Your Apple Watch might just be shorn off one of its key features: the blood oxygen level display. A US court on Thursday (Jan 17) upheld a ban on the sale of Apple watches, allegedly infringing on a patent related to this medical technology. 
 
The dispute involves a smaller company which claims to have introduced the feature.

Blood oxygen level&nbsp;is a key feature used by those wearing Apple Watches, particularly fitness enthusiasts, and is very useful in medical situations. 
 
On the other side&nbsp;of the patent dispute is Masimo,&nbsp;a health technology and consumer electronics company based in Irvine, California. 
 
The Cupertino, California-based giant was earlier allowed to sell Series 9 and Ultra 2&nbsp;as the patent case was continuing.

WATCH:&nbsp;Apple overtakes Samsung as world's biggest seller of smartphones

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/apple-overtakes-samsung-as-worlds-biggest-seller-of-smartphones-681040/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

 
 
However, as per the court ruling, the models facing the dispute cannot be imported from 5:00 PM local time on Thursday. 
&nbsp;

<h2>Apple reacts to court ruling on smartwatch</h2>

On Thursday, Apple, which "strongly disagreed" that it violated patents, hinted it might disable the oximeter feature.

"Pending the appeal, Apple is taking steps to comply with the ruling while ensuring customers have access to Apple Watch with limited disruption," it said in a release.

 
Masimo,&nbsp;a health technology and consumer electronics company based in Irvine, California, reacted to the ruling in a press release, with its CEO sharing on X that the ruling was a "victory for American innovation".

&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Today marks a victory for American Innovation and hospital-grade wearables consumers can trust. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/PressRelease?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#PressRelease</a> <a href="https://t.co/1LlQi0Cw3I">https://t.co/1LlQi0Cw3I</a> <a href="https://t.co/h2jnxtJu1H">pic.twitter.com/h2jnxtJu1H</a>
— Joe Kiani (@JoeKiani) <a href="https://twitter.com/JoeKiani/status/1747834852492169362?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 18, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

“The Federal Circuit's decision to lift the temporary stay is a victory for the integrity of the American patent system and the safety of people relying on pulse oximetry,” a Masimo release quoted Kiani as saying. 
&nbsp;

“It affirms that even the largest and most powerful companies must respect the intellectual rights of American inventors and must deal with the consequences when they are caught infringing others’ patents.”

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/biden-administration-allows-apple-watch-import-ban-in-us-following-tribunal-ruling-673768">Biden administration allows Apple Watch import ban in US following tribunal ruling</a>

<h2>Masimo's allegations against Apple on patent infringement</h2>

Masimo claimed in its release that the company had&nbsp;earlier made available a study showing that Apple Watch’s pulse oximetry missed over 90 per cent&nbsp;of potentially life-threatening events.

"The Apple Watch pulse oximeter was not cleared by the United States Food and Drug Administration for medical use," Masimo claimed in the release&nbsp;while adding that&nbsp;the Masimo W1 health watch "was recently cleared by the FDA for its indicated medical uses, including continuous pulse oximetry".

also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/apple-begins-disbursing-batterygate-settlement-payments-to-us-iphone-users-report-677832">Apple begins disbursing ‘batterygate’ settlement payments to US iPhone users: Report</a>

Masimo said in its release that its pulse oximetry technology "is used on over 200 million patients in hospitals a year".

According to the company, the feature helped save babies’ eyesight in the neonatal ICU, detect critical congenital heart defects in newborns and save the lives of patients in post-surgical wards who are taking opioids.

Masimo and sister company Cercacor claimed that Apple poached its key staff, and accused the tech giant of stealing its blood oxygen level detection technology.

The US trade commission agreed to some of these claims last&nbsp;October and banned imports and sales of some of the Apple Watch models. But this ban was halted as hearings were going on Apple's appeal.

Most versions of Apple's watches, including the Series 9 and Ultra 2, have included the feature since 2020, BBC said in a report, adding some models do not have the feature.

(With inputs from agencies) 
&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Your Apple Watch might just be shorn off one of its key features: the blood oxygen level display. A US court on Thursday (Jan 17) upheld a ban on the sale of Apple watches, allegedly infringing on a patent related to this medical technology.

Your Apple Watch might just be shorn off one of its key features: the blood oxygen level display. A US court on Thursday (Jan 17) upheld a ban on the sale of Apple watches, allegedly infringing on a patent related to this medical technology. The dispute involves a smaller company which claims to have introduced the feature. Blood oxygen level is a key feature used by those wearing Apple Watches, particularly fitness enthusiasts, and is very useful in medical situations. On the other side of the patent dispute is Masimo, a health technology and consumer electronics company based in Irvine, California. The Cupertino, California-based giant was earlier allowed to sell Series 9 and Ultra 2 as the patent case was continuing. WATCH: Apple overtakes Samsung as world's biggest seller of smartphones × However, as per the court ruling, the models facing the dispute cannot be imported from 5:00 PM local time on Thursday. Apple reacts to court ruling on smartwatch On Thursday, Apple, which "strongly disagreed" that it violated patents, hinted it might disable the oximeter feature. "Pending the appeal, Apple is taking steps to comply with the ruling while ensuring customers have access to Apple Watch with limited disruption," it said in a release. Masimo, a health technology and consumer electronics company based in Irvine, California, reacted to the ruling in a press release, with its CEO sharing on X that the ruling was a "victory for American innovation". Today marks a victory for American Innovation and hospital-grade wearables consumers can trust. #PressRelease https://t.co/1LlQi0Cw3I pic.twitter.com/h2jnxtJu1H — Joe Kiani (@JoeKiani) January 18, 2024 × “The Federal Circuit's decision to lift the temporary stay is a victory for the integrity of the American patent system and the safety of people relying on pulse oximetry,” a Masimo release quoted Kiani as saying. “It affirms that even the largest and most powerful companies must respect the intellectual rights of American inventors and must deal with the consequences when they are caught infringing others’ patents.” Also read: Biden administration allows Apple Watch import ban in US following tribunal ruling Masimo's allegations against Apple on patent infringement Masimo claimed in its release that the company had earlier made available a study showing that Apple Watch’s pulse oximetry missed over 90 per cent of potentially life-threatening events. "The Apple Watch pulse oximeter was not cleared by the United States Food and Drug Administration for medical use," Masimo claimed in the release while adding that the Masimo W1 health watch "was recently cleared by the FDA for its indicated medical uses, including continuous pulse oximetry". also read: Apple begins disbursing ‘batterygate’ settlement payments to US iPhone users: Report Masimo said in its release that its pulse oximetry technology "is used on over 200 million patients in hospitals a year". According to the company, the feature helped save babies’ eyesight in the neonatal ICU, detect critical congenital heart defects in newborns and save the lives of patients in post-surgical wards who are taking opioids. Masimo and sister company Cercacor claimed that Apple poached its key staff, and accused the tech giant of stealing its blood oxygen level detection technology. The US trade commission agreed to some of these claims last October and banned imports and sales of some of the Apple Watch models. But this ban was halted as hearings were going on Apple's appeal. Most versions of Apple's watches, including the Series 9 and Ultra 2, have included the feature since 2020, BBC said in a report, adding some models do not have the feature. (With inputs from agencies)

Apple watch patent row: As US upholds ban on sale, tech giant might disable oxygen display in some devices

Your Apple Watch might just be shorn off one of its key features: the blood oxygen level display. A US court on Thursday (Jan 17) upheld a ban on the sale of Apple watches, allegedly infringing on a patent related to this medical technology. 
 
The dispute involves a smaller company which claims to have introduced the feature.

Blood oxygen levels is a key feature used by those wearing Apple Watches, particularly fitness enthusiasts, and is very useful in medical situations. 
 
On the other side&nbsp;of the patent dispute is Masimo,&nbsp;a health technology and consumer electronics company based in Irvine, California. 
 
The Cupertino, California-based giant was earlier allowed to sell Series 9 and Ultra 2&nbsp; as the patent case was continuing.

WATCH:&nbsp;Apple overtakes Samsung as world's biggest seller of smartphones

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/apple-overtakes-samsung-as-worlds-biggest-seller-of-smartphones-681040/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

 
 
As per the court ruling, the models facing the dispute cannot be imported from 17:00 PM local time on Thursday. 
 
 
On Thursday, Apple said it will release watches without the disputed blood oxygen feature to keep them on shelves.

 
Masimo reacted to the ruling in a press release, with its CEO sharing on X that the ruling was a "victory for American innovation."

&nbsp;

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Today marks a victory for American Innovation and hospital-grade wearables consumers can trust. <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/PressRelease?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#PressRelease</a> <a href="https://t.co/1LlQi0Cw3I">https://t.co/1LlQi0Cw3I</a> <a href="https://t.co/h2jnxtJu1H">pic.twitter.com/h2jnxtJu1H</a>
— Joe Kiani (@JoeKiani) <a href="https://twitter.com/JoeKiani/status/1747834852492169362?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 18, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

&nbsp;

“the Federal Circuit's decision to lift the temporary stay is a victory for the integrity of the American patent system and the safety of people relying on pulse oximetry,” said Joe Kiani, Founder and CEO of Masimo.

“It affirms that even the largest and most powerful companies must respect the intellectual rights of American inventors and must deal with the consequences when they are caught infringing others’ patents.”

Also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/biden-administration-allows-apple-watch-import-ban-in-us-following-tribunal-ruling-673768">Biden administration allows Apple Watch import ban in US following tribunal ruling</a>

Masimo said in its release that the company had&nbsp;earlier made available a study showing that Apple Watch’s pulse oximetry missed over 90% of potentially life-threatening events.

"The Apple Watch pulse oximeter was not cleared by the United Stated Food and Drug Administration for medical use," Masimo claimed in the release while claiming that&nbsp;the Masimo W1 health watch was recently cleared by the FDA for its indicated medical uses, including continuous pulse oximetry.

also read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/technology/apple-begins-disbursing-batterygate-settlement-payments-to-us-iphone-users-report-677832">Apple begins disbursing ‘batterygate’ settlement payments to US iPhone users: Report</a>

Masimo said in its release that its pulse oximetry technology "is used on over 200 million patients in hospitals a year."

&nbsp;

According to the company, the feature helped save babies’ eyesight in the neonatal ICU, detect critical congenital heart defects in newborns, and save the lives of patients in post-surgical wards who are taking opioids.

 
Masimo and sister company Cercacor claimed that Apple poached its key staff, and accused the tech giant of stealing its blood oxygen level detection technology.

