Intellectual Property Newsletter | July 2026

Welcome to the latest edition! The global IP ecosystem is experiencing strong momentum with record-high filings, a surge of AI-driven innovation, and pivotal rulings reflecting both technological advancement and evolving regulatory priorities.

The Weird & Wonderful - Bizarre IP Cases

The Delhi High Court has issued India’s first substantive judicial finding on the use of copyrighted news content for AI training, holding that OpenAI’s use of ANI’s material to train ChatGPT does not, at this stage, amount to copyright infringement. Justice Amit Bansal observed that ANI had not demonstrated that ChatGPT memorized or reproduced its news reports in user-facing outputs. The Court further noted that OpenAI’s storage and use of ANI’s published articles for training the underlying model is protected by the fair-dealing exception for research under the Copyright Act, 1957. The ruling is significant as it addresses a core question in the growing global AI-copyright debate, particularly where similar claims are pending in jurisdictions such as the United States and Canada. It may shape how Indian courts approach AI training, copyright enforcement, and the scope of statutory exceptions in future disputes.

[Source]

Legal & Regulatory Updates

India

Hon’ble Bombay High Court Transfers Trademark Rectification Proceedings from Registrar to High Court

The Hon’ble Bombay High Court, in ITM Trust & Ors. v. Samata Lok Sansthan, held that the Registrar of Trade Marks can be regarded as a court subordinate to the High Court for the purposes of Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, thereby empowering the High Court to transfer pending trademark rectification proceedings from the Registrar to itself. The dispute arose in the backdrop of a pending trademark infringement suit before the High Court, alongside multiple connected rectification proceedings concerning the parties’ competing trademark registrations. The applicants sought transfer of three rectification petitions pending before the Registrar so that all related proceedings could be adjudicated together. Allowing the application, the Court observed that the Registrar exercises concurrent jurisdiction with the High Court in rectification matters under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 and performs adjudicatory functions possessing the trappings of a civil court, including recording evidence and deciding disputes affecting valuable statutory rights. Considering that 17 connected rectification petitions instituted by the defendant were already pending before the High Court, the Court held that transferring the remaining proceedings would promote judicial economy, avoid conflicting decisions and ensure consistent adjudication of the parties’ rights. The judgment is a significant procedural precedent, recognizing the High Court’s power to consolidate interconnected trademark disputes for efficient and comprehensive resolution.

[Source]

CDSCO invites comments on pharmaceutical brand-name extensions

On 6 July 2026, the Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation invited stakeholder comments on the use of brand-name extensions by pharmaceutical firms. The notice concerns that marketing medicinal products with different active ingredients under the same established brand, accompanied only by different extensions, may mislead consumers and create confusion regarding therapeutic use. Pharmaceutical companies should therefore combine trademark clearance with medical, regulatory, packaging and pharmacovigilance review before adopting or extending a medicinal-product name.

[Source]

Navi Mumbai International Airport recognised as an authorised airport for drug imports

On 2 July 2026, CDSCO published G.S.R. 561(E), recognising Navi Mumbai International Airport as an authorised airport for importing drugs under Rule 43A of the Drugs Rules, 1945. The measure provides an additional entry point for regulated pharmaceutical consignments. Importers intending to use the airport should review their import licences, customs documentation, logistics arrangements, quality agreements and temperature-control procedures, particularly for vaccines, biological products and other cold-chain materials.

[Source]

Global

WIPO Assemblies 2026 Debate the Future of Global IP Governance

In July 2026, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) convened the 68th Series of Meetings of the WIPO Assemblies, bringing together member states, policymakers, intellectual property offices, innovators, and international organizations to discuss the future direction of global intellectual property governance. The Assemblies focused on key issues shaping the international IP landscape, including innovation-driven economic growth, emerging technologies, technology transfer, digital transformation, and strengthening international cooperation. Discussions also addressed the role of intellectual property in supporting sustainable development, expanding access to innovation, and enhancing the effectiveness of global IP systems in an increasingly interconnected and technology-driven world. Through high-level dialogue and collaborative engagement, the Assemblies reaffirmed WIPO’s role as a global forum for advancing innovation, creativity, and balanced intellectual property policies.

[Source]

Indonesia's copyright rewrite puts Google, AI platforms on notice

Indonesia is preparing a wide-ranging overhaul of its copyright law that could make it the first country in Southeast Asia to expressly regulate AI within copyright legislation. A draft bill proposes that AI-assisted works may receive copyright protection where there is sufficient human involvement, while fully AI-generated works would remain excluded, although the draft does not clarify the threshold of human contribution required. It would also prohibit the use of AI to imitate a creator’s “distinctive style” and require disclosure where AI has been used in content creation. In addition, the bill would require technology platforms to compensate news publishers for aggregating, republishing, link-previewing, and using news content for AI training, with payments to be routed through state-supervised collective management organizations for onward distribution. The proposed framework would apply across a broad range of works, including journalism, films, photography, computer programs, and video games, and would subject AI training on copyrighted works to fair-use principles or licensing arrangements. The draft, which remains under consultation and has not yet been scheduled for enactment, has already drawn criticism from companies such as Google, which warned that overly broad compliance obligations and possible sanctions, including revocation of local business permits, could deter innovation and investment. The proposal comes at a time when Indonesia is actively promoting AI adoption, participating in emerging international AI governance initiatives, and aligning certain transparency measures with approaches seen in the EU, even as human authorship remains central to copyright protection in jurisdictions such as the U.S. and Singapore.

[Source]

FDA proposes modernised registration framework for distributed drug manufacturing

On 10 July 2026, the US Food and Drug Administration proposed amendments to its drug-establishment registration rules. The proposal would allow distributed manufacturing networks operating through a central quality hub and multiple equivalent manufacturing units to register as a single establishment rather than requiring each unit to register separately. It would also clarify registration and drug-listing obligations for certain foreign establishments manufacturing active pharmaceutical ingredients or other drug components that indirectly enter the US supply chain. The proposal is intended to reduce administrative burdens while improving FDA visibility over domestic and foreign manufacturing networks. 

[Source]

WHO establishes transitional list of recognised medical-device regulatory authorities

From 1 July 2026, the World Health Organization introduced a transitional list of authorities recognised for their oversight of medical devices, including in-vitro diagnostics. The list includes regulators or systems in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, the European Union, Japan, South Korea, Russia, Singapore, Switzerland, the UK and the US. The five-year transitional arrangement is intended to facilitate regulatory reliance while WHO moves from the earlier “Stringent Regulatory Authority” concept toward formal WHO Listed Authority designation for medical-device oversight. The development may support greater international cooperation and reduce duplication in device assessment and procurement.

[Source]

Deep Dive of the Trending Cases

India

Inter Digital Patent Holdings Inc. v. Shenzhen Transsion Holdings Co. Ltd.

