As a mechanism that protects new ideas and investments in innovation and creativity, the USPTO has various offices within, which serve specific functions, both to the general public and the organization itself. One such office is the PTAB. What is the PTAB? The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) is a body in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) which oversees and takes care of the adjudication of post-issuance trial proceedings of patents like inter partes review (IPR), post-grant review (PGR), and covered business method (CBM) review. The PTAB was created in 2012 by the America Invents Act which was previously referred to as the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (“BPAI”) which was later renamed by the AIA. The Board hears appeals from adverse patentability decisions by patent examiners in original applications, reissues, re-examinations, and interferences. The PTAB is often the chosen legal avenue for the resolution of patent validity challenges and thus is instrumental in many patent disputes. Members of PTAB/ How many PTAB judges are there? The Code of Laws of the United States of America establishes the Board's membership as follows: Director. Deputy Director. Commissioner for Patents. Commissioner for Trademarks. Administrative Patent Judges. The PTAB consists of over 100 administrative patent judges (“APJs”). To issue decisions, the Board involves more than 100 APJs including Chief Administrative Patent Judge, Deputy Chief Administrative Patent Judge, Vice Chief Administrative Patent Judges, Lead Administrative Patent Judges, Administrative Patent Judges and people serving in many positions such as Supervisory Patent Attorneys, Patent Attorneys, Paralegal Specialists, Legal Instrument Examiners, Administrators, Analysts, and Support Specialists. PTAB General Processes The PTAB has two divisions, namely; the Appeals Division that reviews decisions made by the examiners during active prosecution of patent applications, and the Trials Division that examines post-issuance proceedings. The trials conducted in the Trials Division are relatively fast, inexpensive, and narrow in scope compared to litigation in other forums, such as district courts or the International Trade Commission. There are several types of adversarial post-grant proceedings at the PTAB, including inter parties review (IPR), covered business method review (CBM), and post-grant review (PGR). The process is as follows: Pre-Institution Filings: A party initiates a post-grant proceeding at the PTAB by filing a petition for review identifying, with particularity, each claim challenged, the grounds on which each challenge is based, and the evidence supporting each ground along with a written Testimony supporting the petition must be submitted. An IPR may not be instituted if the petition is filed more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner/party is served with a complaint alleging patent infringement. Once the petition is filed and accepted by the Office after a procedural review, a filing date is awarded. The patent owner has three months to file an optional patent owner preliminary response, which can address reasons why the Board should decline to institute review of the challenged patent. Institution of Trial: The PTAB has up to three months to issue a decision on whether to institute trial after the earlier of (1) the patent owner’s preliminary response filing, or (2) the preliminary response due date. In its institution decision, the PTAB must either institute review of all grounds presented in the petition or deny institution entirely. If the trial is instituted, the PTAB issues a Scheduling Order setting out due dates for the remaining stages of the case and it also establishes the timing of filings relating to evidentiary disputes and the tentative date of an oral hearing, which the parties must affirmatively request by a stated date. Post-Institution Filings: Upon the institution of trial, the patent owner is typically afforded around three months to file a patent owner’s response to the petition, or a motion to amend the challenged claims. The petitioner may then file a petitioner’s reply, which may only respond to arguments raised in the patent owner’s response or opposition to the motion to amend and respond to new patentability issues arising. The patent owner may respond with a sur-reply limited to responding to the petitioner’s reply. Fact Discovery, Protective Orders, and Evidentiary Disputes: Discovery in PTAB trials is divided into “routine” and “additional” discovery. Routine discovery is granted in every case and includes cross-examination of expert witness declarant testimony via deposition. Additional discovery in IPR proceedings are inquiries relating to the real-parties in interest in a proceeding, and the burden of proof for obtaining such discovery falls on the party seeking it. Oral Hearing: The parties may request an oral hearing before the panel of administrative law judges assigned to the case by the date stated in the Scheduling Order and must specify the issues to be argued when doing so. The petitioner generally presents first, followed by the patent owner. An oral argument in PTAB proceeding will be heard by a panel of three APJs, the composition of which is designated by the Chief Judge of the PTAB. The Chief Judge is directed, when possible, to match the technology preferences (e.g., chemical, electrical, mechanical) of the APJ with the subject matter of the patent under review. Further considerations include balancing the experience, workload, and jurisdiction of the APJs on the panel. APJs are also subject to strict conflict of interest policies and ethics rules. Final Written Decision and Appeal: The Board is required to issue a Final Written Decision within one year of instituting trial. In these decisions, the Board determines whether the petitioner met its burden of showing the unpatentability of the challenged claims by the quality of the evidence. Who are the Administrative Patent Judges? APJs come from various backgrounds, but all have significant experience in patent law, and candidates with 10 to 15 years of litigating and/or prosecuting patents at Intellectual Property firms are preferred. They are required to have at least a bachelor’s degree in an engineering or scientific discipline, and some are former patent examiners and patent attorneys. Based on the sampling data of half of the APJs in PTAB from a recent survey, about 84% are former patent attorneys having practiced in the private sector, about one quarter have experience as examiners or other USPTO roles before becoming an administrative patent judge. A good 12% have experience clerking for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and 4 percent have experience in either the military, the Department of Justice, or the International Trade Commission. They are formally appointed by the Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Director of the PTO, and until recently were civil service employees with various job protections. How do APJs and District Court Judges Differ? In contrast to federal district court judges, APJs are more likely to possess substantive experience in patent law as well as the technical expertise of the patent under review. They are required to demonstrate the ability to litigate or draft decisions around patentability. As a formal agency adjudication under the Administrative Procedure Act, the factual findings of the PTAB are subject to judicial review under the substantial evidence standard. Substantial evidence is “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. The substantial evidence standard is generally considered more deferential than the clear error standard applied to appellate review of fact-finding by district courts, which may reflect Congressional recognition of the subject matter expertise of administrative adjudicatory bodies like the PTAB.

Fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory terms (FRAND) are a voluntary licensing commitment that standards setting organizations request from the owner of a patent that is essential to implement a technical standard. In a world where technology thrives best when it is democratized by not just multiple large enterprises but also small and medium sized businesses, FRAND commitments promise to simplify, expedite and make more cost effective, the licensing process of important inventions. But alas, even as the philosophy behind FRAND is universally accepted to be beneficial for public-at-large, FRAND only continues to increase confusion and uncertainty. Rather than offering fair and reasonable access to key technology – FRAND commitments and the workings of standards setting organizations have often divided technology industry into haves and have-nots – the very situation FRAND seeks to avert. How did we get here? Let’s look at how the process to designate and monetize standard essential patents is wrought with gaps that undermine FRAND – and creates unfairness in the market: 1. Identification of SEP In theory, the motivation behind FRAND is that standard setting organizations must request permission from patent owners to include technology described in their IP into a standard – so that in return for helping standardize and increase market for the patent owner’s technology, the patent owner agrees to license the patent on reasonable royalty terms. In an ideal world where patents are few and it is easy to identify what patents really are essential, SEPs would serve to harmonize the business interests of patent owners and the public interest of achieving economies of scale through standardization and interoperability. However, in the real world – where technology gets more complex at a breathtaking rate – and may be criss-crossed by hundreds and thousands of patents, standard setting organizations have fallen into a counter-productive SEP identification process that is inherently flawed from the start. Most if not all standard setting committees are composed of representatives from individual technology companies whose first motivation is to ensure that their own technology becomes essential to the resulting standard. Once the standard is ready, each member company then submits a list of its own patent assets that they think are essential to the standard. The consolidated list can then be included in the standard as SEPs. The SEP process is a voluntary agreement between the standard setting organization and the patent owners, which suffers from major drawbacks. First, there is no peer review or external due diligence on whether the submitted patents actually are essential to the standard - potentially aiding false advertising of the patent assets. Second, there is no due diligence on whether there are other standard essential patents held by the member companies other than those they have submitted. Which means a member company can influence the standard to be formulated such that some of its patents are essential to the standard - but can circumvent the FRAND commitments by not declaring the patents as such. Third, there is no due diligence on whether there are other standard essential patents held by companies that are not actively contributing to the standard. While such a wide ranging exercise would undoubtedly be expensive, it leaves standard complying companies in the dark about future threats of litigation, especially NPE litigation. 2. Differential Pricing FRAND is based on noble intentions but does little to specify a yardstick on how reasonable and equitable royalties must be negotiated. It simply requires the patent owner to negotiate a reasonable royalty rate in good faith - leaving open the option of volume pricing. More often that not, small players in the market end up paying high per-use royalties which stifles innovation in SMEs. Further, patent owners are under little obligation to charge the same royalty rates from even all licensees of comparable size and can simply base a high asking price on another convenient prior instance of the high asking price. There seems to be no independent review from the standard setting committees on what should be the reasonable or maximum per-use royalty. 3. Product Bundling FRAND commitments do not preclude the patent owner from negotiating royalties that are bundled with their own product offerings. As a famous example, Qualcomm would often ask a higher royalty rate if the licensee builds it's own standards-compliant chipsets but a lower royalty rate if the licensee purchases Qualcomm's own standards-compliant chipsets. Bundling of products is of course a prevalent and time proven strategy but when it comes to SEPs, it can severely hamper competition and breed antitrust issues. 4. Lack of Iterations for SEPs Once a particular version of the standard has been formalized and released with the list of underlying SEPs, the list is usually updated only when the next version is released. Further most lists of SEPs leave out in-process applications and indeed a number of such applications can qualify as SEPs if and when they are granted. There needs to be a parallel process which iteratively maintains track of declared applications as well as continuations, continuations-in-part and foreign family members of the declared SEPs so that complying industry players can obtain the appropriate license and also so that family members of SEPs are awarded the same FRAND treatment. 5. Sale of SEPs Often, SEPs end up being sold to third parties and NPEs that are able to dilute or even skip altogether FRAND obligations associated with the SEPs. As a recent example, Nokia sold some continuing applications of their SEPs to Acacia Research which subsequently were granted. While Nokia, had they still held the patents, may have considered the newly granted patents to be existing SEPs - Acacia could term them as fresh new SEPs and thus ask for higher royalties than Nokia would have been able to justify. Standard setting organizations play no part in regulating sale of SEPs or family members of SEPs by the contributing patent owners. Indeed, an oversight by the strangers setting committees (or any other external stakeholders) on sale of one's patents will likely be seen as an overreach. However, a consensus on regulation or perhaps some form of automatic exit licensing will no doubt prove beneficial across the board for continuing companies. Conclusion Just like a patent is a quid pro quo contract with the government which provides the patent owner with the right to exclude others from making, using or selling an invention in lieu of disclosing the invention to the public and advancing the overall state of the art; SEPs should be identified, managed and monetized as a quid pro quo where wider licensing opportunities offset lower, equal and transparent royalties. A more fair and free market would naturally follow. Copperpod provides portfolio analysis services that help clients to make strategic decisions such as In-licensing/Out-Licensing of patents, new R&D investments, or pruning out less critical patents. Our qualified and dedicated team of patent engineers provides strength parameters for each patent in a portfolio based on their technical quality, enforceability, offensive/defensive strengths & business value. Please contact us at info@copperpodip.com to know more about our services. Rahul is a seasoned IP Professional with 10 years of experience working closely with senior litigators on patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation. Rahul has a Bachelor's degree in Electrical Engineering from Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Delhi and is a certified Project Management Professional (PMP). He has advised clients on more than 100 technology cases cumulatively resulting in over $1 billion in settlements and verdicts, including cases where he has testified at deposition or through expert reports.

