Intellectual Property Law Newsletter | January 2026

Welcome to the January 2026 edition of our Intellectual Property Newsletter, bringing together key legal, regulatory, and industry developments shaping the global IP landscape. This edition highlights important updates in patent, trademark, and copyright law across India and internationally, including India's shift toward monetary penalties for certain patent offences, warnings against unauthorized trademark registration services, and global developments such as strengthened prior-art standards under the WIPO PCT system and evolving patent examination practices for artificial intelligence technologies.

We also analyze significant judicial decisions from Indian and international courts involving standard essential patents, software patentability, trademark distinctiveness, well-known marks, and access to life-saving pharmaceuticals. In addition, this issue explores emerging trends in IP licensing, technology transactions, and the growing convergence of intellectual property with artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and digital media.

The Weird & Wonderful - Bizarre IP Cases

Apparatuses and methods for smart pet alert, and storage medium: US Patent 10,231,442 covers a smart pet alert system that detects intentional animal behavior using distributed sensors and interprets it to send owner notifications or trigger connected devices. By analyzing patterns such as paw pressure or motion signatures, the system distinguishes purposeful requests from random activity, enabling pets to "communicate" needs via automated alerts, smart feeder activations, or smart door openings. It blends IoT, pattern recognition, and human-pet interaction in a way that feels both useful and surprisingly clever.

[Source]

Legal & Regulatory Updates

India

India's Patent Enforcement Shift: Decriminalization and Monetary Penalties under the Patents (Amendment) Rules, 2025

The Patent (Amendment) Rules, 2025, which came into practical effect in January 2026, operationalize the reforms introduced by the Jan Vishwas (Amendment of Provisions) Act, 2023 by changing how certain offences under the Patents Act, 1970 are enforced. These rules shift the regime from criminal punishment to civil, monetary penalties, removing imprisonment for procedural and compliance-related violations such as making false or unauthorized claims of patent rights or failing to furnish required information to the Patent Office. Instead, such contraventions are now handled through administrative adjudication by designated officers, with prescribed penalty ranges and an appeal mechanism, reflecting a broader policy move toward decriminalization, ease of doing business, and faster regulatory enforcement in patent administration.

Trademark Office Warns Against Unauthorized Online Registration Services

In January 2026, the Indian Trademark Office issued a crucial public notice, cautioning stakeholders against online platforms offering "assured" trademark registration and legal services without proper authorization. This advisory is particularly significant for startups and SMEs, who are often vulnerable to misleading claims, fraudulent payment demands, and fake communications from unregistered agents. The notice highlights the importance of engaging only with registered trademark agents or advocates to ensure legitimate and secure IP protection.

[Source]

Global Updates

WIPO / PCT System: Stronger Prior-Art Standards from January 2026

Since 1 January 2026 onwards, amendments to the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) PCT Regulations came into force, significantly strengthening international patent search and examination quality. The changes expand the minimum documentation that International Search Authorities (ISAs) must consult and broaden the definition of relevant prior art to include non-written disclosures (such as public use or oral disclosures). In parallel, the reforms enhance full text patent data exchange among patent offices, improving transparency, consistency, and the reliability of international search reports, with direct implications for novelty and inventive-step assessments worldwide.

[Source]

China: Tighter Inventive-Step Scrutiny for AI and Algorithms

In early 2026, the China National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) continued implementing examiner-level guidance that tightens inventive-step analysis for AI- and algorithm-related patent applications. Examiners increasingly require applicants to demonstrate a concrete technical effect or technical contribution, such as improvements in computing efficiency, system performance, or hardware interaction, while discouraging claims directed merely to abstract algorithms, business logic, or data processing rules. This trend, visible in office actions issued in January 2026, signals China's firm stance against over-broad AI patenting while still supporting protection for genuinely technical AI innovations.

Iconic Works Enter the Public Domain in 2026

As of January 2026, a new wave of notable works has entered the public domain in the US, including Disney's early animations like "The Chain Gang" and "The Picnic," and Agatha Christie's classic "The Murder at the Vicarage." This development opens up significant opportunities for brands and creators, allowing for the legal reuse and adaptation of these original works. However, it's crucial to remember that existing trademark rights can still impose restrictions on branding, merchandising, and commercial exploitation, requiring careful legal review

[Source]

EU and India Conclude Landmark Free Trade Agreement

January 2026 saw the successful conclusion of negotiations for a major Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and India. This agreement is poised to significantly reshape market access and tariff structures between the two economic blocs. For businesses, particularly those involved in intellectual property, the focus should extend beyond tariffs to the accompanying IP and GI enforcement architecture. This framework will likely influence how origin-linked goods are protected and how branding disputes are resolved across borders, necessitating a close watch on its implementation.

