Insights

Patent claims must be clear and definite, as they set the boundaries of the patentee’s rights. Occasionally, however, claim language contains errors, such as typographical mistakes or incorrect numbering. Courts possess very limited authority to correct such errors. The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has emphasized that judicial correction is appropriate only in rare circumstances, where (1) the error is evident from the face of the patent, and (2) the proposed correction is the sole reasonable interpretation in view of the claim language, specification, and prosecution history. See Group One, Ltd. v. Hallmark Cards, Inc., 407 F.3d 1297, 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) and Novo Indus., L.P. v. Micro Molds Corp., 350 F.3d 1348, 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2003).

Design patents offer protection for the ornamental appearance of a product, focusing on aspects like its shape and surface decoration, as opposed to the functional aspects protected by utility patents. The scope of a design patent is defined by the drawings and any descriptive language within the patent itself. Recent decisions by the Federal Circuit emphasize the need for clarity in the prosecution history of a design patent in order to preserve desired scope to preserve intentional narrowing (and to avoid unintentional sacrifice of desired claim scope).

Claim construction is a key stage of most patent litigations, where the court must decide the meaning of any disputed terms in the patent claims.  Generally, claim terms are given their plain and ordinary meaning except under two circumstances: (1) when the patentee acts as its own lexicographer and sets out a definition for the term; and (2) when the patentee disavows the full scope of the term either in the specification or during prosecution.  Thorner v. Sony Comput. Ent. Am. LLC, 669 F.3d 1362, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2012).  The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Aortic Innovations LLC v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. highlights that patentees can act as their own lexicographers through consistent, interchangeable usage of terms across the specification, effectively defining terms by implication.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and National Advertising Division (NAD) of BBB National Programs laid out their enforcement priorities during the 2025 ANA Masters of Advertising Law Conference, at which Crowell & Moring attorneys spoke on and attended various panels.

On September 23, Judge Vernon D. Oliver partially granted and partially denied the defendant’s motion for summary judgment in Post University Inc. v. Learneo, Inc., 3:21-cv-1242 (VDO) (D. Del. Sept. 23, 2025). For background, the defendant in this case, Learneo, Inc. (commonly known as Course Hero), is an online platform for college, trade, and high school students that provides access to user-submitted documents via a paid subscription. Course Hero allows users to search the documents that have been uploaded by school, textbook, book title, and subject, but only users with a subscription can view the documents. Users without a subscription may access a preview version of the document, consisting of a blurred and truncated version created by Course Hero. Course Hero users have uploaded documents to the platform for many thousands of colleges, grad schools, high schools, and trade schools.

The United States, European Union, and United Kingdom have significantly escalated Russia-related sanctions the past month, including the Trump Administration’s first sanctions directly imposed on Russia. These coordinated actions—which particularly target the Russian energy sector—indicate that Russia sanctions remain on the geopolitical agenda and require multinational companies to remain vigilant in their compliance with those sanctions.

A new series of lawsuits have been filed in California courts alleging violations of the state’s Business and Professions Code § 17529.5 (the “Anti-Spam Law”). These cases target companies that send marketing and promotional emails to California residents, and they could present serious legal and financial risks for businesses engaged in email marketing.

On September 29, 2025, the U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) announced a sweeping Interim Final Rule (IFR), (the “Affiliates Rule”) expanding which entities qualify as Entity List or Military End-User entities, thereby subjecting those entities to elevated export control restrictions under the Export Administration Regulations (EAR). U.S. export restrictions applicable to entities on the Entity List, Military End-User (MEU) List, and Specially Designated Nationals and Blocked Persons (SDN List) now apply to foreign affiliates that are, in the aggregate, owned 50% or more by one or more of the aforementioned entities. An entity that becomes subject to these restrictions because of its ownership structure will be subject to the most restrictive controls that attach to any of its parent entities, regardless of ownership stakes.

On September 25, 2025, the Northern District of Texas granted plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment in Humana v. Becerra, vacating CMS’s 2023 Final Rule regarding risk adjustment data validation (RADV) audits. In the litigation, Humana challenged CMS’s decision in the Final Rule to not continue applying a Fee-for-Service (FFS) adjuster to its RADV audit methodology.

On August 28, 2025, France, Germany, and the UK (the E3) initiated the process to reinstate (or snapback) UN sanctions on Iran. The snapback mechanism (which was set to expire on October 18, 2025) is outlined in UN Security Council Resolution 2231 (UNSCR 2231).

Although the Supreme Court’s 2014 decision in Alice v. CLS Bank and its progeny affected the issuance and enforcement of software patents and led to a major shift in U.S. patent policy, software patents still have value today and such protection therefore should be pursued.

On August 28, the U.S. Department of Commerce Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS) published a final rule that modifies the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to reduce the number of export control restrictions on Syria, in alignment with Executive Order 14312, Providing For The Revocation of Syria Sanctions. The key adjustments made by this rule include the addition of new or expanded license exception eligibility for exports and reexports to Syria (which significantly broadens the number of items that can be exported or reexported to Syria) and the adoption of more permissive license review policies for exports and reexports to Syria.

CMS is well underway in initiating and conducting its Risk Adjustment Data Validation (RADV) audits of Medicare Advantage (MA) organizations for PY 2019, and PY 2020 audit notices are likely to arrive by the end of September. The timing for subsequent PY audits is less clear, but notices will likely be coming soon given CMS’s announced plans to complete all remaining audits by early 2026, including all contracts for PY 2020 and beyond. This approach marks a significant deviation from the agency’s prior policy of reviewing only a fraction of contracts and at a much slower pace.

The Ninth Circuit ruled that NFTs are not just digital collectibles but legally recognized goods under the Lanham Act. Yuga Labs, Inc. v. Ryder Ripps and Jeremy Cahen, Case No. 24-879 (9th Cir. July 23, 2025). NFTs are intangible, fully virtual, authenticating software code that is associated with separate digital or physical content. Although the Ninth Circuit found that there were genuine issues of material fact that precluded summary judgment on the issue of likelihood of confusion, the court recognized that NFTs are commercial products with tangible value subject to trademark protection. This means that NFT creators and projects can now claim trademark rights in their collections’ names, logos, and associated marks.

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).