Global IP & Technology Law Blog

The Federal Circuit recently issued a precedential decision not only reiterating that mere data collection is abstract under 35 U.S.C. § 101, but emphasizing that district courts must provide a sufficiently articulated basis for denying attorney’s fees. The opinion is yet another cautionary note to patent owners and attorneys seeking to enforce patents directed to data processing.

As trailed in the media over this weekend, the UK prime minister Sir Kier Starmer has today announced that the UK government intends to introduce a full ban on under-16s from accessing social media platforms Social media to be banned for under-16s in landmark government move to give kids their childhood back – GOV.UK.

In October 2025, UK regulator, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA), published its final decision to designate Google as having strategic market status (SMS) in the UK in general search and search advertising services. This designation covered Google’s substantial and entrenched market power in general search and search advertising, and whilst Google’s Gemini AI tool was excluded, its other AI-based search features, including the now familiar AI overview, were included.

French Decree No. 2026-60 of 4 February 2026, which entered into force on 7 February 2026, has finally enabled the experimental launch of a new category of online game provided for in Articles 40 and 41 of the 2024 SREN Law (Securing and Regulating the Digital Space). These games referred to as for “Games with Monetisable Digital Objects”.

As discussed in two of our recent blogs (here) and here), the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO or Office) recently proposed substantial patent fee increases for continuing applications and terminal disclaimers. The USPTO is also proposing substantial increases for an applicant to request continued examination of an application whose claims have been rejected, but only minor increases for appeals of rejections.

As discussed in our previous blog (here), the United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) has proposed substantial surcharges for filing continuing applications, depending on the timing of filing. The USPTO is also proposing substantial increases for an applicant to file a terminal disclaimer. As we discuss below, these increases are likely to affect strategies for prosecuting patent applications.

Last month, viral AI-generated pornographic pictures of Taylor Swift circulated on X (formerly Twitter), with one post remaining for 17 hours and receiving more than 45 million views, 24,000 reposts, and hundreds of thousands of likes before the verified account was suspended for violating platform policy. The images, allegedly created using a company’s text-to-image tool Designer, originated from a challenge on 4chan.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office’s (USPTO) recently proposed patent fee increases could have far-ranging consequences for applicants looking to build a patent family from a single patent application. In this first of a series of blogs, we will discuss the potential consequences of the USPTO’s proposed fee increases for continuing applications, including continuation, divisional, and continuation-in-part applications.

On March 18, 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a Memorandum containing guidance to help patent examiners analyze claim language that may be interpreted as “means-plus-function” or “step-plus-function” language under 35 U.S.C. § 112(f). The USPTO said that the Memorandum was not a change in practice for examiners. Sometimes, however, how something is said can affect the interpretation of what is said. We will examine some examples of that here.

Our colleagues at Employment Law World recently blogged about a recent trade secrets decision from the Northern District of California, Apple v. Rivos. The case involved a common fact pattern: numerous employees were hired away from Apple by Rivos and Apple brought claims for trade secret misappropriation (among others). The court dismissed the claims against Rivos and provides important guidance that other companies can take to try and limit their liability in potential trade secret claims.