[Source]

Deep Dive of the Trending Cases

India

Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Maj. (Retd.) Sukesh Behl & Ors.

The Delhi High Court (Division Bench) on 5 January 2026 stayed the execution of money decree arising from a patent infringement suit filed by Koninklijke Philips N.V. concerning Indian Patent IN 218255, a Standard Essential Patent (SEP) covering EFM+ technology used in DVDs. The Single Judge had earlier held DVD replicators liable for infringement of Claim 12 (product/record-carrier claim) of the patent, and awarded a substantial amount of damages, rendering injunctive relief ineffectual. Although the Division Bench did not interfere with infringement, patent validity, SEP, and the royalty rate applicable to the FRAND of USD 0.03 per DVD findings, the court found that the calculation of damages was prima facie invalid because the trial court had assumed production amounts (e.g., 10,000 DVDs per stamper) without any evidence. The Court found this to be an extraordinary case because it deserved a limited relief and thus barred the decree execution pending the provision of unconditioned bank guarantees by the appellants in respect of the principal damages.

DLL Analysis: Under section 48 of the Patents Act, 1970, a patentee is granted exclusive rights to avert the third party to produce, use, sell, or even offer a patented product or a product obtained by a patented process. In this case, Koninklijke Philips N.V. enforced its Standard Essential Patent (IN 218255) covering EFM+ DVD technology, and the court held that the infringement arose from the sale of DVDs containing EFM+ encoded data, as claim 12 was a product claim. While upholding findings on infringement, validity, SEP status, and FRAND royalty, the Court cautioned that damages cannot be based on speculative assumptions, granting only a conditional stay subject to bank guarantees.

[Source]

Flipkart Internet Private Ltd. v. Voicemonk Inc. & Anr.

The Madras High Court on 5 January 2026 ruled against the appeal filed by the Flipkart Internet Private Ltd. And upheld the decision on behalf of Indian patent No. 312437 granted to Voicemonk Inc. which includes virtual-agent system that execute user driven actions using NLP (natural language processing) and gives a single consolidated output. The court held that the Joint Controller of patents had examined the patent in detail and had found that the invention under Indian patent No. 312437 was novel, involved an inventive step, and produced a technical effect, thereby not being barred under Section 3(k) as a mere computer program. Hence, the court firmly rejected the post grant opposition filed by the Flipkart as there was no violation of patents laws, the Court concluded that the Controller's order was reasoned and lawful, and accordingly dismissed the appeal, allowing the patent to continue in force.

DLL Analysis: Patents rights can be defeated in a post-grant opposition if there is clear evidence that the patent lack novel, inventive step and technical utility. As in this case, the Madaras High Court upheld the Patent of Voicemonk's virtual-agent system and rejected the Flipkart's post opposition grant, holding that the disclosed invention is novel, non-obvious and has technical feature and technical effects, and was not barred under Section 3(k) as a computer program per se. The Court emphasized that, on a reasoned patent office analysis the software based inventions are patentable if they demonstrate technical contribution.

[Source]

Delhi HC rules English Alphabets cannot be monopolized

In a notable January 2026 trademark judgment, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court (Delhi HC) rejected an injunction in a pharmaceutical trademark dispute. The Delhi HC held that single English alphabets or literal sequences (such as A, B, C...) cannot be monopolized as trademarks in the abstract, and that claims to such exclusive rights cannot succeed merely by virtue of registration if the mark lacks distinctiveness. The Court observed that allowing monopoly over an individual letter would unduly restrict competition and run counter to foundational principles of trademark law.

DLL Analysis: The decision is significant for brand owners as well as IP Professionals as it emphasizes the limitations on claiming proprietary rights over elemental or generic components of language. It therefore reinforces the requirement of distinctiveness as a threshold for protection and provides practical examples on how courts will assess claims relying on prima facie distinctiveness of alphanumeric or simple alphabetic marks.