The US trade commission had agreed to some of this claims last&nbsp;October and banned imports and sales of some of the Apple Watch models. But this ban was halted as hearings were going on Apple's appeal.

&nbsp;

Most versions of Apple's watches, including the Series 9 and Ultra 2, have included the feature since 2020, BBC said in a report, adding some models do not have the feature.

&nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies) 
&nbsp;

&nbsp;

Your Apple Watch might just be shorn off one of its key features: the blood oxygen level display. A US court on Thursday (Jan 17) upheld a ban on the sale of Apple watches, allegedly infringing on a patent related to this medical technology. The dispute involves a smaller company which claims to have introduced the feature. Blood oxygen levels is a key feature used by those wearing Apple Watches, particularly fitness enthusiasts, and is very useful in medical situations. On the other side of the patent dispute is Masimo, a health technology and consumer electronics company based in Irvine, California. The Cupertino, California-based giant was earlier allowed to sell Series 9 and Ultra 2 as the patent case was continuing. WATCH: Apple overtakes Samsung as world's biggest seller of smartphones × As per the court ruling, the models facing the dispute cannot be imported from 17:00 PM local time on Thursday. On Thursday, Apple said it will release watches without the disputed blood oxygen feature to keep them on shelves. Masimo reacted to the ruling in a press release, with its CEO sharing on X that the ruling was a "victory for American innovation." Today marks a victory for American Innovation and hospital-grade wearables consumers can trust. #PressRelease https://t.co/1LlQi0Cw3I pic.twitter.com/h2jnxtJu1H — Joe Kiani (@JoeKiani) January 18, 2024 × “the Federal Circuit's decision to lift the temporary stay is a victory for the integrity of the American patent system and the safety of people relying on pulse oximetry,” said Joe Kiani, Founder and CEO of Masimo. “It affirms that even the largest and most powerful companies must respect the intellectual rights of American inventors and must deal with the consequences when they are caught infringing others’ patents.” Also read: Biden administration allows Apple Watch import ban in US following tribunal ruling Masimo said in its release that the company had earlier made available a study showing that Apple Watch’s pulse oximetry missed over 90% of potentially life-threatening events. "The Apple Watch pulse oximeter was not cleared by the United Stated Food and Drug Administration for medical use," Masimo claimed in the release while claiming that the Masimo W1 health watch was recently cleared by the FDA for its indicated medical uses, including continuous pulse oximetry. also read: Apple begins disbursing ‘batterygate’ settlement payments to US iPhone users: Report Masimo said in its release that its pulse oximetry technology "is used on over 200 million patients in hospitals a year." According to the company, the feature helped save babies’ eyesight in the neonatal ICU, detect critical congenital heart defects in newborns, and save the lives of patients in post-surgical wards who are taking opioids. Masimo and sister company Cercacor claimed that Apple poached its key staff, and accused the tech giant of stealing its blood oxygen level detection technology. The US trade commission had agreed to some of this claims last October and banned imports and sales of some of the Apple Watch models. But this ban was halted as hearings were going on Apple's appeal. Most versions of Apple's watches, including the Series 9 and Ultra 2, have included the feature since 2020, BBC said in a report, adding some models do not have the feature. (With inputs from agencies)

Apple watch patent row: As US upholds ban on sale, tech giant might disable this feature in iWatch

The UK Supreme Court has ruled against the notion that artificial intelligence (AI) can be recognised as an inventor for patent rights, Reuters reported on Wednesday. &nbsp;

The case revolved around US computer scientist Stephen Thaler, who sought to register patents in the UK for inventions generated by his AI system named DABUS. Thaler's attempt was rejected by the UK's Intellectual Property Office (IPO), which argued that patent rights should be attributed to a natural person or a company rather than a machine.&nbsp;

The UK Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, dismissed Thaler's appeal, affirming that, under UK patent law, an inventor must be a natural person. While addressing the specific case at hand, Judge David Kitchin emphasised that the ruling did not address the broader question of whether technical advances produced autonomously by AI should be eligible for patents. &nbsp;

Thaler's legal team expressed concerns, stating that the ruling highlights the inadequacy of current UK patent law in protecting inventions autonomously generated by AI machines, potentially hindering industries reliant on AI-driven technological advancements.&nbsp;

The UK's IPO welcomed the Supreme Court's decision, providing clarity on the existing law regarding the patenting of AI-generated creations. Acknowledging the evolving landscape, the IPO spokesperson recognised the legitimate questions surrounding how the patent system and intellectual property, in general, should handle such AI-generated creations. The government expressed its commitment to keeping this area of law under review.&nbsp;

Earlier this year, Stephen Thaler experienced a similar defeat in the US when the US Supreme Court turned down his appeal against the US Patent and Trademark Office's denial of patents for discoveries produced by his AI system. &nbsp;

While the UK Supreme Court's ruling aligns with decisions from courts in Europe, Australia, and the US, legal experts anticipate potential changes in the medium term as AI evolves from being a tool to an agent.&nbsp;

Despite the current legal stance, Giles Parsons, a partner at law firm Browne Jacobson, noted that the decision is not expected to have a significant impact on the patent system at present. Parsons emphasised that as AI evolves, addressing potential challenges in patent law can be tackled when they arise. &nbsp;

Rajvinder Jagdev, an intellectual property partner at Powell Gilbert, highlighted that the judgment does not preclude individuals from using AI to devise inventions, provided that a natural person is identified as the inventor. In a separate case last month, London's High Court affirmed that artificial neural networks can attract patent protection under UK law.&nbsp;

(With inputs from Reuters)&nbsp;

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

The UK Supreme Court has ruled against the notion that artificial intelligence (AI) can be recognised as an inventor for patent rights, Reuters reported on Wednesday.

The UK Supreme Court has ruled against the notion that artificial intelligence (AI) can be recognised as an inventor for patent rights, Reuters reported on Wednesday. The case revolved around US computer scientist Stephen Thaler, who sought to register patents in the UK for inventions generated by his AI system named DABUS. Thaler's attempt was rejected by the UK's Intellectual Property Office (IPO), which argued that patent rights should be attributed to a natural person or a company rather than a machine. The UK Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision, dismissed Thaler's appeal, affirming that, under UK patent law, an inventor must be a natural person. While addressing the specific case at hand, Judge David Kitchin emphasised that the ruling did not address the broader question of whether technical advances produced autonomously by AI should be eligible for patents. Thaler's legal team expressed concerns, stating that the ruling highlights the inadequacy of current UK patent law in protecting inventions autonomously generated by AI machines, potentially hindering industries reliant on AI-driven technological advancements. The UK's IPO welcomed the Supreme Court's decision, providing clarity on the existing law regarding the patenting of AI-generated creations. Acknowledging the evolving landscape, the IPO spokesperson recognised the legitimate questions surrounding how the patent system and intellectual property, in general, should handle such AI-generated creations. The government expressed its commitment to keeping this area of law under review. Earlier this year, Stephen Thaler experienced a similar defeat in the US when the US Supreme Court turned down his appeal against the US Patent and Trademark Office's denial of patents for discoveries produced by his AI system. While the UK Supreme Court's ruling aligns with decisions from courts in Europe, Australia, and the US, legal experts anticipate potential changes in the medium term as AI evolves from being a tool to an agent. Despite the current legal stance, Giles Parsons, a partner at law firm Browne Jacobson, noted that the decision is not expected to have a significant impact on the patent system at present. Parsons emphasised that as AI evolves, addressing potential challenges in patent law can be tackled when they arise. Rajvinder Jagdev, an intellectual property partner at Powell Gilbert, highlighted that the judgment does not preclude individuals from using AI to devise inventions, provided that a natural person is identified as the inventor. In a separate case last month, London's High Court affirmed that artificial neural networks can attract patent protection under UK law. (With inputs from Reuters) WATCH WION LIVE HERE

UK Supreme Court rules against AI as patent 'Inventor' in landmark case 

An appeals court in the US on Monday (December 4) overturned a previous verdict awarding USD 2.18 billion to VLSI Technology in a patent infringement case against Intel Corp. This decision has overturned one of the largest verdicts in the history of US patent law.

VLSI Technology holds the patent over which the case was fought.

In 2021, a jury verdict said that Intel infringed one VLSI patent. The case was then sent to Texs in order to determine the amount Intel owes for its infringement of a second VLSI patent.

On Monday, the Federal Circuit Court held that there was insufficient evidence for the jury to have found that there was patent infringement by Intel on one of the two patents.

Watch | Dark side of Artificial Intelligence

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/dark-side-of-artificial-intelligence-648560/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>
</div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

The Washington-based court said that Intel did infringe another VLSI patent, but problems with analysis that led to damages required a fresh trial to be held and a fresh trial to assess how much money needs to be awarded in damages.

Investment funds managed by Fortress Investment Group own VLSI. Earlier this year, Abu Dhabi's Mubadala Investment Co consented to the acquisition of a majority stake in Fortress from Softbank.

<h2>Fight across the US</h2>

VLSI has taken Intel to court across the US and has made allegations that Intel infringed several of its patents that covered semiconductor technology.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/science/nasa-sidesteps-ban-by-us-appeals-researchers-to-gather-moon-samples-from-china-665484">NASA sidesteps ban by US, appeals researchers to gather moon samples from China</a>

The first trial that came out of this dispute was heard in Waco, Texas. The jury awarded USD 2.18 billion to VLSI. It found that the patents VLSI acquired from Dutch chipmaker NXP Semiconductors were infringed by Intel microprocessors.

Also Read | <a href="https://www.wionews.com/science/nasa-sidesteps-ban-by-us-appeals-researchers-to-gather-moon-samples-from-china-665484">NASA sidesteps ban by US, appeals researchers to gather moon samples from China</a>

On Monday morning, Intel stock was down by more than 4 per cent and other chipmakers also saw declines.

In 2021, Intel defeated another bid by VLSI to get more than USD 3 billion in damages in another trial. A separate case before a different jury in Austin, Texas resulted in a USD 949 million award from Intel. This was last year.

(With inputs from agencies)

An appeals court in the US on Monday (December 4) overturned a previous verdict awarding USD 2.18 billion to VLSI Technology in a patent infringement case against Intel Corp.