On 1 July 2026, the Delhi High Court directed Shenzhen Transsion Holdings and its affiliated entities to furnish a pro tem security deposit in patent infringement suits filed by InterDigital Patent Holdings concerning alleged infringement of several Standard Essential Patents (SEPs) relating to 3G, 4G, 5G wireless communication technologies and High Efficiency Video Coding (HEVC) standards. InterDigital contended that despite years of licensing negotiations, the exchange of claim charts, and multiple technical discussions, the defendants continued to implement the patent technologies without obtaining a licence on Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) terms. After examining the parties’ submissions, licensing history, and the nature of the dispute, the Court concluded that interim protection was warranted and directed the defendants to furnish security pending adjudication of the infringement claims. The ruling represents an important development in India’s evolving SEP jurisprudence and highlights the increasing role of Indian courts in resolving global telecommunications patent disputes.

DLL Analysis

The decision reinforces the importance of FRAND licensing obligations and demonstrates the willingness of Indian courts to grant meaningful interim relief in complex SEP disputes involving advanced telecommunications technologies. The ruling indicates that courts may intervene where patented technologies are being commercially exploited while licensing negotiations remain unresolved. For stakeholders in the telecommunications, semiconductor, and connected-device sectors, the judgment underscores the growing significance of India as a forum for SEP enforcement and dispute resolution. It also signals that patent owners may increasingly rely on judicial remedies to safeguard the commercial value of standards-related innovations and encourage compliance with licensing obligations.

[Source]

Bombay High Court Grants Interim Protection to Preity Zinta Against Unauthorized AI-Generated Use of Her Personality

In Preity G. Zinta v. Google LLC & Ors., the Hon’ble Bombay High Court granted interim relief in favour of actor Preity Zinta in a suit seeking protection of her personality rights against the unauthorised commercial exploitation of her identity across various online platforms. The suit was instituted against social media platforms, AI companies and other online intermediaries in relation to AI generated deepfakes, manipulated content and other unauthorised uses of her name, image, likeness and persona. Recognising the unique challenges posed by generative AI, the Court observed that AI-generated deepfakes are capable of being replicated and disseminated endlessly across digital platforms, rendering monetary compensation an inadequate remedy. Accordingly, the Court directed the concerned intermediaries to remove the infringing content and further restrained an AI platform from creating or permitting chatbot characters based on Preity Zinta’s identity.

DLL Analysis

The Bombay High Court’s order in Preity G. Zinta v. Google LLC & Ors. is a notable development in Indian personality rights jurisprudence in the AI context. By granting interim protection against unauthorised AI-generated deepfakes, manipulated content, and chatbot-based exploitation of celebrity identity, the Court recognised the scale, speed, and persistence with which generative AI can amplify reputational and commercial harm. Its observation that such content can be endlessly replicated across platforms underscores why injunctive relief, rather than damages alone, is critical in these cases. The ruling signals a stronger judicial willingness to hold intermediaries and AI-enabled platforms accountable where digital tools are used to commercially exploit individual persona without consent.

[Source]

Delhi High Court Seized of Alleged Misuse of Facebook’s ‘Edit’ Feature to Trigger False Copyright Claims

Two content creators, Pushkar Raj Thakur and Neeraj Joshi, have approached the Delhi High Court by way of commercial suits alleging that Meta’s copyright enforcement mechanisms are being misused through Facebook’s “Edit Post” feature. According to the plaintiffs, infringers allegedly upload their copyrighted content, subsequently edit the Facebook posts to manipulate the displayed publication date, and thereafter initiate false copyright complaints against the original creators on Meta’s platforms. The plaintiffs contend that this practice has resulted in unwarranted copyright strikes, exposing creators to the risk of suspension or deletion of their Instagram accounts and causing significant disruption to their businesses.

The suits seek, inter alia, directions against the unidentified infringers and appropriate reliefs concerning the alleged abuse of Meta’s copyright enforcement framework. The matter raises significant questions regarding the integrity of platform-based copyright enforcement systems and the potential misuse of platform functionalities to fabricate evidence of priority. The proceedings are likely to have wider implications for digital content creators and intermediaries in relation to copyright enforcement, platform accountability and safeguards against fraudulent takedown mechanisms.

DLL Analysis

The matter before the Delhi High Court highlights a significant emerging risk in platform-based copyright enforcement, i.e., the alleged manipulation of technical platform features to manufacture false claims of authorship and priority. If the plaintiffs’ allegations are substantiated, the case could expose structural vulnerabilities in Meta’s notice-and-takedown framework, particularly where automated or document-light enforcement mechanisms can be weaponised against genuine creators. The dispute is important not only because it concerns wrongful copyright strikes and the threat of account suspension, but also because it raises broader questions around intermediary accountability, evidentiary integrity, and procedural safeguards in digital enforcement systems. The outcome may influence how platforms design anti-abuse checks to prevent fraudulent takedowns and protect legitimate creators from commercially disruptive misuse of copyright tools.

[Source]

Phantom Studios Moves Bombay High Court Against JioStar Over Alleged Unauthorised ‘Queen’ Sequel

Phantom Studios has instituted a suit before the Hon’ble Bombay High Court against JioStar India Pvt. Ltd., seeking ₹250 crore in damages and an injunction against the release of the upcoming film “Queen Forever”, alleging that it is an unauthorised sequel to the 2014 blockbuster Queen. Phantom contends that, under the co-production agreements governing the original film, it holds 50% ownership in the intellectual property, including rights relating to sequels, prequels and other derivative works, and that no consent was granted for the production of “Queen Forever”. JioStar has denied the allegations, asserting that “Queen Forever” is an original and independent work with no narrative, character or creative connection to Queen. It has further argued that the word “Queen” is a common English noun incapable of exclusive appropriation by any one party. The matter is presently pending before the Bombay High Court, and the outcome is expected to provide important guidance on the ownership and enforcement of shared copyright, sequel rights and derivative works in the Indian film industry. 

DLL Analysis

The dispute between Phantom Studios and JioStar appears to centre on a familiar but commercially significant issue in the entertainment sector: whether a new production crosses the line from inspiration into an unauthorised sequel or derivative exploitation of an existing work. If Phantom Studios is able to establish substantial similarity in protectable expression, character treatment, plot continuation, or branding elements linked to Queen, the matter could raise serious questions of copyright ownership, adaptation rights, and sequel rights in Indian content transactions. The case is likely to be closely watched because it may clarify how Indian courts assess alleged sequel-based infringement in audiovisual works, particularly where title association, franchise value, and audience recognition create substantial commercial stakes.