[Source]

Delhi High Court Grants Ex-Parte Injunction in KVIC v. Khadi Veda

In Khadi and Village Industries Commission v. Enduring Body Care LLP & Ors, the Delhi High Court granted an ex-parte ad interim injunction restraining the use of the mark KHADI VEDA in relation to cosmetics and related products, finding a strong prima facie case of trade mark infringement and passing off. The Court observed that the plaintiff, a statutory body with longstanding proprietary rights in the KHADI mark, which was also judicially recognized as a well-known trademark had demonstrated likely consumer confusion and deceptive association owing to the defendants' continued use of the impugned mark despite repeated cease and desist notices. The court further noted indications of dishonest adoption of the well-known KHADI mark and, applying a balance of convenience analysis, held that refusal of interim relief would result in irreparable harm to the plaintiff's goodwill. As a result, the Court not only restrained the defendants from using the impugned mark in trade names and advertising but also ordered suspension of domain names and removal of e-commerce listings bearing the mark.

DLL Analysis: The case reiterates immense protection afforded to well-known trademarks in India, particularly when the mark holds significant public recognition and statutory backing. It also emphasizes the judiciary's proactive stance in preventing consumer confusion and safeguarding established goodwill. This ruling serves as a crucial reminder for businesses to conduct thorough trademark clearance searches, especially when adopting marks that incorporate elements of well-known brands and reiterates the importance of swift legal action against infringing activities.

[Source]

Globally

Apple Inc. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC

On 21 January 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Apple Inc. v. Smart Mobile Technologies LLC partly reversed and remanded a PTAB decision upholding claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,472,936, which relates to wireless antenna and dynamic data-stream configuration technology. The invention comprises of a mobile communication system in which antenna paths and data streams are dynamically configured based on operating conditions to improve wireless performance and signal efficiency. It enables automatic reconfiguration of antenna resources without requiring direct user intervention. The Court held that issue preclusion is applied because the challenged independent claim was materially identical to a claim previously invalidated in a related patent, and therefore could not be sustained again. While affirming the PTAB's construction of "dynamically configurable" as allowing configuration without user intervention, the Court reversed the validity finding for the independent claim, vacated the decision on dependent claims, and remanded the matter for fresh consideration.

DLL Analysis: This decision reinforces the principle that patent validity determination is not endlessly re-litigable once a materially identical claim has been finally adjugated. By applying issue preclusion, the Federal Circuit clarified that when an independent claim is substantively the same as a claim previously held unpatentable, a patentee cannot obtain a different outcome in a subsequent PTAB proceeding. The Court also reaffirmed disciplined claim construction, holding that "dynamically configurable" may include automatic configuration without user input when supported by the specification. Importantly, the ruling underscores procedural fairness in PTAB review: dependent claims must be separately assessed, not assumed to stand or fall with an independent claim. Overall, the case strengthens consistency in U.S. patent adjudication, limits strategic re-assertion of invalid claims, and provides guidance for engineering patentees on drafting distinct claim scope to avoid preclusion risks.

[Source]

UPC Rejects Patent Infringement Claims Against Google's Android Location Services

On 15 January 2026, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court dismissed an infringement action against Google patent NO.EP 2263098B1, a patent covering location determination technology using signaling devices. The Court held that Google's Android based services, including "Find My Device", did not infringe because the patented "positioning engine" requires a single device containing all claimed components, which Google's distributed architecture lacks. The Court also clarified that partial feature overlap cannot establish direct infringement. Google's counterclaim for revocation was likewise dismissed, leaving the patent formally valid but unenforced. The decision underscores the UPC's strict, claim to claim approach for software driven engineering patents.

DLL Analysis: The UPC's 15 January 2026 decision highlights its strict, claim-focused approach to software and engineering patents. The Court dismissed infringement claims against Google because the patent required a single, integrated "positioning engine," whereas Google's location services use a distributed architecture, showing that partial functional overlap is insufficient for direct infringement. This decision reinforced procedural discipline by rejecting an indirect infringement arguments and prioritizing patent register ownership over entitlement disputes. While the patent survived the validity challenges, it also underscores that patents must be carefully drafted to reflect real world, cloud-based system designs to succeed before the UPC.

