Prosecution Pointer 113

Universal Music Group's lawsuit against DistroKid raises a critical question about AI disclosure in consumer markets: when does the use of artificial intelligence become material information that must be disclosed to consumers? The case centers on allegations that DistroKid distributed mass-generated AI music while creating the impression it was created by legitimate human artists, potentially violating existing consumer protection laws even without specific AI disclosure requirements.

The U.S. Copyright Office recently released a report on the human authorship requirement for materials to qualify for copyright protection.

Bristol-Myers Squibb and Ono Pharmaceutical have filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Amgen over its proposed nivolumab biosimilar ABP 206, asserting seven patents related to OPDIVO. The complaint follows earlier inter partes review challenges and patent dance negotiations that narrowed the dispute to specific claims covering the antibody sequence, cancer treatment methods, and dosing regimens.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced on January 14, 2025, a new Artificial Intelligence (AI) Strategy which provides a vision for how the USPTO can encourage accountable AI innovation.

As artificial intelligence reshapes corporate marketing, .ai domain names have become prime digital real estate worth millions. A recent WIPO ruling in a high-profile dispute between a combat sports brand and a domain investor reveals critical lessons about trademark rights, bad faith claims, and the limits of domain seizure policies in the booming AI domain market.

The Seventh Circuit's 2024 decision in Motorola Solutions v. Hytera Communications established that the Defend Trade Secrets Act can reach conduct outside the United States and permit recovery of damages based on worldwide sales. District courts have begun applying this precedent, expanding the potential scope of liability for cross-border trade secret disputes. The ruling raises important questions about how minimal a US connection may be before federal trade secret protection no longer applies.

The USPTO has released its latest economic impact report on IP-intensive industries, announced a new community engagement office in North Carolina, and issued several administrative updates including relief for Japanese applicants affected by a severe earthquake. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has also designated new precedential and informative decisions addressing obviousness-type double patenting and Markush groupings.

The USPTO recently extended the After Final Consideration Pilot (AFCP) 2.0 to September 30, 2024. AFCP 2.0 is part of the USPTO's ongoing effort toward compact prosecution...

The Federal Circuit recently vacated a PTAB decision in Dental Monitoring SAS v. Align Technology, Inc., addressing a critical question about prior art qualification under the America Invents Act.

The November issue of Squire Patton Boggs Bio/Pharma Beat is now available. Our monthly newsletter reports on important patent law developments in biotech,...

The U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of Industry and Security issued guidance on May 31, 2026, clarifying licensing requirements for advanced computing items and AI technologies. The guidance maintains export restrictions for entities in certain countries while providing limited relief for data center operators, though questions remain about future regulatory direction. Companies must now strengthen their compliance programs and supply-chain due diligence as BIS continues to prioritize national security

On May 27, 2026, the Superior Court of California held that subdivision (a) of California Penal Code § 638.51 does not apply to software on commercial websites. Plaintiff Brian Blaker sued Defendant NetScout, Inc., alleging the Defendant had violated § 638.51 of the California Invasion of Privacy Act by implementing a software development kit (SDK) on its website.

The USPTO recently extended the After Final Consideration Pilot (AFCP) 2.0 to September 30, 2024. AFCP 2.0 is part of the USPTO's ongoing effort toward compact prosecution...

On February 5, 2024, the USPTO will retire the Electronic Patent Assignment System (EPAS) and the Electronic Trademark Assignment System (ETAS).

A Massachusetts district court grants a joint motion to stay proceedings while the parties conduct venue discovery and brief a motion to dismiss or transfer in a patent infringement case between Advanced Surgical Concepts Limited and Intuitive Surgical, Inc. The order establishes specific parameters for discovery scope and briefing schedule before other case deadlines resume.

If an applicant wishes to have an application published earlier than the date that is eighteen months after the earliest filing date for which benefit is claimed...

The USPTO only issues one original grant copy of a patent to the inventor. One, however, can obtain a certified (blue ribbon and seal copy) by contacting the Certification Division (800.972.6382).

The USPTO regularly offers its Stakeholder Training on Examination Practice and Procedure for individuals who have recently passed the Patent Bar for the purpose of representing applicants before the USPTO.

The Federal Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction in a patent infringement case involving electrical outlet cover products, finding that the district court made critical errors in its claim construction analysis. The appellate court determined that the lower court improperly imposed unsupported limitations on key patent terms and incorrectly applied a presumption of irreparable harm.

Prosecution Pointer 135.