[Source]

Hon’ble Delhi High Court Refuses Interim Injunction in ‘DAKSHIN’ Trademark Dispute

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court, in ITC Limited & Anr. v. Adyar Gate Hotels Limited, upheld the Single Judge’s order refusing to grant an interim injunction restraining Adyar Gate Hotels Limited (“AGH”) from using the trademark “DAKSHIN”. The dispute traces back to 1985, when AGH entered into an Operating Service Agreement with ITC for the operation of the Welcomgroup Park Sheraton Hotel in Chennai. Pursuant to the arrangement, the “DAKSHIN” restaurant commenced operations in 1989 within the hotel premises and continued to operate until the agreement expired on 31 March 2015. Following ITC’s exit from the hotel, AGH continued operating the restaurant under the “DAKSHIN” name at the same premises, and after the building’s demolition in 2024, opened another restaurant under the same name on the same road. ITC subsequently instituted a suit alleging trademark infringement, passing off and copyright infringement, seeking an interim injunction against AGH’s continued use of the mark and logo. Refusing to interfere with the Single Judge’s decision, the Division Bench held that AGH had established continuous use of the “DAKSHIN” mark since 1989, contrary to ITC’s contention that such use commenced only after termination of the Operating Service Agreement in 2015. The Court further observed that ITC had failed to demonstrate any independent goodwill in the mark prior to 1989 and had not challenged AGH’s trademark registration or use of the mark for several years, prima facie amounting to acquiescence. The Court also noted the absence of sufficient material to establish copyright ownership in the logo at the interim stage. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed, reaffirming that long-standing concurrent use, delay, acquiescence and the balance of convenience are critical considerations while granting interim relief in trademark disputes.

DLL Analysis

The Delhi High Court’s refusal to grant interim relief in the DAKSHIN dispute reinforces that proprietorship claims alone are insufficient where the defendant can show long-standing, continuous and visible use of the mark. The Court’s emphasis on AGH’s use since 1989, ITC’s inability to establish prior independent goodwill, and its prolonged inaction against AGH’s registration and use, reflects the continued significance of delay and acquiescence at the interim stage. The ruling is also notable for underscoring that even well-known hospitality brands may struggle to secure injunctions where commercial arrangements historically involved shared or overlapping use. Overall, the decision reaffirms that interim trademark relief remains heavily shaped by factual continuity, conduct of the parties, and balance of convenience.

[Source]

Themis Medicare Limited v. Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trademarks, Bombay High Court, 14 July 2026

On 14 July 2026, the Bombay High Court considered Themis Medicare’s challenge to an order rejecting its patent application for an injectable diclofenac composition claimed to cause minimal pain during administration. The Patent Controller had questioned whether the application contained comparative data establishing reduced injection-site pain, stability or technical advancement over known formulations. However, the rejection order contained apparently inconsistent findings, stating both that no relevant data had been produced and that the data in the complete specification had been duly considered. The Court determined that this contradiction made the decision vulnerable on principles of natural justice. It therefore set aside the rejection and remitted the patent application to the Controller for fresh consideration. Importantly, the Court did not decide whether the diclofenac composition was novel, inventive or ultimately patentable. Those substantive issues must now be reconsidered by the Patent Office through a properly reasoned decision after evaluating the application and supporting evidence.

DLL Analysis

The case reinforces that patent-office decisions must clearly identify the evidence examined and provide consistent reasons when rejecting pharmaceutical inventions. At the same time, applicants claiming benefits such as reduced injection pain, improved stability or enhanced therapeutic performance should include comparative experimental data demonstrating those advantages over known formulations. Clear evidence in the original specification can help establish technical advancement and reduce dependence on later-filed explanations or affidavits. The decision also confirms that procedural defects may justify reconsideration, but they do not guarantee that the patent will ultimately be granted.

[Source]

Global

Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v. Acer Computer GmbH & Ors.

On 16 July 2026, the Hamburg Local Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) issued a significant procedural order in a dispute between Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft and multiple Acer entities concerning EP2304723, a patent related to communications technologies. The case arose in the context of a FRAND (Fair, Reasonable, and Non-Discriminatory) licensing defence, where Fraunhofer sought an order directing a third party to produce comparable licence agreements relating to the Opus standard. Fraunhofer argued that access to such agreements was necessary to respond effectively to Acer’s FRAND-related arguments and to substantiate its licensing practices. The UPC ordered the production of the requested licensing agreements and associated documents, while simultaneously imposing a comprehensive confidentiality regime to protect commercially sensitive information. The Court emphasized that access to relevant licensing evidence is essential to ensure a level playing field in SEP and FRAND disputes and to enable parties to properly discharge their burden of proof.

DLL Analysis

The decision highlights the growing importance of transparency and evidence disclosure in SEP and FRAND litigation before the Unified Patent Court. By facilitating access to comparable licence agreements while safeguarding confidential business information, the Court sought to balance procedural fairness with commercial sensitivity. The ruling demonstrates the UPC’s willingness to adopt a structured approach to evidence production in technology-driven patent disputes, particularly those involving telecommunications standards and licensing practices. For patent holders and implementers alike, the decision reinforces the importance of robust licensing documentation and may influence future FRAND litigation strategies across Europe.

[Source]

New York Times-led group asks court to sanction OpenAI in US copyright dispute

OpenAI is facing sanctions bid in the New York Times-led copyright case after a group of newspapers told a federal court in Manhattan that the company misled the court about its ability to search its systems for evidence of copyrighted news content in AI training. The plaintiffs alleged that OpenAI had claimed such searches were infeasible while concealing that it had conducted them even before the first news plaintiff sued. The newspapers also accused OpenAI of deleting or rendering unsearchable billions of relevant ChatGPT conversations and asked for sanctions, attorneys’ fees, and an adverse finding on misuse of their works. OpenAI denied the allegations and said the plaintiffs were intruding on user privacy. The case, first filed by the Times in 2023, also names Microsoft and remains a closely watched AI copyright dispute.

DLL Analysis

The sanctions application in the New York Times-led copyright litigation materially raises the stakes in one of the most closely watched AI copyright disputes. The plaintiffs’ allegations go beyond unauthorised training and instead target OpenAI’s conduct during discovery, particularly the claim that it misled the court on the feasibility of searching for copyrighted news content and failed to preserve potentially relevant ChatGPT conversation data. If substantiated, these assertions could have serious procedural consequences, including adverse inferences and credibility damage, independent of the underlying copyright merits. The development is significant because discovery conduct in AI litigation may shape judicial expectations around data preservation, transparency, and internal search capabilities for model training and output-related evidence.

[Source]

Van Leeuwen wins trademark lawsuit against ice-cream rival over packaging

Van Leeuwen has secured a major trademark win in New York, with a federal judge ordering Rebel Creamery to pay nearly $23.8 million for using ice cream packaging found to be confusingly similar to Van Leeuwen’s trade dress. U.S. District Judge Eric Komitee held that Rebel deliberately copied Van Leeuwen’s distinctive pastel, monochrome pint design featuring contrasting black cursive branding, and directed Rebel to redesign its packaging. The court found the similarities were likely to confuse consumers and noted evidence of actual confusion among both customers and industry professionals. Rejecting Rebel’s claim that its founders had never seen Van Leeuwen’s cartons, the judge found the company acted in bad faith, describing its account of how the packaging was developed as “clearly fabricated.” The ruling is a strong endorsement of trade dress protection in the consumer brands space.

