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.
technology
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.
Patents: A Hidden Cost Trap for Startups – How to Navigate Without Overspending
For many startups, patents seem like a necessary but one-time expense. However, the reality is far more complicated. Filing a patent might appear straightforward, but the costs involved are anything but. From legal fees and government charges to international filings and ongoing maintenance costs, the true expense of a U.S. patent can easily exceed $50,000 over its lifetime.
This hefty price tag raises questions for founders: Is patenting worth it? I’ve seen firsthand how many entrepreneurs hesitate to move forward with patent filings, uncertain whether the return on investment justifies the expenditure. However, skipping patents altogether can present even more dire consequences for your business:
A competitor could beat you to the patent office, locking you out of your own market.
Investors may lose interest if they don’t see a clear intellectual property (IP) strategy.
A legal battle might emerge just as your business gains momentum, forcing you into costly litigation.
So, the question isn’t whether you should patent, but rather how you can do so without draining your resources.
Strategies for Smart Patent Filing on a Budget
The key to navigating the patent process effectively is knowing where to focus your budget. Fortunately, it’s easier than you think. Here are some proven strategies to help you patent without overspending.
1. Identify High-Value Innovations for Patent Protection
Startups often make two costly mistakes when it comes to patents: over-patenting or under-patenting. Both can harm your business.
Under-patenting happens when startups fail to document and protect innovations, allowing valuable ideas to slip through the cracks. Without a structured process like Invention Disclosure Forms (IDFs), innovations may not be patented in time, especially when funds are limited.
Over-patenting involves filing patents for ideas that don’t significantly strengthen your market position. It’s akin to betting on every horse instead of choosing the one with the best odds of winning. Instead, focus on innovations that have the potential to generate revenue or block competitors.
To avoid these pitfalls, use a structured patentability assessment. This process, which involves input from R&D, legal teams, and business leaders, evaluates the patent’s business value, the likelihood of patenting success, and the associated costs. Only the most valuable ideas should move forward.
As a rule of thumb: If losing an idea wouldn’t hurt your business, don’t patent it.
2. Plan Your IP Budget Wisely
Filing a patent without a clear budget is risky and irresponsible. Many startups rush into patent applications, only to run out of funds midway through the process, leaving their filings incomplete or allowing issued patents to expire.
Patent costs accumulate in phases—drafting fees, prosecution costs, government fees, and maintenance costs after the patent is granted. The total cost can soar, especially when foreign patents are involved. If you only budget for the initial filing, you may be forced to abandon a patent midway as costs balloon.
To prevent this, set a comprehensive patent budget before you file. Ensure you account for all phases of the patenting process, from drafting through maintenance. It’s also crucial to discuss fixed-fee structures or end-to-end budgets with your attorney to avoid any surprise costs. Once the patent is in progress, use cost estimation tools to track your ongoing expenses.
A well-planned budget ensures that your patents work for you, not against you.
3. Use Smart Filing Strategies to Cut Costs
Cutting corners on patent filings can be tempting, but it often leads to rejections, poor strategy, or patents that are ineffective when needed most. Here are some smarter ways to save:
Provisional Patents: Start with a provisional patent. For as little as $140 in USPTO fees (with lower legal fees as well), a provisional patent locks in your filing date and gives you 12 months to refine your invention before committing to a full application.
Government Fee Discounts: If you qualify as a small or micro-entity, you can save 50-75% on USPTO fees. Many startups overlook this, leaving money on the table.
Foreign Filings: Avoid rushing into international filings unless you’re committed to those markets. Foreign patent costs can range from $5,000-$10,000 per country initially, with total costs reaching $25,000-$75,000. Start with U.S. filings, then use the PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty) system to delay foreign decisions for up to 30 months, giving you more time to assess demand.
Avoid Excessive Prosecution: Don’t waste money on tough examination areas. Use predictor tools to steer clear of technologies where patenting is challenging. You can also analyze examiner statistics and request interviews to improve your chances of success. If your application is unlikely to succeed, consider abandoning it early to avoid sinking more money into a lost cause.
4. Prune Low-Value Patents to Cut Unnecessary Fees
Many startups waste up to 20% of their patent budget on patents that no longer serve their business needs. If a patent is no longer protecting a key technology or providing a competitive edge, there’s no reason to keep paying for it.
Review your patent portfolio annually and study does this patent still align with my business strategy? If not, consider dropping it, selling it, or licensing it to recover costs. If your business has exited a market, stop paying for patents in that market.
