#licensing-decision

#licensing-decision

New data is reinforcing a structural shift in how AI systems access publisher content: AI models are increasingly scraping publisher content, regardless of bot-blocking measures or content licensing deals meant to control usage, improve attribution or drive referral traffic. New research from analytics firms and bot-tracking companies shows AI tools are increasingly crawling publisher sites as inputs for AI-generated summaries and training, while sending back only limited referral traffic.

WIPO is not merely a distant UN bureaucracy; it is a dynamic, fee-driven organization that has been undergoing significant operational and cultural transformation in recent years.

Congress set the patent term at twenty years from the earliest effective filing date. 35 U.S.C. § 154(a)(2) (not counting provisional or foreign national filing). But that statutory baseline is just the starting point. But, the actual term is shaped by a series of prosecution decisions, USPTO delays, terminal disclaimers, and patent family structure.

As the AI revolution accelerates and continues to reshape traditional business models, it has triggered a cascade of new legal, regulatory and policy challenges. At the forefront of these emerging issues are a growing number of high-stakes legal battles between content creators and major Generative AI (GenAI) companies behind large language models (LLMs). This article examines key legal themes and critical questions arising from recent developments at the intersection of AI and Copyright law.

The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC)-an agency with the extraordinary power to block imports and, in turn, influence the direction of American technology policy-has drifted out of that balance. To align with the Trump Administration's intellectual property priorities and pro-investment agenda, the ITC is in urgent need of reform.

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.