China’s National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) released new statistics on April 15, 2025, revealing a significant decline in invention patent grants during the first quarter of the year. According to the official data, the number of invention patents granted between January and March 2025 dropped by 20.99% year-on-year, amounting to a reduction of 52,870 patents, with a total of 199,012 invention patents granted during the period.
The downward trend was not isolated to invention patents alone. Utility model grants, another category of intellectual property protection frequently used in China, also saw a marginal decline of 2.33%, decreasing by 11,032 grants compared to the first quarter of 2024, bringing the total to 408,419 utility model grants.
However, in contrast to the broader decline, design patent grants recorded a notable increase. The CNIPA reported a 10.11% year-on-year growth, with 161,058 design patents granted in Q1 2025—an increase of 14,788 grants compared to the same period last year.
Trademark Registrations Also Down
The downturn extended into trademark registrations. From January to March 2025, the number of new trademarks registered in China fell by 193,996, reflecting a 14.97% decline compared to the first quarter of 2024. This slump may reflect broader economic uncertainties or shifts in business activity.
Factors Behind the Decline
While CNIPA has not issued an official explanation for the steep decline in invention patent grants, several contributing factors appear to be at play—chief among them, China’s evolving strategy around intellectual property quality and enforcement.
End of Patent Subsidies: Government subsidies for patent grants, once a major driver behind China’s patent filing boom, have officially ended in 2025. This move was aimed at reducing low-quality and opportunistic filings.
Crackdown on “Abnormal” Applications: Chinese authorities have continued to intensify scrutiny on fraudulent or low-value patent applications. This regulatory push has likely discouraged mass filing practices that previously inflated patent figures.
Shift Toward High-Value Patents: China has reoriented its IP strategy from emphasizing sheer volume to focusing on the number of high-value patents per 10,000 people, moving away from raw patent filing counts as the primary performance metric.
In addition, the broader slowdown in China’s economy may be influencing innovation output and intellectual property activity. However, due to the nature of patent processing timelines, such effects may manifest with a delay, making patent grants a lagging indicator of underlying economic trends.
Long-Term Outlook Remains Ambitious
Despite the recent decline, CNIPA’s 2025 budget signals continued confidence in long-term innovation momentum. The agency expects to receive over 5 million patent applications this year and plans to examine more than 2 million invention patent applications. These targets reflect China’s sustained investment in intellectual property infrastructure and commitment to fostering innovation at scale.
The full dataset, published in Chinese under the title “2025年3月国家知识产权局审查注册登记统计月报（外部版)”, offers a detailed monthly breakdown of IP activity and can be accessed through CNIPA’s official platform.
As China continues to prioritize patent quality and reform its intellectual property system, the first quarter data may represent more than just a temporary dip—it could signal a lasting transformation in how innovation is measured and rewarded in the world’s second-largest economy.
trademark
USPTO Streamlines Patent Issuance Timeline with Faster Turnaround Starting May 13
In a move that promises to bring greater efficiency to the U.S. patent system, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has announced a major update to its patent issuance process.
This improvement marks a significant shift in the patenting landscape, providing faster legal recognition of inventions and reducing administrative lag for both individual inventors and companies awaiting protection for their intellectual property.
Transition to Digital Patent Grants Accelerates the Process
The accelerated timeline has been made possible in large part due to the USPTO’s adoption of electronic patent grants (eGrants). With the USPTO now fully transitioned to digital issuance, those time-consuming steps have been eliminated, allowing for quicker finalization of granted patents.
The agency has stated that, once all requirements are met and the Issue Fee is paid, inventors typically receive an Issue Notification within one to two weeks. Under the new process, the formal patent will be granted just two weeks after this notification, as opposed to the previous three-week standard.
Benefits for Inventors and Legal Professionals
This change not only shortens the waiting period for inventors eager to see their rights formally granted, but it also has strategic legal benefits. The reduced timeline cuts down the so-called “lame duck” period—a window of time during which inventors and their legal counsel are still required to submit any known prior art that might affect the patent’s validity. During this period, submissions of relevant information could cause delays in issuance.
By shortening this window, the USPTO effectively reduces the likelihood of last-minute delays caused by prior art disclosures, allowing for smoother and more predictable patent finalizations.
A Win for Innovation and IP Management
The streamlined process is being welcomed by the patent community as a step in the right direction. Faster issuance allows inventors to enforce their rights sooner, boosts the value of patent portfolios more quickly, and provides an advantage to companies working in fast-moving sectors such as technology, pharmaceuticals, and biotech.
“This is a smart move by the USPTO,” said a patent attorney at a Washington-based IP law firm. “In a time where speed to market can make or break an invention’s commercial potential, cutting down unnecessary administrative lag can be a game-changer.”
