Posts in Government

Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Adam Schiff (D-CA), the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, respectively, sent a letter on Thursday to Director of the American Law Institute Diane Wood asking for answers to 14 questions about the latest Copyright Restatement Project. The letter follows mass resignations from the project last year over concerns about the final product. Specifically, key copyright proponents resigned over what one of those who resigned, Copyright Alliance CEO Keith Kupferschmid, referred to as “a general undercurrent of anti-copyright sentiment that…manifests itself through a disproportionate focus on atypical court decisions that limit the scope of copyright protection.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Wednesday affirmed in part a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) finding certain claims of ST Case1Tech, LLC’s (ST1’s) patent obvious, but vacated the decision as to two claims that petitioner Samsung had not challenged before the Board. The panel included Judges Reyna, Taranto and Stark and was authored by Judge Stark.

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed we discuss whether patent owners are better off facing post-grant challenges at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) or the Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). PTAB practitioners Matt Phillips and Kevin Greenleaf joined me for about how patent owners and challengers should be strategically thinking about the shifting post-grant environment at the USPTO. Our conversation highlights the growing reality that post-grant practice is no longer defined solely by inter partes review (IPR), but that ex parte reexamination has seen a resurgence in popularity, which requires careful evaluating timing, procedural dynamics, cost, and institutional realities. Fundamentally we attempt to answer the question of whether patent owners are better off in reexamination, or whether they are better off with IPR at the PTAB.

The U.S. Copyright Office on Friday released its report pursuant to the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement (CASE) Act, finding that the Copyright Claims Board (CCB) is largely successful but that there is “room for improvement in various respects.” The Copyright Claims Board (CCB), established by the December 2020 CASE Act, is an alternative to federal court where copyright owners can bring suits before a tribunal at the Copyright Office.

On Tuesday, news reports indicated that U.S. Senators Adam Schiff (D-CA) and John Curtis (R-UT) introduced the Copyright Labeling and Ethical AI Reporting (CLEAR) Act into Congress. If enacted as drafted, the bill would establish mandatory reporting requirements for companies developing artificial intelligence (AI) models that are trained using original works that are protected under U.S. copyright law, and would create an additional cause of action for copyright owners alleging that generative AI developers failed to give such notice with respect to their works.

During a Subcommittee hearing of the Senate Appropriations Committee today, Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick confirmed to Senator Chris Coons (D-DE) that he does not plan to implement his proposal to charge patent holders a percentage their patents’ value. The Commerce, Justice, Science, and Related Agencies Subcommittee held the hearing primarily to as Lutnick questions about issues surrounding broadband deployment funding. Coons, however, took the opportunity to ask Lutnick about a proposal first reported by the Wall Street Journal in July 2025 to charge a 1%-5% patent “tax” on the value of granted U.S. patents.

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, I speak with Todd Walters, who is Chair of the Patent Office Litigation practice group at Buchanan. We explore the current state of Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) practice and the growing tension among stakeholders as policy changes continue to reshape post-grant proceedings. We reflect on the intensity of opinion from patent owners and petitioners and discuss the high financial stakes and strategic importance of AIA proceedings.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Wednesday affirmed a district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of AeroVironment, Inc. in a patent infringement suit brought by inventors Paul and David Arlton. The decision held that AeroVironment’s affirmative defense under 28 U.S.C. § 1498 covered all of its alleged infringing activities related to the Ingenuity Mars helicopter. AeroVironment cross-appealed the district court’s denial of its motion for attorneys’ fees.

On February 2, 2026, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Joshua D. Wolson, sitting by designation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, made several key summary judgment rulings in advance of trial in Arbutus Biopharma Corporation and Genevant Sciences GmbH (collectively “Arbutus”) v. Moderna, Inc. and ModernaTx, Inc.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) de-designated two decisions having to do with real-parties-in interest from precedential status on Tuesday. The Office de-designated Proppant Express Invests., LLC v. Oren Techs., LLC, IPR2017-01917, Paper 86 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2019); and Adello Biologics LLC v. Amgen Inc., PGR2019-00001, Paper 11 (PTAB Feb. 14, 2019). According to a USPTO email sent Tuesday, both decisions conflict with the decision in Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband Inc., IPR2014-00440, Paper 68 (PTAB Aug. 18, 2015) (precedential).

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Tuesday affirmed two final written decisions from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, concluding that the board did not err in finding claims of two Eagle View Technologies, Inc. patents unpatentable as obvious. Eagle View Technologies, Inc. had appealed the PTAB’s decisions, which held that claims of its U.S. Patent Nos. 8,670,961 and 8,078,436 were obvious over a combination of prior art references. The patents, both titled “Aerial Roof Estimation Systems and Methods,” share a common specification and relate to systems and methods that allow estimates involving roofs on buildings to be created remotely. The patents teach remotely generating a roof estimate report by analyzing multiple aerial images of a building to determine the area, shape, and slope of the roof.

On Thursday, the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and the European Patent Office (EPO) issued a joint report on IP and innovation in various industrial sectors of the European economy. Identifying IP-driven industries by analyzing registrations for IP rights within the EU, the agencies conclude that such industries contribute nearly half of the entire European gross domestic product (GDP) while also providing a third of the EU’s jobs, which offer workers larger wages on average when compared to total EU employment.

Panelists at IPWatchdog’s Virtual PTAB Masters Program 2026 last week had some cynical views on chances for pending patent reform bills, while on Friday other experts offered insights into developments at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) with respect to review of Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) cases. Speaking on Thursday’s panel, titled “Capitol Hill & PTAB Politics: Innovation Policy, Congressional Oversight and Mid-term Elections,” panelists first addressed the chances of bills such as the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA) and the Promoting and Respecting Economically Vital American Innovation Leadership (PREVAIL) Act advancing this year.

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Deputy Director Coke Morgan Stewart joined IPWatchdog’s Founder and CEO Gene Quinn this morning to kick off the Virtual PTAB Masters Program 2026. Discussing the many procedural changes that have been implemented at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) under first Stewart as Acting Director and then current Director John Squires’, Stewart urged patent owners responding to petitions at the PTAB to tell their stories and petitioners to focus on patents in need of clear “error correction.”

On January 23, the United States Department of Justice (DOJ) urged the U.S. Supreme Court to reject a petition from Stephen Thaler, who seeks copyright protection for a work created by his artificial intelligence (AI) system. The DOJ argued that the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit correctly upheld the United States Copyright Office’s refusal to register a copyright for an image that was admittedly created without human authorship.