DLL Analysis

The ruling in Van Leeuwen’s favour is a significant reminder of the strength of trade dress protection where packaging has acquired distinct market recognition and competitors adopt a closely similar visual presentation. The court’s findings on deliberate copying, actual consumer confusion, and bad faith materially strengthened Van Leeuwen’s case and justified both substantial monetary relief and mandatory redesign. Particularly notable is the judge’s rejection of Rebel’s explanation for the development of its packaging as fabricated, underscoring the evidentiary weight courts place on commercial intent in trade dress disputes. For consumer-facing brands, the decision reinforces that packaging is not merely aesthetic branding, but a protectable source identifier capable of attracting strong judicial protection where imitation threatens marketplace distinction.

[Source]

Fender sues German retailer Thomann in copyright dispute over Stratocaster

Fender has launched copyright proceedings in a Düsseldorf court against German instrument retailer Thomann, alleging that Thomann’s Harley Benton guitars infringe Fender’s newly recognized European copyright in the Stratocaster body shape. The action follows Fender’s March court win securing copyright protection for the Strat in Europe and marks a significant escalation in its effort to police “Strat-style” guitars. Fender argues that Thomann, despite being one of its largest global retail partners, is selling lookalike instruments that copy the classic Strat shape. The dispute comes amid broader industry pushback, with critics arguing the shape has become so ubiquitous that it is effectively generic. Thomann had already filed a non-infringement action in June, challenging the validity of Fender’s copyright and noting that the March ruling was a default judgment against a smaller seller.

DLL Analysis

Fender’s action against Thomann marks a significant test of how far newly recognised copyright in product shape can be used to control long-established design conventions in the musical instrument market. By suing a major retailer over “Strat-style” guitars, Fender appears to be moving beyond symbolic enforcement and into a broader strategy to consolidate exclusivity over the Stratocaster body shape in Europe. The dispute is particularly notable because Thomann has directly challenged both infringement and the strength of Fender’s claimed rights, while industry criticism centres on whether a shape used pervasively for decades can still sustain meaningful exclusivity. The outcome could have wider implications for shape-based copyright claims, aftermarket competition, and the commercial boundaries of legacy product design protection.

[Source]

Musk's xAI sues Grok user over sexualized 'deepfakes'

xAI has sued a South Carolina man in federal court in Texas, alleging he used Grok to generate child sexual abuse material and other non-consensual explicit deepfakes in violation of the platform’s terms of service. The defendant, Terry Harwood, was arrested earlier this year on separate criminal charges relating to the sexual exploitation of minors. The suit is one of the first known cases in which an AI company has taken civil action against a user for allegedly using its system to create illegal explicit content. xAI alleges Harwood uploaded non-sexual images of adults and minors and attempted to turn them into sexually explicit material using Grok. The company is seeking damages and a permanent injunction. In its complaint, xAI also highlighted its broader enforcement efforts, including tens of thousands of account suspensions and reports to NCMEC in 2026.

DLL Analysis

xAI’s suit against a Grok user is a notable escalation in platform enforcement against the misuse of generative AI for illegal sexualised deepfakes and child sexual abuse material. Rather than relying solely on account suspension or law-enforcement referrals, xAI has pursued civil remedies, signalling that AI providers may increasingly use private litigation to deter abusive and criminal uses of their tools. The case is significant not only because of the extreme facts alleged, but also because it frames terms of service, platform safety obligations, and content moderation measures as enforceable tools in AI misuse disputes. It may become an important precedent for how AI companies’ structure legal responses to harmful outputs generated through user prompts.

[Source]

Board of Regents of the University of Texas System and TissueGen, Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corporation, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 27 July 2026

On 27 July 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a patent infringement judgment against Boston Scientific Corporation concerning drug-eluting coronary stents. The University of Texas owned U.S. Patent No. 6,596,296, titled “Drug Releasing Biodegradable Fiber Implant,” which covered compositions containing biodegradable polymer fibres with therapeutic agents dispersed within them. Together with TissueGen, the University alleged that Boston Scientific’s drug-eluting coronary stent systems infringed the patent because they incorporated polymer-based technology designed to release a therapeutic agent after implantation. A jury had previously found that Boston Scientific infringed the asserted claims, rejected its patent-invalidity defence and awarded damages to the patent owners. On appeal, the Federal Circuit concluded that Boston Scientific was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. The Court held that the asserted patent claims were invalid because the claimed invention had been anticipated by prior art. It also concluded, as an independent ground for reversal, that the accused Boston Scientific stents did not satisfy the relevant limitations of the asserted claims and therefore did not infringe the patent. As a result, the Court reversed the judgment entered in favour of the University of Texas and TissueGen and did not need to decide their separate appeal concerning the jury’s original finding of willful infringement.

DLL Analysis

The decision underscores the importance of precisely defining the structure, location and release mechanism of therapeutic agents in drug-device combination patents. Life-sciences companies should support broad claims with adequate technical disclosure, conduct prior-art searches across pharmaceuticals, polymers and medical-device engineering, and undertake a claim-by-claim infringement assessment before enforcement. The case also confirms that a favourable jury verdict may be overturned where the claims are anticipated or the accused product does not meet every claim limitation.

[Source]

Litigation Highlights & Practice Area

India

Union Cabinet Approves Semicon India 2.0 to Accelerate Indigenous Semiconductor

On 15 July 2026, the Union Cabinet approved Semicon India 2.0, a comprehensive programme with an outlay of ₹1.27 lakh crore aimed at strengthening India’s semiconductor ecosystem through a holistic focus on chip design, manufacturing equipment, fabrication facilities, advanced packaging, research and development, and talent creation. A key objective of the initiative is to promote indigenous semiconductor intellectual property (IP), chip design capabilities, and system-level innovations, enabling India to move beyond semiconductor manufacturing and emerge as a global hub for semiconductor design and technology development. The programme also seeks to support startups, MSMEs, and technology companies engaged in developing next-generation semiconductor solutions across sectors such as artificial intelligence, telecommunications, electronics, automotive systems, defense technologies, and advanced manufacturing. By emphasizing domestic IP creation and innovation-led growth, Semicon India 2.0 represents a significant step towards strengthening India's position in the global semiconductor value chain.

DLL Analysis

This development highlights the growing importance of intellectual property as a strategic asset in building a resilient and competitive semiconductor ecosystem. By encouraging indigenous chip design, semiconductor innovation, and the creation of proprietary technology assets, the initiative is expected to accelerate patent generation, technology commercialization, and global competitiveness for Indian innovators. The programme also reflects a broader shift toward technology self-reliance, where strong intellectual property portfolios will play a critical role in attracting investment, enabling licensing opportunities, fostering industry partnerships, and supporting long-term growth across emerging technology sectors.

