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.
trademark
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.
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.
Patent Applicants Face Tighter Deadlines: What the New USPTO Rule Means for Continuation and Divisional Applications
Starting May 13, 2025, patent applicants will experience a significant change in the timeline for filing continuation and divisional applications with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Under the new rule, the window between paying the issue fee and a patent officially issuing will shrink dramatically—from about three weeks to just one week.
For those familiar with the process, this may feel like a significant shift. Previously, applicants had a comfortable amount of time to make key decisions regarding the filing of continuation or divisional applications after paying the issue fee. This period, although not extensive, offered ample opportunity to consider further filings and get the necessary paperwork in order. Now, with the new timeline, applicants will have to act quickly or risk missing the opportunity to file these crucial applications before the parent patent officially issues.
A Major Change for Continuation and Divisional Filings
For those in the patent world, continuation and divisional applications are powerful tools used to refine, expand, or protect different aspects of an invention disclosed in the original patent application. These tools allow applicants to pursue additional claims or protect additional inventions within the same family of patents.
This might happen if an applicant wants broader protection or if new claims emerge that were not included in the original application. A continuation application essentially gives the applicant another opportunity to further develop the patent without starting the process from scratch.
Divisionals, on the other hand, are filed when the USPTO requests the applicant to divide the original application into separate filings because the application covers more than one invention. This is typically seen in cases where the original application is too broad or contains more than one distinct invention.
The critical detail here is that both continuation and divisional applications must be filed before the parent patent is granted. Once the patent issues, the opportunity to file such applications is largely closed, and reopening prosecution after issuance can be costly and difficult.
The New Deadline: A Week to Act
Historically, applicants had about three weeks, sometimes longer, to file continuation or divisional applications after paying the issue fee. This gave them time to review their options, consult with colleagues or patent attorneys, and finalize their strategy before the patent officially issued.
However, with the new rule coming into effect on May 13, 2025, applicants will have only one week between paying the issue fee and the patent issuing. This means the timeline for making decisions has been drastically compressed. The issue fee, which is typically paid after receiving a Notice of Allowance from the USPTO, serves as an indication that the patent is about to be granted. With the tighter timeline, applicants must be ready to act quickly to file continuation or divisional applications—or risk missing the opportunity altogether.
For patent professionals who file these types of applications regularly, this change represents a considerable shift in workflow. The new rule is likely to require better planning, quicker decision-making, and perhaps even a shift in internal procedures to ensure applications are filed on time.
Best Practices for Navigating the Change
While the new rule presents challenges, there are several best practices that applicants can adopt to ensure they stay ahead of the game:
File Before Paying the Issue Fee
This gives ample time to review the strategy and decide on any additional filings. Filing before paying the issue fee ensures that applicants can secure their desired protection without the stress of a shortened timeline.
Incorporate Continuation and Divisional Discussions into the Review Process
Patent applicants should include discussions of continuation and divisional strategies as part of their regular Notice of Allowance review. This can involve consulting with patent attorneys, revisiting claims, and carefully evaluating whether additional applications are necessary.
Set Internal Deadlines
This gives teams time to deliberate and take a more measured approach to filings, without the added pressure of an approaching deadline.
Treat the Issue Fee as a Warning Signal
The issue fee payment should be viewed as a signal to take immediate action, not as a last-minute task. Instead of waiting until the last moment, applicants should be proactive and take time to file any necessary applications well ahead of the fee payment deadline. Procrastination can lead to missed opportunities.
Why the Change Matters
The USPTO’s decision to tighten this filing window is likely a response to the growing complexity of the patent process and the increasing speed at which innovation is occurring.
For applicants, however, this presents a new set of challenges. The need for quick decision-making and a more nimble approach to patent strategy has never been more important. Companies will need to ensure their patent portfolios are managed with greater efficiency and foresight. In particular, patent attorneys and in-house counsel will need to be highly organized to ensure that crucial filings are made within the shortened timeline.
The Bottom Line: Speed and Preparation Are Key
The new rule that takes effect on May 13, 2025, is a significant change that will impact the way patent applicants file continuation and divisional applications. With only one week between paying the issue fee and the patent issuing, applicants must be prepared to act quickly to protect additional claims or inventions.
