Posts in Technology & Innovation

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order list denying a petition for writ of certiorari filed by inventor Noah Healy to challenge rulings upholding a patent examiner’s subject matter eligibility rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Healy’s pro se petition challenged the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s decision to affirm the examiner’s rejection as violating the meaningful review requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act (APA) due to conflicting statutory theories on patentability that were never sufficiently explained by the agency.

On day one of IPWatchdog LIVE 2026, panelists discussed the global IP landscape, the economics of patent portfolios, patent dealmaking and the ins and outs of drug patent critiques, before U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) Judge Pauline Newman and Retired CAFC Judge Paul Michel introduced the recipients of their respective eponymous awards for 2026.

As discussed in my prior article, the growing adoption and sophistication of assistive AI tools for patent prosecution are paving the way for material business and career impacts, such as decreased prosecution revenue and reduced staffing over the long term. Despite these potential risks, practitioners and enterprises may experience widely differing outcomes due to their client mix, expertise, and capacity to navigate shifting winds to advantage.

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce’s Global Innovation Policy Center (GIPC) today released its 2026 International IP Index, which flagged concerning trends about the “growing erosion of IP leadership” among the world’s high-performing economies, according to the report’s authors. In particular, the report noted that scores in eight EU Member States have declined this year, although the top ten rankings remained the same from 2025. The United States was again number one, with a relatively stable score of 95.15% compared with last year’s 95.17%.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today issued two precedential decisions in The Trustees of Columbia University of the City of New York v. Gen Digital Inc., reversing, vacating and remanding a district court judgment that Columbia’s patent claims were patent eligible in one, and reversing a contempt order against the Defendant’s counsel, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, in another.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) today issued a precedential decision in Richard Gramm, Reaper Solutions LLC v. Deere & Company, reversing a district court’s judgment of invalidity due to indefiniteness. The court determined that the district court improperly restricted the corresponding structure of a means-plus-function claim limitation to a structure that was not necessary to perform the recited function. The court also held that no algorithm disclosure was required, since an older version of the accused structure used logic circuitry rather than a microprocessor.

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.