Insights

In the last few months, both Washington State and Pennsylvania enacted significant legislation addressing the malicious use of deepfakes—artificial intelligence-generated or manipulated media. These new laws reflect a growing national and state-level trend to regulate AI-generated content, especially when used to harm individuals or mislead the public.

On July 28, 2025, Cadence Design Systems Inc. (“Cadence” or “the Company”), a global electronic design automation (“EDA”) technology company based in San Jose, California, agreed to plead guilty in a settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice’s National Security Division (“NSD”) and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Northern District of California. Through its guilty plea, Cadence agreed to resolve charges that it committed criminal violations of export controls by selling EDA hardware, software, and semiconductor design intellectual property (“IP”) technology to the National University of Defense Technology (“NUDT”), a Chinese military university on the U.S. Entity List since 2015 due to its involvement in military and nuclear simulation activities. In addition, Cadence simultaneously resolved a civil enforcement action brought by the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security (“BIS”) related to the same underlying conduct.

The Southern District of New York issued a recent opinion in Lehrman et al v. Lovo, Inc., 1-24-cv-03770 (SDNY Jul. 10, 2025) (J. Paul Oetken) regarding copyright infringement issues involving artificial intelligence models, focusing this time on voice cloning. Two voice-over actors, Paul Lehrman and Linnea Sage, filed a lawsuit against Lovo, Inc., a company specializing in AI-driven text-to-speech services. The Plaintiffs alleged that Lovo used artificial intelligence to clone their voices without authorization, raising complex legal questions regarding intellectual property and privacy rights in the age of AI.

On July 23, 2025, the White House released Winning the Race: America’s AI Action Plan (“the Plan”) the Trump Administration’s most significant policy statement on artificial intelligence to date.

The USPTO is actively implementing and seeking out technologies to enhance the speed, accuracy, and consistency of the examination of patent applications.

Applicants entering the U.S. national phase of an international (PCT) application have two options: enter the national stage under 35 U.S.C. §371 or file a “bypass” national application under 35 U.S.C. § 111(a). A bypass application allows applicants to file a new U.S. application that claims priority to the PCT application, treating the PCT application as a U.S. parent and bypassing the traditional national phase entry. Depending on the applicant’s goals and strategy, bypass applications can be filed as a continuation, divisional, or continuation-in-part (CIP).

On June 30, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14312 effectively lifting (or beginning the process of lifting) most of the sanctions on Syria. Executive Order 14312 cites the leadership changes and the policies of the new Syrian government under President Ahmed al-Sharaa as the reasons for the removal of sanctions. On the same day, the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) and the Department of State took steps to implement the termination of the program by, among other actions, delisting appropriate individuals and entities from the List of Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN List). These actions followed the initial sanctions relief provided on May 23, 2025 by OFAC, the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), and the State Department.

Twenty years ago, the Supreme Court held that “one who distributes a device with the object of promoting its use to infringe copyright, as shown by clear expression or other affirmative steps taken to foster infringement, is liable for the resulting acts of infringement by third parties.” MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913, 919 (2005). In the Grokster case, the Supreme Court found that peer-to-peer file sharing companies could be liable for copyright infringement for their users’ deployment of file sharing software. There, the Court found that liability was warranted because the file sharing companies knew that its users were infringing, and the companies materially contributed to that infringement.

On June 10, 2025, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published a final rule that will discontinue the Accelerated Examination program for utility applications, beginning July 10, 2025. The final rule also modifies the rules of practice to clarify the grounds for which a petition to make special may be granted and when a fee is required for such a petition. Currently, Applicants have several ways to expedite examination of their patent applications. For example, an Applicant can expedite examination of utility patent applications by either petitioning to make their application special through the Accelerated Examination program or by applying through the Prioritized Patent Examination Program (“Track One” program).

Last week, artificial intelligence companies won two significant copyright infringement lawsuits brought by copyright holders, marking an important milestone in the development of the law around AI. These decisions – Bartz v. Anthropic and Kadrey v. Meta (decided on June 23 and 25, 2025, respectively), along with a February 2025 decision in Thomson Reuters v. ROSS Intelligence – suggest that AI companies have plausible defenses to the intellectual property claims that have dogged them since generative AI technologies became widely available several years ago. Whether AI companies can, in all cases, successfully assert that their use of copyrighted content is “fair” will depend on their circumstances and further development of the law by the courts and Congress.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has relaxed the standard and clarified the analysis for the showing of a nexus to a patented invention when patent licenses are presented as objective indicia of nonobviousness.

