The French Experimental Framework for Games with Monetisable Digital Objects (so-called JONUM)

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 are referred to as “Games with Monetisable Digital Objects”. In France, they are best known under their acronym “JONUM” (which stands for, “Jeux à Objets Numériques Monétisables”) and the relevant rewards, the Monetisable Digital Objects, are referred to in French as “ONUM” (which stands for “Objets Numériques Monétisables “). This new regulatory framework responds to the emergence of online gaming models incorporating blockchain technologies and tradable digital assets.

This approach highlights the ambivalence of the phenomenon. On the one hand, Games with Monetisable Digital Objects fall within the video game universe: they rely on a logic of progression, interaction, and gaming experience. On the other hand, they borrow certain fundamental mechanisms from gambling, particularly randomness and the expectation of gain.

This framework establishes a distinct regime based on a balance between player protection and support for innovation.

At A Crossroads Issue #4: Revised EU Antitrust Rules on Technology Transfers – Implications for the Automotive and Transportation Industry

By Francesco Liberatore and Tom Leverett on April 28, 2026 Posted in Data Protection, EU Commission, Intellectual Property, Technology

Executive Summary

The European Commission has adopted a revised Technology Transfer Block Exemption Regulation (TTBER)^[1] and Guidelines on the application of Article 101 TFEU to technology transfer agreements (Guidelines)^[2], replacing the 2014 framework which expires on 30 April 2026. The revised rules apply from 1 May 2026 and reflect a four‑year evaluation and impact‑assessment process aimed at preserving legal certainty for technology licensing while addressing data‑driven markets, standards‑based ecosystems, and new cooperative licensing models.

No Need to Hush? – The EU EmpCo Directive’s very real impact on your IP strategy

By Dr. Sandra Mueller on April 28, 2026 Posted in Europe, Intellectual Property

With the European Green Deal, the EU’s comprehensive strategy to make Europe the first climate-neutral continent by 2050, sustainability considerations need to become an integral part of a company’s IP strategy. We have focused on the most important provisions of the EU Packaging and Packaging Waste Regulation (PPWR) IP owners need to be aware of in this blog here. Besides the PPWR, there are several other (future) acts of EU law that need to be considered to make product design, packaging and marketing future-proof.

One of them is the Empowering Consumers Directive (EmpCo Directive)[1], which entered into force on 26 March 2024. The EmpCo Directive applies to all companies operating within the EU single market and shall tackle unfair commercial practices that mislead consumers and prevent them from making sustainable consumption choices, such as practices associated with the early obsolescence of goods, misleading environmental claims (“greenwashing”), misleading information about the social characteristics of products or traders’ businesses, or non-transparent and non-credible sustainability labels[2]. The EU Member States have time to transpose the EmpCo Directive into their national laws by 27 March 2026 and apply them from 27 September 2026. In Germany, the new rules will be implemented in the German Act against Unfair Competition (Gesetz gegen den unlauteren Wettbewerb – UWG).

Playing a Straight Bat: How to Survive a Section 101 Sticky Wicket at the USPTO

By Christopher Adams, Sarah Mirza and Frank Bernstein on April 27, 2026 Posted in Patents, USPTO

What do cricket legends like Imran Khan, Sir Don Bradman, Sachin Tendulkar, Sir Garfield Sobers, Sir Viv Richards, Shane Warne, Brian Lara, Jacques Kallis, Muttiah Muralitharan, and Wasim Akram have to do with surviving a 35 U.S.C. § 101 (“Section 101”) rejection? At first glance, absolutely nothing. But spend enough time at the crease of patent prosecution—facing the relentless swing of Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank and the seaming conditions of the Mayo Collaborative Services v. Prometheus Laboratories, Inc. two-step framework—and the parallels become impossible to ignore. Overcoming a Section 101 rejection is less like a legal exercise and more like a Cricket Test match: it demands preparation, composure, and a willingness to play the long game.

From the Oche to the IPO: can a face function as a trade mark?

By Carlton Daniel, Paul Jinks and Kerry Lee on April 20, 2026 Posted in Artificial Intelligence, Intellectual Property, Trade Mark, UK

The authors wish to thank Jonathan Mason for his contributions to this post.

In early March, the darts phenomenon and reigning World Champion, Luke Littler, applied to the UK Intellectual Property Office (“IPO”) to register his face as a trade mark in the UK across a variety of different categories from the obvious (class 9 which includes computer and video games) to the more niche (class 11 being “lights for dartboards and dartboard cabinets”) joining a growing list of celebrities in the UK and further afield seeking to use trade mark law to protect their likeness in the generative AI era.

Implied termination rights in long-term contracts: why clear drafting matters

By Sarah Hall, Simon Jones and Matt Harris on April 13, 2026 Posted in Intellectual Property, Trade Mark

An “indefinite” term may not actually mean forever after all. A recent Court of Appeal decision now confirms that even where one party believed a contract was intended to run forever, a court may imply a right to terminate on reasonable notice if no express termination clause exists, if one party later seeks to exit.

