-
Global merger and acquisition markets had a tough start to the year, with inflation, rising interest rates and the Ukraine conflict knocking sentiment, but in the macroeconomic, deal makers have continued to unearth pockets of activity to keep deal volumes ticking over, say lawyers at White & Case.
-
In light of the EU General Court recently rejecting the Emmentaler cheese trademark application for lacking distinctive character and not meeting the geographical indication requirements, producers must ensure to protect their trade names before they become commercially generic, says Lars Karnoe at Potter Clarkson.
-
Amplifying the shortcomings of litigation in the U.S., including inter partes reviews that significantly threaten the validity of patents, the recently launched Unified Patent Court regime will put further pressure on American legislators and add to Europe's attractiveness as a litigation venue, say lawyers at Sisvel and Franzosi Dal Negro.
-
The U.K. Intellectual Property Office's recent refusal of an IGT patent application highlights that certain blockchain innovations, including those relating to improved security, are more likely to be patentable than others, which is consistent with the overall European approach and available data, says Andrew Rudhall at Haseltine Lake.
-
While all U.S. Patent and Trademark Office expedited programs are meant to be examined in the same manner, a survey of Patent Prosecution Highway actions indicates some examination processes may favor applications originating in China, says Julie Burke at IP Quality Pro.
-
The newly opened Unified Patent Court represents a seismic, yet untested, change to how patent litigation is conducted within Europe, and the practices of French and U.K. courts may play a role in its development, including on issues such as saisies and document production, say lawyers at Gowling.
-
Robert Plotkin at Blueshift IP explores questions about standards for inventorship, nonobviousness and disclosure as patent practitioners, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and the courts grapple with rapid innovation in AI technology.
-
Recently opened for business, the Unified Patent Court offers a faster, cheaper and more streamlined solution to handle patent disputes compared to EU countries and the U.S., and could become the most important forum for patent litigation in Europe, if not worldwide, say lawyers at McDermott.
-
Consultants at Analysis Group explore questions surrounding the recently announced EU licensing framework for standard-essential patents, and how the European Commission's goals may influence discussions of issues like procedure, efficiency and transparency in the U.S. and elsewhere.
-
The recent European Patent Office Board of Appeal decision in the Sparsely connected neural network/Mitsubishi case is remarkable for its technicality, and provides rare guidance for companies on the requirements for core artificial intelligence invention patents, says Alexander Korenberg at Kilburn & Strode.
-
Robert Sterne at Sterne Kessler offers a detailed analysis of the EU's Unified Patent Court and the unitary patent, which go live on June 1, discussing what U.S. practitioners need to know from an enforcement and freedom-to-operate perspective.
-
The rise of generative AI has created copyright and ownership challenges in creative industries, but contractual agreements, intellectual property law and AI-specific regulations can be used to address these issues, says Kimiya Shams at Devialet.
-
While Ed Sheeran's performance of his hit song "Thinking Out Loud" at trial could not protect him from the subconscious copying doctrine, it may have tapped into jurors' intuitions about independent creation, winning him the copyright infringement suit over the song, says Christopher Buccafusco at Duke University School of Law.
-
Over the last several years, we have seen the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office more commonly impose flimsy restrictions on patent applications under the "one invention per application" rule, and practitioners underutilize petition as a means to challenge them, say George Chaclas and Emily Ferriter Russo at Day Pitney.
-
Opinion
The U.S. Copyright Office has correctly determined that works created solely by artificial intelligence do not qualify for protection, as granting exclusive rights to such works would be unwise for a number of reasons, says Thomas McNulty at Lando & Anastasi.