The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision today in Bissell, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, affirming a final determination of the International Trade Commission (ITC) that found no import violation by redesigned vacuum products. The CAFC affirmed the ITC’s refusal to grant an exclusion order and also agreed that the Commission properly determined that Bissel’s products satisfied the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement.

For years, design patent practitioners dealing with graphical user interfaces (GUIs) and icons have been shackled to the ghost of Ex parte Strijland. If you wanted to get a case through the USPTO for a GUI or an icon, you had to meticulously include a broken line depicting a display screen or monitor. Under the old MPEP 1504.01(a) regime, the effect of the GUI was treated essentially as surface ornamentation applied to that specific physical screen to satisfy the “article of manufacture” requirement under 35 U.S.C. § 171.

Artificial intelligence (AI) is moving faster than traditional intellectual property (IP) strategy was designed to handle. The issue is not simply speed, although speed is certainly part of the problem. The deeper challenge is that AI innovation does not fit neatly into the legacy IP operating model. The assets, development cycles, regulatory environment, and commercial pathways are all different. And the value drivers are increasingly distributed across a spectrum of AI-related intangible domains, which include patents, trade secrets, data rights, software architecture, licensing models, and customer contracts.

This week in Other Barks & Bites: a Ninth Circuit majority affirms a summary judgment dismissing false representation claims over Circuit Judge Bumatay’s dissent; a joint WIPO-IRENA report advances several recommendations to promote the electrification of the EU’s heavy-duty road transport sector; China’s Tencent removed more than 250,000 AI songs from its streams during 2025 for corporate policy violations; the Eleventh Circuit reverses a summary judgment ruling that had dismissed infringement claims brought by a licensee of photographs captured by Annie Liebovitz; and more.

Artificial intelligence is no longer a futuristic talking point in patent practice. It is already being deployed by patent practitioners who understand a simple truth: AI is not a substitute for legal judgment, technical understanding, claim strategy, or client counseling. When implemented properly, AI is a force multiplier. It can compress timelines, improve consistency, reduce low-value friction, provide meaningful portfolio intelligence, and allow practitioners to spend more time on the work that actually requires professional expertise.

The U.S. Supreme Court has been asked to grant certiorari to resolve whether the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) permits an unjust enrichment award without any showing of actual loss resulting from the defendant’s misappropriation of trade secrets. The defendant in Tata Consultancy Services Ltd. v. Computer Sciences Corp. has petitioned for certiorari, arguing that actual loss is a prerequisite for an unjust enrichment award. The petition challenges a Fifth Circuit decision affirming a $56 million unjust enrichment award and a $112 million punitive award in favor of Computer Sciences Corp. (“CSC”), measured by the costs Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) avoided through its trade secret theft rather than by any proven actual loss to CSC.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit issued a published opinion in Malone v. U.S. Patent and Trademark Office affirming the Eastern District of Virginia’s grant of summary judgment to the USPTO after finding that the agency properly withheld documents sought by US Inventor’s Josh Malone pursuant to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request related to administrative patent judge (APJ) paneling at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The Fourth Circuit found that decision drafts circulated to nonpanel APJs were subject to FOIA’s exemption for predecisional and deliberative documents and were not unprotected ex parte communications.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in DK Crown Holdings Inc. v. AG 18, LLC, affirming a final written decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and holding that DK Crown Holdings Inc., formerly known as DraftKings, Inc. (DK), failed to prove that claim 18 of U.S. Patent No. 9,978,205 was unpatentable during inter partes review (IPR).

On Tuesday, May 5, Representative Jamie Raskin (D-MD), Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee, sent a letter to U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director John Squires pressing him to answer questions about the Office’s role in filing a trademark application on behalf of the Trump Administration for Trump’s “Board of Peace.”

In its recent petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, Google argues that patents can be invalid at any time, even decades after issuance, and therefore should remain open to inter partes review (IPR) challenges, regardless of age or how long they have been relied upon. At first glance, this sounds like a defense of patent quality. Coming from one of the most frequent users of the Patent Trial and Appeal board (PTAB) over the past decade — and arriving just as the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) “settled expectations” doctrine begins to limit late-stage IPR challenges — it raises a sharper question: why now?

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in TJTM Technologies, LLC v. Google LLC, affirming the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California’s dismissal of a patent infringement lawsuit and holding that the asserted patent claims are directed to patent-ineligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The nonprecedential decision was authored by Judge Chen and joined by Judges Dyk and Stark.

A person recently approached me at church with excitement regarding a software process he developed. His company was so pleased with the result that it is filing a patent, listing him as the inventor. This person knew that I had some kind of patent backstory, so he asked for my thoughts. My name is Jeffrey A. Killian, and I am the patent applicant in the Federal Circuit Court case # 2021 -2113 (In Re: Killian). I took no pleasure in telling my  friend at church that his patent application will be rejected. Plus, the official notice will have my precedential case quoted all over his rejection. With friends at church like me, who needs enemies? 

Trademark claims against Netflix concerning its popular “Running Point” comedy series were recently dismissed at the pleadings stage due to a one-letter misarticulation of applicable First Amendment law. The case, soon to be litigated on appeal, highlights the need to clarify the contours of trademark liability arising from creative works. Pepperdine University filed the lawsuit last year against Netflix and co-defendants Warner Bros. and Kaling International, just one week before the “Running Point” series premiere.  Loosely based on the life of Los Angeles Lakers owner Jeanie Buss, the series stars Kate Hudson as the owner of the fictional basketball team the Los Angeles Waves. The popular series, which amassed instant popularity and ranked as Netflix’s #1 TV show, was quickly ordered for a second season that premiered April 23, 2026.

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, I spoke with Brent Bellows, a partner with Knowles Intellectual Property Strategies (KIPS). We discussed a variety of issues including Hatch-Waxman, Orange Book listings, paragraph IV certifications, skinny labels, generic entry, clinical trial costs, regulatory exclusivity, and the enormous financial risk associated with bringing new drugs to market. Gene and Brent explore the tension between public demand for lower drug prices and the need for durable incentives that make high-risk drug development economically viable, particularly for oncology, Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, antibiotic resistant bacteria, and other difficult-to-treat conditions. The episode closes with a broader innovation-policy message: patents are not a peripheral feature of drug development—they are a core operating asset that enables private-sector investment, supports breakthrough therapies, and ultimately drives the availability of future generic medicines.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Monday in a precedential decision authored by Judge Lourie affirmed a district court’s ruling determining certain claims of Enviro Tech Chemical Services, Inc.’s patent for a method of poultry treatment indefinite. Enviro Tech’s U.S. Patent No.10,912,321is titled “Methods of Using Peracetic Acid to Treat Poultry in a Chill Tank During Processing.” Enviro Tech sued Safe Foods Corp. for infringement of a number of claims of the patent in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas.