- within Insolvency/Bankruptcy/Re-Structuring topic(s)
Patent Venue for Method Claims: The "One-Step Rule" Survives (For Now)
As discussed in our previous article, Comcast sought mandamus relief after Judge Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas denied the company's motion to dismiss or transfer for improper venue. On December 9, 2025, the Federal Circuit denied Comcast's petition for a writ of mandamus in In re Comcast Cable Communications, LLC. The nonprecedential order leaves the contentious "one-step rule" for patent venue intact—at least for now—allowing district courts to continue finding venue proper where even a single step of a patented method is performed. For tech companies facing patent infringement suits involving distributed systems and cloud-based infrastructure, the landscape remains as uncertain as before.
Post-Amgen Enablement: How the Federal Circuit Is Policing Broad Mechanical Claims
When companies apply for and prosecute mechanical or industrial patents, broad claims often serve as the backbone of enforcement strategy. But recent Federal Circuit decisions, applying the Supreme Court's 2023 ruling in Amgen v. Sanofi, are placing renewed pressure on patentees to justify such broad claims as supported by the patent's disclosure. Although Amgen arose in biotechnology, courts are now applying its "full-scope enablement" principle to mechanical inventions, raising practical questions about how much guidance a patent must provide to sustain broad functional claims. Assessing Amgen v. Sanofi and two post-Amgen Federal Circuit decisions applying full-scope enablement in non-biotech contexts highlights how the court is evaluating the relationship between broad claims and corresponding technical disclosure across industries.
Our Take on AI: January 2026
USPTO Revises AI Inventorship Guidance: The USPTO has issued revised examination guidance on inventorship for AI-assisted inventions, rescinding its February 2024 guidance and expressly withdrawing its reliance on the Pannu factors as a general test in AI contexts. The central message is unequivocal: only natural persons can be named as inventors on U.S. patent applications, regardless of whether artificial intelligence was used in the inventive process. Traditional conception doctrine now governs across the board, with no special AI-specific inventorship standard. The USPTO characterizes AI systems as tools employed by human inventors, akin to laboratory equipment or software. The guidance also addresses priority claims where a prior foreign application names an AI system as an inventor—U.S. applications must name only natural persons and share at least one human inventor in common to support benefit or priority claims. You can read more about this development here: "USPTO Publishes New Inventorship Guidance for 'AI-Assisted Inventions."
Executive Order Targets State AI Regulation: On December 11, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order titled "Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence" that attempts to curtail state AI regulation through litigation, funding restrictions, and agency action. The EO directs the Attorney General to establish a task force to challenge state AI laws, declares states with "onerous AI laws" ineligible for certain federal broadband funds, and instructs the FCC and FTC to initiate proceedings related to preemption. No comprehensive federal AI statute currently exists. As of now, State laws directed towards AI are still in effect, and companies should maintain compliance with existing state requirements while monitoring federal enforcement actions. You can read more about this development here: "President Trump Signs Executive Order 'Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence'."
Canada Publishes AI Accessibility Standard: Accessibility Standards Canada has published CAN-ASC-6.2:2025, a national standard for accessible and equitable AI systems. The standard establishes a comprehensive framework covering organizations that develop, procure, deploy, and oversee AI systems, with requirements including public transparency and notice, human alternatives and contestability, a public registry of harms, independent verification, and restrictions on surveillance analytics targeting people with disabilities. While currently voluntary, the standard may become a market baseline for Canadian procurement and may be adopted as a contractual requirement by federal entities and private buyers. Developers outside Canada selling into Canadian markets should anticipate contractual flow-down of these requirements. Nick Palmieri writes more about this development here: "Canada Releases Accessibility Standard for Artificial Intelligence."
December 2025 Intellectual Property Report Recap
In case you missed it, here is a link to our December 2025 Intellectual Property Report.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
