In Great Concepts, LLC, v. Chutter, Inc., the Federal Circuit decided on whether the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board can cancel a trademark based on the inclusion of false statements in a declaration to obtain an incontestable status for the trademark.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit’s Determination on Whether Fraudulent Conduct in Obtaining Incontestable Status Warrants the Mark’s Cancellation

In Apple Inc. v. Corephotonics, LTD., the court addressed two final written decisions in inter partes review (“IPR”) proceedings and in particular (1) whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB” or “Board”) claim construction is correct when the intrinsic evidence supports a different construction and relatedly whether the PTAB’s first final written decision relying on its claim construction should be vacated and remanded and (2) whether, in the second final written decision, the PTAB’s reliance on an invalidity ground not raised by any party should be vacated and remanded.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Vacates PTAB’s Decision Based on an Overly Narrow Claim Construction

This case addresses the ability of a petitioner in an IPR to present new evidence in a reply brief, particularly where the patent owner proposes a new claim construction in its patent owner response.
Continue Reading Axonics, Inc. v. Medtronic, Inc. Nos. 2022-1532, 2022-1533, (Fed. Cir. August 7, 2023)

This case is primarily about the Daubert standard as applied to expert testimony on damages. The Federal Circuit reversed the Northern District of California’s admission of expert testimony on damages, which relied on calculations that failed to differentiate between infringing products and non-infringing products. The Federal Circuit also reiterated the standards for a judgment as a matter of law (“JMOL”) of non-obviousness, and clarified that “by means of” claim language does not limit to but-for causation, i.e., it does not mean “by the exclusive means of.”…
Continue Reading Cyntec Company, Ltd. v. Chilisin Electronics Corp., Chilisin America Ltd. Nos. 2022-1873, (Fed. Cir. October 16, 2023)

The White House Executive Order on AI (“EO”) is comprehensive and covers a wide range of topics. We provided a summary here. It addresses many of the risks and problems that can arise with AI. One of the topics which raises many legal issues, particularly with generative AI (“genAI”), is intellectual property. Some of the IP issues include: i) whether training AI models on copyrighted content constitutes infringement; ii) whether the output of genAI that is based on copyright-protected training material constitutes infringement; iii) what level of human authorship/inventorship is required for copyright/patent protection of genAI-assisted works; iv) whether…
Continue Reading White House Executive Order on AI Punts on IP Issues

The US just catapulted into being the world leader on regulating AI. Bypassing Congress, the White house issued an Executive Order focusing on safe, secure and trustworthy AI and laying out a national policy on AI. In stark contrast to the EU, which through the soon to be enacted AI Act is focused primarily on regulating uses of AI that are unacceptable or high risk, the Executive Order focuses primarily on the developers, the data they use and the tools they create. The goal is to ensure that AI systems are safe, secure, and trustworthy before companies make them public. It…
Continue Reading White House Executive Order Ramps Up US Regulation of and Policy Toward AI

This case addresses how Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) interacts with obviousness-type double patenting (ODP).
Continue Reading In Re: Cellect, LLC No. 2022-1293 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 28, 2023)

This case addresses the validity of two patents asserted against wireless communications technologies. In particular, this case discusses claim construction and post-issuance claim amendments that broaden the scope of challenged claims.
Continue Reading Sisvel International S.A. v. Sierra Wireless, Inc., No. 2022-1387, 2022-1492 (Fed. Cir. Sept 1, 2023)

This case addresses whether attorney’s fees are warranted due to an inequitable conduct and conflict of interest defense.
Continue Reading United Cannabis Corporation v. Pure Hemp Collective Inc.

This case addresses whether patents relating to methods and systems for connecting users based on their answers to polling questions claim patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Continue Reading Trinity Info Media, LLC, fka Trinity Intel Media, LLC, v. Covalent, Inc., No. 2022-1308 (Fed. Cir. July 14, 2023) (“Opinion”)

This case addresses certain implications of the Laehy-Smith America Invests Act (AIA), namely whether patents with a filing date after March 16, 2013 (pure AIA patents) may be part of an interference proceeding under pre-AIA, 35 U.S.C. § 135, and specifically whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Board) has the authority to cancel SNIPR’s pure AIA claims through an interference for lack of invention priority under pre-AIA § 102(g). …
Continue Reading SNIPR Tech. Ltd. v. Rockefeller Univ., No. 22-1260 (Fed. Cir. July 14, 2023)

The growth of artificial intelligence (“AI”) and generative AI is moving copyright law into unprecedented territory. While US copyright law continues to develop around AI, one boundary has been set: the bedrock requirement of copyright is human authorship. Given this, it is clear in the US, AI alone cannot be an author. This bedrock principle was reinforced in two recent copyright decisions. But unanswered questions abound. For example, how will the Copyright Office address collaborative or joint works between a human and AI? And will this bedrock principle be limited to generative AI, or may it lead to revisiting copyright protection…
Continue Reading Generative AI and Copyright – Some Recent Denials and Unanswered Questions

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) is booming. Investors and companies are pouring cash into the space, and particularly into generative AI (GAI), to seize their share of the market which McKinsey reports could add up to $4.4 trillion annually to the global economy. Some companies are investing tens or hundreds of millions of dollars or more into GAI. Whether companies are building their own AI technology and training their own AI models, or leveraging third party tools, there are significant legal issues and business risks that directors need to consider as part of their fiduciary obligations and corporate governance.
Continue Reading 5 Things Corporate Boards Need to Know About Generative AI Risk Management