This point was tested in Zaha Hadid Limited v Zaha Hadid Foundation. The Court of Appeal overturned the High Court’s earlier ruling on a long‑standing trade mark licence, holding that an agreement that was stated to be “indefinite” could not be interpreted as being a contract that would bind the parties forever. Rather:

a contract that is stated to continue indefinitely must still be capable of being terminated by each party; and
for a contract to be upheld as continuing forever, it must be expressly stated to be “perpetual”.

The Automotive Agentic AI Revolution

By Simon Jones and Samuel Tibbetts on April 10, 2026 Posted in Artificial Intelligence, Intellectual Property

As with all industries, agentic AI is already starting to have a dramatic impact on the automotive industry, particularly with regard to:

improving the speed at which vehicles are designed and tested in ways which also better reflect:
- customer needs;
- the need to design safer and more efficient vehicles;
- the complex interactions between components in vehicles;
- better thermal management of electric motors; and
- multiple user preferences;
transforming and dramatically speeding up vehicle testing by simulating complex, real-world conditions, generating diverse scenarios and analysing vast amounts of data more efficiently than traditional methods.
developing increasingly autonomous vehicles with real-time perception and decision-making via the processing data from cameras, LiDAR, and radar;

enhancing in-vehicle experience by monitoring driver and passenger behaviours and proactively adjusting vehicle settings (navigation and climate control);

developing advanced in car assistants that can offer predictive maintenance and diagnostic alerts and intelligence, concierge services and dynamic navigation, creating unique, personalised journeys and new revenue streams;

optimising smart manufacturing processes to improve manufacturing efficiency, productivity and quality control, including via the use of predictive maintenance of production lines, improving robotics coordination and implementing measures to reduce energy costs and waste;
optimising supply chains based on better predictive capabilities and dynamic routing;
developing more efficient business functions, such as in relation to recruitment and the management of staff;
creating more engaged and personalised customer dealings and experiences including more personalised vehicle configurations and settings;
streamlining financial processes such as loan approvals, which can lead to increased sales and profitability; and
better enabling the efficient management and operation of vehicle fleets.

A New Path for Patent Owners in Ex Parte Reexams – But What About the Rules?

By Frank Bernstein on April 6, 2026 Posted in Patents, USPTO

On April 1, 2026, USPTO Director Squires issued an Official Gazette Notice allowing patent owners a limited amount of time to respond to a request for ex parte reexamination (EPR) before the Office determines whether the request presents a substantial new question of patentability (SNQ). Under this new procedure, within 30 days of being served with an EPR, a patent owner can file a paper up to 30 pages long, explaining to the Office why the EPR does not raise a SNQ. The Notice purports to implement this new procedure to enable the Office to consider input from the patent owner before making an SNQ determination that would start the EPR.

The Notice does not change any existing rules governing the handling of EPRs, nor does the Notice make any new rules in 37 CFR. The Notice does say that if a patent owner opts to file a timely response, the Office will waive the provisions of 37 CFR § 1.530 (statement by patent owner in ex parte reexaminations) and § 1.540 (consideration of responses in ex parte reexamination) that bar patent owner responses before the Office determines whether there is an SNQ.

But nothing currently in the rules permits such a procedure. Or does it?

Federal Circuit Strikes Down Millions in Damages Tied to Foreign Sales, with a Lesson for Future Litigants

By Xiaomei Cai, Alex Wolcott and Tamara Fraizer on March 25, 2026 Posted in Patent Litigation, Patents, Technology, US

The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in the litigation between Columbia University and Gen Digital is notable not only for its treatment of software patent eligibility, but also for what it says about potential expansions in the geographic limits of patent damages, especially in the context of software patents.

As discussed in our prior blog, the court remanded the § 101 issue for further analysis of whether the asserted software claims, though directed to an abstract idea, contain an inventive concept under Alice, step two. But even if its patents survive § 101 on remand, Columbia lost the $94 million of royalty damages attributable to Norton’s sales to customers located outside the U.S. Applying the principle from the 2006 Microsoft v. AT&T decision that software code reproduced overseas from a master copy sent from the U.S. does not contain any U.S.-made components, the Federal Circuit held that Columbia was not entitled to damages for Norton’s foreign software sales because, similarly, that software was not “made in or distributed from” the U.S.

UK Government Consultation on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence: The Sound of a Can being Kicked Down the Road?

By Carlton Daniel and Paul Jinks on March 23, 2026 Posted in Artificial Intelligence, Copyright, UK

As trailed in its progress statement published in December 2025 and discussed in our previous blog, the UK government published on 18 March 2026 its much awaited full report considering the use of copyright works in the development of AI systems. The report follows the government’s high-profile consultation on Copyright and Artificial Intelligence which ran between December 2024 and February 2025, as addressed in our other previous blog, which attracted an unusually high number of respondents. There was also a high-profile campaign by well-known names in the creative industries lobbying against any changes which would result in copyright materials being used for AI training purposes without explicit consent.

As expected, this report officially confirms that the government has now abandoned the option which it had preferred when it first announced the consultation―so-called “option 3”. That would have allowed AI developers to assume consent to use copyright material for AI training, unless a rights holder objects, subject to developers being transparent about what materials they have used in training.