The smartest strategy is to file continuation and divisional applications before paying the issue fee, giving applicants more time to review and finalize their filing strategy. By setting internal deadlines, planning ahead, and treating the issue fee payment as a cue to take immediate action, patent applicants can ensure they are not caught off guard by the new, shorter timeline.
In the world of patent law, timing is everything—and starting May 2025, those who act early will be best positioned to navigate the new filing requirements.
For those familiar with the process, this may feel like a significant shift. Previously, applicants had a comfortable amount of time to make key decisions regarding the filing of continuation or divisional applications after paying the issue fee. This period, although not extensive, offered ample opportunity to consider further filings and get the necessary paperwork in order. Now, with the new timeline, applicants will have to act quickly or risk missing the opportunity to file these crucial applications before the parent patent officially issues.
A Major Change for Continuation and Divisional Filings
For those in the patent world, continuation and divisional applications are powerful tools used to refine, expand, or protect different aspects of an invention disclosed in the original patent application. These tools allow applicants to pursue additional claims or protect additional inventions within the same family of patents.
This might happen if an applicant wants broader protection or if new claims emerge that were not included in the original application. A continuation application essentially gives the applicant another opportunity to further develop the patent without starting the process from scratch.
Divisionals, on the other hand, are filed when the USPTO requests the applicant to divide the original application into separate filings because the application covers more than one invention. This is typically seen in cases where the original application is too broad or contains more than one distinct invention.
The critical detail here is that both continuation and divisional applications must be filed before the parent patent is granted. Once the patent issues, the opportunity to file such applications is largely closed, and reopening prosecution after issuance can be costly and difficult.
The New Deadline: A Week to Act
Historically, applicants had about three weeks, sometimes longer, to file continuation or divisional applications after paying the issue fee. This gave them time to review their options, consult with colleagues or patent attorneys, and finalize their strategy before the patent officially issued.
However, with the new rule coming into effect on May 13, 2025, applicants will have only one week between paying the issue fee and the patent issuing. This means the timeline for making decisions has been drastically compressed. The issue fee, which is typically paid after receiving a Notice of Allowance from the USPTO, serves as an indication that the patent is about to be granted. With the tighter timeline, applicants must be ready to act quickly to file continuation or divisional applications—or risk missing the opportunity altogether.
For patent professionals who file these types of applications regularly, this change represents a considerable shift in workflow. The new rule is likely to require better planning, quicker decision-making, and perhaps even a shift in internal procedures to ensure applications are filed on time.
Best Practices for Navigating the Change
While the new rule presents challenges, there are several best practices that applicants can adopt to ensure they stay ahead of the game:
File Before Paying the Issue Fee
This gives ample time to review the strategy and decide on any additional filings. Filing before paying the issue fee ensures that applicants can secure their desired protection without the stress of a shortened timeline.
Incorporate Continuation and Divisional Discussions into the Review Process
Patent applicants should include discussions of continuation and divisional strategies as part of their regular Notice of Allowance review. This can involve consulting with patent attorneys, revisiting claims, and carefully evaluating whether additional applications are necessary.
Set Internal Deadlines
This gives teams time to deliberate and take a more measured approach to filings, without the added pressure of an approaching deadline.
Treat the Issue Fee as a Warning Signal
The issue fee payment should be viewed as a signal to take immediate action, not as a last-minute task. Instead of waiting until the last moment, applicants should be proactive and take time to file any necessary applications well ahead of the fee payment deadline. Procrastination can lead to missed opportunities.
Why the Change Matters
The USPTO’s decision to tighten this filing window is likely a response to the growing complexity of the patent process and the increasing speed at which innovation is occurring.
For applicants, however, this presents a new set of challenges. The need for quick decision-making and a more nimble approach to patent strategy has never been more important. Companies will need to ensure their patent portfolios are managed with greater efficiency and foresight. In particular, patent attorneys and in-house counsel will need to be highly organized to ensure that crucial filings are made within the shortened timeline.
The Bottom Line: Speed and Preparation Are Key
The new rule that takes effect on May 13, 2025, is a significant change that will impact the way patent applicants file continuation and divisional applications. With only one week between paying the issue fee and the patent issuing, applicants must be prepared to act quickly to protect additional claims or inventions.