Looking Ahead
The USPTO has been steadily modernizing its systems to better serve inventors, including the roll-out of digital filing systems, the modernization of examiner tools, and now this reduction in issuance lag. These changes reflect the agency’s ongoing commitment to streamlining operations while maintaining high standards for patent examination and grant quality.
As of May 13, inventors who receive their issue notifications can expect to see their patents granted just two weeks later—giving them the legal recognition and rights they’ve earned, faster than ever before.
This improvement marks a significant shift in the patenting landscape, providing faster legal recognition of inventions and reducing administrative lag for both individual inventors and companies awaiting protection for their intellectual property.
Transition to Digital Patent Grants Accelerates the Process
The accelerated timeline has been made possible in large part due to the USPTO’s adoption of electronic patent grants (eGrants). With the USPTO now fully transitioned to digital issuance, those time-consuming steps have been eliminated, allowing for quicker finalization of granted patents.
The agency has stated that, once all requirements are met and the Issue Fee is paid, inventors typically receive an Issue Notification within one to two weeks. Under the new process, the formal patent will be granted just two weeks after this notification, as opposed to the previous three-week standard.
Benefits for Inventors and Legal Professionals
This change not only shortens the waiting period for inventors eager to see their rights formally granted, but it also has strategic legal benefits. The reduced timeline cuts down the so-called “lame duck” period—a window of time during which inventors and their legal counsel are still required to submit any known prior art that might affect the patent’s validity. During this period, submissions of relevant information could cause delays in issuance.
By shortening this window, the USPTO effectively reduces the likelihood of last-minute delays caused by prior art disclosures, allowing for smoother and more predictable patent finalizations.
A Win for Innovation and IP Management
The streamlined process is being welcomed by the patent community as a step in the right direction. Faster issuance allows inventors to enforce their rights sooner, boosts the value of patent portfolios more quickly, and provides an advantage to companies working in fast-moving sectors such as technology, pharmaceuticals, and biotech.
“This is a smart move by the USPTO,” said a patent attorney at a Washington-based IP law firm. “In a time where speed to market can make or break an invention’s commercial potential, cutting down unnecessary administrative lag can be a game-changer.”
Looking Ahead
The USPTO has been steadily modernizing its systems to better serve inventors, including the roll-out of digital filing systems, the modernization of examiner tools, and now this reduction in issuance lag. These changes reflect the agency’s ongoing commitment to streamlining operations while maintaining high standards for patent examination and grant quality.
As of May 13, inventors who receive their issue notifications can expect to see their patents granted just two weeks later—giving them the legal recognition and rights they’ve earned, faster than ever before.
Tata Motors Achieves Record IP Milestone with 250 Patent Filings in FY25, Focuses on Future Mobility
Tata Motors, India’s leading automotive manufacturer, announced on Thursday that it has achieved a record-breaking milestone in intellectual property filings, with 250 patents and 148 design applications submitted during FY2024-25, the highest in the company’s history for a single financial year.
In a statement highlighting its innovation-driven strategy, Tata Motors emphasized that these filings span a wide array of product and process innovations that align with key global automotive megatrends — Connectivity, Electrification, Sustainability, and Safety (CESS) — along with next-generation technologies such as hydrogen-powered vehicles and fuel cell systems.
Innovations Driving the Future of Mobility
The patents and design applications represent advancements across core automotive systems, including:
Battery technology
Powertrain systems
Vehicle body and trim
Suspension and braking systems
Heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC)
Emission control technologies
These innovations are part of Tata Motors’ broader commitment to creating sustainable and intelligent mobility solutions, reinforcing its position at the forefront of India’s transition to green and connected transportation.
Strengthening IP Portfolio
In addition to the patent and design filings, Tata Motors also submitted 81 copyright applications and secured 68 patent grants in the fiscal year, bringing the company’s total granted patents to 918 — a substantial number underscoring its deep focus on research and development.
“Our growing portfolio of pioneering technologies demonstrates our steadfast commitment to nation-building through cutting-edge automotive solutions,” said Rajendra Petkar, President and Chief Technology Officer, Tata Motors. “We continue to invest in future-ready technologies that not only meet customer needs but also support environmental goals.”
Commitment to R&D and Innovation
The company’s FY25 filings reflect its ongoing investment in R&D and advanced engineering, with a strong emphasis on decarbonization, intelligent vehicle architecture, and alternative fuels.
Tata Motors has been a key contributor to India’s electric mobility revolution, with its EV offerings gaining substantial traction in both passenger and commercial segments. The company is also actively exploring hydrogen internal combustion engines and fuel cell electric vehicle (FCEV) technologies, in line with the government’s push for a diversified clean mobility strategy.
