trademark

Former Champion Jinder Mahal Challenges WWE “The Maharaja” Trademark

by
Digital illustration showing Jinder Mahal dressed as The Maharaja on the left, holding a scroll labeled 'The Maharaja Trademark Pending,' facing a shadowy, muscular figure representing WWE on the right. A lightning bolt separates them, and the WWE figure stands near a cracked tombstone labeled 'Intellectual Property Law,' with two judge's gavels on the ground.

The world of professional wrestling is buzzing. Former WWE Champion Jinder Mahal, whose real name is Raj Dhesi, has launched a major legal challenge against his former employer, World Wrestling Entertainment (WWE).

Dhesi is fighting for ownership of the in-ring persona, “The Maharaja.”

The Heart of the Battle

This dispute reveals a critical industry-wide conflict. Who truly owns a wrestler’s identity? Is it the performer who brings the character to life? Or is it the multi-million dollar corporation that employs and markets them?

WWE holds the trademark for “The Maharajah.” They secured this ownership in 2017.

Raj Dhesi contests this claim. He asserts he developed and used the “Maharaja” name as early as 2015. This was before the company made its official trademark claim. Dhesi argues the character belongs to him. He insists the persona is his creation, not a product of WWE’s creative team.

Legal Action Escalates

Dhesi first tried to register his own trademark. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) rejected his attempts. They cited a “likelihood of confusion” with WWE’s existing ownership.

Dhesi refused to back down. He changed tactics. On December 4, 2025, Dhesi submitted a formal petition. This filing asks the USPTO to cancel WWE’s trademark entirely. Dhesi accuses the company of obtaining the trademark by “wrongful means.”

WWE must now prepare a defense. The wrestling giant has until February 3, 2026, to respond to Dhesi’s petition.

Industry Consequences Loom

The outcome of this case holds massive implications. It threatens to overturn decades of established wrestling business practices.

For years, WWE has kept tight control. They rarely allow talent to use their character names outside the company. If Dhesi wins, this legal precedent could have widespread effects.

  • Talent Empowerment: A victory could encourage other former wrestlers. They might sue to reclaim names and personas they helped develop.
  • IP Redefinition: The challenge forces WWE and the entire industry to rethink character ownership. It may redefine the line between talent creative rights and corporate intellectual property (IP).

Since his WWE release in April 2024, Dhesi has continued to use the name. He performs as “The Maharaja” on the independent circuit. This ongoing usage strengthens his claim. He aims to prove that the identity remains his own, separate from the corporation.

The industry watches closely. The final ruling will impact how wrestling companies manage their most valuable assets: their performers and their characters.

Delhi High Court Restores Trademark Infringement Suit

by
Delhi High Court building at dusk with overlaid text: "Trademark Ruling" and "Jurisdiction Restored," symbolizing the Kohinoor Seed vs Veda Seed case.

The Delhi High Court’s Division Bench restored the trademark infringement suit filed by Kohinoor Seed Fields India Pvt. Ltd. against Veda Seed Sciences Pvt. Ltd., setting aside an earlier order by a Single Judge that had returned the plaint due to a lack of territorial jurisdiction.

The Court held that a substantial part of the cause of action arose within Delhi’s jurisdiction, thereby allowing the suit to proceed on its merits.

Key Grounds for Restoring Jurisdiction

The Division Bench identified two primary factors that conferred territorial jurisdiction on the Delhi High Court:

  1. Registration of Trademarks in Delhi:
    • Kohinoor Seed’s registered trademarks, “TADAAKHA” and “SADANAND”, were registered in Delhi.
    • The Court held that the mere fact that the asserted marks were registered within the jurisdiction of the High Court was a factor that, by itself, entitled the appellant to institute the suit in Delhi.
  2. Execution of Marketing Agreement in Delhi:
    • The non-exclusive co-marketing agreement, which was at the heart of the dispute, was executed in New Delhi. This agreement allowed Veda Seed to market Kohinoor’s seeds under the marks (including the unregistered mark “BASANT”) until it expired in 2022.
    • The Court ruled that since the agreement formed an integral part of the cause of action—as the alleged infringement occurred after the agreement’s termination and involved marks initially licensed—the Court within whose jurisdiction the agreement was executed has jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute.

