Intellectual property is disembodied, which makes it difficult to value. Patents are composite, and thus they are one of the few exceptions to competition laws worldwide. They can be extremely powerful, both as an offensive weapon and a defensive shield against competitors. Patents are complicated because, firstly , the market for legal services is very competitive. Stiff competition benefits inventors through greater choice and lower prices. The price of patent preparation and prosecution services has been constant for decades. Secondly , at the same time, Patent Offices and Courts are securing the requirements to get broad patents. International coherence has also raised the bar to a great extent. How do you Measure the Quality of a Patent? Questions like these are most relevant to the businesses that have suffered years of litigation involving questionable internet and telecom patents. A patent must survive the challenges that await it . Patents are quite often challenged and tested during different stages in an enterprise. Licensing - The process of patent licensing includes a patent holder that legally allows another party to sell, import, or use his invention for a particular period of time in a particular geographical region in retur n for a license fee. A license is a written contract and may include whatever provisions the parties agree upon, including the payment of fees whether one time or royalties. The patent licensee is likely to conduct prior research and test the patents to see whether the claims are patentable. Investment - Investors generally are interested in knowing whether the company has patented its inventions or not. Substantial investors would want assurances that the company’s patents will survive and effectively protect the business . Acquisition - The owners may attempt to sell their business as their business grows manifold. The buyer will perform his research to ensure that the patents are well-written, protect their business, and will survive if challenged. Assertion - A company may be forced to sue to enforce their rights and when they do, the defendant will likely deny infringement and assert invalidity. Invest the resources appropriate to the significance of the invention to your business, draft the application carefully, adequately describe the invention, differentiate it from prior inventions, and anticipate how others will design around it. A patent that survives these challenges is truly a high-quality patent. Patent Strength Analysis: 15 Factors to Consider for Patent Licensing Patents by first inventors - A patent inventor contributes to the claims of a patented invention. There can be multiple inventors for a patent. If the first inventor has a higher number of patents assigned to his name, then the inventor’s patent drafting experience and his field experience contribute to the strength of the patent. Hence, the more the number of patents by the first inventor, the higher the strength of the subject patent . Length of patent prosecution - Patent prosecution is the process of drafting, filing, and negotiating with the USPTO in order to obtain patent protection and rights for an invention. The patent is less likely to be litigated if patent prosecution has a higher number of non-final rejections and the USPTO examiner has provided a higher number of prior art references. Therefore, the subject patent has low strength if the length of prosecution is too long. The number of Dependent Claims - Dependent claims refer back to and further include all limitations of the recited claim. The dependent claim adds more limitations to the independent claim covering present and future aspects of the invention. The higher the number of dependent claims, the higher the strength of the subject patent. The Number of Independent Claims - Independent claim covers all claim limitations and/or covers a different aspect of the invention than other independent claims. The more the number of independent claims, the broader the patent covers the novel technology. The higher number of independent claims leads to the higher strength of the subject patent. Number of inventors - Each inventor has a valuable contribution in a patented invention to broaden its scope and to cover all possible future aspects. A More number of inventors indicate that the research has been thoroughly done to come up with a novel invention. Hence, more number of inventors indicates higher strength of the subject patent. Backward Citations - Patent citations are the references defining technology already known within either patents or other scientific literature on which the present patent shaped or which it uses. The cited-backward are patents referenced during the application process of the patent. Patents listed as cited-backward came before the patent and the patent built upon them in some way. There is no set pattern or formula to determine the strength based on the number of citations, but we can say if forward citations are more and backward citations are also more, then the subject patent has high strength . If forward citations are less and backward citations are more, then the subject patent a low strength. Forward Citations - The cited-forward are the patents that refer to a subject patent as prior art during the application process of the patent. If the subject patent has more forward citations, then it indicates that the subject patent’s invention is being used as a ground for a future breakthrough invention. Therefore, the more the number of forward citations, the more is the subject patent strength. Life Remaining - The term of every patent granted is 20 years from the date of filing of the application. However, for the application filed under the national phase under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (PCT), the term of the patent will be 20 years from the international date accorded under PCT. The life remaining is the term left on the patent before it gets expired. The longer the term of life remaining, the higher the strength of the subject patent. Market Segment - The field of the invention in the subject patent applications refers to the broad area of technology under which the patent falls. The market segment under which the technology comes can decide the strength of the patent. If the technology solves significant problems and is widely used/implemented by the top players, then, the patent has higher strength. Size of the family - A patent family is "a set of patents taken in various countries to protect a single invention (when a first application in a country – the priority – is then extended to other offices)." If the subject patent has a larger family size, it indicates that the same invention is protected in more than one country and is useful worldwide. Therefore, a larger family size indicates the higher strength of the subject patent. Prior Litigation - Patent litigation is the legal process that unfolds when someone who owns the patent for a particular invention enforces their right by suing another for manufacturing or selling the invention without permission. If the subject has more prior litigation, then the subject patent’s invention is being used over and over by a good number of companies. Therefore, the more prior litigation, the higher the strength of the subject patent. Number of Drawings - A patent drawing illustrates the invention, some of its embodiments (which are particular implementations or methods of carrying out the invention), or the prior art. The more the number of drawings, the higher the strength of the subject patent. System vs method claims - A system claim is a claim directed to a system having a number of different components that work together. For a system claim, the defendant must make, use, sell, and/or offer for sale every component of the system claim individually or together. A method or process claims will include active steps to achieve a certain result. For a method claim, the defendant needs to perform and/or induce others to perform the claimed invention. Therefore, the higher number of method claims as compared to system claims leads to the higher strength of the subject patent. Length of First Claim - First independent claim of the subject patent covers all claim limitations. If the first claim is too long and is limiting the invention, then the subject patent has low strength. Means Plus Function Claims - Under the statute, a term claimed in means-plus-function format will be construed to cover the corresponding structure that is described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The idea behind means-plus-function claims is that it is often much easier and more straightforward to claim a means for doing something rather than listing (in a claim) all the possible ways of accomplishing the task. Claim language becomes too broad when claims are construed as means plus function limitation, and the subject patent is more vulnerable to 101 issues. Therefore, the subject patent with a higher proportion of means plus function claim has low strength. Copperpod provides Portfolio Analysis to identify high value patents in a given portfolio and their licensing opportunities. Copperpod's IP monetization team helps clients mine patent portfolios for the best patents in a given portfolio. Our portfolio analysis is built upon a deeply researched algorithm based on 40+ parameters - and ranks each patent according to a highly customized PodRank . Please contact us at info@copperpodip.com to know more about our Portfolio Analysis services. edded Software and Sensor Networks.

