North America: Intellectual Property

Quick Answer: AI-assisted inventions use the same U.S. inventorship standard as other inventions, with only human beings eligible as inventors. Technology companies should document each person's conception of the claimed invention before drafting claims and approving inventor declarations. The USPTO imposes no general AI-use disclosure duty, but information material to patentability can still require disclosure. [2] Patent counsel should assess inventorship, disclosure, and eligibility separately before the company commits to a filing strategy.

The UK High Court has ruled on whether lisdexamfetamine (LDX), a pro-drug with no therapeutic activity before conversion to dextroamphetamine, can be considered an "active ingredient" for supplementary protection certificate purposes. This decision addresses a critical question in pharmaceutical patent law that has produced divergent outcomes across European jurisdictions and is currently before the CJEU in multiple pending referrals.

Researchers routinely use AI tools like AlphaFold and Schrödinger's software without scrutinizing license agreements that contain restrictions on commercial use, confidentiality, and mandatory disclosure requirements. These overlooked terms can create significant legal obstacles when translating academic innovations into commercial products, affecting everything from sponsored research agreements to patent filings and university spinouts.

Researchers routinely use AI tools like AlphaFold and Schrödinger's software without scrutinizing license agreements that contain restrictions on commercial use, confidentiality, and mandatory disclosure requirements. These overlooked terms can create significant legal obstacles when translating academic innovations into commercial products, affecting everything from sponsored research agreements to patent filings and university spinouts.

Canadian patent law contains distinct procedural and substantive requirements that can significantly affect claim scope, prosecution costs, patent term, and enforceability for foreign companies. Understanding these differences—from software patentability standards to patent term adjustment opportunities—is essential for developing an effective North American IP strategy that maximizes protection while controlling costs.

As AI-generated art becomes increasingly sophisticated and visible in institutions like Dataland, the art world grapples with fundamental questions about distinguishing human creativity from machine output. This analysis explores the legal, commercial, and reputational implications for copyright protection, market positioning, disclosure obligations, and the evolving regulatory landscape surrounding AI use in creative industries.

The USPTO imposes exacting identification requirements for Web3, gaming, and virtual media trademarks. Under TMEP § 1401.15(b), applicants cannot identify goods or services simply as "NFTs" or "virtual goods" because those terms do not describe recognizable items in commerce under the Trademark Act. To obtain trademark protection, applicants must clearly describe the asset underlying the digital representation, how it will be delivered, and how it is intended to be used.

Canada's intellectual property landscape has undergone significant transformation with the April 2025 trademark amendments, March 2026 CIPO patent guidance on software and AI, and evolving trade secret protections.

A U.S. Supreme Court review of Rise Brewing's trademark infringement case against PepsiCo could fundamentally alter who determines brand strength in trademark disputes. The case examines whether judges or juries should assess trademark distinctiveness, with implications for how businesses select and enforce their marks. Existing marks and registration statements may significantly impact a company's ability to protect its trademark rights.

Trade secret cases can arise in any industry. But a recent dispute in the world of NASCAR underscores the reality that a company's most valuable trade secrets may walk out the door with a departing executive long before they ever appear in a downloaded file or stolen hard drive.

In CreateAI Holdings, Inc. f/k/a TuSimple Holdings, Inc. v. Bot Auto TX Inc., the Fifteenth Court of Appeals affirmed a Texas Business Court’s denial of a temporary injunction in an autonomous trucking trade secret dispute. The court’s memorandum opinion recognizes that mere suspicion and a competitor’s rapid success are insufficient to warrant injunctive relief. Instead, plaintiffs must produce evidence that specific, protectable secrets existed and were actually misappropriated.

As businesses rapidly adopt artificial intelligence, machine learning, and predictive analytics across their operations, many overlook critical intellectual property considerations. Recent federal court decisions reveal the nuanced distinction between simply automating existing processes with AI versus creating patentable innovations that improve how AI systems themselves operate.