Details of the Dispute

  • Kohinoor’s Marks: Registered trademarks “TADAAKHA” and “SADANAND”, and unregistered mark “BASANT”, all used for cotton hybrid seeds.
  • Veda Seed’s Allegedly Infringing Marks: “VEDA TADAAKHA GOLD BG II,” “VEDA SADANAND GOLD BG II,” and “VEDA BASANT GOLD BG II.”
  • Background: The parties had a co-marketing agreement from 2014 to 2022. Post-termination, Kohinoor alleged that Veda Seed began selling its own seeds using deceptively similar marks.
  • Single Judge’s View (Set Aside): The Single Judge had accepted Veda Seed’s argument that its operations were limited to Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, and that online listings (on IndiaMart/Kalgudi) were insufficient to establish jurisdiction.
  • Division Bench’s View on Online Listings: The Division Bench observed that the question of Veda Seed’s direct or indirect involvement in the online listings of the allegedly infringing goods was a matter that required a full trial and could not be dismissed at the preliminary stage.

The Division Bench, therefore, allowed the appeal, setting aside the previous order, and restored the trademark infringement suit to be heard on its merits.

The Patent Paradox: Why India’s Startup Filing Surge is 83% Failure and All About Optics

by
Fragile gold patent scroll on a precarious foundation, with the number 83% failure rate overlaid, symbolizing the optical illusion of India's startup patent filing surge.

A deep dive into the intellectual property (IP) landscape of India’s booming startup sector reveals a critical gap between ambition and execution, suggesting that the much-lauded surge in patent filings is predominantly a tactical exercise in investor signalling rather than a genuine marker of technological innovation. The core issue, critics argue, is a “crisis of intent” where patents function as “decorative rather than functional” assets.   

While global bodies like the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) have celebrated India’s rapid ascent—the WIPO 2024 report noted a phenomenal 15.7% growth in patent applications in 2023, positioning the country 6th globally with 64,480 filings —the internal data paints a sobering picture of weak follow-through.   

The Data Gap: 83% of Startup Patents Fail to Secure a Grant

Analysis of the startup patent pipeline from 2021 through 2025 reveals a profound drop-off rate, demonstrating that the vast majority of filings are not carried through to completion.   

During this five-year period, Indian startups filed a robust 13,089 patent applications. Yet, only 2,174 of these successfully navigated the examination process to achieve the grant stage. This results in a grant success rate of barely 16.6%, meaning approximately one out of every six startup filings becomes an enforceable, proprietary asset.   

The failure rate is compounded by active abandonment. Nearly 500 startup patent applications were explicitly withdrawn or abandoned early, often due to the filers failing to complete detailed specifications or respond to subsequent office actions required by the Patent Office.   

This pattern extends beyond patents. Startups filed 44,517 trademark applications during the same period, with over 1,300 subsequently abandoned. Analysts suggest this widespread non-prosecution across IP types confirms that the primary function of the filing is “brand optics” rather than a rigorous, long-term IP strategy. The high volume of dropped applications confirms that for many, the intent was temporary and instrumental: the patent filing was merely a transaction used to secure funding, not an investment in an enduring intellectual asset.   

Investor Mandate: Patents as Pitch Deck Tools

The distortion in filing behaviour is traced back to the venture capital (VC) ecosystem’s preference for strong valuation narratives. In competitive fundraising rounds, a pending patent application, particularly a cheap and fast provisional filing, serves as a high-visibility proxy for technological differentiation and market moat potential.   

A provisional patent application, which secures an immediate priority date, is leveraged as a “fast, affordable way to strengthen a fundraising narrative” and “create the appearance of a breakthrough innovation”. This mechanism enables a “Capital first, commitment later” ethos.   