The smartest strategy is to file continuation and divisional applications before paying the issue fee, giving applicants more time to review and finalize their filing strategy. By setting internal deadlines, planning ahead, and treating the issue fee payment as a cue to take immediate action, patent applicants can ensure they are not caught off guard by the new, shorter timeline.
In the world of patent law, timing is everything—and starting May 2025, those who act early will be best positioned to navigate the new filing requirements.
India Sees 310% Rise in Patent Filings by Startups and MSMEs in Last Five Years
India has witnessed an extraordinary increase in patent filings by startups and micro, small, and medium enterprises (MSMEs), with data revealing a 310% growth over the past five years. This surge underscores the country’s growing focus on innovation, research, and intellectual property protection among emerging businesses.
According to recent government and industry data, this dramatic rise in patent activity reflects the effectiveness of initiatives aimed at nurturing a robust innovation ecosystem. Supportive policies, such as reduced filing fees, fast-track examination processes, and government-backed awareness programs, have played a critical role in encouraging smaller enterprises and startups to safeguard their inventions.
Experts believe that the increasing participation of startups and MSMEs in patenting not only signals a maturing entrepreneurial landscape but also positions India as a rising innovation hub on the global stage.
Government officials have noted that this trend aligns with the vision of making India self-reliant and technology-driven. The growing number of intellectual property filings by smaller players is also contributing to job creation, export potential, and overall economic growth.
The momentum is expected to continue as more early-stage ventures recognize the strategic value of protecting their intellectual property, particularly in sectors such as artificial intelligence, healthcare, clean energy, and digital technologies.
According to recent government and industry data, this dramatic rise in patent activity reflects the effectiveness of initiatives aimed at nurturing a robust innovation ecosystem. Supportive policies, such as reduced filing fees, fast-track examination processes, and government-backed awareness programs, have played a critical role in encouraging smaller enterprises and startups to safeguard their inventions.
Experts believe that the increasing participation of startups and MSMEs in patenting not only signals a maturing entrepreneurial landscape but also positions India as a rising innovation hub on the global stage.
Government officials have noted that this trend aligns with the vision of making India self-reliant and technology-driven. The growing number of intellectual property filings by smaller players is also contributing to job creation, export potential, and overall economic growth.
The momentum is expected to continue as more early-stage ventures recognize the strategic value of protecting their intellectual property, particularly in sectors such as artificial intelligence, healthcare, clean energy, and digital technologies.
India Strengthens Its Global Standing in AI and Patent Innovation: Nasscom’s Patent Pulse 2025 Report
As World Intellectual Property (IP) Day is observed globally, India has emerged as a prominent player in the international innovation ecosystem.
India maintained its rank as the fifth-largest patent filer worldwide in FY24, with over 90,000 patents submitted—a milestone marking seven consecutive years of growth. A notable portion of these patents, more than 25%, are linked to AI technologies, underlining India’s growing reputation as a center for advanced technological development.
The report also reveals a steady rise in the country’s innovation output. India’s patent-to-GDP ratio more than doubled in a decade, increasing from 144 in 2013 to 381 in 2023. Additionally, India’s share in global patent grants grew from 1.7% in 2022 to 3.8% in 2023—a 149% year-on-year increase.
For the first time, the number of granted patents in India crossed 100,000 in FY24, indicating both enhanced operational efficiency at the Indian Patent Office and an improvement in the quality of applications. A growing share of these filings—over 55%—were submitted by Indian residents, compared to 52.3% the previous year. Contributions from startups, academic institutions, and small and medium enterprises (SMEs) are playing an increasingly vital role, showing a broadening base of innovation.
Artificial Intelligence remains a major driver of this progress. Since 2010, India has filed more than 86,000 AI-related patents, with filings between 2021 and 2025 rising seven times compared to the 2010–2015 period. Indian entities were responsible for 63% of these filings, signaling strong domestic innovation leadership in AI.
Machine Learning (ML) continues to dominate AI-related patents, accounting for over half of them. Within ML, Generative AI (GenAI) has become a significant focus area. In India, GenAI makes up 28% of AI patents, far exceeding the global average of just 6%, placing the country among the top five globally in this space.