[Source]

"Beckham v Beckham" A case studying Trademark Control

Recent coverage surrounding the "Beckham vs. Beckham" family dispute has brought into sharp focus the complexities of celebrity families treating their names as commercial assets. This case serves as a timely reminder of how trademarking, licensing and controlling personal names can lead to friction when individual family members pursue independent business ventures. It highlights the critical importance of clearly defining "who owns the name" as a real-world constraint on endorsements, product lines, and even social media branding strategies.

DLL Analysis: "Beckham v. Beckham" emphasizes the critical need for clear intellectual property strategies. This dispute, likely centered on trademark ownership and licensing, highlights how individual family members pursuing independent ventures can create friction if the rights to use the shared name for endorsements, product lines, or social media branding are not explicitly defined and controlled. It serves as a potent reminder that proactive IP management, including precise trademark registrations and comprehensive licensing agreements, is essential to prevent internal conflicts and protect the commercial value of a family's name.

[Source]

Litigation Highlights & Practice Area

Delhi High Court Reiterates Limits on Ex Parte Patent Injunctions

On 28 January 2026, the Delhi High Court refused to continue an ex parte interim injunction in a patent infringement suit involving industrial machinery, holding that mere patent grant and assertion of infringement are insufficient to sustain injunctive relief without a prima facie analysis of claim construction, validity challenges, and balance of convenience. The Court emphasized that where the defendant raises a credible invalidity defence at an early stage, particularly in mechanical and engineering patents, courts must exercise restraint and cannot mechanically extend ad interim injunctions. The matter was directed to proceed to detailed pleadings and expedited trial scheduling.

DLL Analysis: The order reinforces a growing judicial trend against automatic patent injunctions, especially in engineering and manufacturing disputes. It strengthens defendants' ability to resist early market exclusion by raising credible validity challenges and signals that Indian courts increasingly align with a merits-based, evidence-driven approach rather than presuming patent strength at the interim stage.

[Source]

Madras High Court: "Vapo" Deemed Generic, Vicks Cannot Monopolise Descriptive Terms

In a significant ruling concerning the marks "VAPORIN" and "VAPORIN COLD RUB", the Madras High Court rejected Vicks' attempt to claim exclusive rights over the term "Vapo." The Court held that "Vapo" is descriptive and common to the trade in the context of medicinal products, particularly those related to vaporization. This decision emphasizes that trademark registration grants rights to the mark as a whole, and common or non-distinctive components cannot be monopolized independently.

DLL Analysis: This case is a crucial reminder for brand owners as the enforcement strategy must align with what can genuinely be protected. If a brand element is merely descriptive of a product feature (e.g., "vapour," "cold rub," "herbal"), it becomes challenging to prevent others from using that descriptive term, in sectors where such naming conventions are prevalent. To mitigate this risk, rights-holders should focus on building distinctiveness around their mark.

[Source]

Punjab & Haryana High Court: Raymond "Fake Clothes" Case - Counterfeiting Not Always a Copyright Offence

In the "Raymond fake clothes" case, the Punjab & Haryana High Court clarified the distinction between trademark counterfeiting/passing off and the elements required for criminal copyright offences. The Court indicated that not every instance of spurious branded garments automatically satisfies the criteria for criminal copyright liability, especially if the specific legal elements of copyright infringement are not independently established.

DLL Analysis: For complainants, this ruling highlights the importance of avoiding overcharging and instead building a clear case, identifying the specific copyrighted work, providing evidence of ownership and copying, and demonstrating how the actions meet the statutory thresholds for criminal liability. For defendants, it reinforces that allegations of counterfeiting do not automatically equate to copyright guilt, the prosecution must prove the specific copyright ingredients rather than relying solely on brand-related outrage.

[Source]

Delhi High Court Addresses "Akasa Air" Recruitment Scams: Brand Misuse for Fraud

The Delhi High Court has granted interim relief in case where the AKASA AIR mark was exploited in fraudulent recruitment scams. The court issued directions to disable infringing domains and target payment channels including UPI identifiers and bank details linked to impersonators.

DLL Analysis: This highlights an increasingly prevalent brand protection challenge. Trademarks are being misused not just for counterfeit sales, but for sophisticated fraud and impersonation schemes. Courts are demonstrating a willingness to grant swift relief that targets the underlying scam infrastructure (domains, payment handles, and intermediary takedowns).