Under the current patent law, an inventor cannot obtain a patent for an invention that is obvious to a “person having ordinary skill in the art” (PHOSITA). However, courts often struggle with whether the relevant person should be identified based on the invention disclosed in the specification or the invention claimed. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has for a number of years now adopted the former approach, stemming from the case of Axonics Modulation Technologies, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc., IPR2020-00715 (PTAB Sep. 13, 2021). The inventors, Drs. Schmidt and Tanagho, discovered that stimulation of the sacral nerves could alleviate various pelvic floor disorders and subsequently obtained U.S. Patent No. 8,036,756, which relates to an implantable medical electrical lead for stimulating a bundle of sacral nerve fibers. Axonics filed a petition for inter partes review, asserting that certain claims of the ’756 patent were obvious in light of prior references: Young, Gerber, and two others. The Patent Owner argued that a correctly-defined PHOSITA would not have been motivated to combine Young with Gerber or the other references. The Petitioner defined a PHOSITA as someone with experience in implantable medical devices (e.g., a bachelor’s degree in biomedical engineering and relevant research experience). The Patent Owner, however, defined a PHOSITA as a specialist in sacral neuromodulation, potentially a physician with specific experience in this field, or an expert in implantable medical lead design with sacral neuromodulation experience, working closely with such a physician. The Patent Owner criticized the Petitioner’s definition for not requiring knowledge of sacral anatomy or neuromodulation, which they argued was necessary based on the context of the ’756 patent. The Petitioner countered that the challenged claims did not specify sacral anatomy or neuromodulation, and thus a PHOSITA did not need such experience to understand and practice the invention. The Board sided with the Patent Owner, reasoning that the specification of the ’756 patent defined the field of the invention as medical electrical leads for sacral neuromodulation and included descriptions related to sacral anatomy. They found that the claims’ lack of specific mention of sacral anatomy or neuromodulation did not override the specification’s explicit field of invention. According to the Board, the claims’ purpose is to define the boundary of the patent monopoly, not the subject matter of the patent. Therefore, the Board determined that a PHOSITA would have experience in developing medical leads for sacral neuromodulation, agreeing with the Patent Owner that such a PHOSITA would have had no reason to combine Young with Gerber, making the claims non-obvious. Notably in this case, the Patent Owner advocated for a higher standard for PHOSITA than what the Petitioner proposed, with the Petitioner suggesting a generalist and the Patent Owner suggesting a specialist. This is not typical. Patent Owners often argue for a more liberal standard for PHOSITA since higher-skill experts are rather expensive, and Patent Owner budgets often pale in comparison to the party accused of patent infringement. This atypical stance in Axonics however, was perhaps due to the nature of the references cited. Young was about electrical stimulation for facial pain, related to general neurosurgery rather than sacral neuromodulation. Gerber, while mentioning sacral nerves, did not relate specifically to sacral neuromodulation. The Board acknowledged that the references collectively disclosed every limitation of the independent claim but agreed with the Patent Owner that there would have been no motivation to combine the references. They found that skilled artisans in sacral neuromodulation would not have looked to general neurosurgery for solutions. The Board posited that a PHOSITA might find it obvious to combine references if the ’756 patent disclosed simpler mechanical technologies, but the technologies involved complex medical devices for neurostimulation. In defining PHOSITA, the Board declined to focus solely on the claimed invention. The Petitioner argued that the claims did not mention sacral anatomy or neuromodulation and that the ’756 patent described uses beyond sacral anatomy. However, the Board found that the specification’s description of the field of invention should prevail, emphasizing that the claims define the boundary of the patent monopoly but not the invention's subject matter. It should be noted that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) examines patent applications by comparing the prior art to the claims, not the specification. The Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (MPEP) directs examiners to cover both the claimed subject matter and the disclosed features expected to be claimed, with a focus on the claims. Although the MPEP does not explicitly state whether PHOSITA should reflect the specification or the claims, it always points to the claims for obviousness analyses. The Board’s choice to focus on the specification, particularly when it defines a narrow field of invention, contradicts the MPEP’s guidance. The Board’s approach raises other significant concerns as well. Ignoring the claims when defining PHOSITA could allow an inventor to narrowly define the field of invention while claiming the invention broadly, potentially stifling innovation in more sophisticated fields where the invention might be obvious to a skilled artisan. There is therefore an argument to be made for considering the claim language in defining PHOSITA, regardless of the stated field of the invention. If the invention is claimed broadly, then PHOSITA’s expertise should reflect that breadth. This approach ensures that if the invention is obvious to a skilled artisan in any relevant field, the claims are not patentable.The claims define the boundary of the patent monopoly, and since obviousness should be tested against these boundaries, a PHOSITA should be one with relevant expertise to the claimed invention even if that is broader or narrower than the stated field of the invention. This would also maintain the balance between protecting genuine innovation and preventing overly broad claims that could hinder technological progress.

Design patents and registered designs provide designers and fashion brands with exclusive rights to commercially exploit and prevent unauthorized copying of their innovative designs, ensuring a competitive edge in the marketplace and incentivizing investment in design innovation.   Design patents grant their holders exclusive rights to the ornamental design of a functional item for a limited period, typically 15 years in the United States. Unlike utility patents, which protect novel and non-obvious functional aspects of inventions, design patents focus solely on the visual appearance or aesthetics of a product. In the fashion industry, design patents can cover a wide range of ornamental features, including garment silhouettes, surface patterns, textile designs, footwear shapes, handbag structures, and jewelry motifs.   Eligibility and Requirements: To be eligible for a design patent, the design must be novel, non-obvious, and primarily ornamental rather than purely functional. Fashion designers seeking design patent protection must demonstrate the originality and distinctiveness of their designs compared to prior art and existing designs in the marketplace. Design patent applications typically include detailed drawings or digital renderings of the design, along with written descriptions highlighting the novel aspects and ornamental features.   Benefits and Advantages: Design patents offer several benefits and advantages for fashion designers and brands: Exclusive Rights : Design patent holders have the exclusive right to prevent others from making, using, selling, or importing products that infringe upon the patented design. This exclusivity allows fashion brands to differentiate their products in the marketplace and maintain a competitive edge. Strong Protection : Design patents provide strong legal protection against direct copying or imitation of the patented design. Unlike copyright protection, which may be subject to certain limitations and exceptions, design patents offer a more robust form of protection against unauthorized replication of the visual aspects of fashion designs. Commercial Value : Design patents enhance the commercial value and marketability of fashion designs by signaling to consumers and competitors that the design has been officially recognized and protected by intellectual property laws. This validation can enhance brand reputation, consumer perception, and brand loyalty. Enforcement Mechanisms : Design patent holders can enforce their rights through legal action, including cease-and-desist letters, infringement lawsuits, and seeking damages or injunctions against infringing parties. Design patents provide a powerful legal tool for combating counterfeit goods, knockoffs, and unauthorized replicas in the fashion industry. Challenges and Limitations: Despite their advantages, design patents also present certain challenges and limitations in the context of the fashion industry: Limited Duration : Design patents have a relatively short duration compared to utility patents, typically lasting 15 years from the date of grant. Once a design patent expires, the protected design enters the public domain, allowing others to freely use and replicate it. This limited duration necessitates ongoing innovation and design evolution to maintain a competitive edge in the marketplace. Cost and Complexity : Obtaining and enforcing design patents can be costly and time-consuming, particularly for fashion designers and small businesses with limited resources. Design patent applications require meticulous preparation, including detailed drawings or digital representations of the design, which may necessitate the involvement of specialized legal counsel and professional illustrators. Subjectivity of Ornamentality : The determination of what constitutes ornamental design eligible for patent protection can be subjective and open to interpretation. Design patent examiners assess the novelty and non-obviousness of designs based on subjective criteria such as aesthetic appeal, visual impact, and overall impression. This subjectivity can lead to inconsistencies in patent examination and potential challenges in enforcing design patents against infringing designs.   Emerging Trends and Considerations: In recent years, emerging trends and considerations have influenced the landscape of design patents in the fashion industry: Globalization and Supply Chains : As fashion supply chains become increasingly globalized and interconnected, the enforcement of design patents requires coordination and collaboration across international jurisdictions. Fashion brands must navigate the complexities of cross-border enforcement strategies, cultural differences in intellectual property protection, and varying legal standards for design patent eligibility. Digitalization and 3D Printing : The rise of digital technologies, such as 3D printing and computer-aided design (CAD), has democratized design creation and production processes in the fashion industry. Designers and brands must adapt to the challenges posed by digital piracy, file sharing, and unauthorized reproduction of digital design files, which may not always be captured by traditional design patent protections. Sustainability and Ethical Design : Increasing consumer demand for sustainable and ethically produced fashion has led to a growing emphasis on eco-friendly materials, ethical labor practices, and transparent supply chains. Design patents can play a role in incentivizing innovation in sustainable fashion design by protecting environmentally friendly design innovations and discouraging imitation or appropriation by competitors.   The intersection of intellectual property rights and the fashion industry is not without its challenges and controversies. The fast-paced nature of fashion trends, coupled with globalized supply chains and digital platforms, has facilitated the proliferation of counterfeit goods, unauthorized replicas, and design knockoffs, posing significant threats to brand integrity, consumer trust, and market competitiveness. The emergence of online marketplaces and social media platforms has further complicated enforcement efforts, creating new avenues for counterfeiters to exploit loopholes and evade detection.

