Intellectual property law

Intellectual property law

This week on IPWatchdog Unleashed, I speak with Todd Walters, who is Chair of the Patent Office Litigation practice group at Buchanan. We explore the current state of Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) practice and the growing tension among stakeholders as policy changes continue to reshape post-grant proceedings. We reflect on the intensity of opinion from patent owners and petitioners and discuss the high financial stakes and strategic importance of America Invents Act (AIA) proceedings.

A few years ago, I put together what I felt was a truly innovative concept, which I presented in a conference poster at an international meeting in my field. After the presentation, I spoke to another early-career scientist about my work and how it might apply to their findings. Two years later, they scooped me by publishing a preprint paper that presented my idea, with many of the same verbal formulations and an identical flow of ideas, without any acknowledgement or attribution to my work.

Yelp hosts millions of reviews written by internet users about local businesses. Most reviews are positive, but over the years, some businesses have tried to pressure Yelp to remove negative reviews, including through legal threats. Since its founding more than two decades ago, Yelp has fought major legal battles to defend reviewers' rights and preserve the legal protections that allow consumers to share honest feedback online. Aaron Schur is General Counsel at Yelp.

Market forces such as rising attorney salaries, persistent inflation, and unrelenting demand in premium practices are giving firms the confidence to push hourly rates beyond historical norms.

The Office de-designated Proppant Express Invests., LLC v. Oren Techs., LLC, IPR2017-01917, Paper 86 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2019); and Adello Biologics LLC v. Amgen Inc., PGR2019-00001, Paper 11 (PTAB Feb. 14, 2019). According to a USPTO email sent Tuesday, both decisions conflict with the decision in Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband Inc., IPR2014-00440, Paper 68 (PTAB Aug. 18, 2015) (precedential).

On February 2, 2026, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Joshua D. Wolson, sitting by designation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, made several key summary judgment rulings in advance of trial in Arbutus Biopharma Corporation and Genevant Sciences GmbH (collectively "Arbutus") v. Moderna, Inc. and ModernaTx, Inc. (collectively " Moderna "), No. 1:22-cv-00252 (D. Del.).

Johnson and I discuss obviousness determinations built on excessive combinations of prior art, warning that such analyses blur the line between legitimate hindsight reconstruction and genuine innovation assessment. We also highlight a systemic blind spot: nuisance "ankle-biter" assertions that exploit litigation economics while largely evading PTAB scrutiny. These cases have driven much of the political backlash against patents while remaining functionally untouched by the post-grant review process.

Stewart told Quinn that she felt 'right out of the gate [after the AIA], we got off on the wrong foot with discretionary denials.'... The petitions were treated as if they were going to be instituted unless the patent owner could prove why they shouldn't be... 'Patent owners were already behind before the proceeding started. We just tried to level the playing field.'

Do owners of patents for which licensing declarations have been made enjoy more rights than other patent holders? Do such licensing declarations impose obligations on potential licensees rather than on patent holders? Should prospective licensees have no right to challenge such patents? In another responsive article, that is what one commentator claims our series of articles on IPWatchdog asserted, although we never wrote or suggested anything of the sort.

Are OpenAI's recent moves a bold leap forward or a risky gamble that could cost them their dominance in the AI race? Below, Matt Wolfe takes you through how the company's latest decisions, like introducing ads in free tiers, launching budget subscriptions, and claiming intellectual property rights on AI-assisted discoveries, are sparking heated debates across the tech world. While these strategies aim to expand OpenAI's reach and diversify its revenue streams, they've also raised concerns about user trust, data privacy, and the company's long-term vision.

Regents of the University of California ("Regents") and Broad Institute were engaged in a patent interference proceeding involving the adaptation of CRISPR systems to edit eukaryotic DNA. Both parties were engaged in extensive testing related to editing eukaryotic DNA during the time of the invention, and both filed multiple patent applications that became the subjects of the patent interference proceedings.

The campaign argues that in the race for dominance in the new GenAI technology, some of the world's wealthiest tech companies, along with private equity-backed ventures, have engaged in a "massive rip-off" of creative content without authorization or compensation. According to the campaign, this practice "imperils U.S. jobs, economic growth and global 'soft power' supported by the U.S. creative industries." The campaign warns that this widespread infringement erodes the foundation of the U.S. entertainment industry and disincentivizes the creation of new works.

The campaign includes a statement accusing tech firms of using American creators' work to build AI platforms without authorisation or regard for copyright law. It adds: Artists, writers, and creators of all kinds are banding together with a simple message: Stealing our work is not innovation. It's not progress. It's theft plain and simple.

Yesterday, the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) published the results of a joint study detailing the close connection between illicit trade in counterfeits and labor exploitation. The joint study shows clear, repeated associations between the intensity of counterfeit trade and abusive labor conditions, strongly suggesting that such conditions structurally enable the production and distribution of counterfeits.