Intellectual Property Strategist

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.

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.

The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board recently issued a precedential decision affirming an Examiner’s refusal to register WEMBY for athletic apparel. It is a rare precedential Trademark Trial and Appeal Board decision rendered under Sections 2(a) and 2(c) of the Lanham Act, which are not the frequent subjects of litigation.