The majority leader of the California State Assembly has proposed a bill (AB-1884) that serves up to 6 months of jail time to restaurant workers for giving out plastic straws unless one is requested by a patron. While the severity of the bill is debatable, it does reflect the strong popular opinion against plastic straws. Popular opinion can be a powerful force in deciding consumer trends and several think-tanks, media outlets and civil societies have started being more vocal online and offline. For example, the Evening Standard of London too joined a chorus of voices in the UK against the use of plastic straws in London restaurants, with the launch of its The Last Straw campaign. The Sunday Mail in Scotland launched a similar campaign and the Scottish parliament went ahead and banned the use of plastic straws altogether. While most such campaigns or laws are local in nature, the pervasive use of small plastic goods (including plastic straws, tokens, packaging, etc.) presents a worldwide ecological threat. But before we talk about alternatives, let's look at how we arrived at the status quo. Human civilization has used straws for well over 4000 years, starting with the Sumerians who used metal tubes (including gold) for drinking beer. Metal remained the most preferred material for making straws for centuries thereafter - eventually spreading to Egypt, Eurasia and even to South America where the natives modified the straw to make "bombillas" with sieves for filtering and drinking mate tea. In smaller pockets in Asia, bamboo straws came into fashion over the years. Metal however was relatively expensive for use in straws - and bamboo was not always easily procured outside of Asia. Hence, by the 1800's, people started exploring cheaper alternatives for constructing drinking straws. Rye grass stems and reeds (including bamboo) were explored by manufacturers in different markets - with rye grass stems enjoying considerable popularity. However, a common problem with using reed/grass stems was the reduced durability when the straws were immersed in liquids (especially in sparkling beverages). The straws would frequently fray or turn to mush. In 1887, a man named Marvin Stone came up with an easy solution - paper straws. Marvin took a sheet of paper, rolled it into a thin tube and glued the edges to form what would be the precursor to the modern straw. Stone instantly knew his solution was revolutionary - he applied for a patent soon after - and received his first U.S. Patent 375962 on January 3, 1888. He continued to perfect the invention - for example, applying a thin layer of paraffin wax to the paper to increase the durability and avoid dissolution in alcoholic drinks. In just two years, i.e. by 1890, the Stone Straw Corporation was producing more drinking straws than cigarette holders. The easy availability and reduced cost of paper spurred an exponential growth of straws in the market and for 20 years, Stone remained the be-all end-all of drinking straws - though there were a few important improvements from various other quarters. In 1905, for example, William Henry Dewender devised a beverage bottle with an integrated straw - which earned him U.S. Patent 806528 on December 5, 1905. In 1916, George H Williams devised a drinking straw with a filtering gauze to prevent sand, dirt and other foreign substances being drawn into the mouth. His invention was particularly useful for military personnel (the World War I was raging on at the time) who frequently had to rely on shallow springs and streams for drinking water. Williams received U.S. Patent 1236029 on 7 Aug 1917 for his invention. In 1920, Hugo Pick of the Albert Pick Company devised a straw with clearly marked drinking portion - so that appropriate care can be taken while handling the straw in restaurants (as disclosed in U.S. Patent 1466185). In 1931, Maurice Hollingsworth disclosed the first flavored straws - applying a dry coating of flavoring on the inner walls of a paper straw - in his U.S. Patent 1996203 granted on April 2, 1935. Flavored straws were a major success with numerous other companies modifying and/or improving the product over the next several decades. The next big innovation to drinking instruments came in 1936, when a man named Joseph Friedman came up with a "bendy" straw - a design now ubiquitous in restaurants worldwide and patented it in his U.S. Patent 2094268. Joseph's design was a tremendous success - and he went on to improve and monetize his straws over the next several years. In 1939, Friedman founded Flex-Straw Company. By the 1940s, he was manufacturing flex-straws for hospitals which used glass and/or metal tubes - the flex-straw was much easier for patients to use while lying down - and soon after, for the hospitality industry. Yet, every new straw patented since 1887 up until at least 1933 was constructed using paper and/or paper coated with wax to increase durability. Though plastic had been invented in mid-1800s, mass production of plastic goods only really started in the late 1930s and 1940s. It was only natural that inventors saw plastic as the most viable material for drinking straws. Theodore M Prudden, for example, disclosed one of the earliest plastic straws in his U.S. Patent 2036773. Joseph Friedman himself also took notice of plastic as a more viable material - and filed what was later granted on May 1, 1951, as U.S. Patent 2550797, introducing the first plastic bendy straw that consumers have used across the world for more than 65 years. Plastic quickly replaced paper, grass and metal in drinking straws almost entirely over the next decade and virtually all innovation that came next focused on how to mold new shapes using plastic. Several new "crazy" straws were subsequently designed by inventors over the next 5 decades, achieving varying levels of popularity over time - but the basic bendy straw Friedman invented has remained by far the most iconic straw through the ages. Yet, no matter what shapes they come in, plastic straws are undeniably bad for the environment. They are ubiquitous yet tiny enough to make collection and recycling logistically impractical - and too frequently make their way to landfills or the oceans where they get ingested by birds, animals and fish with fatal consequences. While plastic no doubt is the most economical material for the straw, there are several "responsible" alternatives such as bamboo, paper and metal - ironically, the very materials that plastic replaced in the 1940s. Hopefully, the next wave of innovation in drinking instruments will also focus on reducing the costs of these materials, in addition to devising new materials. Realistically, while reducing the costs to match those of plastic may indeed be too ambitious, if not impossible, perhaps future innovation combined with strong popular opinion and a general sense of corporate responsibility will tip the balance against plastic straws once and for all. #patents #greentech

“Without Freedom, there is no Creation” - J. Krishnamurti An innovation is useful only if there is freedom to test, market, or sell product or service utilizing that innovation. An enterprise with even the most innovative product may be laden with technology risks in the form of existing intellectual property in the market which may need to be licensed or circumvented. Such risks often culminate in the form IP infringement disputes (if the technology is already patented by another party, firm or individual) – sometimes even before the company earns revenue from the breakthrough product. A Freedom to Operate (FTO) analysis allows companies to avoid the above risks by analysing the government regulations, intellectual property rights, trademarks, copyrights and any other IP laws that might apply to the product or service. For example, food and medication have to meet strict safety standards to operate freely, no matter how many U.S. patents inventor has. If FDA (Food and Drug Administration) rejects the drug, there is no way to commercialise or enter into the market for the same. For patents, particularly (which may be the biggest encumbrance for technology products), the FTO analysis begins by searching patent literature for issued or pending patents, and obtaining a legal opinion as to whether a product, process or service may be considered to infringe any patent(s) owned by others. When to Perform an FTO Analysis? Launch of a new technology, product or service Expanding or entering a new geography Targeting a new customer audience for an existing product or service Investing in or acquiring a new company, product or service Planning for future research and development Steps to Perform an FTO Analysis Identify Relevant Geography: The first step is to identify the country or region in which the product or service is to be launched. Most forms of intellectual property, including patents, are jurisdictional, so if the product or service is being launched in two different countries, two separate FTO analyses are typically required. Identify Keywords: Keywords explaining key functionalities of the product, technology or service must be identified to perform FTO analysis. The keywords must include broad as well as specific terms to aptly identify the product, technology or service – as well as synonyms for each of those terms. Infringement Search: Based on the keywords, the relevant patent databases are searched for all granted and active patents, and pending patent applications that may cover the key functionalities of the product, technology or service. Prepare FTO Opinion: Preparing an FTO opinion is the most important step which will give an idea to the enterprise whether to go ahead with the product/service or not – and whether there is a need for obtaining licenses before the technology is brought to market. An FTO opinion includes product/service details for which FTO is being prepared, closest competitors’ products details, patents and applications that are relevant to the product, technology or service, and a mapping of the product, technology or service with the independent claims of the closest relevant patents and applications for literal infringement, infringement under doctrine of equivalence or indirect infringement (inducement of infringement). What Happens After an FTO Analysis? Depending upon the extent of overlap between the closest patents and application discovered during an FTO analysis, the company may be presented with the following courses of action: Buy the closest patents: An enterprise can buy patents that are closest to the breakthrough technology, product or service. Buying a patent gives full rights (including but not limited to sue other companies who might infringe on the patent) to the enterprise to market and distribute the invention to the public. License the closest patents: Patent licensing refers to the act of getting the ownership of a patent so as to make, use or sell the invention for an amount of pre-decided royalties. In-Licensing: Licensing all the patent rights to operate freely and sell the product or service in the market. Cross-Licensing: An agreement between two parties so that each party may benefit from each other’s patent. Generally, the patents that each party owns cover different essential aspects of a given commercial product. Therefore, by cross licensing, each party maintains their freedom to bring the commercial product to the market. Patent Pools: A partnership between two or more companies that come together to share a patent for either intellectual property or a particular technology, so that they are free to develop and sell their products in the market. 3. Circumvent the closest patents: Once the closest patents has been identified through an FTO analysis, an enterprise can modify its product or service around those patents to avoid the infringement lawsuit. To know more about how Copperpod IP can help you safeguard against patent infringement, contact us at info@copperpodip.com for a free consultation. #patents Keywords: intellectual property infringement, ip intellectual property, patent protection, patent infringement, intellectual property, patent, ipr, intellectual property rights, intellectual property law, patent attorney, patent lawyer, ip protection, ip infringement, infringement, intellectual property litigation

