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
The IPKat has received and is pleased to host the following commentary from Katfriends Adrian Aronsson-Storrier and Sam Berriman (both Lewis Silkin LLP), pondering on the implications of a potential UK reform of the existing text and data analysis defence in section 29A CDPA and tackling what is often an overlooked angle in copyright debates: data protection law.
Decade after decade, Hollywood studios have produced many of the greatest movies ever committed to celluloid, together telling some of the most inspiring, terrifying, beautiful, outrageous, spectacular, and funny stories ever told. Movies make the impossible, possible, and when the Fmovies piracy empire was shuttered in 2024, the MPA showed that with enough time, effort, resources, and persistence, impossible achievements aren’t necessarily confined to the silver screen.
INTRODUCTION Sports has always been treated as at the least a recreational activity, at it the most a showcase for athletic prowess. In the recent times, this has changed immensely; the new world of capitalisation has turned the concept of sports into a revenue generation avenue. The Indian sports market, especially is a ground for rapid growth, with a die-hard fan base, and an ever-growing hunger for more, the market of sports is at the top of its game.
Trade secrets, noncompetes, and other restrictive covenants continued to make headlines in 2024. Most notably, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) published a final rule imposing a near total ban on employee noncompetes that was immediately, and successfully, challenged in court. The FTCs rulemaking and subsequent litigation challenge last year may have contributed in part to the slowdown of attempts to enact new noncompete legislation at the state level.
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?
[ This post is authored by Akshat Agrawal and Sneha Jain. Akshat Agrawal is a Senior Associate at Saikrishna and Associates and has previously written on the blog here. Sneha is a Partner at Saikrishna and Associates and leads their Artificial Intelligence and Law Practice. Views expressed here are those of the authors alone. Long post ahead. ] The US District Court for the District of Delaware’s recent opinion in Thomson Reuters and West Publishing v.
Judge Bibass second take in Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence will get plenty of second looks from courts deciding fair use in generative AI copyright cases. Highly fact-specific. Narrowly decided. A case with potentially limited impact. Those were some of the phrases legal commentators used to describe Andy Warhol Foundation for the Visual Arts v.
For companies, maintaining a competitive advantage over the market is necessary for long-term growth. In many cases, this competitive advantage takes the form of a federal- or state-protected trade secret, such as a proprietary algorithm, product formula, or customer list. But if companies fail to implement internal policies required by federal and state law, federal and state trade secret protection may quickly be lost, along with the advantage it confers.
For companies, maintaining a competitive advantage over the market is necessary for long-term growth. In many cases, this competitive advantage takes the form of a federal- or state-protected trade secret, such as a proprietary algorithm, product formula, or customer list. But if companies fail to implement internal policies required by federal and state law, federal and state trade secret protection may quickly be lost, along with the advantage it confers.
[Thanks to Aditi, Khushi and Sudhanshu for the case summaries] Here is our recap of last weeks top IP developments including summary of the posts on the ANI vs OpenAI copyright case, CGPDTMs office being moved to Delhi, and exemption under Section 107A of the Patents Act. This and a lot more in this weeks SpicyIP Weekly Review. Anything we are missing out on?
In rejecting an AI company's fair use defense for using Thomson Reuters' Westlaw headnotes to train its competing legal tool, Judge Bilas, the District of Delaware judge in Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GMBH and West Publishing Corp. v. Ross Intelligence Inc., Case No. 1:20-cv-613-SB, was careful to emphasize that the ruling was not generally applicable to generative AI as the platform at issue did not create new creative content and instead used the training materials to enable it to answer
Skillz Platform Inc. v. Papaya Gaming, Ltd., 2025 WL 438387, 24cv1646(DLC) (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 7, 2025) Previous discussion. Skillz sued its competitor Papaya, alleging false advertising under federal and state law. Papaya counterclaimed for the same causes of action and added trademark and copyright infringement as well as defamation and civil conspiracy claims.
