This site uses cookies to improve your experience. To help us insure we adhere to various privacy regulations, please select your country/region of residence. If you do not select a country, we will assume you are from the United States. Select your Cookie Settings or view our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Used for the proper function of the website
Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Cookie Settings
Cookies and similar technologies are used on this website for proper function of the website, for tracking performance analytics and for marketing purposes. We and some of our third-party providers may use cookie data for various purposes. Please review the cookie settings below and choose your preference.
Strictly Necessary: Used for the proper function of the website
Performance/Analytics: Used for monitoring website traffic and interactions
Artificial Intelligence (AI) has been touted as the answer to a multitude of business challenges. However, AI along with machine learning and large language models (LLMs) is still fraught with technical and regulatory challenges as the technology evolves. Threat actors use AI to create deepfake videos, text, and audio; craft convincing phishing emails; bypass security measures; and automate malicious activities prompting national and international security concerns.
When peer-to-peer file-sharing was in its heyday, communities were the glue that held everything together, but not in the global sense evident today. File-sharing communities typically gathered on various forums. Operating in isolation, most embraced a central theme – file-sharing – everything else was a footnote. Embracing anyone and welcoming any topic of conversation, fancy high-tech social media platforms made short work of file-sharing communities.
There is no law or regulation instructing contractors how to mark commercial technical data delivered to the Department of Defense (DoD). Yet the DoD Federal Acquisition Regulation Supplement (DFARS) is quite clear that contractors and their suppliers must mark such data to protect them; if unmarked, the U.S. government and third parties may use and disclose data without restriction, and DoD contracts include a mandatory release of liability for such disclosure.
AI search is a major trend in the space. However, a new study claims that AI search bots fail at citation and honoring publishers' wishes. The post AI Search Fails at Citation appeared first on Plagiarism Today.
Software is complex, which makes threats to the software supply chain more real every day. 64% of organizations have been impacted by a software supply chain attack and 60% of data breaches are due to unpatched software vulnerabilities. In the U.S. alone, cyber losses totaled $10.3 billion in 2022. All of these stats beg the question, “Do you know what’s in your software?
Completing a recent jurisprudential "hat trick,"* the Federal Circuit affirmed a District Court grant of a preliminary injunction against a biosimilar applicant for Regeneron's EYLEA biologic drug inRegeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. As in the earlier appeals, the injunction was based on infringement by Celltrion's EYLEA biosimilar (designated CT-P42) of U.S.
French publishers sue Meta over AI training, Turbo wins lawsuit over tag and Carl Lundstrm, Pirate Bay founder, dies in a plane crash. The post 3 Count: French Front appeared first on Plagiarism Today.
On March 5, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Lashify, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, No. 23-1245, vacating in part the International Trade Commissions (ITC) determination that Lashify failed to satisfy the economic prong of the Section 337 domestic industry requirement and affirming in part the finding that Lashify failed to satisfy the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement.
68
68
Sign up to get articles personalized to your interests!
Intellectual Property Pulse brings together the best content for IP professionals from the widest variety of industry thought leaders.
On March 5, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision in Lashify, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, No. 23-1245, vacating in part the International Trade Commissions (ITC) determination that Lashify failed to satisfy the economic prong of the Section 337 domestic industry requirement and affirming in part the finding that Lashify failed to satisfy the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement.
How long does it take to get a design patent? On average, a design patent application can take about 16 months for the initial examination. Strip out the fast-tracked design applications from the equation, and the average wait time for non-expedited design applications would certainly be longer. In fact, we have seen design patent applications take two to three years for the initial review by the examiner.
The U.S. Patent and Trade Office (PTO) on February 28, 2025, rescinded former PTO Director Kathi Vidal's June 21, 2022, memorandum (Memorandum) addressing discretionary denial of inter partes review (IPR) of patents that are subject to parallel district court litigation. The Memorandum had added some certainty to the uncertain procedures under Apple Inc. v.