Vision for the Future
Looking forward, Tata Motors reiterated its long-term vision to shape the future of mobility, catering to the evolving expectations of modern consumers and contributing to sustainable community development.
“Our efforts are rooted in anticipating the future and delivering innovations that transform the way India moves,” added Petkar.
With this significant leap in intellectual property filings, Tata Motors not only reinforces its innovation leadership in the Indian automotive sector but also demonstrates its growing influence on the global stage, where technological IP is becoming a key differentiator in the race toward next-gen mobility.
💡 Why VCs Are Betting Big on Patent-Led Startups in India
In India’s ever-evolving startup landscape, one thing is becoming crystal clear: ideas alone aren’t enough. Investors are now looking for proof of real innovation, and the clearest sign of that? Intellectual Property (IP) — especially patents.
Gone are the days when startups could raise millions based on flashy pitches or vague promises of AI-powered disruption. In 2025, IP is the new currency, and deep-tech startups are leading the charge.
🚀 The Numbers Tell the Story
According to Tracxn, Indian startups focused on deep technology and backed by solid IP portfolios raised a whopping $994 million across 284 deals in 2024. And the momentum is only building — 47 IP-led startups have already attracted $220.5 million this year alone.
Names like Infinite Uptime, Bellatrix Aerospace, SpotDraft, and Attentive AI are drawing serious investor interest — and for good reason.
🛡️ Why Patents Matter More Than Ever
Venture capitalists are becoming increasingly cautious, especially in sectors like AI, where hype often outpaces substance. “We’re looking for proof of technical depth,” says Manu Iyer, Co-founder at Bluehill.vc.
Patents create barriers to entry, signal technical competence, and offer strategic advantages in global markets. They also act as safety nets — providing potential licensing revenues or sale value even if a startup needs to pivot.
🧠 The IP-Driven Startups Drawing Big Checks
Startups with a solid patent strategy are standing out. Think:
Ather Energy – innovating in EV and battery tech
Agnikul & Skyroot – pushing boundaries in space tech
Log9 Materials & Lohum – leading battery and recycling innovation
IdeaForge – soaring with drone technology
Niramai – reimagining health diagnostics with AI
These startups are backed by heavyweights like pi Ventures, Axilor, Temasek, GIC, Tiger Global, and InnoVen Capital — all of whom are putting their faith (and funds) into IP-backed innovation.
🔧 Real Innovation Over Assembly
Take Raptee. HV, a Chennai-based electric motorcycle startup. Unlike many others in the space, Raptee designs everything in-house — including its high-voltage powertrain. The company has filed 156 patents around its tech.
“We’re not just assembling off-the-shelf components,” says Co-founder and CEO Dinesh Arjun. “Our IP is what sets us apart — it proves we’re solving real problems with original engineering.”
🌍 Beyond India: IP Opens Global Doors
Beyond just securing funding, IP helps startups scale globally. It opens up new revenue streams through licensing, enables strategic partnerships, and most importantly, acts as a shield against legal battles or copycat competitors.
As Bhaskar Majumdar, Managing Partner at Unicorn India Ventures, puts it: “Startups with strong technical foundations and proprietary IP stand out in today’s noisy innovation landscape.”
📈 The Bottom Line
India’s startup ecosystem is maturing, and with it, VC expectations are evolving. The message is clear: deeptech, defensibility, and differentiation matter more than ever. In this new era, patents aren’t just paperwork — they’re power.
So, if you’re building the next big thing, don’t just chase the buzz. Build real tech. File those patents. And let your innovation speak for itself.
LPU Tops India in Innovation with Record 1,418 Patent Filings in 2023–24: Government Report
Lovely Professional University (LPU) has once again demonstrated its leadership in innovation by filing a total of 1,418 patent applications during the 2023-2024 academic year. This achievement is detailed in the Government of India’s Annual Report of Intellectual Property India for the 2023-2024 period. Notably, this figure surpasses the combined total of 1106 patent applications filed by all Indian Institutes of Technology (IITs) during the same timeframe.
Dr. Ashok Kumar Mittal, Member of Rajya Sabha and Founder Chancellor of LPU, expressed pride in the university’s research community, stating that their relentless dedication has significantly contributed to India’s global innovation standing. He emphasized that such accomplishments play a pivotal role in enhancing India’s position as a leading innovative economy worldwide.
Beyond patent filings, LPU’s research credentials are further bolstered by over 22,000 publications, 129,000 Scopus citations, and an H-Index of 118. The university also boasts more than 1,800 granted Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs), 9,450+ funded projects, and over 550 global collaborations. Notably, many LPU faculty members are recognized among the top 2% of scientists worldwide by Stanford University.
The Division of Research and Development (DRD) at LPU plays a pivotal role in fostering interdisciplinary research across STEM, Humanities, and Management disciplines. The university’s state-of-the-art laboratories and collaborative culture provide a robust ecosystem for innovation, addressing both societal challenges and global technological needs.