[Source]

GenAI Innovation Soars as Patent Activity Nearly Triples in Two Years

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) reported a dramatic surge in Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) innovation, with global patent activity in the sector nearly tripling over the previous two years. The report highlighted rapid advancements across a broad spectrum of technologies, including large language models, multimodal AI systems, AI-powered content generation, machine learning infrastructure, and specialized semiconductor architectures designed to support AI workloads. The growing volume of patent filings demonstrates how organizations worldwide are increasingly leveraging intellectual property protection to secure competitive advantages in the rapidly evolving AI landscape. The development also reflects the expanding role of patents in protecting innovations relating to AI training methods, data processing techniques, software architectures, and next-generation computing systems, reinforcing the strategic importance of intellectual property in the commercialization and scaling of artificial intelligence technologies.

DLL Analysis

This development highlights how intellectual property has become a central pillar of the global AI economy. The sharp increase in GenAI-related patent filings demonstrates that patents are not only being used to protect technological breakthroughs but also to strengthen market positioning, attract investment, facilitate licensing opportunities, and support strategic collaborations. As Generative AI continues to transform industries ranging from software and semiconductors to healthcare, manufacturing, and telecommunications, intellectual property rights will play an increasingly important role in shaping innovation ecosystems, technology diffusion, and global competitiveness.

[Source]

Crocs Inc Usa vs M/S Bata India Ltd And Ors CS(COMM) 625/2018

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has directed Crocs Inc. USA to pay ₹24.63 lakh towards litigation costs to Bata India Limited after disposing of Crocs’ long-pending design infringement suit. The suit, instituted in 2014, alleged infringement of Crocs’ registered footwear design. However, during the pendency of the proceedings, Crocs’ Design Registration No. 197685 was cancelled by the Controller of Designs on the grounds that the design lacked novelty and originality. In view of the cancellation, the Court held that the design infringement claim could no longer survive and proceeded to determine Bata’s entitlement to litigation costs. While awarding actual litigation costs of ₹24.63 lakh, the Court observed that Bata had been compelled to defend a design infringement action for over a decade, notwithstanding the eventual cancellation of the underlying design registration. Relying on the principles laid down in Uflex Ltd. v. Government of Tamil Nadu, the Court reiterated that realistic costs should ordinarily follow the event, particularly in commercial intellectual property litigation, so as to discourage prolonged and unmeritorious proceedings. Notably, the order is confined to the design infringement claim and does not affect the separate passing off and trademark actions between the parties, which continue to remain pending.

DLL Analysis

The Delhi High Court’s decision directing Crocs to pay ₹24.63 lakh in litigation costs to Bata sends a strong message on the consequences of pursuing infringement claims based on intellectual property rights that ultimately fail to withstand scrutiny. With Crocs’ underlying design registration having been cancelled for lack of novelty and originality, the Court held that the design infringement action could not survive, bringing an end to a dispute that had continued for over a decade. Beyond the immediate outcome, the ruling reflects the judiciary’s increasing emphasis on realistic cost awards in commercial IP litigation. By compensating Bata for the substantial costs incurred in defending the suit, the Court reinforced the principle that parties should not be burdened with prolonged litigation arising from IP rights that are later found to be invalid.

[Source]

Columbia Pictures Industries Inc. v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr., C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 44/2025

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court, in Columbia Pictures Industries Inc. v. Registrar of Trade Marks & Anr., has held that a trademark need not be formally declared as a “well known trademark” under the Trade Marks Act, 1999 before its proprietor can seek protection against the registration of an identical or similar mark in respect of dissimilar goods or services. The case arose from Columbia Pictures’ opposition to the registration of the mark “GHOST BUSTER” in Class 5 for pharmaceutical and sanitary products, relying on the global reputation of its iconic “GHOSTBUSTERS” franchise. The Registrar had rejected the opposition on the grounds that the appellant’s mark was registered only in Classes 9, 25, 28 and 41 and had not been formally recognised as a well-known trademark. Setting aside the Registrar’s order, Justice Jyoti Singh held that Section 11(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 (hereinafter ‘the Act’) contains no statutory requirement that a trademark must first be formally declared “well-known” before its proprietor can invoke cross-class protection. The Court observed that - "Section 11(2) merely requires that the earlier mark is well-known in India and the Registrar is empowered to determine whether the mark is well-known by considering factors under 11(6) and (7), including duration and extent of use, extent of promotion, recognition among relevant public, registrations and record of enforcement etc. by looking into evidence led by the opponent." 

The Court further found that the Registrar had failed to consider Columbia Pictures’ evidence regarding the worldwide reputation of the GHOSTBUSTERS mark and its allegations of bad-faith adoption by the Applicant. Accordingly, the matter was remanded for fresh consideration. The judgment is a significant development in Indian trademark jurisprudence, clarifying that well-known status is a matter of substantive evidence rather than procedural declaration, thereby strengthening protection for reputed marks across unrelated classes.

DLL Analysis

In a significant trademark ruling, the Delhi High Court held that a trademark does not need to be formally recognised as a “well-known trademark” before its proprietor can seek protection against identical or similar marks in unrelated classes. The case arose from Columbia Pictures’ opposition to the registration of “GHOST BUSTER” for pharmaceutical products, based on the reputation of its globally recognised “GHOSTBUSTERS” franchise.

Setting aside the Registrar’s order, the Court clarified that Section 11(2) of the Trade Marks Act focuses on whether a mark is well known in fact, based on evidence such as duration of use, promotional activities, public recognition, registrations, and enforcement history, rather than on a formal declaration of well-known status. The matter was remanded after the Court found that key evidence regarding the reputation of the GHOSTBUSTERS mark had not been adequately considered.

[Source]

Landmark Crafts Limited vs Shalini Garg Proprietor Of Shree Mange Ram CS(COMM) 693/2026

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has granted an ex parte ad interim injunction in favour of Landmark Crafts Limited, restraining a fastener seller from manufacturing, selling, advertising or dealing in metal bolts, fasteners, screws and allied goods under the mark “ISI HP” and any other deceptively similar mark. Landmark Crafts asserted that it has been using the “HP” trademark continuously since 1995 in respect of self-drilling screws, blind rivets and allied goods, and is the registered proprietor of multiple “HP” trademark registrations in Class 6. The plaintiff further relied upon its substantial sales, extensive promotional activities, long-standing market reputation and prior judicial recognition of its trademark rights in earlier proceedings. Upon a prima facie comparison, the Court found that the defendant’s mark “ISI HP”, adopted for identical goods, incorporated the plaintiff’s registered “HP” mark in its entirety and was likely to cause confusion and deception amongst consumers. The Court observed that Landmark Crafts had established a prima facie case for trademark infringement and passing off, and that the balance of convenience lay in its favour. Accordingly, the Court restrained the defendant from using the impugned mark during the pendency of the suit. The decision reaffirms that the adoption of a registered trademark as the dominant and essential feature of a competing mark, particularly for identical goods, is likely to attract interim injunctive relief under the Trade Marks Act, 1999. 