The systemic issue is rooted in the fact that investors often prioritize the inclusion of an IP slide over demanding proof of prosecution commitment or demonstrated R&D investment. As the analysis notes, “Once the funding round closes, priorities may shift,” leading to a predictable loss of enthusiasm for the labour-intensive and expensive work required to turn provisional filings into complete specifications. This rational response by founders—underinvesting in expensive, long-term R&D in favour of cheap, high-volume filing tactics—systematically shifts resources away from core innovation.   

Structural Deficiency: India’s R&D Investment Stagnation

The crisis of intent at the startup level is underpinned by a deep, structural R&D deficit at the national level. The commitment to deep, foundational research necessary to generate truly novel and patentable inventions remains structurally low in India.   

Official data from the Department of Science & Technology (DST) confirms that India’s Gross Expenditure on Research and Development (GERD) as a percentage of GDP stood at 0.64% during the fiscal year 2020–21, having remained stagnant between 0.6% and 0.7% in the preceding years (0.66% in 2018–19 and 2019–20).   

This figure is significantly “below global average and lower than countries like China, South Korea and US”. This structural weakness is compounded by low private sector contribution, which accounted for only 36.4% of the total GERD in 2020–21, in sharp contrast to innovation-leading nations where private industry drives over 70% of R&D expenditure.   

This macro-level underinvestment directly correlates with the micro-level deficiencies, as most startups lack “dedicated research teams, technical drafting expertise, prior-art assessment systems, and time for iterative processes” necessary for rigorous patent prosecution.   

Policy Flaw: Incentives Reward Filing, Not Granting

Current government policies designed to stimulate IP activity, while successful in boosting filing volume, have inadvertently intensified the focus on volume over quality. The government successfully implemented significant fee concessions, including an 80% reduction in patent filing fees for startups, MSMEs, and educational institutions.   

However, the design flaw is that these incentives are tied to the input stage (filing) rather than the output stage (grant or commercialization). By heavily subsidizing the initial filing, the state inadvertently subsidizes the creation of the fundraising narrative for VCs. Once the provisional application is lodged, the startup has secured its priority date and the narrative benefit, but the subsequent costly work of prosecution remains unassisted, cementing the low-commitment behaviour.   

Blueprint for Genuine Innovation: Shifting from Decoration to Depth

To foster genuine innovation and correct the systemic inefficiencies, experts advocate for a strategic overhaul of incentives and infrastructure.   

  • Realign Incentives: Government benefits, including subsidies and fast-track examination provisions, must be decoupled from the act of filing and strategically tied to demonstrable outcomes, such as patent grants, successful long-term renewal, or demonstrable commercial utilization.   
  • Enhance Capacity: Urgent investment in the Patent Office is mandatory, including expansion of examiner capacity and specialized domain expertise. There is a pronounced need for more technically specialized patent officers, particularly in cutting-edge technological areas like AI, biotech, semiconductors, climate-tech, and advanced manufacturing.   
  • Strengthen R&D Culture: The government should offer targeted, co-funded grants and innovation-linked incentives for startups that demonstrate a commitment to establishing and maintaining dedicated R&D teams or formalized collaboration with research institutions.   
  • Promote Co-patenting: Actively promoting policy frameworks that encourage joint patent filings (co-patenting) between startups and premier academic/research institutions, such as the IITs and national labs, would guarantee a higher technical standard for the filings and create structured pathways for knowledge transfer.   

The conclusion remains clear: for India to genuinely transition from an IP volume leader to a global innovation power, the focus must shift from decorative filings to functional intellectual assets. Only then can “depth replace decoration” and solidify India’s reputation as a serious, quality-driven innovation hub.   

Delhi High Court Summons ‘Nashville Fried Chicken’ Over KFC Trademark Dispute

by

The Delhi High Court has issued a summons to ‘Nashville Fried Chicken’, a local restaurant, in response to a trademark infringement lawsuit filed by the globally recognized fast-food chain, Kentucky Fried Chicken (KFC). The legal action stems from KFC’s claims that the eatery is imitating its brand identity and misleading customers.

