Data strings
Luke Jones, Unsplash

The U.S. Supreme Court has declined to hear Dr. Stephen Thaler’s appeal seeking copyright protection for his AI‑generated artwork A Recent Entrance to Paradise.  The decision allows to stand the long series of administrative and judicial rulings holding that a work created autonomously by an AI system cannot be protected by copyright under U.S. law because it lacks a human author,  The denial of certiorari was unsurprising, but the implications and ongoing issues remain significant.

1.  The Thaler Case: A Narrow Question

Dr. Thaler has been attempting for many years to secure copyright registration for a work that he described as having been autonomously generated by his AI system (sometimes called DABUS or the “Creativity Machine”).  He initially argued that because he owned and created the system, the resulting work should be considered a work‑made‑for‑hire under copyright, owned by him although created solely by the system.  That argument faltered early, though, and when he later attempted to shift to a different theory — namely, that his guidance and control were sufficient to constitute human authorship — the lower court found the argument waived because it had not been raised earlier.

Accordingly, the question before the courts in the Thaler cases has been relatively narrow: Can an AI system acting autonomously be an “author” for purposes of U.S. copyright law?  Both lower courts held “no,” reaffirming human authorship as a bedrock requirement.  The Supreme Court then refused to take the case.  The U.S. Copyright Office had long maintained the same position, consistently rejecting applications listing non‑humans as authors.  Those decisions have now effectively been endorsed by the judiciary. 

2.  Why the Denial Was Expected

While Dr. Thaler attracted at least one amicus brief supporting his petition, there does not appear to be significant doctrinal or policy momentum at this time, either within U.S. law or internationally, for treating a truly autonomous AI system as an author.  The Copyright Act contains multiple provisions that presuppose a human creator, and courts have repeatedly reinforced that assumption.  As the D.C. Circuit emphasized, copyright is a form of property tied to human lifespan, transferability, and creative labor, frameworks that are poorly suited to autonomous machines. 

Thus, the Supreme Court’s refusal to take the case, though noteworthy, does not necessarily signal broader hostility to AI creativity.  It simply leaves intact the long‑standing principle that AI acting alone cannot be an author.

3.  The Open Question: What Counts as “Human Authorship” when Using AI?

The unresolved frontier, of course, is not autonomously-acting AI, but human‑directed AI.

The Copyright Office currently takes the categorical position that providing even extensive prompts to a generative system does not supply the “traditional elements of authorship.”  Under this view, any image or output generated by systems like Midjourney, Stable Diffusion, or DALL·E is uncopyrightable unless the human user contributes sufficient creative expression before or after generation (e.g., uploading an initial image beforehand or editing or modifying outputs), and then only to the extent of the human contribution, as demonstrated by the now-well-known Zarya of the Dawn, Rose Enigma and A Single Piece of American Cheese examples. 

4. The Jason Allen Case: 624 Prompts and Still No Human Authorship

Colorado artist Jason Allen, whose work Théâtre d’Opéra Spatial won a state art competition, apparently employed 624 Midjourney prompts and extensive iterative refinement to achieve his final image.  Yet the Copyright Office rejected his application, finding that the AI, rather than Allen, executed the “traditional elements of authorship.”

Allen is now litigating that denial, arguing that prompt‑based creation is analogous to earlier technologies like photography, where artists make creative choices even though a machine captures the image.  His case may ultimately reach the Supreme Court and could become an important test of what level and types of human involvement and contribution – conceptually, technically, aesthetically, phenomenologically, and otherwise — are sufficient to constitute human authorship in the context of generative AI.

5.  International Divergence: China’s More Flexible Approach

Not all jurisdictions share the U.S.’s strict view.

In Li v. Liu (2023), the Beijing Internet Court held that a Stable Diffusion‑generated image was copyrightable because the plaintiff’s creative contributions — prompting, parameter adjustments, and selection — constituted sufficient intellectual input.  The court recognized the work as “original” and reflecting the plaintiff’s “intellectual investment.”

However, China’s approach is not uniformly permissive.  In the later Zhou v. Defendant 1 case (2025), the same court refused protection for a Midjourney‑generated image because the plaintiff failed to provide evidence of his creative process, such as specific prompt engineering or iterative adjustments; “after-the-fact simulations” of the creative process were insufficient to prove originality and user effort.  The court held that the burden lies on the claimant to prove substantial human contribution, and failure to do so resulted in no recognition of copyright in that case. 

