The growth of artificial intelligence (“AI”) and generative AI is moving copyright law into unprecedented territory. While US copyright law continues to develop around AI, one boundary has been set: the bedrock requirement of copyright is human authorship. Given this, it is clear in the US, AI alone cannot be an author. This bedrock principle was reinforced in two recent copyright decisions. But unanswered questions abound. For example, how will the Copyright Office address collaborative or joint works between a human and AI? And will this bedrock principle be limited to generative AI, or may it lead to revisiting copyright protection for other technologies where creative decisions are left to machines?…

Continue Reading Generative AI and Copyright – Some Recent Denials and Unanswered Questions

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) is booming. Investors and companies are pouring cash into the space, and particularly into generative AI (GAI), to seize their share of the market which McKinsey reports could add up to $4.4 trillion annually to the global economy. Some companies are investing tens or hundreds of millions of dollars or more into GAI. Whether companies are building their own AI technology and training their own AI models, or leveraging third party tools, there are significant legal issues and business risks that directors need to consider as part of their fiduciary obligations and corporate governance. Five of the top issues to understand and consider are addressed in this article. Many other issues can arise. A wave of litigations and enforcement actions has swelled. Boards should get educated on these issues and ensure appropriate policies and corporate governance are implemented to manage the business and legal risks.…

Continue Reading 5 Things Corporate Boards Need to Know About Generative AI Risk Management

This case addresses the validity of patents asserted against a high-density fiber optic equipment importer in violation of § 337. In particular, this case discusses enablement and claim construction as it relates to interpretation of open ended ranges and plural claim language.…

Continue Reading FS.COM INC. v. International Trade Commission Corning Optical Communications LLC – Intervenor No. 22-1228 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 20, 2023)

This case concerns determining the prior art status of certain references in an inter partes review. The Federal Circuit considered whether the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (the “Board”) was correct in declining to consider the patent owner’s certain evidence not submitted in compliance with the Board’s rules and in making a determination regarding written description requirements.…

Continue Reading Parus Holdings, Inc. v. Google LLC, No. 2022-1269, 2022-1270 (Fed. Cir. Jun. 12, 2023)

This case addresses the legal framework for determining whether prior art anticipates a claimed range. The appropriate legal framework applies a different test depending on whether the prior art discloses a point within the claimed range vs. a range overlapping the claimed range.…

Continue Reading UCB, Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc. No. 2021-1924, (Fed. Cir. Apr. 12, 2023)