Worldwide: Intellectual Property

Companies developing generative AI technologies face a rapidly evolving patent landscape that demands immediate strategic attention. A recent analysis of WIPO's Technology SPARK Report reveals sharp increases in AI-related patent families and expanding activity across industries beyond traditional tech sectors. Marshall Gerstein Partner Ryan Phelan examines what these trends mean for businesses navigating the competitive GenAI patent environment.

The Federal Circuit issued 23 opinions in June and July 2026 reviewing PTAB post-grant proceedings, with affirmance rates varying significantly between the two months. Cumulative statistics through July 31, 2026 reveal patterns in how the appellate court has handled over 1,600 IPR, CBM, and PGR appeals since these proceedings began.

In Enanta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Pfizer Inc. No. 2025-1427 (Fed. Cir. June 23, 2026), one character did a lot of damage. The difference between C2 and C1 cost Enanta the priority date of its provisional application—and led the Federal Circuit to affirm that the challenged claims were anticipated.

The USPTO has released its latest economic impact report on IP-intensive industries, announced a new community engagement office in North Carolina, and issued several administrative updates including relief for Japanese applicants affected by a severe earthquake. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has also designated new precedential and informative decisions addressing obviousness-type double patenting and Markush groupings.

Intellectual property due diligence often gets relegated to a final checklist item in acquisitions, but this approach can lead to costly oversights. Jason Balich explores why IP assessment should receive the same early, strategic attention as financial analysis, and provides a framework for evaluating whether a target company's patents, trademarks, and trade secrets are properly secured and enforceable.

CBP’s Intellectual Property Enforcement Branch briefed eRecordation holders on August 27, 2026 on changes to the recordation application, future expanded pre-seizure disclosure authority, pending legislation, and an enforcement posture that has to consequence delivery, especially collecting penalties for IP violations.

Paul Bain has completed the second edition of Art Law: Cases and Controversies, a comprehensive legal guide published by LexisNexis that examines the intricate legal frameworks governing art creation, transactions, collecting, and preservation. The publication features contributions from leading professionals and addresses how traditional art law principles intersect with modern challenges posed by the Internet and artificial intelligence technologies.

Is this AI-generated, or is it real? As generative AI tools have become increasingly capable of creating realistic images, videos, and audio, they have also made it easier to impersonate real people without their consent. In response, states are increasingly adopting laws that impose civil and criminal liability for certain AI-generated content that replicates an individual’s identity, likeness, voice, or other personal attributes.

When you settle a patent dispute or license your technology, you may unknowingly trigger patent marking obligations that can eliminate your ability to recover pre-suit damages. A recent Federal Circuit decision demonstrates how settlement agreements transform patent owners into licensors with active compliance duties, and why failing to monitor licensee marking practices can result in case dismissal and substantial attorney fee awards.

Paul Bain has completed the second edition of Art Law: Cases and Controversies, a comprehensive legal guide published by LexisNexis that examines the intricate legal frameworks governing art creation, transactions, collecting, and preservation. The publication features contributions from leading professionals and addresses how traditional art law principles intersect with modern challenges posed by the Internet and artificial intelligence technologies.

Artificial intelligence has revolutionized innovation at unprecedented speed, but its rapid advancement raises critical questions about intellectual property rights. Is AI a transformative tool that lawfully builds on existing knowledge, or does it systematically infringe on the creative works and patents of inventors and artists? The answer depends on which side of this intensifying legal debate you occupy.

The U.S. government has filed a Statement of Interest of the United States of America under 28 U.S.C. § 517 in the Southern District of New York multidistrict litigation over OpenAI’s use of copyrighted works to train large language models. The filing appears to be the federal government’s first direct intervention in the wave of artificial intelligence (AI) training copyright cases, and it advises the court to treat model training (separate from use of AI to generate outputs) on copyrighted text standing alone as a highly transformative fair use under current law.