Posts in Guest Contributors

In its recent petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, Google argues that patents can be invalid at any time, even decades after issuance, and therefore should remain open to inter partes review (IPR) challenges, regardless of age or how long they have been relied upon. At first glance, this sounds like a defense of patent quality. Coming from one of the most frequent users of the Patent Trial and Appeal board (PTAB) over the past decade — and arriving just as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) “settled expectations” doctrine begins to limit late-stage IPR challenges — it raises a sharper question: why now?

A person recently approached me at church with excitement regarding a software process he developed. His company was so pleased with the result that it is filing a patent, listing him as the inventor. This person knew that I had some kind of patent backstory, so he asked for my thoughts. My name is Jeffrey A. Killian, and I am the patent applicant in the Federal Circuit Court case # 2021 -2113 (In Re: Killian). I took no pleasure in telling my  friend at church that his patent application will be rejected. Plus, the official notice will have my precedential case quoted all over his rejection. With friends at church like me, who needs enemies? 

Trademark claims against Netflix concerning its popular “Running Point” comedy series were recently dismissed at the pleadings stage due to a one-letter misarticulation of applicable First Amendment law. The case, soon to be litigated on appeal, highlights the need to clarify the contours of trademark liability arising from creative works. Pepperdine University filed the lawsuit last year against Netflix and co-defendants Warner Bros. and Kaling International, just one week before the “Running Point” series premiere.  Loosely based on the life of Los Angeles Lakers owner Jeanie Buss, the series stars Kate Hudson as the owner of the fictional basketball team the Los Angeles Waves. The popular series, which amassed instant popularity and ranked as Netflix’s #1 TV show, was quickly ordered for a second season that premiered April 23, 2026.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a significant Decision on Remand on Monday, April 27, 2026, clarifying when estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(1) attaches and—critically—what it means to “request” a proceeding “before the Office.” The ruling arises from an increasingly common set of circumstances—HID had initially filed an inter partes review (IPR) against CPC Patent Technologies’ U.S. Patent No. 9,665,705, and subsequently requested ex parte reexamination requests of that same patent. Monday’s decision clarifies that a party is estopped from “requesting” ex parte reexam at the moment the IPR final written decision issues when the USPTO has yet to order ex parte reexam.

Most companies entering a joint development agreement are focused on making the project work. What they are less focused on—and what can create serious problems years down the line—is what happens to the confidential information shared during that project once it ends. That’s one of the central arguments Emily Teesdale, founder of Pivot IP, makes in a recent episode of IP Innovators.

Pharmaceutical patent litigators are no strangers to the delicate dance between the Hatch-Waxman Act and 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). On one side of this statutory tightrope lies the Hatch-Waxman Act’s Section VIII pathway, which was designed to expedite affordable generic competition by allowing manufacturers to seek Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval solely for unpatented indications—the proverbial “skinny label.” On the flip side lies Section 271(b), which imposes strict liability on anyone who “actively induces” patent infringement.

A recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision applying California trade secret law offers a timely reminder that published patent materials cannot easily be recast as trade secrets. In International Medical Devices, Inc. v. Cornell, the Federal Circuit reversed trade-secret liability and vacated related damages and injunctive relief after concluding that the plaintiffs had not shown protectable trade secrets under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act.

Welcome back to Cool AI Patents of the Month, where we highlight innovations that blur the line between science fiction and real-world engineering. Last month, we looked at AI-generated voice replicas, particularly in sports broadcasting. That concept is no longer theoretical. Major League Baseball players have reportedly entered into agreements enabling the creation of AI-driven digital avatars, allowing fans to engage directly with AI-generated versions of their favorite players. The takeaway is clear: personality and likeness are being productized. What once seemed futuristic is quickly becoming commercially relevant.

Intellectual property (IP) protections don’t merely shield Americans’ ideas and designs from theft—they underpin our entire economy and standard of living. Approximately 90% of the market value of the S&P 500 is in intangible assets, based on IP. Weakened IP protections erode American prosperity and human potential as IP-intensive industries support 63 million U.S. jobs and account for over 40% of America’s economic output.

The Supreme Court’s decision to hear Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc. is puzzling—and revealing. On its face, the case presents a narrow question: whether a generic drug manufacturer can be held liable for inducing patent infringement based on how it markets a product approved under a so-called “skinny label.” The dispute turns on whether Hikma’s conduct plausibly encouraged physicians to prescribe its generic drug for a patented use. But the Court’s decision to grant certiorari reflects something broader: a continued focus on lowering drug prices through faster generic entry, even at the risk of undermining the patent incentives that make pharmaceutical innovation possible.

In 2025, trademark cases filed in United States District Courts increased 25% from 2024 (up 848 cases to 4,211). Many of those cases were “Schedule A” lawsuits, a niche form of intellectual property litigation that joins multiple foreign-based ecommerce stores selling counterfeit, pirated, or other infringing products in a single lawsuit. In Schedule A cases, plaintiffs typically include multiple offshore online infringers and seek an asset restraint to prevent them from transferring their ill-gotten gains abroad. This article explores the Schedule A litigation model and provides best practices for intellectual property litigators. 

Standard essential patents (SEPs) don’t generate controversy because people disagree on whether innovation deserves compensation. The controversy runs deeper: everyone agrees it does, but nobody agrees on how much, when, or through which court. That tension was the animating force behind the panel Global SEP Litigation, Licensing and Dealmaking, on day two of IPWatchdog LIVE 2026 last month. Moderated by Shawnna Yashar (O’Melveny & Myers LLP), the panel featured Ali Allawi (Warner Bros. Discovery), Matteo Sabattini (Sisvel Group), and David Yurkerwich (Ankura). All four practitioners see the SEP licensing ecosystem from very different vantage points and arrived without a shared script.

On February 3, 2026, Sisvel took a significant step forward in advancing transparency through its collaboration with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). This initiative integrates verified SEP data into WIPO’s PATENTSCOPE platform, making it easier for users to access information about patents that have been identified as essential to the relevant standard through the mechanisms of Sisvel’s FRAND-based patent pools.

I have been to China several times over the past decade. Each time, I came back with the same reaction: too many people in the United States are still badly underestimating what is happening there. I do not say that as a political statement. I say it as a practical one. There is still a surprisingly common view in American business circles that China’s patent activity is mostly noise. Too many filings. Too much subsidy. Too little real innovation. The implication is that, yes, China may be filing a mountain of patents, but most of it can safely be discounted. I think that view is becoming harder and harder to defend.