An appeals court in the US on Monday (December 4) overturned a previous verdict awarding USD 2.18 billion to VLSI Technology in a patent infringement case against Intel Corp. This decision has overturned one of the largest verdicts in the history of US patent law. VLSI Technology holds the patent over which the case was fought. In 2021, a jury verdict said that Intel infringed one VLSI patent. The case was then sent to Texs in order to determine the amount Intel owes for its infringement of a second VLSI patent. On Monday, the Federal Circuit Court held that there was insufficient evidence for the jury to have found that there was patent infringement by Intel on one of the two patents. Watch | Dark side of Artificial Intelligence × The Washington-based court said that Intel did infringe another VLSI patent, but problems with analysis that led to damages required a fresh trial to be held and a fresh trial to assess how much money needs to be awarded in damages. Investment funds managed by Fortress Investment Group own VLSI. Earlier this year, Abu Dhabi's Mubadala Investment Co consented to the acquisition of a majority stake in Fortress from Softbank. Fight across the US VLSI has taken Intel to court across the US and has made allegations that Intel infringed several of its patents that covered semiconductor technology. Also Read | NASA sidesteps ban by US, appeals researchers to gather moon samples from China The first trial that came out of this dispute was heard in Waco, Texas. The jury awarded USD 2.18 billion to VLSI. It found that the patents VLSI acquired from Dutch chipmaker NXP Semiconductors were infringed by Intel microprocessors. Also Read | NASA sidesteps ban by US, appeals researchers to gather moon samples from China On Monday morning, Intel stock was down by more than 4 per cent and other chipmakers also saw declines. In 2021, Intel defeated another bid by VLSI to get more than USD 3 billion in damages in another trial. A separate case before a different jury in Austin, Texas resulted in a USD 949 million award from Intel. This was last year. (With inputs from agencies)

Intel succeeds in overturning $2.18bn patent verdict, one of the largest in US

Finnish telecom giant&nbsp;Nokia has taken legal action against Amazon and HP, filing a lawsuit in Delaware federal court that alleges patent infringement related to video streaming technology. Nokia's complaint asserts that Amazon's Prime Video and Twitch streaming services, as well as HP's computers, violate its patents concerning video streaming compression, delivery, and other relevant technology.&nbsp;

&nbsp;The telecom company has stated that both Amazon and HP declined to obtain licenses for these patents and, instead, utilised Nokia's technology to enhance the efficiency and quality of video streaming. Nokia has also initiated related lawsuits against Amazon in Germany, India, the United Kingdom, and the European Unified Patent Court. &nbsp;

According to Reuters, Nokia expressed its hope that Amazon and HP would recognise their obligations and engage in negotiations for licensing in good faith. The lawsuits specify that dozens of companies have already secured licenses for Nokia's video encoding and decoding patents. These patents enable high-quality video streaming while reducing bandwidth and data-storage requirements. Moreover, some of these patents are considered essential to the International Telecommunication Union standards for video coding technology. &nbsp;

Nokia maintains that it offered Amazon and HP licenses on fair terms, but they have not accepted the terms, leading to the legal action. Nokia is seeking court orders to halt Amazon and HP's alleged patent infringement and is pursuing monetary damages, the specific amount of which has not been disclosed.&nbsp;

Nokia's patent portfolio, as announced earlier this year during a 5G wireless patent license agreement with Apple, is the result of investments in research and development, totalling over 140 billion euros. It encompasses approximately 20,000 patent families, underscoring the company's commitment to innovation. The lawsuits against Amazon and HP, addressing video streaming patent infringement, mark Nokia's proactive efforts to protect its intellectual property and ensure that its technology is used in compliance with established standards.&nbsp;

The cases are as follows: Nokia Technologies OY v. Amazon.com Inc, U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, No. 1:23-cv-01236 and Nokia Technologies OY v. HP Inc, U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, No. 1:23-cv-01237. Legal representation for Nokia includes Warren Lipschitz, Josh Newcomer, and Kevin Burgess from McKool Smith, as well as Ted Stevenson, John Haynes, and Nicholas Tsui from Alston &amp; Bird. Attorneys for Amazon and HP are not yet identified.&nbsp;

(With inputs from Reuters)&nbsp;

WATCH WION LIVE HERE

<iframe allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen="" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/live-tv/embed?autoplay=1&amp;mute=1" width="100%"></iframe>

Finnish telecom giant Nokia has taken legal action against Amazon and HP, filing a lawsuit in Delaware federal court that alleges patent infringement related to video streaming technology.

Finnish telecom giant Nokia has taken legal action against Amazon and HP, filing a lawsuit in Delaware federal court that alleges patent infringement related to video streaming technology. Nokia's complaint asserts that Amazon's Prime Video and Twitch streaming services, as well as HP's computers, violate its patents concerning video streaming compression, delivery, and other relevant technology. The telecom company has stated that both Amazon and HP declined to obtain licenses for these patents and, instead, utilised Nokia's technology to enhance the efficiency and quality of video streaming. Nokia has also initiated related lawsuits against Amazon in Germany, India, the United Kingdom, and the European Unified Patent Court. According to Reuters, Nokia expressed its hope that Amazon and HP would recognise their obligations and engage in negotiations for licensing in good faith. The lawsuits specify that dozens of companies have already secured licenses for Nokia's video encoding and decoding patents. These patents enable high-quality video streaming while reducing bandwidth and data-storage requirements. Moreover, some of these patents are considered essential to the International Telecommunication Union standards for video coding technology. Nokia maintains that it offered Amazon and HP licenses on fair terms, but they have not accepted the terms, leading to the legal action. Nokia is seeking court orders to halt Amazon and HP's alleged patent infringement and is pursuing monetary damages, the specific amount of which has not been disclosed. Nokia's patent portfolio, as announced earlier this year during a 5G wireless patent license agreement with Apple, is the result of investments in research and development, totalling over 140 billion euros. It encompasses approximately 20,000 patent families, underscoring the company's commitment to innovation. The lawsuits against Amazon and HP, addressing video streaming patent infringement, mark Nokia's proactive efforts to protect its intellectual property and ensure that its technology is used in compliance with established standards. The cases are as follows: Nokia Technologies OY v. Amazon.com Inc, U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, No. 1:23-cv-01236 and Nokia Technologies OY v. HP Inc, U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, No. 1:23-cv-01237. Legal representation for Nokia includes Warren Lipschitz, Josh Newcomer, and Kevin Burgess from McKool Smith, as well as Ted Stevenson, John Haynes, and Nicholas Tsui from Alston & Bird. Attorneys for Amazon and HP are not yet identified. (With inputs from Reuters) WATCH WION LIVE HERE

Nokia sues Amazon and HP for patent infringement in video streaming 

Apple is never afraid to drop features from its devices. It has ditched ports on the MacBook even removed chargers from iPhone boxes and even dropped the headphone jack on the iPhone and this time it looks like they may be removing buttons from the MacBook.

Apple patent tech reveals new plans, no buttons for Apple devices?

A&nbsp;record&nbsp;number of international patents were filed last year, indicating that innovation had not been stymied by the pandemic, the United Nations said Thursday.

Even as Covid-19 took a vast human and economic toll, international&nbsp;patent&nbsp;applications continued to grow, with Asia, and China in particular, cementing their leading positions.

A&nbsp;record&nbsp;277,500 international patents were filed in&nbsp;2021, marking a 0.9-percent increase from 2020, the&nbsp;UN's World Intellectual Property Organisation said in its annual overview.

"These figures show that human ingenuity and entrepreneurial spirit remain strong despite the disruptions caused by the pandemic." WIPO Director-General Daren Tang said in a statement.

Last year marked the 12th consecutive year of growth in international&nbsp;patent&nbsp;filings.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/photos/tsirkon-serial-production-russias-race-for-hypersonic-missiles-revealed-452075">Tsirkon 'serial production': Russia's race for hypersonic missiles revealed</a>

WIPO's chief economist Carsten Fink highlighted how remarkable it was that "international&nbsp;patent&nbsp;filings&nbsp;continued to grow in 2020 and&nbsp;2021&nbsp;as the&nbsp;global&nbsp;pandemic unfolded and upended economies around the world."

"This experience is notably different compared to previous economic crises," he told reporters, pointing to how international&nbsp;patent&nbsp;filings&nbsp;fell during the&nbsp;global&nbsp;financial crisis in 2009.

WIPO's complex system of registering international patents involves multiple categories, including&nbsp;global&nbsp;trademarks and design filing systems.

China on top

In the main category -- the&nbsp;Patent&nbsp;Cooperation Treaty, or PCT -- China remained at the top of the rankings with 69,540&nbsp;filings.

That marks a mere 0.9-percent increase over 2020.&nbsp;

But a year earlier, China registered a 16-percent jump over 2019, when it for the first time overtook the United States as the world's top international&nbsp;patent&nbsp;filer.

The United States remained in second place in&nbsp;2021, with 59,570&nbsp;filings, followed by Japan with 50,260, South Korea with 20,678 and Germany with 17,322.

The&nbsp;UN&nbsp;agency highlighted significant growth in applications by several smaller filers as well.

Singapore, for instance, saw its international&nbsp;patent&nbsp;applications swell by 23 percent to 1,617, while Finland and Turkey each saw jumps of over 13 percent.

WIPO's report showed that Asia-based applicants accounted for 54.1 percent of all&nbsp;filings&nbsp;last year, up from 38.5 percent a decade earlier.

For the fifth consecutive year, China-based telecoms giant Huawei Technologies topped the&nbsp;global&nbsp;ranking in&nbsp;2021, with 6,952 PCT applications.

The company thus applied for more international patents than all the&nbsp;filings&nbsp;out of Britain in&nbsp;2021, Fink pointed out.

Also read |<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/one-menacing-call-after-another-threats-against-lawmakers-surge-452046">&nbsp;One menacing call after another: Threats against lawmakers surge</a>

It was followed by US firm Qualcomm Inc at 3,931; South Korea's Samsung Electronics at 3,041 and LG Electronics at 2,855; and Mitsubishi Electric Corp of Japan at 2,673.

Computer technology accounted for the largest share of published PCT applications, making up 9.9 percent of the total, followed by digital communication and medical technology.

The pharmaceutical field recorded the strongest growth rate for&nbsp;filings, seeing a 12.8-percent jump, followed by biotechnology, which was up 9.5 percent.

Fink pointed out that it takes around 18 months for patents to be published after they are filed, warning that the official&nbsp;2021&nbsp;figures might not yet completely reflect pandemic-fuelled technology trends.

However, he said, "we have definitely seen greater dynamism in the health-related technology fields."