LPU’s exceptional performance in patent filings not only highlights its leadership in innovation but also significantly contributes to India’s standing as a top innovative economy globally.
Dr. Ashok Kumar Mittal, Member of Rajya Sabha and Founder Chancellor of LPU, expressed pride in the university’s research community, stating that their relentless dedication has significantly contributed to India’s global innovation standing. He emphasized that such accomplishments play a pivotal role in enhancing India’s position as a leading innovative economy worldwide.
Beyond patent filings, LPU’s research credentials are further bolstered by over 22,000 publications, 129,000 Scopus citations, and an H-Index of 118. The university also boasts more than 1,800 granted Intellectual Property Rights (IPRs), 9,450+ funded projects, and over 550 global collaborations. Notably, many LPU faculty members are recognized among the top 2% of scientists worldwide by Stanford University.
The Division of Research and Development (DRD) at LPU plays a pivotal role in fostering interdisciplinary research across STEM, Humanities, and Management disciplines. The university’s state-of-the-art laboratories and collaborative culture provide a robust ecosystem for innovation, addressing both societal challenges and global technological needs.
LPU’s exceptional performance in patent filings not only highlights its leadership in innovation but also significantly contributes to India’s standing as a top innovative economy globally.
Patents: A Hidden Cost Trap for Startups – How to Navigate Without Overspending
For many startups, patents seem like a necessary but one-time expense. However, the reality is far more complicated. Filing a patent might appear straightforward, but the costs involved are anything but. From legal fees and government charges to international filings and ongoing maintenance costs, the true expense of a U.S. patent can easily exceed $50,000 over its lifetime.
This hefty price tag raises questions for founders: Is patenting worth it? I’ve seen firsthand how many entrepreneurs hesitate to move forward with patent filings, uncertain whether the return on investment justifies the expenditure. However, skipping patents altogether can present even more dire consequences for your business:
A competitor could beat you to the patent office, locking you out of your own market.
Investors may lose interest if they don’t see a clear intellectual property (IP) strategy.
A legal battle might emerge just as your business gains momentum, forcing you into costly litigation.
So, the question isn’t whether you should patent, but rather how you can do so without draining your resources.
Strategies for Smart Patent Filing on a Budget
The key to navigating the patent process effectively is knowing where to focus your budget. Fortunately, it’s easier than you think. Here are some proven strategies to help you patent without overspending.
1. Identify High-Value Innovations for Patent Protection
Startups often make two costly mistakes when it comes to patents: over-patenting or under-patenting. Both can harm your business.
Under-patenting happens when startups fail to document and protect innovations, allowing valuable ideas to slip through the cracks. Without a structured process like Invention Disclosure Forms (IDFs), innovations may not be patented in time, especially when funds are limited.
Over-patenting involves filing patents for ideas that don’t significantly strengthen your market position. It’s akin to betting on every horse instead of choosing the one with the best odds of winning. Instead, focus on innovations that have the potential to generate revenue or block competitors.
To avoid these pitfalls, use a structured patentability assessment. This process, which involves input from R&D, legal teams, and business leaders, evaluates the patent’s business value, the likelihood of patenting success, and the associated costs. Only the most valuable ideas should move forward.
As a rule of thumb: If losing an idea wouldn’t hurt your business, don’t patent it.
2. Plan Your IP Budget Wisely
Filing a patent without a clear budget is risky and irresponsible. Many startups rush into patent applications, only to run out of funds midway through the process, leaving their filings incomplete or allowing issued patents to expire.
Patent costs accumulate in phases—drafting fees, prosecution costs, government fees, and maintenance costs after the patent is granted. The total cost can soar, especially when foreign patents are involved. If you only budget for the initial filing, you may be forced to abandon a patent midway as costs balloon.
To prevent this, set a comprehensive patent budget before you file. Ensure you account for all phases of the patenting process, from drafting through maintenance. It’s also crucial to discuss fixed-fee structures or end-to-end budgets with your attorney to avoid any surprise costs. Once the patent is in progress, use cost estimation tools to track your ongoing expenses.
A well-planned budget ensures that your patents work for you, not against you.
3. Use Smart Filing Strategies to Cut Costs
Cutting corners on patent filings can be tempting, but it often leads to rejections, poor strategy, or patents that are ineffective when needed most. Here are some smarter ways to save:
Provisional Patents: Start with a provisional patent. For as little as $140 in USPTO fees (with lower legal fees as well), a provisional patent locks in your filing date and gives you 12 months to refine your invention before committing to a full application.
Government Fee Discounts: If you qualify as a small or micro-entity, you can save 50-75% on USPTO fees. Many startups overlook this, leaving money on the table.