The recent decision in Abbott v Sibio Technology ( UPC_CoA_382/2024 ) offers valuable insights into the UPC's approach to the interpretation of functional claim language and the ever-contentious topic of added matter. On both issues, the UPC broadly appears to have followed the EPO approach. However, the lack of any explicit indication from the Court of Appeal that it was following EPO case law, particularly on the issue of added matter, raises the question of whether there was nonetheless some
Addressing the economic prong of the domestic industry requirement under Section 337(a)(3)(B) of the Tariff Act of 1930, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a US International Trade Commission decision, finding that the Commission had applied an overly narrow interpretation of the requirement. The Court explained that expenses related to sales, marketing, warehousing, quality control, and distribution may qualify as labor and capital for establishing the existence of a.
Women and diverse employees have the technical skill and knowledge, yet their contributions are not patented at the same rate as those of their male counterparts.This toolkit can help organizations move the needle on achieving gender parity in innovation.
The Federal Circuit says that you must disclose and describe the prior art, or your Jepson claim is invalid. Obviously, this means that pretty much every Jepson claim in existence is now invalid. It also ensures that Jepson claims will never be used again. It is also truly a mystery why the Patent Office would ever defend this PTAB decision and advocate in favor of requiring the prior art to be disclosed, discussed and supported.
GLP-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1RAs) were initially approved for diabetes treatment (e.g., Ozempic) but have revolutionized weight management (e.g., Wegovy) and are now being explored for treating a wide range of health conditions. Discovering drugs with pleiotropic effects beyond their original purpose can facilitate drug repurposing and extend the market lifespans of existing drugs.
INTRODUCTION Architecture and architectural works have immense significance visually and culturally. They are created by a combination of creativity, technical skill and aesthetic qualities. Architectural designs came to be recognised as a form of intellectual property capable of protection after the 1908 Amendment to the Berne Convention, 1886. This inclusion was crucial in recognising and protecting the rights of architects over their architectural designs and works.
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld a decision on enhanced damages and prejudgment interest, concluding that the district court correctly applied the appropriate standard for enhanced damages in accordance with established precedent. Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc., Case Nos. 23-1772; -1966 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 28, 2025) (Prost, Bryson, Reyna, JJ.
Intellectual Property Rights (IPR) are like different keys for different locks. Just like every lock has its matching key, each type of IP serves a specific purpose. With so many IPs available trademarks, patents, copyrights, and more – how can you choose the right one for your work, product, or business? For that, first let us understand what are IP and IPR.
Citing forfeiture, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld the dismissal of a complaint against the US Patent & Trademark Office (PTO). The complaint sought director review of a 2018 Patent Trial & Appeal Board decision that affirmed a rejection of claims in the subject patent application. In the initial appeal, no appointments clause argument was raised.
INTRODUCTION Outer space or space refers to the areas beyond our planets atmosphere. With the advancement of space technologies, including reusable rockets, deregulation of space flights, a sharp rise in economic activity in the space industry has been observed globally. Launching of new space programs and the growth of the private sector space travel have added to the development of the industry.
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court decision rejecting claims of a patent application directed to a dosing regimen for a cancer treatment, finding the claims to be obvious where the motivation to use the claimed dosing was not the same as the inventors motivation. ImmunoGen, Inc. v. Coke Morgan Stewart, Case No. 23-1763 (Fed.
Karabas v. TC Heartland LLC, 2025 WL 777001, No. 24-CV-2722 (AMD) (VMS) (E.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2025) Karabas alleged that Heartland deceptively marketed its stevia-based sweetener as 100% Natural when the sweeteners two ingredients stevia leaf extract and erythritol are synthetic because of the process through which the defendant produced the ingredients, which were allegedly not natural.
On February 6, 2025, the PTAB denied IPR institution because the Petitioner failed to establish that its key prior art reference qualified as a printed publication under Section 102(b). The PTABs decision hinged on whether the Dammann reference, which Petitioner relied on for each invalidity ground, was publicly accessible before the critical date of challenged US Patent No. 7,623,439 B2 (the 439 patent).
In a precedential opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeal for the Federal Ciruit affirmed the TTAB's decision ( here ) dismissing Sazerac Brand's opposition to registration of the mark BULLSHINE FIREBULL for "alcoholic beverages except beers." The Board found Sazerac's FIREBALL mark (for whiskey and liqueurs) to be commercially strong but conceptually weak, that the goods were purchased without great care, and that Bullshine Distillery did not act in bad faith in choosing its mark.
