Intellectual Property

Appeals Court Backs Nickelback In Copyright Infringement Case

The possibilities for patenting innovative applications of multimodal models across industries are endless.

Just like any new technology, efforts to protect and enforce intellectual property on AI-based technologies are likely to be hampered by a lack of both a unified governing framework and a common understanding of the technology.

A recent New York federal court decision in a dispute between a broker that sublicenses program content and a broadcaster that sublicensed content from the broker considered the interaction of contract language and extra-contractual elements of the parties' relationship to determine whether a fiduciary relationship existed.

A recent order from Chief Judge Colm Connolly in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware may serve as a warning for "patent trolls" — the derogatory term used to describe companies whose sole function is to acquire and then assert patents, often in cases that are questionable on the merits — against filing cases in Delaware going forward.

Federal Circuit: ITC Did Not Err In Finding Violation of Section 337 Federal Circuit: PTAB Did Not Err In Claim Construction and Finding Certain Claims Obvious

At what point does a "smart" computing system, or advanced software program, qualify as AI in the eyes of pertinent regulatory or judicial authorities? When is an individual considered to have merely deployed an AI-based computing tool to assist with creating a work of art or conceiving of a technological innovation? Each of these questions is explored in this article, giving consideration to currently prevailing guidelines from administrative bodies and the courts.

The emerging cases by authors and copyright owners challenging various generative AI programs for using copyrighted materials are certain to create new troubles for the courts being asked to apply the fair use doctrine to this important new technology.