A federal jury in Seattle returned a $152,093 verdict for Valve and against inventor Leigh Rothschild and his patent-licensing entities — finding violations of the Washington Patent Troll Prevention Act, the Washington Consumer Protection Act, and a 2016 patent licensing settlement. It is, according to the IP bar, the first jury verdict under a state anti-troll statute.
A Seattle federal jury returned a verdict for Valve Corporation on every count, finding inventor Leigh Rothschild and his affiliated entities and counsel violated Washington’s Patent Troll Prevention Act, breached a 2016 settlement and license, and that the asserted patent claim was obvious — in what may be the first jury verdict ever rendered under a state anti-patent-trolling statute.
The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment against celebrity fitness trainer Tracy Anderson, holding that the exercise sequences in her 19 fitness DVDs are functional routines — not expressive choreographic works — and therefore unprotectable under copyright law.
The UK Supreme Court unanimously overturned the Court of Appeal and held that an artificial neural network for recommending media files based on emotional characteristics is patentable, abandoning the Aerotel four-step test in favor of the EPO’s broader COMVIK approach — the most significant shift in UK computer-patent law in two decades.
The Federal Circuit affirmed that patents for sharing content using unique identifiers and location data are directed to an abstract idea and lack an inventive concept under Section 101.
Reviving claims against the online firearms marketplace Armslist, the First Circuit held that 16,000 New Hampshire firearm listings per year — viewed together with the site’s geographic-listing design and the advertising revenue those listings generated — were enough to make a prima facie case of purposeful availment. Section 230 was raised but not decided and remains open on remand.
Iowa’s Attorney General sued TikTok over what she alleges are deceptive ’12+’ age ratings in the Apple App Store. A unanimous Iowa Supreme Court held that TikTok’s contractual relationships with hundreds of thousands of Iowa users, plus its targeted advertising and Iowa-specific data collection, were more than enough to support specific personal jurisdiction.
The Tenth Circuit held that investigative costs qualify as “loss” under the CFAA even without any technological harm to computer systems or data, expanding the statute’s reach into ordinary information-misappropriation disputes.
The Fifth Circuit held that U.S. statutory copyright termination and renewal recapture worldwide rights, not just U.S. territorial rights — breaking with decades of consensus and creating a circuit-level fault line in international copyright law.
A Northern District of California court granted Pinterest summary judgment under DMCA Section 512(c), holding that the safe harbor protects user-generated images embedded in email, in-app, and push notifications because the underlying files remain stored on Pinterest’s servers regardless of how they’re displayed.
Judge Stein dismissed Ziff Davis’s DMCA Section 1201 anti-circumvention claim against OpenAI, holding that a robots.txt file is not a technological measure that ‘effectively controls access’ to a copyrighted work and that ignoring it does not constitute circumvention.
An Eastern District of New York judge denied Bemmo’s motion to dismiss Ridge Wallet’s patent infringement and trade dress claims, holding that claim construction disputes are premature at the pleading stage and that Ridge Wallet adequately alleged secondary meaning and non-functionality of its distinctive ‘Forged Ember’ design.
Germany’s Federal Court of Justice held that the name of the James Bond character “Miss Moneypenny” does not enjoy independent work-title protection under § 5(1) and (3) German Trademark Act, because the fictional figure lacks the visual individuality and standalone fame required to be a work in its own right separate from the underlying James Bond film series.
Same-day companion to Amgen v. Sanofi/Regeneron, the UPC Court of Appeal in Meril v. Edwards held that the ‘same parties’ test under Art. 33(4) UPCA looks to identity of interests; that disclosed embodiments are generally covered by the patent claims unless the specification clearly teaches otherwise; and importantly that an inventive step may be found even where the claimed solution is merely a ‘non-obvious alternative’ to known prior-art solutions.
In a same-day companion ruling to Meril v. Edwards, the UPC Court of Appeal articulated a comprehensive inventive-step framework: identify the objective problem from the perspective of the skilled person, choose a realistic starting point in the prior art, and assess whether the skilled person ‘would’ (not merely ‘could’) have arrived at the claimed solution. The decision also clarifies medical-use claim format, sufficiency, added matter, and burden of proof.
A Pennsylvania federal court upheld a $28,000 jury verdict for Penn State in its long-running trademark suit against vintage-merch retailer Vintage Brand, treating initial interest confusion not as a standalone doctrine but as one way to satisfy the standard multi-factor confusion analysis.
Germany’s Federal Court of Justice dismissed Ferrari’s appeal challenging the “Testa Rossa” trademark, leaving in place the BPatG’s January 2025 ruling that bad-faith trademark applications under § 8(2) No. 10 MarkenG require objective evidence of damaging or obstructing intent — mere free-riding on a famous mark is not enough.
