Posts in Technology & Innovation

Just over a month ago, the Human Artistry Campaign launched “Stealing Isn’t Innovation”—a graphic advertising campaign backed by over 1,000 artists, performers, authors, organizations and other creators. The Copyright Alliance joined dozens of groups and organizations supporting this powerful moment of creative community unity and strength. The campaign’s high-level three-word-message was simple and obvious, and difficult to contest. On a policy level, the campaign was widely, and correctly, understood as a clear statement supporting the core principle that training AI models on copyrighted works should be licensed by willing buyers and sellers.  “Big AI” published its response to this campaign in late February, speaking through two tech-aligned proxies—the Foundation for American Innovation (FAI) and Public Knowledge (PK). For a number of reasons, it’s deeply unpersuasive. 

I keep hearing the same thing from patent professionals across the industry—inside companies, inside law firms, and even from investors. Patent budgets are shrinking, expectations are rising, and nobody seems willing to admit what that combination actually means.

From a trickle just a few years ago, AI use in the patent profession has become a rushing torrent. AI tools, features, and applications are now an integral and sometimes invisible part of patent practice. From invention harvesting and prior art searching to drafting, filing, opinion work, litigation, and licensing, the savvy patent practitioner almost certainly has AI embedded somewhere in their workflow.

China, the EU and the UK are quietly rewriting the rules on standard-essential patents (SEPs) in ways that strip value from U.S. innovators’ technology. As the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) finalizes its 2026 Special 301 Report, Washington has a rare chance to call out these trading partners for turning global licensing into a government-managed exercise that drives royalty rates below market value.

In a recent Substack post discussing Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) policy and current U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) reforms, former USPTO Deputy Solicitor Thomas Krause referenced my PTAB case as part of his broader argument. Because my case was cited in that discussion, the factual record matters… My case does not support the claim that the PTAB primarily exists to correct examiner errors or clean up patents issued over missed prior art.

In a press release issued on Tuesday, Genevant Sciences and Arbutus Biopharma announced they have entered into a global settlement with Moderna, Inc. that could result in a payment of up to $2.5 billion. The announcement stated that the settlement resolves all U.S. and international patent litigation concerning the unauthorized use of Genevant’s and Arbutus’ lipid nanoparticle (LNP) delivery technology in Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccines. The agreement came just days before a highly anticipated jury trial was scheduled to begin in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

Welcome back to Cool AI Patents of the Month, where we spotlight inventive developments at the intersection of artificial intelligence (AI) and intellectual property. In this installment, we take a look at two standout innovations—one that could transform how we watch sports, and another that may reshape how our vehicles understand the road ahead. Both illustrate how quickly AI is integrating itself into our daily lives.

In a 2017 IPWatchdog article, I challenged practitioners engaged in patent prosecution: strive to embody the traits of an “IP counselor,” who brings a broader strategic mission and skill set than “just a patent prosecutor.” Likewise, I encouraged clients to retain IP counselors as their counsel of choice. My cautionary advice stemmed from patent prosecution’s vulnerability to complacency and commoditization, such as due to its structured nature and incentives to obtain as many patents as possible. In addition, relative to their peers, many practitioners provide relatively undifferentiated services, limiting their attractiveness to prospective clients and their staying power for existing clients.

Charge Fusion Technologies, LLC has managed to defend its patent at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC), with a split panel on Thursday affirming the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) decision that Tesla failed to prove Charge Fusion’s electric vehicle (EV) charger claims unpatentable. The opinion was authored by Judge Chen, who was joined by Judge Reyna, while Judge Dyk filed a dissenting opinion.

The U.S. Court of Appeal for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Tuesday issued three orders denying mandamus petitions filed by inter partes review (IPR) petitioners at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Each of the petitioners was seeking relief from the court to compel the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) to institute their IPR petitions, following decisions that denied institution of the IPRs.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today affirmed a summary judgment ruling from the United States District Court for the Northern District of New York finding the claims of a natural language processing patent asserted against Amazon.com, Inc. invalid for being directed to ineligible subject matter. Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and CF Dynamic Advances LLC originally brought the lawsuit against Amazon for infringement of United States Patent No. 7,177,798, which discloses a “method for processing a natural language input provided by a user.”

The Government Accountability Office (GAO) just released its assessment of the Biden Administration’s “Draft Interagency Guidance Framework for Considering the Exercise of March-In Rights.” A bipartisan combination of Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Chris Coons (D-DE) along with Congressmen Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Jake Auchincloss (D-MA) asked the GAO to evaluate the guidelines on three bases: what the guidelines did and how they were developed; stakeholder views on the draft; and the potential impact of the guidelines.

Earlier today, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce published a blog post following up to a comment submitted by the Chamber late last week to the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) urging the agency to rescind proposed price controls that would require pharmaceutical companies to offer drugs to Medicare on a “most-favored-nation” basis. The Chamber argues that applying foreign pricing controls on U.S. drug sales would have a deleterious impact on both American innovation and patient access to lifesaving treatments, and that such measures exceed CMS’ authority established by its governing statute.

Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Adam Schiff (D-CA), the Chairman and Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee’s Subcommittee on Intellectual Property, respectively, sent a letter on Thursday to Director of the American Law Institute Diane Wood asking for answers to 14 questions about the latest Copyright Restatement Project. The letter follows mass resignations from the project last year over concerns about the final product. Specifically, key copyright proponents resigned over what one of those who resigned, Copyright Alliance CEO Keith Kupferschmid, referred to as “a general undercurrent of anti-copyright sentiment that…manifests itself through a disproportionate focus on atypical court decisions that limit the scope of copyright protection.”

A British consumers’ organization has withdrawn its competition claim against Qualcomm after it determined the Competition Appeal Tribunal was likely to find Qualcomm was not at fault.    The consumers’ organization, Which?, filed the claim in February 2021 on behalf of around 29 million British consumers, alleging that Qualcomm had “breached UK competition law by taking advantage of its dominance in the patent-licensing and chipset markets.”