On October 27, 2025, Judge Sidney H. Stein of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York denied OpenAI’s motion to dismiss authors’ output-based copyright infringement claims in In re OpenAI, Inc. Copyright Infringement Litigation.
On August 19, 2025, the Federal Circuit issued a non-precedential opinion affirming a Louisiana district court’s invalidation of U.S. Patent No. 6,918,801, owned by Wilco Marsh Buggies & Draglines, Inc. (“Wilco”), under the on-sale bar.
On July 23, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit denied a petition for both panel and en banc rehearing in Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., leaving in place its earlier precedential decision in the matter that applying standard machine learning techniques to a new environment is not enough to qualify for patent protection under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The court’s denial confirms its first major precedential decision on machine learning patents, suggesting a shift in how AI claims will be treated under § 101.
On June 26, 2025, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California issued a decision in LookSmart Group v. Google LLC, granting Google’s motion to dismiss LookSmart’s infringement lawsuit. The court found that the claims of LookSmart’s patent were directed to an abstract idea and lacked the requisite “inventive concept” required for patent eligibility.
On June 9, 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der angewandten Forschung e.V. v. Sirius XM Radio Inc., addressing the doctrine of equitable estoppel in patent litigation. The decision reversed a lower court’s ruling that had barred Fraunhofer’s claims due to its five-year delay in filing suit. While the Federal Circuit agreed that Fraunhofer’s silence was potentially misleading, it emphasized that equitable estoppel in patent infringement cases also requires a clear showing of reliance by the accused infringer. Sirius XM failed to meet that burden, making summary judgment inappropriate. Continue reading…