United States: Patent

M&A activity in AI is increasingly defined by speed, asymmetry of information and the quality of intangible assets. Financial performance still matters, but I’ve noticed it is no longer sufficient on its own. Buyers are underwriting something less visible and in many cases more determinative of long-term value: the defensibility of the underlying technology.

As renewable energy companies race to innovate and scale, many are overlooking a critical vulnerability: inadequate intellectual property protection. Two experienced attorneys reveal the strategic steps technology-focused clean energy firms must take throughout product development to safeguard their competitive position, secure financing, and maximize value in future transactions.

Over the past several years, the biopharmaceutical industry has embraced artificial intelligence and machine learning (AI/ML) in near lockstep with the pace of AI/ML innovations. Today, industry leaders are using AI/ML to, among other things: discover and assess biological pathways, target chemical structures and sequences; design proteins; model pre-clinical and clinical trials; recruit and screen potential patient populations; evaluate clinical trial results and biomarker data; prepare regulatory filings; and manage supply chains. Deployment of new AI/ML models promises extraordinary advances in pharmaceutical development. However, as with any technological and scientific advances, the use of AI/ML also poses substantial legal risks that life sciences companies need to consider and proactively manage.

The global migration to post-quantum cryptography is actively underway following NIST's release of finalized standards for quantum-resistant algorithms. For general counsel and IP attorneys, intellectual property concerns present significant challenges when transitioning to new cryptographic standards, particularly regarding third-party patent claims on algorithms like CRYSTALS-Kyber (ML-KEM).

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board has reaffirmed the Broad Institute's priority over the University of California in a high-stakes patent interference dispute involving CRISPR-Cas9 technology for eukaryotic cells. Following a Federal Circuit remand, the Board applied first-to-invent principles to determine which party successfully demonstrated conception and reduction to practice of this groundbreaking gene-editing system.

A California federal court denied a defendant's motion to amend its invalidity contentions after discovering prior art through an AI-assisted patent search tool, ruling that the availability of new technology...

The Federal Circuit's decision in Dental Monitoring SAS v. Align Technology, Inc. establishes that a published patent application can only claim its provisional's filing date as prior art if the provisional provides written description support under § 112(a) for at least one claim. This ruling overturns the PTAB's more lenient "ministerial" standard and creates significant implications for both patent prosecution and inter partes review proceedings.

This is part of a series of articles discussing recent orders of interest issued in patent cases by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts.

When you settle a patent dispute or license your technology, you may unknowingly trigger patent marking obligations that can eliminate your ability to recover pre-suit damages. A recent Federal Circuit decision demonstrates how settlement agreements transform patent owners into licensors with active compliance duties, and why failing to monitor licensee marking practices can result in case dismissal and substantial attorney fee awards.