Originally posted 2014-08-07 16:31:50. Republished by Blog Post PromoterCan a company name be “prejudicial”? My friend Rob Holmes — he of the purportedly prejudicially-monikered “IPCybercrime” firm — is, quite reasonably, going to finish his coffee rather than worry about that too much. (As Glenn Reynolds queries in an unrelated post, “Is there anything it […] The post Prejudice in a good way?
A California federal judge on Thursday ordered the immediate reinstatement of certain probationary employees fired from six federal agencies, saying the Office of Personal Management did not have the authority to direct those terminations, making the firings "unlawful.
EcoFactor v. Google is the Federal Circuit’s first en banc utility patent case in years. The court will beholding oral arguments this morning, starting at 10:00 am Eastern. Listen here: [link] Ginger Anders (Google) will face off against Brian Ledahl (EcoFactor) before 10 members of the Court of Appeal. (Judge Newman is being excluded, and Judge Cunningham is not on the roster.
Two recent UPC decisions have provided some guidance on the admissibility and reasonableness of auxiliary requests in revocation actions. The court will look at the specific circumstances and complexity of the revocation claim, in particularly the number of invalidity grounds raised, the importance of the patents in issue, and the interrelationship with other proceedings.
The Federal Circuit recently heard oral arguments in the much-anticipated en banc review of EcoFactor, Inc. v. Google LLC , a case focusing on how courts evaluate expert testimony on patent damages. And, in particular, when a court should step-in to bar expert testimony that does not have sufficient factual basis for its conclusions. The arguments focused on whether EcoFactor's damages expert improperly derived royalty rates from license agreements that contained performative non-binding "wherea
How does the expiration of the patents in one jurisdiction impact global royalty payments? This question was addressed by the United States Court of Appeals Ninth Circuit in C.R. Bard Inc v Atrium Medical Corporation, Case No. 23-16020 (9th Cir. Aug. 23, 2024).
Thanks to Chappell Roan, the unionization issue for songwriters is a hot topic. Chris Castle and Kevin Casini discuss the organizational challenges and options to help ideate priorities.
Two recent Federal Circuit decisions open the doors of the United States International Trade Commission (ITC) to smaller companies that are threatened by unfair imports.
The Dhanush – Nayanthara copyright dispute is a gift that keeps giving, with its twists and turns and every development meriting a separate post. To quickly recap, in the first post , we discussed the substantial questions in Copyright law that the litigation raises. In the second post , I covered the order which dealt with jurisdiction and the question of urgent interim relief.
Last year, the case of BBK Tobacco & Foods LLP v. Central Agriculture Inc. made headlines in the trademark world when the Ninth Circuit held that district courts have jurisdiction to alter or cancel trademark applications. 97 F.4th 668 (9th Cir. 2024).
Internet browser company Brave Software on Wednesday hauled News Corp. into California federal court, accusing the media company of trying to "bully" it out of the search engine market by crying copyright infringement and threatening legal action over Brave's use of its website content.
Under federal trademark law, a winning trademark owner can seek a defendants profits from infringing use of the trademark. But just who is the defendant whose profits can be reached? Is it the corporate affiliate of the named defendant? What if the defendant uses creative corporate structuring to shield members of the group from the consequences of infringement?
AT&T, Verizon and T-Mobile are accused of infringing patents with technology that runs on 4G/LTE and 5G standards, according to Pegasus Wireless Corp. in new litigation in Texas federal court.
On March 7, 2025, the FDA approved Celltrions Omlyclo (omalizumab-igec), the first interchangeable biosimilar of Genentechs Xolair (omalizumab). Omlyclowas approved for all of Xolairs approved indications, including for certain patients with asthma, chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyps (CRSwNP), IgE-mediated food allergy, and chronic idiopathic urticaria (CSU).
68
68
Input your email to sign up, or if you already have an account, log in here!
Enter your email address to reset your password. A temporary password will be e‑mailed to you.
We organize all of the trending information in your field so you don't have to. Join 9,000+ users and stay up to date on the latest articles your peers are reading.
You know about us, now we want to get to know you!
Let's personalize your content
Let's get even more personalized
We recognize your account from another site in our network, please click 'Send Email' below to continue with verifying your account and setting a password.
85 
Let's personalize your content