and competitors, are keenly awaiting further developments in this high-profile case.
As the patent battle continues across borders, it remains to be seen how other jurisdictions will respond to similar challenges regarding VYNDAMAX and whether further legal actions will alter the course of the ongoing dispute.