Expert Analysis

• Justices' Hikma Reasoning May Extend Well Beyond Pharma

  

  The active steps framework announced by the U.S. Supreme Court in its Hikma v. Amarin decision, finding that Amarin failed to plausibly allege inducement of infringement, has the potential to reshape how courts evaluate inducement claims across patent, copyright and other doctrines, say attorneys at BCLP.

• An Inside Look At Squires' Discretionary Denials

  

  A deep dive into the discretionary denials issued by U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Director John Squires since he took over last year identifies trends in commonly asserted arguments and how they correlate with institution outcomes, say attorneys at Kirkland & Ellis.

• Series

  Ballet Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  A lifetime of learning and performing ballet taught me that success — whether in dance or practicing law — comes only through hours of thorough preparation, boundless energy and relentless effort, says Sharon Katz-Pearlman at Greenberg Traurig.

• AI Prompt-Injection Hacking Creates Emerging Legal Risks

  

  Last month, the first decision sanctioning a prompt-injection attack aimed at a U.S. court highlights the risks that this tactic — attempting to manipulate artificial intelligence systems by hiding invisible instructions in a document — poses for trade secrets, patent prosecution and other areas, say attorneys at Kilpatrick.

• TTAB's Nike Ruling Highlights Trademark Filing Pitfalls

  

  The Trademark Trial and Appeal Board's recent decision in Nike v. Blue Ribbon Team illustrates how the Lanham Act's requirement for bona fide intent works in practice, and provides a road map on how to counsel clients before intent-to-use trademark applications are filed, say attorneys at BCLP.

• 9th Circ. 'Bad Spaniels' Ruling Rewrites TM Dilution Playbook

  

  The Ninth Circuit’s recent ruling that each element of the Jack Daniel's packaging parodied by the Bad Spaniels dog toy must be independently assessed for fame narrows trademark owners' ability to use a flagship mark's halo effect to protect the entire brand from tarnishment, say attorneys at Reed Smith.

• Fed. Circ. In July: Meeting The Enablement Requirement

  

  The Federal Circuit's decision in Wyeth v. AstraZeneca last month exemplifies when a generalized conception of an invention is insufficient to enable the full scope of asserted patent infringement claims, and may lead to more enablement challenges, say attorneys at Knobbe Martens.

• Series

  Taekwondo Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  Taekwondo has taught me to recognize when to fight for a position and when to focus on finding a solution, and that the best outcomes are often achieved by solving problems — all of which has improved my work as a bankruptcy lawyer, mediator and Subchapter V trustee, says Amy Denton Mayer at Berger Singerman.

• Why AI Diligence Is Especially Key In IP Practice

  

  In light of recent federal court sanctions against intellectual property litigators for filing work product generated by artificial intelligence without verification, it's important to consider the unique risks and consequences that can arise from overreliance on AI, which poses less visible risks in IP matters, says Stephen Ball at Husch Blackwell.

• When And How To Use 4 Types Of Cross-Exam Questions

  

  Perceptions of a great cross-examination are often shaped by aggressive courtroom exchanges, but to be truly effective, this stage of trial requires strategically selecting confirmation, confinement, contrast or confrontation questions at key moments, says Allison Rocker at Baker McKenzie.

• Opinion

  'Plain Meaning' Requires Plainer Meaning In IP Litigation

  

  The Federal Circuit's recent decision in Socket Solutions v. Import Global highlights the frequent ambiguity surrounding courts' references to "plain meaning" in patent claim construction — an ambiguity that should be resolved by courts, not litigants, say attorneys at Klarquist Sparkman.

• What To Know As Legal Duty To Consider AI Takes Shape

  

  While the U.K. Jurisdiction Taskforce’s recent statement on liability for artificial intelligence harms is nonbinding for both U.K. and U.S. lawyers, it highlights the importance of being able to distinguish between the availability of a tool and a professional obligation to use it, say Jonny Frank and Michael Costa at StoneTurn.

• Patent Ruling Shows Concrete Tech Solution Key To Eligibility

  

  The Federal Circuit’s recent Ceiva Opco v. Amazon.com decision offers an important reminder that software-related inventions can remain patent eligible when they claim a concrete technological solution to a specific problem, says Irah Donner at Manatt.

• How To Structure Protective Order AI Provisions In IP Disputes

  

  A survey of protective orders in recent intellectual property litigation reveals best practices for drafting provisions on artificial intelligence use that maximize IP protection while balancing enforceability with efficient discovery, say Matthew Stephens and Bryce Tabbut at MoFo.

• WWE Sanctions Ruling Pins Down Spoliation Lesson

  

  The Delaware Chancery Court’s recent verdict in favor of WWE investors may be the most carefully calibrated spoliation sanctions decision in recent memory, and it should reshape how counsel approach their motions — including in federal court, says Ricky Weingarten at Slarskey.