KFC Alleges Brand Imitation

KFC, operated by Yum! Brands, alleges that ‘Nashville Fried Chicken’ unlawfully uses branding elements that closely resemble those of KFC. This includes similarities in the visual design, menu presentation, and particularly the acronym “NFC”, which KFC claims is a deliberate attempt to confuse customers and exploit the popularity of its brand.

The lawsuit also highlights the use of the word “Nashville” in the restaurant’s name — a term that features prominently in KFC’s own menu item, the “Nashville Hot Chicken.” KFC maintains that this choice of branding is likely to mislead consumers into believing there is an association between the two businesses.

Court Issues Summons

Justice Anish Dayal, presiding over the case, admitted the matter and ordered the defendant to respond to the allegations. The court recognized the potential for consumer deception due to the overlapping branding and has scheduled the matter for further hearing in the coming weeks.

The court acknowledged KFC’s longstanding presence in India and noted that the alleged similarities in branding may amount to “passing off” — a situation where one business misrepresents its goods or services as those of another.

KFC Seeks Injunction and Damages

In the lawsuit, KFC has asked the court to issue a permanent injunction preventing ‘Nashville Fried Chicken’ from using the contested name and related branding. The company is also pursuing financial compensation, citing harm to its reputation and brand equity.

According to KFC, its brand elements — including its signature red-and-white color scheme, the image of Colonel Sanders, and its widely known slogans — have earned significant recognition among Indian consumers over the years. The company argues that any imitation not only confuses the public but also weakens its distinct brand identity.

Implications of the Case

The outcome of this legal battle could have broader implications for the Indian food and hospitality industry, particularly concerning brand protection and intellectual property rights. Legal analysts suggest that the case could set a benchmark on how Indian courts view brand mimicry, especially when smaller entities adopt marketing elements similar to established international brands.

The next hearing is expected to take place in June, where both parties will present their detailed arguments before the court.

Delhi High Court Grants Relief to Indian Businessman in ‘ELFY’ Trademark Dispute with Pakistani National

by

In a significant ruling, the Delhi High Court has granted relief to an Indian businessman in a trademark dispute involving the mark ‘ELFY’ against Pakistani national Mohammed Younus Sheikh. The court’s decision underscores the importance of protecting intellectual property rights and upholding fair business practices.

Background of the Case

The dispute centers around the use of the ‘ELFY’ trademark, which the Indian businessman claims to have developed and used in commerce for several years. Mohammed Younus Sheikh, a Pakistani national, had claimed that his company had been using the ‘ELFY’ mark for industrial adhesives since 1981. Sheikh’s company had registered the mark in Pakistan and asserted that it had acquired a transborder reputation, particularly in India.

The Indian businessman contended that he had been using the ‘ELFY’ mark in India since 1988 and had built a significant reputation and goodwill associated with the mark. He argued that Sheikh’s adoption of the same mark in India was likely to cause confusion among consumers and harm his business interests.

Court’s Findings

The Delhi High Court examined the evidence presented by both parties, including the dates of adoption and use of the ‘ELFY’ mark, marketing materials, and consumer testimonials. The court found that the Indian businessman had established prior use of the mark in India and had built a recognizable brand associated with ‘ELFY.’

In contrast, the court noted that Mohammed Younus Sheikh had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate prior use or registration of the ‘ELFY’ mark in India. The court emphasized the principle of territoriality in trademark law, asserting that the rights to a trademark are generally confined to the jurisdiction where the mark is used and recognized.

Legal Implications

This ruling reinforces the importance of establishing and maintaining clear records of trademark use and registration. It also highlights the challenges businesses may face when operating in international markets, where the risk of trademark disputes can arise due to similarities in branding.

Legal experts suggest that businesses should conduct thorough trademark searches before adopting new marks and consider registering their trademarks in key markets to protect their brand identity and prevent potential conflicts.

