『IP Fridays - your intellectual property podcast about trademarks, patents, designs and much more』のカバーアート

IP Fridays - your intellectual property podcast about trademarks, patents, designs and much more

IP Fridays - your intellectual property podcast about trademarks, patents, designs and much more

著者： Rolf Claessen and Ken Suzan
無料で聴く

概要
 intellectual property including trademarks, patents and desgins – the latest news, useful toolsKen Suzan and Rolf Claessen 政治・政府 経済学
エピソード
  • Interview With Angela Dunning, who defends Midjourney and Meta, explains where AI copyright litigation in the US stands and where it is heading – IP Fridays – Episode 180

    Interview With Angela Dunning, who defends Midjourney and Meta, explains where AI copyright litigation in the US stands and where it is heading – IP Fridays – Episode 180
    2026/10/30
    I am Rolf Claessen and my co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 180 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today’s interview guest is Angela Dunning, who defends Midjourney and Meta, and explains where AI copyright litigation in the US stands and where it is heading. Profile of Angela Dunning: https://www.clearygottlieb.com/professionals/angela-l-dunning But before we hear the interview, I have news for you! On 19 October 2026, the US Supreme Court declined to hear Google’s appeal in Google v. VirtaMove. Google, backed by the computer and automotive industries, wanted to end the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s practice of shielding older patents based on “settled expectations.” According to the amici, this practice led to the denial of 201 review petitions between June and October 2025. The Court followed the Solicitor General’s recommendation. On 22 October 2026, the EUIPO and the European Commission published their IP enforcement report. In 2025, authorities seized more than 196 million counterfeit items worth €6.3 billion, 67 percent more than in 2024. Trademarks were the most frequently infringed right at 57 percent, followed by designs at 7 percent. By value of goods detained at the EU border, Germany ranked second behind Spain. On 5 October 2026, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni filed a four-second recording of her voice saying “Io sono Giorgia Meloni” as a sound mark with the EUIPO. She wants to protect herself against AI voice clones and deepfakes. The application covers downloadable multimedia content and the organization of political rallies, among other things, and is currently under examination. On 7 October 2026, the District Court of The Hague barred MSD from selling its subcutaneous cancer therapy Keytruda in eight European countries, including Belgium, France and Italy. The ruling came at the request of Halozyme Therapeutics. The court held patent EP 2 797 622 valid and infringed, even though MSD itself had started the proceedings with an action for a declaration of non-infringement. On 2 October 2026, it emerged that Moderna has sued BioNTech and Pfizer over the vaccine Comirnaty before the UPC Local Division Hamburg (UPC-CFI-0003215/2026). According to JUVE Patent, it is the division’s first major life sciences case in a long time. Moderna relies on EP 3 981 437, after EPO Board of Appeal 3.3.08 revoked its core patent EP 3 590 949 for added matter in mid-September. Moderna is seeking damages rather than a sales ban. On 28 September 2026, the US Senate Subcommittee on Intellectual Property questioned USPTO Director John Squires. The hearing focused on two topics: the Office’s authority to set its own fees, which expires on 12 December 2026, and the planned overhaul of proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Squires said he is considering returning merits decisions to PTAB panels. Generative AI on Trial: Angela Dunning on Fair Use, Trade Dress and a Monkey Selfie More than 140 copyright lawsuits against AI developers are pending in the United States, and the first substantive rulings point toward fair use for training. In the latest episode of IP Fridays, my co-host Ken Suzan spoke with Angela Dunning, one of the lawyers defending those developers, about what courts have decided so far, which claims are still open and why she considers a trade dress claim over art styles a real risk for artists themselves. Angela is a partner at Cleary Gottlieb in Silicon Valley. Her practice covers generative AI, copyright, trademark, technology and contract disputes, and Chambers ranks her for it. She has tried numerous cases to jury verdicts and won published IP appeals before the Ninth Circuit. In 2008 she worked as an assistant district attorney in San Francisco under then District Attorney Kamala Harris, and today she also teaches trademark law at UC Berkeley School of Law. She represents Midjourney and Meta in some of the most closely watched AI copyright cases in the country. How a monkey led to the first AI training lawsuit Angela’s path into AI litigation started about ten years ago with a crested macaque named Naruto. The monkey, from Sulawesi in Indonesia, had taken photographs of himself with a wildlife photographer’s camera. Those “monkey selfies” were later published through the self-publishing platform Blurb, Angela’s client, and Naruto (represented by animal rights advocates) sued for copyright infringement. The case was funny on the surface and serious underneath. It raised the question of whether a non-human can be an author and have standing to sue under the Copyright Act. Angela knew even then that the answer would matter for generative AI, so her team paid close attention to how the human authorship requirement was framed. As she put it, losing to a monkey would have meant looking for a new job. The court held that copyright requires a human author, and the U.S. Copyright Office still cites that decision when it rejects ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    31 分
  • Interview with Peter Berg – Chief IP Counsel at Infineon Technologies and VPP President – Building Litigation Ready Patents – Politics, Acquisitions, NPEs and Post Quantum Cryptography – Why He Wants Germany’s Inventor Law Gone – IP Fridays Podcast – Episode 179

