Most companies entering a joint development agreement are focused on making the project work. What they are less focused on—and what can create serious problems years down the line—is what happens to the confidential information shared during that project once it ends. That’s one of the central arguments Emily Teesdale, founder of Pivot IP, makes in a recent episode of IP Innovators.

Harrity & Harrity is expanding and seeks experienced patent attorneys or agents who thrive in handling electrical or mechanical technology. You will draft and prosecute high-value applications for world-class innovators while working remotely (in the U.S.) within a close-knit, highly collaborative team. A solid foundation in semiconductors or 5G wireless is a welcome plus.

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, my conversation with Hilary Preston, partner at Vinson & Elkins and co-head of its intellectual property and technology litigation practice, underscores a fundamental shift underway in how sophisticated organizations approach intellectual property. What was once a reactive, litigation-centric discipline, is rapidly evolving into something far more strategic—an integrated function that sits at the intersection of technology, business, and risk management. Ultimately, what emerged from this discussion is a vision of IP practice that is far more integrated and strategic than the traditional model. It is a shift from courtroom to boardroom counselor—from reactive defense to proactive governance. For practitioners, this requires a broader skill set and a willingness to engage deeply with technology and business. For clients, it offers the promise of more effective risk management and better alignment between legal strategy and commercial objectives.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision today in Constellation Designs, LLC v. LG Electronics Inc., vacating in part and affirming in part a decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The CAFC determined that the district court incorrectly found the “optimization claims” of Constellation Designs, LLC’s patents directed to eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, but correctly found the “constellation claims” eligible.

Pharmaceutical patent litigators are no strangers to the delicate dance between the Hatch-Waxman Act and 35 U.S.C. § 271(b). On one side of this statutory tightrope lies the Hatch-Waxman Act’s Section VIII pathway, which was designed to expedite affordable generic competition by allowing manufacturers to seek Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval solely for unpatented indications—the proverbial “skinny label.” On the flip side lies Section 271(b), which imposes strict liability on anyone who “actively induces” patent infringement.

Eckert Seamans is seeking a full-time, permanent Patent Agent or Patent Attorney with an electrical engineering background for their Pittsburgh, PA office. They are a full-service national law firm with a strong reputation and history of success that spans more than 65 years. With approximately 300 lawyers across a network of 14 offices, they provide clients with proactive, solution-oriented business and litigation counsel.

The U.S. Supreme Court today denied certiorari in EscapeX IP, LLC v. Google LLC, letting stand a precedential decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirming a district court’s award of more than $250,000 in attorneys’ fees to Google and finding that EscapeX had pursued a “frivolous” patent infringement lawsuit against Google and its attorneys had acted recklessly in prolonging the litigation.  

A recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision applying California trade secret law offers a timely reminder that published patent materials cannot easily be recast as trade secrets. In International Medical Devices, Inc. v. Cornell, the Federal Circuit reversed trade-secret liability and vacated related damages and injunctive relief after concluding that the plaintiffs had not shown protectable trade secrets under the California Uniform Trade Secrets Act.

Welcome back to Cool AI Patents of the Month, where we highlight innovations that blur the line between science fiction and real-world engineering. Last month, we looked at AI-generated voice replicas, particularly in sports broadcasting. That concept is no longer theoretical. Major League Baseball players have reportedly entered into agreements enabling the creation of AI-driven digital avatars, allowing fans to engage directly with AI-generated versions of their favorite players. The takeaway is clear: personality and likeness are being productized. What once seemed futuristic is quickly becoming commercially relevant.

The World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) established World IP Day to commemorate April 26, 1970, the date the WIPO Convention officially took effect. Each year, the occasion serves as a global reminder of the role that intellectual property plays in encouraging innovation and creativity. This year, the World IP Day theme is “IP and Sports Ready, Set, Innovate,” recognizing the increasingly complex relationship between intellectual property rights and the multibillion-dollar global sports industry.

This week in Other Barks & Bites: Judge Alan Albright indicates that he will leave the Western District of Texas bench in August to re-enter private practice; Daren Tang is reelected as WIPO’s Director General; and more.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Thursday agreed with a district court that several claims of an augmented reality (AR) patent are directed to abstract ideas and thus invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The opinion was authored by Judge Cunningham. NantWorks LLC sued Niantic, Inc. for infringement of at least claim 1 of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,664,518 and 10,403,051 via Niantic’s AR games, Pokémon Go and Harry Potter: Wizards Unite. Niantic subsequently moved for judgment on the pleadings that six claims of the ‘518 patent were ineligible under Section 101 and the district court held that those claims were directed to the abstract idea of “providing information based on a location on a map.”

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision Tuesday in Centripetal Networks, LLC v. Keysight Technologies, Inc., affirming in part and reversing in part a decision of the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The CAFC determined that the PTAB correctly found claims 1 through 3, 5 through 13, and 15 through 20 of Centripetal Networks, LLC’s patent directed to network threat detection unpatentable for obviousness. The court reversed the PTAB’s determination regarding claims 4 and 14, finding those claims unpatentable for obviousness as well.

On April 20, Simi Valley, CA-based gaming tablet developer Gamevice filed a response to Japanese game developer Nintendo’s motion to vacate portions of a Northern District of California judgment that had invalidated Gamevice patent claims to handheld computing accessories as anticipated by the Nintendo Switch. While Gamevice acknowledged that it welcomed the vacatur of any adverse invalidity ruling, its filing points out procedural improprieties stemming from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit’s remand, which Gamevice indicated may be appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.

China was not the only actor being scrutinized today during a full Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, titled “Stealth Stealing: China’s Ongoing Theft of U.S. Innovation.”  Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) stood in for Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) as Chair and opened the hearing with a warning that, in addition to its blatant IP theft—which is estimated to cost the United States between $400 billion and $600 billion per year—China is more recently evolving from “imitator to innovator.” “The United States must overcome its historic and ideological views that China is unable to innovate,” Tillis said.