Conclusion

The Delhi High Court’s decision serves as a reminder of the complexities involved in trademark law and the need for businesses to be vigilant in protecting their intellectual property. As global commerce continues to expand, understanding and navigating trademark rights across different jurisdictions will be crucial for businesses seeking to safeguard their brands.

Delhi High Court Affirms Mandatory Timelines Under Rule 100 of Trade Marks Rules 2017

by
In the ruling, the Delhi High Court emphasized that timelines are mandatory and cannot be waived, even in exceptional circumstances.

Background of the Case
The case arose from a trademark opposition filed by Sun Pharma Laboratories Ltd. against Dabur India Ltd. Sun Pharma had submitted its evidence within the prescribed two-month period; however, there was a delay of three days in serving the evidence to Dabur. The Registrar of Trade Marks deemed the opposition abandoned due to this delay. Sun Pharma appealed the decision, arguing that the filing was timely, and the delay in service should not result in abandonment.

Court’s Analysis
The Delhi High Court examined the evolution of the Trade Marks Rules, noting that previous versions allowed for discretionary extensions of time. However, under the 2017 Rules, such discretion has been removed, indicating a legislative intent to enforce strict adherence to timelines. The Court referred to Rule 100, which specifies that evidence must be filed within two months from the date of service of the counter-statement.

Conclusion
The Delhi High Court’s ruling serves as a clear reminder to stakeholders in the trademark domain about the critical importance of adhering to statutory timelines. With the removal of discretionary powers to extend deadlines, parties must exercise due diligence to comply with all procedural requirements within the stipulated timeframes.

Legal professionals and businesses are advised to stay informed about the implications of this judgment and ensure that all actions in trademark opposition proceedings are completed within the prescribed timelines to safeguard their interests.

Metro Brands Gets Interim Relief from Bombay High Court in Trademark Dispute with MetBrands

by

In a significant development in a closely watched intellectual property dispute, the Bombay High Court has granted interim relief to Metro Brands Ltd., a leading Indian footwear retailer, in its trademark infringement case against a startup operating under the name “MetBrands.”

On Monday, the court acknowledged Metro Brands’ longstanding presence in the Indian market and the strong consumer association with its brand name. Justice Manish Pitale, presiding over the matter, directed MetBrands to refrain from using the contested name or any deceptively similar mark until further orders.

Background of the Dispute

Metro Brands, incorporated in 1955, is a household name in Indian footwear retail with a wide footprint across premium malls and shopping destinations. The company claimed that MetBrands, a relatively new player in the fashion and lifestyle segment, was deliberately using a name strikingly similar to its own, thereby creating confusion in the minds of consumers and riding on the goodwill it has established over decades.

In its petition, Metro Brands argued that “MetBrands” not only shares phonetic and visual similarities but also overlaps in the domain of lifestyle and fashion retail, increasing the likelihood of trademark dilution and brand misappropriation.

Court’s Observations

The Bombay High Court, while hearing the interim plea, noted the potential harm to Metro Brands’ reputation and consumer trust due to the similarity between the two names. The court stated that prima facie, the use of “MetBrands” could amount to infringement under the Trade Marks Act, 1999.

Justice Pitale observed: “Given the longevity and recognition enjoyed by the plaintiff [Metro Brands] in the Indian market, and the phonetic resemblance of the defendant’s brand name, a case for interim injunction is clearly made out.”

Response from MetBrands

MetBrands, in its defense, claimed that the brand name was independently conceived and not intended to mislead consumers. The company also emphasized its limited operational scale compared to Metro Brands, suggesting there was no deliberate attempt to confuse or exploit.

Despite this, the court ruled in favor of granting temporary relief to Metro Brands, citing the need to prevent potential consumer deception and preserve brand integrity.

Legal and Industry Implications

Legal experts see the decision as a strong reinforcement of the importance of brand protection and the judiciary’s proactive stance in safeguarding intellectual property rights. “This interim order sends a clear message to emerging businesses about the necessity of conducting thorough trademark checks and building brand identities distinct from existing market players,” said Renu Arora, a Mumbai-based IP attorney.

