Intellectual Property

The Supreme Court recently granted certiorari in RiseandShine Corp. v. PepsiCo, Inc., a trademark dispute that presents a question with potentially significant implications for trademark litigation: whether a trademark’s inherent strength is a question of fact for a jury or a question of law for a court.

Sampling portions of preexisting songs and sound recordings in new works became common in the 1980s, with the rise of hip-hop music and the widespread availability of digital sampling technology. This article examines several 2026 court decisions involving music sampling disputes.

Agentic AI introduces risks that are novel and complex, but the most effective response is a familiar one. Zero Trust answers the problem of when an AI agent misfires on its own by constraining what an agent can do rather than betting on how it will behave.

Aldi’s shoppers know exactly what they are buying. Mondelez v. Aldi will test whether trademark law can see, and price, what a package borrows.

Federal Circuit: Construing a Structural Claim Term as a “Means” for Performing a Function Improperly Converts the Claimed Structure into a Means-Plus-Function TermPatent Trial and Appeal Board: Obviousness-Type Double Patenting is Not Limited Only to Patent Claims That Would Effectively Extend the Term of an Existing Patent (But Clarification Would Be Welcome)

It is one of the more common questions a trademark practitioner fields at the start of a brand launch: “We found the name we want to use, but somebody else is already using it — and they never registered it. Are we blocked?” Surprisingly, the answer is oftentimes “not necessarily.”

A funding event changes expectations instantly. The company that pitched a bold vision is now expected to execute, scale, and defend itself under heightened investor and market scrutiny. A post-round reassessment helps ensure the patents protecting your technology and data are built for sustained flight, not just an impressive countdown.

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.