[Source]

Zydus Lifesciences Limited v. E. R. Squibb and Sons, LLC & Ors

On 12 January 2026, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court allowed Zydus Lifesciences Ltd to manufacture, market, and sell its biosimilar version of the anti-cancer drug nivolumab in India, overturning an earlier single-judge order that had restrained the company from launching the product during the patent term. The original suit was filed by E. R. Squibb & Sons LLC and affiliates, asserting infringement of their Indian Patent No. IN 340060 which protects nivolumab (marketed globally as Opdivo). The Division Bench emphasized public interest and access to affordable life-saving treatment, weighed in favor of allowing Zydus' entry into the market ahead of the patent's expiry in May 2026, and directed safeguards such as maintaining audited sales records for the period of overlap. The ruling marks a nuanced balancing of patent rights with patient access concerns in the biologics space.

DLL Analysis: Patent law protects innovators' exclusive commercial rights, but courts recognize that access to critical, life-saving therapies is a vital public interest consideration. Under the Patents Act, 1970, interim or restrictive relief requires clear establishment of infringement weighed against the balance of convenience, irreparable harm, and public interest. The Division Bench concluded that the earlier injunction was granted without adequately assessing product-to-claim mapping and public health impact. It held that denying market access to an affordable biosimilar could unduly harm patients, even where patent enforcement issues exist. The decision underscores that IP enforcement and healthcare access can coexist, with courts tailoring relief to align with broader societal needs.

[Source]

E.R. Squibb & Sons LLC v. Union of India

On 5 January 2026, the Madras High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by E.R. Squibb & Sons LLC challenging the Opposition Board's recommendation in the post-grant opposition proceedings relating to Indian Patent No. IN 340060, which covers the cancer therapeutic monoclonal antibody nivolumab. The petitioner sought to quash the Opposition Board's recommendation on procedural grounds, asserting that critical evidence had not been considered in the post-grant review process. The Court held that the Opposition Board's recommendation is advisory in nature and not a final decision affecting the patent's validity; substantive evaluation remains with the Controller of Patents. It further emphasized that the petitioner has an available statutory appeal (Section 117A) once the Controller issues a final order, and that premature judicial review under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution was not maintainable at this stage. The writ was therefore dismissed, reaffirming the structured procedural framework for post-grant oppositions and underscoring the need to exhaust statutory remedies before approaching the High Court.

DLL Analysis: Indian patent jurisprudence upholds a two-tiered administrative process in post-grant oppositions, the Opposition Board's recommendations and the Controller's final decision to ensure thorough evaluation before judicial interference. Under the Section 25, IPA 1970, the Opposition Board examines evidence and makes recommendations, but only the Controller's final order carries binding effect, only thereafter can an appeal be pursued. The Madras High Court emphasized that challenging the Board's recommendation in isolation without a final administrative decision circumvents the statutory process and is premature, factual and evidentiary disputes over opposition materials are appropriately ventilated before the Controller. Consequently, the decision reinforces the procedural sanctity of India's post-grant opposition regime, that parties first avail alternate statutory remedies, and defers substantive validity or infringement contentions until the Controller's final ruling.

[Source]

Global Developments

European Union: Unified Patent Court Sees Rise in Parallel Actions (Jan 2026)

In January 2026, the Unified Patent Court (UPC) continued to cement its role as a central hub for European patent litigation, with an ongoing rise in both infringement actions and associated validity challenges (revocation actions and counterclaims). Parties increasingly pursue parallel proceedings, including revocation counterclaims within UPC infringement cases and standalone validity actions, as strategic tools alongside national litigation options, particularly in Germany where experienced local divisions attract complex patent disputes.

DLL Analysis: The increasing use of parallel proceedings before the Unified Patent Court is driven by its promise of rapid, pan-European enforcement and procedural efficiency, making it attractive for high-value patent disputes. Legally, this has normalized the simultaneous pursuit of infringement actions and validity challenges, through revocation counterclaims and standalone actions, within a single forum, concentrating risk and outcomes at an early stage. From a litigation strategy perspective, patentees exploit the UPC's broad territorial reach and speed to apply maximum pressure, while defendants counter with parallel revocation actions and selective national litigation, particularly in Germany, to balance leverage and hedge against adverse UPC rulings.

[Source]

EU Trademark (General Court): ELTON v ELON Confusion Analysis (January 21, 2026)

The General Court of the European Union recently ruled on an opposition involving an EU figurative mark "Elton" and an earlier national mark "ELON," applying standard likelihood-of-confusion principles under EU law. This decision is a useful reminder that short marks with overlapping dominant elements can trigger a finding of likelihood of confusion, even when parties attempt to rely on conceptual differences.

