Posts in Government

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in Syngenta Crop Protection AG v. UPL Ltd., affirming a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision that held all challenged claims of a fungicide combination patent unpatentable. The CAFC rejected arguments from UPL Ltd. and affirmed the PTAB’s denial of leave for Syngenta Crop Protection AG to seek sanctions.

Today, the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) issued a press release announcing a series of measures designed to create guidelines and administrative procedures for increasing transparency and efficiency surrounding the licensing of standard-essential patents (SEPs). The long-awaited announcement brings some relief to SEP owners concerned about the prospects of proposed SEP royalty rate proceedings and mandated disclosures, though the UK government still intends to “explore the introduction of a court-anchored” proceeding for determining fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) licensing obligations early in patent infringement proceedings in UK courts.

There’s a curious double standard in the way we talk about intellectual property (IP) in America. When someone copies a copyrighted work without permission, we recognize that the creator has rights. Copyright infringement can even carry criminal penalties. When someone steals another person’s property, we call it theft, and criminal penalties can follow. But when a company uses someone else’s patented invention without permission, the patent owner who tries to stop it is often portrayed as the villain.

A brand protection program can remove thousands of infringing listings and still leave the business behind them largely intact. Sellers return under different accounts, storefronts multiply, and counterfeit goods continue reaching customers. AI compounds the problem: the same technology that helps rights holders detect infringement can help counterfeiters generate replacement listings and create new accounts more quickly. Such is the neverending game of whack-a-mole confronting brands.

The American Apparel & Footwear Association (AAFA) submitted comments to the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) on October 7, recommending that USTR include Facebook, Instagram, Alibaba.com, AliExpress, and DHgate in its 2026 Review of Notorious Markets for Counterfeiting and Piracy (NML) report. While Alibaba and DHgate platforms have been included on the list before, Facebook and Instagram have “avoided accountability” so far, according to the letter. 

One possible framework for protecting trade secrets while regulating AI is an International AI Assurance and Access Compact, organized around “verifiable reciprocity.” Participating jurisdictions would recognize defined compliance findings in exchange for comparable verification obligations, alongside commitments to fund regulatory capacity. This is a proposed arrangement, not existing law. Its consequences for intellectual property (IP) turn on what evidence travels across borders and what rights remain unaffected.

Today, the U.S. Copyright Office published a notice of inquiry (NOI) in the Federal Register soliciting public comment on issues related to music piracy threatening billions in U.S. domestic revenues generated by digital streaming. The Office’s NOI responds to a request into the prevalence of streaming fraud across the music industry issued by U.S. Representative Scott Fitzgerald (R-WI), who also voiced concerns about generative artificial intelligence’s (AI) impact on the music industry.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in In re Gamble affirming a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision that sustained an examiner’s rejection of multiple claims of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/490,077 as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. Section 112(b). The CAFC concluded that Oliver Wendel Gamble, who represented himself, forfeited any substantive argument on indefiniteness before the Board and on appeal.

In economic theory, corporate value creation can be attributed to many factors and conflicting preferences. Prioritizing different factors produces a set of different outcomes and the outcome that is seemingly most efficient becomes the accepted norm. Sometimes however, corporate actors rely on accepted business practices which, while taken in the pursuit of the most optimal outcome, facilitate market distortions. Hit by a compute-driven demand shock and faced with resource scarcity, Samsung, SK Hynix, and Micron have opted to allocate production capacity in a way that has exacerbated an industry- wide memory card supply shortage. But to fully understand why the price of hardware components and consumer electronic devices has been steadily surging, we must first start with Nvidia.

Carrie Hafeman, an independent inventor who has been fighting a years-long patent battle against Google and Microsoft, has filed a petition for rehearing of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s (CAFC’s) June 2026 precedential decision affirming Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decisions invalidating all claims of three of her patents. Hafeman is pursuing her case pro se after her attorneys recently withdrew.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision Friday in Pioneer Hi-Bred International, Inc. v. Inari Agriculture, Inc. affirming a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision that found claims 1 through 33 of a patent on herbicide-degrading enzymes unpatentable for lack of enablement. The CAFC rejected arguments that the PTAB improperly relied on experimental data generated after the patent’s priority date and abused its discretion in crediting an expert witness.

Congress has been holding hearings on pharmaceutical patents and drug prices, along with U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) fee-setting and oversight. During these hearings, America’s pharmaceutical innovators face an unusual criticism: They are accused of abusing the patent system not only when they invent new medicines, but also when they improve them.

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director John Squires faced the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Intellectual Property Tuesday in an oversight hearing pushing for more information on several of the policy changes his administration has put in place. The hearing was the last over which its current Chairman, Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC), will preside.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued an updated memorandum today addressed to all patent applicants and practitioners that provides a flowchart for analyzing Subject Matter Eligibility Declarations (SMEDs) submitted under 37 C.F.R. Section 1.132 and reviews best practices for submitting them. The memo, from USPTO Director John Squires, is an addendum to an April 2026 SMED memorandum and, according to the USPTO, “this memorandum is consistent with existing USPTO guidance and does not announce any new USPTO practice or procedure.”

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, IPWatchdog President Renée C. Quinn spoke with Coke Morgan Stewart. Formerly Acting Director and Deputy Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Stewart is now president and CEO of the Council for Innovation Promotion (C4IP). Their conversation, recorded at IPWatchdog’s 2026 Women’s IP Forum, examines what she learned while leading the agency, why she believes the patent system needs legislative reform, and how her experience has shaped her approach to leadership and advocacy.