What’s Next

The matter is scheduled for further hearing in July 2025, when the court will examine the merits of the case in greater detail. Until then, MetBrands has been restrained from using the disputed mark in any commercial context, including advertising, packaging, and digital presence.

For now, the order comes as a strategic win for Metro Brands, reinforcing its hold over its brand identity while the legal proceedings continue.

“Judge Signals Sanctions Against Patent Attorney for Sharing Netflix’s Confidential Data with Litigation Funder”

by
A federal judge in Oakland has signaled his intent to impose sanctions on patent attorney Bill Ramey and his firm, Ramey LLP, for violating a protective order by sharing Netflix Inc.’s confidential information with a litigation funder. The case stems from a patent infringement lawsuit filed by Finnish inventor Lauri Valjakka against Netflix, in which Ramey represented Valjakka.

During a hearing the U.S. District Court indicated that attorneys’ fees would be an appropriate sanction, noting that they would likely be substantial. The dispute centers on Ramey’s disclosure of Netflix’s source code and financial information to AiPi LLC, a litigation funding company, without proper authorization. Netflix contends that these materials, described as the “crown jewels of its business,” were shared in violation of the court’s protective order, which restricts access to sensitive information to authorized individuals only.

At the hearing, Netflix’s attorney, Sarah Piepmeier of Perkins Coie, argued that AiPi had access to the confidential information before Netflix was aware of the funding arrangement. She expressed concern that AiPi’s possession of Netflix’s proprietary data could influence its decisions in future litigation or inspire new lawsuits. Ramey defended his actions, asserting that the protective order allowed him to share the information with “affiliates,” a category he believed included AiPi’s attorneys. He further claimed that no harm had occurred because AiPi’s lawyers assured him they hadn’t used the materials inappropriately.

Judge Tigar expressed skepticism about Ramey’s defense, stating that having individuals affiliated with a litigation funder review Netflix’s source code constituted a situation of harm. He also indicated that he would consider referring Ramey to the California State Bar or another disciplinary body for further review.

This development adds to a series of legal challenges faced by Ramey and his firm. Earlier this year, Judge Tigar denied Ramey’s application for pro hac vice admission in a separate case, CyboEnergy Inc. v. Netflix Inc., ruling that Ramey had been practicing law in California without a state bar license. Additionally, Ramey has faced scrutiny over his firm’s handling of multiple patent cases in California without proper licensure, leading to questions about his compliance with state ethical standards .

The case, Valjakka v. Netflix Inc., continues to unfold, with potential implications for the intersection of patent law, litigation funding, and the protection of confidential business information.

Unilin Technologies Secures European Patent for Groundbreaking Osiris Wood Recycling Technology

by
Unilin Technologies, the intellectual property division of Unilin, has been awarded European patent EP 4114629 for its pioneering Osiris recycling technology. This patent marks a significant milestone in the company’s mission to foster circular practices in the wood industry and reflects Unilin’s ongoing investment in sustainable innovation.

The patented Osiris system represents the first industrial-scale technology capable of recycling fiberboards—a long-standing challenge in the wood-based panel industry. Historically, the composite structure of fiberboards, which combines wood fibers with adhesives and resins, made them difficult to disassemble and therefore unfit for effective recycling. As a result, these boards typically ended up in landfills or were incinerated, contributing to environmental degradation.

With Osiris, Unilin has developed a scalable and practical solution to this issue. The technology enables the efficient separation of wood fibers from waste fiberboards, which can then be reintegrated with virgin wood to manufacture new fiberboards. This process not only reduces waste but also conserves natural resources by decreasing reliance on fresh wood material.

The Osiris technology is exclusively offered for licensing by Unilin Technologies in partnership with Dieffenbacher, a leading provider of wood-based panel production systems.

“We are proud to receive this patent, which underscores the innovation behind Osiris and the impact it can have on the sustainability of the fiberboard industry,” said a spokesperson from Unilin Technologies. “Our goal is to create real-world solutions that allow manufacturers to reduce their environmental footprint while maintaining high production standards.”