DLL Analysis: This decision reinforces the EU courts' strict approach to likelihood-of-confusion analysis for short word marks, particularly where there is a high degree of visual and phonetic overlap. The General Court made it clear that minor differences may be insufficient to dispel confusion when the shared element dominates the overall impression of the marks. For brand owners, the judgment highlights the risk associated with adopting marks that closely resemble earlier short marks, especially for overlapping goods or services, and emphasizes the need for cautious clearance and strong evidence when relying on conceptual distinctions.

[Source]

US Copyright: Paramount Defeats "Top Gun: Maverick" Writer Claim

A US federal judge dismissed a writer's copyright claim related to "Top Gun: Maverick," reasoning that the writer's contributions were derivative of the original Top Gun universe, which is owned by Paramount. The decision also allowed Paramount's counterclaims to proceed. This case highlights the inherent difficulty in claiming standalone copyright ownership for contributions built upon an existing, pre-owned story world.

DLL Analysis: The dismissal of the writer's copyright claim highlights the challenges in asserting standalone copyright ownership over contributions that are closely tied to a pre-existing and pre-owned cinematic universe. Creative inputs built upon an established story world may be treated as derivative works, particularly where the underlying copyright is clearly owned by the studio. The decision also serves as a cautionary reminder that weak ownership claims can expose claimants to counterclaims, significantly increasing litigation risk.

[Source]

Transactional IP

Arm Expands Long-Term Patent Licensing Strategy with AI and Semiconductor Firms

Arm announced a series of expanded long term licensing agreements with global AI accelerator and semiconductor manufacturers. The deals emphasize Arm's instruction set architecture patents and chip design IP as recurring revenue drivers, reinforcing IP licensing as a strategic alternative to pure hardware sales.

Vaximm AG & BCM Europe AG - Global Exclusive Licensing Term Sheet

In January, Vaximm AG, a Swiss clinical-stage oncology biotechnology company, entered into a binding term sheet with BCM Europe AG for a global exclusive licensing transaction covering Vaximm's lead oral cancer immunotherapy platform, VXM01. The proposed deal contemplates a structured economic package including a USD 30 million upfront payment, milestone payments of up to USD 815 million, and downstream royalty participation tied to development, regulatory, and commercialization achievements. Importantly, the transaction preserves Vaximm's ownership of its core intellectual property pending execution of definitive agreements, while granting BCM Europe exclusivity aligned with clinical advancement and commercialization objectives.

[Source]

GCCL & OPIS - Strategic Collaboration Agreement

In January 2026, GCCL, a South Korea–based clinical sample analysis and bioanalytical services provider, entered into a strategic collaboration agreement with OPIS, a global contract research organization (CRO). The collaboration aims to expand integrated clinical trial and bioanalytical services across key global markets, including Asia, Europe, and North America. While the transaction does not involve a direct patent assignment or licensing arrangement, it is IP-relevant due to its focus on data generation, analytical methodologies, proprietary workflows, and know-how used in regulated clinical research. The agreement reflects a growing trend in the life sciences sector toward service-driven IP collaborations, where control over clinical data, validation processes, and analytical platforms forms a critical commercial and competitive asset. For sponsors and innovators, such alliances enhance trial efficiency while raising important considerations around data ownership, confidentiality, and downstream IP use.

[Source]

Technology & IP Convergence

• On 20 January 2026, AI Era Corp. announced a strategic investment to launch AI-powered streaming channels that integrate proprietary generative engines and content licensing technology, exemplifying how AI and IP convergence is reshaping entertainment delivery, automated content creation, and personalized media experiences.
• China and the United States are actively signaling openness to patent protection for artificial intelligence (AI) inventions, with recent patent office guidance encouraging broader eligibility for AI related technologies while emphasizing clear technical disclosures and ethical compliance. This marks a shift toward supportive frameworks for AI innovation amid concerns over overly restrictive subject matter interpretations.
• Emerging platforms leveraging large language models for patent and market intelligence are transforming technology scouting and strategic decision making. These AI systems interpret complex patent texts and correlate technical descriptions with commercial data reducing manual effort and enhancing insight discovery across interdisciplinary innovation domains.
• Reports forecast significant growth in biotech IP tokenization markets, where patents and proprietary data are converted into digital tradable assets. This trend suggests new models for IP financing, fractional ownership and real time monetization of biotech innovations blending distributed ledger technologies with traditional IP rights management.