The Supreme Court declined to lift a D.C. Circuit injunction protecting the Register of Copyrights from presidential removal, leaving intact a ruling that the Register—as a legislative branch officer housed within the Library of Congress—cannot be fired by the Executive, even after SCOTUS expanded removal power over FTC and Federal Reserve officials the same week.
The UPC Court of Appeal set out a workable test for when a generic pharmaceutical’s pre-launch activity creates an imminent threat of infringement supporting provisional measures: a bare marketing authorisation does not, but completion of national health-technology-assessment, pricing, and reimbursement procedures can — depending on the regulatory and commercial context.
The Ninth Circuit held that NFTs qualify as ‘goods’ under the Lanham Act and reversed summary judgment for Yuga Labs on Bored Ape Yacht Club trademark and cybersquatting claims, finding genuine factual disputes for trial.
A New York federal court dismissed Donald Trump’s $50 million copyright suit against Bob Woodward and Simon & Schuster over The Trump Tapes audiobook, holding that interview recordings are unitary works authored by the recorder, not joint works.
Judge Vince Chhabria ruled that Meta’s use of copyrighted books to train its Llama large language model constitutes fair use, finding the purpose highly transformative and rejecting plaintiffs’ market-harm theory—though he flagged a “market dilution” theory that, if properly argued, might have succeeded.
The Federal Circuit dismissed Dolby’s appeal of a favorable PTAB decision for lack of Article III standing, holding that a patent owner who wins an IPR cannot appeal to compel adjudication of a real-parties-in-interest dispute absent a concrete injury; the Supreme Court denied cert on June 22, 2026.
The Japan Intellectual Property High Court reversed the Tokyo District Court and held that a generic narlfrafen hydrochloride (nalfurafine) anti-itch product infringes Toray’s term-extended pharmaceutical use patent on Remitch, awarding the patentee approximately ¥21.7 billion (~US$140 million) in damages. The decision expansively defines the scope of extended Japanese pharmaceutical patents — covering generics with substantively identical active ingredient, dosage, usage, and indication, not merely formally identical products.
A Florida federal court denied most of Character.AI and Google’s motions to dismiss in a wrongful-death suit over a teenager’s interactions with an AI chatbot, allowing products-liability, negligence, FDUTPA, and aiding-and-abetting claims to proceed.
A Georgia trial court granted OpenAI summary judgment in a defamation suit over a ChatGPT hallucination, ruling that a reasonable user would not treat the chatbot’s output as a factual assertion in light of OpenAI’s hallucination warnings.
Korea’s Supreme Court affirmed dismissal of indirect patent-infringement claims against a domestic manufacturer that produced 13 individual conjugate substrates in Korea but exported them for final mixing into a 13-valent pneumococcal vaccine abroad, holding that under the territoriality principle of Korean Patent Act § 127(1), “production” must occur within Korean territory and a foreign-completed final assembly does not trigger Korean indirect-infringement liability.
France’s Cour de cassation held that when assessing trademark forfeiture for non-use under Article L.714-5 CPI, courts must analyze whether the proven use covers an autonomous sub-category of goods or services narrower than the registered category — looking to the purpose or destination of the products or services rather than being constrained by Nice classification headings.
The Federal Circuit held that inter partes review (IPR) estoppel bars only invalidity grounds based on patents or printed publications — not grounds based on physical prior-art products or systems. The ruling resolves a decade-long split among district courts and significantly limits how much challengers are foreclosed from arguing after an IPR.
The UPC Düsseldorf Local Division articulated the substantive framework for second medical-use claim infringement: the alleged infringer must offer or place the medicinal product on the market in a way that leads or may lead to the claimed therapeutic use, with knowledge or constructive knowledge that it does. Procedurally, the panel rejected “pleading ignorance” as a recognized form of defense, holding that the UPC Rules of Procedure do not acknowledge that pleading style.
The Supreme People’s Court IP Tribunal reversed a first-instance finding of patent infringement in a power-management chip dispute, holding that pulse-signal generation circuit features in the accused chip differed from the patented features in means, function, and effect — and therefore neither identically infringed nor were equivalent. The decision is the SPC’s most prominent 2025 elaboration of the doctrine of equivalents in logic-circuit patents.
The Paris Judicial Court issued France’s first major upcycling decision, holding that incorporating cut pieces of authentic Hermès silk scarves into Levi’s denim jackets — even when sold as commercial ‘upcycling’ — constitutes copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and unfair competition. The court rejected the argument that environmental sustainability operates as a defense to luxury IP rights.
