Software Keeps Eating the World—But the Right to Repair Doesn’t Have to Go with It

When a farmer buys a tractor that costs a small fortune, who owns it? The instinctive answer is the farmer. And if he owns the tractor, certainly he has the right to fix it, right? Like most things in life, it’s not that simple. Modern equipment runs on software and other technologies that still belong, legally, to the company that built the machine. The manufacturer retains intellectual property rights in the equipment even after selling it, and those rights can get in the way of the farmer fixing his own machine. Both sides own something. Neither owns everything.

ECI Innovations, LLC is Seeking an Intellectual Property Partner

ECI Innovations, LLC, a company that designs and licenses financial products, is seeking an experienced intellectual property professional to join the company as a Partner on a part-time, permanent basis. This is a remote opportunity. The successful candidate will assist with filing patents for a proprietary financial benchmark product and provide legal guidance related to licensing the company’s intellectual property. Due to the confidential nature of the project, additional details will be shared with qualified candidates.

USPTO Proposes Rule to Require Statement of RPIs for All Ex Parte Reexam Requests

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) today published a Federal Register Notice proposing to amend the rules of practice to require that third-party requests for ex parte reexamination of a patent must include a statement identifying all real-parties-in-interest (RPIs) to the proceeding. According to the proposed rule, statements identifying RPIs would be kept confidential upon request and “would provide the Office with a mechanism to evaluate statutory estoppel provisions” as well as “enhance the Office’s ability to respond to false certifications, misrepresentations, and fraud.”

Reverse Engineering, ‘Readily Ascertainable’, and the Burden of Proof: Lessons from the Comet Technologies Decision

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Comet Technologies USA, Inc. v. XP Power, LLC, overturned Comet Technologies’ $40 million trade secret verdict against XP Power and ordered a new trial, finding that the district court erroneously instructed the jury that the defendant bore the burden of proving that Comet’s trade secrets were readily ascertainable by proper means. The court held that the error was not harmless because the instructions were not accurate as a whole, and nothing in the jury’s verdict shed light on how it would have ruled under a correct instruction. The case is notable both for clarifying what “readily ascertainable” means and for spotlighting a burden-of-proof distinction between the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) and the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act (CUTSA) that practitioners should not overlook.

Federal Circuit Affirms Dissolution of Preliminary Injunction in Split Decision Over Foldable Fan Design Patent

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today affirming a district court’s dissolution of a preliminary injunction (PI) and denial of a temporary restraining order (TRO) in a Schedule A design patent dispute over foldable fans. Circuit Judge Hughes wrote for the majority, joined by Circuit Judge Prost, while Circuit Judge Stoll dissented from the portion of the opinion addressing the merits of the design patent analysis.

Apple Wins at CAFC Due to PTAB’s Erroneous Reading of Speech Recognition Patent Claims

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Tuesday vacated and remanded a decision for a patent owner against Apple, concluding that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) made several errors in finding the claims of the speech recognition patent at issue were not shown to be unpatentable. Zentian Ltd. owns U.S. Patent No. 10,839,789, which is titled “Speech recognition circuit and method.” Apple petitioned for inter partes review (IPR) of multiple claims of the patent, arguing in relevant part that “claim 1 was obvious over prior art reference U.S. Patent No. 5,819,222 (“Smyth”) or the combination of Smyth and U.S. Patent No. 6,832,194 (“Mozer”) and that claim 29 was obvious over Smyth, Mozer, and several other references.”

Seizing the Secret Sauce: How Generative AI is Breaking Government Contracting and IP Law

As government contractors rapidly integrate LLMs and generative AI into their operations, regulators are scrambling to adapt to shifting data ownership requirements.  The General Services Administration (GSA) recently proposed a new GSAR clause (552.239–7001) to standardize AI procurement, and the current draft has been met with widespread industry criticism. By asserting expansive government ownership over “data outputs” and “custom development,” the proposed rule inadvertently exposes a fault line between government data protection and commercial IP rights.

Subscribe to IPWatchdog

This is the best way to stay informed. We send a daily roundup of our latest news, press releases, and events.

Get Email Updates