10 For 10: Top Compliance Stories For the Week Ending August 23, 2025
AI Today in 5: August 22, 2025, The Angst Episode
Compliance into the Weeds: The Dark Side of AI in Employee Training
Compliance Tip of the Day: AI Assistant for Compliance
Compliance Tip of the Day: Co-Thinking with AI
Compliance Tip of the Day: AI, Continuous Monitoring and Compliance
Money-Saving Licensing Tips for Startups
Just Press "Play"
Lawyers Beware: There Could Be Serious Ethics Issues With The New AI Browsers
Project Catalyst an Economic Development Video Podcast | Episode 16: Powering Alabama’s Economic Progress with Leigh Davis of Alabama Power Company
LathamTECH in Focus: Navigating National Security: The Impact of FDI Reviews on Tech M&A
Podcast - Ejecución de facturas electrónicas
The Privacy Insider Podcast Episode 16: Protecting Privacy at Every Walk of Life with France Bélanger and Donna Wertalik of Virginia Tech
Julie Mortimer of Mills & Reeve on The Right Way to Kickstart Your CRM Strategy - Passle's CMO Series Podcast EP176
Sunday Book Review: July 20, 2025, The Best Books on Business Edition
Hospice Insights Podcast - AI in Action: Exploring How AI Is Helping Hospices Do Things in New Ways
Empowerment Through Hero Generation with Nicole a`Beckett and Dr. Shruti Roy
How to Rank in the Age of AI Search: On Record PR
SBR-Authors Podcast: A Journey Through Memoir, Technology, and Grief with Tony Stewart
Episode 373 -- Christian Focacci on Current Developments in AI and Risk Management
The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a memorandum on August 4, 2025, to provide reminders to Examiners in software-related arts, including artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning, regarding...more
On July 21, 2025, District Judge Paul A. Engelmayer (S.D.N.Y.) granted Defendants Teads, Inc., Teads SA, and Teads SARL’s (together, “Teads”) Motion to Dismiss Yieldmo, Inc.’s (“Yieldmo”) Amended Complaint alleging that Teads...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s ruling that patents applying established machine learning methods to new data are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. §101. Recentive Analytics, Inc....more
The Alice two-step analysis on patent eligibility cannot venture far outside the actual claim language according to the Federal Circuit’s non-precedential opinion issued on Thursday, February 1, 2024. See Eolas Techs. v....more
Today, the Federal Circuit will hear oral argument in Contour IP Holding LLC v. GoPro, Inc., Case Nos. 2022-1654, -1691, once again stepping into complex questions of patentable subject matter pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 101...more
Over the past couple months, there has been a constant onslaught of opinions related to artificial intelligence (AI) – typically ChatGPT – and the legal profession, often hinting that AI will eventually put attorneys out of...more
Disclosure: Holland & Knight LLP, including the authors of this blog post, represents Polar Electro in the litigation described below. In the case of Jewel Pathway LLC v. Polar Electro Inc., No. 20 CIV. 4108 (ER), 2021 WL...more
A recent decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit highlights the importance of describing any improvements to technology in the specification. In the case of Whitserve LLC v. Dropbox, Inc., WhitServe...more
In an appeal from a final rejection of a pending application, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that claims directed to methods for determining “haplotype phase” were correctly rejected under 35 USC § 101...more
In the case of In Re: SARADA MOHAPATRA, Appellant, No. 2020-1935, 2021 WL 408755 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 5, 2021), Sarada Mohapatra sought to overturn a decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), holding that his patent...more
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit recently issued the decision of Simio, LLC. V. FlexSim Software Products, Inc. (Dec. 29, 2020). In upholding the District Court’s decision that the software claims at issue...more
Light a fire, pour yourself some glogg (21+) and find a comfy corner to read about the biggest Section 101 stories of 2020 because we're gonna have the hap-hap-happiest time since Bing Crosby tap-danced with . . . Well, you...more
The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s pleadings-stage determination that a patent claim directed to a delivery notification system was subject matter ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101....more
By reversing the lower court’s ruling that the asserted claims were not patent-eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101 in Uniloc v. LG Electronics, the Federal Circuit resurrected Uniloc’s infringement suit against LG Electronics. It...more
Following guidance from the Federal Circuit, the PTAB has vacated a previous Board decision granting Covered Business Method review in Apple, Inc. v. Universal Secure Registry LLC (P.T.A.B. Dec. 3, 2018). The PTAB’s...more
Companies involved in mobile checking should watch case closely - The United States Automobile Association (USAA) owns a portfolio of patents aimed at mobile check deposit technology. One group of these patents is targeted...more
The Federal Circuit recently decided a patent subject-matter eligibility case relating to computer memory in Visual Memory LLC v. Nvidia Corp. In a divided opinion, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court and held...more
The most significant Federal Circuit decision in March was Thales Visionix, Inc. v. United States, another case finding eligible subject matter. What distinguishes this case—and demonstrates the inherently subjective...more
On November 10, 2016, Judge David C. Godbey of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas held that two video upload patents were invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The patents, owned by Youtoo...more
A recent Federal Circuit decision in Bascom Global Internet Services, Inc. v. AT&T Mobility LLC, gives patent owners another illustration of patent subject matter eligibility under section 101....more
Sally Beauty (Petitioner) filed a Petition requesting a review under the transitional program for covered business method (CBM) patents of U.S. Patent No. 5,969,324, owned by Intellectual Ventures I LLC (IV)....more