David Herrera registered the brand name Pedro Piscal with a Chilean commercial regulator in 2023 and began selling his pisco in off-licences and restaurants. Herrera stated, 'We tried a few names and Pedro Piscal stuck.'
Skillz alleges that Papaya misrepresented its games by using bots, which created unfair competition and caused damages amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars. Skillz's attorneys argue that the company's financial decline is directly linked to Papaya's actions, claiming that had Papaya disclosed its use of bots, it would not have been able to capture Skillz's customers and market share.
The default judgement, issued on Tuesday by Judge Jed Rakoff of the Southern District of New York, awards Spotify $300 million in damages, with UMG, WMG, and Sony Music awarded $22.2 million collectively.
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.
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.
There's a crisis of creativity in mainstream American culture. We have fewer and fewer studios and record labels fewer and fewer platforms online that serve independent artists and creators. At its core, copyright is a monopoly right on creative output and expression. It's intended to allow people who make things to make a living through those things, to incentivize creativity. To square the circle that is "exclusive control over expression" and "free speech," we have fair use.
The enormity of the problem cannot be understated. A Federal Circuit panel recently reached a final decision that, if not overturned, will destroy the U.S. patent system, and will ironically impact the most valuable patents disproportionately. The ruling was simple and continues a disturbing and inexplicable trend-a patent issued after more than six years in prosecution is presumed unenforceable as the result of prosecution laches.
In a recent Tradespace and Above the Law survey, two-thirds of companies that draft patents in-house described IP as a value driver, while 71 percent of companies that outsource drafting viewed IP as a cost. When drafting and prosecution move inside, IP teams work closer to engineers and product leaders. This proximity improves invention quality, strengthens claim strategy, and aligns patent decisions with product direction, market timing, and business priorities.
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.
The Copyright Claims Board estimated that 'as much as three-quarters of its time is spent on the initial review of claims and amended claims and writing noncompliance orders explaining claim deficiencies,' according to the report. The U.S. Copyright Office on Friday released its report pursuant to the Copyright Alternative in Small-Claims Enforcement (CASE) Act, finding that the Copyright Claims Board (CCB) is largely successful but that there is 'room for improvement in various respects.'
