A research team focused on advancing chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies has harnessed artificial intelligence tools to streamline data analysis and extract key insights in the field. Their work was highlighted as part of the late-breaking research presented at the 2025 American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Annual Meeting in Chicago, Illinois.
The investigators explored the evolving landscape of CAR T-cell treatments for multiple myeloma (MM) by leveraging two AI-powered platforms: BiblioEngine, developed by 23Strands, and Cool.AF from Neural Hinge. These tools were used to mine publicly accessible clinical literature, with a focus on manufacturing methods, clinical trial structures, and therapeutic outcomes. The team also conducted a comprehensive review of related patent filings across jurisdictions including the United States, European Union, and India.
By utilizing AI-driven analytics, the researchers efficiently processed large volumes of data and identified emerging trends in how CAR T-cell therapies are developed and applied in real-world clinical settings. The tools enabled detailed comparisons between datasets, shedding light on factors influencing successful patent applications and highlighting the structure of collaborative networks among researchers in the field.
The analysis not only revealed current gaps in MM treatment strategies but also pointed to opportunities for future innovation and patent development. These findings are expected to guide more strategic clinical trial design and support intellectual property planning that avoids overlap with existing patents.
Moreover, the team’s work identified opportunities to foster new research partnerships by mapping the relationships among authors in the field, potentially expanding the collaborative network and accelerating progress in CAR T-cell therapy innovation.
patent
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.
Baidu Explores AI Technology to Decode Animal Communication
Ever wondered what your cat’s meows actually mean? Chinese tech giant Baidu is aiming to bridge the communication gap between humans and animals with the help of artificial intelligence.
The proposed technology would combine data on animal vocalizations, behavioral cues, and bodily responses, then process this information using AI to identify emotional states. These emotional indicators would subsequently be translated into semantic content understandable by humans.
Baidu’s patent describes the project as a step toward “deeper emotional communication and understanding between animals and humans,” potentially making cross-species interaction more accurate and efficient. While the concept has captured public interest, the company has clarified that the system remains in the research phase.
This effort is part of Baidu’s broader strategy to lead in AI innovation. The company has been investing heavily in artificial intelligence since the rise of OpenAI’s ChatGPT in 2022. Baidu recently introduced its advanced AI model, Ernie 4.5 Turbo, claiming it performs at the top tier across industry benchmarks. Despite these advancements, Baidu’s chatbot offerings have faced challenges in gaining widespread user adoption due to intense competition.
Globally, Baidu is not alone in its quest to decode animal language. Projects like CETI (Cetacean Translation Initiative), launched in 2020, are working to interpret the complex communication of sperm whales using AI and statistical models. Meanwhile, the Earth Species Project, founded in 2017 and backed by tech figures like LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, is also using artificial intelligence to analyze animal communication across various species.
While the dream of talking to animals like a real-life Dr. Dolittle remains a long-term goal, advances like Baidu’s patent hint at a future where technology could help us better understand the emotional and communicative world of animals.
The proposed technology would combine data on animal vocalizations, behavioral cues, and bodily responses, then process this information using AI to identify emotional states. These emotional indicators would subsequently be translated into semantic content understandable by humans.
Baidu’s patent describes the project as a step toward “deeper emotional communication and understanding between animals and humans,” potentially making cross-species interaction more accurate and efficient. While the concept has captured public interest, the company has clarified that the system remains in the research phase.
This effort is part of Baidu’s broader strategy to lead in AI innovation. The company has been investing heavily in artificial intelligence since the rise of OpenAI’s ChatGPT in 2022. Baidu recently introduced its advanced AI model, Ernie 4.5 Turbo, claiming it performs at the top tier across industry benchmarks. Despite these advancements, Baidu’s chatbot offerings have faced challenges in gaining widespread user adoption due to intense competition.
Globally, Baidu is not alone in its quest to decode animal language. Projects like CETI (Cetacean Translation Initiative), launched in 2020, are working to interpret the complex communication of sperm whales using AI and statistical models. Meanwhile, the Earth Species Project, founded in 2017 and backed by tech figures like LinkedIn co-founder Reid Hoffman, is also using artificial intelligence to analyze animal communication across various species.
