Imagine building most of a great machine, and then filing a patent application on that machine because you want a return on the effort you spent building it. Years later, imagine filing a continuation-in-part (CIP) patent application after finishing the machine, and being told that in order to get the patent, you have to distinguish over your own initial disclosure. What a shame that this type of a statement has to be made to inventors. Patents are certainly needed to maintain competitive advantage, but one thing should not stand in the way of inventors who procure them—themselves.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in Syngenta Crop Protection AG v. UPL Ltd., affirming a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) final written decision that held all challenged claims of a fungicide combination patent unpatentable. The CAFC rejected arguments from UPL Ltd. and affirmed the PTAB’s denial of leave for Syngenta Crop Protection AG to seek sanctions.

Studebaker Brackett PLLC is looking for a motivated, experienced, and highly skilled patent attorney or agent to join its team on a full-time or part-time exclusive basis. SB offers a positive, collaborative team environment; a client-centered, relationship-focused approach; remote working options; and a competitive salary and benefits package. This position can be remote/work from home and/or on-site in Tysons, VA.

Today, the United Kingdom Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) issued a press release announcing a series of measures designed to create guidelines and administrative procedures for increasing transparency and efficiency surrounding the licensing of standard-essential patents (SEPs). The long-awaited announcement brings some relief to SEP owners concerned about the prospects of proposed SEP royalty rate proceedings and mandated disclosures, though the UK government still intends to “explore the introduction of a court-anchored” proceeding for determining fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) licensing obligations early in patent infringement proceedings in UK courts.

A new report that examines education at the leading U.S. business schools has found that more and better courses are being offered to students at graduate business programs about how intellectual property (IP) rights function in business, but not a single program requires an IP-related course be completed to obtain a degree.

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, I speak with Nancy Braman. Recorded before a live audience at IPWatchdog’s 2026 Women’s IP Forum, our conversation explores how practitioners create opportunities, develop professional relationships, and build the skills necessary to succeed in patent law. From taking PLI patent bar review course before law school, to attending Franklin Pierce Law School, to spending more than three years writing and researching for IPWatchdog and now litigating high-stakes patent and intellectual property disputes for life sciences and technology companies. She has already had quite the journey, and I sense it is really just beginning.

There’s a curious double standard in the way we talk about intellectual property (IP) in America. When someone copies a copyrighted work without permission, we recognize that the creator has rights. Copyright infringement can even carry criminal penalties. When someone steals another person’s property, we call it theft, and criminal penalties can follow. But when a company uses someone else’s patented invention without permission, the patent owner who tries to stop it is often portrayed as the villain.

A brand protection program can remove thousands of infringing listings and still leave the business behind them largely intact. Sellers return under different accounts, storefronts multiply, and counterfeit goods continue reaching customers. AI compounds the problem: the same technology that helps rights holders detect infringement can help counterfeiters generate replacement listings and create new accounts more quickly. Such is the neverending game of whack-a-mole confronting brands.

The American Apparel & Footwear Association (AAFA) submitted comments to the Office of the United States Trade Representative (USTR) on October 7, recommending that USTR include Facebook, Instagram, Alibaba.com, AliExpress, and DHgate in its 2026 Review of Notorious Markets for Counterfeiting and Piracy (NML) report. While Alibaba and DHgate platforms have been included on the list before, Facebook and Instagram have “avoided accountability” so far, according to the letter. 

This week in Other Barks & Bites: record quarterly profits reported by Samsung Electronics belie an AI chip shortage likely to last into 2028; a major American apparel industry organization calls for the inclusion of Meta’s Facebook and Instagram in the USTR’s Notorious Markets List; copyright advocates tell Australia’s Parliament that an opt-out framework for AI model training is not feasible; and more.

I am pleased to introduce “Postcard from WIPO,” a new occasional series for the U.S. intellectual property community. Having spent much of my career working on IP issues in the United States, including as Deputy Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), I know how important it is to understand what is happening in the international IP system. From Geneva, I now have a different vantage point on that work, and I would like to share it with you.

A defendant facing an action for infringement of an EU trademark may challenge the validity of that trademark by filing a counterclaim before the EU trademark court. But what happens if the defendant does not do so? Is the opportunity to challenge the trademark’s validity lost, or may the defendant later seek a declaration of invalidity from the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO)?

One possible framework for protecting trade secrets while regulating AI is an International AI Assurance and Access Compact, organized around “verifiable reciprocity.” Participating jurisdictions would recognize defined compliance findings in exchange for comparable verification obligations, alongside commitments to fund regulatory capacity. This is a proposed arrangement, not existing law. Its consequences for intellectual property (IP) turn on what evidence travels across borders and what rights remain unaffected.

Today, the U.S. Copyright Office published a notice of inquiry (NOI) in the Federal Register soliciting public comment on issues related to music piracy threatening billions in U.S. domestic revenues generated by digital streaming. The Office’s NOI responds to a request into the prevalence of streaming fraud across the music industry issued by U.S. Representative Scott Fitzgerald (R-WI), who also voiced concerns about generative artificial intelligence’s (AI) impact on the music industry.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a decision today in In re Gamble affirming a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision that sustained an examiner’s rejection of multiple claims of U.S. Patent Application No. 17/490,077 as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. Section 112(b). The CAFC concluded that Oliver Wendel Gamble, who represented himself, forfeited any substantive argument on indefiniteness before the Board and on appeal.