These cases suggest a more case-by-case, evidence-driven approach in China, in contrast to the categorical rule applied thus far in U.S. cases.  Which approach is more effective at “promoting progress” in the arts and creative industries remains uncertain. 

6.  What Comes Next?

The Thaler cert denial closes the chapter on autonomous‑AI authorship, but the underlying and related questions involving human-AI creativity will likely continue to be carefully considered, and litigated.  The Allen case — and others likely to follow — will force courts to confront the core question the Thaler case sidestepped:

When a human uses an AI tool, what level of control, judgment, and creative input is sufficient for human authorship?

Until that question is resolved, creators, technologists, and rights‑holders will continue to operate in a gray zone.  But one thing is certain: as AI becomes more deeply embedded in creative workflows across all industries, the definition of “authorship,” and questions around the protectability of AI-assisted works, will remain at the forefront.

Pinned locations on map of globe.
Andrew Stutesman, Unsplash

Artificial intelligence may be global, but patent eligibility remains stubbornly local. A recent decision out of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom seems to have nudged UK practice for computer-implemented inventions closer to the approach historically taken by the European Patent Office. The decision lowers the threshold for exclusion from patentability, reducing the likelihood that applications for these types of inventions will be automatically rejected on their face. However, this approach still differs from U.S. practice, representing a continental divide that needs to be taken into account when seeking patent protection for AI-related inventions on a global basis. AI prosecution should not occur in cross-border silos.

In Emotional Perception AI Ltd v Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks, the UK Intellectual Property Office rejected a patent application seeking protection for an artificial neural network trained to align physical properties of media files with human-perceived emotional responses in order to improve AI-driven recommendation engines. The UKIPO held that “schemes, rules and methods for performing mental acts, playing games or doing business, and programs for computers” are simply not regarded as patentable inventions. The case progressed through the England and Wales High Court of Justice and the Court of Appeal (England and Wales) before the Supreme Court issued its decision on February 11, creating a new standard for patent eligibility in the UK based on EPO standards.

For years prior to this decision, applicants in the UK have faced a familiar frustration. If an invention even smelled like software, it risked being categorized as a “computer program as such” and excluded from patentability before novelty or inventive step received serious attention. In Emotional Perception, the court rejected the idea that an artificial neural network should be treated as a computer program for exclusion purposes merely because it is implemented in software on a standard computer. Put differently, the court was willing to look past the label and into the mechanics, which is a welcome development for applicants and a mild inconvenience for anyone hoping eligibility could be resolved by vibes.

This shift reduces some of the historical daylight between the UK and the EPO, where the standard analysis for patentability of a computer-implemented invention hinges on whether the claimed subject matter produces a “further technical effect.” For AI in particular, EPO practice often turns on whether the claim is credibly tied to a technical purpose and technical effects, such as improved image processing, reduced latency, improved signal quality, or control of a technical process. That does not mean “AI” equals “technical.” It means the EPO is interested in the technical problem, the technical means, and the technical result, in roughly that order.

The practical message is that, in the UK, the question “it is software” is now less of a trapdoor and more of a cue to ask: “Fine, but what is the technical contribution?” Novelty, inventive step, and sufficiency remain fully intact, and they remain perfectly capable of doing the heavy lifting where eligibility is no longer a bar. Clearing an excluded-subject-matter objection is only the first lap. The UK may be letting more AI claims into the stadium, but it still expects them to run the race.

Across the Atlantic, the landscape remains different. In the United States, eligibility continues to be shaped by Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank Int’l, 573 U.S. 208 (2014). Courts ask whether a claim is directed to an abstract idea and, if so, whether it contains an inventive concept sufficient to transform the claim into patent-eligible subject matter. Simply saying an AI model runs on hardware is rarely enough. U.S. practice often demands a concrete improvement to computer functionality itself, meaning an improvement in how the system operates, not merely what it computes. If the UK is currently asking, “is this excluded,” the U.S. is still asking, “is this abstract,” which is the same question, just with a different accent.