A record number of international patents were filed last year, indicating that innovation had not been stymied by the pandemic, the United Nations said Thursday.

A record number of international patents were filed last year, indicating that innovation had not been stymied by the pandemic, the United Nations said Thursday. Even as Covid-19 took a vast human and economic toll, international patent applications continued to grow, with Asia, and China in particular, cementing their leading positions. A record 277,500 international patents were filed in 2021, marking a 0.9-percent increase from 2020, the UN's World Intellectual Property Organisation said in its annual overview. "These figures show that human ingenuity and entrepreneurial spirit remain strong despite the disruptions caused by the pandemic." WIPO Director-General Daren Tang said in a statement. Last year marked the 12th consecutive year of growth in international patent filings. Also read | Tsirkon 'serial production': Russia's race for hypersonic missiles revealed WIPO's chief economist Carsten Fink highlighted how remarkable it was that "international patent filings continued to grow in 2020 and 2021 as the global pandemic unfolded and upended economies around the world." "This experience is notably different compared to previous economic crises," he told reporters, pointing to how international patent filings fell during the global financial crisis in 2009. WIPO's complex system of registering international patents involves multiple categories, including global trademarks and design filing systems. China on top In the main category -- the Patent Cooperation Treaty, or PCT -- China remained at the top of the rankings with 69,540 filings. That marks a mere 0.9-percent increase over 2020. But a year earlier, China registered a 16-percent jump over 2019, when it for the first time overtook the United States as the world's top international patent filer. The United States remained in second place in 2021, with 59,570 filings, followed by Japan with 50,260, South Korea with 20,678 and Germany with 17,322. The UN agency highlighted significant growth in applications by several smaller filers as well. Singapore, for instance, saw its international patent applications swell by 23 percent to 1,617, while Finland and Turkey each saw jumps of over 13 percent. WIPO's report showed that Asia-based applicants accounted for 54.1 percent of all filings last year, up from 38.5 percent a decade earlier. For the fifth consecutive year, China-based telecoms giant Huawei Technologies topped the global ranking in 2021, with 6,952 PCT applications. The company thus applied for more international patents than all the filings out of Britain in 2021, Fink pointed out. Also read | One menacing call after another: Threats against lawmakers surge It was followed by US firm Qualcomm Inc at 3,931; South Korea's Samsung Electronics at 3,041 and LG Electronics at 2,855; and Mitsubishi Electric Corp of Japan at 2,673. Computer technology accounted for the largest share of published PCT applications, making up 9.9 percent of the total, followed by digital communication and medical technology. The pharmaceutical field recorded the strongest growth rate for filings, seeing a 12.8-percent jump, followed by biotechnology, which was up 9.5 percent. Fink pointed out that it takes around 18 months for patents to be published after they are filed, warning that the official 2021 figures might not yet completely reflect pandemic-fuelled technology trends. However, he said, "we have definitely seen greater dynamism in the health-related technology fields."

Global patent filings surged to record high in 2021: UN

In a fresh hope for the COVID vaccine patent agreement, World Trade Organization has now said that a deal between rich nations and other countries on intellectual property waivers are likely to be formulated in the coming weeks.

WTO: intellectual property waivers for COVID vaccine are likely to be formulated in the coming weeks

Inflatable swimming pools are a source of immense enjoyment for little children, but for 8-year-old Vishalini, it has been a source of inspiration.

The 10-feet-long inflatable pool at her home led her to conceptualise an automatic inflatable flood shelter, which her parents helped design, prototype and patent.

Besides the patent that the trio hold, the little girl has also been awarded the Pradhan Mantri Rashtriya Bal Puraskar Award (PMRBP).

The coveted award is conferred by the Government of India to give recognition to children with exceptional abilities and outstanding achievements in the fields of innovation, scholastic achievements, social service, arts and culture and sports

“About two years ago, we were watching some TV news regarding flooding. Looking at the widespread damage caused, our daughter asked - 'Why can't people save themselves by using something like our inflatable pool?’ This sparked an idea in our minds and we deliberated upon it and improvised. That's how the concept came into being" Naresh, a PhD holder, engineering professor and Vishalini's father, told WION.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
8yr old Vishalini, a 2nd std student explains how she came up with the idea of an inflatable flood shelter, when watching TV news about floods. Her family has patented their concept and have a mini prototype 
 
She was awarded <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/balpuraskar?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#balpuraskar</a> and 1lakh Rs, by Govt of <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/india?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#india</a> <a href="https://t.co/gGuzddD6rS">https://t.co/gGuzddD6rS</a> <a href="https://t.co/hXWvBj1rlD">pic.twitter.com/hXWvBj1rlD</a>
— Sidharth.M.P (@sdhrthmp) <a href="https://twitter.com/sdhrthmp/status/1486355843193131010?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">January 26, 2022</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

As per the design specifications, the shelter has provisions for seating up to 4 persons, it has seat belts, a first aid kit, storage for essential items etc.

It is powered by a solar panel, and also features like GPS and GSM connectivity for enabling communication and location tracking, besides a host of sensors.

Simply put, it's like an inflatable pool with a cover that automatically expands itself once the need arises. However, instead of holding water, it is meant to protect people from a deluge.&nbsp;

When asked how the floating structure could function in fast-flowing floodwaters, Naresh explained that it could be tethered to firm structures or anchored. When required, it is also meant for short distances in the floodwaters.&nbsp;

Patented as an ‘automatic multi-functional life rescue flood house’, the shelter currently exists only in a miniature prototype firm.

According to Naresh, the latest recognition for their daughter from the Indian government and the monetary reward of Rs1 lakh (US $ 1,330 approx.) has invigorated the family's efforts towards contributing to the nation and getting a working model ready.&nbsp;

Inflatable swimming pools are a source of immense enjoyment for little children, but for 8-year-old Vishalini, it has been a source of inspiration. The 10-feet-long inflatable pool at her home led her to conceptualise an automatic inflatable flood shelter, which her parents helped design, prototype and patent.

Inflatable swimming pools are a source of immense enjoyment for little children, but for 8-year-old Vishalini, it has been a source of inspiration. The 10-feet-long inflatable pool at her home led her to conceptualise an automatic inflatable flood shelter, which her parents helped design, prototype and patent. Besides the patent that the trio hold, the little girl has also been awarded the Pradhan Mantri Rashtriya Bal Puraskar Award (PMRBP). The coveted award is conferred by the Government of India to give recognition to children with exceptional abilities and outstanding achievements in the fields of innovation, scholastic achievements, social service, arts and culture and sports “About two years ago, we were watching some TV news regarding flooding. Looking at the widespread damage caused, our daughter asked - 'Why can't people save themselves by using something like our inflatable pool?’ This sparked an idea in our minds and we deliberated upon it and improvised. That's how the concept came into being" Naresh, a PhD holder, engineering professor and Vishalini's father, told WION. 8yr old Vishalini, a 2nd std student explains how she came up with the idea of an inflatable flood shelter, when watching TV news about floods. Her family has patented their concept and have a mini prototype She was awarded #balpuraskar and 1lakh Rs, by Govt of #india https://t.co/gGuzddD6rS pic.twitter.com/hXWvBj1rlD — Sidharth.M.P (@sdhrthmp) January 26, 2022 × As per the design specifications, the shelter has provisions for seating up to 4 persons, it has seat belts, a first aid kit, storage for essential items etc. It is powered by a solar panel, and also features like GPS and GSM connectivity for enabling communication and location tracking, besides a host of sensors. Simply put, it's like an inflatable pool with a cover that automatically expands itself once the need arises. However, instead of holding water, it is meant to protect people from a deluge. When asked how the floating structure could function in fast-flowing floodwaters, Naresh explained that it could be tethered to firm structures or anchored. When required, it is also meant for short distances in the floodwaters. Patented as an ‘automatic multi-functional life rescue flood house’, the shelter currently exists only in a miniature prototype firm. According to Naresh, the latest recognition for their daughter from the Indian government and the monetary reward of Rs1 lakh (US $ 1,330 approx.) has invigorated the family's efforts towards contributing to the nation and getting a working model ready.

8-year-old wonder kid who conceptualised self-inflating flood shelter honoured with coveted award

When the World Health Organization (WHO) named the new Covid variant as ‘Omicron’, they did not realise it would become a nightmare for a businessman in other part of the world. <o:p></o:p>

While the WHO is busy trying to fight the new variant and protect the humankind from a growing pandemic, a Siberian entrepreneur has sued the organisation for ruining the image of his business.

<o:p>Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/live-omicron-in-india-updates-two-cases-found-in-karnataka-433212">New Variant LIVE: UK reports 75 more Omicron cases; confirmed cases rise to 134</a></o:p>

The CEO of the Omicron Network of ophthalmology clinics has filed a case against the global organisation. Alexander Padar, the CEO, has alleged that the naming of the new Covid variant is bound to cause harm to his business.<o:p></o:p>

"Our name is a registered trademark, primarily in the field of medicine and healthcare, since this is our core service," he said. <o:p></o:p>

The businessman had invested a huge sum of money for marketing his clinics all around the world. However, now, due to the new Covid variant name and its rapid outbreak, when someone searches for his clinics, they only see news and information about the Covid variant. "Think about it, if someone dies from ‘Omicron’ – your relative or friend, you are unlikely to go to the clinic with the same name," he explained.

<o:p><a href="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-omicron-cases-spread-to-over-30-countries-433961">WATCH |</a></o:p>

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/gravitas-omicron-cases-spread-to-over-30-countries-433961/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Increase in the spread of this variant and the growing number of cases around the world are bound to bring irreparable financial losses for him and his company, Padar fears.<o:p></o:p>

WHO has been naming the Covid variants after the letters of the Greek alphabet to make sure they are able to steer clear of geographical and political bias and stereotypes.<o:p></o:p>

Meanwhile, the Omicron variant has been spreading around the world at a fast rate, and several countries are now going back to their 2020 defense strategies such as limiting travel, routine RT-PCR tests, necessary lockdowns, social distancing and mask mandates.<o:p></o:p>

Researchers believe at least one mutation in Omicron variant of COVID-19 seems to have been acquired from the common cold virus<o:p></o:p>

When the World Health Organization (WHO) named the new Covid variant as ‘Omicron’, they did not realise it would become a nightmare for a businessman in other part of the world.