Patent marking statutes are essential elements of intellectual property law that help inform the public of patent rights, deter potential infringers, and can significantly impact the scope of damages a patent holder can recover in an infringement lawsuit. These statutes vary widely around the world, reflecting different legal traditions and economic priorities. This article explores the patent marking statutes in key jurisdictions, including the United States, Europe, China, Japan, and others. 1. United States Patent marking in the United States plays a critical role in the patent enforcement landscape, particularly concerning the recovery of damages for infringement. The statutory framework and judicial interpretations of marking requirements can significantly influence the financial outcomes in patent litigation. This article explores the U.S. patent marking statute, its practical implications, and how it affects the calculation and recovery of damages in infringement cases. Legal Framework 35 U.S.C. § 287 The U.S. patent marking statute is codified under 35 U.S.C. § 287. This section serves two main purposes: Constructive Notice: It allows patent holders to provide the public with notice that an item is patented, which can be achieved through physical marking on the product or its packaging. Limitation on Damages: It limits the ability of a patent holder to claim damages for infringement occurring before the infringer had actual or constructive notice of the patent. Requirements for Marking To comply with 35 U.S.C. § 287, a patent holder must: Physically Mark: Affix the word "patent" or the abbreviation "pat." along with the patent number(s) on the product itself. If marking the product is not feasible, the packaging can be marked instead. Virtual Marking: As an alternative, a patent holder can mark the product with the word "patent" and a web address where the patent numbers are listed. This provision, introduced by the America Invents Act (AIA) in 2011, facilitates easier updating of patent information and reduces costs associated with physical marking. Impact on Damages Constructive Notice: Constructive notice is established when a product is properly marked in accordance with 35 U.S.C. § 287. Once constructive notice is given, the patent holder can potentially recover damages for infringement from the time the marking begins. Actual Notice: If a patent holder does not mark their products, they must provide actual notice to the infringer to recover damages. Actual notice typically involves a direct communication to the infringer, such as a cease-and-desist letter, informing them of the specific patent and the alleged infringement. Calculation of Damages Damages Prior to Notice: If the patent holder fails to mark or provide actual notice, they may only recover damages for infringements occurring after the infringer receives actual notice or from the date a lawsuit is filed. This limitation can significantly reduce the amount of recoverable damages, especially in cases where the infringement has been ongoing for a considerable period. Damages After Notice: With proper marking, the patent holder can claim damages for the entire period of infringement, assuming the product has been continuously marked since the time the infringement began. Case Law and Interpretations Arctic Cat Inc. v. Bombardier Recreational Products Inc.: This case underscored that the burden of proof lies with the patent holder to show compliance with the marking statute. The Federal Circuit held that patent holders must demonstrate they have consistently marked their products to claim pre-notice damages. Forest Group, Inc. v. Bon Tool Co.: The Federal Circuit clarified that false marking, or marking products with expired or inapplicable patents, could lead to penalties under 35 U.S.C. § 292. This ruling emphasized the importance of accurate marking. Strategic Considerations for Patent Holders Benefits of Compliance: Ensures the ability to maximize damage recovery. Deters potential infringers by clearly indicating the product's patent status. Demonstrates proactive protection of intellectual property. Challenges of Compliance: Requires meticulous record-keeping and monitoring to ensure continuous and accurate marking. Physical marking may be impractical for certain products or may require costly adjustments to manufacturing processes. Implementation of Patent Marking Physical Marking: Companies should incorporate patent numbers into the product design or packaging as early as possible in the production process. Regular audits are essential to ensure that all marked products reflect the current and accurate patent information. Virtual Marking: Companies opting for virtual marking should maintain an up-to-date and accessible web page listing the relevant patent numbers. Virtual marking is particularly beneficial for products with rapidly changing patent portfolios, such as those in high-tech industries. Legal and Business Strategy Patent Portfolio Management: Effective patent marking is a crucial aspect of managing a patent portfolio, particularly for products with multiple patents or global markets. Businesses should consider the impact of marking practices on their ability to enforce patent rights and recover damages. Infringement Litigation: In the event of litigation, having a robust marking strategy can strengthen the patent holder's position and potentially increase the damages awarded. Legal counsel should be consulted to ensure compliance with marking requirements and to strategize on notice provisions to optimize damage recovery. The U.S. patent marking statute under 35 U.S.C. § 287 serves as a critical mechanism for patent holders to provide public notice of their patents and secure their ability to recover damages for infringement. Proper and strategic marking of patented products not only deters potential infringers but also plays a pivotal role in maximizing the financial benefits of enforcing patent rights. For businesses and patent holders, navigating the complexities of the patent marking requirements involves a balance between legal compliance and practical implementation. Ensuring accurate and continuous marking is essential for leveraging the full advantages of patent protection in the competitive U.S. market. 2. Europe Legal Framework In Europe, patent marking practices are not as rigidly defined as in the U.S. Each country within the European Union (EU) has its own approach, influenced by national laws and EU regulations. General Trends United Kingdom: The UK encourages but does not mandate patent marking. The Intellectual Property Office (IPO) suggests marking products with “Patented” or the patent number. Germany: There is no statutory requirement for patent marking. However, marking can serve as evidence of good faith in infringement proceedings. France: Similar to Germany, there is no legal obligation for patent marking, but it can be used to indicate to the public that a product is protected. Impact on Damages Generally, failure to mark does not preclude the recovery of damages for infringement in Europe, but it may impact the perceived goodwill or reputation of the patent holder. Recent Developments The Unified Patent Court (UPC) agreement, which is set to provide a unified patent litigation system for EU countries, does not impose a marking requirement but encourages transparency about patent rights. 3. China Legal Framework China’s patent system, governed by the Patent Law of the People's Republic of China, does not require patent marking. However, marking can serve as evidence of the patent holder’s proactive effort to inform the public of their rights. While marking is not mandatory, Chinese companies often use patent marking to enhance their corporate image and deter potential infringers. Impact on Damages The absence of a marking requirement means that damages in China are typically calculated from the date the infringer was notified of the infringement or when the lawsuit was filed, not from the date of the first infringement. Recent Developments China has been increasingly aligning its IP laws with international standards, and while there is no current mandate for marking, the emphasis on innovation protection may lead to greater use of marking practices in the future. 4. Japan Legal Framework Japan’s Patent Act does not mandate patent marking, but it does recognize the benefits of marking products with the relevant patent numbers. Japanese companies often mark their products as a way to promote their innovations and to inform the public of their rights. Impact on Damages Similar to China, Japan does not link the recovery of damages to patent marking. However, marking can play a role in demonstrating the scope and duration of infringement in legal disputes. Recent Developments Japan’s continued emphasis on strengthening IP protection and fostering innovation has led to greater use of patent marking as a business strategy, even in the absence of legal requirements. 5. India India does not have a statutory requirement for patent marking. However, marking can be beneficial in proving the patent holder’s proactive approach to protecting their intellectual property. India's patent system includes a distinctive requirement: patent holders must periodically submit a "statement of working" for their patents. This requirement is designed to ensure that patents serve the public interest by promoting the actual use of inventions within the country. Let's delve into the rationale behind this requirement, its legal framework, and its implications for patent holders in India. Legal Framework The Patents Act, 1970 The primary legislation governing patents in India is the Patents Act, 1970, as amended from time to time. Section 146 of the Act empowers the Controller of Patents to require patent holders to submit information regarding the working of their patented inventions in India. Rules Governing the Statement of Working Form 27: Patent holders are required to file Form 27 annually, detailing whether the patented invention is being worked in India and, if so, to what extent. Frequency: The statement must be submitted every calendar year within three months from the end of the year (by March 31st of the following year). Content: The form includes information on whether the invention has been commercialized, the quantum of manufacture or import, and the value of the patented products. Compliance and Penalties Non-compliance with this requirement can lead to penalties under the Act, including the potential for compulsory licensing or even revocation of the patent. Rationale Behind the Requirement Promoting Technology Utilization India's requirement for a statement of working is rooted in the principle that patents should contribute to the public good. The goal is to ensure that patented technologies are actually used to benefit the Indian economy and society, rather than merely being held as unused monopolies. Balancing Patentee and Public Interests The statement of working aims to strike a balance between the rights of patent holders and the need for public access to innovations. By mandating transparency on the use of patents, the Indian government can identify cases where patents are not being effectively utilized and take measures to encourage their use or make them available through compulsory licensing. Facilitating Economic Growth Encouraging the working of patents in India supports local industries and promotes the transfer of technology. It helps ensure that patented innovations are not just accessible in theory but are actually contributing to economic growth, job creation, and technological advancement within the country. Implications for Patent Holders Strategic Considerations For companies and inventors holding patents in India, filing a statement of working involves strategic planning. They need to assess their commercialization activities and potentially adjust their business operations to meet the requirements. Risk of Compulsory Licensing If a patent is not being worked in India to a reasonable extent, it can be subjected to compulsory licensing under Section 84 of the Patents Act. This means that others may be allowed to use the patented invention without the patent holder's consent, under terms set by the government. This provision is intended to prevent the abuse of patent rights and ensure that essential technologies are accessible. Administrative Burden Complying with the statement of working requirement can be administratively challenging, especially for multinational companies managing large patent portfolios. They must keep detailed records of their commercialization activities and prepare annual reports that satisfy the Indian patent authorities. Legal and Economic Implications Failure to comply can have serious legal and economic consequences. Besides the potential for compulsory licensing or revocation, non-compliance can affect a company's reputation and its ability to enforce its patents in India. Recent Developments and Reforms Revised Form 27 (2020) In 2020, the Indian Patent Office introduced a revised Form 27 to simplify the reporting process. The new form allows for consolidated reporting for related patents and provides more flexible options for describing the extent of patent working. Ongoing Discussions There are ongoing discussions and debates about the effectiveness and burden of the statement of working requirement. Some argue that it needs to be reformed further to reduce the administrative burden on patent holders, while others emphasize its importance in ensuring that patents benefit the public. International Perspectives India’s approach to requiring a statement of working is relatively unique and contrasts with the practices in many other jurisdictions where such detailed disclosure is not mandatory. This difference highlights India's commitment to ensuring that the benefits of patented technologies are realized within its borders. India’s requirement for filing a statement of working underscores its commitment to ensuring that patents are not merely theoretical rights but practical tools for technological and economic development. By mandating transparency on how patents are utilized, India seeks to balance the interests of patent holders with the public need for access to innovations. For patent holders, this requirement represents both a challenge and an opportunity: a challenge to comply with detailed reporting obligations, and an opportunity to demonstrate their contributions to the Indian economy. As global debates on the optimal balance of patent rights and public interest continue, India’s approach provides a distinctive model of how countries can encourage the actual use of patented technologies within their territories. Conclusion Patent marking statutes and practices around the world reflect a blend of legal requirements and strategic business decisions. While some countries like the U.S. have specific legal frameworks mandating marking, others, like most European nations and China, treat it as optional but beneficial. The role of patent marking continues to evolve, influenced by legal reforms, economic trends, and the growing importance of intellectual property in the global economy. Understanding these variations is crucial for international businesses and patent holders seeking to maximize their intellectual property protection and enforce their rights effectively across different jurisdictions.