This divergence matters because Applicants do not innovate AI for one jurisdiction. They file globally. A claim strategy that is comfortable in the UK may still face turbulence in the United States, while a U.S.-focused “technical improvement” narrative may not map cleanly onto the EPO’s technical-effect framing. The era of drafting one master claim set and translating it into local dialects is fading. Modern AI patent strategy looks more like systems architecture than document localization.

For practitioners, the lesson is both strategic and structural: Draft specifications in more detail for global flexibility. A robust AI patent application should, where supportable, describe:

  1. Technical problem and context (not just a use case)
  2. Model architecture and training pipeline (including data preparation and constraints)
  3. How the model is deployed in a system (compute, memory, bandwidth, latency)
  4. Data structures and data flow (what moves where, and why that matters technically)
  5. Performance characteristics (metrics, tradeoffs, and operational bounds)
  6. Concrete technical effects tied to the above

Thin disclosure leaves counsel with one story and one jurisdiction’s vocabulary. Detailed disclosure preserves options and reduces the temptation to “discover” the invention during prosecution, which tends to be less persuasive the second time it is attempted.

There is also a recurring drafting theme. Separate the mathematics from the machine, then put them back together in the specification with enough detail that the reader can see the stitching. Courts and examiners are increasingly skeptical of purely functional AI claims that focus on results rather than implementation. Anchoring an algorithm to specific computing resources, defined data flows, and measurable performance characteristics strengthens technical character in essentially every venue. Concrete detail is not a drafting luxury. It is increasingly an eligibility strategy.

It is also key for practitioners to remember that positions taken in one jurisdiction can improve strategy in another. If a U.S. examiner forces a computer-functionality improvement narrative, that framing can strengthen European prosecution. If European examination pushes limitations emphasizing technical purpose or hardware interaction, those limitations can help reduce U.S. abstract-idea risk. Global coordination is no longer a best practice. It is basic hygiene.

The broader story is familiar, given the jurisdictional divide in intellectual property law. AI is stress-testing patent doctrine worldwide, and legal systems are responding unevenly. The UK has moved toward a more pragmatic recognition that neural networks and software live in physical systems and deserve serious technical analysis. Europe continues to apply its structured technical-effect inquiry. The United States continues to litigate the outer bounds of abstraction. Harmonization remains aspirational.

In practical terms, AI innovators should assume divergence, not convergence. The UK’s posture may make it a more comfortable venue for certain computer-implemented claims, particularly where the technical contribution is clearly articulated. U.S. filings may still require sharper emphasis on improvements to computing technology itself. Drafting becomes an exercise in anticipating doctrinal weather patterns, not simply describing the invention on a calm day.

AI may operate on borderless networks, but patent law remains deeply territorial. The UK has refreshed parts of its interface. Europe has been running a structured build for years. The United States continues to issue patches for Section 101. Success will depend less on choosing one approach than on drafting so the same invention can survive in all of them.

Picture1

On February 20, 2026, Gadgets, Gigabytes and Goodwill Blog co-editor Owen Wolfe spoke at the Fordham School of Law as part of the Fordham Intellectual Property, Media & Entertainment Law Journal Symposium, The Meaning of Ownership: Rethinking Intellectual Property, Creativity, and Control in the Age of Innovation. Owen discussed how courts have so far applied the “fair use” doctrine to cases involving generative AI, distinguishing between use of copyrighted materials in gen AI training and gen AI outputs that are alleged to be substantially similar to the original works. He noted that the decisions to date have been mixed, with some courts finding that certain uses of copyrighted works for AI training are fair use, and other courts expressing skepticism about whether that is the correct result. Owen also surveyed arguments both for and against a finding of fair use, giving the audience food for thought about what courts might decide in the future and whether we might see an amendment to the Copyright Act down the road.

Owen’s talk followed one by Dr. Douglas Lind, a professor at Virginia Tech, who surveyed the history of copyright law in the United States. He focused on the law’s treatment of phonograph records and sound recordings when those new technologies first emerged. Dr. Lind noted that copyright law evolved, and the Copyright Act was eventually amended, to address those new technologies. Dr. Lind raised the question of whether the Copyright Act should be amended again to address gen AI.