    Interview with Peter Berg – Chief IP Counsel at Infineon Technologies and VPP President – Building Litigation Ready Patents – Politics, Acquisitions, NPEs and Post Quantum Cryptography – Why He Wants Germany’s Inventor Law Gone – IP Fridays Podcast – Episode 179
    2026/09/25
    My co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 179 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today’s Interview guest is Peter Berg. If you don’t know Peter, he is the Chief IP Counsel at Infineon Technologies and is also serving as the VPP president. We talk about the industry association of in-house practitioners VPP, politics, patent strategy at Infineon, litigation ready patents, NPEs, acquisitions, the German emloyees invention act and many more things. So stay with us for this very interesting interview. Before we jump into this interview, I have news for you! The USPTO has issued its first AI-related disciplinary action, published on August 27, 2026 in In re Brian E. Mitchell (Proceeding No. D2026-16) before the Office of Enrollment and Discipline. The underlying settlement was signed by the attorney on July 20, 2026 and by the OED Director on July 21, 2026, with final approval given on July 27, 2026 by Tricia Choe on behalf of USPTO Director John A. Squires. The action resulted in a public reprimand against California patent attorney Brian E. Mitchell after a generative AI tool produced a claim comparison chart containing fabricated citations to the patent’s internal file history. The case underscores that AI-generated hallucinations must be verified by a human before filing. InterDigital has escalated its patent dispute with Disney across three fronts within a month. On August 25, 2026, InterDigital filed two new actions at the Unified Patent Court: a preliminary injunction request at the Mannheim Local Division (UPC_CFI_3044/2026) and a main infringement action at the Düsseldorf Local Division (UPC_CFI_3043/2026), covering Germany, France and the Netherlands. Both target Disney+ Premium’s switch to the VP9 video codec, which InterDigital says still infringes patent EP 2 465 265, a patent the Mannheim division had already found valid and infringed in an earlier ruling that also branded Disney an unwilling licensee; the Düsseldorf action adds a second patent, EP 2 605 473, covering the Up Next continue-watching feature. On September 2, 2026, the Düsseldorf Local Division granted InterDigital an injunction against Disney covering Germany and the Netherlands over a separate patent protecting seamless playback continuation when switching between devices, upholding the patent’s validity in the same ruling. It was InterDigital’s third UPC injunction against Disney. Then, on September 15, 2026, InterDigital filed a damages claim for EUR 101.7 million against Disney at the Munich Regional Court I (case no. 7 O 8870/26), based on a November 2025 finding that Disney+ infringes InterDigital’s HDR video patent EP 2 132 923; the claim also covers viewers in 19 European countries served through a Frankfurt-based server location. For companies relying on codec or connectivity technology, the dispute is a reminder that switching to a different standard does not automatically avoid infringement if the asserted patent is drafted broadly enough. The EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal ruled on September 3, 2026 in G 1/25 that a patent description only needs to be amended to match amended claims if a discrepancy between the two causes a requirement of the EPC, such as clarity, novelty or inventive step, not to be met. The EPO’s Board of Appeal 3.3.08 fully revoked Moderna’s key mRNA patent EP 3 590 949 following a two-day hearing that concluded in mid-September 2026, on the grounds that the claimed subject matter extended beyond the original application. The revocation removes the basis for Moderna’s earlier wins against BioNTech and Pfizer in Düsseldorf and London. On September 15, 2026, US sportswear maker New Balance filed a trademark suit against Decathlon’s US units, Decathlon America LLC and Decathlon USA LLC, in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts (case no. 1:26-cv-14235). New Balance argues that the K logo on its Kiprun running shoe line, when mirrored, reads unmistakably as an N and imitates the N mark it has used for roughly 50 years, claiming post-sale confusion. On September 8, 2026, the Court of Justice of the EU ruled in Case C-298/23, Inter IKEA Systems v Vrijheidsfonds, on a referral from the Brussels Enterprise Court, that the owner of a well-known trademark can prohibit its use by a political party unless the party sets out the specific reasons why its freedom of expression outweighs the trademark owner’s interests. The case arose from the Vlaams Belang party’s 2022 campaign promoting a migration plan styled as IKEA assembly instructions. And now for the interview with Peter Berg! In this episode of IP Fridays I talk with Peter Berg. He is Chief IP Counsel at Infineon Technologies and President of VPP, the German association for in house IP professionals, since May 2025. Berg is an electrical engineer by training and leads a team at Infineon that manages a portfolio of more than 12,000 patent families, while the company simultaneously enforces its rights ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    53 分
  • Dupe Culture Is a Legal Problem Now: What Caitlin Byczko Taught Us About Trade Dress, TikTok, and the Limits of Brand Enforcement – IP Fridays Podcast – Episode 178