Foreign Filings: Avoid rushing into international filings unless you’re committed to those markets. Foreign patent costs can range from $5,000-$10,000 per country initially, with total costs reaching $25,000-$75,000. Start with U.S. filings, then use the PCT (Patent Cooperation Treaty) system to delay foreign decisions for up to 30 months, giving you more time to assess demand.
Avoid Excessive Prosecution: Don’t waste money on tough examination areas. Use predictor tools to steer clear of technologies where patenting is challenging. You can also analyze examiner statistics and request interviews to improve your chances of success. If your application is unlikely to succeed, consider abandoning it early to avoid sinking more money into a lost cause.
4. Prune Low-Value Patents to Cut Unnecessary Fees
Many startups waste up to 20% of their patent budget on patents that no longer serve their business needs. If a patent is no longer protecting a key technology or providing a competitive edge, there’s no reason to keep paying for it.
Review your patent portfolio annually and study does this patent still align with my business strategy? If not, consider dropping it, selling it, or licensing it to recover costs. If your business has exited a market, stop paying for patents in that market.
5. Use Data, Not Guesswork
Smart patenting isn’t about making intuitive decisions—it’s about using data to guide your moves. The right tools can assess the likelihood of approval, predict overall patenting costs, and reveal cost-saving opportunities. This data-driven approach helps you determine which patents are worth pursuing and maintaining.
Successful innovation managers don’t file patents blindly; they track, analyze, and adjust based on data. If you want to win, adopt the same strategy.
Could Intellectual Property Retaliation Be the Game-Changer in Trade Wars?
In response to President Donald Trump’s tariff policies, many countries are considering retaliation, primarily through higher tariffs and import restrictions. While these measures may impact the U.S. economy, they also pose risks for the countries imposing them. The goal is to make the pain felt in the U.S. greater than the consequences suffered by the retaliating nation. While this strategy may hold true in many cases, countries like the European Union (EU), Canada, and other trading partners could take a more direct and potentially more damaging approach—targeting the United States’ intellectual property (IP) rights.
Intellectual property, particularly patents and copyrights, has long been a cornerstone of U.S. economic dominance. In 2024, the United States received nearly $150 billion in royalties and licensing fees alone, which makes up over 5% of total after-tax corporate profits. But these fees represent only the direct payments for IP use; they don’t account for embedded costs in products like software and technology, which are often used globally in consumer goods.
One possible retaliatory strategy involves countries announcing that they will no longer respect U.S. patents and copyrights for as long as Donald Trump continues his tariff policies. This kind of action would target U.S. companies that rely on their intellectual property rights for profit, such as tech giants like Microsoft and pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer and Merck.
The concept of not honoring foreign patents is not without precedent. During World War I, the U.S. invoked the Trading with the Enemy Act to allow the compulsory licensing of patents held by German companies. This measure allowed U.S. businesses to use these patents without permission, as long as they paid a minimal licensing fee set by the U.S. government. Countries like Canada, the EU, and others could implement a similar policy to challenge the United States’ trade practices.
The potential benefits of this type of retaliation are twofold. First, it would allow consumers in the retaliating countries to access cheaper products—such as generic drugs, which could drastically reduce the cost of life-saving medications like those used in cancer and heart disease treatments. Second, it would lower the cost of everyday goods like computers, by bypassing the licensing fees for software from companies like Microsoft.
For consumers, this could mean cheaper access to essential products and technologies, making it a win-win situation. Imagine having access to affordable generics of expensive drugs or the latest software without the added cost of licensing fees. This approach would directly benefit the people in those countries, and it would provide a powerful counterweight to the economic challenges posed by Trump’s tariffs.
Such an approach would also hit U.S. corporations where it hurts—potentially changing the landscape of global trade in ways that tariffs alone may not. If other nations got accustomed to accessing cheap drugs, software, and entertainment content, it could shift global perceptions of U.S. intellectual property practices. This shift could permanently disrupt the revenue models of many major U.S. companies that rely on high licensing fees and patent monopolies. For instance, without the constraints of patent monopolies, Americans themselves could spend far less on prescription drugs—possibly saving around $550 billion annually.
Intellectual property, particularly patents and copyrights, has long been a cornerstone of U.S. economic dominance. In 2024, the United States received nearly $150 billion in royalties and licensing fees alone, which makes up over 5% of total after-tax corporate profits. But these fees represent only the direct payments for IP use; they don’t account for embedded costs in products like software and technology, which are often used globally in consumer goods.
One possible retaliatory strategy involves countries announcing that they will no longer respect U.S. patents and copyrights for as long as Donald Trump continues his tariff policies. This kind of action would target U.S. companies that rely on their intellectual property rights for profit, such as tech giants like Microsoft and pharmaceutical companies like Pfizer and Merck.
