Posts in Guest Contributors

Most patent attorneys know the Jerome Lemelson story—the prolific inventor whose aggressive use of continuation and continuation-in-part applications resulted in some patents remaining pending for decades, earning the label of “submarine patents.” While Lemelson’s tactics sparked controversy and eventual legislative reforms aimed at curbing undue delays, one principle emerged clearly from his experiences: new matter in patent law must receive a new priority date…. To patent applicants, 35 U.S.C. § 132(a) means that the detailed description of their non-provisional patent applications must be perfect when filed, and that even if new information is discovered after filing, no changes can be made. In practice, this is an extremely harsh standard, and is disproportionately punitive to small business inventors who lack the deep pockets to absorb repeated filing costs and years of delay.

Stock photos. Blog thumbnails. Social media posts. Hero images. The image that makes a website look finished is often the same image that triggers a copyright demand letter. The facts usually are ordinary, not dramatic. A business hires a web designer or marketing contractor. The contractor pulls an image from someplace online, uses it on a site or post, and disappears. Months later, the owner receives a letter attaching a Visual Arts, or VA, registration and threatening statutory damages.

The Canadian Intellectual Property Office (CIPO) has materially changed how examiners are instructed to apply the law on patentable subject matter. In March 2026, CIPO replaced its November 2020 practice notice on computer-implemented inventions, medical diagnostic methods, and medical uses. The 2026 notice represents an important development for current Canadian prosecution practice.

Recent developments in ex parte Corteva Agriscience LLC (Reexamination Control 90/019,130; Patent 10,947,555 B2) clarify obviousness-type double patenting (ODP) in the context of patent families with multiple continuations and varying patent term adjustments (PTA)…. In Corteva, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) distinguished Cellect and extended Allergan by holding that a child patent (here, the ’555 patent) is not unpatentable for ODP if it does not expire later than the original patent in the family, including any PTA awarded to the original patent. Below is a figure from Corteva.

On June 15, 2026, a federal court in San Francisco dismissed xAI’s trade secret claims against OpenAI with prejudice. The dismissal came with prejudice for a reason that sits at the heart of this article: xAI had sought to keep the case alive long enough to obtain, in discovery, the evidence it lacked at filing. The court refused, holding that a plaintiff “was required to have completed its investigation of its claims before filing suit, not after.” Put differently: the court did not treat a job interview as a trade secret extraction ceremony.

It’s easy to take for granted that books, news, films, shows, songs, video games, photographs, artwork, and more are ubiquitously available through apps, streams, downloads and other digital means. But the thriving legitimate digital marketplace we enjoy today didn’t emerge by accident. It was built, in significant part, on the historical bedrock of secondary liability—the well-established common-law legal principle that one who assists another in committing a wrong is just as liable as the direct wrongdoer. In the internet ecosystem, that means platforms, internet service providers (ISPs), and other online intermediaries bear some responsibility when they knowingly facilitate or profit from copyright infringement.

For capital-hungry small businesses and startups, the difference between a pending patent application and an enforceable, issued patent is often the difference between thriving and stalling. Yet the current path to receiving a Notice of Allowance—the final signal of approval from the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (USPTO)—remains slow and expensive. Both of these critical problems can be solved by the USPTO right now through a simple but powerful new tool: an Automatic Allowance Option.

Tomorrow, June 17, the Senate HELP Committee will vote on a raft of bills aimed at making medical care more affordable. That’s a worthy goal. But in the case of the Medication Affordability and Patent Integrity Act, lawmakers are setting themselves—and patients and the rest of us—up for failure. The legislation seeks to prevent drug companies from gaming the patent system by holding these firms to new disclosure and certification requirements. How the bill is supposed to save patients money is far from obvious. What is more, there are already laws against the kind of abuse the legislation targets. And there is little to suggest those rules aren’t working.

The ongoing trademark dispute between outdoor apparel company Patagonia and environmental activist and drag performer Pattie Gonia has generated considerable public attention. To many observers, the case appears to be a clash between a large corporation and an individual activist who shares many of the company’s environmental values. But viewed through the lens of trademark law, the dispute raises a far more nuanced question.

The United States is the only country in the world where the judiciary forces patent term truncation over unrelated patent families. In Europe, China, and most other nations, the patent laws provide a “novelty only” standard for patent applications filed before the publication of a different earlier filed patent application, and a “novelty and inventive step” standard for patent applications filed after the publication of an earlier filed patent application. The law in virtually every country outside the United States works well using this framework.

Gilbert Hyatt is a prolific independent inventor known for his large number of patent applications held up for decades at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) and the courts. In its decisions in Hyatt v. Hirshfeld, 998 F. 3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (Hyatt I) and Hyatt v. Stewart, 148 F. 4th 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2025) (Hyatt II), the Federal Circuit held that he forfeited his patent rights under the prosecution laches doctrine

Many of us have spent our careers defending and promoting our patent system and related policies like the Bayh-Dole Act, which injected the authorities and incentives of patent ownership into the federal R&D system so that resulting discoveries would no longer waste away on the shelves, benefitting no one. While we usually focus on statistics, legal analysis and case studies, sometimes the impact of what we’re doing hits you square in the face. Last week, I was fortunate enough to have that happen and it’s an experience I’ll never forget.

At a recent Senate Judiciary Subcommittee hearing, Register of Copyrights Shira Perlmutter noted that Congress may need to overturn this year’s unanimous decision in the Cox v. Sony Supreme Court case or create a new “site blocking” regime to force internet service providers (ISPs) to block access to certain internet sites. The only problem? To put it bluntly, she is wrong.

Have you ever drafted a claim set with a second claim that began, “the system of claim 2, wherein…” when you meant to write “the system of claim 1”? It’s embarrassing because every first-year patent attorney knows that a dependent patent claim cannot depend on itself. However, making the error is inevitable when you draft a large number of patent applications. The good news is, if you upload such a claim to today’s Patent Center (where patent applications are filed), you will be provided with the following alert: “The claims appear to contain an improper dependency with at least one claim that depends on a missing or canceled claim. Please review and revise if necessary”. How beautiful is this? Now you can self-correct before your patent application is even filed. Ten years ago, you would have to go back and forth with a patent examiner to correct the error.