Posts in Technology & Innovation

When the Senate Judiciary Committee examines the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (PERA)      this week, lawmakers won’t simply be debating patent law. They’ll be deciding whether America remains the best place in the world to invent tomorrow’s technologies. That question has taken on new urgency following a series of Supreme Court decisions. In the wake of those rulings, inventors, investors, and even judges have struggled to determine whether many groundbreaking discoveries qualify for patent protection.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in In re Magnolia Medical Technologies, Inc., affirming a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision from an ex parte reexamination that found claim 1 of U.S. Patent 10,039,483 anticipated and therefore unpatentable.

Broad functional genus claiming was previously a standard strategy for innovators seeking IP protection for antibodies. Prior guidance from the USPTO, including the “newly characterized antigen” test, encouraged broad claiming of antibodies based upon their function alone. For decades, that effectively allowed innovators to claim much more than they in fact discovered in practice. In the wake of the Supreme Court’s Amgen decision, courts have adopted the reasoning articulated in Amgen to strike down functional genus antibody claims for lacking either enablement or written description.

A faith-technology company has done something the IP world should notice. Gloo — a Boulder, Colorado, firm that serves churches, ministries, and Christian universities, and now trades on the Nasdaq — built a benchmark it calls Flourishing AI Christian, or FAI-C. The finding is blunt: Today’s leading large language models, tested on questions of meaning, character, and faith, come up short. On a 100-point flourishing scale, the frontier models averaged 61. On the faith dimension, they scored worst of all.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in Dental Monitoring SAS v. Align Technology, Inc., affirming a district court ruling that found several patent claims covering deep learning based dental image analysis invalid as directed to ineligible subject matter under Section 101. Dental Monitoring SAS owns U.S. Patent 11,049,248 and U.S. Patent 10,755,409, both of which relate to dental arch image analysis. The ‘248 patent covers “a method for assessing the shape of an orthodontic aligner using a deep learning device,” while the ‘409 patent covers a method for acquiring and analyzing an image of a dental arch using the same type of device.

The House Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet held a hearing on Tuesday, titled “A Midlife Crisis? IP and the Internet After 40.” The hearing examined the changes that have occurred over the last four decades of the internet and featured witnesses including celebrities, academics and computer and media experts.

Over the past year, while advising clients on standard essential patent (SEP) matters and following the rapid development of SEP litigation in Brazil, I found myself revisiting a question that foreign clients often ask: Is Brazil really a jurisdiction where patent rights can be effectively enforced? The question is particularly common among technology companies evaluating enforcement strategies across multiple jurisdictions. While Brazil is one of the world’s largest markets, many foreign patent owners remain less familiar with its courts than those of the United States, Europe, China or Japan. Recent SEP litigation provides an interesting lens through which to answer that question.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision today in Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Hetero Labs Limited, affirming a preliminary injunction that blocks Hetero Labs Limited from launching a generic version of the neurological drug Nuedexta. The court also vacated a district court order that had excused Otsuka from posting a bond pending appeal, remanding the issue for further proceedings. Circuit Judge Dyk dissented in part from the majority’s claim construction and would have reversed the injunction.

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.

The U.S. Supreme Court today granted certiorari in Apple Inc.’s appeal of a civil contempt finding stemming from its App Store dispute with Epic Games, Inc. The case centers on a 2021 injunction issued by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and a subsequent contempt order tied to Apple’s commission structure on external purchases.

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.

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.

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.