Entrepreneurs are quite apprehensive of the early stages of a new business, and they understand that it is an unbelievably engrossing time and thus they focus on constructing the primary team, structuring the company, inviting investors, developing the product, and developing elementary partnerships, sales channels, and marketing plans. All this poses a challenge to concurrently focus on IP issues. However, this early time period is also a critical time to secure that a business takes steps to protect its core intellectual property and avoids the risk of third-party intellectual property affairs. There is a greater reason for having a solid grasp of intellectual property and developing an IP strategy that is in terms with the business as it is a crucial part of developing a new venture on a solid foundation. So is rerouting necessary for safeguarding intellectual property? Trademarks and patents are granted on a “first-to-file” principle, and the sooner you file them, the better. The only chance to prosecute imitators only becomes valid after there is a business to protect. Steve Ward, the former CEO of Lenovo said “Patent litigation is the sport of kings.” What are the odds your venture will survive long enough to benefit from filing patents? Awareness about IP laws Intellectual property protection is offered by various laws. The Copyright Act, 1957 protects original works including artistic, literary works, as well as software. The Patents Act, 1970 protects inventions, specifically scientific inventions. The Trademarks Act, 1999 protects brands, trade names, logos, color combinations, and other source identifiers. The Designs Act, 2000 protects aesthetic elements of industrial design. Apart from this, confidential information and trade secrets are protected under common law. Startups need to take IP very seriously, not just for consent, but for retaining an asset. Employing an in-house lawyer is a great idea for startups that are growing rapidly because what is most needed is legal advice that takes into account the goals, strategies, and limitations of the business of the company. What are the Risks? Since IP is the moving force of many companies, this is a prosperous time for IP. Companies are built around patented technology. Patent filings and issuance are escalating, the courts are pro-IP, as is legislation – even the Antitrust Division of the U.S. Justice Department is pro-IP. Availability Risk: It is very important for the company to protect all its information available against potential infringements. A startup company that has created an original work or produced a novel product may be startled to find out that someone else appears to have copied, performed, or distributed it without permission. Now the company may be able to bring an infringement action in this situation, as long as it has registered its IP assets with the USPTO. Brand Risk: A company’s brand is part of its IP and can be one of its largest assets. It is important to protect the company image and brand reputation. If a name or logo is not registered as a trademark, the startup company cannot be certain about its belonging. If another person or business registers the mark first, it may find itself in the highly inconvenient and very costly position of being dragged in litigation and potentially having to withdraw your products, redesign your packaging and marketing literature, and pay damages or an account of profits to the registered trademark owner. Leaving aside the quantifiable costs, the venture could also risk any goodwill that it may have established in the brand name, over a product that it has painfully taken years to create, just because it didn't take the extra step of registering it. Access Risk: Access risk includes the risk that access to information (data or programs) will be inappropriately granted or refused. Access risk ensures the protection of trade secrets. If startups do not follow the trade secret law and do not protect their secrets and confidential business information, then the trade secret cannot be protected against being discovered by fair means and by reverse engineering. In such a situation, the owners of the company cannot take any legal action against the other person or company. Trade secret law is considered necessary to ensure the fair functioning of the market and to promote innovation by suppressing anti-competitive business behaviors. Compliance Risk: Due to the number of legal issues concerning IP rights, it is important to be aware of their legal implications. Radical changes in the mechanism of intellectual property (IP) have adequately modified the way leading companies are thinking about IP strategy. A decade ago, companies displayed IP primarily as a weapon to exclude rivals from a domain or to generate royalties. But today, the best IP strategy is often to collaborate rather than confront. Patent owners still demand claims, demand royalties, and seek restraining orders but the current scenario is driven by the belief that companies stand to benefit the most by working with other companies to ensure that they have the freedom to operate in specific technology domains. On the supply side, a combination of new legislation and critical court decisions in the US has made it harder to get, keep, and deploy patents. On the demand side, digital transformation is creating a much broader market for IP. With every company becoming a technology company, patents in domains such as artificial intelligence (AI) and the Internet of Things (IoT), among others, are the new coin of the realm. These shifts are creating new opportunities for companies that are “long” on IP to cooperate with traditional companies that may be “short.” Many tech companies have a surplus of IP, while industrial goods companies face a slippage. In an IoT world, they are starting to work together to expand the market for sensor-enabled and location-aware goods and services. Classic, exclusive IP strategy is not dead, but companies need to master a more sophisticated approach and to the point manuscript for how to create gamesmanship through IP. It's a staggering process once you set sail a new business. It may leave you in doubt, anxiety, and a ton of other legitimate issues. Thus, to avoid such potential problems, businesses need to stay aware of their Intellectual Property Rights. Once the fundamentals of deciding the right business structure are cleared, IPR helps to differentiate the business from the competitors. Some strategies for the protection of IP rights from the above-mentioned risks are mentioned below. Steps to Avoid Risks Prioritizing IP Protection: Start-ups cannot afford the complete protection available under the intellectual property mechanism. The foremost step for any startup is to evaluate, analyze, and prioritize the IP Rights involved in its business. Depending upon the type of industry involved, IP rights play an important role. Failure to identify or prioritize IP Rights, presumably create problems for a startup's business, especially during negotiations with future investors. Sometimes IP Rights are the only asset available with a startup. Protecting IP rights: It is in the long-term interest of startups to have an Intellectual Property Policy for management of various IP rights which may be presently owned, created, or acquired in the future by startups. The aim of such a policy is to ensure that there are no inter-se disputes between the promoters of the startups, which remains to date to be one of the main concerns for the failure of startups. Registering IP Rights: Major IP rights including patents and designs are important to get registered before a protection claim. Secondly, certain IP Rights like trademark and copyright need not be mandatorily registered for protection. Nevertheless, a registered IP Right carries a greater value and acts as evidence of the use of the IP Rights before courts as well as enforcement agencies. Awareness of IP Rights: For any startup, it is crucial that it does not violate the IP Rights of any other person. This will ensure safety from unwarranted litigation or legal action which can counter its business activities. This makes it even more important for startups to make careful IP decisions in the initial phase and be thorough with the IP Rights, which it is using or plans to use. Agreements related to IP: Proper documentation in the form of agreements like NDA’s, agreements with employees or independent contractors, can cut ice between the success and failure of startups. The intellectual property so created, must be protected through a proper agreement between the founder or key employee or a third party, as the case may be, and the startup. If the agreement, with founders or employees or a third party, under which a novel idea was/is created, is left, it could lead to obstruction later after such an idea becomes successful. Accordingly, the startups need to ensure that anything created on behalf of the startup, belongs to the startup and not the employee or a third party. Further, it is advisable to enter into elaborate assignments, licensing or user agreements, and care should be taken to make provisions for all post-termination IP Right issues. Conclusion The process of bringing a new startup business to life to launching new products to the marketplace can be an exciting time. However, many startups are so focused on bringing a new product or service to market that they fail to take the necessary steps to protect the associated IP. Failure to put an IP plan in place can wipe out valuation and expose the startup to potential third-party infringement risk. IP is often considered as expensive, complex, and difficult to deal with and if it is not prioritized, it may lead to a lost opportunity to prevent competitors from entering the market with a similar product. This in turn can lead to a contagion effect on the business value making it harder to invite investors to invest in the venture. In contrast, startups can protect and exploit their IP assets to build value and revenue by developing an IP plan as part of their conception, creating an action plan to protect IP assets including protection of confidential information, securing ownership rights to the IP, conducting freedom-to-operate searches, and ensuring properly drafted IP-related agreements are in place. References https://www.natlawreview.com/article/what-start-ups-need-to-know-about-intellectual-property https://www.mondaq.com/india/trademark/456442/intellectual-property-rights-ipr-for-startups https://builtin.com/finance/seed-dollars-intellectual-property https://yourstory.com/2018/05/intellectual-property-law https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/avoiding-common-ip-pitfalls-what-every-34624/ https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/041315/risk-and-rewards-investing-startups.asp https://info.knowledgeleader.com/what-is-intellectual-property-and-what-are-the-risks https://www.raconteur.net/business-strategy/risk/importance-intellectual-property/ Copperpod helps start-ups, corporations, and law firms deepen the technical arguments during patent prosecution, patent monetization & litigation with a detailed patentability search, prior art search, FTO (Freedom To Operate), source code review, reverse engineering, and other fact-finding analyses. Please contact us at info@copperpodip.com to know more about our services.