The intersection of intellectual property rights and the fashion industry is not without its challenges and controversies. The fast-paced nature of fashion trends, coupled with globalized supply chains and digital platforms, has facilitated the proliferation of counterfeit goods, unauthorized replicas, and design knockoffs, posing significant threats to brand integrity, consumer trust, and market competitiveness. The emergence of online marketplaces and social media platforms has further complicated enforcement efforts, creating new avenues for counterfeiters to exploit loopholes and evade detection. As e-commerce platforms have become increasingly popular and accessible, counterfeiters have exploited these channels to sell fake or unauthorized replicas of branded fashion products to unsuspecting consumers. Here's a deeper dive into the issue: Proliferation of Counterfeit Goods: Ease of Access: Online marketplaces provide counterfeiters with easy access to a vast global audience, enabling them to reach consumers across geographical boundaries without the need for physical storefronts or distribution networks. Anonymity and Stealth: The anonymity afforded by online platforms allows counterfeiters to operate under pseudonyms or fictitious identities, making it difficult for authorities and brand owners to trace and apprehend them. Low Entry Barriers: Setting up an online storefront on popular e-commerce platforms often requires minimal upfront costs and technical expertise, allowing counterfeiters to establish a presence quickly and inexpensively. Challenges Faced by Fashion Brands: Brand Dilution: The proliferation of counterfeit goods on online marketplaces dilutes the brand equity and exclusivity of fashion brands, undermining their reputation for quality, authenticity, and craftsmanship. Lost Revenue: Counterfeit sales divert revenue away from legitimate fashion brands, eroding profits, and undermining investments in innovation, design, and brand development. Consumer Confusion: Counterfeit fashion products often closely mimic the appearance of genuine products, leading to consumer confusion and dissatisfaction when unsuspecting buyers receive low-quality imitations instead of authentic merchandise. Enforcement and Detection Efforts: Brand Protection Teams: Many fashion brands employ dedicated brand protection teams tasked with monitoring online marketplaces, identifying counterfeit listings, and taking enforcement actions to remove infringing products. Technological Solutions: Brands leverage advanced technologies, such as image recognition software and machine learning algorithms, to scan online marketplaces for counterfeit listings and detect patterns of infringement. Legal Action: Fashion brands may pursue legal action against online sellers and platforms for trademark infringement, copyright infringement, and other violations of intellectual property rights. Collaborative Initiatives: Partnerships with Online Platforms: Fashion brands collaborate with online marketplaces to implement anti-counterfeiting measures, including brand verification programs, seller authentication, and proactive monitoring of counterfeit listings. Industry Coalitions: Fashion industry coalitions and trade associations collaborate on anti-counterfeiting initiatives, sharing intelligence, best practices, and resources to combat counterfeit goods collectively. Consumer Education: Fashion brands and industry stakeholders engage in consumer education campaigns to raise awareness about the risks of purchasing counterfeit goods online and educate consumers on how to identify genuine products. Emerging Trends and Future Outlook: Blockchain Technology: Some fashion brands explore the use of blockchain technology to create transparent supply chains, verify product authenticity, and track the movement of goods from production to retail. Customization and Personalization: Fashion brands focus on offering personalized and customized products that are difficult to replicate, thereby reducing the appeal of counterfeit alternatives. Regulatory Reforms: Governments and regulatory authorities worldwide are increasingly recognizing the need for stronger measures to combat online counterfeiting, including enhanced enforcement mechanisms, penalties for platforms facilitating counterfeit sales, and collaboration with industry stakeholders. Moreover, debates surrounding the scope and duration of intellectual property protections in the fashion industry raise complex questions regarding creativity, innovation, and access to cultural heritage. Critics argue that overly broad and stringent intellectual property regimes may stifle creativity, inhibit design evolution, and restrict the flow of design inspiration and cultural influences. The tension between protecting individual creative endeavors and fostering collective innovation underscores the need for a balanced and nuanced approach to intellectual property rights that promotes both creative expression and cultural diversity within the fashion ecosystem. In light of these challenges and opportunities, navigating the complex terrain of intellectual property rights in the fashion industry requires a comprehensive understanding of legal frameworks, industry practices, and emerging trends. From traditional luxury houses to emerging independent designers, stakeholders across the fashion spectrum must stay abreast of evolving legal developments, adopt proactive strategies for intellectual property protection, and embrace collaborative approaches to fostering innovation, sustainability, and ethical practices. By harnessing the power of intellectual property rights as a catalyst for creativity, differentiation, and value creation, the fashion industry can continue to thrive as a vibrant ecosystem of innovation, cultural expression, and economic growth on the global stage.

Copyright law plays a significant role in protecting original creative expressions embodied in fashion designs, textile patterns, and graphic prints. While the functional aspects of clothing are generally excluded from copyright protection, the artistic elements of design, such as original prints, patterns, and embellishments, may qualify for copyright registration as works of applied art. Designers and fashion houses leverage copyright protections to safeguard their design archives, prevent unauthorized replication of signature motifs, and assert their creative authorship in the face of imitative practices and design piracy. Here's a deeper dive into the importance of copyright law in combating counterfeiting within the fashion industry: Scope of Copyright Protection in Fashion: Textile Designs: Original textile designs, including patterns, motifs, and fabric prints, may be eligible for copyright protection as two-dimensional works of authorship. Copyright extends to the original arrangement and expression of elements within the textile design. Graphic Prints and Artwork: Copyright law also protects graphic prints, illustrations, and artistic elements used in fashion designs, such as logos, emblems, and decorative motifs. These elements are considered original creative expressions and are subject to copyright protection. Photographic Works: Photographs of fashion products, advertising campaigns, and editorial spreads are protected by copyright law as original works of authorship. Fashion brands often use copyrighted photographs to showcase their products and promote their brand image. Importance of Copyright Protection: Preservation of Creative Integrity: Copyright protection enables fashion designers to maintain control over the originality and integrity of their creative works, preventing unauthorized copying, reproduction, and modification by counterfeiters. Promotion of Innovation: By incentivizing the creation and dissemination of original fashion designs, copyright law fosters innovation and creativity within the fashion industry, driving the development of new trends, styles, and aesthetic expressions. Brand Differentiation: Copyrighted textile designs, graphic prints, and artwork contribute to the distinctiveness and brand identity of fashion labels, helping them stand out in a crowded marketplace and attract consumers seeking unique and authentic products. Copyright Enforcement Against Counterfeiting: Cease-and-Desist Notices: Fashion brands may send cease-and-desist notices to counterfeiters and online platforms hosting infringing listings, demanding the removal of unauthorized copies of copyrighted designs and artworks. DMCA Takedown Notices: Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), fashion brands can submit takedown notices to online platforms hosting infringing content, requesting the removal of copyrighted images, photographs, or design files. Legal Action: Fashion brands may pursue legal action against counterfeiters for copyright infringement, seeking injunctive relief, monetary damages, and the destruction of infringing products and materials. Challenges in Copyright Enforcement Online: Digital Piracy: Online platforms facilitate the unauthorized reproduction and distribution of copyrighted fashion designs through digital piracy, file sharing, and peer-to-peer networks, making it challenging to monitor and enforce copyright infringement. Global Reach: Copyright enforcement in the digital environment is complicated by the global nature of online counterfeiting, with counterfeiters operating from jurisdictions with varying levels of intellectual property protection and enforcement mechanisms. Fair Use and Parody: Copyright enforcement efforts must navigate the complexities of fair use and parody exceptions, which may permit limited use of copyrighted materials for purposes such as criticism, commentary, or satire. Strategies for Copyright Protection Online: Watermarking and Digital Rights Management: Fashion brands employ watermarking and digital rights management (DRM) technologies to deter unauthorized copying and distribution of copyrighted images, photographs, and design files. Brand Monitoring and Image Recognition: Fashion brands utilize brand monitoring tools and image recognition software to scan online marketplaces for infringing listings, identify counterfeit products, and track the unauthorized use of copyrighted designs. Consumer Education: Fashion brands engage in consumer education campaigns to raise awareness about the importance of copyright protection in preserving creativity, promoting authenticity, and supporting ethical consumption within the fashion industry.

