Posts in International

Nokia announced today that it has signed a deal with Amazon to end all patent litigation between the two companies, the terms of which are confidential. In 2023, Nokia filed patent infringement suits against Amazon in multiple jurisdictions, including the United States, Germany, India, the UK, and at the Unified Patent Court, and against and HP in the United States, accusing the companies of infringing on multiple Nokia video streaming patents.

Leaders across the political spectrum want America to be the global leader in advanced manufacturing—both to strengthen national security through more resilient supply chains and to grow the economy through high-wage jobs that replace ones lost to previous factory closures. Revitalizing American manufacturing won’t be easy. But it’s possible if our leaders look to the biotech sector—one of the global industries that we still unquestionably dominate—and follow its blueprint for success.

Protecting American innovation from foreign threats is a national priority—particularly in strategic sectors like semiconductors, AI, and defense technologies. The United States has long relied on robust economic sanctions and export controls to protect national security and safeguard intellectual property (IP) from foreign adversaries. Despite these measures, a significant vulnerability persists: entities from sanctioned or embargoed nations can exploit a critical loophole to access the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), an administrative body that plays a pivotal role in challenging the validity of U.S. patents.

On Tuesday, the European Patent Office (EPO) published the Patent Index 2024, the latest edition of the EU patent agency’s annual snapshot into global innovation through the lens of European patent application filings. The EPO’s report shows that total patent filings into the EU remained at recent highs with demand for newly established patents with unitary effect outpacing expectations thus far into the short life of the unitary patent system.

In the European IP system, and thus also in the European patent system, the concept of injunction is central. This also applies to the Unified Patent Court (UPC); here, there are even two ways to obtain an injunction, one with a “normal” regular action on the merits and one by means of a preliminary injunction. Through the end of February 2025, 56 applications for preliminary injunctions were filed with the UPC compared to 270 actions on the merits. Here, I would like to deal with a striking difference in the current handling of the divisions with regard to preliminary injunction proceedings.

Lisa Jorgenson is Deputy Director General for Patents and Technology at WIPO. Jorgenson gave a keynote speech at IPWatchdog LIVE 2025 on Monday, March 3. Jorgenson focused primarily on two questions. First, what are the key trends driving global innovation today? Second, what do those key trends mean for the IP community and the innovators and creators? Jorgenson also came with eye-popping facts and figures, pointing out that global intangibles are valued at over $80 trillion, which is more than the world’s five largest economies combined. And she said the world’s leading brands are now worth over $13 trillion, with 45% of the value being located in the United States.

Yesterday, the UK’s High Court of Justice of England and Wales (EWHC) issued an approved judgment in Motorola Mobility, LLC v. Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson ruling on the scope of a 2011 wireless device licensing agreement between Motorola (a Lenovo company) and Ericsson. According to a Lenovo press release following the decision, this ruling defines the scope of that agreement such that most Motorola devices are covered. This would represent the second legal victory in the UK in recent weeks for Lenovo, Motorola’s owner, following the UK Court of Appeal’s ruling that Ericsson breached fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) obligations related to 4G and 5G standard-essential patents (SEPs) asserted in separate litigation.

Last week, oral hearings concluded at the UK Court of Appeal in the ongoing patent licensing dispute between wireless communication developer Optis and consumer device giant Apple over 4G standard essential patents (SEPs) owned by Optis and practiced by Apple devices. While a ruling is not expected for another month or so, several signs point to the Court of Appeal adjusting the May 2023 ruling by Mr Justice Marcus Smith at the High Court of England and Wales in a way that increases the damages for patent infringement that are ultimately awarded to Optis.

With Donald J. Trump back in the White House, intellectual property (IP) and innovation policy are poised for significant shifts. During IPWatchdog LIVE 2025, an expert panel titled “Inside the Beltway: The Future of IP and Innovation Policy,” featuring retired Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) Paul Michel, U.S. House Judiciary Chief Counsel for IP J. John Lee, Senate IP Director Peter-Anthony Pappas, and public policy expert Patrick Kilbride discussed what lies ahead for patent law, legislative reforms, and America’s ability to compete in a rapidly changing global landscape.

IPWatchdog LIVE 2025 featured a standout session on Sunday, March 2, titled “The Global IP Landscape,” where legal experts and policy advisors shed light on ongoing shifts in patent law—and the global forces behind them. Speakers from Brazil, Germany, Korea, and the United States discussed data from the latest International IP Index while tackling topics like patent office efficiency, standard-essential patents (SEPs), and cross-border enforcement trends.

A number of sessions on the second day of IPWatchdog LIVE examined the state of U.S. IP policy and the potential for change under the Trump Administration, including one in which retired U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) Judge Randall Rader said the biggest failure with respect to innovation policy has been an institutional one—with the greatest blame placed at the feet of his former court.

The recent case of Deckers Outdoor Corp. v. Wolverine Group Pty Ltd. serves as a cautionary tale for brand owners on the importance of pursuing foreign trademark protection early and often. The case revolves around who can use the term “UGG.” For many in the United States and other parts of the world, “UGG” is widely recognized as a specific brand of sheepskin boots. However, in Australia, “UGG” is a generic term referring to a style of sheepskin boots rather than a specific brand.

Yesterday, a group of 1,000 UK musicians, including popular artists such as Imogen Heap, Kate Bush and Annie Lennox, released an album titled “Is This What We Want?” in protest to the UK government’s announcement in December 2024 of a consultation on copyright and AI, which is considering exceptions to copyright infringement liability for some artificial intelligence (AI) purposes, including training AI models. In stark counterpoint to the musicians’ concerns about their economic livelihood is a comment filed the same day by the International Center for Law & Economics (ICLE), which argues that reservation-of-rights approaches favored by many creator advocates hinders new modes of monetization for artists that could be enabled by AI technologies.

Many people know about trademark filings, but have you ever heard about trademark refilings? Before 2023, registering a trademark in China often involved filing several iterations of the same trademark application consecutively (so-called “refilings” of the original mark) before one of the marks proceeded to registration. This was often quite frustrating for those not used to the practice. To add to this headache, many brand owners have been told they should refile a trademark after it has already registered. As a result, it isn’t unheard of to have 5-10 filings for the same mark (and the costs definitely add up).

Innovation in artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming industries and everyday life. Given its growing importance, many jurisdictions, including Brazil, the United States, and Europe, are establishing specific guidelines to legally protect AI inventions. Although each region seeks to protect innovation, the approaches differ significantly, particularly regarding patentability requirements, inventiveness, and technical disclosure.