Posts in Technology & Innovation

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.” 

On February 3, 2026, Sisvel took a significant step forward in advancing transparency through its collaboration with the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). This initiative integrates verified SEP data into WIPO’s PATENTSCOPE platform, making it easier for users to access information about patents that have been identified as essential to the relevant standard through the mechanisms of Sisvel’s FRAND-based patent pools.

Today, the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) published a study exploring challenges faced by EU small- and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in obtaining financing by offering intellectual property (IP) as collateral. Set against the backdrop of the EU’s recently launched Savings and Investment Union (SIU) program, the EUIPO’s study identifies several structural barriers preventing SMEs from obtaining IP-backed financing and concludes with a series of policy recommendations designed to address the SME credit gap and unlock tremendous economic value for the wider EU market.

I have been to China several times over the past decade. Each time, I came back with the same reaction: too many people in the United States are still badly underestimating what is happening there. I do not say that as a political statement. I say it as a practical one. There is still a surprisingly common view in American business circles that China’s patent activity is mostly noise. Too many filings. Too much subsidy. Too little real innovation. The implication is that, yes, China may be filing a mountain of patents, but most of it can safely be discounted. I think that view is becoming harder and harder to defend.

A March 27, 2026, petition filed by Security First Innovations (SFI) does more than challenge a single reexamination proceeding—it shines a spotlight on a structural vulnerability in how post-grant review is functioning in practice. At its core, the filing argues that the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is allowing what amounts to a procedural end-run around the statute, which is supposed to streamline post-grant challenges and lead to estoppel if the patent owner prevails.

I have spent most of my professional career talking to patent practitioners about AI. For years, the conversation was about whether AI could be trusted, whether it was ready, and whether it would actually change how patent work gets done. I have watched the profession move from skepticism to curiosity to cautious adoption to – in 2026, for the first time – something that feels like acceptance. Questions that once provoked heated debate at conferences now feel almost trite. Nobody is really questioning whether AI has a place in patent practice anymore. The question that has replaced it is harder and more consequential:

Yesterday, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a statement of interest (SOI) in an ongoing patent infringement case between consumer electronics giant Samsung and memory systems developer Netlist, which includes counterclaims by Samsung for violations of U.S. antitrust law. The SOI reiterates arguments made by the DOJ in other litigation involving standard essential patents (SEPs), asking the court to render its decision on Samsung’s antitrust claims in accordance with the fact that inclusion in a technical standard does not create a presumption that patent rights create market power.

While artificial intelligence (AI) companies have long maintained that copyright law poses a significant barrier to innovation, it’s getting harder for them to make that argument with a straight face. It was one thing to claim that early text-based chatbots were magical boxes that didn’t really depend on the copyrighted works used to train them—a pretense that doesn’t hold up under scrutiny. But it’s quite another to make such claims when their systems are spitting out nearly perfect audiovisual renditions of Disney’s copyrighted characters, including Buzz Lightyear from Toy Story, Darth Vader from Star Wars, and Elsa from Frozen. That’s what Midjourney was doing when Disney sued it for infringement, and it’s also what OpenAI was doing when it struck a licensing deal with Disney.

If 2025 was the year every IP practice rushed to adopt AI, 2026 is the year the bill comes due — and a striking number of organizations are discovering they have no reliable way to read it. That was the organizing message from IPWatchdog LIVE 2026’s session: The Business Impact of AI in Practice: Calculating ROI in the AI Era.

Two recent federal district court decisions highlight the significant risks of sharing confidential information with a generative AI platform. In Trinidad v. OpenAI, the court dismissed the plaintiff’s trade secret claims under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) because the plaintiff had voluntarily disclosed her allegedly proprietary frameworks to OpenAI while using ChatGPT to create them.Then, Judge Rakoff in United States v. Heppner held that documents created using publicly available generative AI are not protected by the attorney-client privilege—in part because communications memorialized through an AI platform are not confidential when the platform is not contractually bound to keep them secret.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) on Monday held the first of three planned Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)-focused Listening Sessions, this one focused on the PTAB and Life Sciences. Participants in the first panel of the day, who mostly spoke for the branded pharmaceutical industry, discussed the topic of patent thickets and the role of the PTAB in vetting life science patents.

Brand-name drugmakers are manipulating the patent system to block cheap generics from reaching patients. At least, that’s what some lawmakers in Washington have been led to believe. But this narrative, which activist groups have pushed for nearly two decades, unravels under scrutiny. As I demonstrate in a recent study, the data that activists cite as evidence actually undermine their claims.

Since 2024, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has issued multiple AI-specific guidance documents on inventorship and subject matter eligibility, including the February 2024 Inventorship Guidance, the July 2024 Subject Matter Eligibility Update, and the November 2025 memo rescinding the February 2024 guidance. The pace of change has created a prosecution environment where the strategies that worked 18 months ago may actively undermine a patent application filed today. The inverse is true; applications drafted for today’s guidance may be structurally unprepared for the next revision.

The strength of many of today’s most valuable companies is based significantly on intangible assets, like trademarks, patents, trade secrets and brand reputation. Hard-assets or “tangibles,” like real estate and equipment, are a relative blip on many large businesses value radar. What is surprising is the extent to which these companies are dominated by intangible assets and what that means for how they are understood and financed.