Intellectual property rights play a pivotal role in safeguarding the creativity, innovation, and commercial interests of designers, brands, and stakeholders alike. From haute couture houses to streetwear labels, the fashion sector thrives on the ability to protect and monetize intangible assets such as trademarks, copyrights, and designs, which imbue garments and accessories with distinctiveness, value, and market appeal. The concept of intellectual property rights in the fashion industry encompasses a multifaceted framework of legal protections, encompassing a spectrum of creative outputs and commercial activities. At its core lies the interplay between design innovation, branding strategies, and legal safeguards, which collectively define the competitive landscape and market dynamics within the sector. Fashion designers invest considerable resources, time, and expertise into conceptualizing and crafting original designs that reflect artistic vision, cultural influences, and consumer preferences. Whether it's the intricate detailing of a haute couture gown or the distinctive silhouette of a streetwear staple, these creative endeavors are recognized and protected under intellectual property laws to incentivize innovation and ensure fair competition. One of the primary forms of intellectual property protection in the fashion industry is trademark law, which safeguards brand identities, logos, and insignias that distinguish products and services in the marketplace. Fashion houses and apparel brands invest substantial efforts in building and maintaining brand equity, cultivating brand loyalty, and combating counterfeiting and brand dilution through trademark registrations and enforcement strategies. The iconic logos of luxury fashion houses, such as Chanel's interlocking Cs or Louis Vuitton's LV monogram, serve as powerful symbols of prestige, craftsmanship, and exclusivity, underpinned by robust trademark protections that extend globally. Importance of Trademarks: Brand Recognition: Trademarks serve as valuable assets that distinguish one fashion brand from another in the marketplace. They help consumers identify and differentiate products and services, fostering brand recognition, loyalty, and trust. Brand Equity: Trademarks embody the reputation, goodwill, and value associated with a fashion brand. They represent the culmination of investments in advertising, marketing, and brand-building efforts, contributing to the brand's equity and market position. Consumer Protection: Trademarks provide consumers with assurance of the quality, authenticity, and source of the products they purchase. By safeguarding brand identities and preventing counterfeiters from using deceptive or confusingly similar marks, trademarks protect consumers from fraud, deception, and substandard goods. Trademark Enforcement Against Counterfeiting: Cease-and-Desist Letters: Fashion brands often send cease-and-desist letters to online sellers and platforms suspected of selling counterfeit goods, demanding the immediate cessation of infringing activities and the removal of infringing listings from their platforms. Trademark Infringement Lawsuits: Fashion brands may initiate trademark infringement lawsuits against counterfeiters and online platforms for unauthorized use of their trademarks. Legal remedies may include injunctive relief, monetary damages, and seizure of counterfeit goods. Domain Name Disputes: Fashion brands can file complaints under the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) to address cybersquatting and domain name abuse, wherein counterfeiters register domain names that incorporate the brand's trademarks to deceive consumers. Challenges in Trademark Enforcement Online: Global Reach: Online counterfeiting operates across international borders, posing jurisdictional challenges for trademark enforcement efforts. Counterfeiters may operate from jurisdictions with lax intellectual property laws, making it difficult for brands to pursue legal action effectively. Anonymous Sellers: Online platforms often facilitate anonymity for sellers, making it challenging to identify and hold counterfeiters accountable for trademark infringement. Counterfeit sellers may use multiple aliases or fake identities to evade detection and enforcement actions. Volume and Scale: The sheer volume and scale of online counterfeiting pose logistical and resource constraints for fashion brands seeking to monitor, identify, and remove counterfeit listings from online marketplaces effectively. Strategies for Trademark Protection Online: Brand Monitoring Tools: Fashion brands invest in brand monitoring tools and services that scan online marketplaces for unauthorized use of their trademarks, enabling them to identify counterfeit listings and take swift enforcement actions. Cooperation with Online Platforms: Fashion brands collaborate with online marketplaces to implement brand protection programs, including brand verification, seller authentication, and takedown procedures for infringing listings. Consumer Education: Fashion brands engage in consumer education initiatives to raise awareness about the risks of purchasing counterfeit goods online and educate consumers on how to identify genuine products by looking for official trademarks and brand identifiers. Trademark law serves as a cornerstone of intellectual property protection in the fashion industry, enabling brands to safeguard their identities, reputations, and consumer relationships against the threats posed by online counterfeiting. By adopting proactive trademark enforcement strategies, leveraging technology, and fostering collaboration with online platforms and industry stakeholders, fashion brands can mitigate the risks of counterfeit infiltration and preserve the integrity of their trademarks in an increasingly digital marketplace.

In the intricate web of legal battles, access to justice often hinges on financial resources. In a perfect world, the pursuit of justice would be solely guided by the merits of a case. However, reality often dictates otherwise, with the cost of litigation acting as a barrier for many individuals and businesses. Enter litigation funding, a burgeoning industry that aims to level the playing field by providing financial support to litigants. In this article, we delve into the concept of litigation funding, its evolution, impact, and the ethical considerations surrounding its practice. What is Litigation Funding? Litigation funding, also known as legal financing or third-party funding, involves a third-party financing a lawsuit in exchange for a portion of the proceeds if the case is successful. This funding model typically covers legal fees, court costs, and other expenses associated with litigation. The litigant, whether an individual or a corporation, repays the funder only if the case is won, often through a predetermined share of the settlement or judgment. Evolution and Growth While the concept of litigation funding traces back centuries, its modern form emerged in the late 20th century. Initially, it was primarily utilized in commercial disputes and class-action lawsuits. However, its scope has expanded significantly in recent years, encompassing a wide array of cases, including personal injury, intellectual property, and even international arbitration. The growth of litigation funding can be attributed to several factors. First and foremost is the escalating cost of legal proceedings, which can deter individuals and smaller businesses from pursuing legitimate claims. Litigation funding provides a solution by spreading the financial risk across parties with deeper pockets. Additionally, increased awareness and acceptance of third-party funding have contributed to its widespread adoption. Impact on Access to Justice One of the most significant benefits of litigation funding is its role in enhancing access to justice. By alleviating the financial burden associated with litigation, funding empowers individuals and smaller entities to pursue meritorious claims that they might otherwise have been unable to afford. This democratization of access to justice ensures that legal remedies are not reserved solely for the wealthy but are accessible to all, irrespective of financial means. Moreover, litigation funding serves as a counterbalance to the power dynamics inherent in legal disputes. It enables plaintiffs to stand on equal footing with well-funded defendants, thereby fostering a more equitable legal system. In essence, litigation funding promotes fairness and ensures that the outcome of a case is determined by its merits rather than the financial resources of the parties involved. Ethical Considerations Despite its numerous benefits, litigation funding is not without controversy. Critics argue that it may incentivize frivolous lawsuits and encourage excessive litigation by removing the financial risk for plaintiffs. There are also concerns regarding the potential for conflicts of interest, as funders may exert influence over the litigation strategy or settlement negotiations to maximize their returns. To address these concerns, regulatory frameworks governing litigation funding have been established in various jurisdictions. These regulations typically require transparency regarding the terms of funding agreements and impose ethical standards to safeguard the integrity of the legal process. Additionally, reputable litigation funders adhere to best practices and conduct thorough due diligence before agreeing to finance a case. Litigation funders operate in a unique financial landscape where returns on investment (ROI) are contingent upon the successful outcome of legal proceedings. Maximizing returns requires a strategic approach that involves assessing risk, selecting promising cases, and actively managing the litigation process. Here are several strategies that litigation funders can employ to increase ROI: 1. Rigorous Due Diligence The foundation of successful litigation funding lies in comprehensive due diligence. Before investing in a case, funders must conduct thorough assessments of the legal merits, potential damages, and likelihood of success. This involves scrutinizing evidence, evaluating legal arguments, and consulting with experienced legal professionals. By identifying high-quality cases with strong prospects for success, funders can mitigate risk and enhance ROI. 2. Diversification Diversification is a key principle of investment management, and it applies equally to litigation funding. By diversifying their portfolio across a range of cases, funders can spread risk and minimize the impact of adverse outcomes on overall returns. This may involve investing in cases across different practice areas, jurisdictions, and stages of litigation. Diversification enables funders to capitalize on opportunities while safeguarding against individual case failures. 3. Active Portfolio Management Effective portfolio management is essential for optimizing returns in litigation funding. This involves actively monitoring cases, assessing their progress, and making strategic decisions to maximize ROI. Funders should regularly review their portfolio, reevaluate case strategies, and allocate resources strategically to cases with the greatest potential for success. By actively managing their portfolio, funders can adapt to changing circumstances and capitalize on emerging opportunities. 4. Negotiation Expertise Negotiation plays a critical role in litigation funding, particularly during settlement negotiations. Skilled negotiators can leverage their expertise to secure favorable settlement terms that maximize returns for funders. This may involve engaging in mediation, arbitration, or other alternative dispute resolution mechanisms to achieve efficient and cost-effective outcomes. Negotiation expertise enables funders to extract maximum value from settlements while minimizing legal costs and time spent in litigation. 5. Strategic Collaboration Collaboration with legal experts and industry professionals can enhance the effectiveness of litigation funding strategies. By partnering with experienced attorneys, funders can access specialized legal knowledge, strategic insights, and valuable networks within the legal community. Collaborative efforts enable funders to make informed decisions, navigate complex legal issues, and optimize case outcomes. Strategic collaboration fosters synergies between funders and legal practitioners, ultimately enhancing ROI. 6. Innovation and Technology Innovation and technology are transforming the practice of litigation funding, offering new opportunities to increase ROI. Advanced data analytics, machine learning algorithms, and predictive modeling techniques enable funders to assess risk more accurately, identify promising investment opportunities, and optimize case selection. Furthermore, technological innovations streamline the litigation process, reducing costs, improving efficiency, and enhancing returns. By embracing innovation and technology, litigation funders can gain a competitive edge and drive superior ROI. 7. Risk Management Strategies Effective risk management is essential for protecting against potential losses and preserving ROI in litigation funding. Funders should implement robust risk assessment frameworks, establish clear risk mitigation strategies, and diversify their investments to spread risk. Additionally, funders may utilize insurance products, recourse financing arrangements, or other risk management tools to mitigate exposure and safeguard returns. By proactively managing risk, funders can enhance the resilience of their portfolio and optimize long-term ROI. The Future of Litigation Funding As the legal landscape continues to evolve, the role of litigation funding is poised to expand further. With the increasing complexity and cost of litigation, demand for third-party financing is likely to rise, particularly among individuals and smaller businesses. Moreover, advancements in technology and data analytics are enhancing the efficiency and effectiveness of litigation funding, enabling funders to assess risk more accurately and identify promising investment opportunities.

