In a year dominated by artificial intelligence (AI) copyright cases, 2025 also featured several influential cases on traditional copyright issues that will impact copyright owners, internet service providers, website owners, advertisers, social media users, media companies, and many others. Although the U.S. Supreme Court did not decide a copyright case this year, it heard argument on secondary liability and willfulness issues in Cox v. Sony. Lower courts continued to wrestle with applying the fair use factors two years after the Supreme Court issued Warhol v. Goldsmith. The divide over whether the “server test” applies to embedded works deepened—and remains unsettled. And the Ninth Circuit further refined the standard for pleading access to online works. This article highlights some of the most important copyright cases from this year and their practical implications.
The year 2025 was one of profound change at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). The magnitude and rate at which changes were implemented is unprecedented. The size and role of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in America Invents Act (AIA) proceedings like inter partes reviews (IPRs) was completely overhauled.
This week in Other Barks and Bites: Will Page’s Global Value of Music Copyright report shows that industry revenues have doubled since 2015 despite slowing growth as pandemic impacts are no longer felt; the Federal Circuit rules that it lacks jurisdiction to hear an appeal of an $8 million bond set under an Idaho state law prohibiting bad faith patent assertions; Micron expects the market for high-bandwidth memory chips to reach $100 billion by 2018; and more.
On Thursday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued its opinion in Micron Technology v. Longhorn IP. As reported earlier, the CAFC held that it lacked jurisdiction to hear Longhorn’s appeal from a district court order that required Longhorn to post an $8 million bond to proceed with a patent infringement case. In imposing the bond, the district court had relied on Idaho’s “anti-troll” statute, which outlaws assertions of patent infringement made in “bad faith.” Also under that statute, if a court finds a “reasonable likelihood” that a patent owner has made a bad faith assertion, the court must require the patent owner to post a bond equal to its opponent’s estimated litigation costs and damages.
There’s a lot going on at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) right now, and it’s not just the usual noise about discretionary denial. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has published a one-and-done rules package that, if it survives, would fundamentally change how inter partes review (IPR) challenge works, who can challenge patents, and when. The comment window on the proposed one-and-done rule has now closed. With more than 10,000 comments received by the USPTO and over 700 individual commenters weighing in, the proposed rules package has become a flashpoint for questions that go way beyond discretionary denial and AIA trials, with many asking whether the USPTO is functionally trying to engage in de facto legislation to neuter the PTAB.
This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, I was joined by my longtime friend John White, who is the the creator of the patent bar review course I’ve taught for almost 27 years. Together we explore the intricate and ever changing patent landscape. First, we begin by discussing the bar exam and how it is changing, then we pivot to the evolving role of AI in patent law more generally. Our conversation traversed decades of personal history, friendship and professional insights, revealing how the industry has transformed over the years and what it means for the current and future generation of patent practitioners.
This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, we feature a panel discussion that took place on October 27 as a part of our annual life sciences program. Initially styled as a conversation about how artificial intelligence is transforming life sciences, it became quickly apparent that the conversation was not going to be limited to the life sciences sector. Instead the discussion evolved into a robust discussion about data risk and intellectual property, focusing on what every innovative company should have front of mind when considering the adoption of AI tools.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Wednesday issued a precedential decision in Micron Technology, Inc. v. Longhorn IP LLC, dismissing an appeal from a district court’s order imposing an $8 million bond under the Idaho Bad Faith Assertions of Patent Infringement Act. The opinion was authored by Judge Lourie and joined by Judges Schall and Stoll.
Senators Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and Peter Welch (D-VT) have introduced a bill to streamline the copyright registration process for visual artists, such as photographers, illustrators and graphic artists. According to a press release issued by Blackburn yesterday, “the [copyright] registration process is so bureaucratic and complicated that the time and expense of compliance is too high for high-volume creators like photographers, illustrators, and graphic artists.”
For sports fans, certain moments are etched in memory, like Sid Bream sliding into home to clinch the pennant or Kelee Ringo’s interception to seal a national championship. Even celebratory dances, like Ickey Woods’ “Ickey Shuffle,” become part of the sport’s cultural legacy. These are sequences of planned and unplanned movements, which leads us to ask a question concerning intellectual property law: Can a coach’s football play be copyrighted? The answer, as with many IP issues, relies upon the distinction between a creative, fixed work and a purely functional, evolving activity. While the Ickey Shuffle might find protection in the eyes of the law, the play call that leads to the touchdown likely will not.
In our latest IPWatchdog Unleashed podcast, I spoke with Rob Sahr, shareholder at Wolf Greenfield and co-chair of our 2025 Life Sciences Masters™ program. Our conversation zeroed in on a hard truth the public rarely sees: moving a molecule from early discovery to an FDA-approved therapy requires a chain of scientific and economic miracles—and every one of them leans on a reliable patent system. In this conversation we discuss the extraordinary journey from molecule to medicine. Together, we explore how scientific breakthroughs depend not only on research and capital, but also on a stable and predictable patent system. From double patenting and government funding to judicial uncertainty and policy headwinds, our conversation dives into the fragile balance between innovation and patent policy—and the many scientific miracles required to bring new drugs to life.
In our latest IPWatchdog Unleashed podcast, we had a riveting and sometimes emotional conversation that unfolded around one of the most pressing issues in life sciences today: the journey of life-saving drugs from laboratory to patient. We discuss the pivotal role a strong patent system plays in this important journey with guest Sherry Knowles. Sherry is the founder of Knowles Intellectual Property Strategies and former Senior Vice President and Chief Patent Counsel for GlaxoSmithKline. In addition to being one of the leading voices in the life sciences and patent industries, Sherry is also a cancer survivor. Among other things we discuss numerous patent system challenges facing innovator drug companies, the downward pressure generic drugs place on the industry and leading to important drugs becoming unavailable, the role of Pharmacy Benefit Managers (PBMs) with respect to significantly raising the cost of drugs for Americans, and policy influences and legislation on Capitol Hill. Sherry also shares her personal story and insights into why patents are more than just legal constructs—they are deeply personal lifelines.
This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed we tackle the impact of tariffs and geopolitical uncertainty on intellectual property (IP) strategy, budgets and patent portfolios. In today’s fast-paced global economy, intellectual property (IP) teams face unprecedented challenges and opportunities. The world is witnessing a flux of geopolitical tensions, economic uncertainties, and rapid technological advancements, all of which demand agility and strategic foresight from IP professionals. Meanwhile, to complicate matters the United States is attempting to rearrange international business norms by diversifying supply chains for particularly important goods and components, while simultaneously aggressively using tariffs to change global economic behavior and settle international conflicts and wars. There is no doubt that this is a tumultuous time for all businesses, which demands attention, forethought and deliberate strategic action.
This is the best way to stay informed. We send a daily roundup of our latest news, press releases, and events.
Get Email Updates