DLL Analysis

The Delhi High Court has granted an ex parte interim injunction in favour of Landmark Crafts Limited, restraining a fastener seller from using the mark “ISI HP” for metal bolts, screws, fasteners and allied goods. The Court noted that Landmark Crafts has used and registered the “HP” trademark for such products since 1995 and has built substantial goodwill through long-standing commercial use and market presence.

Finding a prima facie case of trademark infringement and passing off, the Court held that the defendant had adopted the plaintiff’s registered “HP” mark in its entirety for identical goods, making consumer confusion likely. The ruling underscores the principle that where a registered trademark forms the dominant and essential feature of a competing mark, courts are likely to grant swift injunctive relief to protect the rights of the trademark owner. The decision reinforces the strong protection available to registered trademarks and highlights the risks of incorporating a competitor’s established mark into branding for identical products.

[Source]

Industria De Diseno Textil, S.A. Vs Registrar Of Trademarks & Anr. C.A.(COMM.IPD-TM) 52/2024

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court has allowed the appeal filed by Industria de Diseño Textil, S.A. (Inditex) and directed the removal of the “ZORA” trademark from the Register of Trade Marks, holding it to be deceptively similar to the globally reputed “ZARA” mark. Setting aside the Registrar’s order dismissing Zara’s opposition, the Court observed that “the competing marks are visually, structurally and phonetically similar” and are likely to cause confusion amongst consumers. The Hon’ble court noted that - "Both are word marks and contain four letters and are written in capital letters... While pronouncing the marks, both end with the sound 'RA' and have the same rhythm and while there is a difference in the vowel sound of 'a' and 'o' but to an average man with imperfect recollection, the overall sound in the ears will be almost alike. Hence, the two words are phonetically deceptively similar." The Court further held that “merely because a mark has not been declared as a well-known trademark would not disentitle its proprietor from claiming protection under Section 11(2)”, reiterating that cross-class protection depends upon the reputation established through evidence and not upon a formal declaration as a well-known mark. Accordingly, the Court directed the Registrar of Trade Marks to rectify the Register by removing the “ZORA” trademark within two months. The decision reinforces the robust protection available to reputed trademarks against deceptively similar marks and clarifies that formal recognition as a well-known trademark is not a prerequisite for seeking cross-class protection under the Trademarks Act, 1999.

DLL Analysis

The Court clarified that a trademark need not be formally declared “well-known” to receive broader protection under Section 11(2) of the Trade Marks Act. What matters is the reputation established through evidence, not a formal designation. The ruling therefore reinforces the strong protection available to reputed brands against confusingly similar marks, even across different classes of goods and services.

The decision underscores the judiciary’s willingness to safeguard brand reputation and confirms that demonstrated market recognition, rather than formal well-known status, can be sufficient to secure cross-class trademark protection.

[Source]

M/S Products And Ideas (India) Pvt. Ltd vs Nilkamal Limited & Ors

The Hon’ble Delhi High Court (Division Bench), in a dispute concerning the STELLADEXIN/STELLA trademarks, has clarified two important principles of Indian trademark law. 

The Court held that a defence under Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999, requires continuous and substantial prior commercial use in India, observing that isolated invoices or pro forma invoices are insufficient to establish prior user rights. 

The Court further clarified that the defence of international exhaustion under Section 30(3) is available only where the trademark enjoys registration in India. Accordingly, foreign registration alone cannot justify the import or sale of genuine goods in India without the consent of the Indian registered proprietor.

The decision strengthens the rights of Indian trademark owners against unauthorised parallel imports and reinforces the evidentiary burden required to establish prior user rights.

DLL Analysis

In a significant trademark ruling involving the STELLADEXIN/STELLA marks, the Delhi High Court has strengthened protections for trademark owners in India. The Court held that a claim of prior use under Section 34 of the Trade Marks Act must be supported by continuous and substantial commercial use in India, noting that isolated or pro forma invoices are insufficient to establish prior user rights.

The Court also clarified that the defence of international exhaustion under Section 30(3) is available only where the trademark is registered in India. Foreign trademark registrations alone cannot justify the import or sale of genuine goods in India without the consent of the Indian registered proprietor.

[Source]

Loreal Sa vs Vekariya Nikunj Arvindbhai & Ors CM(M)-IPD 21/2026

The Delhi Commercial Court dismissed L’Oréal S.A.’s trademark and copyright infringement action against Seema Cosmetics concerning the marks “KAJAL MAGIQUE” and “TIANNUO MAGIC KAJAL”. The Court held that the plaintiff failed to establish infringement owing to the absence of primary documentary evidence, including proof of actual use, original trademark registration documents and copyright ownership. The Court further observed that the word “kajal” is generic and descriptive of the product itself and cannot ordinarily be monopolised. The judgment serves as an important reminder that successful IP enforcement depends not only upon ownership of rights but also upon adequate evidentiary support before the Court.

DLL Analysis

The Delhi Commercial Court’s dismissal of L’Oréal’s infringement claims against Seema Cosmetics highlights a fundamental principle of intellectual property litigation: ownership alone is not enough. The Court found that L’Oréal failed to substantiate its claims with key documentary evidence, including proof of use, trademark registration records, and copyright ownership documents.

Notably, the Court also reaffirmed that the term “kajal” is generic and descriptive of the product itself, limiting the scope for exclusive rights over such terminology. The ruling serves as a reminder that successful trademark and copyright enforcement depends not only on strong IP portfolios but also on the ability to present clear and convincing evidence before the court.

[Source]

AstraZeneca AB and another v. Eris Lifesciences Limited, Delhi High Court, 22 July 2026

On 22 July 2026, the Delhi High Court recorded a settlement in AstraZeneca’s patent-infringement proceedings against Eris Lifesciences. AstraZeneca had instituted the commercial suit seeking a permanent injunction against infringement of Indian Patent No. 235625, together with damages and rendition of accounts concerning Indian Patent Nos. 205147 and 235625. Eris disputed AstraZeneca’s claims and challenged the validity of the patents through its written statement and a separate counterclaim. During the proceedings, however, the parties negotiated a settlement and jointly applied to the Court for disposal of the dispute. Under the agreed terms, AstraZeneca consented to the disposal of the suit and all connected applications. Eris agreed to withdraw its invalidity claim in the written statement and its pending counterclaim. It also agreed not to pursue INR 500,000 in costs that had previously been imposed in its favour in related appellate proceedings. After reviewing the settlement and finding its terms lawful, the Court recorded the parties’ undertakings and decreed the suit accordingly. As a result, the litigation ended without a substantive judicial determination on patent validity or infringement.