Deep learning is a subset of machine learning in artificial intelligence that has networks capable of learning an unsupervised form of data that is unstructured or unlabeled that works on the structure and functions similarly to the human brain. It learns from data that is unstructured and uses complex algorithms to train a neural network. Usually, deep learning is unsupervised or semi-supervised. Instead of using task-specific algorithms, it learns from representative examples. For example, to build a model that recognizes dogs by species, it needs to prepare a database that includes a lot of different dog images. Primarily we use neural networks in deep learning, which is based on AI in which we train networks to recognize text, numbers, images, voice, and so on. Unlike traditional machine learning, the data here is far more complicated, unstructured, and varied, such as images, audio, or text files. Core Components of Deep Learning in Neural Network Input Layer: The input layer accepts large volumes of data as input to build the neural network. The data can be in the form of text, image, audio, etc. Hidden Layer: This layer processes data by performing complex computations and carries out feature extraction. As part of the training, these layers have weights and biases that are continuously updated until the training process is complete. Each neuron has multiple weights and one bias. After computation, the values are passed to the output layer. Output Layer: The output layer generates predicted output by applying suitable activation functions. The output can be in the form of numeric or categorical values. Deep learning also has many libraries that are available for deep learning and machine learning programming. Some of the most common libraries are keras, theano, TensorFlow, DL4J, and torch. These are some libraries that are available to the user but in this tutorial, we will only discuss Tensorflow.js which is an open-source library currently popular among users. Keras was also once a popular choice, but it has been integrated with Tensorflow. Before discussing TensorFlow, let's discuss what Tensor is to make it more understandable. What is Tensor? A tensor is a generalization of vectors and matrices to potentially higher dimensions. Internally, TensorFlow represents tensors as n-dimensional arrays of base data types. Each element in the Tensor has the same data type, and the data type is always known. For deep learning, especially in the training process, large amounts of data exist in a very complicated format. It helps when to put, use, or store it in a compact way, which tensors provide, even if they appear in multi-dimensional arrays. So the data is stored in tensors and fed into the neural network as shown below: What is TensorFlow.js? TensorFlow.js is a JavaScript library developed by Google for training and using machine learning (ML) models in the browser. TensorFlow accepts data in the form of multi-dimensional arrays of higher dimensions called tensors. Multi-dimensional arrays are very handy in handling large amounts of data. TensorFlow works based on data flow graphs that have nodes and edges. The execution mechanism is in the form of graphs, so it is much easier to execute TensorFlow code in a distributed manner across a cluster of computers while using GPUs. Features of TensorFlow It includes a feature that defines, optimizes, and calculates mathematical expressions easily with the help of multi-dimensional arrays called tensors. It includes programming support of deep neural networks and machine learning techniques. It includes a high scalable feature of computation with various data sets. TensorFlow uses GPU computing, automating management. It also includes a unique feature of optimization of the same memory and the data used. Use Cases of Deep Learning Using TensorFlow Voice/Sound Recognition: Voice and Sound recognition applications are the most well-known use cases of deep learning. If the neural networks have the proper input data feed, neural networks are capable of understanding audio signals. There is language understanding, which is another common use case for Voice Recognition. Furthermore, speech-to-text applications can be used to determine snippets of sound in greater audio files, and transcribe the spoken word as text. Text-Based Applications: Text-based applications are very popular use cases of deep learning. Text-based applications such as sentiment analysis (for customer relationship management (CRM) and social media), threat detection (for social media and government), and fraud detection (insurance and finance). For example, Google Translate supports 100 languages. Image Recognition: Image recognition is the first deep learning application that made deep learning and machine learning popular. Social Media, Telecom, and Handset Manufacturers mostly use image recognition. Furthermore, image recognition is used for: face recognition, image search, motion detection, machine vision, and photo clustering. Time Series: Deep learning is using time series algorithms for analyzing time-series data to extract meaningful statistics. For example, it can be used to predict the stock market. So, deep learning is used for forecasting non-specific time periods in addition to generating alternative versions of the time series. Video Detection: Deep learning algorithms can be used for video detection. So, this is mainly used in motion detection, real-time threat detection in gaming, security, airports, and user experience/ user interface (UX/UI) fields. Some researchers are working on large-scale video classification datasets such as YouTube to accelerate research on large-scale video understanding, representation learning, noisy data modeling, transfer learning, and domain adaptation approaches for video. Create Abstract Art: Though this example is less “useful” for the real world, this is one of the best examples. Generate Realistic Images: thispersondoesnotexist.com recently made the news for using a generative adversarial network to generate images of completely new people. This website explains how a neural network developed by Google “finds” objects in unrelated images. Play Games: Having AI players in video games isn’t a new idea, and there are already examples in TensorFlow.js. This project uses TensorFlow.js to automate the Chrome Dinosaur game. Recommend Content: Content recommendation through AI is fairly popular and used by most media platforms. With TensorFlow.js, content recommendations can be handled on the client-side. Self Driving Cars: TensorFlow 3D contains state-of-the-art models for 3D deep learning with GPU acceleration. These models have a wide range of applications from 3D object detection (e.g. cars, pedestrians, etc) to point cloud registration. Major Players Using TensorFlow What is the Future? TensorFlow.js, as there has been a lot of hyperbole, mostly by web developers, that this will make JavaScript (and the Web) the best place to develop and deliver models. This is far from the truth: TensorFlow.js is closer to TensorFlow Lite and Core ML and aims to solve the same problems. There are gold-rush opportunities for imaginative commercial developers and scientists to take advantage of TensorFlow’s enhanced capabilities in all kinds of ways. As Deep learning is getting acknowledged widely these days, many of the advanced automation capabilities now found in enterprise AI platforms are due to the rapid growth of machine learning (ML) and deep learning technologies. With the use of machine learning constantly increasing   and with JavaScript development becoming ever more popular TensorFlow.js seems to get an increase in popularity in the near future. From the day TensorFlow was released (9th November 2015) till now in 2021, TensorFlow has a lot of updates in which the latest release is v2.4.1 and it is getting even much better every day with various updates and features. TensorFlow combines javascript and deep learning to get a platform which works on browsers for various applications. If your organization is interested in using audio, video, image, or free-text data, deep learning is worth exploring. Tensorflow makes things easy for the user as mostly users have to install software to run the application for deep learning but now with the help of Tensorflow they can use it on their browser which also makes it more convenient to use and also take less time to load and give output which is incredible. References: https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/deep-learning.asp#:~:text=Deep%20learning%20is%20a%20subset,learning%20or%20deep%20neural%20network. https://www.simplilearn.com/tutorials/deep-learning-tutorial/what-is-tensorflow https://blog.logrocket.com/tensorflow-js-an-intro-and-analysis-with-use-cases-8e1f9a973183/ https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/introduction-tensor-tensorflow/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TensorFlow https://dzone.com/articles/what-is-tensorflow-and-what-is-new-in-it Keywords: Computer Science, Programming Language, Node.js, Computer Language, Java, PHP, ASP.NET, JavaScript, Tensorflow.js, Deep Learning, Neural Network 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

Before interpreting the concept of Node.js, it is important to have some fundamental understanding of JavaScript. JavaScript is commonly used as a part of web pages whose implementations allow client-side script to interact with the user and make dynamic pages. The execution of JavaScript files is done via an engine which is developed by the JavaScript developers and these engines are different for every browser, for e.g. Google Chrome has a V8 Engine that takes any JavaScript file and executes the command present in the file. Now, these engines can only access the DOM (Document Object Model) elements of the web page and are restricted to other contexts like the file system, memory, network, etc. To make more use of the JavaScript language, some developers extracted the V8 engine from Google Chrome and provided the access to the context elements. The access to the V8 engine makes JavaScript to work or behave like a C or Java language. Thus, node.js is a block that contains the V8 engine with the availability and accessibility of all the API in it (with the help of Node.js we can run the JavaScript outside the browser). Node.js is an open-source, JavaScript runtime environment that is built on Google Chrome's V8 engine that can run web applications outside the client browser. It is used on the server and effortlessly develop fast and scalable web applications. It utilizes an event-driven, data-intensive, non-blocking I/O model that makes it lightweight, efficient and excellent for real-time applications that run across shared devices. Features of Node.js Asynchronous and Event Driven − All APIs of the Node.js library are non-blocking which essentially means a Node.js-based server never waits for an API to return data. The server moves to another event and starts executing it while the previous API when returns data automatically deals with it at that point of time after completing the current event. Fast Execution − Node.js is built on Google Chrome's V8 JavaScript Engine and has a library which is very fast in code execution. Single-Threaded but Highly Scalable − Node.js uses a single-threaded model with