Patent Litigation

This is the second installment in a two-part series examining the implications of using generative artificial intelligence (GAI) in the drafting and prosecution of patent applications. In this part, we address the potential impact of drafting a patent application with a GAI tool, including potential invalidity challenges based on anticipation and written description. Thereafter, we offer practical guidance for patent prosecutors and inventors seeking to use GAI in their workflows.

AI-enabled and AI-first often describe the adoption of new technology, but they reveal very little about how the services are delivered or how they will produce better business outcomes for clients. Two firms may both claim to have AI built into their patent processes but operate in fundamentally different ways.

New USPTO procedures allow patent owners to respond to ex parte requests pre-reexamination. Patent owners should consider strategically leveraging these procedures to prevent their patent claims from being cancelled or narrowed through reexamination.

Federal Circuit Reverses District Court’s Dismissal for Lack of Article III Standing Finding Plaintiffs Possessed a Non-Illusory Exclusionary Right Sufficient for Constitutional StandingFederal Circuit Vacates and Remands Infringement and Damages Judgments Due to Improper Single-Question Verdict Form Covering Multiple Patents, Vacates and Remands on §101 Alice Step Two for Failure to Instruct Jury on the Abstract Idea, and Affirms Patent Eligibility of Two Patents

If managed with purpose, a patent portfolio can be one of a company’s most valuable strategic assets. Too often, portfolios grow without a clear connection to business objectives, consuming time and money without delivering meaningful value. A thoughtful patent audit helps companies refocus their efforts, reduce waste, and ensure their intellectual property supports long-term growth. Here are practical tips to guide an effective audit.

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.

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

When a patent claims software that computes a charging schedule and then makes charging occur, the Federal Circuit may require the system, not the driver, to cause the charge event.