A simple typo costs a patent its priority date

By Aborn Chao and Alex Wolcott on June 26, 2026 Posted in Patents, US

In a recent precedential decision by the Federal Circuit, the Court delivered a cautionary reminder that errors or omissions in a provisional patent application can have significant consequences for a patent’s priority claim and ultimately its validity.

In Enanta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc., No. 2025-1427 (Fed. Cir. June 23, 2026), the Federal Circuit affirmed summary judgment that Enanta’s ’953 patent (U.S. 11,358,953) was not entitled to the priority date of its ’048 provisional application (Application No. 63/054,048) because the ’048 provisional lacked adequate written description support for a chemical substituent claimed in the ’953 patent. As a result, Pfizer’s public disclosure of its protease inhibitor, nirmatrelvir (the active ingredient in Paxlovid^®), anticipated the claims of the ’953 patent, rendering the patent invalid.

UK government opens consultation on draft safety principles for automated vehicles

By Simon Jones on June 22, 2026 Posted in UK

On 17 June 2026, the Department for Transport and the UK government’s Centre for Connected and Autonomous Vehicles opened a new consultation inviting views from any interested parties on its draft statement of safety principles for automated vehicles [Automated vehicles: statement of safety principles consultation – GOV.UK].

The statement is a requirement under section 2 of the Automated Vehicles Act 2024, which established the legal basis for the regulation of automated self-driving vehicles on the roads in Great Britain.

Once finalised, the statement will set out the key safety principles which the Secretary of State will apply when assessing whether a vehicle should be considered capable of travelling autonomously and safely, with the overriding objectives being that:

Agricultural data collection patent claims “buy the farm” at the Federal Circuit

By Alex Wolcott on June 18, 2026 Posted in Patents, US

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.

AGI SureTrack, LLC held five patents claiming variations of a “relay device” that clips onto a tractor’s data bus, reads messages from farm equipment in real time, cross-references stored “implement profiles” to decode manufacturer-specific protocols, pairs that data with GPS coordinates, and ultimately logs the completed farming operation to an electronic farm record. AGI sued precision-agriculture software provider Farmers Edge in Nebraska federal court, alleging infringement of all five patents.

UK regulator introduces “world first” controls on the use of content in Google generative AI features

By Carlton Daniel and Paul Jinks on June 10, 2026 Posted in Artificial Intelligence, 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.

Designation as an SMS is important, as it allows the CMA to exercise its new powers under the digital markets competition regime, which came into force under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 on 1 January 2025 (The UKs New Digital Markets Competition and Consumers Act | Insights | Squire Patton Boggs). The CMA’s new powers include the ability to impose conduct requirements (CRs) on businesses designated as having SMS.

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

By Stéphanie Faber and Manel Benladghem on May 27, 2026 Posted in Blockchain, France, Gaming & Gambling

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.