Open-source software offers many benefits to enterprises and development teams, they are subjected to open source vulnerabilities that pose significant risks to application security. Many development teams, be it traditional or agile, incorporate pre-built, reusable open source software components to accelerate the delivery of the product but most open-source software is not subjected to the same level of scrutiny as software that is custom developed. The Open source software’s source code files are managed by many people, therefore vulnerability relies exactly upon the openness of the open-source software, as the same code is seen by all the users, it is also easily available to the attackers. Thus, once they find a flaw in the code, they can manipulate it to cause harm or retrieve sensitive data from systems. The files may further comprise open source libraries and dependencies that are left unchecked by the developers and causes security issues that could potentially expose an organization to threats such as code modification by the attacker, Denial-of-Service (DoS) attacks, malware injections, data breaches, digital extortion, and identity theft. These security issues make the open-source software vulnerable to attack and thus are termed as open source vulnerabilities. Total common vulnerabilities and exposures vulnerabilities (CVEs) reached 968 in 2019, up from 421 in 2018, a rise of 130%. CVEs have remained at exponentially high levels into the first three months of 2020 too, suggesting this is a long-term trend. The report also revealed that it takes an average of 54 days for OSS vulnerabilities to be added to the National Vulnerability Database (NVD) following public disclosure. These delays mean organizations are often exposed to serious application security risks for around two months. The lags were observed across all severities of vulnerabilities, including the critical and weaponized ones. Well-Known Coding Vulnerabilities SQL injections — Code permits alteration of SQL scripts, allowing attackers to manipulate or compromise information in databases through modifying parameters. Cross-Site Scripting (XSS) — Compromised web pages enable attackers to inject client-side scripts that will be executed by other users who view the web page. The damage may include extracting cookies, exposing sensitive data, or defacing the existing website. Insecure Direct Object References (IDOR) — This is an access control vulnerability where the code refers to an object directly by user-supplied input. This can be a name or id that is supplied as a URL parameter. This might expose data unintentionally and give hackers information that is useful for other attacks on the site. Cross-Site Request Forgery (CSRF) — It occurs when an end-user is forced or tricked into executing unwanted web requests for which they are currently authenticated. An attacker tricks the user into executing the actions of the attacker’s choosing. This can enable cyberthieves to modify or create profiles or user accounts for use in additional attacks. Security misconfiguration — This vulnerability is often the result of using default configurations. Developers might not even know about these default settings, but it might enable attackers to access the system or retrieve important user information, and even specific data regarding the application. This opens the door for future attacks that compromise those specific technologies. How to check the vulnerabilities? Using Tools: There are various vulnerability checking tools available such as SourceClear, BlackDuck, VeraCode, OWASP Dependency Check, and Nexus Repository Pro. These tools find vulnerabilities in the source code of an application and help in determining which type of licenses are used in the open-source software and scans the dependencies in the library for checking vulnerabilities in the software using public vulnerability databases such as the NIST National Vulnerability Database (NVD). Checking Manually: Manual checking requires the prerequisite knowledge of dependencies used in the open-source software and the open-source vulnerability database. The dependencies include a list of libraries and external references while the database comprises a list of vulnerabilities detected in the dependencies. The database comprises entries of vulnerabilities indexed with corresponding dependencies. The database is publicly available so that the user can check the vulnerabilities in the open-source software and develop a patch of software to protect the system from attack. Publicly Available Vulnerability Databases Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures (CVE) - CVE is a database operated by MITRE. It is a dictionary that provides publicly disclosed cybersecurity vulnerabilities and exposures. CVE entries comprise an identification number, a description, and at least one public reference. CVE list does not include any severity rating such as CVSS score. National Vulnerability Database (NVD) - NVD is a database maintained by the U.S. government. The National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) NVD team analyzes the new CVE in the CVE dictionary and assigns severity ratings such as Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) score as High/Medium/Low to the CVE. Vulnerability Notes Database - This database is operated by the CERT division of the Carnegie Mellon software engineering institute. Exploit Database - This database is operated by Offensive security. Vulnerability Lab - This is an open-source database. VulDB - this is also an open source vulnerability database with over 140k entries. All these databases are used to share computer flaws detected in the open source software and/or dependencies. For example, Apache HTTP server is a free and open-source cross-platform web server software, released under the terms of Apache License 2.0. Apache is developed and maintained by an open community of developers. In the year 2019, Denial of Service (DoS) vulnerability (CVE-2019-0190) was detected in the Apache HTTP server software. Denial of Service (DoS) - It is a type of attack on an online service such as a website that disrupts its normal function and prevents other users from accessing it. This attack can also be launched against networks, machines, or even a single program. CVE-2019-0190: A bug exists in the way mod_ssl handled client renegotiations. A remote attacker could send a carefully crafted request that would cause mod_ssl to enter a loop leading to a denial of service. This bug can be only triggered with Apache HTTP Server version 2.4.37 when using OpenSSL version 1.1.1 or later, due to interaction in changes to the handling of renegotiation attempts. Following is the list of products that are using open source software, Apache HTTP server and thus are affected by the Denial of Service (DoS) vulnerability CVE-2019-0190. NIST NVD team maintains a publicly available vulnerability database and search option for all published CVE along with CVSS severity score as High, Medium, or Low. NIST NVD team after analyzing the Denial of Service (DoS) vulnerability (CVE-2019-0190) in the CVE dictionary assigns the CVSS severity score and then publishes it on the NVD webpage. Each vulnerability is marked with CVSS severity as High/Medium/Low. The Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS) is a free and open industry standard for assessing the severity of computer system security vulnerabilities. CVSS attempts to assign severity scores to vulnerabilities, allowing responders to prioritize responses and resources according to the threat. Thus publicly available NVD and CVE dictionary play an important role in the detection of vulnerabilities and development of security patches against vulnerable attacks. The effect on the security of an application implementing open source software, or its component is still a major concern in the security community, a large number of prominent experts believe that it has great potential to be more secure. Meanwhile, the open-source vulnerabilities can be found and fixed, businesses must be proactive in discovering security issues before hackers and cybercriminals can exploit them. Paid and open-source tools scanning for open source vulnerabilities provide just such a capability for developers and IT security teams, or the development teams can do this manually. The latter variant is more time and resource-intensive, and is a way of educating developers, so as they make fewer mistakes in their coding practices, check for vulnerabilities, and remediate them at once. Copperpod provides Technology Due Diligence and Source Code Review services to help attorneys dig deep into computer technology products. Our experts are well versed with Java, Objective-C, C/C++, PHP and most other popular programming languages, as well as expertise on security and cryptography standards such as DES, AES, RSA, OpenPGP, MD5, SHA-1, SHA-2, DSA and WEP to provide clients with unparalleled insights and thorough analysis during IP monetization and litigation. References https://snyk.io/blog/open-source-vulnerability-scanner/ https://www.veracode.com/security/open-source-vulnerabilities https://dzone.com/articles/how-to-check-open-source-code-for-vulnerabilities https://www.cvedetails.com/vulnerability-list/vendor_id-45/product_id-66/year-2019/opdos-1/Apache-Http-Server.html https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/search https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/search/results?form_type=Basic&results_type=overview&query=CVE-2019-0190&search_type=all

35 U.S. Code § 251 Reissue of defective patents (a) IN GENERAL.—Whenever any patent is, through error, deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, by reason of a defective specification or drawing, or by reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, the Director shall, on the surrender of such patent and the payment of the fee required by law, reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent, and in accordance with a new and amended application, for the unexpired part of the term of the original patent. No new matter shall be introduced into the application for reissue. (b) MULTIPLE REISSUED PATENTS. — The Director may issue several reissued patents for distinct and separate parts of the thing patented, upon demand of the applicant, and upon payment of the required fee for a reissue for each of such reissued patents. (c) APPLICABILITY OF THIS TITLE.