The concept of not honoring foreign patents is not without precedent. During World War I, the U.S. invoked the Trading with the Enemy Act to allow the compulsory licensing of patents held by German companies. This measure allowed U.S. businesses to use these patents without permission, as long as they paid a minimal licensing fee set by the U.S. government. Countries like Canada, the EU, and others could implement a similar policy to challenge the United States’ trade practices.
The potential benefits of this type of retaliation are twofold. First, it would allow consumers in the retaliating countries to access cheaper products—such as generic drugs, which could drastically reduce the cost of life-saving medications like those used in cancer and heart disease treatments. Second, it would lower the cost of everyday goods like computers, by bypassing the licensing fees for software from companies like Microsoft.
For consumers, this could mean cheaper access to essential products and technologies, making it a win-win situation. Imagine having access to affordable generics of expensive drugs or the latest software without the added cost of licensing fees. This approach would directly benefit the people in those countries, and it would provide a powerful counterweight to the economic challenges posed by Trump’s tariffs.
Such an approach would also hit U.S. corporations where it hurts—potentially changing the landscape of global trade in ways that tariffs alone may not. If other nations got accustomed to accessing cheap drugs, software, and entertainment content, it could shift global perceptions of U.S. intellectual property practices. This shift could permanently disrupt the revenue models of many major U.S. companies that rely on high licensing fees and patent monopolies. For instance, without the constraints of patent monopolies, Americans themselves could spend far less on prescription drugs—possibly saving around $550 billion annually.
Innovation Thrives Amid Global Uncertainty: EPO Patent Index 2024 Reports Robust Activity
Despite ongoing global economic uncertainties, innovation continues to thrive as companies and inventors worldwide filed a total of 199,264 patent applications at the European Patent Office (EPO) in 2024, according to the newly released Patent Index 2024. This marks a slight dip of 0.1% compared to the previous year, which saw 199,452 applications. The stability in patent filings follows three years of substantial growth, underscoring the resilience of the innovation ecosystem.
The report highlights a 0.3% increase in patent filings from European countries, which include all 39 EPO member states. Meanwhile, filings from outside Europe showed a marginal decline of 0.4%. EPO President António Campinos emphasized that the robust patent activity amid global challenges reflects the ongoing commitment to research and development across industries, particularly in Europe.
“Despite political and economic challenges, European companies and inventors have maintained their momentum in filing patents, showcasing their technological capabilities and ongoing investments in R&D,” said Campinos. “The EPO’s data serves as a strategic roadmap for industries, policymakers, and investors. As outlined in the Draghi and Letta reports, Europe must continue to strengthen its innovation ecosystem, particularly in critical sectors such as green technologies, artificial intelligence, and semiconductors, to remain competitive on the global stage.”
Technological Leadership in Computer and Clean Energy Fields
In 2024, computer technology emerged as the leading sector for patent filings, with a total of 16,815 applications. This category, which includes artificial intelligence innovations like machine learning and pattern recognition, marked the first time it topped the patent charts. Meanwhile, the electrical machinery and clean energy sectors experienced the most significant growth, with a notable 8.9% increase in patent filings. Within this, innovations in battery technology were particularly prominent, surging by 24% as the world continues to push for advancements in sustainable energy.
Global Patent Trends: Shifts in Origins and Growth Patterns
The United States remained the leading country of origin for EPO patent applications, followed by Germany, Japan, China, and South Korea. Collectively, EPO member states accounted for 43% of total filings, while 57% came from outside Europe. South Korea showed the most notable growth, with a 4.2% increase in applications, while filings from the U.S. and Japan saw slight declines of 0.8% and 2.4%, respectively. China, on the other hand, saw a modest increase of 0.5%.
The Role of Large Corporations in Driving Innovation
Large companies continue to dominate the patenting landscape. South Korea’s Samsung emerged as the top applicant in 2024, a position it last held in 2020. The company overtook Huawei, which dropped to second place. Other major players in the top 10 include LG, Qualcomm, and RTX. Notably, the list includes companies from diverse regions: four from Europe, two from South Korea, two from the United States, and one each from China and Japan.
Supporting Small Businesses and Individual Inventors
The EPO also reported a significant contribution from smaller entities. In 2024, 22% of patent applications from Europe came from individual inventors or small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs), which are defined as companies with fewer than 250 employees. Furthermore, 7% of the applications originated from universities and public research institutions. This highlights the appeal of the patent system to smaller innovators, a trend that has been reinforced by the EPO’s 2024 fee reductions for micro-enterprises, non-profits, and academic institutions.
