Intellectual Property

A federal judge handed Meta a major win on June 24 in a closely watched copyright case over its use of books to train large language models, but the ruling stopped well short of giving tech companies blanket protection to scrape creative works for artificial intelligence.

In today’s competitive marketplace, a company’s most valuable assets are often not found on its balance sheet. The proprietary formulas, customer databases, pricing models, and operational processes that give businesses their competitive edge represent intellectual capital that can literally be worth millions — or lost in an instant. As innovation drives business success, protecting these trade secrets has become critical to maintaining market position and profitability.

In brand protection, as in bridge engineering, the strength of brand differentiation (trademark distinctiveness) depends on the integrity of each supporting cable. When one snaps, the question is not only whether you can fix that component, but also whether the whole structure will hold together long enough for the repair crew to arrive.

In Ex parte Michalek, the PTAB evaluated an invention involving medical health technology and artificial intelligence. While this case involved medical health technology, the implicated issues inform patent strategies for AI enabled inventions across all industries.

Military-owned businesses often possess unique technological advantages derived from years of research, development, and practical application. One veteran-owned company’s journey — combined with a patent attorney’s experience preparing and filing patent applications — provides valuable insight into what veterans should do to safeguard their intellectual property.

In a recent decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit addressed application and analysis of the fair use doctrine under copyright law, and reversed the district court’s finding of fair use. In an unusual situation, the lower court had dismissed the complaint sua sponte, although the defendant’s time to respond to the complaint had expired.

Only a few district courts have addressed the failure to mark in recent years — but they’ve reached directly opposing conclusions. This article analyzes the conflicting authorities and their reasoning, and it provides guidance to litigants on best practices given the conflict between district courts.

On April 8, a California jury found that R.C. Bigelow, Inc., the well-known manufacturer of Bigelow teas, intentionally or recklessly misled consumers by claiming that some of its teabags were “Manufactured in the USA.” The price for this mislabeling was steep, with the jury awarding the class action plaintiffs $2.36 million.