— The provisions of this title relating to applications for patent shall be applicable to applications for reissue of a patent, except that application for reissue may be made and sworn to by the assignee of the entire interest if the application does not seek to enlarge the scope of the claims of the original patent or the application for the original patent was filed by the assignee of the entire interest. (d) REISSUE PATENT ENLARGING SCOPE OF CLAIMS. —No reissued patent shall be granted enlarging the scope of the claims of the original patent unless applied for within two years from the grant of the original patent. The reissue statute, 35 U.S.C. § 251, permits the correction of wholly or partly inoperative or invalid patents by authorizing the Patent Office to reissue corrected patents where errors in the patents were made without any deceptive intention. A patent if deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid, due to defective specification or drawing, or due to the reason of the patentee claiming more or less than he had a right to claim in the patent, then the patentee can reissue the patent for the invention disclosed in the original patent. The patent term for the reissued patent will be equivalent to the unexpired part of the term of the original patent; there will be no extension in the patent term. The patentee can also apply for multiple reissued patents for distinct and separate parts of the original patent. However, claims in any reissued patent must be directed toward the same invention as the original patent. Some indication must exist in the original patent specification that the patentee considered the subject matter claimed in the reissue patent application to be his or her invention. Additionally, Section 251 allows either the inventors or the assignee of the entire interest to file for a reissue, but if the application seeks to enlarge the scope of the claims of the original patent, the reissue must be filed in the name of the inventors only. This is because only the inventors can declare a broader concept to actually be their invention. The reissue application must contain the entire original patent with changes notated properly and claims appropriately numbered. Each claim amendment must have an explanation supporting it. The statute provides for the filing of “broadening reissue applications” in which the scope of the claims sought in reissue extends beyond the scope of the original patent’s claims. However, the reissue statute imposes a two-year time limit, beginning on the date of the grant of a patent, within which any broadening reissue application must be filed. But make sure the statute also objects to the addition of any new matter into the application for reissue. Earlier the filing of a reissue application required a formal surrender of the granted patent. However, under the current law, a reissue application merely constitutes an offer to surrender the underlying patent, and actual surrender only takes effect if the patent is reissued. Until a reissue application is granted, the original patent remains in effect and will remain so even if a reissue application is abandoned. What are the Grounds for Filing for a Reissued Patent? A reissue application is filed to correct an error in the patent as a result of which the patent is deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid. So, there must be at least one error in the patent to provide grounds for reissue of the patent. If there is no error in the patent, the patent will not be reissued. Also, errors in the patent such as spelling, or grammar, or a typographical, editorial or clerical error that does not cause the patent to be deemed wholly or partly inoperative or invalid do not provide a basis for reissue. The most common bases for filing a reissue application are: the claims are too narrow or too broad the disclosure contains inaccuracies applicant failed to or incorrectly claimed foreign priority applicant failed to make reference to or incorrectly made reference to prior copending applications Can the Patent Term be Extended Through Reissued Patents? 35 U.S.C. 251 prescribes the effect of the reissue on the patent term by stating that "the Director shall… reissue the patent… for the unexpired term of the original patent”. The maximum term of the original patent is fixed at the time the patent is granted, subject to any adjustments to the number of days of extension or adjustment. Therefore, a deletion in a reissue application of an earlier-obtained benefit claim will not operate to lengthen the term of the patent to be reissued. Can We Broaden the Scope of the Patent Through Filing a Reissue? The patentee surely can broaden the scope of the claims of the original patent, but there is a catch to that. The patentee can do so within two years from the grant of the original patent. You can add new claims in the reissued patent to broaden the scope of the invention. But make sure adding a new claim is not synonymous with adding new matter! You need to make sure that no new matter is introduced in the reissued patents as the statute objects inclusion of any new matter. It is possible to add new claims if what you want to add is fairly described somewhere within the entirety of the patent application filed originally. If such is not a case, then you cannot add such claims. Also, the patent holder also cannot recapture the surrendered subject matter via reissue if he/she gave up claim coverage during the prosecution of the original patent. What After the Patent has been Reissued? After the patent has been reissued, the original patent is surrendered with an immediate effect. Thereafter, every reissued patent will have the same effect and operation in law on the trial of actions as if the same had been originally granted in such amended form. As the claims of the original and reissued patents are substantially identical, the surrender of an original patent will neither have any effect on any actions then pending nor abate any cause of action other than existing. However, if a claim has been substantially changed after reissuance, it is possible that a potential infringer has gained intervening rights. These rights allow the infringer to continue to sell, offer for sale, use, or purchase the product without a license despite the new claims, but do not allow the infringer to continue to make or import the infringing product. Intervening rights usually occur where reissue claims are broader in some respect than the original claims. The rights may be granted to one who did not infringe the original claims but have become an infringer due to the reissue. If an infringer has made substantial preparations prior to the reissuance, the infringer might be granted not only the basic intervening rights but also equitable intervening rights, which include the ability to make and import the infringing product. Sumit is a research analyst at Copperpod. He has a Bachelor's degree in Electronics and Communication Engineering. His interest areas are Microcontrollers, IoT, Semiconductors, Displays, Wireless Communications and Memory Devices. Keywords: patent infringement, patent, reissue patents, ip consulting, ipr, intellectual property, claim charts

IoT devices are using Artificial Intelligence (AI) and Machine Learning (ML) to bring intelligence and autonomy to systems and processes, such as autonomous driving, industrial smart manufacturing, medical equipment, and home automation. Leading IoT companies offer devices and applications that track and manage medical equipment, staff, and patients within all types of medical environments. IoT applications typically have location sensors that are attached to various assets of the medical facility from the patient, to a staff member or a piece of medical equipment. Each asset is given a unique ID and the system tracks these tags. Such healthcare applications enable tracking in hospital units, rooms, beds, and even shelf-level tracking for true workflow automation. Internet of Things (IoT)-enabled devices have unleashed the potential to keep patients safe and healthy, and empower physicians to deliver superlative care. 4-Step Process for IoT based Healthcare System Step 1: The first step consists of the deployment of interconnected devices including sensors, actuators, monitors, detectors, camera systems, etc. These devices collect the data. Step 2: Usually, data received from sensors and other devices are in analog form, which needs to be aggregated and converted to the digital form for further data processing. Step 3: Once the data is digitized and aggregated, this is pre-processed, standardized and moved to the data center or cloud. Step 4: Final data is managed and analyzed at the required level. Advanced Analytics, applied to this data, brings actionable business insights for effective decision-making. The usage of IoT tracking in medical surroundings is also referred to as “indoor GPS”. IoT majorly uses the technology of RFID tags (Radio-Frequency Identification) to track and monitor healthcare assets. In this article, we will discuss the feasibility of invasive and continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems utilizing IoT based approach. The CGM system is an IoT-based system design from a sensor device to a back-end system for presenting real-time glucose, body temperature and contextual data in human-readable forms to end-users such as patients and doctors. In addition, nRF communication protocol is customized for suiting the glucose monitoring system and achieving a high level of energy efficiency. Finally, the work provides many advanced services at a gateway level such as a push notification service for notifying patients and doctors in case of abnormal situations. 6 Types of Continuous Glucose Monitoring System The CGM system is located near the critical cardiac patients in the intensive care unit. The system is built by a disposable subcutaneous glucose sensor, a glucose client, and a server. The system collects glucose data 4 times per day and stores in a hospital information system. Doctors can use the bedside monitor to track the glucose data. Bluetooth low energy (BLE) implantable glucose monitoring system - Glucose data collected from the system is transmitted through BLE to a PDA (smart-phone or iPad) which represents the received data in text forms for visualization. The system shows some achievements in reducing power consumption of an external power unit and an implantable unit. Glucose monitoring in individuals with diabetes using long-term implanted sensor systems and models. Glucose data is sent every two minutes to external receivers. In addition, the system proves that implanted sensors can be placed inside a human body for a long period of time (180 days) for managing diabetes and other diseases. A non-invasive blood glucose monitoring system using near-infrared (NIR) - Glucose in the blood is predicted based on the analysis of the variation in the received signal intensity obtained from a NIR sensor. The predicted glucose data is sent wirelessly to a remote computer for visualization. A blood glucose level monitoring system based on wireless body area networks for detecting diabetes. The system is built by using a glucometer sensor, Arduino Uno, and a Zigbee module. Doctors and caregivers can access a web-page to monitor the glucose levels of a patient remotely. A monitoring system for type 2 diabetes mellitus - The system is able to make decisions on the statues of diabetes control and predict future glucose levels of an individual. Obtained glucose data can be monitored remotely by medical staff through wide area networks. How does Continuous Glucose Monitoring (CGM) System Work? 1. Sensor Device Structure The sensor device structure consists of primary component blocks such as sensors, a microcontroller, a wireless communication block, energy harvesting and management components. The micro-controller performs primary tasks of the device such as data acquisition and transmission, therefore consuming a large part of the device’s total power consumption. In the device, the micro-controller receives glucose data from an implantable glucose sensor via a wireless inductive link receiver while it collects environmental and body temperature via data link wires such as UART, SPI or I2C. The nRF wireless communication block is responsible for transmitting data from the microcontroller to the gateway equipped with an nRF transceiver. The block includes a RF transceiver IC for the 2.4GHz ISM band and an embedded antenna. Due to 2Mbps support, nRF completely fulfills the requirements of transmission data rates in a CGM system. Transmission data rates of nRF can be configured for achieving some levels of energy efficiency. To evaluate the feasibility of the CGM system using IoT, the entire system is executed. Initially, the interaction of the biological tissue under investigation is studied. Since the glucose sensor will be subcutaneous, the electrical characteristics of the biological tissue i.e. skin will be evaluated from which the amount of power loss and absorption due to propagation through the biological tissue will be estimated. It is imperative to make sure that subjecting the human body to these continuous signals is within the safe specified measures. The guidelines for Electromagnetic Field Exposure (EMF) is in terms of Specific Absorption Rate (SAR) and the equivalent plane wave power density (SW/m2). SAR is a measure of the rate of energy absorption per unit mass due to exposure to an RF source. SAR is defined