Posts in Artificial Intelligence

The battle over whether U.S. copyright law permits artificial intelligence (AI) training on copyrighted works is no longer a theoretical debate. In 2025, three federal district court decisions began to sketch the boundaries of what counts as fair use in this context.

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.”

In a Progress Statement published Monday, the UK Government said that its ongoing consultation on copyright and AI has drawn over 11,500 responses, 10,112 of which were submitted via an online survey service, and that 88% of those who responded online supported requiring licenses to use copyrighted works for AI training in all cases.

As AI adoption accelerates, it is crucial that companies act proactively to develop risk, compliance, and ethical frameworks to ensure sustainable innovation and responsible IP use. On the current episode of Understanding IP Matters, Allison Gaul, a registered patent attorney who evaluates digital products with an eye toward intellectual property strategy, value creation, and legal risk, discusses the aggressive landscape of data acquisition by various AI entities.

On December 5, The New York Times Company (the Times) filed a complaint for copyright and trademark infringement against Perplexity AI, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, adding another major lawsuit to the growing wave of litigation against generative artificial intelligence (AI) companies. The Times alleged in its filing that Perplexity engaged in “large-scale, unlawful copying and distribution” of millions of its articles to build its AI-powered “answer engine.” The complaint argued that Perplexity’s products directly substitute for the newspaper’s own content, thereby undermining its business and devaluing its journalism. Perplexity’s conduct “threatens this legacy and impedes the free press’s ability to continue playing its role in supporting an informed citizenry and a healthy democracy,” the Times argued.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) today released two memos meant to provide additional guidance around the use of patent subject matter eligibility declarations (SMEDs) for examiners, applicants and practitioners, particularly with respect to “applied technologies” in areas like artificial intelligence and medical diagnostics. The memos do not alter existing procedures and are effective immediately.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit on Wednesday affirmed a district court’s decision to grant a temporary restraining order (TRO) in a trademark dispute between two tech companies, IYO, Inc., and IO Products, Inc, which merged with OpenAI in May 2025. The order prevents IO, a company co-founded by Sam Altman and Jonathan Paul Ive, from using the IO mark in connection with products that are related to IYO’s AI-based “audio computer.”

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.

Something important happened at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) last month, and it did not get nearly the attention it deserved. The Office rolled out its Artificial Intelligence Search Automated Pilot (ASAP) Program, and for the first time, AI is now part of the pre-examination process, rather than operating around it. Given where things stand, this move almost feels inevitable. Filings keep climbing, examiners are stretched thin, and first office action pendency  reached an all-time high of 22.6 months in FY 2025. Anyone who has spent time in prosecution knows the system needs help. AI can absolutely make the early search phase faster and more consistent.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has rescinded its AI Inventorship guidance issued in February 2024 under the previous USPTO administration and published new guidance emphasizing that the Pannu factors for joint inventorship do not apply in the context of an AI invention involving a single inventor. The guidance issued on February 13, 2024, under previous USPTO Director Kathi Vidal discussed the relevance of the three-part test articulated in Pannu v. Iolab Corp. in determining inventorship in the context of AI-assisted inventions.

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.

Welcome to the very first installment of Cool AI Patents of the Month. Each month, we’ll look at some of the more eye-catching and creative ways Artificial Intelligence (AI) is showing up in innovations that themselves wind up represented in patents or patent applications. The goal isn’t to get overly technical, but to highlight technology that’s genuinely cool and thought-provoking — the kind of inventions that make you say, “Wow, that’s clever.”

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) latest USPTO Hour focused on patent eligibility updates today, one day after Director John Squires on Tuesday designated as precedential a September 26, 2025, decision that champions eligibility for artificial intelligence (AI) inventions. The Appeals Review Panel (ARP) decision in Ex parte Desjardins, Appeal 2024-000567 (Decided September 26, 2025) was mentioned in Squires’ recent remarks at the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA), where he told attendees that there is no need to overhaul patent law to protect AI, as proper application of existing laws is sufficient to secure patent rights for technologies of the future.

Today, Mrs Justice Joanna Smith DBE of the United Kingdom’s High Court of Justice issued a highly awaited ruling in Getty Images (US) Inc. v. Stability AI Ltd., a case which was expected to have major implications in determining liability for generative artificial intelligence (AI) developers under UK intellectual property law. The 205-page decision, which mainly focuses on Getty’s trademark claim while also clarifying important aspects of secondary copyright liability in the AI context, failed to address certain fundamental questions in large part because Getty failed to raise sufficient evidence to proceed with its claim of primary copyright infringement at trial.

On Friday, October 31, Professors Shlomit Yanisky-Ravid, Lawrence Lessig and a number of other professors and researchers filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Supreme Court in support of Dr. Stephen Thaler’s petition for a writ of certiorari in Thaler v. Perlmutter, which is urging the Court to grant certiorari and recognize copyright protection for works generated by artificial intelligence (AI). The brief argued that “excluding AI-generated works from copyright protection threatens the foundations of American creativity, innovation, and economic growth,” warning that the lower court’s interpretation, which requires human authorship, disregards the “spirit of the Copyright Act.”