Owen and Dr. Lind then sat for a panel discussion and questions from the audience.  Audience questions focused on potential confusion between original works and AI-generated works, and the steps that creators might be able to take to protect their name, image, and likeness beyond copyright law. The discussion confirmed that AI continues to be a hot topic, resulting in thoughtful discussion from multiple different angles and perspectives.

Screenshot 2026-02-26 124400

Seyfarth is proud to share that John Carl “JC” Zwisler has been named a Top Author in Trademarks in the 2026 JD Supra Readers’ Choice Awards, recognizing his exceptional thought leadership and strong reader engagement throughout 2025.

JC’s insights on trademark strategy, brand protection, and emerging developments in intellectual property law resonated with readers nationwide. His recognition reflects both the depth of his experience and his commitment to delivering practical, timely analysis for clients and industry professionals.

In addition to this individual honor, Seyfarth was recognized for one of the Top Read Articles of 2025 in the Education category. Authored by partners Alison Silveira and Lilah Wylde, “Federal Court Pumps the Brakes on House v. NCAA Settlement: What Comes Next for Roster Limits and College Athlete Pay?” examines the federal court’s decision to pause approval of the House settlement and explores the broader questions universities must address as litigation and regulatory expectations continue to evolve.

Two other Seyfarth attorneys were also recognized in the 2026 JD Supra Readers’ Choice Awards for their outstanding contributions:

The JD Supra Readers’ Choice Awards honor leading authors and firms whose thought leadership achieved the highest levels of reader engagement across the platform. Based on 2025 readership data spanning 33 key topics, the awards recognize standout contributors among more than 70,000 authors nationwide.

A lady signing a contract with a ballpoint pen.
Dimitri Karastelev, Unsplash

Alvin Joiner, better known by his stage name Xzibit, is a rapper, actor, and record executive.  He is also the face behind a cannabis brand called BRASS KNUCKLES, which is currently owned by a company called Hero Brands, Inc. In a recent lawsuit, Xzibit’s ex-wife, Krista Joiner, alleges that through a smokescreen of assignments, Xzibit attempted to transfer the BRASS KNUCKLES mark and brand to entities unassociated with her. The case raises interesting questions concerning intellectual property ownership and marital assets. Krista Joiner v. Hero Brands, Inc., No. 8:26‑cv‑00117 (C.D. Cal.).  

Xzibit may be best known for his hosting duties on the TV show Pimp My Ride, where he and his crew restored individuals’ wrecked cars. Xzibit seemingly sought to parlay his notoriety into a new industry – cannabis. But it appears that he did not do this on his own. Joiner claims that she wasn’t just involved in the creation of the BRASS KNUCKLES brand, but she was the driving force behind packaging, product development, marketing, hiring, and daily operations. The brand grew into a business allegedly valued at over $100 million.  

Joiner alleges that a company called Winslow & Shoomaker was created to own the BRASS KNUCKLES intellectual property. Another company, Hitmarker LLC, owns one‑third of Winslow & Shoomaker.  Xzibit is listed as the sole owner of Hitmarker.  Because Hitmarker was formed while Xzibit and Joiner were married in California—a community‑property state—Joiner argues that she automatically owns half of Hitmarker, since property created during marriage belongs equally to both spouses.

Winslow & Shoomaker filed three U.S. trademark applications for the BRASS KNUCKLES brand. The applications registered in 2018 and were then transferred to another company, BKIP LLC. Hitmarker owns a one‑third interest in BKIP.     

Are you following the bouncing ball? In short, Joiner alleges that she “owned a community property interest in Hitmarker and therefore, an effective 1/6 interest in BKIP and in Winslow & Shoomaker, through Hitmarker’s 1/3 ownership of BKIP.”   

This intellectual property and marital spat escalated when Joiner filed for divorce in February 2021. That action triggered a temporary restraining order that prevents Xzibit or Joiner from transferring marital assets without written consent of the other while the proceedings are ongoing. She alleges that Xzibit violated that order by transferring the trademarks in December 2022 to Hero Brands without her approval, and later moving them again to a separate entity through a different deal. These transfers, she argues, were structured to look legitimate while effectively keeping the intellectual property within Xzibit’s business circle despite divorce restrictions.

