Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Features
The U.S. Supreme Court is set to commence its term on October 6. Among the cases it will review are several appeals concerning copyright and trademark law. One notable case seeks to address procedural inconsistencies and claims of unconstitutional vagueness attributed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Features
A new lawsuit against Perplexity AI claims responses generated by the artificial intelligence platform violate the trademarks of Encyclopaedia Britannica and Merriam-Webster by attributing false information to their widely esteemed brands. The complaint alleges Perplexity’s generative AI “answer engine” violates the plaintiffs’ copyrights and also cites them as sources of false or incomplete information.
Features
In August, the Federal Circuit issued a surprisingly self-critical ruling in the long-standing dispute between Erik Brunetti and the USPTO over Brunetti’s efforts to register the term F*CK for a wide variety of goods and services. The Federal Circuit concluded that the Board’s decision in In re Brunett lacked sufficient clarity and therefore vacated it for further proceedings, which although facially unremarkable, may not only prove to be a boon to Brunetti, it may also be highly beneficial to many trademark owners who have been forced to wrestle with failure-to-function refusals.
Features
A federal judge in the Northern District of California granted preliminary approval on September 25 to a $1.5 billion settlement between Anthropic and a class of authors who alleged that the artificial intelligence company used their copyrighted works to train its chatbot Claude without their consent. The settlement is the largest copyright settlement of all time, covering 482,460 works and paying authors slightly more than $3,000 per work infringed.
Features
The landscape for discretionary denials at PTAB is evolving quickly; both patent challengers and owners must adapt their strategies to ensure they are not left behind by the USPTO’s new approach.
Features
Many companies have been participating in the growing trend of challenging counterfeit products of their goods by filing “Schedule A” lawsuits. These suits are mass actions typically alleging intellectual property infringement and they allow plaintiffs to sue many defendants at once, with the defendants’ names grouped in a “Schedule A” appendix attached to the complaint.
Columns & Departments
Federal Circuit: Board Erred in Finding No Likelihood of Confusion Between KIST and SUNKIST MarksFederal Circuit: No Jurisdiction Where Petitioner Offers a Non-Patent Law Related Ground for Relief
Features
As AI becomes more sophisticated at detecting fakes, it is not just changing how brands protect themselves — it has the potential to change the legal framework for determining when platforms themselves might be held responsible for the counterfeits sold on their sites.
Features
For companies developing novelty products, advertising campaigns, or brand-related parodies, this case underscores the importance of reviewing both confusion and reputational risks. For rights holders, it affirms that parody is not a license to defame a brand.
Features
Most days, preparing and prosecuting patent applications follows a familiar rhythm. Talk with the inventors. Draft the application. Wait for the Patent Office. Argue a few times. Secure the patent. Repeat. But every so often, a case reminds us that our work can mean much more — especially when something has gone wrong, and someone needs an advocate to make it right.