The granting of this European patent further strengthens Unilin’s intellectual property portfolio and opens the door for wider adoption of circular technologies across the board manufacturing sector. With global attention increasingly focused on sustainable production methods, Osiris offers a viable path forward for companies seeking to align with environmental targets without compromising efficiency or quality.

Navigating the Genomics Revolution: The Evolving Role of Intellectual Property Protection

by
More than two decades after the landmark announcement of the Human Genome Project’s completion in 2003, the field of genomics is undergoing a profound transformation. What began as a focus on decoding linear DNA sequences has expanded into a multidisciplinary understanding of the genome’s structural and functional complexity. This includes insights into protein folding, post-translational modifications like glycosylation, and the critical functions of non-coding DNA segments once dismissed as “junk,” such as introns.

In healthcare, personalized medicine, pharmacogenomics, and CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing are transitioning from research to real-world application. Genomic research is also driving the development of disease-resistant crops in agriculture and, in the biotech industry, is converging with artificial intelligence (AI) to accelerate innovations like next-generation sequencing and data interpretation.

This rapid evolution brings renewed focus on how intellectual property (IP) laws can safeguard innovation while keeping pace with scientific complexity. A strategic approach to IP is essential to protect genomics-related breakthroughs across multiple domains.

Patents: The Traditional Tool — and Its Limitations
Utility patents remain a cornerstone of IP strategy in genomics. In the competitive life sciences market, such exclusivity can determine commercial viability. However, the scope of what is patentable, especially in the U.S., is becoming increasingly restrictive.

Key genomic discoveries — like isolated human genes — when naturally occurring, are not patentable under U.S. law. Similarly, diagnostic methods that link biomarkers with disease states often fall outside the scope of patent-eligible subject matter. AI-driven components, such as algorithms used to interpret genomic data, also face hurdles, as abstract ideas and software in isolation typically don’t qualify for patent protection.

Disclosure Challenges in Patent Law
Patents require inventors to fully disclose their invention. This becomes problematic when critical elements of an innovation — like proprietary algorithms or data models — aren’t patentable but are vital to the invention’s function. In such cases, companies may be reluctant to disclose sensitive information that could be exploited by competitors, forcing them to weigh the benefits of limited patent protection against the risk of exposing valuable trade secrets.

Trade Secrets: A Flexible but Fragile Option
When patenting isn’t viable or would reveal too much, trade secrets offer an alternative. This form of protection doesn’t require disclosure and isn’t limited by subject matter rules or duration, as long as the information remains confidential. Genomics-based innovations — such as algorithm development, data modeling, and experimental optimization — are well-suited to trade secret strategies.

However, trade secrets are vulnerable. A single leak — from an employee, partner, or regulatory disclosure — can irreversibly compromise protection. Therefore, robust internal controls, clear access policies, and legal safeguards are essential to maintain secrecy.

Copyright: Protecting the Expression of Genomic Insights
While traditionally associated with creative works, copyright law has found new relevance in the digital era. It now extends to software, source code, and potentially, some aspects of genomics-related data and algorithms. Unlike patents, copyright protects the expression of an idea, not the idea itself — which means competitors can replicate the core concept using different language or methods, provided they don’t copy the exact expression.

For genomics, copyright might apply to algorithmic code, databases, or visualization tools used in analyzing genetic data. However, it is a limited tool that works best in conjunction with other forms of IP protection.

Toward an Integrated IP Strategy for Genomics
As genomics continues to push scientific boundaries, no single form of IP protection is sufficient. A multi-layered approach is often required — combining patents for core inventions, trade secrets for proprietary methods or data, and copyright for software or data presentation.

Careful coordination is essential. Over-disclosure in a patent could undermine trade secret protection, while an overly secretive approach might prevent the grant of a meaningful patent. Developing a clear, strategic IP roadmap that aligns with scientific goals and commercial interests is critical for ensuring innovations are protected without sacrificing competitive advantage.