When the World Health Organization (WHO) named the new Covid variant as ‘Omicron’, they did not realise it would become a nightmare for a businessman in other part of the world. While the WHO is busy trying to fight the new variant and protect the humankind from a growing pandemic, a Siberian entrepreneur has sued the organisation for ruining the image of his business. Also read | New Variant LIVE: UK reports 75 more Omicron cases; confirmed cases rise to 134 The CEO of the Omicron Network of ophthalmology clinics has filed a case against the global organisation. Alexander Padar, the CEO, has alleged that the naming of the new Covid variant is bound to cause harm to his business. "Our name is a registered trademark, primarily in the field of medicine and healthcare, since this is our core service," he said. The businessman had invested a huge sum of money for marketing his clinics all around the world. However, now, due to the new Covid variant name and its rapid outbreak, when someone searches for his clinics, they only see news and information about the Covid variant. "Think about it, if someone dies from ‘Omicron’ – your relative or friend, you are unlikely to go to the clinic with the same name," he explained. WATCH | Increase in the spread of this variant and the growing number of cases around the world are bound to bring irreparable financial losses for him and his company, Padar fears. WHO has been naming the Covid variants after the letters of the Greek alphabet to make sure they are able to steer clear of geographical and political bias and stereotypes. Meanwhile, the Omicron variant has been spreading around the world at a fast rate, and several countries are now going back to their 2020 defense strategies such as limiting travel, routine RT-PCR tests, necessary lockdowns, social distancing and mask mandates. Researchers believe at least one mutation in Omicron variant of COVID-19 seems to have been acquired from the common cold virus

Omicron variant: Russian businessman sues WHO for stealing his company name

India has revoked a patent for a potato variety grown exclusively for PepsiCo Inc's popular Lay's potato chips, according to an order issued on Friday by the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights (PPVFR) Authority

In 2019, PepsiCo sued some Indian farmers based in the western state of Gujarat for cultivating the FC5 potato variety, which has a lower moisture content required to make snacks such as potato chips.

Withdrawing the lawsuits the same year, the New York-based company said it wanted to settle the issue amicably.

Later, Kavitha Kuruganti, a farmers' rights activist, petitioned the PPVFR Authority for revocation of intellectual protection granted to PepsiCo's FC5 potato variety, saying that India's rules do not allow a patent on seed varieties.

The PPVFR Authority agreed with Kuruganti's contention that Pepsi cannot claim a patent over a seed variety.

"The certificate of registration...is hereby revoked with immediate effect," K. V. Prabhu, chairman of the PPVFR Authority said in the order, seen by Reuters.

A PepsiCo India spokesman said: "We are aware of the order passed by the PPVFR Authority and are in the process of reviewing the same."

PepsiCo has maintained that it developed the FC5 variety of potato, and registered the trait in 2016.

The company, which set up its first potato chips plant in India in 1989, supplies the FC5 seed variety to a group of farmers who in turn sell their produce to the company at a fixed price.

Lauding the PPVFR Authority's ruling, potato farmers from Gujarat called it a victory for growers.

"The order is a big victory for farmers of India, and reaffirms their right to cultivate any crops," said Bipin Patel, who was one of the Gujarat-based farmers sued by Pepsi in 2019.

India has revoked a patent for a potato variety grown exclusively for PepsiCo Inc's popular Lay's potato chips, according to an order issued on Friday by the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights (PPVFR) Authority In 2019, PepsiCo sued some Indian farmers based in the western state of Gujarat for cultivating the FC5 potato variety, which has a lower moisture content required to make snacks such as potato chips.

India has revoked a patent for a potato variety grown exclusively for PepsiCo Inc's popular Lay's potato chips, according to an order issued on Friday by the Protection of Plant Varieties and Farmers' Rights (PPVFR) Authority In 2019, PepsiCo sued some Indian farmers based in the western state of Gujarat for cultivating the FC5 potato variety, which has a lower moisture content required to make snacks such as potato chips. Withdrawing the lawsuits the same year, the New York-based company said it wanted to settle the issue amicably. Later, Kavitha Kuruganti, a farmers' rights activist, petitioned the PPVFR Authority for revocation of intellectual protection granted to PepsiCo's FC5 potato variety, saying that India's rules do not allow a patent on seed varieties. The PPVFR Authority agreed with Kuruganti's contention that Pepsi cannot claim a patent over a seed variety. "The certificate of registration...is hereby revoked with immediate effect," K. V. Prabhu, chairman of the PPVFR Authority said in the order, seen by Reuters. A PepsiCo India spokesman said: "We are aware of the order passed by the PPVFR Authority and are in the process of reviewing the same." PepsiCo has maintained that it developed the FC5 variety of potato, and registered the trait in 2016. The company, which set up its first potato chips plant in India in 1989, supplies the FC5 seed variety to a group of farmers who in turn sell their produce to the company at a fixed price. Lauding the PPVFR Authority's ruling, potato farmers from Gujarat called it a victory for growers. "The order is a big victory for farmers of India, and reaffirms their right to cultivate any crops," said Bipin Patel, who was one of the Gujarat-based farmers sued by Pepsi in 2019.

Major win for farmers as India revokes patent for PepsiCo's Lay's potatoes

Asserting that it had played "a major role" in developing Moderna Inc's COVID-19 vaccine, US National Institutes of Health is going to court over co-ownership of its patent.

NIH Director Dr Francis Collins told Reuters news agency that&nbsp;NIH scientists&nbsp;had contributed immensely in making the vaccine. &nbsp;

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/usa-joins-india-led-international-solar-alliance-becomes-101st-country-to-do-so-428309" hreflang="en">USA joins India-led International Solar Alliance, becomes 101st country to do so</a>

In its application filed in July, Moderna excluded three NIH scientists as co-inventors of a central patent for the company's multibillion-dollar COVID-19 vaccine, the New York Times reported on Tuesday. &nbsp;

In a statement emailed to Reuters, Moderna acknowledged that scientists at NIH's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) played a "substantial role" in developing messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine of the company, but it disagreed with the agency's patent claims. &nbsp;

Earlier, Japan had put on hold a batch of Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine after a pharmacist saw what he claims to be black particles in one vial of the vaccine. &nbsp;

Also Read:&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/how-the-scs-gun-case-could-affect-california-428361" hreflang="en">How the SC’s gun case could affect California</a>

According to officials, the pharmacist found the black particles while checking for foreign substances before the vaccine’s use in Kanagawa Prefecture. &nbsp;

The development had come less than a week after Japan suspended the use of about 1.63 million Moderna doses due to contamination. &nbsp;

More than 3,000 people had already received shots from the batch. The rest of the batch was put on hold. &nbsp;

(With inputs from agencies)&nbsp;

Asserting that it had played "a major role" in developing Moderna Inc's COVID-19 vaccine, US National Institutes of Health is going to court over co-ownership of its patent.

Asserting that it had played "a major role" in developing Moderna Inc's COVID-19 vaccine, US National Institutes of Health is going to court over co-ownership of its patent. NIH Director Dr Francis Collins told Reuters news agency that NIH scientists had contributed immensely in making the vaccine. Also Read: USA joins India-led International Solar Alliance, becomes 101st country to do so In its application filed in July, Moderna excluded three NIH scientists as co-inventors of a central patent for the company's multibillion-dollar COVID-19 vaccine, the New York Times reported on Tuesday. In a statement emailed to Reuters, Moderna acknowledged that scientists at NIH's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) played a "substantial role" in developing messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccine of the company, but it disagreed with the agency's patent claims. Earlier, Japan had put on hold a batch of Moderna's COVID-19 vaccine after a pharmacist saw what he claims to be black particles in one vial of the vaccine. Also Read: How the SC’s gun case could affect California According to officials, the pharmacist found the black particles while checking for foreign substances before the vaccine’s use in Kanagawa Prefecture. The development had come less than a week after Japan suspended the use of about 1.63 million Moderna doses due to contamination. More than 3,000 people had already received shots from the batch. The rest of the batch was put on hold. (With inputs from agencies)

Moderna's Covid jab patent row deepens as US NIH looks to defend co-owner claim

The new US position in support of lifting&nbsp;patents&nbsp;on&nbsp;Covid-19&nbsp;vaccines&nbsp;has&nbsp;taken attention away from an equally significant change by Washington, which plans to open up trade in the raw materials used to make them.

After&nbsp;having recently taken heat for blocking such exports, Commerce Secretary Katherine Tai said Wednesday that the US government would "work to increase the raw materials needed to produce those&nbsp;vaccines".

The assertion was hidden at the bottom of the statement unveiling Washington's remarkable reversal of its position&nbsp;on&nbsp;Covid-19&nbsp;vaccine&nbsp;patents, which coincides with a shortage of doses in emerging and developing nations as cases surge in some countries.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-backs-india-led-fight-to-waive-covid-vaccines-patents-383092">US backs India-led fight to waive Covid vaccines patents</a>

Long legal and economic policy debates likely lie ahead about waiving&nbsp;vaccine&nbsp;patents, particularly at the World Trade Organisation (WTO).

Meanwhile, the difficulties faced by some laboratories in obtaining components to manufacture&nbsp;vaccines&nbsp;look set to stymie the drive to ramp up production.

Two labs have recently spoken out about their difficulties, laying the blame at Washington's door.

Germany's Curevac said it could&nbsp;not secure supplies of certain materials from the United States.

Several days earlier, India's Serum Institute, the world's largest&nbsp;vaccine&nbsp;manufacturer, called&nbsp;on&nbsp;US President Joe Biden to step in.

"Respected @POTUS, if we are to truly unite in beating this virus,&nbsp;on&nbsp;behalf of the&nbsp;vaccine&nbsp;industry outside the US, I humbly request you to lift the embargo of raw material exports out of the US so that&nbsp;vaccine&nbsp;production can ramp up," the company's president Adar Poonawalla wrote&nbsp;on&nbsp;Twitter.

<div class="ui-state-default" contenteditable="false">
<div class="twitter-block" draggable="false">
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Respected <a href="https://twitter.com/POTUS?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@POTUS</a>, if we are to truly unite in beating this virus, on behalf of the vaccine industry outside the U.S., I humbly request you to lift the embargo of raw material exports out of the U.S. so that vaccine production can ramp up. Your administration has the details. 🙏🙏
— Adar Poonawalla (@adarpoonawalla) <a href="https://twitter.com/adarpoonawalla/status/1382978713302683653?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">April 16, 2021</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<a class="close-mark close-div" href="#" id="jqclosemark">×</a></div>

There is no actual embargo&nbsp;on&nbsp;exporting&nbsp;vaccine&nbsp;components. Instead, Biden, like his predecessor Donald Trump, invoked the Defense Production Act,&nbsp;which normally concerns wartime,&nbsp;to confront the pandemic.