While the dream of talking to animals like a real-life Dr. Dolittle remains a long-term goal, advances like Baidu’s patent hint at a future where technology could help us better understand the emotional and communicative world of animals.
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.
Cybin Secures New U.S. Patent, Expands Clinical Trials for Depression and Anxiety Treatments
Cybin Inc. has been granted U.S. patent number 12,291,499 by the United States Patent and Trademark Office, bolstering its intellectual property portfolio, which now includes over 80 granted patents and more than 230 active applications. CEO Doug Drysdale underscored the significance of strong patent protections in supporting drug innovation and reaffirmed the company’s dedication to developing new mental health treatments.
Cybin’s lead clinical program, CYB003, is currently being administered to participants in its pivotal Phase 3 trial, known as the APPROACH study, targeting Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) as an adjunctive treatment. A second Phase 3 trial, EMBRACE, is expected to launch in mid-2025. In addition, Cybin is advancing CYB004, a deuterated version of N,N-dimethyltryptamine (DMT), now in Phase 2 development for generalized anxiety disorder.
However, it continues to operate with a negative EBITDA of approximately -$93.87 million over the past 12 months, reflecting the high costs associated with research and development. The company has been rated “FAIR” for overall financial health and appears to maintain enough liquid assets to meet short-term obligations, suggesting operational resilience during its early-stage growth phase.
It is focused on transforming mental healthcare through innovative neuropsychiatric treatments, and has gained recognition for its early clinical data in the field.
The announcement of the new patent was accompanied by a standard disclaimer noting that forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties. Cybin emphasized that its products are still undergoing scientific evaluation and must be reviewed and approved by regulatory agencies such as the U.S. FDA and Health Canada before any health claims can be made.
In parallel developments, Cybin has expanded its U.S. clinical trial network to include 18 sites for the ongoing APPROACH study. This move aims to accelerate patient recruitment and improve the efficiency of its Phase 3 trial timeline. Meanwhile, H.C. Wainwright has adjusted its price target for Cybin from $190 to $150, while maintaining a Buy rating, citing updated financials and promising developments in its CYB003 and CYB004 programs. A potential commercial rollout for CYB004 is tentatively projected for fiscal year 2028.
This news is based on a press release from Cybin Inc. and is intended for informational purposes only.
Cybin’s lead clinical program, CYB003, is currently being administered to participants in its pivotal Phase 3 trial, known as the APPROACH study, targeting Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) as an adjunctive treatment. A second Phase 3 trial, EMBRACE, is expected to launch in mid-2025. In addition, Cybin is advancing CYB004, a deuterated version of N,N-dimethyltryptamine (DMT), now in Phase 2 development for generalized anxiety disorder.
However, it continues to operate with a negative EBITDA of approximately -$93.87 million over the past 12 months, reflecting the high costs associated with research and development. The company has been rated “FAIR” for overall financial health and appears to maintain enough liquid assets to meet short-term obligations, suggesting operational resilience during its early-stage growth phase.
It is focused on transforming mental healthcare through innovative neuropsychiatric treatments, and has gained recognition for its early clinical data in the field.
The announcement of the new patent was accompanied by a standard disclaimer noting that forward-looking statements involve risks and uncertainties. Cybin emphasized that its products are still undergoing scientific evaluation and must be reviewed and approved by regulatory agencies such as the U.S. FDA and Health Canada before any health claims can be made.
In parallel developments, Cybin has expanded its U.S. clinical trial network to include 18 sites for the ongoing APPROACH study. This move aims to accelerate patient recruitment and improve the efficiency of its Phase 3 trial timeline. Meanwhile, H.C. Wainwright has adjusted its price target for Cybin from $190 to $150, while maintaining a Buy rating, citing updated financials and promising developments in its CYB003 and CYB004 programs. A potential commercial rollout for CYB004 is tentatively projected for fiscal year 2028.
This news is based on a press release from Cybin Inc. and is intended for informational purposes only.