5. Use Data, Not Guesswork
Smart patenting isn’t about making intuitive decisions—it’s about using data to guide your moves. The right tools can assess the likelihood of approval, predict overall patenting costs, and reveal cost-saving opportunities. This data-driven approach helps you determine which patents are worth pursuing and maintaining.
Successful innovation managers don’t file patents blindly; they track, analyze, and adjust based on data. If you want to win, adopt the same strategy.
OpenAI and Microsoft to Face Copyright Lawsuits in New York, U.S. Judicial Panel Rules
A series of high-profile copyright lawsuits filed by prominent authors and major news outlets against artificial intelligence developer OpenAI and its key investor Microsoft will now be consolidated and heard in New York, following a significant ruling by a U.S. judicial panel on Thursday.
According to Reuters, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation decided to combine multiple legal actions, including those filed in California by well-known figures such as author Ta-Nehisi Coates and comedian Sarah Silverman, into a single federal court case in Manhattan. The panel’s decision also includes lawsuits brought by other influential plaintiffs, including The New York Times and renowned authors such as John Grisham, Jonathan Franzen, and George R.R. Martin.
This consolidation marks a crucial step in the ongoing wave of litigation targeting tech companies that utilize large datasets to train generative AI models. Plaintiffs allege that OpenAI and Microsoft used their copyrighted material without permission, infringing intellectual property rights in the process.
OpenAI had advocated for the lawsuits to be consolidated in Northern California, where the company is headquartered. However, most of the plaintiffs opposed this move, citing significant differences among the individual cases. Despite these objections, the panel ruled that centralizing the lawsuits in New York would “serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation.”
The panel’s decision comes amid increasing scrutiny of AI companies’ practices, particularly concerning the training of generative AI models on vast amounts of data, including copyrighted content. As Reuters reports, the plaintiffs argue that OpenAI and Microsoft’s use of their works constitutes an infringement of copyright law, while OpenAI maintains that its models are trained on publicly available data and fall under the “fair use” doctrine.
These lawsuits are part of a broader legal battle involving tech giants like OpenAI, Microsoft, and Meta Platforms, which are facing increasing scrutiny over the use of proprietary materials in the development of AI models. A central issue in the cases is whether the use of such copyrighted works falls under the “fair use” provision of U.S. copyright law, which permits limited use of protected works without permission under certain circumstances.
OpenAI has argued that the lawsuits share a common foundation: the claim that its large language models were trained using copyrighted works without consent. However, the plaintiffs contend that their individual cases are distinct and should be evaluated independently.
The consolidated lawsuits will now proceed under the supervision of U.S. District Judge Sidney Stein, who will oversee pretrial matters and guide the complex litigation moving forward. The outcome of these cases could have significant implications for the future of AI development and the legal landscape surrounding copyright protection in the age of generative technology.
According to Reuters, the U.S. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation decided to combine multiple legal actions, including those filed in California by well-known figures such as author Ta-Nehisi Coates and comedian Sarah Silverman, into a single federal court case in Manhattan. The panel’s decision also includes lawsuits brought by other influential plaintiffs, including The New York Times and renowned authors such as John Grisham, Jonathan Franzen, and George R.R. Martin.
This consolidation marks a crucial step in the ongoing wave of litigation targeting tech companies that utilize large datasets to train generative AI models. Plaintiffs allege that OpenAI and Microsoft used their copyrighted material without permission, infringing intellectual property rights in the process.
OpenAI had advocated for the lawsuits to be consolidated in Northern California, where the company is headquartered. However, most of the plaintiffs opposed this move, citing significant differences among the individual cases. Despite these objections, the panel ruled that centralizing the lawsuits in New York would “serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation.”
The panel’s decision comes amid increasing scrutiny of AI companies’ practices, particularly concerning the training of generative AI models on vast amounts of data, including copyrighted content. As Reuters reports, the plaintiffs argue that OpenAI and Microsoft’s use of their works constitutes an infringement of copyright law, while OpenAI maintains that its models are trained on publicly available data and fall under the “fair use” doctrine.
These lawsuits are part of a broader legal battle involving tech giants like OpenAI, Microsoft, and Meta Platforms, which are facing increasing scrutiny over the use of proprietary materials in the development of AI models. A central issue in the cases is whether the use of such copyrighted works falls under the “fair use” provision of U.S. copyright law, which permits limited use of protected works without permission under certain circumstances.
OpenAI has argued that the lawsuits share a common foundation: the claim that its large language models were trained using copyrighted works without consent. However, the plaintiffs contend that their individual cases are distinct and should be evaluated independently.
The consolidated lawsuits will now proceed under the supervision of U.S. District Judge Sidney Stein, who will oversee pretrial matters and guide the complex litigation moving forward. The outcome of these cases could have significant implications for the future of AI development and the legal landscape surrounding copyright protection in the age of generative technology.