While it does not explicitly ban exports, it puts the US government first in line to buy certain products made in the country.

US officials have previously played down the possible effect of the law&nbsp;on&nbsp;global&nbsp;vaccine&nbsp;production.

"There's just more global manufacturing happening everywhere in the world than suppliers can currently support,"&nbsp;a US official told a White House briefing late last month&nbsp;on&nbsp;condition of anonymity.

<div class="videoWrapper trancodeVideo"><iframe allowfullscreen="" autoplay="1" class="includeVideo" frameborder="0" height="350" src="https://www.wionews.com/videos/germany-opposes-us-backed-global-waiver-on-protection-for-covid-19-vaccines-383353/embed" style="width:100%;max-width:560px;" width="560"></iframe></div>

Dry ice and sorbitol

Over the past two months, a number of public and private actors have noted the shrinking supply of components needed to manufacture&nbsp;vaccines.

At least 50 components, perhaps as many as 100, go into the jabs.

They include items like the glass vials to ship them, as well as certain types of plastics needed for containers used in the manufacturing process.

Then there are the ingredients themselves.&nbsp;

Curevac is particularly concerned about nucleotides, a building block for the messenger RNA&nbsp;vaccines&nbsp;like the one it is developing.

Also read |&nbsp;<a href="https://www.wionews.com/world/us-germany-rift-on-covid-vaccine-waiver-endangers-fight-against-deadly-virus-383349">US-Germany rift on Covid vaccine waiver endangers fight against deadly virus</a>

The shortage of raw materials is hardly surprising as the pharmaceutical industry expects to double production to 10 billion doses this year.

Richard Hatchett, who heads the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), which along with the World Health Organization and Gavi co-runs the Covax&nbsp;vaccine&nbsp;distribution initiative, spoke already in March of seeing "increasing signs of strain within supply chains".

Companies were "beginning to report spot shortages of critical materials, raw materials, critical consumables, even equipment that is necessary for&nbsp;vaccine&nbsp;manufacturing," he said.

He was speaking at a meeting of the principal actors in the sector, including WHO and the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA).

Already the consensus was that the free circulation of&nbsp;vaccine&nbsp;components was critical, given that a large number of countries are involved in their production.

OECD data from 2018 show how thoroughly&nbsp;component&nbsp;production is intertwined across the globe.

China dominates production of the glass storage vials, while the United States leads in the manufacturing of syringes.

France is a major producer of certain stabilisers like sorbitol, while Germany is big in the production of&nbsp;vaccine&nbsp;preservatives, and Mexico and China both are important manufacturers of additives that enhance the effects of&nbsp;vaccines.

Meanwhile, the Netherlands is a leader in the production of dry ice used to transport&nbsp;vaccines&nbsp;that need to be kept at ultra-low temperatures.

The new US position in support of lifting patents on Covid-19 vaccines has taken attention away from an equally significant change by Washington, which plans to open up trade in the raw materials used to make them.

The new US position in support of lifting patents on Covid-19 vaccines has taken attention away from an equally significant change by Washington, which plans to open up trade in the raw materials used to make them. After having recently taken heat for blocking such exports, Commerce Secretary Katherine Tai said Wednesday that the US government would "work to increase the raw materials needed to produce those vaccines". The assertion was hidden at the bottom of the statement unveiling Washington's remarkable reversal of its position on Covid-19 vaccine patents, which coincides with a shortage of doses in emerging and developing nations as cases surge in some countries. Also read | US backs India-led fight to waive Covid vaccines patents Long legal and economic policy debates likely lie ahead about waiving vaccine patents, particularly at the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Meanwhile, the difficulties faced by some laboratories in obtaining components to manufacture vaccines look set to stymie the drive to ramp up production. Two labs have recently spoken out about their difficulties, laying the blame at Washington's door. Germany's Curevac said it could not secure supplies of certain materials from the United States. Several days earlier, India's Serum Institute, the world's largest vaccine manufacturer, called on US President Joe Biden to step in. "Respected @POTUS, if we are to truly unite in beating this virus, on behalf of the vaccine industry outside the US, I humbly request you to lift the embargo of raw material exports out of the US so that vaccine production can ramp up," the company's president Adar Poonawalla wrote on Twitter. Respected @POTUS, if we are to truly unite in beating this virus, on behalf of the vaccine industry outside the U.S., I humbly request you to lift the embargo of raw material exports out of the U.S. so that vaccine production can ramp up. Your administration has the details. 🙏🙏 — Adar Poonawalla (@adarpoonawalla) April 16, 2021 × There is no actual embargo on exporting vaccine components. Instead, Biden, like his predecessor Donald Trump, invoked the Defense Production Act, which normally concerns wartime, to confront the pandemic. While it does not explicitly ban exports, it puts the US government first in line to buy certain products made in the country. US officials have previously played down the possible effect of the law on global vaccine production. "There's just more global manufacturing happening everywhere in the world than suppliers can currently support," a US official told a White House briefing late last month on condition of anonymity. Dry ice and sorbitol Over the past two months, a number of public and private actors have noted the shrinking supply of components needed to manufacture vaccines. At least 50 components, perhaps as many as 100, go into the jabs. They include items like the glass vials to ship them, as well as certain types of plastics needed for containers used in the manufacturing process. Then there are the ingredients themselves. Curevac is particularly concerned about nucleotides, a building block for the messenger RNA vaccines like the one it is developing. Also read | US-Germany rift on Covid vaccine waiver endangers fight against deadly virus The shortage of raw materials is hardly surprising as the pharmaceutical industry expects to double production to 10 billion doses this year. Richard Hatchett, who heads the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI), which along with the World Health Organization and Gavi co-runs the Covax vaccine distribution initiative, spoke already in March of seeing "increasing signs of strain within supply chains". Companies were "beginning to report spot shortages of critical materials, raw materials, critical consumables, even equipment that is necessary for vaccine manufacturing," he said. He was speaking at a meeting of the principal actors in the sector, including WHO and the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers and Associations (IFPMA). Already the consensus was that the free circulation of vaccine components was critical, given that a large number of countries are involved in their production. OECD data from 2018 show how thoroughly component production is intertwined across the globe. China dominates production of the glass storage vials, while the United States leads in the manufacturing of syringes. France is a major producer of certain stabilisers like sorbitol, while Germany is big in the production of vaccine preservatives, and Mexico and China both are important manufacturers of additives that enhance the effects of vaccines. Meanwhile, the Netherlands is a leader in the production of dry ice used to transport vaccines that need to be kept at ultra-low temperatures.

After shift on vaccine patents, US backs freer flow of components

China has extended its lead over the number two filer the United States, the UN patent agency said on Tuesday.

But what exactly is a patent?

It's a sort of a grant that allows an inventor to maintain monopoly over an invention. In other words, a patent allows people to prevent others from copying, using, manufacturing or selling their invention.

Suppose you invent something really unique and awesome. You are able to explain how it stands out from the rest in simple terms, and want to be the sole owner of your invention. All you have to do is get a patent.

The Oxford dictionary defines patent as "an official right to be the only person to make, use or sell a product or an invention."

If you have a patent, you have the right to decide who may or may not use the patented invention.

Patent protection is usually granted for a limited period -- generally for 20 years from the filing date of an application.

Once it expires, the invention becomes common property and can be freely used by anyone. But you can always apply for a patent renewal.

It's generally accepted that the first systemic patent law was developed in Venice during the Renaissance movement.

In 1474, the Venetian patent statute was passed and it read: "Each person, who will make any new ingenious contrivance, shall give notice of the same to the office of our provisioner of common and it will be forbidden to any other in any territory or place of ours to make any other contrivance in a similar form and resemblance without the consent and license of the author up to ten years."

This idea of granting exclusive rights spread throughout the world. In 1624, England passed a statue of monopolies to protect inventor rights. And in 1790, the US incorporated a patent law in its constitution.

In the years that followed, some of the most famous inventions that touched our lives were awarded patents -- the telephone by Alexander Graham Bell secured one in 1876; the electric bulb by Thomas Alva Edison secured a patent in 1878; Karl Benz patented the internal combustion engine in 1879; Philo Fransworth got a patent for the first electronic television system in 1930; and in 2003, Haartsen and Ericsson received a patent for the Bluetooth.

Today, most patents are issued by the World Intellectual Property Organisation -- a global forum for intellectual property rights with 193 member states.

If you want your patent to be globally recognised, you'll have to file an application at the regional office of this organisation.

In 2019, China was leading the rankings at this body with more than 59,000 patent applications. But this does not mean China is innovative.

In 2020, China ranked 14th on this body's global innovation index.

India filed only 2,053 patent applications in 2019, accounting for fewer that 1 per cent of the global filings. It also fared poorly in applying for trademarks, which make up just 0.7 per cent of its global filings in the same year.

And in industrial design, India was nearly absent, having filed for only three designs against the 21,807 designs globally.

In 2020, India ranked 48th on the global innovation index. And that by no means implies India is short on talent. The underlying problem is the lack of an ecosystem that endorses research innovation -- and the ambition of owning a patent.

China has extended its lead over the number two filer the United States, the UN patent agency said on Tuesday. But what exactly is a patent? It's a sort of a grant that allows an inventor to maintain monopoly over an invention.