Key sectors driving AI patent activity include transportation, which accounts for more than 70% of AI filings, as well as computer vision and natural language processing, which together represent over 90% of India’s AI-related patents.
India’s grant rate for AI patents stands at only 0.37%, significantly behind global leaders such as the United States and China. The gap is even wider in academia, where the approval rate is just 1%, compared to 40% for corporate applicants.
This gap reflects the need for improved research capabilities, stronger institutional support, and a greater emphasis on producing high-quality intellectual property.
Rajesh Nambiar, President of Nasscom, recognized India’s progress but emphasized that more work is needed. “While the increase in filings and patent office responsiveness are encouraging, delays in approvals and inconsistent patent quality remain barriers to matching global benchmarks,” he stated.
To support ongoing improvements, Nasscom has introduced the IP Enablement Initiative. This program aims to boost IP literacy and infrastructure across academia, startups, and industry. It also calls for policy reforms and a cultural shift to encourage innovation and higher-quality IP creation nationwide.
India maintained its rank as the fifth-largest patent filer worldwide in FY24, with over 90,000 patents submitted—a milestone marking seven consecutive years of growth. A notable portion of these patents, more than 25%, are linked to AI technologies, underlining India’s growing reputation as a center for advanced technological development.
The report also reveals a steady rise in the country’s innovation output. India’s patent-to-GDP ratio more than doubled in a decade, increasing from 144 in 2013 to 381 in 2023. Additionally, India’s share in global patent grants grew from 1.7% in 2022 to 3.8% in 2023—a 149% year-on-year increase.
For the first time, the number of granted patents in India crossed 100,000 in FY24, indicating both enhanced operational efficiency at the Indian Patent Office and an improvement in the quality of applications. A growing share of these filings—over 55%—were submitted by Indian residents, compared to 52.3% the previous year. Contributions from startups, academic institutions, and small and medium enterprises (SMEs) are playing an increasingly vital role, showing a broadening base of innovation.
Artificial Intelligence remains a major driver of this progress. Since 2010, India has filed more than 86,000 AI-related patents, with filings between 2021 and 2025 rising seven times compared to the 2010–2015 period. Indian entities were responsible for 63% of these filings, signaling strong domestic innovation leadership in AI.
Machine Learning (ML) continues to dominate AI-related patents, accounting for over half of them. Within ML, Generative AI (GenAI) has become a significant focus area. In India, GenAI makes up 28% of AI patents, far exceeding the global average of just 6%, placing the country among the top five globally in this space.
Key sectors driving AI patent activity include transportation, which accounts for more than 70% of AI filings, as well as computer vision and natural language processing, which together represent over 90% of India’s AI-related patents.
India’s grant rate for AI patents stands at only 0.37%, significantly behind global leaders such as the United States and China. The gap is even wider in academia, where the approval rate is just 1%, compared to 40% for corporate applicants.
This gap reflects the need for improved research capabilities, stronger institutional support, and a greater emphasis on producing high-quality intellectual property.
Rajesh Nambiar, President of Nasscom, recognized India’s progress but emphasized that more work is needed. “While the increase in filings and patent office responsiveness are encouraging, delays in approvals and inconsistent patent quality remain barriers to matching global benchmarks,” he stated.
To support ongoing improvements, Nasscom has introduced the IP Enablement Initiative. This program aims to boost IP literacy and infrastructure across academia, startups, and industry. It also calls for policy reforms and a cultural shift to encourage innovation and higher-quality IP creation nationwide.
Ola Group Leads India’s Deep-Tech Charge with Unmatched Patent Portfolio
Ola Group, which operates across ride-hailing, electric mobility, and artificial intelligence, has emerged as a technological frontrunner among India’s startups. The company now holds more than 50% of all patents filed by India’s 117 unicorns, according to data from the Indian Patent Advanced Search (IPAS) System.
Collectively, Indian unicorns have filed just 229 patents—highlighting a relatively modest focus on intellectual property within the startup ecosystem. In contrast, the Ola Group alone has filed over 650 patent applications, with 180 already approved. The majority of these filings come from Ola Electric, the EV-focused arm of the group, which contributes nearly 70-80% of the total.