Joiner asks the court to nullify the trademark transfers, correct ownership records, and stop Hero Brands from using the BRASS KNUCKLES mark—essentially restoring the IP to the marital estate.

The case highlights that intellectual property created, used, and monetized during a marriage may be treated as marital property, and transfer during a divorce can have serious consequences. In addition to reviewing chain of title, it may be worthwhile to closely look at the entities that make up owners of trademark registrations. Moreover, consideration may be given to the domicile of an entity and whether the state is a community property state. These are just some things to keep in mind the next time you look at Xzibit A to that trademark agreement. 

Seyfarth’s Patent Litigation practice group and partner Lisa Meyerhoff have earned recognition as “Highly Recommended” in World Intellectual Property Review‘s  “USA Patents Rankings” for 2025. The firm earned the designation for its contentious patent work, with Meyerhoff gaining the same honor individually.

The WIPR’s national patent rankings spotlight leading law firms and practitioners who are entrusted with the most significant patent matters in the United States and who build patent portfolios for some of the world’s largest companies.

Seyfarth’s Patent Litigation practice group, part of the firm’s decorated Intellectual Property practice, represents clients in high‑stakes patent disputes, including infringement and enforcement matters.

Picture5
Photograph of Unrivaled co-founder Breanna Stewart in action, taken by the author

Unrivaled is a 3-on-3 basketball league founded by WNBA superstars Napheesa Collier and Breanna Stewart. The league has attracted many established WNBA stars, like Ms. Stewart, as well as up-and-coming young players like Paige Bueckers, who signed a deal to play in Unrivaled even before she was selected as the first overall pick in the 2025 WNBA draft.  Unrivaled played its first season in early 2025 near Miami, Florida, and is currently in the midst of its second season. Although most of the games during the 2026 season have again been played near Miami, this past weekend, Unrivaled played some of its games in Philadelphia, with record-setting crowds highlighting the broad interest in this new league.

Unrivaled moved quickly to protect the intellectual property associated with the league, but it has encountered obstacles nearly as tough as the defense of Aliyah Boston (who, as of this writing, leads Unrivaled players in rebounds and blocks per game). The league has attempted to register, among other marks, UNRIVALED (Serial No. 98532992); UNRIVALED U (Serial No. 98655635), and the design mark (Serial No. 98655628). The USPTO has refused to register the marks and, as of this writing, has suspended further action on the applications. It appears that the league is running up against the registered UNRIVALED mark owned by Penn State University (Registration No. 4708398) and the USPTO’s concerns of a likelihood of confusion between the marks. Not only that, but the basketball league has had to contend with earlier-filed, pending applications for marks like UNRIVALED JOY (Serial No. 98248754), UNRIVALED YOUTH SPORTS (Serial No. 98458632), and UNRIVALED BASEBALL (Serial No. 98458635). 

It is not certain whether the league attempted to “clear” UNRIVALED before settling on the name of the league, i.e., checking whether the name conflicted with existing trademarks. It is possible the league proceeded knowing that registering UNRIVALED marks would be a tough battle, but that naming the league “Unrivaled” was important enough to give it a try, even if the odds were as long as a half-court shot. Although it remains to be seen how this issue turns out, as of now, it looks like the league’s attempts to register variations of its name will encounter defense that even Marina Mabrey (Unrivaled’s points per game leader as of this writing) would not be able to overcome.

The league has also encountered stout defense in its attempt to register the design mark (Serial No. 99086262). On January 29, 2026, the USPTO examining attorney issued a non-final action, asserting, among other things, that this color mark cannot be registered because, generally speaking, colors are not distinctive. The examining attorney cited, among other authorities, to a recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on that front. The league has three months to respond.

The league has so far had better luck with its applications to register marks that do not include the word “unrivaled.” These include CROWN THE ONE (Serial No. 99048880; published on June 24, 2025 and notice of allowance issued on August 19, 2025); and the design mark (Serial No. 99311185, where the league responded to a non-final office action on January 12, 2026); and the design mark (Serial No. 98655634). That last mark highlights how long the process can sometimes take.  The league filed its application for that mark on July 18, 2024, well before the first Unrivaled season kicked off. The application was published on November 25, 2025 and a notice of allowance was issued on January 20, 2026, as the second Unrivaled season was underway.