    Dupe Culture Is a Legal Problem Now: What Caitlin Byczko Taught Us About Trade Dress, TikTok, and the Limits of Brand Enforcement – IP Fridays Podcast – Episode 178
    2026/08/28
    I am Rolf Claessen and my co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 178 of our podcast IP Fridays! Today’s interview guest is Caitlin Byczko, who is partner with Marnes & Thornburg in their IP team. Ken is discussing dupe culture with her. Here is the profile of Caitlin Byczko https://btlaw.com/en/people/caitlin-byczko But before we launch into this very interesting interview, I have some news for you: On August 10th, 2026, Navitas Semiconductor filed suit against Renesas Electronics in the Eastern District of Texas, accusing Renesas of infringing four US patents on gallium nitride semiconductor technology through its SuperGaN product lines. The filing follows a countersuit Renesas brought on July 22nd, 2026, accusing Navitas and two of its employees of misappropriating trade secrets. It shows how patent disputes and trade secret claims between competitors are increasingly being fought on multiple fronts at once, and often as tit for tat. It also emerged on August 12th, 2026, that an EPO Board of Appeal had dismissed an appeal by Atlas Global Technologies and ruled that its WiFi patent, EP 3 353 901, case T 1230/25, could not be maintained in any form at all, even though the original opponents, TP-Link and Vantiva, had already withdrawn their oppositions. That knocked out the basis for several parallel infringement suits at the Unified Patent Court, which were then withdrawn. For suppliers and implementers, the takeaway is that fighting a patent held by a non-practising entity can still be worth it, even once the original opponent has thrown in the towel. On August 10th, 2026, the Unified Patent Court in The Hague fully revoked Maxell’s patent EP 2 061 230, covering technology for handing off content to a second device, and at the same time dismissed Maxell’s infringement claim against several Samsung entities, in cases UPC_CFI_251/2025 and UPC_CFI_769/2025. The judges found the patent to be nothing more than an obvious combination of routine adaptations, with no additional technical effect. And now – let’s hear the interview with Ken and Caitlin! A dupe used to be a quiet, slow thing. You’d stand in the cereal aisle, notice the generic box next to the name brand, buy it, tell a friend. Word spread over months. That world is gone. On this episode of IP Fridays, Ken Suzan sat down with Caitlin Byczko, partner at Barnes & Thornburg LLP in Indianapolis, to talk about what’s replaced it: a TikTok-driven economy where a single video can sell out a dupe product within hours, sometimes before the original brand’s own team even knows it exists. Byczko litigates and prosecutes trademarks across retail, fashion, luxury goods, technology, and pharmaceuticals, and she’s watched dupe culture evolve from a marketing footnote into one of the more active battlegrounds in trademark law. Here’s what she told us, and why it matters even if your brand has never heard the word “dupe” used about it. Counterfeit and Dupe Are Not the Same Thing, Legally Byczko opened with what she called the most important distinction in this entire conversation: the difference between a counterfeit and a dupe. A counterfeit uses someone else’s actual trademark. Think of a fake Chanel bag stamped with the interlocking C’s, or a fake Louis Vuitton logo. That’s straightforward infringement, and above certain thresholds, a federal crime. A dupe is different. It mimics the look, feel, or performance of a product without using the name or the logo at all. Elf Cosmetics, Zara, Costco’s Kirkland brand, and Quince have all built parts of their business on exactly this model. No one is pretending to be Chanel. They’re offering something that looks and performs similarly, at a fraction of the price, under their own name. Media and social media use “dupe” and “counterfeit” interchangeably. Legally, that’s sloppy, and it matters, because the two categories trigger completely different legal analyses. If There’s No Logo, What Are Brands Actually Suing Over? This is where trade dress comes in. Trade dress protects the overall look and feel of a product: packaging, color combinations, shape, label design. Byczko pointed out that most of us interact with trade-dress-protected products every day without realizing it. The test is likelihood of confusion. Courts look at how similar the products actually look, how sophisticated the shoppers are, and whether there’s real evidence that people were confused. Byczko flagged one case as a genuine roadmap for this area: Van Leeuwen v. Rebel Creamery, an ice cream trade dress dispute that came out of the Eastern District of New York. In her view, the strength of that case came down to how precisely the brand defined its trade dress for the packaging. That precision, she said, did a lot of the work toward the outcome. She’s also watching Lululemon v. Costco, which she expects to be significant partly because it doesn’t rely on trademark and trade dress ...
    続きを読む 一部表示
    24 分
adbl_web_anon_alc_button_suppression_t1
まだレビューはありません