Ola’s founder, Bhavish Aggarwal, recently commented on the milestone via a post on X (formerly Twitter), stating:
Despite this achievement, 101 of the 117 unicorns in India have reportedly not filed a single patent, underscoring a broader trend of prioritizing market growth and valuations over core technology development.
Leading India’s Deep-Tech Push
In FY23 alone, Ola Electric filed 205 patents, making it the top EV patent filer in India. These filings cover a wide range of areas, including battery technology, vehicle software, artificial intelligence, and advanced safety systems.
Ola Electric has also significantly increased its investment in research and development. The company spent ₹507 crore on R&D in FY23—amounting to 19.3% of its total revenue, a dramatic rise from ₹175 crore the previous year. Looking ahead, the company plans to invest ₹1,600 crore in R&D over FY25 to FY27.
But 650 applied patents is not enough — we’ll be accelerating innovation even more in the coming years!”
Global IP Footprint
Ola’s innovation drive extends beyond India. The group has also secured patents in key international markets, including the United States, United Kingdom, Japan, China, and Australia—strengthening its position as a globally competitive tech enterprise.
At a time when much of India’s startup scene remains focused on rapid scale and consumer acquisition, Ola’s focus on proprietary technology and IP development sets it apart as a leader in India’s emerging deep-tech economy.
Collectively, Indian unicorns have filed just 229 patents—highlighting a relatively modest focus on intellectual property within the startup ecosystem. In contrast, the Ola Group alone has filed over 650 patent applications, with 180 already approved. The majority of these filings come from Ola Electric, the EV-focused arm of the group, which contributes nearly 70-80% of the total.
Ola’s founder, Bhavish Aggarwal, recently commented on the milestone via a post on X (formerly Twitter), stating:
Despite this achievement, 101 of the 117 unicorns in India have reportedly not filed a single patent, underscoring a broader trend of prioritizing market growth and valuations over core technology development.
Leading India’s Deep-Tech Push
In FY23 alone, Ola Electric filed 205 patents, making it the top EV patent filer in India. These filings cover a wide range of areas, including battery technology, vehicle software, artificial intelligence, and advanced safety systems.
Ola Electric has also significantly increased its investment in research and development. The company spent ₹507 crore on R&D in FY23—amounting to 19.3% of its total revenue, a dramatic rise from ₹175 crore the previous year. Looking ahead, the company plans to invest ₹1,600 crore in R&D over FY25 to FY27.
But 650 applied patents is not enough — we’ll be accelerating innovation even more in the coming years!”
Global IP Footprint
Ola’s innovation drive extends beyond India. The group has also secured patents in key international markets, including the United States, United Kingdom, Japan, China, and Australia—strengthening its position as a globally competitive tech enterprise.
At a time when much of India’s startup scene remains focused on rapid scale and consumer acquisition, Ola’s focus on proprietary technology and IP development sets it apart as a leader in India’s emerging deep-tech economy.
USPTO Suspends Expedited Examination for Design Applications Amid Fraud Concerns and Case Backlog
In a decisive move aimed at improving efficiency and safeguarding the integrity of the U.S. intellectual property system, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has announced the suspension of expedited examination for design patent applications, effective April 17, 2025. The policy change was officially detailed in a notice published in the USPTO’s Official Gazette on April 14.
The decision comes in response to a 560% surge in requests for expedited design application reviews—a trend the USPTO attributes in large part to a rise in fraudulent filings. This suspension is part of a broader strategy to reduce the growing inventory of unexamined design applications, curb misuse of the system, and ensure accurate and fair processing for legitimate applicants.
Key Reasons Behind the Suspension
According to the USPTO, the unexpected spike in expedited examination requests has placed significant pressure on examiners and contributed to increased backlogs in the design application pipeline. Much of this rise, the agency notes, is linked to fraudulent filings, which not only distort processing timelines but also pose risks to the integrity of the U.S. intellectual property system.
The USPTO also cites a rise in erroneous micro entity certifications—false claims to fee discounts intended for small applicants—as a factor in its decision. These certifications have become a growing concern in recent years, complicating the patent review process and necessitating additional scrutiny.
