Intellectual Property Law and Copyright Laws

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.

The Federal Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction in a patent infringement case involving electrical outlet cover products, finding that the district court made critical errors in its claim construction analysis. The appellate court determined that the lower court improperly imposed unsupported limitations on key patent terms and incorrectly applied a presumption of irreparable harm.

A federal district court in Idaho denied McCain Foods' post-trial motions in a design patent dispute over French fry shapes, upholding a jury verdict that found McCain's "Twisted Potato" willfully infringed Simplot's design patent. The decision reinforces critical procedural requirements for Rule 50 motions and clarifies standards for proving design patent infringement through photographs and marketing materials.

In VDPP, LLC v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., the Federal Circuit addressed whether a non-practicing entity that licenses its patent through settlement agreements must ensure those licensees comply with patent marking requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 287(a). The court's ruling clarifies that patent owners cannot avoid marking obligations simply because they don't manufacture products themselves...

The Seventh Circuit's 2024 decision in Motorola Solutions v. Hytera Communications established that the Defend Trade Secrets Act can reach conduct outside the United States and permit recovery of damages based on worldwide sales. District courts have begun applying this precedent, expanding the potential scope of liability for cross-border trade secret disputes. The ruling raises important questions about how minimal a US connection may be before federal trade secret protection no longer applies.

Recent trade secret case law reveals critical standards for proving misappropriation, from the Ninth Circuit's reversal of a $57 million judgment over incorrect jury instructions on the "not readily ascertainable" element, to the Eighth Circuit's requirements for adequate trade secret identification. Courts continue to refine extraterritorial application of the DTSA and standards for demonstrating actual use of allegedly misappropriated information.

The Defend Trade Secrets Act marked its 10th anniversary in 2026, promising a unified national standard for trade secret protection. Has federal litigation delivered on this promise, or do state laws and circuit splits continue to fragment the landscape? This analysis examines key trends, unresolved legal questions, and emerging challenges posed by artificial intelligence in trade secret enforcement.

In VDPP, LLC v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., the Federal Circuit addressed whether a non-practicing entity that licenses its patent through settlement agreements must ensure those licensees comply with patent marking requirements under 35 U.S.C. § 287(a). The court's ruling clarifies that patent owners cannot avoid marking obligations simply because they don't manufacture products themselves...

InvaGen Pharmaceuticals Inc., a Cipla Limited subsidiary, has entered into a strategic partnership with Qilu Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. for the licensing and supply of QL2107, a biosimilar to Merck's KEYTRUDA® (pembrolizumab), in the United States. This collaboration represents the latest in a series of partnering transactions directed to pembrolizumab biosimilar candidates, with Qilu handling development and regulatory registration while Cipla USA manages commercialization.

A company trying to register a trademark sometimes encounters an unusual situation: the owner of the trademark cited against its application does not object to the registration, but the United States Patent and Trademark Office still does.