Posts in IP News

A trademark dispute between The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (“the Church”) and the Mormon Stories Podcast (“the Podcast”) has  this week become a broader fight over the Church’s Mormon-related trademark portfolio. The Church’s complaint, filed on April 17, 2026, alleged that the Podcast’s name, branding, and use of Church imagery create a likelihood of confusion regarding whether the Podcast is actually affiliated with the Church. Meanwhile, the Podcast’s answer to the complaint and counterclaim goes further. Rather than merely denying infringement, the Podcast is now seeking cancellation of multiple Mormon-related trademarks owned by the Church..

The Supreme Court should grant certiorari in Hyatt v. Squires—a case it is scheduled to consider later this week—and finally put an end to prosecution laches in patent law. Not limit it. Not cabin it. Not send the Federal Circuit back to craft yet another multi-factor balancing test that will inevitably metastasize into a litigation weapon. The Supreme Court must end prosecution laches once and for all, period.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Tuesday issued a decision in Enanta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Pfizer Inc., affirming summary judgment that all claims of Enanta Pharmaceuticals, Inc.’s U.S. Patent 11,358,953 are invalid as anticipated. The court held that Enanta’s provisional application failed to provide adequate written description support under 35 U.S.C. Section 112 for a key chemical substituent claimed in the ‘953 patent. As a result, the patent could not claim the provisional’s earlier priority date and was anticipated by Pfizer’s prior disclosure of nirmatrelvir.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) on late Monday issued a notice designating as precedential a Sua Sponte Director Review Order of a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision granting institution in three inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. The order waived the 14-day deadline for requesting Director Review of a decision to institute trial and denied institution under Hulu, LLC v. Piranha Media Distribution, LLC, IPR2024-01252, Paper 27 (Director Apr. 17, 2025).

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied a petition for certiorari in Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corporation v. Unified Patents LLC, a case that asked the High Court to consider whether patent owners have a right to require Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) petitioners to identify all real parties in interest (RPIs) in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. The petition stems from a precedential June 2025 U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) decision dismissing Dolby Labs’ appeal from the PTAB for lack of an injury-in-fact to confer Article III standing. The Federal Circuit held that, although patent owners might have the right to dispute unnamed RPIs during IPR proceedings, the America Invents Act (AIA) does not give patent owners a freestanding right to identify RPIs.

The Supreme Court of the United States denied certiorari today in Game Plan, Inc. v. Uninterrupted IP, LLC, leaving in place a precedential decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) that affirmed the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board’s (TTAB’s) cancellation of Game Plan’s trademark registration and dismissal of its opposition to six intent-to-use applications filed by Uninterrupted IP, LLC (UNIP).

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.

Last week, economic consulting firm Cornerstone Research published a report, titled Intellectual Property Litigation: U.S. Trends in Global Perspective, detailing global diversification in patent litigation and indicating that the United States is no longer the dominant forum for patent disputes. This shift away from a U.S.-centric infringement landscape has taken place at the same time that intangible assets now represent the vast majority of corporate value with many intellectual property (IP) owners increasingly choosing trade secret protection for domestic disputes, a trend being driven by advances in artificial intelligence (AI) technology.

This week in Other Barks & Bites: Circuit Judge Leonard Stark authors a concurrence explaining the Federal Circuit’s changes to the skilled searcher test in Ironburg Inventions v. Valve; Senate committees separately advance bills aimed at clarifying the framework for likeness rights in collegiate sports and creating a federal right to a person’s likeness; the Senate Finance Committee announces a hearing to vet several of President Trump’s nominees, including Peter-Anthony Pappas; USPTO Director John Squires issues a decision declining discretionary denial and designated informative in part for its analysis of U.S. manufacturing considerations; and more.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision today in Ironburg Inventions Ltd. v. Valve Corporation, reversing a district court ruling that had estopped Valve Corporation from asserting two invalidity grounds at trial. The majority opinion, authored by Judge Hughes, concluded that the district court relied on insufficient evidence to estop one ground and failed to adequately account for hindsight bias in estopping the other. Judge Stark filed a concurring opinion.

The full Senate Judiciary Committee on Thursday unanimously advanced the “Nurture Originals, Foster Art, and Keep Entertainment Safe Act of 2026” (NO FAKES Act), which would create a federal IP right to an individual’s voice and likeness. The Judiciary Committee unanimously voted to report the bill to the full Senate today. Senator Coons said in his remarks on the bill that with the capabilities of current and future AI technology, a personal right to control one’s voice and likeness is imperative.

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.

The Senate Health, Education, Labor & Pensions (HELP) Committee held a hearing today during which they debated and ultimately advanced two bills targeting brand pharmaceutical companies. Committee Chairman Bill Cassidy (R-LA) led the hearing, urging fellow Republicans not to be fooled by what he called the “hostage taking theatrics” of Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT). Sanders, the Committee’s Ranking Member, introduced nine amendments to the “Ensuring Timely Access to Generics Act,” which was ultimately not voted on.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in Boston Scientific Corp. v. Stryker Corporation, affirming the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey’s denial of a preliminary injunction that Boston Scientific Corp. and Relievant Medsystems, Inc. sought to block Stryker Corporation’s launch of its OptaBlate BVN spinal ablation device. The dispute centered on whether Stryker’s product induced infringement of claims 16 and 21 of the U.S. Patent No. 12,303,166.

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.