What the Suspension Means for Applicants
Starting April 17, 2025, the USPTO will no longer grant requests for expedited examination of design applications, including any renewed or pending requests submitted on or after that date. In line with this change:
Associated fees will be refunded in full for requests made after the effective date.
The USPTO will continue to examine design applications under its standard timeline, as it works to reduce overall pendency and inventory.
Impact on the Design Patent Community
The suspension will have a notable impact on companies and individuals relying on faster design patent protection for products with short market cycles, particularly in sectors like fashion, consumer electronics, and packaging design. However, the USPTO maintains that ensuring quality and transparency in the application process outweighs the short-term disruption caused by the policy shift.
Industry analysts suggest that while the suspension may create delays for some innovators, the move is likely to improve the reliability and credibility of granted design patents in the long run, which is critical for both domestic and international enforcement.
Broader Reform Efforts
This policy change is one component of the USPTO’s wider agenda to combat abuse and strengthen the integrity of the IP system. The office has been ramping up enforcement against fraudulent filings, improving data analytics to detect suspicious activity, and refining procedures for certifying applicant eligibility for reduced fees.
The USPTO also continues to explore new technologies and staffing solutions to address examination delays and ensure legitimate applications are processed efficiently.
Biodegradable Plastics Enter the Mainstream as Global Patent Race Heats Up, Says Questel Report
With plastic pollution reaching critical levels, a growing number of innovators and companies are racing to develop sustainable alternatives. A new patent landscape analysis from Questel, led by chemistry specialist and business intelligence consultant Donia Ben Zakour, offers a comprehensive look into the evolving world of biodegradable plastics—and the findings suggest a wave of green innovation is gaining serious momentum.
A Growing Crisis Demands a Sustainable Response
Conventional plastics have become synonymous with environmental harm. Every year, an estimated 12.7 million tonnes of plastic waste enter the oceans. Meanwhile, only 9% of all plastic ever produced has been recycled. As global concern deepens, the spotlight is turning to biodegradable plastics as a promising solution.
What Are Biodegradable Plastics—and Why Do They Matter?
Biodegradable plastics are engineered to degrade through microbial activity, breaking down into natural substances such as carbon dioxide, water, and biomass within a defined timeframe. These materials, which include polylactic acid (PLA), polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA), and starch-based compounds, are particularly suited for single-use applications like packaging.
Their chemical structures and environmental degradability make them a vital alternative in sectors looking to cut their plastic footprint.
The Patent Landscape: Questel’s Key Findings
Questel’s in-depth analysis examines more than 9,000 patent families related to biodegradable plastics filed over the past two decades (excluding Chinese non-extended patents). It provides valuable insights into trends in innovation, market leaders, and regional activity.
📈 Patent Filing Trends (2005–2023)
2005–2018: Patent activity was relatively steady, with 200–300 new filings annually. However, many early patents are now considered “dead” due to abandonment or expiration.
2015–2023: A dramatic surge in activity, particularly from 2018 onward, saw annual filings exceed 1,000 by 2021. The growing number of “pending” applications reflects a vibrant pipeline of new technologies.
Filings from 2024 and 2025 appear lower but are likely underreported due to the standard 18-month delay between filing and publication.
🌍 Geographical Hotspots
Patent data shows that innovation is concentrated in Japan, South Korea, and the United States. These regions account for the majority of first-priority filings:
Japan was an early leader but saw a lull before a recent rebound.
South Korea took the lead after 2018, driven by aggressive R&D from major firms.
India is emerging as a noteworthy player, while Europe maintains consistent, though fragmented, contributions.
🏢 Leading Innovators in the Space
Top contributors include:
LG Chem – developing bio-based polymers for industrial and packaging use.
Hyundai Motor – incorporating biodegradable materials into vehicle interiors.
CJ CheilJedang – advancing PHA-based biodegradable plastic technologies for a wide range of applications.
⚙️ Key Technologies and Manufacturing Processes
Dominant areas of innovation include:
Core materials: PLA, PHA, starch-based bioplastics, biodegradable polyesters.
Processing methods: Injection molding, extrusion, and polymer blending.
