The legal profession has spent the past few years asking whether generative AI is trustworthy. Will it draft a contract, research an issue, summarize a record, or invent a case with impressive confidence? California’s new law shifts the focus to a more practical question: who takes responsibility when lawyers use it?
On September 30, 2026
Nobody likes the grammar police. Patent lawyers, unfortunately, may be the exception.
In Enanta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Pfizer Inc. No. 2025-1427 (Fed. Cir. June 23, 2026), one character did a lot of damage. The difference between C2 and C1 cost Enanta the priority date of its provisional application—and led the Federal Circuit to affirm that
In Any Given Sunday, Al Pacino’s character famously describes American football as a game of inches. In this football—umm, soccer—that line has become almost literal: joy, heartbreak, and World Cup survival can now turn on a toe, a shoulder, or a few millimeters.
Just ask Iran.
For a few glorious seconds, Iran had done
For years, the debate surrounding artificial intelligence and patents has focused on a relatively simple question: Can AI be an inventor?
At least in the United States, the answer is currently no. Inventors must be natural persons.
Problem solved. Or perhaps not.
While lawyers, courts, and the USPTO have spent the past several years debating
Seyfarth’s 2026 Commercial Litigation Outlook reinforces a key reality for IP practitioners: artificial intelligence is not just driving innovation—it is fundamentally reshaping how intellectual property is created, protected, and challenged. This year, Seyfarth’s Intellectual Property team contributed insights focused on the growing risks to trade secrets, ownership rights, and proprietary information in an AI-driven environment.
Patent attorneys spend a lot of time explaining two deceptively simple concepts: novelty and obviousness. Both rise and fall on one thing: prior art. Most inventors assume prior art means a patent or some obscure technical paper written by someone surviving on cold brew and conference coffee.
That assumption is wrong.
Prior art is anything
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
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
Every year has its “it” term.
In 2025, the crown belonged to AI, and rightfully so. AI dominated the headlines, flooded the USPTO’s dockets, and triggered more §101 rejections than any examiner would care to admit. If you worked in tech, you had to talk about AI. If you worked in patent law, you likely
Thanksgiving is finally here, which means the turkey gets its annual moment in the spotlight. For 364 days a year, the turkey is just trying to fit in. It was forced to take on roles it never auditioned for. Turkey bacon. Turkey sausage. Turkey pastrami. Turkey pepperoni on pizza that never asked for it. All