Posts in Guest Contributors

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) Office of Enrollment and Discipline (OED) posted a final order to its website on August 27, publicly reprimanding a California patent attorney for submitting a claim construction chart containing citations that generative AI invented — not to case law, but to the intrinsic record of the patent in suit. In re Brian E. Mitchell, Proceeding No. D2026-16, resolves by settlement. Mitchell executed the agreement on July 20, 2026, and the OED Director on July 21. Tricia Choe, Associate General Counsel for General Law, approved it on July 27 on delegated authority from Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and USPTO Director John A. Squires.

In 2025, a patent dispute between Chinese companies in the camera-module space drew close attention across the industry — SUNNY v. AAC [Patent Reexamination and Invalidation Department Decision No. 566288, et al.]. The case ended with 11 patents invalidated, four of them in their entirety. There was a single reason: the claims were not supported by the specification.

U.S. companies planning to enter Nigeria typically build a careful playbook for market research, distribution, hiring, and regulatory compliance. Intellectual property is often the item furthest down that list, treated as paperwork to handle once commercial activity is already underway. That sequencing is backwards, and it is worth understanding why.

For many small businesses, uncertainty in patent prosecution can mean the difference between a strong issued patent and either abandonment or suboptimal coverage. One source of uncertainty in today’s system is final office action practice. Recent data suggests that roughly 42% of patent applications receive a final office action, meaning they are not allowed initially or after a response to a non-final office action. While receiving a final office action does not close the door on a patent application, it does give examiners greater discretion in directing its path. This discretion is unnecessary and can be eliminated by tying U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) fees more closely to the actual content and complexity of each office action response.

Artificial intelligence (AI) and quantum computing are compressing the invention cycle itself. That compression is no longer theoretical. Discovery Loop, a new public benefit corporation founded by leading former Google and Google DeepMind researchers, has announced a mission to automate experimental loops of the scientific method; the AItonomy Foundation similarly frames automated experimental loops as a path to accelerating science and engineering. The trend is also visible in Faraday, a recent AI model for automated scientific discovery that links model-driven hypothesis generation with iterative experimentation and R&D workflows, further illustrating how AI systems are moving from passive analysis toward active participation in the scientific method.

About 20 years ago, Hotels.com had a series of commercials starring a character called “Captain Obvious.” This character would make observations that were funny because they were apparent to all. And that is what non-patent lawyers think of when it comes to something that is obvious. That is also the approach taken in a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) cases, i.e. the “Captain Obvious” approach. Specifically, the recent Nielsen (The Nielsen Co. (US), LLC, v. TVision Insights, Inc., —

On June 30, 2026, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet held a hearing titled, “A Midlife Crisis? IP and the Internet After 40,” which examined whether current U.S. intellectual property laws and enforcement mechanisms are effective against Internet-driven infringement and counterfeiting. The hearing focused on online counterfeiting, digital piracy, and AI-enabled or generated infringement and digital replicas. The hearing also considered the difficulty in enforcing rights against overseas operators, and enforcement tools to address these issues, including Schedule A litigation and website blocking.

For more than two centuries, the patent system has rested on a simple bargain: inventors publicly disclose their inventions in exchange for a limited monopoly. That bargain assumes disclosure primarily benefits competitors, researchers, and the public. Today, however, the audience has changed. Patent filings are now mined not only by competitors, but by governments, intelligence agencies, sovereign investors, and increasingly sophisticated artificial intelligence systems capable of analyzing millions of documents simultaneously. The result is that patent databases have become one of the world’s richest sources of open-source technological intelligence.

A conglomerate—a large enterprise comprising multiple discrete companies, divisions, or business units—may come into being organically or inorganically, due to business growth, expansion into new markets, internal restructuring, or a merger, acquisition, or joint venture. Regardless of a conglomerate’s origin story, its leaders face a fundamental question: How should they structure the intellectual property or legal function to optimally serve the needs and interests of the divisions and the conglomerate at large?

As AI assistants take over product discovery and purchase, the likelihood of confusion test is losing the consumer it was built around. And brands are therefore losing their primary line of defense. For decades, building a brand has meant the same, patient work. You develop a differentiated story, then bring it to life everywhere a customer might meet it: Advertising; digital; packaging; product design; customer care. Every piece is guided by consumer insight, a hard-won read on what a person feels at each stage of the journey, from the first moment of awareness through consideration to the purchase itself.

Trade secrets occupy a unique position among the major forms of intellectual property. Patents, copyrights, and trademarks are, by design, defined and publicly registered, and can be consulted to determine exactly what is claimed. In contrast, trade secrets depend on their being undisclosed. This creates a structural problem the moment a trade secret owner goes to court. Because they are secret, they cannot be identified in public filings without destroying the very subject matter of the plaintiff’s claim. On the other hand, defendants must understand what the secrets are and what they’ve allegedly misappropriated. In addition, the court needs to know what the case is about to manage it.

On August 4, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) chose to issue a precedential opinion formally holding that there is no “presumption of irreparable harm” in preliminary injunction proceedings in patent cases. The court acknowledged that this conclusion should have been apparent from the 2006 Supreme Court decision in eBay  Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388, 393-94 (2006).

As the institution rate of inter partes reviews (IPRs) has plunged under U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director John Squires, parties have increasingly turned to ex parte reexaminations (EPRs) to challenge patents. The number of requests for EPRs has skyrocketed. The number of EPR requests more than doubled between 2020 (198 requests) and 2025 (481 requests). See USPTO Reexam Statistics. Based on the number of requests for EPRs (831) assigned a filing date through Q3 of 2026, we are on track to have more than 1,100 requests for EPRs filed in FY2026. See USPTO Operational Statistics.

What value is a patent that expires before it issues? Until recently, that question seemed wholly academic. In In re Forest, however, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) answered it directly: A patent that issues after its expiration date has no value; it provides neither exclusionary rights nor provisional rights. In the court’s view, the applicant has no cognizable interest in the patent or the application on which it would be based.