Progress in Gender Diversity
Another noteworthy development is the growing inclusion of women in the innovation process. In 2024, 25% of all patent applications to the EPO from Europe listed at least one female inventor. Among major filing countries, Spain led the way with 42% female inventor participation, followed by Belgium (32%) and France (31%).
As Europe continues to navigate political and economic challenges, the Patent Index 2024 demonstrates that innovation remains a key pillar of economic resilience. The steady stream of patent filings reflects not only technological advancement but also the enduring global commitment to shaping a more sustainable and digitally advanced future.
Jio Platforms Achieves Milestone with Two Major Intellectual Property Awards, Strengthening India’s Digital Sovereignty
Jio Platforms Limited (JPL), a leading technology company, today announced a momentous achievement in its journey towards advancing India’s technological sovereignty and digital independence. The Jio was honored with two prestigious intellectual property awards by the Government of India and WIPO for its outstanding contributions to technology and innovation. The awards were presented at a ceremony held in New Delhi.
These accolades not only celebrate JPL’s remarkable intellectual property achievements but also highlight the company’s significant role in supporting India’s Aatmanirbhar (self-reliant) vision, particularly within the telecommunications sector.
JPL’s intellectual property strategy is closely aligned with the Government of India’s ‘Viksit Bharat 2047’ initiative, which aims to transform India into a developed economy by promoting technological innovation, digital transformation, and fostering homegrown technological capabilities. As the Indian government works to realize the Bharat 6G vision, JPL is positioned at the forefront of this technological revolution.
With a strong foundation in research and development and a proven track record of deploying indigenous technologies in 5G and Artificial Intelligence (AI), JPL is set to play a key role in shaping the future of India’s telecommunications landscape. Over the past three years, the company has filed more than 4,000 global patent applications, marking a significant leap in India’s intellectual property ecosystem.
These patents span cutting-edge domains in telecommunications, digital technologies, AI, and other emerging fields, establishing JPL as a global leader in technological innovation.
About Jio Platforms Limited:
Jio Platforms Limited, a subsidiary of Reliance Industries Limited, has built a world-class, future-proof, all-IP data network with state-of-the-art 5G and 4G LTE technology through its wholly owned subsidiary, Reliance Jio Infocomm Limited. The network is the only one conceived and built as a Mobile Video Network from the ground up, supporting Voice over LTE technology. It is designed to be future-ready, with easy scalability to support more data as technologies evolve toward 6G and beyond.
Jio has been a transformative force in India’s digital services landscape, enabling the vision of Digital India for over 1.4 billion Indians. The company’s ecosystem encompasses networks, devices, applications, content platforms, service experiences, and affordable tariffs, empowering everyone to live the Jio Digital Life.
Conflict Between Plant Variety Denominations and Trademarks: A Comparative Analysis Across Jurisdictions
In today’s globalized marketplace, intellectual property (IP) law plays a critical role in protecting the rights of creators, innovators, and businesses. Two common forms of IP protection that frequently intersect are plant variety denominations (PVDs) and trademarks. While both legal mechanisms serve distinct purposes, the conflict between them has become increasingly relevant in agricultural and commercial sectors, especially as the international trade of genetically modified (GM) crops and plant products has expanded. This article provides a comprehensive multi-jurisdictional comparison of the conflict between plant variety denominations and trademarks, highlighting the legal frameworks, challenges, and strategies employed by various jurisdictions to address this issue.
Understanding Plant Variety Denominations and Trademarks
Plant Variety Denominations (PVDs)
A Plant Variety Denomination (PVD) refers to the name given to a new plant variety to distinguish it from other varieties. Under the International Convention for the Protection of New Varieties of Plants (UPOV), breeders of new plant varieties are required to assign a unique denomination. The main objective of a PVD is to provide uniformity and consistency in identifying plant varieties and ensuring that breeders and farmers can clearly distinguish one variety from another.
Trademarks
It typically consists of a word, logo, slogan, or other design element, and is registered with the relevant IP office for protection against unauthorized use by competitors. Trademarks serve to protect the reputation of a product or service and ensure consumers can identify the source of goods.
The Conflict
The conflict arises when the same name is used for both a plant variety denomination and a trademark. This situation creates confusion in the marketplace and may lead to legal disputes. On one hand, PVDs are intended to be public identifiers that cannot be monopolized for commercial purposes, while trademarks serve to protect commercial interests. The tension arises when these distinct legal protections overlap, leading to complex legal questions regarding priority, use, and enforcement.
The Key Issues in the Conflict Between PVDs and Trademarks
Prioritization of Rights
The most fundamental issue is which right takes precedence: the plant variety denomination or the trademark? For instance, a company may register a trademark for a product using a specific plant variety’s name, but a breeder may later apply for a PVD for that very variety. Which right should prevail when the two overlap?
