This Monday, Irvine, CA-based memory technology developer Netlist filed a complaint  with the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) alleging rampant infringement of its patent rights by dynamic random access memory (DRAM) devices manufactured by Samsung, including those used in Google products. The complaint is Netlist’s latest action against Samsung following a breached joint development agreement and two jury verdicts entered in U.S. district court awarding Netlist more than $420 million for Samsung’s infringing memory modules.

On September 8, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued a much-awaited ruling reversing the trial court’s dismissal of trademark claims filed by Trader Joe’s against the labor union Trader Joe’s United. The grocery franchise specifically protested the union’s sale of tote bags and other merchandise bearing the name “Trader Joe’s United.”  According to Trader Joe’s, this was a commercial use that caused consumer confusion related to sales of goods, thus exceeding the permissible function of simply identifying the union as being Trader Joe’s-related. The lower court dismissed the claims, but the appellate court reversed, on the basis that the merit of the claims could not be decided at such an early stage.

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, we welcome Marlene Valderrama, who is Principal Intellectual Property Manager & Technology Scout for Halliburton. During our conversation, Marlene shares insights from her role as an innovation scout, the challenges of encouraging innovators inside Halliburton to recognize the importance and magnitude of their novel contributions, and the exciting advancements in drilling technology facilitated by AI. The conversation delves into best practices for AI implementation and the importance of continuous training for IP and innovation management. Additionally, Marlene opens up about her personal journey, her unexpected career path from drilling engineer to IP advocate, her passion for giving back through long-distance biking to raise money for multiple sclerosis research, and much more.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Tuesday issued a precedential decision in Focus Products Group International, LLC v. Kartri Sales Co., Inc., affirming-in-part, reversing-in-part, vacating-in-part, and remanding for a new trial involving patent, trademark, and trade dress infringement claims related to “hookless” shower curtains. The opinion, authored by Circuit Judge Chen, with Chief Judge Moore and Circuit Judge Clevenger joining, held that while the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York properly denied Kartri Sales Co., Inc.’s and Marquis Mills, International, Inc.’s venue transfer motion and unclean hands defense, it erred in several of its infringement findings and damages awards.

When functioning properly, intellectual property (IP) rights enable ideas to become legally recognized assets, which can then be collateralized or licensed to attract financing, thereby fueling investment, job creation and economic expansion. During the 2025 IPWatchdog Women’s IP Forum, I had the privilege of joining a distinguished panel to explore in depth how IP functions as an engine of economic growth in the United States and globally. My remarks focused on the central role of predictable IP rights in transforming innovation into economic output.

Today, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a ruling in Rideshare Displays, Inc. v. Squires affirming decisions by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) that Rideshare’s patent claims to systems and methods of vehicle identification were obvious over prior art. The Federal Circuit’s decision also reversed the PTAB’s partial grant of Rideshare’s motions to amend, finding the substitute claims’ subject matter did not provide a technological solution rendering the claims patent-eligible at Step Two of the Alice/Mayo patent eligibility framework.

Imagine a friend borrows your car for a week. He promises to bring it back clean and full of gas. Reasonable enough, until you discover he racked up 1,500 miles because, while he wasn’t using it, he let his cousin run Uber shifts with it and pocketed a cut of the fares. You didn’t agree to that. You agreed to one driver, one purpose. The cousin had no right to free ride on your investment, devalue your property, or make money off your car without permission. Is it theft? Not quite. But it’s a textbook example of “conversion”—getting hold of something legally to use for a specific purpose, then deploying it in a very different manner. That, in essence, is what Zillow stands accused of doing to CoStar: Co-opting photos that CoStar put into public view, without authorization, to drive its own profits. The alleged free ride could cost Zillow nearly $7 billion.

If you look closely enough, you’ll find patent numbers on most of the physical products around you. Much like their copyright and trademark cousins, these designations are far from cosmetic. Instead, they serve a statutory requirement to provide public notice about your protected intellectual property. In the case of patent marking, not only does it reduce the risk of infringement because you are informing potential infringers of the patent’s existence, but the notice also marks the point in time to which you can go back for collecting on awarded damages.

Patent litigation trends provide critical insights into the evolving landscape of innovation, enforcement and intellectual property strategy. Understanding these trends is essential for companies, investors, and legal professionals who seek to manage risk, protect assets and navigate a complex legal environment. In the United States, patent litigation has grown in significance due to rising enforcement activity, shifts in venue selection, and increasing involvement of so-called patent assertion entities (PAEs). Tracking these patent litigation patterns not only reveals which technologies and business models are most affected but also helps stakeholders anticipate legal challenges and make informed strategic decisions.

This week in Other Barks & Bites: news reports indicate that the Department of Justice’s (DOJ’s) Weaponization Working Group is looking into Biden-era secret review processes for pharmaceutical and AI patents at the USPTO; USPTO Director John Squires signals a commitment to patent eligibility for medical diagnostics and crypto patents in his first few signed U.S. patents; and more

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Thursday issued a precedential decision in Apex Bank v. CC Serve Corp., affirming-in-part, vacating-in-part, and remanding a decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) refusing registration of the marks ASPIRE BANK. The opinion, authored by Circuit Judge Hughes, with Chief Judge Moore and Circuit Judge Cunningham joining, held that the TTAB correctly found the parties’ services highly similar under the second DuPont factor but erred in applying an inconsistent and overly narrow standard when analyzing third-party marks under the sixth DuPont factor.

Timing is everything in the world of American innovation. On September 16, 2025, I hand delivered a petition for rulemaking to the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) seeking a simple, long-overdue fix: clarify by rule that “cancellation” of a patent claim means the end of rights prospectively, not erasure of decades of hard-earned reliance, contracts, and value. After living this process, I know firsthand how timing and retroactivity can destroy the lives and businesses of those who play by the rules.

This is a response to Robert Grantham’s recent post titled “Patents Subjected to IPRs are the Perfect Vehicle to Assess the USPTO’s Patent Quality Problem.” This post claims to challenge my recent article titled “Fallacy Dispelled: Invalidation Rates of Adjudicated Patents Convey Nothing About Quality of All Issued Patents.” However, the post does not challenge my article, but instead falsely knocks down a strawman the post invented by mischaracterizing my article.

John Squires was officially sworn in as the 60th U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Director on Tuesday, September 23, and today issued the first patents of his term, both in technology sectors that often face increased scrutiny about patent eligibility during patent prosecution and in the courts. The two issued patents were directed to distributed ledger/crypto and medical diagnostics technologies.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision Wednesday reversing a district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of non-infringement and vacating a damages award in favor of Finesse Wireless LLC. The CAFC said there was a lack of substantial evidence to support the jury’s verdicts finding AT&T Mobility and Nokia (AT&T) infringed two of Finesse’s radio signal interference mitigation patents.