The league also has pending applications for marks relating to the inaugural 2025 Unrivaled teams, the applications for which were filed in late 2024 before the first season started, and more recent applications relating to teams added for the 2026 season, the applications for which were filed in late 2025.  As one example, the league filed an application for this design mark for the Lunar Owls team (Serial No. 98830640):. Although the league filed this application on October 31, 2024—before Unrivaled’s first season began—the USPTO initially refused to approve the mark for publication due to potential confusion arising from inclusion of the phrase “Basketball Club,” which is included in other trademarks. Unrivaled appealed to the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) and asked the examining attorney to reconsider, based on the league disclaiming its rights in “Basketball Club” other than in the mark as shown. Following that request for reconsideration, the examining attorney approved the mark for publication on January 28, 2026, and the mark will be published on February 24, 2026.

All of this underscores that it can be a tricky road for new sports leagues and other new businesses to protect their fledgling brands. Just like pre-game stretching is important for the Unrivaled athletes, early action to protect intellectual property—including clearance searches and early registration applications—is crucial. But even a venture that plans ahead and files applications early, like Unrivaled did with many of its applications, can face a long process and obstacles along the way. The USPTO reports that the average time between filing an application and registration or abandonment is currently 10.3 months. As Unrivaled’s experience shows, however, applicants can sometimes face a years-long road depending on the nature of the marks and the other, similar registrations out there. It can require perseverance and heart, traits that are often on display during the Unrivaled basketball matches.

1770132521-3307-7696-lxb_photo-nATH0CrkMUlxb_photo-
Dave Adamson, Unsplash

As the Seattle Seahawks and the New England Patriots meet again on football’s biggest stage, the rematch inevitably pulls everyone back to one moment. Different rosters. Different seasons. Same unresolved question. With a championship on the line, memories of the one-yard line come rushing back, not because the teams are the same, but because the decision still divides fans, analysts, and armchair quarterbacks.

As a brief recap (apologies to Seattle fans for reopening old wounds), late in the fourth quarter of Super Bowl XLIX, Seattle trailed by four points with roughly twenty seconds remaining and only one timeout. On the one-yard line, the decision was widely framed as obvious: hand the ball to Marshawn Lynch (aka Beast Mode), arguably the best power running back in the league at the time. But the game situation significantly narrowed the Seahawks’ options. With just one timeout left, a run on second down that ended in bounds would have forced Seattle either to burn its final timeout or rush into a highly predictable third-down play under extreme time pressure. Bill Belichick understood this constraint. From a clock-management and optionality perspective, a pass on second down was not reckless, it was rational. An incompletion would stop the clock and preserve both third and fourth down. The Patriots were not guessing. They were reading the situation.

When Russell Wilson released the ball, the defense was ready. Malcolm Butler jumped the route, intercepted the pass, and ended the game. In hindsight, the interception hardened the narrative. But hindsight obscures the real lesson. The play call did not fail because it was irrational. It failed because high-reward decisions carry inherent risk, especially when the other side understands the constraints driving the call.

That same dynamic plays out when companies decide whether to patent an invention or keep it as a trade secret. On the surface, patents often look like the riskier choice. A patent application will be published, usually eighteen months after filing, meaning competitors get a clear window into how the invention works. A patent also has a finite life, generally twenty years from the earliest filing date, after which the invention falls into the public domain. Unlike a trade secret, which can theoretically last forever, a patent comes with a built-in expiration clock that starts ticking the moment you file.

More importantly, patents are not guaranteed. Filing an application does not ensure that claims will be allowed, that the scope will be meaningful, or that the rights will survive challenge. During prosecution, claims may be rejected, narrowed, or abandoned altogether. That uncertainty is especially acute in software and AI, where eligibility concerns, obviousness rejections, and functional claiming issues routinely derail applications. In that sense, pursuing patent protection is very much like throwing a pass at the goal line. The play might succeed and win the game, but there is always a real possibility that it gets intercepted by an examiner unconvinced that the claimed invention passes the patentability goal line.

