Posts in Guest Contributors

To prevent innocent individuals from being held liable while acting in good faith, the patent statute requires that patent owners put would-be infringers on notice of their intellectual property rights before they are able to hold them liable for any acts of infringement. But what does a notice letter need for it to count? How granular must it be? Are claim charts required?

Every year, U.S. companies expanding into Africa make the same planning mistake: they treat the continent as though it has one intellectual property system. It has two, and choosing the wrong one, or failing to choose at all, can leave a brand or invention unprotected across dozens of countries a company assumed it had already covered. Africa is the only continent with two regional IP registration systems operating side by side. Understanding the difference between them is not a technical footnote. It is one of the first strategic decisions a U.S. company should make before it files anything.

On September 1, a federal judge in the Northern District of Ohio J.M. Smucker Co.‘s trademark and trade dress claims over its crustless, crimped-edge peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. The ruling allows that was filed last October against Trader Joe’s private-label “Crustless Peanut Butter & Strawberry Jam Sandwiches” to proceed to discovery and, potentially, a merits determination on whether a sealed, circular sandwich shape can function as a protectable trademark.

Under 35 U.S.C. Section 256, one can only correct an inventorship error when the underlying facts and the affected parties can actually be identified, and when the statutory correction procedure can be completed. AI-assisted invention is starting to produce cases where none of that is possible: the development record shows plenty of human activity, but nothing in it establishes which person actually conceived the claimed invention. After Fortress Iron, LP v. Digger Specialties, Inc., No. 2024-2313 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 2, 2026, that kind of gap can turn into a validity problem, not just a paperwork one.

In a previous article, the authors showed that Chinese courts ask a different question than U.S. courts — not whether the inventor possessed what is recited in the claim, but whether the scope of the claim matches the Technical Solution that the invention actually contributed to the advance of the art. This difference in underlying premise leads to one conclusion: a U.S.-style specification needs to be adjusted when filed in China. Below, the authors propose several strategies, offered as their personal views.

Brazil is one of the world’s largest economies and one of the most important markets for companies seeking expansion in Latin America. However, many foreign applicants quickly discover that success before the Brazilian Patent and Trademark Office (the Instituto Nacional da Propriedade Industrial – INPI) requires more than simply filing an application. The Brazilian system combines procedural formalities, relatively long examination timelines, unique legal requirements, and several acceleration opportunities that are often overlooked by foreign applicants. Understanding these practical aspects can help businesses avoid unnecessary delays, reduce costs, and build stronger intellectual property portfolios.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO’s) Office of Enrollment and Discipline (OED) posted a final order to its website on August 27, publicly reprimanding a California patent attorney for submitting a claim construction chart containing citations that generative AI invented — not to case law, but to the intrinsic record of the patent in suit. In re Brian E. Mitchell, Proceeding No. D2026-16, resolves by settlement. Mitchell executed the agreement on July 20, 2026, and the OED Director on July 21. Tricia Choe, Associate General Counsel for General Law, approved it on July 27 on delegated authority from Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and USPTO Director John A. Squires.

In 2025, a patent dispute between Chinese companies in the camera-module space drew close attention across the industry — SUNNY v. AAC [Patent Reexamination and Invalidation Department Decision No. 566288, et al.]. The case ended with 11 patents invalidated, four of them in their entirety. There was a single reason: the claims were not supported by the specification.

U.S. companies planning to enter Nigeria typically build a careful playbook for market research, distribution, hiring, and regulatory compliance. Intellectual property is often the item furthest down that list, treated as paperwork to handle once commercial activity is already underway. That sequencing is backwards, and it is worth understanding why.

For many small businesses, uncertainty in patent prosecution can mean the difference between a strong issued patent and either abandonment or suboptimal coverage. One source of uncertainty in today’s system is final office action practice. Recent data suggests that roughly 42% of patent applications receive a final office action, meaning they are not allowed initially or after a response to a non-final office action. While receiving a final office action does not close the door on a patent application, it does give examiners greater discretion in directing its path. This discretion is unnecessary and can be eliminated by tying U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) fees more closely to the actual content and complexity of each office action response.

Artificial intelligence (AI) and quantum computing are compressing the invention cycle itself. That compression is no longer theoretical. Discovery Loop, a new public benefit corporation founded by leading former Google and Google DeepMind researchers, has announced a mission to automate experimental loops of the scientific method; the AItonomy Foundation similarly frames automated experimental loops as a path to accelerating science and engineering. The trend is also visible in Faraday, a recent AI model for automated scientific discovery that links model-driven hypothesis generation with iterative experimentation and R&D workflows, further illustrating how AI systems are moving from passive analysis toward active participation in the scientific method.

About 20 years ago, Hotels.com had a series of commercials starring a character called “Captain Obvious.” This character would make observations that were funny because they were apparent to all. And that is what non-patent lawyers think of when it comes to something that is obvious. That is also the approach taken in a recent U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) cases, i.e. the “Captain Obvious” approach. Specifically, the recent Nielsen (The Nielsen Co. (US), LLC, v. TVision Insights, Inc., —

On June 30, 2026, the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, Artificial Intelligence, and the Internet held a hearing titled, “A Midlife Crisis? IP and the Internet After 40,” which examined whether current U.S. intellectual property laws and enforcement mechanisms are effective against Internet-driven infringement and counterfeiting. The hearing focused on online counterfeiting, digital piracy, and AI-enabled or generated infringement and digital replicas. The hearing also considered the difficulty in enforcing rights against overseas operators, and enforcement tools to address these issues, including Schedule A litigation and website blocking.

For more than two centuries, the patent system has rested on a simple bargain: inventors publicly disclose their inventions in exchange for a limited monopoly. That bargain assumes disclosure primarily benefits competitors, researchers, and the public. Today, however, the audience has changed. Patent filings are now mined not only by competitors, but by governments, intelligence agencies, sovereign investors, and increasingly sophisticated artificial intelligence systems capable of analyzing millions of documents simultaneously. The result is that patent databases have become one of the world’s richest sources of open-source technological intelligence.