Other Barks & Bites for Friday, April 17: CAFC Reverses District Court Rulings in Penile Implant Patent Case; CJEU Clarifies Scope of ‘Pastiche’ Copyright Exception; Stanford AI Index Shows Tech Gap Between U.S. And China Nearly Gone

This week in Other Barks & Bites: the Federal Circuit reverses a California district court’s denial of JMOL on trade secret and patent inventorship claims related to a cosmetic penile implant; the Senate Commerce Committee unanimously advances a bill to reauthorize the National Quantum Initiative; the Court of Justice for the European Union clarifies the scope of the pastiche exception for new works sampling copyrighted works to engage in artistic, critical or humorous dialogue; and more.

USPTO Pushes for More ASAP! Search Pilot Participants with Extended Deadline

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (UPSTO) announced today that it will be extending the Artificial Intelligence Search Automated Pilot Program (ASAP!) until June 1, 2026, to gather additional information and continue evaluating the program’s effectiveness. The Pilot was first announced in October 2025 and is meant to “evaluate the impact of sharing the results of an automated search prior to examination of an application.” 

Federal Circuit Distinguishes Amgen in Reversal of Invalidation of Teva Headache Treatment Patents

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision today in Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbH v. Eli Lilly and Company, reversing the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts’s grant of judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) of invalidity of Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbH and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.’s headache treatment patents. The district court found that the asserted claims were invalid for failing to satisfy both the written description and enablement requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 112, but the CAFC found the district court’s grant of JMOL improper on both counts. The opinion was authored by Judge Prost and joined by Judge Cunningham and District Judge Andrews.

Schedule A Litigation: Strategies and Best Practices for Online Enforcement

In 2025, trademark cases filed in United States District Courts increased 25% from 2024 (up 848 cases to 4,211). Many of those cases were “Schedule A” lawsuits, a niche form of intellectual property litigation that joins multiple foreign-based ecommerce stores selling counterfeit, pirated, or other infringing products in a single lawsuit. In Schedule A cases, plaintiffs typically include multiple offshore online infringers and seek an asset restraint to prevent them from transferring their ill-gotten gains abroad. This article explores the Schedule A litigation model and provides best practices for intellectual property litigators. 

Consumer, Patient Groups Push for Fast Markup of ETHIC Act

A number of groups and individuals self-described as “representing consumers, patients, health care providers, and academic experts in pharmaceutical policy and patent law” have submitted a letter to the U.S. House Judiciary Committee urging members to quickly advance the “Eliminating Thickets to Increase Competition  (ETHIC) Act,’’ which was introduced in the House of Representatives last May by Representative Jodey Arrington (R-TX) along with two other Republicans and four Democrats.

CAFC Affirms District Court Invalidation of Controller Patent

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) issued a precedential decision Tuesday in Definitive Holdings, LLC v. Powerteq LLC, affirming the United States District Court for the District of Utah’s grant of summary judgment of invalidity of Definitive Holdings’ patent.  The district court found that the asserted claims of the patent owned were invalid under the pre-America Invents Act (AIA) version of 35 U.S.C. § 102(b). The opinion was authored by Judge Cunningham and joined by Chief Judge Moore and Judge Dyk.

Navigating the Global SEP Toll Road: From Judicial Arbitrage to the Willingness Test

Standard essential patents (SEPs) don’t generate controversy because people disagree on whether innovation deserves compensation. The controversy runs deeper: everyone agrees it does, but nobody agrees on how much, when, or through which court. That tension was the animating force behind the panel Global SEP Litigation, Licensing and Dealmaking, on day two of IPWatchdog LIVE 2026 last month. Moderated by Shawnna Yashar (O’Melveny & Myers LLP), the panel featured Ali Allawi (Warner Bros. Discovery), Matteo Sabattini (Sisvel Group), and David Yurkerwich (Ankura). All four practitioners see the SEP licensing ecosystem from very different vantage points and arrived without a shared script.

Subscribe to IPWatchdog

This is the best way to stay informed. We send a daily roundup of our latest news, press releases, and events.

Get Email Updates