Supreme Court Declines to Hear Patent Officers’ Plea for CBI Probe, Suggests Moving High Court
The Supreme Court has declined to admit a writ petition filed by the All India Patent Officers’ Welfare Association (AIPOWA), which sought a court-monitored investigation and a probe by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) into alleged unauthorized access and data leakage involving sensitive patent and trademark information.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar refused to entertain the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. However, the Court allowed AIPOWA the liberty to approach the appropriate High Court under Article 226 for further remedies. The Court made it clear that it had not offered any opinion on the merits of the allegations or whether the petition should be admitted by the High Court.
The petition alleged that confidential data from the Indian Intellectual Property Offices (IPO) was improperly accessed and shared with Kaizen Institute, a private multinational consultancy, without following due legal and administrative procedures. According to AIPOWA, this access was facilitated by officials in the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks (CGPDTM) despite a lack of formal approval from the DPIIT.
The association claimed that Kaizen was allowed to operate within IPO premises based solely on internal email communications, which allegedly misrepresented its links to the Prime Minister’s Office and the Capacity Building Commission (CBC). In contrast, similar access was reportedly denied to a senior government officer.
The petition further argued that this arrangement breached multiple provisions of the Patents Act, 1970, and the Trade Marks Act, 1999. It contended that CGPDTM, being a subordinate office, had no authority to enter into such arrangements without explicit clearance from the Ministry of Commerce and Industry.
Additionally, AIPOWA criticized the process through which Kaizen was engaged, stating that no competitive bidding took place, violating public procurement rules and principles of transparency and accountability. The petition also highlighted an MoU signed among CGPDTM, the CBC, and the Centre for Effective Governance of Indian States (CEGIS), pointing to a clause that indicated CBC’s role in coordinating with Kaizen for process improvements at CGPDTM.
The petition had urged the Court to nullify the MoU, initiate a CBI investigation, and hold those responsible accountable under Indian laws and international agreements, including the Patent Cooperation Treaty and Madrid Protocol.
Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul appeared on behalf of AIPOWA. While the Supreme Court declined to intervene directly, it left the door open for the matter to be taken up by a High Court.
A bench comprising Chief Justice of India Sanjiv Khanna and Justice Sanjay Kumar refused to entertain the petition under Article 32 of the Constitution. However, the Court allowed AIPOWA the liberty to approach the appropriate High Court under Article 226 for further remedies. The Court made it clear that it had not offered any opinion on the merits of the allegations or whether the petition should be admitted by the High Court.
The petition alleged that confidential data from the Indian Intellectual Property Offices (IPO) was improperly accessed and shared with Kaizen Institute, a private multinational consultancy, without following due legal and administrative procedures. According to AIPOWA, this access was facilitated by officials in the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs & Trade Marks (CGPDTM) despite a lack of formal approval from the DPIIT.
The association claimed that Kaizen was allowed to operate within IPO premises based solely on internal email communications, which allegedly misrepresented its links to the Prime Minister’s Office and the Capacity Building Commission (CBC). In contrast, similar access was reportedly denied to a senior government officer.
The petition further argued that this arrangement breached multiple provisions of the Patents Act, 1970, and the Trade Marks Act, 1999. It contended that CGPDTM, being a subordinate office, had no authority to enter into such arrangements without explicit clearance from the Ministry of Commerce and Industry.
Additionally, AIPOWA criticized the process through which Kaizen was engaged, stating that no competitive bidding took place, violating public procurement rules and principles of transparency and accountability. The petition also highlighted an MoU signed among CGPDTM, the CBC, and the Centre for Effective Governance of Indian States (CEGIS), pointing to a clause that indicated CBC’s role in coordinating with Kaizen for process improvements at CGPDTM.
The petition had urged the Court to nullify the MoU, initiate a CBI investigation, and hold those responsible accountable under Indian laws and international agreements, including the Patent Cooperation Treaty and Madrid Protocol.
Senior Advocate Neeraj Kishan Kaul appeared on behalf of AIPOWA. While the Supreme Court declined to intervene directly, it left the door open for the matter to be taken up by a High Court.
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.