Judge Stein largely denied Microsoft and OpenAI’s motion to dismiss the New York Times’s landmark copyright suit over GPT training, allowing contributory infringement, federal trademark dilution, and certain DMCA Section 1202(b)(1) CMI-removal claims to proceed.
The Supreme Court unanimously held that an award of “defendant’s profits” under the Lanham Act is limited to the profits of the named defendant entity and may not include profits of legally separate affiliated companies, unless those affiliates are alter egos or otherwise liable.
The CJEU Grand Chamber held that Article 4(1) of Regulation 1215/2012 entitles a court of a defendant’s domicile member state to hear infringement claims regarding a European patent’s national parts validated in other member states (and even in non-EU states), notwithstanding invalidity defenses raised under Article 24(4). The decision dramatically expands cross-border patent litigation in the EU and is the doctrinal foundation for the UPC’s long-arm jurisdiction over non-UPC-state patent rights.
A Delaware federal court held that Ross Intelligence’s use of Westlaw headnotes to train its AI legal research tool was not fair use — the first major U.S. court decision to find that AI training on copyrighted material for a directly competing product is direct copyright infringement.
The Supreme Court held that the Lanham Act’s restriction on registering marks that include a living person’s name without their consent is a content-based but viewpoint-neutral restriction that does not violate the First Amendment.
The Supreme Court held 6–3 that a copyright plaintiff who timely files under the discovery rule may recover damages for infringing acts occurring more than three years before filing, rejecting the argument that a separate three-year damages lookback window limits recovery.
The Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB’s obviousness finding against Virtek’s laser-alignment patent, holding that showing a skilled artisan had the knowledge to make a combination is insufficient for motivation to combine — there must also be a reason why they would have done so.
The Federal Circuit affirmed that importing patented medical devices for a U.S. conference fell within the 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) safe harbor because the importation bore a reasonable relationship to obtaining FDA approval, even if the conference also served commercial purposes.
The Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s indefiniteness ruling on a lithium-ion battery patent, holding that two claim limitations are not contradictory—and therefore not indefinite—if they can both be satisfied simultaneously, even if one limitation makes an element optional while a narrowing limitation in the same claim makes that element mandatory.
The Federal Circuit affirmed obviousness of Pfizer’s pneumococcal vaccine patent, clarifying that the result-effective variable doctrine applies to optimize claim ranges even when the prior art does not disclose an overlapping range — expanding the scope of when routine optimization can render a claim obvious.
The Federal Circuit affirmed that IBM’s patent claims directed to identifying advertisements based on search queries are abstract ideas ineligible under § 101—using a conventional database to match ads with search results adds no inventive concept—while partially reversing on noninfringement, remanding one claim for further proceedings.
The Federal Circuit affirmed that Amazon failed to prove inequitable conduct against Freshub’s voice-processing patents, reiterating that the clear-and-convincing evidence standard requires proving both the materiality of a misrepresentation and specific intent to deceive the USPTO.
The Federal Circuit vacated and remanded a district court judgment in a voice-recognition/cable-TV patent dispute, holding that the district court improperly narrowed several claim terms—including ‘back channel’ and ‘centralized processing station’—to specific features described in the specification rather than construing them according to their plain and ordinary meaning as understood by a skilled artisan.
The Federal Circuit vacated the PTAB’s written description rejection of e-cigarette patent claims directed to a heater-length range, holding that in predictable arts a narrower claimed range can be adequately supported by a broader disclosed range without requiring explicit disclosure of the specific narrower range—and that prior art statements made for unrelated purposes do not automatically establish motivation to combine.
The Federal Circuit reversed the PTAB, holding that operating manuals distributed to a limited number of customers with confidentiality notices still qualify as ‘printed publications’ and prior art under § 102, because the relevant inquiry is whether interested members of the public could locate the document through reasonable diligence—not whether the document was widely distributed.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the TTAB’s refusal to register EVERYBODY VS. RACISM as a trademark for apparel, holding that the phrase functions as an informational, anti-racist message rather than as a source identifier — and confirming that widespread use of a phrase in an informational context undermines trademark registration.
The Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC’s finding that Universal Electronics satisfied the domestic industry requirement under Section 337 based on its investments in QuickSet technology — a patented component integrated into televisions — even though those investments did not cover the entire television product.
The Federal Circuit held that the statutory prohibition barring time-barred, joined IPR parties from introducing new issues into a proceeding does not apply when a patent owner files a motion to amend its claims—a joined party may oppose such a motion even if it could not have raised new issues in the merits phase, because the patent owner itself opened the door to new issues by proposing amended claims.