Will businesses be taxed for using AI? Robot, token and floating point operations (FLOP) taxes explained

As AI systems continue to be adopted at scale, they are increasingly performing tasks carried out by human employees. From drafting documents, to writing code, to handling customer queries and concerns have grown about the economic risks this shift may pose, including job displacement and the erosion of the income taxes generated by human labour.

This rapid automation of roles raises difficult questions around labour displacement, reduction and redeployment. A direct economic consequence of this is the growing fiscal pressure that governments may face due to loss of income tax. This has renewed interest in proposals for a robot tax, alongside the emergence of AI policy research on alternatives such as token tax and FLOP tax, each targeting a different point in the AI value chain: labour displacement, AI-driven usage and compute power.

Continue Reading

Bullseye: Luke Littler is successful in securing a facial trade mark registration

In March 2026 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 Oche to the IPO: can a face function as a trade mark? | Global IP & Technology Law Blog].

IPO records now show that Mr Littler’s company’s application was successful with a direct, photorealistic likeness of Mr Littler having been registered as a trade mark on 19 June 2026 for 11 different classes of goods and services [UK Intellectual Property Office trade mark number UK00004350490].

Mr Littler thereby joins a growing list of literally famous (or rather, distinctive) faces who have successfully secured trade mark registration in the UK for a general/generic photorealistic likeness of themselves, including the footballer Cole Palmer and television presenter Jeremy Clarkson. Trade mark filing practice has expanded beyond the more stylised images that were historically used to secure successful trade mark applications.

Continue Reading

Narrowly claimed, broadly disclosed: When patent claims mean exactly what they say

In a short but instructive opinion, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit delivered a reminder about the relationship between claim language, written descriptions and the limits of what a patent’s claims can cover. Dynapass owns U.S. Patent No. 6,993,658, covering methods for authenticating users on a secure computer network using a two-component credential: a passcode that the user knows, and a token that the user receives via cell phone. The key idea is that these two pieces are combined into a single password, which the user then submits to receive access. This security protocol is of a form frequently referred to as “multi-factor authentication” (MFA).

Continue Reading

From quill to code: George Washington debates the patent future of artificial intelligence on America’s 250th birthday

As America celebrates its 250th year, the pulse of innovation that animated the Founders beats louder than ever. From the first patent debates to today’s courtroom clashes over artificial intelligence, George Washington’s legacy as a mill owner, pragmatic leader, and founding architect of the U.S. patent system remains strikingly relevant. Drawing on Washington’s own letters and historic drive for progress, we confront a question that now defines our technological era: When a machine surpasses its maker, who gets to claim the spark of invention, the human or the machine?

Imagine a frosty December morning in 1790 in Philadelphia. President George Washington—equal parts statesman, tinkerer, and entrepreneur—stands before Oliver Evans’ astonishing automaton. This isn’t just another machine: it’s an engineering leap, grinding grain into superfine flour at a speed no human crew could match, demanding barely a touch from its operators. When Washington signs the third U.S. patent for the Evans system, he’s not just endorsing invention—he’s witnessing a technological revolution poised to transform his own fortunes and the young nation’s future.

Continue Reading

A simple typo costs a patent its priority date

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.

Continue Reading

UK government opens consultation on draft safety principles for automated vehicles

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:

Continue Reading

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

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.

Continue Reading

UK prime minister announces “world-leading” social media ban for under-16s

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.

Scope of the ban

For the purpose of this ban, the announcement defines a social media platform as a user-to-user platform, whose purpose is to enable social interaction and which allows users to post material, alongside algorithms. The announcement notes that this means the ban will include all of the most well-known social media platforms, although we would expect that all platforms meeting this criteria will be subject to the ban regardless of size. However, the government has gone on to say that it does not intend for messaging services such as WhatsApp and Signal to be included in this ban.

Continue Reading

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

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.

Continue Reading

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.

Continue Reading

LexBlog