Posts in Artificial Intelligence

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

Some say overregulation of AI will impede development. One innovation policy expert believes both AI and IP rights need a clearer context for AI to operate productively. On the current episode of Understanding IP Matters (UIPM), Dr. Brandie M. Nonnecke, a policy expert with a background in journalism, discusses what responsible AI should be and says that regulation of AI is necessary and, if done properly, will not stifle innovation. Nonnecke knows the reluctance about regulation is a “knee jerk reaction by companies [and] investors to evade oversight,” she says, adding: “But let’s remember that regulation can actually spur a more competitive environment, a more competitive market for them to operate within.”

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed I speak with my friend Jason Harrier, former Chief Patent Counsel at Capital One and current co-founder and General Counsel of artificial intelligence (AI) company IP Copilot. I started our conversation by asking Harrier about invention harvesting, which I know from many conversations with in-house attorneys is one of the more difficult but critical important aspects of their job. We begin with a simple question: Why is invention harvesting so difficult and why are in-house attorneys always talking about in terms of what they tried in the past, what they are currently trying and what they hope to try in the future, sounding a little like Goldilocks looking for what is just right, but always out of reach.

Last Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued an opinion in Thaler v. Perlmutter affirming the denial of a copyright application filed by artificial intelligence (AI) developer Dr. Stephen Thaler to an image created by one of Thaler’s generative AI systems. Although the appellate court did not categorically reject registrability of all AI-generated works, the D.C. Circuit agreed with the agency that the Copyright Act of 1976 requires all eligible work to be authored in the first instance by a human being.

The first major decision in a U.S. copyright case involving content created using artificial intelligence (AI) was delivered on February 11, 2025. In Thomson Reuters v. ROSS, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware held that an AI legal research platform infringed the copyrights of a competing, non-AI platform owned by Thomson Reuters, by using content from Thomson Reuters’ legal research platform to train its AI platform. This is likely just the beginning of intellectual property (IP) infringement litigation arising out of the use of AI, and the importance to businesses of understanding the scope of insurance coverage potentially available for those claims cannot be overstated.

Copyrightability of AI-generated and AI-assisted work has been a hot topic for a while. The United States Copyright Office (USCO) clarified its position on AI contributions in its 2023 guidelines. This article explores the application of the guidelines as it relates to images generated using AI tools, and how to square the circle on some long-run concerns raised in the recent USCO report on the economic implications of AI.

The intersection of artificial intelligence (AI) technology and copyright law pits an irresistible force against an evolving and uncertain legal framework. The latest case making waves in this struggle is Concord Music Group, Inc. v. Anthropic PBC, in which Concord Music Group and other publishers alleged copyright infringement by the AI company Anthropic. One of the major issues in the case revolves around whether Anthropic’s AI models, specifically its large language models (LLMs), are generating infringing content because the results were derived from copyrighted works.

IPWatchdog LIVE opened today with a sneak preview of the latest episode of the IPWatchdog Unleashed podcast, which will be published Monday, and where IPWatchdog Founder and CEO Gene Quinn will examine the current state of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in light of developments having to do with both the Trump Administration and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). The combination of a patent application backlog that some now estimate to be 1.2 million, the administration’s potential firing of a large number of examiners, and CAFC cases that have held prosecution laches is presumed if it takes more than six years to obtain a patent, thus making a patent unenforceable, has led to a patent system Quinn said “feels to me an awful lot like the Titanic right now, and like we’re fast approaching an iceberg, with disaster imminent.”

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

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

The controversy surrounding AI and copyright extends beyond the courtroom to the art market, where AI-generated works are increasingly contested. The ruling in Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence adds legal weight to concerns about AI’s impact on creative and commercial markets, including the sale of fine art through auction houses and galleries, and its potential to compete directly with copyright holders.

Yesterday, Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas, sitting by designation in the District of Delaware, issued a ruling updating a previous summary judgment decision dismissing copyright infringement allegations made by Westlaw legal research service provider Thomson Reuters against a competing artificial intelligence (AI) search tool developed by Ross Intelligence. Among the top reconsiderations in Judge Bibas’ recent decision is his fair use analysis, which now recognizes the non-transformative nature of Ross’ use of copyrighted headnotes that summarize legal decisions.

Generative AI is one of the most transformative technologies of our time, reshaping the way businesses create, innovate, and compete. As organizations integrate AI into their operations, they must navigate an increasingly dynamic business environment, driven by technological advancements and evolving market demands.

The U.S. Senate held a nomination hearing to vet Donald Trump’s pick for Secretary of Commerce, Howard Lutnick, this past week. While much of the hearing focused on issues outside of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Lutnick touched on several key points relevant to the intellectual property system.

The U.S. Copyright Office has released Part 2 of its multi-part artificial intelligence (AI) report, this one focusing on copyrightability of works made by or using AI. Part 1 of the report was published in July 2024 and addressed digital replicas created by AI. Among the Copyright Office’s recommendations was the need for passage of a federal law that would create a new form of property right for a person’s digital replica to disincentivize the creation of realistic but false depictions of individuals.