as : SAR = (effErms2 )/(W/Kg) Where eff is the effective conductivity of the biological material such as skin and is proportional to the frequency of the applied field, is the mass density which is approximately 1000 kg/m3 for most biological tissues, and Erms is the root-mean-square value of the electric field E at the measurement point. As specified in the operating frequency of 2.4 GHz, the maximum E and S are 61 V/m and 10 W/m2 respectively which are well below the targeted operation power of the wireless sensor node. 2. Energy Harvesting Unit Energy harvesting refers to harnessing energy from the environment or other energy sources (body heat, foot strike, finger strokes) and converting it to electrical energy. If the harvested energy source is large and periodically or continuously available, a sensor node can be powered perpetually. Energy sources can be broadly classified into the following two categories: (i) Ambient Energy Sources: Sources of energy from the surrounding environment, e.g., solar energy, wind energy and RF energy, and (ii) Human Power: Energy harvested from body movements of humans. Passive human power sources are those which are not user controllable like blood pressure, body heat and breath. Active human power sources are those that are under user control, and the user exerts a specific force to generate the energy for harvesting, e.g., finger motion, paddling and walking. To power the glucose sensor node a combination of ambient and human powered sources is selected. Due to its present availability, RF energy is an adequate source for this application. Also, since the sensor is mounted on the human body it makes sense to exploit this medium as a source of energy. Through the use of a Thermoelectric Generator (TEG), thermal energy can be converted into electrical energy. 3. Gateway and Back-End Structure The gateway collects data from wireless sensor devices and transmits the data to Cloud servers. The gateway performs its tasks by using an nRF transceiver and a wireless IP-based transceiver (i.e. Wifi, GPRS or 3G). The nRF transceiver, which is a plug-able component, is compatible with all types of smart devices (i.e. Android, iPhone, tablet). The nRF transceiver consists of a micro-controller and a low power RF transceiver IC, and an FTDI component. The micro-controller and the nRF components are the same as the ones used in the sensor device. The FTDI chip is used for converting from a UART connection to a USB connection. In addition to mentioned tasks, the gateway provides advanced services such as data processing, local database, local host with user interface and push notification. Due to a small amount of collected data (4-8 samples per 10 minutes), local databases can store the data for a long period of time. By supplying a local host with a user interface, real-time data can be monitored directly from the gateway without requiring Cloud servers. This helps to eliminate an unnecessary latency of transmitting and receiving data to and from the Cloud, respectively. In the gateway, decision making and push notification services work together to provide real-time notifications to doctors or caregivers. For example, when a monitored glucose level is higher and lower than an acceptable level, the decision making service triggers the push notification to send messages for notifying a doctor in real-time. The back-end part comprises Cloud and a user access terminal. Doctors can access real-time data in Cloud remotely via a web browser or a mobile application. An Android app is built in the gateway for receiving data from the nRF component and performing other services. When data is available at one end of the USB port, the app automatically reads the data and performs the data processing service. In addition, the app is capable of representing the processed data in text and graphical forms and triggering a push notification service. The push notification service is implemented by a push notification API. When the mobile app detects abnormal situations (i.e. too low or too high glucose level), the push notification service in the gateway is triggered for sending notification messages to Cloud which then notifies doctors and an end-user wearing the sensor device. Top 10 Players The chart above demonstrates the top 10 players with patents assigned in respect to the wireless glucose monitoring system industry. Out of 7,116 patents, Samsung Electronics is leading with 1338 patents in the industry. The graph shows that Samsung is actively working in the field of IoT healthcare as well. Followed by this, Abbott Diabetes Care ranks number 2 in the wireless glucose monitoring system industry. Roche Diabetes Care, Medtronic Minimed and Dexcom are almost at equivalence with the total number of patents standing at 354, 234, 222 respectively. Sanofi Aventis, IBM, Novo Nordisk and Lifescan IP Holdings are also close behind with 73, 64, 63 and 62 patents respectively. Future Insights There is no doubt that the future of IoT in healthcare is bright and it has a lot of caliber to revolutionize healthcare services. From leading hospitals to small clinics, all are availing the benefits of IoT in healthcare. The future of IoT in healthcare with being a game-changer and the new IoT innovations will mobilize business patterns and automate the data monitoring process. The future of CGM depends not only on advances in hardware technology but also on the way the stream of data is processed algorithmically. This will ultimately result in increased accuracy, biocompatibility, and wearability, consequently leading to improved user compliance, health, and quality of life. There are still no officially accepted guidelines as to how to apply diabetes management decisions using CGM trend information and thus leading to a lot of challenges. IoT-enabled connected devices capture huge amounts of data, including sensitive information, giving rise to concerns about data security, so the implementation of apt security measures becomes crucial. IoT explores new dimensions of patient care through real-time health monitoring and access to patients’ health data. This data is a goldmine for healthcare stakeholders to improve patient’s health and experiences while making revenue opportunities and improving healthcare operations. Being prepared to harness this digital power would prove to be the classist in the increasingly connected globalized world. References https://builtin.com/internet-things/iot-in-healthcare https://ordr.net/article/iot-healthcare-examples/ https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30875159/ https://screen.cloud/blog/iot-applications-healthcare-space https://blog.contus.com/iot-healthcare-applications-benefits/ https://www.wirelesswatchdogs.com/blog/iot-applications-in-healthcare https://tele2iot.com/article/iot-healthcare-applications/ https://www.dqindia.com/evolution-of-iot-playing-a-crucial-role-in-the-healthcare-sector/ https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1877050917310281 https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281464818_Future_Perspectives_in_Glucose_Monitoring_Sensors https://www.mdpi.com/1424-8220/18/7/2183 Keywords Glucose Monitoring, Wearables, IoT, Sensor Devices, Health Monitoring, Energy Harvesting, Power Management, Energy-efficient, CGM, Glucose Sensor, Cloud Servers, Microcontroller

Information Technology (IT) has gained wide importance amongst the competitive position of firms and hence managers have grown more sensitive to their organization’s overall IT risk management. With the aim to avoid such losses, managers are employing various qualitative and quantitative risk analysis methodologies. The risk analysis literature, however, suggests that these managers typically utilize a single methodology, not a combination of methodologies. The purpose of this article is to review our knowledge about technological risk perception and assessment in particular emerging technologies and to suggest possible strategies to use this knowledge for improving our risk management practice. Technological risk assessment is generally defined as the “processing of physical signals and/or information about a potentially harmful impact of using technology and the formation of a judgment about seriousness, likelihood, and acceptability of the respective technology.” An IT risk assessment starts with risk intelligence and threat analysis and thus 3 lists are needed: The IT assets in your organization and how much damage their loss or exposure would cause The business processes that depend on those assets The threat events that could impact those assets and how likely those events are Using the information from this risk assessment process, companies can determine which threats are the most important to mitigate. While laying out the enterprise’s risk mitigation plan, consider how it fits into the existing security program and the various practices it already includes for reducing risks. Technology has changed the way businesses are done. It has helped to globalize the economy and impacted unalterably on everyday life at home. Financial institutions have started relying on technology on a massive scale to help support their business processes and handle plenty of important data. Given the importance of technology and the impact that it has on corporates, it is important that organizations place technology risk assessment practice at the highest priority of the corporate agenda. With increasing cyber criminal activities and data privacy frauds, be it a retailer or some government agency, companies these days are more reliant on IT based systems, and for financial institutions, the risk of cyberattack and system disruption is comparatively high. These cyber frauds negatively impact shareholder value, disrupt the brand and expose companies to complex and embarrassing litigation. Henceforth, it is supremely important to undertake risk assessments exercise on a regular basis because: 1. Understanding Risk Profile Identifying threats and ranking risks systematically is crucial and thus prioritizing risk management tasks and allocating resources appropriately is the foremost requirement. A risk profile describes potential risks in detail, such as: The source of the threat The reason for the risk (uncontrolled access permissions, trade secrets, etc.) The likelihood that the threat will materialize Impact analyses for each threat 2. Identifying loopholes A gap-focused assessment methodology can help identify and distract vulnerabilities. In these risk assessments, cybersecurity, operations and management teams collaborate to evaluate security from the perspective of a potential attacker. The process may also involve an ethical hacker, who will ensure the company’s security controls and protocols are thoroughly tested. 3. Mitigating Costs Regular IT risk assessment can help the company eliminate unnecessary security spending. Estimating risk accurately enables to balance costs against benefits: Company can identify the most unacceptable risks and channel resources toward them, rather than toward less likely or less damaging risks. 