Engineering Buzz

OPPO Joins VVC Advance Patent Pool (January 2026)

On 9 January 2026, OPPO, the global smartphone maker, announced it has joined the VVC Advance Patent Pool as a licensee and renewed its HEVC Advance patent license with Access Advance LLC, further deepening its participation across major video codec licensing programs. Under this expanded engagement, OPPO now participates in all three of Access Advance's licensing structures HEVC Advance, VVC Advance, and the Advance Video Distribution Patent (VDP) Pool, granting it standardized access to essential patents covering both HEVC/H.265 and VVC/H.266 technologies. The VVC Advance Pool includes over 4,500 worldwide essential patents, enables efficient licensing of modern video compression standards supporting high-quality media, while the Multi-Codec Bridging Agreement (MCBA) offers an integrated royalty structure that can simplify multi-codec product licensing. This move underlines how major implementers are aligning with consolidated patent pools to reduce fragmentation in technology rights and streamline global compliance.

Biotech Buzz

• Biotech innovation funding and IP monetization transforming capital flows: The emerging global biotech IP tokenization market is projected to expand rapidly in the coming decade, enabling fractional ownership of patents and biotech data assets. This evolution is expected to open up new investment streams and liquidity options for early and mid stage biotech innovators.
• AI integration accelerating biologics and drug design: Across industry and academia, AI enabled platforms are driving faster biologics discovery cycles and more sophisticated therapeutic candidates. This convergence of computational models with traditional biotech R&D highlights the importance of protecting both molecule level inventions and algorithmic innovations underlying design methodologies (patent/algorithm/IP strategy).
• IP strategy expanding beyond molecules: As AI designs antibodies and other complex biological entities, IP strategies in biotech are evolving to encompass algorithmic scaffolds and data centric inventions, not just chemical or biological formulations signaling a broader definition of biotech inventorship.

Innovation Spotlight

• Amera IoT Unveils Quantum-Proof Encryption Backed by 14 U.S. Patents: On January 17, 2026, Amera IoT announced the launch of its AmeraKey® quantum-proof encryption technology, supported by 14 newly issued U.S. patents that cover patented methods in key generation, secure transmission-free encryption, and long-term data protection. The breakthrough system eliminates the need for traditional key exchange mechanisms, instead using patented cryptographic processes designed to remain secure against both classical and future quantum computer attacks. AmeraKey® aims to deliver robust encryption for IoT networks, edge devices, and critical infrastructure where conventional cryptography may be vulnerable. Its patent portfolio protects innovations in quantum-resistant randomization, fault-tolerant encryption primitives, and lightweight security modules suitable for constrained devices. This development highlights the growing convergence of cybersecurity, cryptography research, and patent strategy, with organizations proactively securing IP to protect emerging technologies against quantum threats and enable secure digital ecosystems.
• Record global IP filing reflects accelerating innovation: The latest World Intellectual Property Indicators report shows that global patent applications reached approximately 3.7 million in 2024, marking a 4.9 % increase and the fifth consecutive year of growth. Asia continued to lead the innovation landscape, accounting for about 70 % of all filings, with computer technology and medical sectors among key contributors.
• India climbs in global patent rankings: India emerged as the 6th largest source of patent filings in 2024, with a nearly 20 % year on year surge and sustained double digit growth over the past six years reflecting strong domestic innovation from startups, universities, and R&D centres.
• Technology hubs driving interconnected innovation: The expansion of interconnected tech ecosystems from semiconductors and AI to biotech and green technologies underpins a broader surge in globally competitive IP creation. Innovations like advanced chip architectures and hybrid AI–biotech platforms showcase the cross sectoral nature of modern R&D and patentable inventions.

IP in the Wild - Pop Culture & Business

Living Media India Limited v. Zee Media Corporation Limited

Living Media India Limited instituted proceedings against Zee Media Corporation Limited alleging infringement of its registered trademark and passing off in relation to the use of the programme title and overall branding "DUNIYADARI" for news broadcasting services. The plaintiff contended that it had acquired substantial goodwill in the mark through long and continuous use and that Zee Media's adoption of an identical title and similar visual presentation was likely to mislead viewers and dilute its brand identity. The Court examined the nature of the plaintiff's registration, noting that it was a composite Device Mark and not a standalone word mark.

