United States: Intellectual Property

An artist sends drawings and 3D files to an overseas foundry. The foundry casts the commissioned sculptures, keeps the molds, photographs the unfinished work, and pulls a few extra casts. Images appear online before the artist’s exhibition opens. Soon, sellers are offering cheaper versions under the artist’s name.

On August 3, 2026, Governor Greg Abbott issued a directive to the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC) and the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) mandating a “comprehensive verification and audit” of all data center projects currently advancing through the ERCOT interconnection process. T

Managing Partner Brett Johnson of Winston Taylor's Dallas office shares insights on artificial intelligence's impact on intellectual property law, the evolution of the legal industry, and the strategic advantages of the firm's transatlantic platform. The conversation explores innovation in legal practice, the new Texas Business Court, and how combining local expertise with global capabilities creates value for clients.

Recent TTAB decisions illustrate how composite marks combining words and design elements can avoid likelihood of confusion with competing marks when the textual and visual components work together...

When a BTS hit single shares its title and core elements with an unreleased demo, the resulting federal copyright lawsuit becomes a critical case study in proving access through digital paper trails, substantial similarity analysis, and supply-chain liability in the modern music industry. The dispute highlights how digital sharing platforms have transformed copyright litigation by generating precise evidence of access, while raising crucial questions about independent creation defenses and the legal respons

AI-generated performers like Tilly Norwood and Xania Monet are creating real revenue streams through licensing, streaming, and brand partnerships. How should creators, managers, and agencies structure ownership, navigate international tax obligations, and build sustainable business models around digital talent that exists entirely as intellectual property?

The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit holds unique nationwide jurisdiction over patent cases and specialized federal law, making its composition critically important to innovation and intellectual property enforcement. This analysis examines the Rule of 80 governing senior status eligibility, explains why eligibility dates do not predict actual vacancies, and provides a comprehensive overview of the current court's composition and its implications for patent-dependent industries.

If your company is based in Canada — or anywhere outside the United States — and you’ve been sued for patent infringement in a U.S. court, or hit with a demand letter, or named in a proceeding at the U.S. International Trade Commission, this page answers the questions we hear most often.

On August 3, 2026, Governor Greg Abbott issued a directive to the Public Utility Commission of Texas (PUC) and the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) mandating a “comprehensive verification and audit” of all data center projects currently advancing through the ERCOT interconnection process. T

Recent trade secret litigation reveals critical developments in RICO claims based on employee recruitment patterns, criminal prosecution standards for identifying stolen algorithms, and the heightened particularity requirements courts now demand when pleading trade secret misappropriation. How are courts balancing the need for specificity in identifying trade secrets against the practical challenges of describing proprietary information in public filings?

Two Georgia employees allegedly misappropriated trade secrets and proprietary software to launch a competing insurance brokerage, prompting their former employer to sue. When their professional liability insurer denied coverage, a critical question emerged: what types of actions by an insured actually constitute "professional services" under Georgia law, and does establishing a rival business using stolen confidential information fall within that definition?

A Ninth Circuit decision reversed a $40 million trade secrets verdict because a single jury instruction placed the burden of proof on the wrong party under federal law. The case highlights a critical divergence between the federal Defend Trade Secrets Act and California's trade secret statute regarding who must prove whether information was "readily ascertainable," and explores whether plaintiffs can recover both avoided-cost damages and injunctive relief without double recovery.