Market forces such as rising attorney salaries, persistent inflation, and unrelenting demand in premium practices are giving firms the confidence to push hourly rates beyond historical norms.
The Office de-designated Proppant Express Invests., LLC v. Oren Techs., LLC, IPR2017-01917, Paper 86 (PTAB Feb. 13, 2019); and Adello Biologics LLC v. Amgen Inc., PGR2019-00001, Paper 11 (PTAB Feb. 14, 2019). According to a USPTO email sent Tuesday, both decisions conflict with the decision in Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC v. PPC Broadband Inc., IPR2014-00440, Paper 68 (PTAB Aug. 18, 2015) (precedential).
On February 2, 2026, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania Judge Joshua D. Wolson, sitting by designation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, made several key summary judgment rulings in advance of trial in Arbutus Biopharma Corporation and Genevant Sciences GmbH (collectively "Arbutus") v. Moderna, Inc. and ModernaTx, Inc. (collectively " Moderna "), No. 1:22-cv-00252 (D. Del.).
Johnson and I discuss obviousness determinations built on excessive combinations of prior art, warning that such analyses blur the line between legitimate hindsight reconstruction and genuine innovation assessment. We also highlight a systemic blind spot: nuisance "ankle-biter" assertions that exploit litigation economics while largely evading PTAB scrutiny. These cases have driven much of the political backlash against patents while remaining functionally untouched by the post-grant review process.
Do owners of patents for which licensing declarations have been made enjoy more rights than other patent holders? Do such licensing declarations impose obligations on potential licensees rather than on patent holders? Should prospective licensees have no right to challenge such patents? In another responsive article, that is what one commentator claims our series of articles on IPWatchdog asserted, although we never wrote or suggested anything of the sort.
Are OpenAI's recent moves a bold leap forward or a risky gamble that could cost them their dominance in the AI race? Below, Matt Wolfe takes you through how the company's latest decisions, like introducing ads in free tiers, launching budget subscriptions, and claiming intellectual property rights on AI-assisted discoveries, are sparking heated debates across the tech world. While these strategies aim to expand OpenAI's reach and diversify its revenue streams, they've also raised concerns about user trust, data privacy, and the company's long-term vision.
The brand's press release states: "While we wish we didn't have to do this - and actively engaged with Pattie for several years to avoid this - it has become necessary to protect the brand we have spent the last 50 years building." Patagonia's statement claimed that the legal action against the drag queen is due to her failing to stick to a previously made agreement, with the retailer claiming that in late 2024, the drag star began "selling 'Pattie Gonia' branded apparel online and continued to create and use versions of our logo".
Regents of the University of California ("Regents") and Broad Institute were engaged in a patent interference proceeding involving the adaptation of CRISPR systems to edit eukaryotic DNA. Both parties were engaged in extensive testing related to editing eukaryotic DNA during the time of the invention, and both filed multiple patent applications that became the subjects of the patent interference proceedings.
The campaign argues that in the race for dominance in the new GenAI technology, some of the world's wealthiest tech companies, along with private equity-backed ventures, have engaged in a "massive rip-off" of creative content without authorization or compensation. According to the campaign, this practice "imperils U.S. jobs, economic growth and global 'soft power' supported by the U.S. creative industries." The campaign warns that this widespread infringement erodes the foundation of the U.S. entertainment industry and disincentivizes the creation of new works.
The campaign includes a statement accusing tech firms of using American creators' work to build AI platforms without authorisation or regard for copyright law. It adds: Artists, writers, and creators of all kinds are banding together with a simple message: Stealing our work is not innovation. It's not progress. It's theft plain and simple.
Yesterday, the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO) and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) published the results of a joint study detailing the close connection between illicit trade in counterfeits and labor exploitation. The joint study shows clear, repeated associations between the intensity of counterfeit trade and abusive labor conditions, strongly suggesting that such conditions structurally enable the production and distribution of counterfeits.
In a recent Tradespace and Above the Law survey, two-thirds of companies that draft patents in-house described IP as a value driver, while 71 percent of companies that outsource drafting viewed IP as a cost. When drafting and prosecution move inside, IP teams work closer to engineers and product leaders. This proximity improves invention quality, strengthens claim strategy, and aligns patent decisions with product direction, market timing, and business priorities.
The enormity of the problem cannot be understated. A Federal Circuit panel recently reached a final decision that, if not overturned, will destroy the U.S. patent system, and will ironically impact the most valuable patents disproportionately. The ruling was simple and continues a disturbing and inexplicable trend-a patent issued after more than six years in prosecution is presumed unenforceable as the result of prosecution laches.