Panjab University Granted Patent for Innovative UV-C Radiation Absorbing Coating
Panjab University (PU) has secured a patent for a groundbreaking, multifunctional surface coating capable of absorbing up to 96% of harmful Ultraviolet-C (UV-C) radiation. This innovative coating was developed by Gaurav Verma, a material nanotechnologist at the Dr. SSB University Institute of Chemical Engineering and Technology (UICET), and Anjali Sharma, a student at PU. The project represents a fusion of ancient Indian knowledge with cutting-edge nanotechnology.
Verma, who also serves as the director of sophisticated instrumentation laboratories at PU, explained that the new coating presents a significant advancement in protecting both living beings and materials from the harmful effects of high-energy UV-C radiation. “This multifunctional innovation is crucial for industries like healthcare, aerospace, automotive, and construction, where equipment and infrastructure are often exposed to UV-C rays for sterilization and disinfection purposes. Prolonged exposure to such radiation can lead to material degradation, increased maintenance costs, and health risks,” Verma said.
The novel coating is created by combining nanocurcumin, a natural antioxidant derived from turmeric, with modified clay to form a hybrid nanofiller. Verma drew inspiration from the traditional Indian haldi ceremony, which uses turmeric as a key element, and proposed using curcumin in its nanoform to create the coating. The resultant nanohybrid filler features platelet-like structures with orb-like shapes adhered to them, providing an innovative solution with enhanced protective properties.
This development not only integrates modern nanotechnology but also reflects a return to ancient Indian practices, proving that traditional wisdom can be harnessed in the advancement of modern science. The coating’s ability to absorb harmful UV-C radiation is set to have wide-reaching applications, particularly in sectors where UV-C light is extensively used, such as in hospitals for sterilization and in aerospace for material protection.
The patent marks a major milestone for PU, contributing to the growing field of nanotechnology and offering a promising solution to address global concerns about UV radiation exposure.
Verma, who also serves as the director of sophisticated instrumentation laboratories at PU, explained that the new coating presents a significant advancement in protecting both living beings and materials from the harmful effects of high-energy UV-C radiation. “This multifunctional innovation is crucial for industries like healthcare, aerospace, automotive, and construction, where equipment and infrastructure are often exposed to UV-C rays for sterilization and disinfection purposes. Prolonged exposure to such radiation can lead to material degradation, increased maintenance costs, and health risks,” Verma said.
The novel coating is created by combining nanocurcumin, a natural antioxidant derived from turmeric, with modified clay to form a hybrid nanofiller. Verma drew inspiration from the traditional Indian haldi ceremony, which uses turmeric as a key element, and proposed using curcumin in its nanoform to create the coating. The resultant nanohybrid filler features platelet-like structures with orb-like shapes adhered to them, providing an innovative solution with enhanced protective properties.
This development not only integrates modern nanotechnology but also reflects a return to ancient Indian practices, proving that traditional wisdom can be harnessed in the advancement of modern science. The coating’s ability to absorb harmful UV-C radiation is set to have wide-reaching applications, particularly in sectors where UV-C light is extensively used, such as in hospitals for sterilization and in aerospace for material protection.
The patent marks a major milestone for PU, contributing to the growing field of nanotechnology and offering a promising solution to address global concerns about UV radiation exposure.
Kawasaki India Set to Launch Updated Z900 with Refreshed Design and Features
Kawasaki India is preparing to expand its lineup with an updated version of the popular Z900, following reports of the company filing a patent design for the new model. As anticipation builds, images of the design patent have surfaced online, offering a glimpse into the motorcycle’s updated look and some key features.
The updated Z900, which made its global debut last year, is set to arrive with a refreshed aesthetic and a few tweaks to its overall design. Early leaked images suggest that the new version will have a more aggressive appearance compared to its predecessor. One of the most notable changes is the introduction of a new twin-pod LED headlight setup, which gives the front-end a sharper, more modern look. The rear of the bike also appears to feature a redesigned taillight and revised bodywork, adding to the overall streamlined and muscular presence.
For rider comfort, the Z900 will maintain its signature slip seating arrangement and inclined riding position. Additionally, it is expected to retain its stylish exhaust system, which has been a defining feature of the bike. New alloy wheels, as hinted in the patent images, could further enhance the bike’s visual appeal, giving it a more premium and dynamic presence on the road.