4. Understanding Legal Requirements Most organizations have to comply with the privacy and data security requirements of various regulations. For example, healthcare organizations have to comply with HIPAA, which requires documenting their administrative and technical safeguards for patient data and conducting regular risk assessments to ensure that those safeguards are effective. Regular risk assessment is also important for companies that need to comply with consumer privacy standards like PCI DSS or financial disclosure regulations like SOX. Non-compliance with regulations like these can be extremely costly for an organization. Assessing and Managing Risks Apart from the benefits and pros of technology risks, there are some loopholes and leakages in the technology risk system which might pose a problem to the company or the enterprise. There are different types of risks that a company might need to separate like sometimes the system just gets unavailable and face outrages, the company might get hacked from outside, the company’s sensitive data falls in some external hands, the company might fail to comply with some regulations and laws. Regardless of which risk takes place, the impact of those is always very critical. A company might lose revenues, lose reputation, lose efficiency, etc, so whatever type of risk the company faces, it can lead to a lot of damage. It is important to create awareness about technology risks and make it obvious as to what can happen and what would be the impact if something happens. The next step would be to find an appropriate risk management process that covers usually steps like : Process for risk identification for analyzing risks Process for accessing the impact of identified risks Process for taking actions Monitoring the process that takes care that the risk management process gets consequently followed and that is also efficient. Risk management exercise requires a lot of knowledge and awareness of both sides of the cards. People need to have a clear understanding of the business along with a clear understanding of underlying technology and the failures related to it. Conclusion The purpose of the technology risk assessment is to mitigate risks preventing security incidents and compliance failures. However, no organization has the resources to identify and eliminate all risks, so technology pros need to use the appropriate risk assessment techniques to provide focus. The more clearly a business can articulate its plan to reduce the most critical vulnerabilities given top threat sources, the better the business case. Today’s legacy environments are being taxed to accommodate new business realities. While new technologies offer tremendous potential to mitigate much of that risk, organizations must use them thoughtfully and deliberately prioritizing all the laws and regulations. If deployed as part of a well-considered program, this can result in improved efficiency, greater market opportunities and better returns on investment. Copperpod provides Technology Due Diligence, Freedom To Operate (FTO) analysis, Trade Secret Protection analysis, and helps to maximize future licensing opportunities. Copperpod analyzes existing hardware and software systems and processes owned by the seller to provide you a clear and detailed view of the seller's architecture, growth plans and the investment that such growth will require. References https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13669877.2012.729522 https://blog.netwrix.com/2020/05/08/purpose-it-risk-assessment/ https://www.leanix.net/en/technology-risk-management#introduction

Similar to the advancement of smartphones and tablets, wearable technology has been favored by early adopters and is now ready to expand its horizons as a leader of the consumer electronics market. Coupled with the rise of the Internet of Things (IoT) paradigm and enabling technologies (e.g., Augmented Reality (AR), Cyber-Physical Systems, Artificial Intelligence (AI), blockchain or edge computing), smart wearables and IoT-based garments can have a lot of influence on customers and their delight created by fashion. Infact the mingling of textile and electronics is enabling the seamless and massive integration of sensors into textiles and the development of conductive yarn. The communication of smart fabrics with smartphones to process biometric information such as heart rate, temperature, breathing, stress, movement, or even hormone levels, promises a new era for trade. Categories Accessory wearables They are low-power devices that are adapted to the human body in order to be worn as accessories like smartwatches, smart glasses or fitness trackers. Textile/Fabric wearables They implant electronics into textiles through flexible fabrics. Patchable wearables They are skin-patchable devices that are flexible and very thin. Implantable wearables They are lightweight self-powered wearables that are implanted into the human body without any health concerns. Near-body wearables They are purposely designed to be located near the body, but they do not need to contact it directly. On-body wearables They are located on the body, in direct contact with the skin. In-body wearables They are implanted inside the body. Electronic textiles They make use of fabric or textile-based electronics and components In this article, we are specifically focussing on the applications and usage of textile/fabric wearables and what the future holds for this industry. Top 10 Players The above chart shows the total number of Smart Clothing Technology patents assigned to top market players. With 1317 patents, Qualcomm is the top player in the smart clothing industry. Beijing Didi Infinity Technology and Development follows not so closely behind with 428 patents. Samsung Electronics, Donghua University, Elwha, Guangdong Xiatiancai Technology and Silveray are almost at equivalence. Top 10 Countries The above chart shows the top 10 patent jurisdictions with China dominating the rest with 3334 patents in the Smart Clothing industry followed by the US with 2671 patents. Smart Clothing has not just been a style statement but has benefited these markets in terms of technology advancement. Besides these, Korea, India, Taiwan and Japan are almost on the same level with 866, 690, 575 and 561 patents. Industry Trends The entire smart clothing industry is likely to grow from USD 1.6 billion in 2019 to USD 5.3 billion by 2024 with a CAGR of 26.2%. Growing awareness about the importance for sports & fitness is expected to provide substantial growth opportunities to players in this market. Active smart textile holds the largest share of the smart clothing market. They have the ability to sense and react to the stimuli. The growth prospects in the market are created with the fast increasing demand of upper wear including smart shirts, jackets and vests. Data is captured in real-time and is sent to all the companion apps, providing insights on a range of sporty metrics, including intensity and recovery, calories burned, fatigue level, and sleep quality. Military & defense applications of the market are predicted to expand at 55% during the forecast period. To develop technologically advanced military uniforms, plenty of government bodies are investing heavily to get a clear picture about the health of a soldier. Data identifying potential battlefield injuries such as impact of bullets, explosions are extracted through the numerous sensors placed on the uniform across various body locations. These advanced uniforms are used to identify the fitness of the soldiers, detect wounds & injuries and analyze the results of military engagements. The industry is forecast to witness intensive competition owing to the increasing rate of new entrants. In addition, various technology companies are focusing on diversifying their services by building partnerships with clothing firms. Applications As a result of the strong judgment and intelligence, seamless connectivity and ever-increasing usability, wearables offer opportunities for activity and condition monitoring, decision-support, actuation, location applications, identification, personal contextual notifications, event detection, information (video/image/audio) display and virtual assistance. The majority of the commercial initiatives related to wearables and smart clothing cannot be considered IoT-enabled and none of them uses a blockchain or any other Distributed Ledger Technology (DLT) to receive, validate, store and share the collected data with the objective of avoiding untrusted sources. Products in the Market AIO Smart Sleeve - Komodo Technologies launched this compression sleeve that uses electrocardiogram (ECG) technology to monitor the heart rate, sleep pattern and workout intensity. Its module has sensors that monitor body temperature, air quality and UV rays. Nadi X - These smart yoga pants create vibrations in the body and can sense when the yoga pose requires refining. Nadi x has its exclusive application “Nadi x iOS” which optimizes each pose and curates personal yoga class. Under Armour’s Athlete Recovery - This Under Armour’s clothing line absorbs heat from the human body and reflects the heat back to the wearer’s skin as far-infrared light. Especially useful to athletes as the infrared light enhances muscle recovery and relaxation. Sensoria Fitness Socks - These fitness socks use advanced textile sensors built into each sock, plus a connected anklet device to deliver accurate data on how the foot lands while walking or running. It’s exclusive app provides tips to improve walking and running, tracks steps, speed, altitude, distance covered etc. Neviano Swimsuits - France's invention is stylish, and combined with a UV sensor. The size of the sensor is half the size of the thumb, waterproof and connects to wearer’s iOS and Android devices. It sends alerts when the UV levels are high. Samsung NFC Suit - Samsung’s smart clothing has shown off its body compass workout shirt, which monitors biometric data and a golf shirt in collaboration with Bean Pole Golf that includes weather and UV monitoring. Neopenda Smart Baby Hat - Nependa’s vital signs monitor is inserted into newborn babies’ hats. Up to 24 baby hats can be wirelessly synced, via Bluetooth, to one tablet which will run custom software. The idea is that doctors and nurses can check up on the vital signs of the whole room at a glance and get alerts if any changes in temperature or heart rate, say, are cause for concern. Google Jacquard, the world’s leading technology company is at the forefront of smart-textile technology, with its ambitious and long-awaited smart clothing platform, Jacquard. The jacquard platform is based on a project that was launched over a decade ago, with an aim to create smart fabrics that could replace screens as the interfacing modality of choice. Google partnered with Levi’s to launch the first generation of Jacquard-enabled jackets a couple of years ago. The jacket could, among other things, enable us to answer phone calls without reaching for the phone. Future Outlook Between sensors becoming dirt cheap, cutting-edge IoT technologies emerging and data access exploding, an IoT-enabled world of connected things is very much a throbbing truth around us. It was then well thought out that wearable technology was acclaimed to be the next billion-dollar industry. After all, people wear clothes all the time. However, in spite of slow progress, the fashion industry persisted with the idea of smart textiles. Although they hadn’t yet nailed the winning formula, there was widespread consensus that smart clothes had real potential to be something big. The smart clothing market today is starting to witness some products that offer true value to the customer. The most noteworthy thing here is that smart fabric technology has crossed the point of no return. Manufacturers have started experimenting with Sensor-enabled apparel in all sorts of solutions which are no longer mere marketing ploys. References https://www.wareable.com/smart-clothing/best-smart-clothing https://www.lifewire.com/best-smart-clothes-4176104 https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/smart-clothing-market-56415040.html https://www.onio.com/article/smart-clothing-fad-or-future.html Smart-Clothing-Market-Analysis-Report.pdf https://www.richardvanhooijdonk.com/blog/en/top-10-smart-clothes-provide-glimpse-of-what-people-will-wear-in-the-future/ https://www.mdpi.com/2079-9292/7/12/405/htm https://www.gminsights.com/industry-analysis/smart-clothing-market Tanisha is a Technical Content Writer at Copperpod IP. She has a Master's degree and a Bachelor’s degree in Economics specialising in Policy Making and Industrial Economics. Tanisha has worked before as a Content Strategist at an Event Management Company and a Non-Profit Organisation. She takes a keen interest in Sensor Networks, IoT, Wearables, Life sciences and Virtual Reality.