China has extended its lead over the number two filer the United States, the UN patent agency said on Tuesday. But what exactly is a patent? It's a sort of a grant that allows an inventor to maintain monopoly over an invention. In other words, a patent allows people to prevent others from copying, using, manufacturing or selling their invention. Suppose you invent something really unique and awesome. You are able to explain how it stands out from the rest in simple terms, and want to be the sole owner of your invention. All you have to do is get a patent. The Oxford dictionary defines patent as "an official right to be the only person to make, use or sell a product or an invention." If you have a patent, you have the right to decide who may or may not use the patented invention. Patent protection is usually granted for a limited period -- generally for 20 years from the filing date of an application. Once it expires, the invention becomes common property and can be freely used by anyone. But you can always apply for a patent renewal. It's generally accepted that the first systemic patent law was developed in Venice during the Renaissance movement. In 1474, the Venetian patent statute was passed and it read: "Each person, who will make any new ingenious contrivance, shall give notice of the same to the office of our provisioner of common and it will be forbidden to any other in any territory or place of ours to make any other contrivance in a similar form and resemblance without the consent and license of the author up to ten years." This idea of granting exclusive rights spread throughout the world. In 1624, England passed a statue of monopolies to protect inventor rights. And in 1790, the US incorporated a patent law in its constitution. In the years that followed, some of the most famous inventions that touched our lives were awarded patents -- the telephone by Alexander Graham Bell secured one in 1876; the electric bulb by Thomas Alva Edison secured a patent in 1878; Karl Benz patented the internal combustion engine in 1879; Philo Fransworth got a patent for the first electronic television system in 1930; and in 2003, Haartsen and Ericsson received a patent for the Bluetooth. Today, most patents are issued by the World Intellectual Property Organisation -- a global forum for intellectual property rights with 193 member states. If you want your patent to be globally recognised, you'll have to file an application at the regional office of this organisation. In 2019, China was leading the rankings at this body with more than 59,000 patent applications. But this does not mean China is innovative. In 2020, China ranked 14th on this body's global innovation index. India filed only 2,053 patent applications in 2019, accounting for fewer that 1 per cent of the global filings. It also fared poorly in applying for trademarks, which make up just 0.7 per cent of its global filings in the same year. And in industrial design, India was nearly absent, having filed for only three designs against the 21,807 designs globally. In 2020, India ranked 48th on the global innovation index. And that by no means implies India is short on talent. The underlying problem is the lack of an ecosystem that endorses research innovation -- and the ambition of owning a patent.

What exactly is a patent? Read on to know

A global war for patents is underway -- to control the future of innovation. And the winner will decide who sells you your next smartphone, computer, and smart car.

This war will also decide future wars. It will dictate where countries buy their weapons from, and where they get their vaccine supplies.

Any unique or new product you buy in the market will be affected by the outcome of this war.

The one who gets the patent gets the monopoly on a product -- which is why companies and countries fight to own patents, and one country is racing ahead of others.

It's none other than China. It is now hoarding patents. This comes from the world intellectual property organisation. It is an agency of the United Nations. It has released its annual numbers, and for the second year in a row, China has filed more patents than any other country.

China filed close to 70 thousand applications in 2020.

In comparison, the US filed almost 60,000 patents. Until two years back, it topped the list -- now it ranks #2 on the global list.

Huawei remains the biggest single patent filer under the UN system for the fourth consecutive year.

So, has America lost its edge in innovation? It appears so.

And is China getting ahead?

The number of patents filed is just one yardstick to measure innovation. But it's not the only one.

Year after year now, China tops the list when it comes to the sheer number of patents registered. But that is no guarantee of innovation.

According to a report in 2019, China has three types of patents -- invention, utility, and design.

Critics say most Chinese patent applications are graded utility -- which means they are not as rigorously examined as higher grade invention patents.

Critics have pointed out that the vast majority of patent applications lodged in China are graded utility, which are not as rigorously examined as the higher-grade invention patents.

China emphasises on quantity -- not quality. "If you look at the metrics on numbers of utility patent applications, this suggests the quality of what is coming out is not all high,” one lawyer says.

One thinktank says, "China has not yet matched the innovation level of other leading economies. But it still wants to be a technology superpower. And it's making a big push to get there by breaking down Chinese international patent filings by sector. It is clear that china has not yet matched the innovation level of other leading economies."

Whether it's a light bulb or 5G, China wants to make sure that 'Made in China' products become the only acceptable standard worldwide.

In February, officials from China were leading at least four global standards organisations. This includes the international telecommunication union. It's a United Nations body that governs phone and internet connectivity; a body that will define how the next generation of technologies, like how 5G, will operate.

China wants to have a say in such decisions.

So where do patents come in? Here's what the plan looks like:

First China gets a product patented. Then it pushes for that product to become the global standard. So only China will be able to make and sell it.

And you will only have to use that standard product.

Needless to say, there's big money to be made here. Global standards are based on patented technology.

Those who adopt such standards have to pay licensing fees to the patent owner. So China is pushing it companies to register more patents.

The government offers incentives. For example, just by filing patents, Chinese companies can get cash bonuses and subsidies even a lower tax rate.

Furthermore, a lack of substantive technological improvements in patents may, in part, be incentivised by government policies that emphasise quantity over quality.

By filing for these patents, Chinese companies can receive cash bonuses, subsidies, and even lower corporate income taxes from the government.

And what's in it for the government?

The answer is simple -- power and money.

Beijing wants to dictate the international standard and earn money from licensing. Such a situation would make it harder for other countries to ban 'Made in China' gear.

It will be harder to ban companies like Huawei. China would rather earn that kind of money by designing standards to match technologies developed by its own companies. Because then, they will become indispensable.

If they hold the patents, the world will have to turn to them for future technologies.

It's as simple as that.

A global war for patents is underway -- to control the future of innovation. And the winner will decide who sells you your next smartphone, computer, and smart car.

A global war for patents is underway -- to control the future of innovation. And the winner will decide who sells you your next smartphone, computer, and smart car. This war will also decide future wars. It will dictate where countries buy their weapons from, and where they get their vaccine supplies. Any unique or new product you buy in the market will be affected by the outcome of this war. The one who gets the patent gets the monopoly on a product -- which is why companies and countries fight to own patents, and one country is racing ahead of others. It's none other than China. It is now hoarding patents. This comes from the world intellectual property organisation. It is an agency of the United Nations. It has released its annual numbers, and for the second year in a row, China has filed more patents than any other country. China filed close to 70 thousand applications in 2020. In comparison, the US filed almost 60,000 patents. Until two years back, it topped the list -- now it ranks #2 on the global list. Huawei remains the biggest single patent filer under the UN system for the fourth consecutive year. So, has America lost its edge in innovation? It appears so. And is China getting ahead? The number of patents filed is just one yardstick to measure innovation. But it's not the only one. Year after year now, China tops the list when it comes to the sheer number of patents registered. But that is no guarantee of innovation. According to a report in 2019, China has three types of patents -- invention, utility, and design. Critics say most Chinese patent applications are graded utility -- which means they are not as rigorously examined as higher grade invention patents. Critics have pointed out that the vast majority of patent applications lodged in China are graded utility, which are not as rigorously examined as the higher-grade invention patents. China emphasises on quantity -- not quality. "If you look at the metrics on numbers of utility patent applications, this suggests the quality of what is coming out is not all high,” one lawyer says. One thinktank says, "China has not yet matched the innovation level of other leading economies. But it still wants to be a technology superpower. And it's making a big push to get there by breaking down Chinese international patent filings by sector. It is clear that china has not yet matched the innovation level of other leading economies." Whether it's a light bulb or 5G, China wants to make sure that 'Made in China' products become the only acceptable standard worldwide. In February, officials from China were leading at least four global standards organisations. This includes the international telecommunication union. It's a United Nations body that governs phone and internet connectivity; a body that will define how the next generation of technologies, like how 5G, will operate. China wants to have a say in such decisions. So where do patents come in? Here's what the plan looks like: First China gets a product patented. Then it pushes for that product to become the global standard. So only China will be able to make and sell it. And you will only have to use that standard product. Needless to say, there's big money to be made here. Global standards are based on patented technology. Those who adopt such standards have to pay licensing fees to the patent owner. So China is pushing it companies to register more patents. The government offers incentives. For example, just by filing patents, Chinese companies can get cash bonuses and subsidies even a lower tax rate. Furthermore, a lack of substantive technological improvements in patents may, in part, be incentivised by government policies that emphasise quantity over quality. By filing for these patents, Chinese companies can receive cash bonuses, subsidies, and even lower corporate income taxes from the government. And what's in it for the government? The answer is simple -- power and money. Beijing wants to dictate the international standard and earn money from licensing. Such a situation would make it harder for other countries to ban 'Made in China' gear. It will be harder to ban companies like Huawei. China would rather earn that kind of money by designing standards to match technologies developed by its own companies. Because then, they will become indispensable. If they hold the patents, the world will have to turn to them for future technologies. It's as simple as that.

Is China really leading in the global war for patents?

Today in History: Bell recieves patent, Tyson youngest champion and more!

Apple Inc's plea to avoid paying $440 million in damages to VirnetX Inc for using the patent licensing firm's security technology without permission in features such as FaceTime video calling was denied by the US Supreme Court.

Apple Inc's plea to avoid paying $440 million in damages to VirnetX Inc for using the patent licensing firm's security technology without permission in features such as FaceTime video calling was denied by the US Supreme Court. Apple's appeal was rejected by the judges in this case which spans a decade, wherein a Texas jury had discovered in 2016 that the iPhone manufacturer had infringed VirnetX's patents, following which the patent licensing firm was awarded $302 million. The amount was increased to $439.7 million including interest and other costs. Also Read: US jury asks Apple to pay $145 million in damages to Canada's WiLan In 2010, the Nevada-based VirnetX filed a lawsuit against California-based Apple of infringing four patents for secure networks, known as virtual private networks, and secure communications links. VirnetX was adamant that Apple infringed with its FaceTime and VPN on Demand features in products such as the iPhone and iPad. The judgement against apple was upheld last year by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington. During the hearings, Apple and other tech titans requested a review of the validity of VirnetX patents by a tribunal of the US Patent and Trademark Office. Also Read: Samsung to pay $539 million to Apple for copying patented smartphone designs, features Key parts of the patents at issue, in this case, were cancelled by the Tribunal but in separate decisions issued last year, the Federal Circuit set aside certain of the tribunal's rulings which brought VirnetX closer to collecting damages from Apple. The world-renowned mobile phone manufacturer appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the damages should be recalculated because the specific patents VirnetX accused it of infringing with FaceTime were nearly wiped out. Also Read: Top US court rejects Samsung's appeal on patent loss to Apple In a court filing, Apple called the Federal Circuit's opposition to indulge its demands "legally wrong and grossly unfair." The company also stated that lower courts unlawfully granted requests from VirnetX and granted them compensation for damages far beyond the value of the patented invention. VirnetX issued a statement saying that "The entire damages award ... remains supported by claims that a jury - and the Federal Circuit - found valid years ago and that have not been cancelled since."

Apple appeals rejected by US Supreme Court in legal battle with VirnetX

February 21 in History: NASCAR is founded, The Communist Manifesto published, and more!

Today in history: Thomas Edison patents phonograph, Supreme Privy Council in Russia, and more!

February 16 in History: Castro becomes Premier of Cuba, Kyoto Protocol is put into action, and more!