Crowell attorneys have closely monitored developments related to the California Invasion of Privacy Act (“CIPA”). In particular, we have watched plaintiffs attempt to extend this wiretapping law to encompass website chatbot communications that are managed by third parties.

Acting USPTO Director Coke Morgan Stewart recently issued a Director Review decision on May 19, 2025, in Ecto World, LLC v. RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc, IPR2024-01280, Paper 13 (PTAB May 19, 2025), that was subsequently designated as precedential by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The decision seeks to eliminate inconsistencies amongst PTAB panels in using its discretion to deny institution under 35 U.S.C. § 325(d). 

On Friday, May 9, 2025, the U.S. Copyright Office released the third (pre-publication) installment in a series of reports regarding the intersection of artificial intelligence (AI) and copyright law.[1]  This report addresses the legal implications of training generative AI models using copyrighted materials.[2] 

As part of the 2012 America Invents Act, statutory estoppel was included to balance the interests of patent owners and patent challengers following an inter partes review (“IPR”).  Estoppel prevents an IPR petitioner from later asserting in court that a claim “is invalid on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised” during the IPR.  35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2).  As applied, estoppel prevents petitioners from later relying in district court or in ITC proceedings on most patents or printed publications – the limited bases upon which petitioner can rely in an IPR.  But a question remained, and contradictory district court decisions arose, as to whether petitioners would be estopped from relying on a prior art commercial product (known as “device art,” which could not itself have been raised in the IPR) even if a printed publication describing the product (i.e. a patent or technical manual) was available and presumably could have been raised. 

On May 23, 2025, the U.S. Departments of State (“State”) and the Treasury (“Treasury”) took actions that resulted in immediate sanctions relief for Syria. Specifically, Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) issued General License 25 (“GL 25”) pursuant to the Syrian Sanctions Regulations (“SySR”), the Weapons of Mass Destruction Proliferators Sanctions Regulations (“NPWMD”), the Iranian Financial Sanctions Regulations (“IFSR”), the Global Terrorism Sanctions Regulations (“GTSR”), and the Foreign Terrorist Organization Sanctions Regulations (“FTOSR”). In parallel, Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (“FinCEN”) and State took supporting actions outlined below.

In a bipartisan show of support for American inventors and technological leadership, Senators Chris Coons (D-DE), Thom Tillis (R-NC), and Mazie Hirono (D-HI) and Representatives Kevin Kiley (R-CA) and Scott Peters (D-CA) held a press conference on Wednesday, May 1, 2025, to highlight growing momentum behind the Promoting and Respecting Economically Vital American Innovation Leadership Act (known as the PREVAIL Act) and the Patent Eligibility Restoration Act (known as the PERA Act).  

The USPTO has made a series of recent announcements in April that should not go unnoticed as they serve as important reminders for best practices in patent prosecution. In particular, the USPTO’s announcements address continuation applications, a new working group to mitigate fraud, and the elimination of expedited examinations for design applications.

The Federal Circuit recently addressed a case of first impression involving AI patented technology under 35 U.S.C. § 101 to hold that “claims that do no more than apply established methods of machine learning to a new data environment” are not patent eligible. This case provides helpful guidance for patent prosecutors on how to draft claims directed to AI technology to be patent-eligible and for litigators on how to attack or defend AI patents.

Will the Supreme Court review the Ninth Circuit’s unique Server Test for online copyright infringement? After the Ninth Circuit recently affirmed the Server Test, a photographer and copyright owner has requested certiorari. Petitioner-Plaintiff, Elliot McGucken, is a landscape photographer. Respondent-Defendant, Valnet, Inc., is the owner of a travel website located at “www.thetravel.com.” McGucken sued Valnet for copyright infringement when Valnet embedded on its site a number of links to McGucken’s Instagram posts. The district court, bound by the Ninth Circuit’s en banc decision in Perfect 10, granted Defendant’s motion to dismiss, finding that the Server Test foreclosed McGucken’s direct infringement claim as a matter of law, because Valnet linked to the images and did not store them on its own servers. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in a panel decision. McGucken now requests the Supreme Court to review the validity of the Server Test, which is unique to the Ninth Circuit.