Federal Circuit: Falsely Claiming That a Product Feature is Patented Can Give Rise to a False Advertising Claim Under the Lanham Act Federal Circuit: A Prior Decision in an IPR Does Not Collaterally Estop the Patentee in a Subsequent Litigation Where Invalidity Must be Proven by 'Clear and Convincing Evidence'
Jeff Ginsberg and Ryan J. SheehanSection 43(a)(1)(B) of the Lanham Act provides a cause of action based on false advertising when, "in commercial advertising or promotion, [the defendant] misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or geographic origin of his or her or another person's goods, services, or commercial activities."
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN The Intellectual Property Strategist
Already have an account? Sign In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate access, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or call 1-877-256-2473.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2026 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
Most firms are aiming their newest tools at the work they already do — pouring their most powerful technology into running the same tasks a little faster. But when everyone automates the same tasks at once, no one pulls ahead. That reaches the future a little faster while leaving a firm’s largest opportunity untouched — and that opportunity isn’t doing more of the existing work, but transforming how the high-value work gets done.
AI is becoming both an accelerant and a distraction for cybersecurity. In many respects, AI is acting as a stress test for existing security operations by exposing how difficult many organizations still find it to enforce basic controls consistently at scale.
Artificial intelligence is rapidly embedding itself into legal workflows, but much of the conversation treats all use cases as if they carry the same level of risk, even if they do not. The more useful question is not whether AI works, but where it can be safely applied and where it cannot.
AI-savvy lawyering is already something that clients are starting to demand. The technology is capable; the challenge now is cultural and organizational change.