Fair use a critical defense in copyright law that allows limited use of copyrighted material without permission has emerged as a key battleground in the wave of artificial intelligence (AI) copyright litigation. In a significant revision of his earlier position, Judge Stephanos Bibas in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware has dealt a blow to artificial intelligence companies by blocking their ability to rely on this defense in Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH.
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.
Request for Submissions Harvard/Stanford/Yale Junior Faculty Forum June 2-3, 2025, Harvard Law School Harvard, Stanford, and Yale Law Schools are soliciting submissions for the 2025 Harvard/Stanford/Yale Junior Faculty Forum, to be held at Harvard Law School on June 2-3, 2025. Twelve to twenty junior scholars (with one to seven years in teaching) will be chosen, through a double-blind selection process, to present their work at the Forum.
Novo Nordisk recently made headlines petitioning FDA to stop the compounding of its blockbuster GLP-1 products so it can sell its patented semaglutide drugs exclusively. Compounding is the practice of creating new drug products through mixing, combining, diluting, reconstituting, or otherwise altering a drug or bulk drug substance. Historically, healthcare facilities and pharmacies compounded customized medicine to suit patients individual needs.
by Dennis Crouch The Supreme Court's 2024-2025 patent docket has a growing number of cases awaiting consideration. I count fifteen pending cases that could reshape multiple facets of patent law. At the heart of this term lies a set of challenges to the Federal Circuit's Rule 36 summary affirmance practice, with five separate petitions (ParkerVision, Island IP, ATOS, Audio Evolution Diagnostics and Converter Manufacturing) arguing that the court's frequent use of one-word affirmances undermines t
On February 10, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in Kroy IP Holdings, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., where the Court held that a a prior final written decision of the [PTAB] of unpatentability on separate patent claims. cannot collaterally estop a patentee from asserting other, unadjudicated patent claims in district court litigation,even if the other claims are only.
Christopher Sadowski , a photojournalist from New Jersey, has filed a lawsuit against Fortner Services Inc., operating as Fortner Pest Control , for alleged copyright infringement. Sadowski, who has been published in various prominent outlets, including the New York Post and USA Today , has built a reputation not only for his award-winning photography but also for his diligent efforts to protect his intellectual property.
Adalimumab Challenged Claim Types in IPR and Litigation: Claims include those challenged in litigations and IPRs. Claims are counted in each litigation and IPR, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple litigations/IPRs are counted more than once. Within each litigation a claim is counted only once. Within each IPR, claims are counted only once, whether they are challenged under 102, 103, or both.
[This opinion from December got stuck in my blogging queue. I’m blogging it now as part of my ongoing efforts to highlight the censorial effects of mandatory editorial transparency laws.] Washington’s Fair Campaign Practices Act “requires Meta to maintain certain records of the political advertisements it hosts on its platforms and, when requested, to permit inspection of, or to disclose, such records to those seeking such information.” In 2018, the state claimed Facebook
Rituximab Challenged Claim Types in IPR and Litigation: Claims include those challenged in litigations and IPRs. Claims are counted in each litigation and IPR, so claims from the same patent challenged in multiple litigations/IPRs are counted more than once. Within each litigation a claim is counted only once. Within each IPR, claims are counted only once, whether they are challenged under 102, 103, or both.
Earlier this week, a federal judge rejected an AI startup's claim that using copyrighted material to train its AI system was permissible under the fair use doctrine. The decisionThomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH v. Ross Intelligence Inc., No. 1:20-CV-613-SB (D. Del. Feb. 11, 2025)marks the first time a court has rejected a fair use defense in this context.
Discussions over intellectual property rights are not just restricted to our textbooks but spill over to the kind of music we listen to,the medicines we intake and much much more. However, it cannot be denied that discussions around IP have been somewhat confined to the academic, legal and policy circles, navigating our mind frames like giant smoke rings from formidable cheroots of erstwhile colonial English Lords.
January saw activity in the copyright infringement lawsuit filed by a group of authors led by comedian Sarah Silverman against OpenAI. A magistrate judge ordered the AI pioneer to produce its datasets, which are used for training, to determine whether they contained copyrighted material.
