Patents are not static assets. They are legal instruments shaped over time by prosecution, continuation practice, post‑grant proceedings, and cross‑border filings. Treating them as fixed objects in a fixed landscape misstates the risk.
At a recent trade secret conference, several speakers highlighted a problem with a common industry practice related to non-disclosure agreements (NDAs). In particular, NDAs are often drafted such that they (and the confidentiality obligations therein) expire after a set term, but there is a very real risk that doing so may inadvertently destroy trade secret status of information disclosed pursuant to the NDA.
Improper or non-conforming data rights markings can lead to objection or challenge by the U.S. government, and a failure to mark may lead to loss of certain rights in the underlying IP. Accordingly, this article provides a practical guide to data rights marking, especially for those individuals involved in, or responsible for, marking content delivered to the USG.
The legal landscape around AI and copyright remains unsettled. Forward-looking businesses will not wait for definitive case law on every issue. Instead, they will treat AI as a catalyst to modernize copyright governance: tightening practices around online content, revisiting license strategies, and building internal literacy about how copyright really works in an AI-saturated environment.
During a recent lecture, Morrison & Foerster partner Joseph Gratz noted the potential of harnessing AI as a tool to further “human expression” and dissected the snarl of novel copyright challenges that AI song generators present to the music industry.
Federal Circuit Panel Holds a Patent That Fails to List Its Inventor(s) and Cannot Be Corrected According to Law Is Invalid (Precedential)Federal Circuit Holds ITC Respondent May Not Circumvent 28 U.S.C. §1659(a)’s 30-Day Requirement By Refiling Declaratory Judgment