Geographical Jurisdictions and Conflicting Laws
The regulation of plant variety denominations and trademarks varies widely across jurisdictions, creating additional layers of complexity. Some countries, such as the United States and the European Union, have distinct laws regarding PVDs and trademarks, with clear guidelines on how to handle conflicts. Others, like India, have emerging or less defined laws that can lead to uncertainty for businesses and breeders.
Market Confusion and Consumer Protection
Both PVDs and trademarks are intended to prevent consumer confusion. However, when a plant variety name is also used as a trademark, it can be unclear whether the product in question refers to the plant variety or the commercial source. This confusion can lead to misbranding, deceptive advertising, and unfair competition, all of which affect consumer choice and protection.
Global Trade and Plant Breeding Innovation
The international trade of plants and plant products has amplified the need for clarity regarding the protection of plant variety denominations and trademarks. The rise of genetically modified organisms (GMOs) and cross-border plant sales has made it more crucial than ever to determine the rules for competing intellectual property claims that affect international trade.
Multi-Jurisdictional Approaches to the Conflict
United States
In the United States, plant variety denominations are governed by the Plant Variety Protection Act (PVPA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) Plant Variety Protection Office (PVPO). Under the PVPA, a plant variety is granted protection if it is novel, distinct, uniform, and stable. The denomination given to the variety must not conflict with any existing trademarks.
However, the U.S. allows for the coexistence of PVDs and trademarks. When a plant variety denomination is similar to an existing trademark, the trademark holder may challenge the use of the name in court, citing the likelihood of confusion. Additionally, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) evaluates trademark applications to ensure that they do not conflict with prior PVDs.
In practice, this means that while a plant variety name may be protected as a PVD, it could be subject to trademark protection if used commercially for branding purposes, provided that there is no conflict with existing trademarks. In case of conflicts, courts or administrative bodies can weigh the competing rights and determine which right prevails.
European Union
In the European Union, the conflict between PVDs and trademarks is addressed through a well-established legal framework. The European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) handles trademark registration, while the Community Plant Variety Office (CPVO) manages plant variety denominations.
Under EU law, a plant variety denomination cannot be registered as a trademark if it is identical or confusingly similar to an existing PVD. This rule is designed to prevent consumers from being misled about the nature of the product. Additionally, the CPVO requires that any name used for a plant variety must not conflict with existing trademarks in the marketplace.
In the case of a trademark conflict with a PVD, the EUIPO and CPVO cooperate to assess the potential for consumer confusion. If a trademark application conflicts with a registered PVD, the trademark registration is likely to be refused. This system ensures that plant variety names are kept distinct and not used in a way that could deceive consumers.
India
India has a unique approach to plant variety denominations and trademarks. The Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers’ Rights Act (PPV&FR Act) governs the registration of plant variety denominations in India. The Indian Trademark Act allows for the registration of trademarks related to plants and agricultural products, but there are no specific provisions dealing with conflicts between PVDs and trademarks.
In practice, Indian authorities evaluate whether a plant variety denomination conflicts with a trademark on a case-by-case basis. If the same name is used for both a plant variety and a trademark, Indian courts may rule that the trademark has priority if it was registered first, or they may enforce the PVD if it is determined to be the dominant interest.
Given the developing nature of India’s IP laws, there is still a level of uncertainty in the enforcement of rights related to plant varieties and trademarks. However, the Indian government has been working toward improving the legal framework to ensure clearer distinctions between the two.
Australia
Australia’s approach to the conflict between PVDs and trademarks is guided by the Plant Breeder’s Rights Act (PBR Act) and the Trade Marks Act. Under the PBR Act, the name of a plant variety must be distinctive and not cause confusion with existing trademarks. If there is a conflict, the trademark may be denied if it is found to infringe upon the rights of a registered plant variety denomination.
The Australian system allows for the coexistence of PVDs and trademarks, but businesses must carefully navigate both legal processes to avoid conflicts. When a plant variety denomination and a trademark are identical or confusingly similar, the Australian IP office assesses the likelihood of confusion and takes necessary action to ensure consumer protection and prevent unfair competition.
Conclusion
The conflict between plant variety denominations and trademarks is a complex and evolving issue in global intellectual property law. While PVDs and trademarks serve distinct functions, their overlap in the marketplace presents significant challenges for businesses, breeders, and IP authorities. Jurisdictions such as the United States, European Union, India, and Australia have developed frameworks to handle these conflicts, though the solutions often vary based on local legal cultures and practices.
As international trade and agricultural innovations continue to advance, it is crucial for policymakers to refine existing laws and ensure that the interests of plant breeders, trademark holders, and consumers are balanced. Stakeholders in the agricultural sector must be aware of the potential for conflict and consider legal strategies to protect their interests in both plant variety denominations and trademarks.