- with Inhouse Counsel
- with readers working within the Accounting & Consultancy industries
No Office, No Problem? How Remote Work, Servers, and Kiosks Are Testing the Limits of Patent Venue
For most companies, being sued is stressful enough — but where the lawsuit lands can shape the odds. In patent cases, a federal statute written specifically for patent disputes dictates which courthouses around the country are fair game, and for years patent owners raced to file in a handful of districts perceived as favorable to their side, most famously a stretch of East Texas. A 2017 Supreme Court decision attempted to rein that in, limiting patent suits to places where a company is truly “at home” or genuinely does business. Yet in an economy where employees work from their kitchen tables, data lives on servers scattered across the country, and a storefront can shrink to a kiosk in a shopping mall, courts are now wrestling with a deceptively simple question: what counts as a company’s “place of business”? The answer shapes where a business can be hauled into court, how much leverage the other side holds before the dispute even begins, and what defending the suit may cost — from travel and local counsel to the pace of the docket and the jury pool it will face.
Building Strong Chemical Genus Claims in an Evolving § 112 Landscape
Broad chemical genus claims often represent some of the most valuable assets in a pharmaceutical or chemical patent portfolio. By covering multiple compounds rather than a single chemical species, genus claims can provide meaningful protection against design-around efforts and support long-term exclusivity strategies. At the same time, courts have increasingly scrutinized broad genus claims under the written description and enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112. Decisions in recent years from the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court have reinforced a central principle: the broader the claim, the more robust the supporting disclosure generally must be. As a result, applicants should carefully consider how their patent specifications support both written description and enablement when seeking broad chemical claim coverage.
Third Circuit Hears Oral Argument in Ross v. Reuters AI Training Copyright Case
On June 11, 2026, the Third Circuit heard oral argument in Thomson Reuters Enterprise Centre GmbH et al. v. Ross Intelligence Inc., the first federal appellate case to squarely address whether using copyrighted works to train an AI model qualifies as fair use.[1] The Third Circuit’s ruling on this important question, which is likely to include findings on central questions of transformativeness and market harm discussed during oral argument, is expected in late 2026.
Our Take on AI: July 2026
Discoverability of AI Prompts: A recent ruling from a federal magistrate judge in Connecticut signals that courts may increasingly treat generative AI as part of an expert's methodology, and therefore discoverable, rather than a hidden research aid. Magistrate Judge Thomas Farrish ordered production of AI prompts used by testifying expert Dr. Naomi Oreskes, who relied on ChatGPT to identify and sort through a large collection of documents. The court reasoned that because the AI-assisted process informed how she selected and reviewed the materials underlying her opinions, the prompts were relevant to evaluating the reliability of her methodology; the environmental group that retained her is fighting the order. The decision is a reminder that where AI plays a substantive role its prompts may be treated as discoverable rather than protected, and counsel should address AI use proactively through employee policies, engagement letters, and litigation-hold procedures. Read more here: "From Work Product to Exhibits -- The Emerging Discoverability of AI Prompts."
Trademark Liability for AI-Generated Outputs: A recent federal court ruling confirms that AI-generated content may not be immune from trademark liability. In August 2025, Getty Images sued Stability AI in the Northern District of California, alleging it unlawfully copied millions of Getty images and metadata to train and commercialize its models, and bringing Lanham Act claims for trademark infringement, false designation of origin, and dilution based on outputs bearing distorted versions of the Getty watermark. On April 23, 2026, the court denied Stability AI's motion to dismiss those claims, finding that allegations Stability AI is a direct competitor, plus reports of users encountering images with distorted Getty watermarks, supported a reasonable inference of likely confusion; that Stability AI's commercially distributed images are "goods" under the Lanham Act whose unattributed watermarks could mislead as to source; and that Getty adequately alleged its marks are "famous" for dilution purposes. Going forward, the case may help define how traditional trademark principles apply to the commercial outputs of generative AI. Read more here: "Trademark Law Meets Generative AI: Key Takeaways from the Getty v. Stability AI Ruling."
AI Counsel Code Podcast
In the episode, "Does Using AI Waive Privilege? What Litigators Need to Know Now", Maggie Welsh talks with Ariel House of Baker Botts about the emerging legal rules around AI in litigation, including privilege, work product, discovery, and protective orders. They unpack recent court decisions, explain why AI is increasingly being treated as another source of electronically stored information, and share practical guidance for companies navigating employee AI use, confidential data, and litigation risk. Listen to the full episode here.
June 2026 Intellectual Property Report Recap
In case you missed it, here is a link to our June 2026 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.
[View Source]