an event loop which means that when a user makes a network call to the server it does not wait for the request to return instead it executes the next event and after the network call is done, it adds it in the queue. The event mechanism helps the server to respond in a non-blocking way and makes the server highly scalable. No Buffering − Node.js applications never buffer any data. They essentially yield the data in pieces. Working When a client makes a request to the server which can either be intensive work (calculative work) or I/O intensive, then if the request is for the I/O intensive, the server might have to communicate with another server, file system or database which might take a few seconds to get the response which eventually makes the thread unavailable for another request. If there are 10 clients, then each gets a delay of let's just say 3 seconds, and to respond to the 10th client, it will take 30 seconds. Node.js server has only one thread to communicate with the client which makes it unreliable in nature. It uses the concept of asynchronous and non-blocking I/O, in which when a client makes a request to the Node.js server, the single thread will send that request to the first worker which is a part of the Node.js server, then the Node.js make a request to the worker to fetch the result from the server/file system/database which makes the current thread free. If another client makes another request then again it will send that request to the second worker and again the thread gets free. When the response from the server is received while the second client request is still getting processed then the Node.js server uses a callback function which then goes into the event loop and gets added into the event queue. Who Are the Workers that are Accepting the Request? Node.js uses the concept of Libuv which is a special library built for node.js but can be used as other applications as well. In Node.js, only one thread is used but behind the scene, the kernel is implementing multiple threads which are the workers themselves. Use Case Netflix - Netflix, the world's leading Internet television network with over 117 million users, is one of those top companies that trusted their servers to Node.js (the whole user interface on Netflix.com is built with Node). The engineers decided to use Node.js in order to deliver a blazing-fast, modular, and lightweight application. Accordingly, Netflix’s web app load time has been reduced by 70%. WALMART - Walmart is the world’s largest retailer with approximately $481.32 billion global net sales in 2017. The development team especially appreciated Node.js' famous asynchronous I/O and its single-threaded event loop models that can efficiently handle concurrent requests. UBER - Uber is an American multinational ride-hailing company offering services that include peer-to-peer ride-sharing, ride service hailing, and food delivery considerable challenge of ensuring a reliably excellent experience for its customers and drivers at a quickly-growing scale, Uber has built its massive matching system on Node.js. PayPal - PayPal is an American company operating a worldwide online payments system that supports online money transfers and serves as an electronic alternative to traditional paper methods like checks and money orders. Originally PayPal shifted from Java to JavaScript by experimenting and developing two Java and Node.js applications at the same time. After two apps with the same functionalities, they were tested and compared, and here what the engineers learned: Node.js app was built almost twice as fast with fewer people, they were written in 33% fewer lines of code while developing in Node, and the app was constructed with 40% fewer files. Medium - Medium is a popular online publishing platform developed by Evan Williams and launched in August 2012. Medium is a data-driven platform that evolves along with the users and their behavior. Node.js is particularly useful when it comes to running A/B tests to get a better comprehension of product changes and experiment with new ideas. List of Node.js Alternatives 1. ELIXIR - It is a dynamic and functional language used in building scalable and maintainable applications. It is an Open Source and Compatible with Mac, Windows, Linux. Features of Elixir: Scalability Functional Programming built on top of the Erlang VM It has Ruby-like syntax It has dynamic typing 2. PERL – Perl is a stable, cross platform programming language. It is used for mission critical projects in the public and private sectors. Features of Perl: Mission critical Object-oriented, procedural and functional Easily expandable Text manipulation Unicode support C/C++ library interface 3. ASP.NET - Either it is web-based applications, complex APIs, real-time development, or even Microservices, ASP.NET is a once such complete package. That makes it one of the top qualifying contenders and an alternative to Node.js. Features of ASP.NET: Server Controls Master Pages Working with data Membership Client Script and Client Frameworks Routing State Management Security Performance Error Handling 4. CEYLON – It is a programming language that has a similar syntax to C# and Java. Few key highlights that define Ceylon are it being an imperative, statically typed, blocked structure, and object-oriented in behavior. Features of Ceylon: Cross platform execution Modularity Powerful type system Type inference, flow-sensitive typing, and typesafe null Typesafe metaprogramming 5. REBOL - Rebol is a cross-platform language developed for effective data exchange with the multi-paradigm approach. With Network communication being the prime purpose behind its functionality it is also suitable for the small, optimized domains – the specific language for coding data. Features of Rebol: Hierarchical graphical compositing Visual interface dialect (VID) Graphical effects and image processing operations Multiple window support Flexible event system Standard image formats Animation and timing Launch and browse functions Conclusion Node.js came up with the idea of event-driven single-threaded server programming which is achieved by the callback concept. With the growing demand and popularity of JavaScript, server-side programming is really appreciable as it increases a lot of scope for JS developers, also there is no need to learn any extra language as it is totally based on JavaScript. Node.js gives developers a variety of options to choose from the NPM (Node Package Manager) which makes it more useful for developers to code without any hassle. But at the moment, if we say that Node.js is strong enough to replace PHP, Java, or .NET, it will be an overstatement. References https://www.tutorialspoint.com/nodejs/nodejs_introduction.htm https://www.simform.com/what-is-node-js/ https://www.w3schools.com/nodejs/nodejs_intro.asp https://www.simplytechnologies.net/blog/2018/4/18/8-top-companies-that-rely-on-nodejs https://www.perl.org/about.html https://www.educba.com/node-dot-js-alternatives/ http://www.rebol.com/rebol-view.html#:~:text=REBOL%2FView%20includes%20a%20fast,%2C%20emboss%2C%20and%20much%20more. https://serokell.io/blog/introduction-to-elixir https://www.simform.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/node.js-architecture.png https://www.simform.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/traditional-vs-node.js-server-thread.png Keywords: Computer Science, Programming Language, Node.js, Computer Language, Java, PHP, ASP.NET, JavaScript 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

In the digital age, vast amounts of information and data are generated and stored, creating a significant challenge for organizations when it comes to reviewing and analyzing documents for legal, regulatory, or investigative purposes. Traditional manual review methods often prove time-consuming, costly, and prone to human error. This is where Technology Assisted Review (TAR) comes into play, offering a more efficient and accurate approach to document review. Technology Assisted Review, also known as Predictive Coding or Computer-Assisted Review, is a process that utilizes advanced machine learning algorithms and artificial intelligence (AI) to assist in the review and analysis of large volumes of electronic documents. TAR combines human expertise with the power of technology to streamline and enhance the document review process. At its core, TAR employs sophisticated algorithms to categorize and prioritize documents based on their relevance to a particular case or investigation. Initially, human reviewers code a subset of documents, known as the "seed set," providing the system with examples of relevant and non-relevant documents. The TAR system then analyzes the characteristics of these documents, identifying patterns and learning to make predictions about the relevance of unseen documents. As the process continues, the system refines its predictions, and human reviewers validate and train the system by reviewing additional subsets of documents. This iterative feedback loop allows TAR to improve its accuracy over time. The benefits of Technology Assisted Review are numerous. Firstly, TAR significantly reduces the time and effort required for document review. By automating the initial stages of document categorization and prioritization, TAR eliminates the need to manually review every single document, enabling reviewers to focus their attention on documents that are more likely to be relevant. This not only accelerates the review process but also reduces costs associated with manual labor. Moreover, TAR enhances accuracy and consistency. Unlike manual review, which can be influenced by human biases and inconsistencies, TAR applies consistent algorithms that base their decisions on learned patterns and statistical analysis. By leveraging machine learning, TAR can achieve a level of precision that surpasses traditional methods, minimizing the risk of missing critical documents or including irrelevant ones. Additionally, TAR offers defensibility and transparency. The system maintains a record of the decisions made during the review process, including the rationale behind them. This audit trail can be invaluable when demonstrating the reasonableness of the review methodology to courts or regulatory bodies, providing a transparent and defensible approach. Best Practices for a successful TAR Here are some key practices to keep in mind: 1. Understand the Technology: Gain a solid understanding of how TAR works, its capabilities, and limitations. Educate yourself and your team on the underlying algorithms, statistical models, and machine learning techniques employed by the TAR system. This knowledge will help you set realistic expectations, make informed decisions, and effectively communicate the process to stakeholders. 2. Develop a Comprehensive Plan: Before starting the TAR process, create a well-defined plan that outlines the objectives, scope, and timeline of the review project. Identify the key stakeholders, establish roles and responsibilities, and allocate necessary resources. Having a clear plan in place ensures a structured and organized approach throughout the TAR implementation. 3. Establish a Quality Control Framework: Implement a robust quality control framework to assess the accuracy and consistency of the TAR system's predictions. This involves regularly sampling and validating the system's output against a subset of documents manually reviewed by human experts. Continuously monitor and refine the TAR process based on feedback and ongoing quality control measures. 