"Our partnership with vLex is a natural fit: Its legal data and workflows will enrich our environment, amplifying our ability to deliver intelligent, transformative solutions for clients," said Katherine Lowry, Chief Information Officer at BakerHostetler. "We're entering a phase where AI isn't just a tool - it's part of operations. We're focused on connecting AI to the data we already trust, both internally and externally, to drive better decisions and outcomes."
One of our arguments was that private sales-sales in which the invention has not been put into public use or led to the creation of some other type of prior art-should not provide the seller with a safe harbor against prior art under post-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(b)(1)(B), because a private sale by itself does not "publicly disclose" the invention per the terms of the statute.
The petition argues that Dir. Stewart's novel denial criteria were imposed without the notice-and-comment rulemaking required by the Administrative Procedure Act, exceed the Director's statutory authority under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), and were applied retroactively to Instacart's petition in violation of due process. The petition argues that the NPRM is tacit admission of the rulemaking requirement.
The Albanese government has explicitly ruled out handing tech companies free rein to mine creative content to train their artificial intelligence models, after a fierce backlash from authors and arts and media groups. The attorney general, Michelle Rowland, will confirm the decision on Monday, shutting the door on a contentious proposal floated by the Productivity Commission and backed by tech companies.
The University of Akron School of Law's Intellectual Property Policy Institute (IPPI) is now accepting applications for the 2026-2027 Thomas Edison Innovation Law & Policy Fellowship-a year-long, non-resident program supporting rigorous scholarship on intellectual property, creativity, and innovation law. Now entering its twelfth year, the Edison Fellowship brings together a small group of U.S. scholars for three intensive, invitation-only roundtables with senior commentators including Professors John Duffy, Erika Lietzan, Michael Risch, and Mark Schultz.
The leading contender is Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., No. 24-889, which asks whether a generic drug manufacturer that fully carves patented uses out of its FDA-approved label can nonetheless face induced infringement liability simply by calling its product a "generic version" of the brand-name drug or referencing publicly available information about the branded product's sales. The
"Overall, the data shows that, generally, smaller law firms have more patent proofreading errors in their work than large law firms." In an ideal world, every patent law firm, from a small practice drafting 50 patents a year to a large firm drafting thousands a year, would deliver patents for their clients that contain no errors. In reality though, patent drafting is complex and tedious work, and errors inevitably occur.
We blogged on these decisions here, here, here, here, and here. On October 17, 2025, newly appointed Director Squires issued an open letter and memorandum to the public and to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board), taking back authority previously delegated to the Board to decide whether to institute an IPR or PGR proceeding on the merits. Now, the Director will issue summary notices on whether to institute proceedings.
This accusation is predicated on I-MAK's assertion that these companies own large numbers of patents covering their respective products. But, as the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) noted in its recent Drug Patent and Exclusivity Study, 'simply quantifying raw numbers of patents and exclusivities is an imprecise way to measure the intellectual property landscape of a drug product because not every patent or exclusivity has the same scope.'
One of the first things the decision discussed was the technological improvements to training advanced by the Desjardins application. When considering whether the claim at issue recited a practical application at Step 2A, prong 2 of the Alice framework, the Desjardins decision noted that this "determination requires us to 'evaluate the significance of the additional elements relative to the invention,' while being mindful that 'the ultimate question' is 'whether the exception is integrated into a practical application.' MPEP § 2106.04(d)(II)."
Today, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an order list denying a petition for writ of certiorari filed by patent owner EcoFactor to challenge this May's en banc ruling from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) granting a new damages trial in EcoFactor's infringement case against Google. In dismissing EcoFactor's cert petition, the Supreme Court avoided ruling on whether the Federal Circuit has created a heightened Daubert standard for expert testimony on patent infringement damages
"Royalty-free" is an appealing notion, especially when applied to the licensing of a patent essential to a standard. This standard is even more compelling to an implementer when every participant in the relevant standards body or proprietary consortia, including preeminent technology companies, has pledged it will grant its essential patents on a royalty-free (RF) basis. What could be better than an entire ecosystem around a standard or proprietary solution and its implementation being bound by an RF pledge?
In this position, you will be responsible for providing a broad range of IP services to the company, both directly and in conjunction with external US and foreign IP counsel. The primary focus of your role will be eliciting invention disclosures, drafting and prosecuting patent applications worldwide, advising on trademark-related matters, analyzing third-party IP rights, and contributing to Lutron's global IP strategies.
To apply issue preclusion, courts generally require: (1) the issue was actually litigated and decided in the prior proceeding; (2) the determination was essential to the judgment; (3) the party against whom preclusion is asserted had a full and fair opportunity to litigate; and (4) the party against whom preclusion is asserted was a party (or in privity) in the prior proceeding.
"Brita cannot use the knowledge of a skilled artisan to make up for the specification's lack of disclosure as to non-carbon-block filters that can meet the claimed FRAP factor." - CAFC The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) on Wednesday issued a precedential decision in Brita LP v. International Trade Commission, affirming the International Trade Commission's (ITC's) finding that claims of a Brita patent for a water
These proposals, if implemented, would significantly deter collaborations between researchers across government, academia, and the private sector, resulting in less innovation. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick recently proposed changing how the federal government funds scientific research at universities across the country. "I think if we fund it and [the universities] invent a patent, the United States of America taxpayer should get half" of the royalties when universities license those patents to private companies for further development, he suggested.
Given the recent proliferation of artificial intelligence (AI) patent drafting technology, some in the legal services industry are asking whether AI is the patent profession's "ultimate bad day,"on par with the dinosaurs' ultimate bad day posited by Nobel Prize-winning physicist Luis Alvarez in 1980. Like the asteroid thought to cause a mass extinction of the dinosaurs, will AI be a formidable impactor that renders patent prosecution an unprofitable practice area in law firms and alternative legal service providers (ALSPs)?
At a Cabinet Office press conference, Minister of State for IP and AI Strategy Minoru Kiuchi emphasized that anime and manga are "irreplaceable treasures" representing Japan's cultural pride (via IGN). The government urged OpenAI to respect Japanese copyrights and avoid misuse of its technology. Digital Minister Masaaki Taira echoed this sentiment, suggesting that if OpenAI doesn't voluntarily comply, Japan could invoke provisions under the AI Promotion Act--legislation that promotes AI development while also addressing risks such as copyright violations.
