AI-assisted artwork poses a simple question: When can an artist using AI tools copyright their work? Early this year, the Copyright Office addressed this issue and rejected the proposition that only prompting an AI model can create a copyrightable work. But their analysis missed that “randomness” for a computer means something entirely different than we generally think, ultimately underselling the amount of control someone can have over the model’s output.
The stress of IP infringement matters resides on both sides of the fence: whether you find a competitor infringing upon your ideas, or your company finds itself being accused of doing the infringing. In this Point/Counterpoint series of articles, we outline the appropriate steps to take if you spot your innovation in your competitor’s booth across the hall. This article’s focus — Point: What can you do if your competitor is using your IP at a tradeshow?
The stress of IP infringement matters resides on both sides of the fence: whether you find a competitor infringing upon your ideas, or your company finds itself being accused of doing the infringing. In this Point/Counterpoint series of articles, we outline the appropriate steps to take if you spot your innovation in your competitor’s booth across the hall. This article’s focus — Counterpoint: What can you do if your competitor is using your IP at a tradeshow?
A computer scientist is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to extend copyright protection to works created entirely by artificial intelligence in one of the first cases to reach the justices about the revolutionary technology.
Federal Circuit Holds That Patentee’s Disavowal of Claim Construction Warrants Reversal of Summary JudgmentFederal Circuit Concludes That Two Organizations Lack Associational Standing to Challenge USPTO’s Denial of Petition for Rulemaking
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
© Copyright 2026 ALM Global, LLC trading as Centellic.
Advertise with Us Customer Support Terms of Service Privacy Policy