While observing that the term "DUNIYADARI" by itself lacked independent distinctiveness, the Court found prima facie merit in the allegation that the defendant's overall trade dress and manner of use could cause confusion in the minds of the public. Considering the balance of convenience and the risk of irreparable harm, the Court granted interim injunctive relief restraining deceptive use of the impugned mark.

DLL Insights: The order underscores the Court's nuanced approach to composite trademark enforcement, reaffirming that while exclusivity over individual elements may be limited, protection can still be granted where the overall presentation and context of use create a likelihood of confusion. The decision highlights the continued relevance of the anti-dissection principle and serves as a reminder to media and brand owners that enforcement strategies should focus on the cumulative visual and commercial impression of marks rather than isolated components.

[Source]

Living Media India Limited & Anr v. Charcha Aaj Ki on 9 January, 2026

Living Media India Limited and its affiliate approached the Delhi High Court seeking protection of their trademark and programme branding rights against the defendant, Charcha Aaj Ki, alleging unauthorised adoption of a deceptively similar title and presentation for news-related content. The plaintiffs contended that the impugned mark and overall trade dress closely resembled their well-known programme branding, was likely to mislead viewers, and amounted to infringement and passing off by riding on the goodwill and reputation associated with the plaintiffs' media properties.

Considering the prima facie similarity of the competing marks, the identical nature of services, and the likelihood of consumer confusion, the Court found an imminent risk of reputational and commercial harm. Accordingly, the Court granted ad interim injunctive relief, restraining the defendant from using the impugned mark or any confusingly similar variant in relation to news broadcasting or digital media platforms pending further adjudication.

DLL Insights: The order underscores the Delhi High Court's consistent approach in protecting media brands against misleading programme titles and look-alike branding, particularly in the news and broadcast sector. It reiterates that even in the absence of exclusive rights over individual word elements, deceptive similarity in overall presentation and context of use can justify interim protection to preserve brand distinctiveness and prevent viewer confusion.

[Source]

M/S. Sun Tv Network Ltd v. M/S. Writemen Media Pvt. Ltd

M/s Sun TV Network Ltd approached the Madras High Court seeking protection of its exclusive copyright and broadcast reproduction rights in certain television programmes, alleging that M/s Writemen Media Pvt. Ltd. was unlawfully exploiting and communicating the plaintiff's content without authorization. Sun TV demonstrated that it held valid and subsisting rights in the programmes and that the defendant's actions amounted to unauthorized reproduction and commercial use, causing continuing infringement and irreparable harm. Considering the prima facie evidence of ownership, the likelihood of ongoing infringement, and the balance of convenience in favor of the rights holder, the Court granted interim injunctive relief, restraining the defendant from broadcasting, reproducing, distributing, or otherwise exploiting the plaintiff's copyrighted content in any manner. The order aimed to preserve the plaintiff's statutory rights pending adjudication of the suit and prevent dilution of its commercial interests in the media market.

DLL Insights: The decision reinforces judicial readiness to grant swift interim protection in copyright and broadcast-related disputes where unauthorized content exploitation is evident. It underscores the importance of promptly enforcing proprietary media rights and signals strong judicial support for broadcasters against unauthorized commercial use of copyrighted programming, a trend increasingly relevant across digital and content-driven industries.

[Source]

Quick Wins & Resources

Must Read

• Artificial Intelligence and Intellectual Property Rights: Comparative Transnational Policy Analysis [Source]
• Foreign Tech Theft Spurs Japan's Push for New Anti Espionage Regime [Source]

Upcoming IP Events

• Global IP Exchange Europe (Amsterdam, Netherlands): 16-17 Mar 2026. [Source]
• 2026 IP Owners Spring Summit (Washington, DC, USA): 18-19 Mar 2026. [Source]
• INTA 2026 NYC Conference - New York - March 18-19, 2026. [Source]
• CITMA Spring Conference on 19 March 2026, London, UK. [Source]
• IP Watchdog LIVE 2026 (Arlington, VA, USA): 22-24 Mar 2026. [Source]
• IPBC Europe 2026 - Paris - March 23-25, 2026. [Source]

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.