Posts in IPWatchdog Articles

As an expert witness on intellectual property litigations, I have noticed over the past few years parties with poor arguments in software copyright and software trade secret cases, both plaintiffs and defendants, have been taking advantage of technologically outdated protective orders to gain an unfair advantage. The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, where probably the majority of software IP cases take place, has a Model Protective Order for Litigation Involving Patents, Highly Sensitive Confidential Information and/or Trade Secrets that has become a de facto standard for software IP cases around the country. It is antiquated and needs to be updated.

Current U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Chief Administrative Officer Anne Mendez has reportedly been appointed Acting Deputy Director of the USPTO, following Coke Morgan Stewart’s announcement this week that she will be leaving her post early. As Chief Administrative Officer, Mendez heads up all “administrative service support functions” for the Office, which includes “human capital strategy, human resource management, telework policy and programs, facilities management, safety and security, transportation, and asset and records management.”

On Tuesday, IFI CLAIMS Patent Services released its annual report on artificial intelligence patenting, IFI Insights: Inventing AI. According to the report, worldwide AI patent grants reached 107,279 in 2025, marking the first time the total has surpassed 100,000 in a single year. The figure also represents an 83% increase over the past three years. Globally, AI patent applications reached 209,518 in 2025, of which 23% related to generative AI and 9% related to agentic AI, which is up from 5% in IFI’s previous study.

Yesterday, the UK Supreme Court issued a ruling in Tesla, Inc. v. InterDigital Patent Holdings, Inc. representing the latest development in UK jurisprudence surrounding fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) obligations on standard-essential patents (SEPs). Applying the reasoning of its landmark SEP decision in Unwired Planet, the UK Supreme Court revived Tesla’s claims that InterDigital’s SEPs to 5G vehicle communications technologies are not being offered on FRAND terms through Avanci’s patent pool and further upheld the jurisdiction of UK courts to decide global FRAND terms.

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, I speak with Martin Correa. Correa, who leads foresight work at the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). Correa’s job is not to predict the future of IP, but to consider what futures are possible so WIPO and Member States can be better prepared for whatever eventuality does materialize. And since there is no data about the future—as he puts it—his work uses signals of change, horizon scanning and competing scenarios to expose assumptions and identify the decisions that could push the IP system in one direction or another.

Patent count is often the first thing people notice about a portfolio. It should not be the last. A portfolio with 500 patents may have little monetization value if the claims are difficult to understand, the infringing products are unclear, the damages are weak, the strongest assets are expired or expiring soon, or there are no pending applications. Conversely, a smaller portfolio with well-supported claims, identifiable infringing products, meaningful damages, remaining patent life, and pending applications in both the U.S. and Europe may be far more valuable.

IPWatchdog has learned that U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Deputy Director Coke Morgan Stewart sent an email to USPTO executive staff today informing them that she will be leaving the Office to return to the private sector. Stewart reportedly told Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick and USPTO Director John Squires earlier today that she will be leaving by the end of this week.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision today reversing a jury verdict from the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware that had found Boston Scientific Corporation (BSC) liable for infringing a patent owned by the Board of Regents of the University of Texas System (UT) covering drug-releasing biodegradable polymer fibers. The Federal Circuit concluded that BSC was entitled to judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) on both invalidity and non-infringement.

In the space of a few months, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts delivered two decisions that, read together, change how patent applicants and their counsel should approach the deceptively simple question of who invented what. Fortress Iron, LP v. Digger Specialties, Inc., No. 2024-2313 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 2, 2026), holds that if an inventorship error cannot be corrected under 35 U.S.C. § 256, the patent is invalid — full stop, no intent required. Inline Plastics Corp. v. Lacerta Group, Inc., No. 1:18-cv-11631 (D. Mass. Nov. 13, 2025), holds that if an inventorship omission was intentional, the entire patent family is unenforceable for inequitable conduct — the Therasense penalty at full weight.

Alden Abbott recently captured Europe’s digital-policy contradiction with a memorable image: Brussels says it wants technology champions, but when a champion emerges, it makes the winner share the trophy. The European Commission’s July 16 binding specification measures (BSMs) against Google turn that metaphor into an administrative program. One measure requires Google to provide eligible search engines—including AI chatbots with search functions—access to anonymized ranking, query, click, and view data. The other requires “free and effective” interoperability with 11 categories of Android functionality, including device sensors, app context, app and operating-system control, on-device AI models, and background execution. Google must furnish documentation and technical assistance and extend access to covered future functionality when it becomes available to its own services.

This week in Other Barks & Bites: the Second Circuit affirms a ruling that copyright infringement claims against artist Jeff Koons were time-barred; the Federal Circuit reverses-in-part a Section 101 ruling invalidating patent claims to systems for distributing picture mail; the EU Commission fines Google €890 million for self-preferencing and steering violations under the Digital Markets Act; and more.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today affirming in part and reversing in part a district court ruling that had found four patents covering digital picture frame technology ineligible under 35 U.S.C. Section 101. The court remanded one patent claim to the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California for further proceedings and affirmed the ineligibility finding as to the remaining three patents at issue.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Thursday granted motions to dismiss as moot two appeals from an International Trade Commission (ITC) determination in which the ITC found Cartessa Aesthetics LLC violated Section 337 via infringement of Hydrafacial LLC’s patent, but suspended enforcement of an exclusion order because the patent was about to expire. The CAFC also vacated the underlying ITC determination.

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.