Posts in District Courts

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director John Squires issued a Director Review decision on Monday, which he designated as precedential, vacating a decision granting institution of an inter partes review (IPR) because the Board erred in accepting the petitioner’s inconsistent claim constructions without explanation. In Revvo Technologies, Inc. v. Cerebrum Sensor Technologies, Inc., the PTAB instituted the IPR on September 15, 2025, and Director Review was initiated sua sponte in order to address the claim construction issues.

A New York judge ruled on Monday that OpenAI cannot stop a consolidated, multi-district class action brought against by dozens of authors for direct copyright infringement by the outputs of its large language model (LLM), ChatGPT. OpenAI argued that the plaintiffs had failed to allege substantial similarity between the works and ChatGPT’s outputs, but Judge Sidney Stein of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York said  that “[a] more discerning observer could reasonably conclude that the allegedly infringing outputs are substantially similar to plaintiffs’ copyrighted works.”

Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential ruling in Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. affirming most of a non-infringement ruling entered by the District of Delaware over accused transcatheter heart valve products with balloon-expandable frames. Addressing challenges to the district court’s claim construction raised by Aortic, the Federal Circuit determined that the patentee acted as its own lexicographer for the claim term “outer frame” through consistent interchangeable uses of that term made in connection with specific embodiments disclosed in the specification.

Reddit filed a lawsuit yesterday against artificial intelligence (AI) company Perplexity AI and three other defendants for their alleged illegal circumvention of Reddit security measures meant to protect misuse of its content and data. Reddit, which describes itself in the complaint as “one of the largest repositories of human conversation in existence,” likened the actions of Oxylabs UAB, AWMProxy, and SerpApi to those of “would-be bank robbers.” Through their development of tools that bypass both Google’s and Reddit’s anti-scraping measures, and their scraping of Reddit content from Google search results, these defendants, “knowing they cannot get into the bank vault, break into the armored truck carrying the cash instead,” said the complaint.

On October 21, 10x Genomics, Inc. and Prognosys Biosciences, Inc. filed a complaint for patent infringement against Illumina, Inc. in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, asserting that Illumina’s spatial technology products infringed on patents covering technology for spatial transcriptomics, which allows researchers to study gene activity within a cell’s tissue. U.S. Patent Nos. 11,008,607, 11,549,138, 12,234,505, and 12,297,487 are owned by Prognosys Biosciences and have significant applications in cancer research, neuroscience and immunology.

The $1.5 billion settlement in Bartz v. Anthropic, recently granted preliminary approval, is the largest copyright settlement in American legal history. That’s impressive, but more important, it shows tech companies must play by the same rules as everyone else. Tech companies regularly ask for special treatment, arguing their innovations are too important to be slowed down by existing laws. But when these companies grow big enough to affect billions of people’s lives, those early shortcuts become serious problems.

Taking their cue from the recent Bartz v. Anthropic saga, the authors of a neuroscience book and professors at the State University of New York filed a class action complaint on October 9 with the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, alleging that Apple Inc. committed mass copyright infringement by using pirated books to train its artificial intelligence systems. Plaintiffs Susana Martinez-Conde and Stephen Macknik claimed that Apple built its Apple Intelligence platform, including its OpenELM and Foundation Models, by making unauthorized copies of copyrighted works without permission or compensation.

In 2025, three federal courts finally confronted a question that had hovered over artificial intelligence for years: can machines legally learn from copyrighted works? Each opinion—Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence, Bartz v. Anthropic, and Kadrey v. Meta Platforms—applied the four-factor fair-use test under 17 U.S.C. §107 to large-scale model training. Together, they form the first real framework for evaluating how copyright interacts with machine learning.

The United States Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a Statement of Interest on Monday in Disney Enterprises, Inc. v. InterDigital, Inc., et al., an antitrust case filed by Disney in August 2025 that alleged “abusive licensing practices,” monopolization of the video compression and streaming markets and Sherman Act violations by InterDigital. The DOJ’s statement opined that patents, including standard essential patents (SEPs), do not necessarily confer market power to the patentee.  

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Thursday issued a precedential decision in Rex Medical, L.P. v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc., affirming a district court’s exclusion of a patent owner’s damages expert and reduction of a $10 million jury award to nominal damages of $1. The decision, authored by Circuit Judge Stoll and joined by Circuit Judges Dyk and Prost, held that the United States District Court for the District of Delaware properly considered the requirements for expert testimony based on comparable license agreements to establish reasonable royalty damages.

A number of amici have weighed in this week supporting ROSS Intelligence’s appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit challenging the originality and fair use rulings of the District of Delaware in a copyright infringement case brought by global legal information company, Thomson Reuters. ROSS’s petition for review was granted by the Third Circuit in June.

On September 8, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a much-awaited ruling reversing the trial court’s dismissal of trademark claims filed by Trader Joe’s against the labor union Trader Joe’s United. The grocery franchise specifically protested the union’s sale of tote bags and other merchandise bearing the name “Trader Joe’s United.”  According to Trader Joe’s, this was a commercial use that caused consumer confusion related to sales of goods, thus exceeding the permissible function of simply identifying the union as being Trader Joe’s-related. The lower court dismissed the claims, but the appellate court reversed, on the basis that the merit of the claims could not be decided at such an early stage.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Tuesday issued a precedential decision in Focus Products Group International, LLC v. Kartri Sales Co., Inc., affirming-in-part, reversing-in-part, vacating-in-part, and remanding for a new trial involving patent, trademark, and trade dress infringement claims related to “hookless” shower curtains. The opinion, authored by Circuit Judge Chen, with Chief Judge Moore and Circuit Judge Clevenger joining, held that while the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York properly denied Kartri Sales Co., Inc.’s and Marquis Mills, International, Inc.’s venue transfer motion and unclean hands defense, it erred in several of its infringement findings and damages awards.

Imagine a friend borrows your car for a week. He promises to bring it back clean and full of gas. Reasonable enough, until you discover he racked up 1,500 miles because, while he wasn’t using it, he let his cousin run Uber shifts with it and pocketed a cut of the fares. You didn’t agree to that. You agreed to one driver, one purpose. The cousin had no right to free ride on your investment, devalue your property, or make money off your car without permission. Is it theft? Not quite. But it’s a textbook example of “conversion”—getting hold of something legally to use for a specific purpose, then deploying it in a very different manner. That, in essence, is what Zillow stands accused of doing to CoStar: Co-opting photos that CoStar put into public view, without authorization, to drive its own profits. The alleged free ride could cost Zillow nearly $7 billion.