A US&nbsp;appeals court on Wednesday dealt a major blow to Merck &amp; Co Inc as it upheld a ruling that threw out a $2.54 billion (£1.97 billion) jury verdict the drugmaker had won against Gilead Sciences Inc.

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a Delaware judge's determination that the Merck patent at issue in the case, which relates to hepatitis C treatment, was invalid.

Merck and Gilead representatives were not immediately reachable for comment.

In 2016, a jury returned a verdict that Gilead's hepatitis C drugs Sovaldi and Harvoni infringed the patent, which Merck acquired when it bought Idenix Pharmaceuticals. Jurors determined that Gilead should pay $2.54 billion in damages, which was the largest verdict ever in a US&nbsp;patent case.

But a judge in Delaware tossed the verdict in 2018, saying the Merck patent should not have been granted in the first place because it did not meet a requirement that it disclose how to make the treatment it covered without undue experimentation.

In Wednesday's split decision, the appeals court said it agreed with that determination.

A US appeals court on Wednesday dealt a major blow to Merck & Co Inc as it upheld a ruling that threw out a $2.54 billion (£1.97 billion) jury verdict the drugmaker had won against Gilead Sciences Inc.

A US appeals court on Wednesday dealt a major blow to Merck & Co Inc as it upheld a ruling that threw out a $2.54 billion (£1.97 billion) jury verdict the drugmaker had won against Gilead Sciences Inc. The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a Delaware judge's determination that the Merck patent at issue in the case, which relates to hepatitis C treatment, was invalid. Merck and Gilead representatives were not immediately reachable for comment. In 2016, a jury returned a verdict that Gilead's hepatitis C drugs Sovaldi and Harvoni infringed the patent, which Merck acquired when it bought Idenix Pharmaceuticals. Jurors determined that Gilead should pay $2.54 billion in damages, which was the largest verdict ever in a US patent case. But a judge in Delaware tossed the verdict in 2018, saying the Merck patent should not have been granted in the first place because it did not meet a requirement that it disclose how to make the treatment it covered without undue experimentation. In Wednesday's split decision, the appeals court said it agreed with that determination.

Merck loses bid to revive $2.54 billion patent verdict against Gilead

Uber is now working towards a way to determine if a customer <a href="http://www.wionews.com/world/uber-may-use-artificial-intelligence-to-detect-if-a-customer-is-drunk-144016">booking a ride is drunk or not</a>. A patent application filed by the company this week outlines the use of artificial intelligence to identify the current state of a customer.&nbsp;

The system identifies how you would typically use the Uber app so that it can determine unusual behaviour.&nbsp;

If the customer seems to appear intoxicated, the ridesharing app could deny rides to them or may match them with other drivers who have the right training to deal with such a situation.&nbsp;

Uber may even monitor drivers who pick up inebriated passengers as instances of sexual assault where passengers were found to be drunk are on the rise globally. &nbsp;

Is Uber indicating drunk driving?

The success rate of such a technology seems unclear as of now. The use of this technology and the consequent results are put to question since Uber has the authority to deny the ride to the drunk customer. Uber presents itself as an alternative to drunk driving but is seeking technology that would enable drivers to ignore such passengers - who may not have any other means to get home.&nbsp;

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 28 individuals in the United States die every day in drunk driving accidents. This means someone dies every 51 minutes because someone is driving under the influence of alcohol.&nbsp;

The sole purpose of booking a cab is to get you home when you are not in the condition to drive yourself - it could be because of alcohol consumption or it could be because you are tired etc. Regardless, if Uber is given the authority to deny a ride to a person in need what will they do? If someone is wasted, are they running a risk of potential danger to life?

Customer information abuse

There could also be a possible risk of assaults involved. Uber, in the past, has been subject to sexual assault allegations whose drivers have taken advantage of drunk passengers and, now, the fact that drivers will have information about the state of their customers perhaps may put their safety into question. As per reports, at least 103 Uber drivers in the US have been accused of sexually assaulting or abusing passengers in the last four years, with many of the police reports noting that the passengers were inebriated or had been drinking before getting into the car.

The ridesharing company, in the public eye, got their act together after the resignation of the scandal-ridden co-founder Travis Kalanick and the appointment of Dara Khosrowshahi as CEO last year. However, there has been some dreary incidents regarding customer data. &nbsp;

Uber’s notorious “God View” tool, for example, which showed the location of users who had requested a car, was abused by employees to track the location of their exes as well as monitor celebrities and politicians, according to an October 2016 court verdict by Uber’s former forensic investigator.

There is no confirmation that Uber’s patent application is anything other than a plan in process at the moment. There have been no comments by the company regarding the same.&nbsp;

A system like this could be terribly misused, violate privacy and could be a serious threat to the people. This is still at a nascent stage, but it must be understood that even though the concept behind this idea could be to prevent the drivers to go through the odious situation of dropping back drunk passengers, it could seriously pan out in the opposite direction for the them as well as the company and pose some grave backlash.&nbsp;

(Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Uber is now going to use artificial intelligence to detect whether a passenger is too drunk to ride a cab or not

Uber is now working towards a way to determine if a customer booking a ride is drunk or not. A patent application filed by the company this week outlines the use of artificial intelligence to identify the current state of a customer. The system identifies how you would typically use the Uber app so that it can determine unusual behaviour. If the customer seems to appear intoxicated, the ridesharing app could deny rides to them or may match them with other drivers who have the right training to deal with such a situation. Uber may even monitor drivers who pick up inebriated passengers as instances of sexual assault where passengers were found to be drunk are on the rise globally. Is Uber indicating drunk driving? The success rate of such a technology seems unclear as of now. The use of this technology and the consequent results are put to question since Uber has the authority to deny the ride to the drunk customer. Uber presents itself as an alternative to drunk driving but is seeking technology that would enable drivers to ignore such passengers - who may not have any other means to get home. According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 28 individuals in the United States die every day in drunk driving accidents. This means someone dies every 51 minutes because someone is driving under the influence of alcohol. The sole purpose of booking a cab is to get you home when you are not in the condition to drive yourself - it could be because of alcohol consumption or it could be because you are tired etc. Regardless, if Uber is given the authority to deny a ride to a person in need what will they do? If someone is wasted, are they running a risk of potential danger to life? Customer information abuse There could also be a possible risk of assaults involved. Uber, in the past, has been subject to sexual assault allegations whose drivers have taken advantage of drunk passengers and, now, the fact that drivers will have information about the state of their customers perhaps may put their safety into question. As per reports, at least 103 Uber drivers in the US have been accused of sexually assaulting or abusing passengers in the last four years, with many of the police reports noting that the passengers were inebriated or had been drinking before getting into the car. The ridesharing company, in the public eye, got their act together after the resignation of the scandal-ridden co-founder Travis Kalanick and the appointment of Dara Khosrowshahi as CEO last year. However, there has been some dreary incidents regarding customer data. Uber’s notorious “God View” tool, for example, which showed the location of users who had requested a car, was abused by employees to track the location of their exes as well as monitor celebrities and politicians, according to an October 2016 court verdict by Uber’s former forensic investigator. There is no confirmation that Uber’s patent application is anything other than a plan in process at the moment. There have been no comments by the company regarding the same. A system like this could be terribly misused, violate privacy and could be a serious threat to the people. This is still at a nascent stage, but it must be understood that even though the concept behind this idea could be to prevent the drivers to go through the odious situation of dropping back drunk passengers, it could seriously pan out in the opposite direction for the them as well as the company and pose some grave backlash. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed above are the personal views of the author and do not reflect the views of ZMCL)

Opinion: Uber's latest AI bid could lead to some serious consequences

Uber is now going to use artificial intelligence to detect whether a passenger is too drunk to ride a cab or not. The company has now applied for a patent for a system which will be able to "predict a users state,"&nbsp;reports said.

Uber has been curious about its drunk users, and are applying for a patent with the United States Patent and Trademark Office for a system that would use machine learning to determine how intoxicated a passenger might be.

While the patent limits itself to a dry discussion of ‘user state,’ it seems that what Uber is really interested in is detecting the difference between users of sound mind and users who are under the influence.

The system identifies how you would typically use the Uber app so that it can determine unusual behaviour.&nbsp;

The system relies on an algorithm to weigh a variety of factors, including typos, how precisely a user clicks on links and buttons, walking speed, and how long it takes to request a ride. The time of day, and where a ride is requested may also be considered, reports say. So say, for example, you are booking a ride on a Saturday night at 1 am&nbsp;and it takes you over 10-15 minutes, Uber will be able to detect the unusual behaviour.&nbsp;

If the customer seems to appear intoxicated, the ridesharing app could deny rides to them or may match them with other drivers who have the right training to deal with such a situation.&nbsp;

Uber may even monitor drivers who pick up inebriated passengers as instances of sexual assault where passengers were found to be drunk are on the rise globally.&nbsp;

The success rate of such a technology seems unclear as of now.

The company has been curious about its drunk users, applying for a patent with the United States Patent and Trademark Office for a system that would use machine learning to determine how intoxicated a passenger will be

Uber is now going to use artificial intelligence to detect whether a passenger is too drunk to ride a cab or not. The company has now applied for a patent for a system which will be able to "predict a users state," reports said. Uber has been curious about its drunk users, and are applying for a patent with the United States Patent and Trademark Office for a system that would use machine learning to determine how intoxicated a passenger might be. While the patent limits itself to a dry discussion of ‘user state,’ it seems that what Uber is really interested in is detecting the difference between users of sound mind and users who are under the influence. The system identifies how you would typically use the Uber app so that it can determine unusual behaviour. The system relies on an algorithm to weigh a variety of factors, including typos, how precisely a user clicks on links and buttons, walking speed, and how long it takes to request a ride. The time of day, and where a ride is requested may also be considered, reports say. So say, for example, you are booking a ride on a Saturday night at 1 am and it takes you over 10-15 minutes, Uber will be able to detect the unusual behaviour. If the customer seems to appear intoxicated, the ridesharing app could deny rides to them or may match them with other drivers who have the right training to deal with such a situation. Uber may even monitor drivers who pick up inebriated passengers as instances of sexual assault where passengers were found to be drunk are on the rise globally. The success rate of such a technology seems unclear as of now.

Uber may use artificial intelligence to detect if a customer is drunk

patent

Patent, News on Patent, stories on Patent, articles on Patent, Patent stories at Wion, Patent news, Patent latest news