A landmark decision in relation to the curious case of DABUS AI and Stephen Thaler set a major precedent for patent eligibility for Artificial Intelligence (AI) created inventions. On July 29, 2020, Stephen Thaler submitted a patent request with the inventor’s name as DABUS and listed the family name of the inventor as "Invention generated by artificial intelligence." This was done due to the European patent Office’s (EPO) rejection of the patent claim based on the inventor’s name on the application. In November 2019, the EPO rejected the patent application of Stephen Thaler as it did not comply with the rule which necessitates stating the family name and address of the inventor. However, the EPO did not address the issue of whether DABUS, a non-human intelligence system can be awarded the title of an inventor. In January 2020, after Thaler made corrections to the name of the inventor, the EPO refuted the application once again saying even if DABUS has a name and address, the AI system lacked a legal personality and hence will not be awarded a patent in the EPO. DABUS is an artificial intelligence system that can ‘invent’. DABUS is a Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience. Dr. Stephen Thaler and his team of researchers spent over a decade developing this AI system which invents without needing to be given specific data or instructions of doing so. Thaler claims that DABUS uses general information fed to it to develop anything in its purview. DABUS invented two applications; one was directed at emitting a blinking light in a manner to cause alerts during an emergency and the other referring to an easier food transporting container. On April 27, 2020, The United States Patent and Trademark Office denied the patent application by Thaler (as the assignee) with the AI system, DABUS, as the sole inventor. The decision took support from the statute of the United States Code, Title 35 "whoever invents or discovers . . . may obtain a patent, therefore”. The emphasis on the word whoever is to signify that the patent award is to the person who interprets the results and not the one conducting data analysis, organization, etc. Another precedent that the USPTO relied upon was Univ. of Utah v. Max-Planck-Gesellschaft Zur Foerderung der Wissenschaften. The case is elementary as it ruled that only natural persons could be inventors under the U.S Patent Law. The use of words such as ‘mental’ and ‘mind’ indicates the need for the creative processes that result in the patentable invention to be performed by a natural person. The case was originally related to the question of inventorship of states and organizations. The USPTO held that the result will be interpreted in the same manner. The problem of ownership was also raised by the USPTO. As DABUS was not eligible to own property, patent eligibility clashes with the right to own property as well. Hence, it was ruled that machines cannot be inventors. In other words, patent inventors must be human. Artificial Intelligence is a rapidly evolving technology that will define and accelerate the state of the art for decades to come. The compound annual growth (CAGR) of AI is calculated at 33.1% Market rise by 2026. By the end of 2026, the AI industry is calculated to reach USD 202.57 billion. As often the case with wide-ranging disruptive technologies, the laws will have to develop along with it to encompass AI. Even though the USPTO ruled that only humans can be patent inventors, there are loopholes in the procedure. The USPTO has decidedly not made any determination regarding who or what can create an invention. (In the case of DABUS, the lack of human involvement was highlighted.) The UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO/IPO) recognizes even within its decision that the current patent system, scenario, and law may not be sufficient enough to cater to the issue of AI. The applicant has the right to make an appeal in the higher courts of law, which could lead to a different outcome. Thaler has expressed his intentions to appeal the decisions as he believes that DABUS is the rightful inventor. He opines that this may cause the courts to look at what manner and categories of patent eligibility will AI fit into and put implications to apply categories for AI to reduce ambiguity regarding the issue. On August 27, 2019. The USPTO published an official notice in the federal register requesting the public to opine about the AI-related issues in the sphere of patents. This notice included questions regarding the sufficiency of the current patent laws and regulations pertaining to inventorship. The official notice questioned whether a revision of the patent laws and regulations is necessary to make the inclusion of inventions where an entity or entities other than a natural person contributed to an AI-related invention. But the Thaler decision shows that while USPTO may be open to hearing opinions, it is as yet far from having a positive view of AI-created inventions or from rocking the boat on patent eligibility issues. Rahul is a seasoned IP Professional with 10 years of experience working closely with senior litigators on patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation. Rahul has a Bachelor's degree in Electrical Engineering from Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Delhi and is a certified Project Management Professional (PMP). He has advised clients on more than 100 technology cases cumulatively resulting in over $1 billion in settlements and verdicts, including cases where he has testified at deposition or through expert reports.

Flexible batteries are an active area of research because they enable electronic products to be more bendable, adaptable, and comfortable. They further enable the development of the Internet of things (IoT), roll-up displays, implantable medical robots, wearable electronics. Most of the well‐performing Li‐ion batteries with rigid features cannot be directly used in flexible devices that experience demanding operating conditions, such as flexing, stretching, bending, twisting, and folding. Accordingly, flexibility‐oriented material and system designs call for exploring a range of carbon, metal and polymer materials with soft features, as well as novel manufacturing methods to fabricate fuel cells. Developments and Trends The battery market has bounced back recently with batteries becoming ultra-thin, flexible, rollable, stretchable, etc., and manufacturers offering large batteries focused on large-sized electric vehicle, residential and grid applications. These new batteries possess : Footprints (micro-batteries or large-area batteries) Thickness (thin-film or bulky batteries) Mechanical properties (flexibility, bendability, rollability, stretchability, foldability, etc.) Manufacturing methods (e.g. printing, coating, etc.) Technologies (e.g. solid-state batteries, lithium-polymer batteries, carbon-zinc batteries, etc.) Flexible batteries are progressively used in the medical devices industry where manufacturers are designing and offering flexible batteries to power temperature sensors, pacemakers, and smart patches. Implantable medical devices, such as neural stimulators, pacemakers, and defibrillators, require batteries that can deliver steady, reliable power for a long duration of time and thus flexible batteries meet such requirements. Thin-film batteries are also widely used in smart packaging, smart cards and wearable devices. These batteries offer higher average output voltage and have lower chances of electrolyte leakages than bulky solid-state batteries. The increased demand for miniaturized products used in these applications has led to a rise in the adoption of thin-film lithium-ion flexible batteries, thus leading to noteworthy growth. Top 10 Players The above chart shows the total number of flexible battery patents assigned to top market players. With 358 patents, LG Chemicals is the top player in the flexible battery industry. Samsung SDI follows closely behind with 323 patents. Players like Panasonic, Semiconductor Energy Laboratory, Sanyo Electric are at equal footing in this space. Top 10 Countries The above chart shows the top 10 patent jurisdictions with China leading the race with 13299 patents in the flexible battery domain followed by the US with 2295 patents. Assignees in these countries have benefitted from an advancement in the digital economy, the focus on flexible electronics, and the growing emphasis on the use of portable electronics along with IoT. Besides these, Korea and Japan are almost on the same level with 1845 and 1802 patents respectively. Advantages Battery cost cutting: Materials cost and fabrication cost constitute a large portion of the whole battery costs. The fabrication of flexible batteries is not mature enough to be scaled up. Optimization of electrochemical and mechanical properties of polymer electrolytes and assembly technologies in the cathode–electrolyte–anode structures raise the battery cost. Technological maturity and material development can reduce battery costs and in turn stimulate massive production. Better attributes: Thick and dense electrodes inevitably cause crack and resistance build‐up under dynamic shape changes, which contribute to cell performance decay or cell death. Flexible batteries with more than 1000 cycles have been reported by companies. However, most cases do not mention energy density and power densities. Lightweight and soft materials and innovative cell structures that cut down inactive materials portion, release flexing‐induced strain, and keep battery integration could afford solutions for this issue. Better components’ harmony: Flexible batteries work under electrochemical environment and mechanical force, which require compatible battery components, electrochemically, and mechanically. For electrochemical compatibility, the electrolytes need to withstand oxidation and reduction in cathodes and anodes simultaneously. Therefore, electrolytes that possess a wide electrochemical window and stable interface‐film‐forming capability are regarded as key properties to keep the battery working well. Developed countries all over the world are making great efforts in the field of flexible energy storage where China also stands at the spearhead of the world. With some breakthrough technological advances in recent years, flexible electronics is one of the important development areas of electronic products in the future. Future Perspectives The flexible battery market is estimated to grow from USD 98 million in 2020 to USD 296 million by 2025 with a CAGR of 24.7%. The growth of this market is likely to be driven by the rising number of R&D activities for developing flexible batteries for wearable devices, increasing use of thin and flexible batteries in flexible electronic devices, ongoing miniaturization of electronic devices, surging demand for flexible batteries in IoT applications, and increasing use of flexible batteries in medical devices. Wearable technology and electronic textiles are a major growth area for thin film and flexible batteries. Conventional secondary batteries may meet the energy requirements of wearable devices, but they struggle to achieve flexibility, thinness and lightweight. High-energy thin-film batteries have the highest potential here followed by printed rechargeable zinc batteries. The healthcare sector is also a promising target market. Skin patches using printed batteries are already a commercial reality. Connected device applications are another important trend especially combining special form factors and harsh temperature requirements. The success of flexible batteries in smart energy devices requires a rational design of battery components and structures and cooperative efforts among scientists and engineers in related fields. References https://pubs.rsc.org/en/content/articlelanding/2018/ta/c7ta09301b#!divAbstract https://www.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/smm2.1007 https://www.marketsandmarkets.com/Market-Reports/flexible-battery-market-190884508.html https://www.eqmagpro.com/flexible-battery-market-to-hit-500-million-in-2030/