trademark

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.

PIL Filed in Supreme Court Against Trademarking of “Operation Sindoor”

by

A Public Interest Litigation (PIL) has been filed in the Supreme Court of India challenging attempts to trademark the term “Operation Sindoor,” which is associated with India’s recent cross-border military strike targeting terrorist infrastructure in Pakistan. The plea, filed by advocate Dev Ashish Dubey, contends that the term should remain in the public domain as a symbol of national sacrifice and military valor, and must not be subject to commercial exploitation.

Symbol of National Mourning and Valor

“Operation Sindoor” was the code name attributed to a high-profile military operation carried out in April 2025 following a series of terrorist attacks on Indian soil. The operation garnered widespread national attention and has since become emblematic of India’s counter-terrorism resolve. According to the petitioner, the term has deep emotional and patriotic significance, representing both the grief of the nation and the courage of its armed forces.

Dubey argued in his petition that allowing the term to be trademarked for commercial purposes—particularly for use in entertainment and educational services—would undermine its solemnity. “This term is now a part of national memory,” the plea states. “To commercialize it is to trivialize the sacrifices of the martyrs and disrespect the sentiments of their families.”

Corporate Involvement and Controversy

Among them was an application by Mukesh Ambani-led Reliance Industries Limited (RIL), which had applied for the trademark under Class 41, covering services related to media, education, and entertainment.

In a public statement, the conglomerate clarified that the filing was made “without proper authorization” by a junior employee and was promptly retracted upon internal review.

Despite the withdrawal, the PIL notes that other private entities have also submitted trademark applications for the term, raising concerns about potential misuse in films, web series, and other commercial content.

Legal Arguments

The petition invokes Section 9 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, which prohibits the registration of terms that are likely to hurt public sentiment or are devoid of distinctive character in the commercial sense. Dubey’s plea argues that “Operation Sindoor” falls within this exception due to its symbolic association with a national tragedy and its lack of commercial originality.

“This is not a brand name or an invented phrase,” Dubey said. “It is a descriptor of a solemn military campaign, and it belongs to the people of India, not to any corporate entity or private individual.”

Call for Judicial Intervention

The petitioner has urged the Supreme Court to direct the Registrar of Trademarks to reject any current or future applications seeking to register “Operation Sindoor” as a trademark. The PIL also seeks broader guidelines to prevent similar attempts to commercialize terms tied to national security or military actions.

However, legal experts suggest that the case could set a precedent regarding the ethical and legal limits of branding sensitive national events.

Public Reaction

The PIL has received support from several quarters, including veterans’ associations and civil society groups. Many believe that the term should be preserved as a collective symbol of national pride and not repurposed for profit.

With the Supreme Court expected to weigh in on the matter, the case is likely to spark a larger conversation around the commodification of national symbols and the need for legislative safeguards against such practices.

Agfa Loses Patent Dispute Against Gucci Over Leather Decoration Method

by
Printing technology company Agfa has filed a patent infringement lawsuit against luxury fashion house Gucci, alleging unauthorized use of its patented method for decorating natural leather. The legal battle centered on Agfa’s European patent EP 3 388 490, which covers a process for embellishing leather surfaces with decorative images—a technique the company considers vital to its future innovation strategy.

The dispute specifically involved Gucci’s Pikarar Collection, which Agfa claimed employed its patented method without authorization. However, the Local Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) in Hamburg dismissed both Agfa’s infringement claim and Gucci’s counterclaim for patent invalidation (Case ID: ACT_561734/2023).

Presiding Judge Sabine Klepsch and her panel deemed both the infringement action and the revocation counterclaim admissible, but ultimately ruled against both parties. The court’s decision was based on a detailed analysis of the patent language, drawing on precedent established in earlier UPC rulings, such as the NanoString vs. 10x Genomics case. The court concluded that the interpretation of certain terms in the patent should differ from their conventional meanings, resulting in a finding of no infringement on Gucci’s part.

This case marks the first time a luxury fashion brand has been involved in litigation before the newly established Unified Patent Court. The ruling offers some relief to the fashion industry, although Agfa still has the option to appeal.

Agfa was represented by a legal team jointly led by Daan de Lange of the Netherlands and Kai Rüting of Germany. The case also marked the first major matter handled by Vossius Brinkhof UPC Litigators, a new collaboration between Dutch and German law firms. Other members of the legal team included Stefan Fickert, Ananda Landwehr, Leonie Dissmann-Fuchs, Elard Schenck zu Schweinsberg, Isabelle Kleinveld, and Alexander de Leeuw. Hans Louis Strijckers managed the case internally for Agfa.

Although the decision did not go in Agfa’s favor, the company’s aggressive defense of its patent portfolio signals its strategic focus on emerging technologies in leather decoration.

AI Tools Accelerate Insights in CAR T-Cell Therapy Research for Multiple Myeloma

by
A research team focused on advancing chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T-cell therapies has harnessed artificial intelligence tools to streamline data analysis and extract key insights in the field. Their work was highlighted as part of the late-breaking research presented at the 2025 American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) Annual Meeting in Chicago, Illinois.

The investigators explored the evolving landscape of CAR T-cell treatments for multiple myeloma (MM) by leveraging two AI-powered platforms: BiblioEngine, developed by 23Strands, and Cool.AF from Neural Hinge. These tools were used to mine publicly accessible clinical literature, with a focus on manufacturing methods, clinical trial structures, and therapeutic outcomes. The team also conducted a comprehensive review of related patent filings across jurisdictions including the United States, European Union, and India.

By utilizing AI-driven analytics, the researchers efficiently processed large volumes of data and identified emerging trends in how CAR T-cell therapies are developed and applied in real-world clinical settings. The tools enabled detailed comparisons between datasets, shedding light on factors influencing successful patent applications and highlighting the structure of collaborative networks among researchers in the field.

The analysis not only revealed current gaps in MM treatment strategies but also pointed to opportunities for future innovation and patent development. These findings are expected to guide more strategic clinical trial design and support intellectual property planning that avoids overlap with existing patents.

Moreover, the team’s work identified opportunities to foster new research partnerships by mapping the relationships among authors in the field, potentially expanding the collaborative network and accelerating progress in CAR T-cell therapy innovation.

Heron Therapeutics Reaches Patent Settlement with Mylan Over Cancer-Related Drugs

by
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.

Flux Power Holdings Secures Patent for Groundbreaking AI-Powered Battery Cycle Life Maximization Algorithm

by
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.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Invalidates Patents Over Functional Claim Language in “Payment Handler” Case: Implications for AI Patents

by
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.