Consumer device giant Apple has earned trillions of dollars and cornered near monopoly levels of market share by implementing a corporate strategy focused on gaming proceedings in the federal judiciary and administrative agencies with the intent to devalue patent rights. That is the major takeaway from a recently launched campaign raising awareness into the alleged growing chokehold that Apple has gained over the global innovation industry over the past two decades, and the resulting stagnation
On January 24, 2025, the FDA approved Celltrions Avtozma (tocilizumab-anoh), in intravenous and subcutaneous formulations, as the third biosimilar of Genentechs Actemra (tocilizumab).
Originally posted 2005-01-11 15:02:00. Republished by Blog Post PromoterThe New York Times (linked to by Drudge) has an article entitled The Secret Lives of Just About Everybody which opens, compellingly, as follows: One mislaid credit card bill or a single dangling e-mail message on the home computer would have ended everything: the marriage, the big-time […] The post More on Email Privacy for the Dead appeared first on LIKELIHOOD OF CONFUSION.
From the pages of The New York Times to thegeneral counsels office of The New York Times, AI copyright litigation is all the rage. Possible questions include the philosophicale.g. Could an AI agent hold a copyright?but the most asked are the pecuniarye.g. Do the creators of AI tools owe me, a copyright holder, money?. By: Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C.
In the SIMCA decision (case T-327/12), the General Court found that the third-party application for a formerly famous trade mark that is still registered but has not been used for decades constitutes bad faith if the applicant intends to take advantage of the remaining reputation. This judgment begs the question whether it also applies where the earlier trade mark is still used and registered.
Pop star Katy Perry has successfully appealed a Federal Court ruling over the use of an Australian designers trade mark registration for the words KATIE PERRY. The recent decision by the Full Court of the Federal Court unanimously overturned Justice Brigitte Markovics findings in Taylor v Killer Queen, LLC (No 5) [2023]. The trio found that Katie Taylors trademark was not validly registered and ordered for the registration to be cancelled.
Didnt catch the latest in IP news last week? Dont worry, heres your chance to catch up on everything you might have missed! Patents Rose Hughes highlighted the EBA's preliminary opinion in referral G1/24 , which addresses the role of the description in claim interpretation. The EBA found Questions 1 and 2 admissible, but rejected Question 3. The case revolves around the interpretation of the term 'gathered' in Philip Morris patent, with the EBA's opinion potentially influencing claim interpretat
AI copyright jurisprudence is set to have a big year in 2025. On February 11, 2025, a Delaware federal court issued the first major decision concerning the use of copyrighted material to train AI. The case is Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GMBH v. ROSS Intelligence Inc., No. 1:20-cv-613-SB (D. Del.).
Its finally here. After months of warnings, announcements, and uneasiness about their application, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office implemented a number of trademark-related fee changes in January 2025. These fees changes, though, are more than just fee increases.
Patent and trademark applicants are likely to see significant changes with their applications in 2025. First, numerous fee increases have recently taken effect on January 18 for trademark applications and January 19 for patent applications.
The U.S. Copyright Office has now released the second of four reports in its Copyright and Artificial Intelligence series, addressing the copyrightability of works created using generative artificial intelligence. The office had solicited public comment on five questions about this topic: 1. Does the U.S. Constitutions Copyright Clause permit copyright protection for AI-generated material?
A Delaware federal district court made headlines this week by issuing the first court decision rejecting fair use as a defense in training artificial intelligence (AI) models with copyrighted content. In Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GMBH v. Ross Intel. Inc., Judge Bibas held, among other things, that two of the four factors analyzed in determining whether copyright infringement is defendable as fair use weighed heavily in favor of the copyright owner in this case, Thomson Reuters.
Biosimilar Litigations include litigations relating to biosimilar/follow-on products of CDER-listed reference products. Litigations between biosimilar applicants/manufacturers and reference product sponsors as well as litigations between two biosimilar applicants/manufacturers are included. Litigations relating to disputes between two reference product sponsors, or non-practicing entities/universities and reference product sponsors are not included.
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.
110 
Let's personalize your content