DLL Analysis

The settlement illustrates how pharmaceutical patent disputes can be resolved without exposing either party to the uncertainty of a final ruling on infringement or validity. For a patent owner, settlement may preserve the patent from an adverse validity judgment while protecting its commercial position. For a generic manufacturer, it can reduce litigation costs and provide greater certainty regarding product-launch strategy. However, settlement terms affecting generic entry, product supply, licensing or market allocation should be reviewed carefully for possible competition-law implications. Pharmaceutical companies should also ensure that withdrawal obligations, costs, regulatory filings, inventory treatment and future enforcement rights are clearly documented.

[Source]

Global Developments

US judge approves Anthropic's $1.5 billion settlement of copyright lawsuit

A U.S. federal judge in San Francisco has granted final approval to Anthropic’s $1.5 billion settlement of a class action brought by authors who alleged their books were misused to train Claude. The deal is being described as the largest known settlement in a U.S. copyright case and marks the first major AI training copyright case in the United States to settle. The underlying litigation followed a significant ruling that training AI on books constituted fair use, though the court had also found potential copyright liability in Anthropic’s retention of more than 7 million pirated books in a central library. Judge Araceli Martinez-Olguin rejected objections that the settlement was inadequate, noting the criticism failed to reflect the real litigation risks. More than 91% of eligible authors and publishers have reportedly claimed payment, while some opt-out claims continue separately.

DLL Analysis

Anthropic’s $1.5 billion settlement with authors is a landmark moment for the AI industry, marking the largest known U.S. copyright settlement and the first major AI training copyright case to be resolved. While the court previously ruled that training AI models on books could qualify as fair use, it also identified potential liability linked to Anthropic’s retention of millions of allegedly pirated books.

The case highlights a critical distinction emerging in AI copyright law: the legal risk may stem less from model training itself and more from how copyrighted content is sourced, stored, and managed. For AI companies, the settlement underscores the importance of strong data governance practices, while for rights holders it demonstrates that copyright claims can still result in significant compensation even amid favorable fair-use rulings.

[Source]

Pharmascience Inc. v. Janssen Inc., Supreme Court of Canada, 17 July 2026

On 17 July 2026, the Supreme Court of Canada considered whether Janssen’s patent for dosing regimens involving long-acting injectable paliperidone palmitate, used to treat schizophrenia and related disorders, claimed an unpatentable method of medical treatment. The dispute arose after Pharmascience sought approval to market a generic version of the medicine and challenged Janssen’s patent on the ground that its dosing regimens improperly restricted the professional skill and judgment of healthcare practitioners. The Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal had upheld the patent, leading Pharmascience to appeal to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It confirmed that methods of medical treatment remain unpatentable where the claimed invention effectively monopolises the professional skill and judgment of physicians or other healthcare professionals. However, Janssen’s claims were upheld because they prescribed specific loading and maintenance doses rather than requiring clinicians to design or continuously individualise the dosing regimen. The fact that a healthcare professional would still decide whether the treatment was appropriate for a particular patient did not, by itself, make the claimed regimen an unpatentable method of medical treatment.

DLL Analysis

The judgment provides important guidance on the patentability of pharmaceutical dosing regimens in Canada. Clearly defined doses, administration schedules and treatment periods may remain patentable where they do not require continuing clinical adjustment as part of the claimed invention. By contrast, claims involving dose ranges, titration, patient-specific optimisation or ongoing therapeutic monitoring may face greater scrutiny if they interfere with professional medical judgment. Pharmaceutical companies should therefore distinguish the inventive dosing regimen from the clinician’s independent decision on whether to prescribe or administer it. The ruling also gives generic manufacturers a clearer framework for assessing whether a dosing patent protects a genuine pharmaceutical invention or impermissibly monopolises medical practice.

[Source]

Auden McKenzie and others v. Competition and Markets Authority, Court of Appeal of England and Wales, 28 July 2026

On 28 July 2026, the UK Court of Appeal upheld findings that Auden McKenzie and Actavis UK abused their dominant position by charging excessive and unfair prices for 10 mg and 20 mg immediate-release hydrocortisone tablets used to treat adrenal insufficiency, including Addison’s disease. Prices increased from less than GBP 1 per pack in 2007 to over GBP 70, causing annual NHS expenditure to rise from approximately GBP 500,000 to more than GBP 80 million. The CMA found that these increases were not supported by higher production costs or investment and that arrangements with potential competitors delayed generic entry. The Court upheld the core infringement findings but remitted the appeals concerning financial penalties to the Competition Appeal Tribunal for further consideration.

DLL Analysis

The judgment demonstrates that pharmaceutical companies holding substantial market power may face competition-law liability where major price increases cannot be objectively justified by costs, investment, innovation or other relevant factors. Companies should maintain clear evidence supporting pricing decisions, particularly for essential, off-patent or single-source medicines purchased by public health systems. Agreements, acquisitions or supply arrangements involving potential generic competitors should also be examined carefully where they may delay market entry or preserve high prices. The decision confirms that enforcement risk extends beyond pricing conduct itself and may also cover strategies that restrict competition or postpone the availability of lower-cost alternatives.

[Source]

Transactional IP

Ceva's Landmark AI Silicon IP Licensing Deal with a Major U.S. AI Platform Company

On 6 July 2026, Ceva announced a landmark intellectual property licensing agreement with a major U.S.-based software and AI platform company for the development of custom AI silicon. Under the arrangement, the customer licensed Ceva's NeuPro-M Neural Processing Unit (NPU) IP as the foundation for a next-generation AI chip program. The deal reflects a growing industry trend in which software and AI companies are increasingly designing proprietary silicon to optimize performance, energy efficiency, and full-stack AI integration. By licensing advanced semiconductor IP rather than developing processor architectures entirely in-house, the customer gains access to proven AI acceleration technology while retaining flexibility to customize its computing platform around emerging generative and multimodal AI workloads. The transaction highlights the increasing strategic value of semiconductor IP licensing as AI companies seek tighter integration between hardware, software, and operating systems.

[Source]

Datavault AI Licenses Patented Tokenization Technology for Strategic Minerals Platform

On 1 July 2026, Datavault AI announced a strategic partnership and licensing arrangement with Patriot Strategic Metals to develop a digital infrastructure platform for strategic mineral assets. The transaction centers around Datavault AI's patented real-world asset (RWA) tokenization technologies, blockchain-enabled settlement systems, AI-powered digital infrastructure, and enterprise software platforms. Through the licensing arrangement, the parties aim to create a technology ecosystem supporting financing, tracking, settlement, and lifecycle management of critical minerals used in AI systems, semiconductors, robotics, defense technologies, and advanced manufacturing. The transaction highlights the increasing commercialization of patented digital infrastructure technologies through licensing and collaborative innovation models.

