Posts in Technology & Innovation

Many intellectual property rights peacefully coexist because they apply to distinct aspects of a product. Issues can arise when intellectual property rights that expire and intellectual property rights that do not expire protect the same or overlapping features of the same product. One example is design patents and trade dress rights, both of which apply to non-functional ornamental features.

Artificial intelligence could help deliver the next generation of lifesaving medicines. It could also weaken the economic foundation that makes discovering those medicines possible. Both propositions deserve serious attention, and neither is mutually exclusive. Celebrating faster discovery tells only part of the story if the same technology allows competitors to appropriate the commercial opportunity created by pioneer research or obtain patent claims that obstruct the innovator’s next steps.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision today in Google LLC v. Valtrus Innovations Ltd., affirming a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision that found Google did not demonstrate the unpatentability of claims 1 through 23 of a patent on merging search-result lists. The court rejected arguments that the Board relied on legally insufficient evidence to corroborate an inventor’s conception testimony and that substantial evidence did not support a finding of reasonably continuous diligence.

Last week, the Court of Justice for the European Union (CJEU) issued a pair of press releases conveying important clarifications to large platform designations under a pair of major legislative packages regulating e-commerce within the EU: the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Digital Markets Act (DMA). In one ruling by the EU’s General Court, and another opinion issued by an Advocate General of the CJEU, large platform designations creating obligations under either of those acts have been upheld for both major social media platform TikTok and Stripchat, an online adult entertainment platform operated across the EU.

I have spent my career around artists: booking them, interviewing them, publishing their stories and watching how this business treats the people who make it run. Right now the most valuable thing many of those artists own is not a catalog. It is their voice. And in the United States, how well that voice is protected still depends on where you happen to be standing. That has to change. Congress should pass one federal voice-and-likeness right, and it should do it now.

Imagine a law which costs taxpayers nothing and creates no bureaucracy, all while providing critical incentives for turning billions of dollars of previously untapped government funded research into new products, companies and jobs which help drive American competitiveness. Imagine that this law is a recognized gold standard which our rivals are adopting. Now imagine that some voices are calling for us to abandon that model even though its documented impact has hit unprecedented levels.

On the eve of the one-year anniversary of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) to revise the rules of practice for the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), the Innovation Alliance is urging the administration to finalize the proposal. The NPRM was published on October 16, 2025, with the aim of focusing inter partes review (IPR) proceedings “on patent claims that have not previously been challenged in litigation or where prior litigation was resolved at an early stage.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Wednesday affirmed a decision for Hulu, LLC that dismissed a patent infringement suit brought by Piranha Media Distribution LLC because the asserted claims were found to be patent ineligible. The opinion was authored by Judge Cunningham. Piranha claimed that Hulu infringed its U.S. Patent Nos. 10,986,403 and 11,463,768, which relate to systems for integrating advertisements in digital media. The U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted Hulu’s motion to dismiss the complaint, finding that the claims were not directed to patent eligible subject matter.

Imagine building most of a great machine, and then filing a patent application on that machine because you want a return on the effort you spent building it. Years later, imagine filing a continuation-in-part (CIP) patent application after finishing the machine, and being told that in order to get the patent, you have to distinguish over your own initial disclosure. What a shame that this type of a statement has to be made to inventors. Patents are certainly needed to maintain competitive advantage, but one thing should not stand in the way of inventors who procure them—themselves.

Today, the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) issued a press release announcing a series of measures designed to create guidelines and administrative procedures for increasing transparency and efficiency surrounding the licensing of standard-essential patents (SEPs). The long-awaited announcement brings some relief to SEP owners concerned about the prospects of proposed SEP royalty rate proceedings and mandated disclosures, though the UK government still intends to “explore the introduction of a court-anchored” proceeding for determining fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) licensing obligations early in patent infringement proceedings in UK courts.

A new report that examines education at the leading U.S. business schools has found that more and better courses are being offered to students at graduate business programs about how intellectual property (IP) rights function in business, but not a single program requires an IP-related course be completed to obtain a degree.

There’s a curious double standard in the way we talk about intellectual property (IP) in America. When someone copies a copyrighted work without permission, we recognize that the creator has rights. Copyright infringement can even carry criminal penalties. When someone steals another person’s property, we call it theft, and criminal penalties can follow. But when a company uses someone else’s patented invention without permission, the patent owner who tries to stop it is often portrayed as the villain.

A brand protection program can remove thousands of infringing listings and still leave the business behind them largely intact. Sellers return under different accounts, storefronts multiply, and counterfeit goods continue reaching customers. AI compounds the problem: the same technology that helps rights holders detect infringement can help counterfeiters generate replacement listings and create new accounts more quickly. Such is the neverending game of whack-a-mole confronting brands.

The American Apparel & Footwear Association (AAFA) submitted comments to the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) on October 7, recommending that USTR include Facebook, Instagram, Alibaba.com, AliExpress, and DHgate in its 2026 Review of Notorious Markets for Counterfeiting and Piracy (NML) report. While Alibaba and DHgate platforms have been included on the list before, Facebook and Instagram have “avoided accountability” so far, according to the letter.