Current Z900 Model Features
At present, the Z900 is available in its top-end “SE” trim in India, offering an impressive list of features aimed at enhancing both performance and comfort. Among its highlights are a Bluetooth-enabled 5-inch digital instrument console, which allows for seamless connectivity with smartphones, and an array of advanced features like traction control, ride-by-wire throttle, and multiple power modes. The bike also comes equipped with cruise control and several riding modes, offering a customizable riding experience.
Engine and Performance
The Z900 is powered by a 948cc, in-line 4-cylinder engine that delivers a maximum power output of 121 horsepower at 9,500 rpm and a torque of 97.4 Nm at 7,700 rpm. This engine is mated to a 6-speed gearbox and comes with a bi-directional quick-shifter, ensuring smooth and quick gear shifts. These powertrain features combine to make the Z900 a formidable contender in the naked bike segment, delivering both power and precision.
With these updates and its already impressive features, the new Z900 is expected to make a strong impact when it arrives in India. As Kawasaki prepares for the official launch, enthusiasts are eagerly awaiting the arrival of this aggressive and refined motorcycle, which promises to offer an exhilarating riding experience both on and off the track.
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.
Innovation Thrives Amid Global Uncertainty: EPO Patent Index 2024 Reports Robust Activity
Despite ongoing global economic uncertainties, innovation continues to thrive as companies and inventors worldwide filed a total of 199,264 patent applications at the European Patent Office (EPO) in 2024, according to the newly released Patent Index 2024. This marks a slight dip of 0.1% compared to the previous year, which saw 199,452 applications. The stability in patent filings follows three years of substantial growth, underscoring the resilience of the innovation ecosystem.
The report highlights a 0.3% increase in patent filings from European countries, which include all 39 EPO member states. Meanwhile, filings from outside Europe showed a marginal decline of 0.4%. EPO President António Campinos emphasized that the robust patent activity amid global challenges reflects the ongoing commitment to research and development across industries, particularly in Europe.
“Despite political and economic challenges, European companies and inventors have maintained their momentum in filing patents, showcasing their technological capabilities and ongoing investments in R&D,” said Campinos. “The EPO’s data serves as a strategic roadmap for industries, policymakers, and investors. As outlined in the Draghi and Letta reports, Europe must continue to strengthen its innovation ecosystem, particularly in critical sectors such as green technologies, artificial intelligence, and semiconductors, to remain competitive on the global stage.”
Technological Leadership in Computer and Clean Energy Fields
In 2024, computer technology emerged as the leading sector for patent filings, with a total of 16,815 applications. This category, which includes artificial intelligence innovations like machine learning and pattern recognition, marked the first time it topped the patent charts. Meanwhile, the electrical machinery and clean energy sectors experienced the most significant growth, with a notable 8.9% increase in patent filings. Within this, innovations in battery technology were particularly prominent, surging by 24% as the world continues to push for advancements in sustainable energy.
Global Patent Trends: Shifts in Origins and Growth Patterns
The United States remained the leading country of origin for EPO patent applications, followed by Germany, Japan, China, and South Korea. Collectively, EPO member states accounted for 43% of total filings, while 57% came from outside Europe. South Korea showed the most notable growth, with a 4.2% increase in applications, while filings from the U.S. and Japan saw slight declines of 0.8% and 2.4%, respectively. China, on the other hand, saw a modest increase of 0.5%.
The Role of Large Corporations in Driving Innovation
Large companies continue to dominate the patenting landscape. South Korea’s Samsung emerged as the top applicant in 2024, a position it last held in 2020. The company overtook Huawei, which dropped to second place. Other major players in the top 10 include LG, Qualcomm, and RTX. Notably, the list includes companies from diverse regions: four from Europe, two from South Korea, two from the United States, and one each from China and Japan.
Supporting Small Businesses and Individual Inventors
The EPO also reported a significant contribution from smaller entities. In 2024, 22% of patent applications from Europe came from individual inventors or small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which are defined as companies with fewer than 250 employees. Furthermore, 7% of the applications originated from universities and public research institutions. This highlights the appeal of the patent system to smaller innovators, a trend that has been reinforced by the EPO’s 2024 fee reductions for micro-enterprises, non-profits, and academic institutions.
Progress in Gender Diversity
Another noteworthy development is the growing inclusion of women in the innovation process. In 2024, 25% of all patent applications to the EPO from Europe listed at least one female inventor. Among major filing countries, Spain led the way with 42% female inventor participation, followed by Belgium (32%) and France (31%).
As Europe continues to navigate political and economic challenges, the Patent Index 2024 demonstrates that innovation remains a key pillar of economic resilience. The steady stream of patent filings reflects not only technological advancement but also the enduring global commitment to shaping a more sustainable and digitally advanced future.
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