Trade secrets, by contrast, feel like the power run. No publication. No term limit. No examiner second-guessing claim scope. If secrecy is maintained, protection can last indefinitely. For certain categories of innovation (e.g., manufacturing processes, server-side algorithms, internal workflows, or secret recipes and formulations that are difficult to reverse engineer), this can be exactly the right call. But just as a run up the middle only works when the blocking holds, trade secrets only survive when a company puts real protection in place. Reasonable secrecy measures are the IP equivalent of an offensive line and protection package: access controls, compartmentalization, NDAs, monitoring, and training are what keep the defense from blowing up the play. Once that protection breaks down, through employee turnover, a leak, reverse engineering, or independent development, the ballcarrier is exposed, and the protection is gone instantly, with no replay and no appeal.

Belichick’s insight at the goal line is the same insight sophisticated companies bring to IP strategy. He understood not only what Seattle wanted to do, but what Seattle could do given the constraints. In IP, those constraints include how visible the invention will be once commercialized, how likely competitors are to independently arrive at the same solution, how fast the technology will evolve, and whether enforceable rights against third parties are more valuable than indefinite secrecy. On the trade‑secret side, those constraints also include how much “surface area” the technology exposes: the number of employees who must know it, the degree to which it shows up in customer‑facing outputs, and how much operational friction the company can tolerate in order to keep it locked down. In software and AI, where patents face higher prosecution risk but trade secrets can evaporate the moment code behavior becomes observable, the choice is rarely obvious.

The real lesson of that Super Bowl play is not that passing was foolish. It is that good decisions carry risk when the other side understands your limitations. Patents disclose and expire. Trade secrets endure, but only as long as the protections around them do, and those protections can collapse overnight. Filing a patent may result in powerful rights or nothing at all. Keeping something secret may work for decades, or fail the moment the information leaks, the protection measures break down, or a competitor figures it out independently. IP strategy, like football, is not about choosing the move that looks safest in hindsight. It is about making a defensible decision in real time, with imperfect information, knowing full well that even the smartest call can still end with the ball going the other way.

The International Trademark Association (INTA) has recognized intellectual property associate John “J.C.” Heinbockel as one of its 2026 Rising Stars, a distinction that celebrates emerging leaders in the IP profession.

INTA’s Rising Star program identifies individuals who demonstrate exceptional commitment to intellectual property law through substantive work and leadership potential. Honorees are selected for their contributions to advancing the profession and their dynamic skill sets.

Instagram - @andrewtneel | Donations - paypal.me/AndrewNeel
Andrew Neel, Unsplash

REGISTER HERE

Wednesday, January 21, 2026
1:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. Eastern
12:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. Central
11:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. Mountain
10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. Pacific

About the Program

Join Seyfarth partners Lauren Leipold and Ken Wilton as they present their annual recap of the most significant trademark law and litigation developments from 2025. This comprehensive review distills the year’s most impactful court decisions, USPTO actions, enforcement trends, and practical lessons for brand owners and practitioners. Attendees will walk away with a clear understanding of how 2025 shaped the trademark landscape—and how those developments influence current strategies for protection, enforcement, and portfolio management.

Speakers

Lauren Leipold, Partner, Seyfarth Shaw LLP
Ken Wilton, Partner, Seyfarth Shaw LLP

REGISTER HERE

If you have any questions, please contact Sela Sofferman at ssofferman@seyfarth.com and reference this event.

To comply with State CLE Requirements, CLE forms requesting credit in IL or CA must be received before the end of the month in which the program took place. Credit will not be issued for forms received after such date. For all other jurisdictions forms must be submitted within 10 business days of the program taking place or we will not be able to process the request.

Our live programming is accredited for CLE in CA, IL, and NY (for both newly admitted and experienced).  Credit will be applied as requested, but cannot be guaranteed for TX, NJ, GA, NC and WA. The following jurisdictions may accept reciprocal credit with our accredited states, and individuals can use the certificate they receive to gain CLE credit therein: AZ, AR, CT, HI and ME. For all other jurisdictions, a general certificate of attendance and the necessary materials will be issued that can be used for self-application. CLE decisions are made by each local board, and can take up to 12 weeks to process. If you have questions about jurisdictions, please email CLE@seyfarth.com.

Please note that programming under 60 minutes of CLE content is not eligible for credit in GA. programs that are not open to the public are not eligible for credit in NC.