Expert Analysis

• High Court's Cox Ruling Leaves ISP Copyright Rules Intact

  

  Though some commentators predicted a cataclysmic impact from the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Cox v. Sony, in actuality the decision correctly maintains the status quo for internet providers' copyright infringement liability, says Courtney Sarnow at CM Law.

• Building Codes Ruling May Inform AI Copyright Arguments

  

  The Third Circuit's recent decision in ASTM v. UpCodes, finding that republication of copyrighted building codes incorporated into binding law likely constitutes fair use, may help shape intellectual property strategy for standards organizations, rights holders and potentially even AI stakeholders, says Mitesh Patel at Reed Smith.

• DOJ's Stance On Antitrust And Patent Law Reflects Balance

  

  Recent statements of interest in patent litigation and a speech from a key U.S. Department of Justice official communicate the view that strong patent rights and competition policy are complementary, and offer important guidance for intellectual property practitioners and businesses navigating patent enforcement, standard‑setting and licensing, say attorneys at Wiley.

• 2 AI Snafus Show Why Attys Can't Outsource Judgment

  

  The recent incident involving Sullivan & Cromwell where citations in a filed motion were fabricated by artificial intelligence, as well as a punitive ruling from the Sixth Circuit in U.S. v. Farris, demonstrate that the obligation to supervise AI has belonged and always will belong to lawyers, says John Powell at the Kentucky School Boards Association.

• Opinion

  Congress Must Repair USPTO's Inter Partes Review Process

  

  To challenge recent changes to the inter partes review process issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Congress must establish clear statutory guardrails, transparency and meaningful judicial review so that questionable patents receive proper scrutiny, say Sean Tu at the University of Alabama, Arti Rai at Duke University and Aaron Kesselheim at Harvard.

• Series

  Playing Magic: The Gathering Makes Me A Better Lawyer

  

  The competitive card game Magic: The Gathering offers me a training ground for the strategic thinking skills crucial to litigation, challenging me to adapt to oft-updated rules, analyze text as complicated as any statute and anticipate my opponent’s next moves, says Christopher Smith at Lash Goldberg.

• Fed. Circ. In March: IPR And The Limits Of Retroactivity

  

  The Federal Circuit recently ruled in Implicit v. Sonos that even though the clever retroactive correction of two invalidated patents theoretically should have changed the outcome of the inter partes review, the patentee had forfeited the right to rely on the correction — which is interesting for several reasons, say attorneys at Knobbe Martens.

• Improving Well-Being In Law, 10 Years After Landmark Study

  

  An important 2016 study revealed significant substance abuse and mental health issues among lawyers, and while the findings helped normalize the conversation around these topics, a decade later, structural change is still needed, says Denise Robinson at PLI.

• Sizing Up The 3-Way Battle For 'Iceman' IP Rights

  

  A complex intellectual property conflict is unfolding between athletes Caleb Williams, George Gervin and Chuck Liddell — each of whom has different, credible claims to the "Iceman" nickname and associated trademark rights, say attorneys at Foley & Lardner.

• Opinion

  Proposed Pro Codes Act Raises Constitutional Concerns

  

  If passed, the Pro Codes Act being considered in the U.S. House of Representatives would fundamentally alter how technical standards are treated under U.S. law, and potentially conflict with the Fifth Amendment's takings clause, says Paul Taylor at George Mason University.

• How The Coming Months Will Shape State Drug Price Boards

  

  The future of state prescription drug affordability boards may be determined in the next few months, between an upcoming court decision in a challenge against state authority to set drug prices, and pending state decisions about whether to use federal Medicare maximum fair prices as reference, say Michael Kolber, Steven Chen and Kelechi Ezealaji at Manatt.

• High Court 'Skinny Label' Case Will Matter To Tech Litigators

  

  Hikma v. Amarin, set for oral argument in the U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday, has potential to affect not just generic drug label-based evidence in patent cases, but also how technology inducement cases are presented and proven, says attorney Abdul Abdullahi.

• Opinion

  New Legislation May Be Necessary To Fix Flawed Cox Ruling

  

  The U.S. Supreme Court's opinion in Cox v. Sony erroneously limited the doctrine of contributory copyright infringement and effectively eliminated such liability for internet service providers, and the most viable option to remedy the damage is to codify the pre-Cox common law of contributory copyright infringement, says Michael Cicero at Mavacy.

• Reel Justice: 'No Other Choice' And Moral Rationalization

  

  In the satirical thriller "No Other Choice," the main character rationalizes his decision to kill business competitors by creating a narrative of necessity, illustrating for attorneys the dangers of treating strategic litigation decisions as inevitabilities rather than choices, says Veronica Finkelstein at Wilmington University.

• 5 Trial Lessons You Learn By Losing

  

  Exploring insights that are usually gained only after trial loss can expose the gaps between what we intend to communicate and what lands with the fact-finder, including why being right isn't always a win and how winning a cross‑examination can help you lose your case, says Allison Rocker at Baker & McKenzie.