[Source]

Chips&Media Signs Professional Video Codec IP Licensing Deal with Major North American Technology Company

In July 2026, Chips&Media entered into a licensing agreement with a major North American technology company for its WAVE-P professional video codec IP, designed to support next-generation 8K video processing and high-performance mobile content creation. The transaction enables the customer to integrate Chips&Media's proprietary codec technology into future flagship devices and expands the adoption of the APV (Advanced Professional Video) ecosystem. The agreement demonstrates how specialized semiconductor and multimedia IP portfolios are increasingly being monetized through licensing rather than traditional product sales, reinforcing the importance of IP-driven collaboration in advanced consumer electronics markets.

[Source]

Caterpillar Acquires Skycatch to Expand AI-Driven Mining Technology Capabilities

On 7 July 2026, Caterpillar announced its acquisition of Skycatch, a provider of spatial data capture, processing, and AI-powered analytics solutions for the mining industry. Through the transaction, Caterpillar gains access to Skycatch's proprietary digital twin technologies, spatial-data processing capabilities, and AI-enabled operational intelligence tools. The acquisition expands Caterpillar's portfolio of mining technologies and strengthens the integration of real-time data analytics into its MineStar and RPM software ecosystems. By combining advanced software assets and data-driven technologies with heavy engineering systems, the transaction demonstrates how industrial companies are increasingly acquiring technology and data-centric intellectual property to create smarter, more autonomous operational environments.

[Source]

IP in the Wild - Pop Culture & Business

US appeals court upholds win for artist Jeff Koons in copyright case

The Second Circuit has affirmed dismissal of sculptor Michael Hayden’s copyright suit against Jeff Koons, holding that Hayden waited too long to sue over Koons’s use of an allegedly copied sculpture in the 1989 “Made in Heaven” series. Hayden claimed he created a serpent-wrapped rock platform in 1988 for Ilona Staller (Cicciolina), and that Koons later used the platform in artworks and photographs featuring himself and Staller without permission. Hayden filed suit in 2021, but both the district court and the appeals court found his claims time barred. The court emphasized that Hayden lived in Italy when Koons’s Venice premiere triggered major media attention, consumed Italian news, and had close ties to Staller and the art world-factors that, together with the long delay, meant he should have discovered the alleged infringement far earlier.

[Source]

Technology & IP Convergence

Global Dialogue on AI Governance: Artificial Intelligence, Innovation and Intellectual Property Rights

On 6-7 July 2026, UNESCO and its international partners convened the Global Dialogue on AI Governance in Geneva, bringing together policymakers, technology leaders, academic experts, and international organizations to discuss the responsible development and governance of artificial intelligence. The dialogue highlighted the growing intersection between AI technologies and intellectual property systems, as AI increasingly contributes to the creation of content, inventions, datasets, and other valuable digital assets. Discussions focused on key issues such as transparency, accountability, data governance, innovation incentives, and the protection of intellectual property rights in AI-driven ecosystems. Participants emphasized that existing legal frameworks must evolve to address emerging challenges relating to AI-generated outputs, ownership, protection, and commercial exploitation, while ensuring that innovation remains responsible, inclusive, and globally beneficial. The discussions further underscored the need for international cooperation and adaptive governance mechanisms to support the continued convergence of artificial intelligence and intellectual property in the digital economy.

[Source]

Innovation Spotlight

Xeriant Receives U.S. Patent for Breakthrough Fire-Resistant Composite Technology

In July 2026, Xeriant announced the grant of a U.S. patent covering its proprietary multilayer fire resistant composite technology and associated manufacturing process, which forms the foundation of its NEXBOARD™ advanced materials platform. The patented technology combines lightweight engineering, sustainable materials, and non-toxic fire-retardant formulations to create high-performance construction panels designed as alternatives to conventional building materials. Independent testing has demonstrated strong fire-resistance performance as well as enhanced durability, impact resistance, thermal insulation, moisture resistance, and structural integrity. Beyond construction applications, the technology is expected to have potential use across aerospace, transportation, marine, defense, and energy sectors, where lightweight and fire-resistant engineered materials are increasingly in demand. The development highlights the growing importance of advanced materials engineering as a driver of next-generation industrial innovation.

IP Implication

This development underscores the strategic value of patent protection in the field of advanced materials and manufacturing technologies. By securing intellectual property rights over both the composite formulation and the manufacturing process, Xeriant strengthens its ability to commercialize the technology across multiple industries while creating barriers to entry for competitors. The patent not only enhances the company's competitive position but also expands opportunities for licensing, strategic partnerships, and future technology transfer. As industries increasingly seek sustainable, lightweight, and high-performance materials, robust intellectual property protection will play a critical role in enabling commercialization and maximizing long-term value creation.

[Source]

Upcoming IP Events

• Singapore IP Week 2026, August 26–27, 2026, Marina Bay Sands, Singapore [Source]
• 4th Information Technology Conference India (IT Confex), August 22, 2026, Mayur Vihar, New Delhi [Source]
• International Conferences on:
  • IP Valuation, Commercial Exploitation, and Economic Impact (ICIPVCEI) - Jaipur, India - August 15, 2026. [Source]
  • IP Risk Management, Enforcement, and Anti-Counterfeiting Strategies (ICIPRMEACS) - Bhopal, India - August15, 2026. [Source]
  • IP Policy, Governance, and Regulatory Compliance (ICIPGRC) - Cannes, France - August 17, 2026. [Source]
  • Intellectual Property Rights in Global Business Practices (ICIPRGBP) - Kharkiv, Ukraine - August 18, 2026. [Source]
  • Licensing, Commercialization, and IP Strategy Development (ICLCIPSD) - Utheemu, Maldives - August 18, 2026. [Source]
  • Intellectual Property Rights Policy, Trends, and Future Directions (ICIPRPTFD) - Rogner, Albania - August 18, 2026. [Source]
  • IP Policy, Governance, and Regulatory Compliance (ICIPGRC) - Naples, Italy - August 19, 2026. [Source]
  • Intellectual Property Rights Policy, Trends, and Future Directions (ICIPRPTFD) - Bruges, Belgium - August 20, 2026. [Source]
  • Technology Transfer, Knowledge Sharing, and IP Commercialization (ICTTKSIP) - Cannes, France - August 21, 2026. [Source]
  • Intellectual Property Education, Training, and Professional Development (ICIETPD) - Taipei City, Taiwan - August 22, 2026. [Source]
  • IP Litigation, Dispute Resolution, and Legal Precedents (ICIPLDRLP) - Bhubaneswar, India - August 22, 2026. [Source]
  • Licensing, Commercialization, and IP Strategy Development (ICLCIPSD) - Leipzig, Germany - August 24, 2026. [Source]

Contributors to the newsletter

Abhimanyu Singh (Vice President - Electronics and Engineering Intellectual Property)

Dr. Rinky Rani (Senior Patent Engineer)

Neha Sharma (Senior Patent Engineer)

Kanchan Naagar (Trainee Engineer)

Nishant Veer Vikram Singh (Patent Engineer)

Awertika Shrivastava (Associate)

Vrinda Singh (Trainee Associate)

Isha Bhatia (Trainee Engineer)