4. Use Experienced Reviewers: While TAR significantly reduces the volume of documents that need manual review, the expertise of human reviewers remains crucial. Select reviewers who are knowledgeable about the subject matter and possess the necessary skills to train and validate the TAR system effectively. Adequate training and ongoing communication with reviewers are essential to ensure consistent and accurate results. 5. Develop Appropriate Training Sets: The initial training sets, known as "seed sets," play a pivotal role in the TAR process. Carefully select documents that represent the relevant and non-relevant categories to train the system accurately. Ensure diversity in the training sets by including documents with various characteristics, complexities, and potential issues that may arise during the review. 6. Iterative Process and Continuous Learning: TAR is an iterative process that improves over time. It is crucial to embrace this iterative nature and continually refine the system based on feedback and new data. As the review progresses, periodically reassess and update the training sets to account for changes in the case, new document types, or emerging patterns that were not initially apparent. 7. Document and Document the Process: Maintain detailed documentation throughout the TAR process, recording key decisions, parameters, and modifications made during the review. This documentation serves as an audit trail and helps provide defensibility and transparency, particularly when explaining the TAR methodology to courts, regulators, or opposing parties. 8. Validate and Measure Effectiveness: Assess the effectiveness of the TAR process by comparing the results with established metrics and benchmarks. Consider metrics such as precision, recall, and F1 score to evaluate the system's performance. Regularly evaluate and validate the output to ensure that the TAR system is achieving the desired level of accuracy and meeting the project goals. 9. Consult Experts and Seek Guidance: If you are new to TAR or handling a complex case, it can be beneficial to seek guidance from experts or consult with experienced professionals in the field. Engaging consultants or partnering with eDiscovery service providers who specialize in TAR can help you navigate the challenges, optimize the process, and achieve the best possible outcomes. To know more about Copperpod's TAR document review services, please contact us at info@copperpodip.com. By adhering to these best practices, you can effectively implement Technology Assisted Review and leverage its capabilities to streamline document review, enhance accuracy, and achieve cost and time savings in various legal, regulatory, or investigative scenarios.

Economists have long understood that technology transfer is at the heart of economic growth and that the quantity and efficiency of such transfers determine the advancement of both rich and developing countries. Growth and innovation have always been intertwined, with development being the end result. Business ecosystems are heavily reliant on these developments, and technology dispersion plays a critical part in determining the organizations' destiny. What is Technology Transfer? Technology transfer is the initial step in the process of turning knowledge and discoveries into a product or service for the broader public. The process of transferring technology from one individual or organization to another is known as technology transfer or transfer of technology (TOT). These transfers can take place across geographical and geopolitical borders between educational institutions, research institutes, businesses, multinational corporations, and governments. This technological diffusion might take place in a formal or informal manner and in an open or closed transaction. Attempts to share talents, technology, knowledge, manufacturing processes, and so on frequently result in such transfers. Technology transfer guarantees that new scientific and technological advances are freely accessible to a wider variety of users, allowing them to harness them for the betterment of society. Role of IP in Technology Transfer Appropriate and effective IPR protection supports developing countries in their economic growth and technology transfer and in obtaining benefits for innovation and generating returns on R&D investments. Insufficient IPR protection, on the other hand, leads to domestic enterprises spilling sensitive data, whilst excessive IPR protection leads to insufficient information transfer and stifles innovative growth. A technology's patent filing approach should address protection in nations where it will be manufactured, commercialized, and where competitors may operate. The type of technological breakthrough in question will usually define the path to market for a specific technology, depending on the sector and market opportunity. Further, before a potential licensee is interested in licensing out the technology, most inventions will require more research and testing. To get these inventions to a licensable level, you'll need to set up a technology maturation or proof of concept fund. If internal finance is limited, another option is to connect these ideas with local incubator programmes, which may help with technical and market validation and business development. All aspects of an innovation ecosystem must be brought together for a successful transfer of new technology to the market. A research and development strategy that is tightly linked to an IP strategy guarantees that research money is directed toward projects with the best chance of producing commercially viable IP. Solid IP management and technology transfer protocols ensure that the most promising discoveries get the help they need to be packaged for a potential licensee or start-up. Potential inventions are connected to industry and investors through incubators and accelerators. Last but not least, a culture that is willing to invest in innovation is required to foster the development of tech-based industries that drive economic growth. The Background Since 2013, South Korea has been running a programme to encourage large corporations to exchange technology with small businesses. Since then, the project has invited applications and shared patented technologies owned by large enterprises and government-led organizations with smaller companies for free to assist SMEs in improving their technological competency and growth. As many as 25 huge organizations have shared their technologies with smaller businesses, including Samsung Electronics. Recent Developments by Samsung Despite the economic and political risks and pandemic, Samsung Electronics remained focused on identifying growth engines, developing breakthrough technology and products, and pursuing creative solutions. They strengthened their leadership in good financial management, brand value, and corporate rankings across the global industry. In a solid yet humble move, Samsung Electronics will transfer 276 patented technologies to small and medium-sized firms for free this year. This comes after several small and medium-sized businesses sought free access to the patents and technology. Samsung is set to begin the transfer on May 11 and complete it on May 13, proving to be a boon for all the companies seeking it. How does Tech Transfer benefit SMEs? A fundamental component of corporate success is the capacity to transfer technology and generate innovative products. Technology transfer is essential for a company's innovation to be commercialized. Cutting-edge products can enter the market by allowing a company to gain revenue and grow. Technology transfer can benefit an economy by fostering innovation, entrepreneurship, and job development. The benefits to society are enormous in terms of lives saved, improved health, a cleaner environment, and numerous technological developments that bring new capabilities and move local, regional, national, and global economies forward through innovation. To cite a few examples - Samsung Electronics' OTP-based security authentication (Bluetooth smart key) technology was transferred to another company, resulting in smartphone-controlled mailboxes. Further, a South Korean company that makes automatic external defibrillators produced the world's first Internet of Things (IoT) integrated monitoring device (AEDs). It also took advantage of Samsung Electronics' "service sharing via network" for free. This demonstrates SMEs can do wonders if they are given a push in the right direction. The Next Move of Samsung Samsung's focus on upgrading device technology while depending on partnerships to bring deeper functionality can go a long way toward maintaining customer loyalty related to apps and experiences rather than devices, which currently appear to be all too identical. For highly integrated software tailored for Samsung's new hardware, the company touted partnerships with Google, Microsoft, Snap, YouTube, and Luma Touch. Samsung named Google Duo as its video chat client of choice, Microsoft's OneNote is the top note-taking app for the S Pen stylus and OneDrive as its photo storage and sharing service. These alliances might continue to solve software shortages while also providing partners with a stable hardware base on which to build their solutions. Its renewed emphasis on openness and collaboration marked a significant departure from Apple's restricted environment. Clearly, Samsung is focused more on streamlining and optimizing its technology transfer process to ensure a new product's timely and successful launch. Patent Analysis - Samsung Samsung is one of the world's largest electronic gadget manufacturers. Samsung manufactures a wide range of consumer and industrial electronics, including appliances, digital media devices, semiconductors, memory chips, and integrated systems, among other things. The patent data depicts that Samsung is the most active in the domain of Semiconductors and Audio and Video Tech. The highest number of patents are filed in the US in all sectors as the US is the hub of all technological advances. Korea, being the home ground for the brand, has a significant number of patents to its credit. However, China is seen as struggling to get a considerable number of patents due to China's geopolitical situation and rising labor costs. Within the last two years, Samsung shut down two major production plants in China, after news of a stifle competitive environment between Xiaomi and Samsung. Other countries have a relatively low number of patents as they do not rely heavily on imports from other countries as they are technologically sound. Technology wise, the world is facing a semiconductor shortage and hence it is in great demand. On the other hand, audio and video tech has boosted up because of the digitalization era and many people spending time online more than usual. Copperpod provides Technology Due Diligence services. Copperpod's intellectual property audit investigates existence, ownership, and market potential for all patents, trademarks, trade secrets and other intellectual property owned by the seller. To know more, contact the best IP consulting firm in the US.