Real-World Adoption and the Push for Sustainability
Biodegradable plastics are increasingly making the leap from labs to commercial shelves. Global brands are actively seeking replacements for conventional plastics in packaging, while automotive and electronics industries are integrating biodegradable materials into their design and production processes.
Zakour emphasizes that this movement reflects more than just a trend—it’s a systemic shift in how innovation meets sustainability. “We’re witnessing a convergence of environmental responsibility, regulatory pressure, and consumer demand,” she explains. “Biodegradable plastics are now seen not just as an alternative, but as a necessity for sustainable growth.”
Looking Ahead
Despite economic uncertainties and regulatory complexity, Questel’s report points to a dynamic and competitive innovation landscape. With global filings surging and real-world applications expanding, biodegradable plastics are rapidly becoming a key pillar of environmental strategy for forward-thinking companies.
The global patent race is far from over—but one thing is clear: the future of plastic is biodegradable.
A Growing Crisis Demands a Sustainable Response
Conventional plastics have become synonymous with environmental harm. Every year, an estimated 12.7 million tonnes of plastic waste enter the oceans. Meanwhile, only 9% of all plastic ever produced has been recycled. As global concern deepens, the spotlight is turning to biodegradable plastics as a promising solution.
What Are Biodegradable Plastics—and Why Do They Matter?
Biodegradable plastics are engineered to degrade through microbial activity, breaking down into natural substances such as carbon dioxide, water, and biomass within a defined timeframe. These materials, which include polylactic acid (PLA), polyhydroxyalkanoates (PHA), and starch-based compounds, are particularly suited for single-use applications like packaging.
Their chemical structures and environmental degradability make them a vital alternative in sectors looking to cut their plastic footprint.
The Patent Landscape: Questel’s Key Findings
Questel’s in-depth analysis examines more than 9,000 patent families related to biodegradable plastics filed over the past two decades (excluding Chinese non-extended patents). It provides valuable insights into trends in innovation, market leaders, and regional activity.
📈 Patent Filing Trends (2005–2023)
2005–2018: Patent activity was relatively steady, with 200–300 new filings annually. However, many early patents are now considered “dead” due to abandonment or expiration.
2015–2023: A dramatic surge in activity, particularly from 2018 onward, saw annual filings exceed 1,000 by 2021. The growing number of “pending” applications reflects a vibrant pipeline of new technologies.
Filings from 2024 and 2025 appear lower but are likely underreported due to the standard 18-month delay between filing and publication.
🌍 Geographical Hotspots
Patent data shows that innovation is concentrated in Japan, South Korea, and the United States. These regions account for the majority of first-priority filings:
Japan was an early leader but saw a lull before a recent rebound.
South Korea took the lead after 2018, driven by aggressive R&D from major firms.
India is emerging as a noteworthy player, while Europe maintains consistent, though fragmented, contributions.
🏢 Leading Innovators in the Space
Top contributors include:
LG Chem – developing bio-based polymers for industrial and packaging use.
Hyundai Motor – incorporating biodegradable materials into vehicle interiors.
CJ CheilJedang – advancing PHA-based biodegradable plastic technologies for a wide range of applications.
⚙️ Key Technologies and Manufacturing Processes
Dominant areas of innovation include:
Core materials: PLA, PHA, starch-based bioplastics, biodegradable polyesters.
Processing methods: Injection molding, extrusion, and polymer blending.
Real-World Adoption and the Push for Sustainability
Biodegradable plastics are increasingly making the leap from labs to commercial shelves. Global brands are actively seeking replacements for conventional plastics in packaging, while automotive and electronics industries are integrating biodegradable materials into their design and production processes.
Zakour emphasizes that this movement reflects more than just a trend—it’s a systemic shift in how innovation meets sustainability. “We’re witnessing a convergence of environmental responsibility, regulatory pressure, and consumer demand,” she explains. “Biodegradable plastics are now seen not just as an alternative, but as a necessity for sustainable growth.”
Looking Ahead
Despite economic uncertainties and regulatory complexity, Questel’s report points to a dynamic and competitive innovation landscape. With global filings surging and real-world applications expanding, biodegradable plastics are rapidly becoming a key pillar of environmental strategy for forward-thinking companies.
The global patent race is far from over—but one thing is clear: the future of plastic is biodegradable.