Foley IP Law

05/27/2026

There is often a tendency to mistake easily accessible content for content that is free to use.

This applies to images, text, designs, code, and AI-generated material. When something is online, searchable, remixable, or reproducible, its availability often creates a practical feeling of ownership that diverges from the actual legal reality.

The key tension lies between the practical sense of access and the established legal boundaries of use.

Crucially, accessibility is not the same as ownership.

Most people who cross this line do so not out of malice, but because they are genuinely unaware of the specific legal limits. This lack of clarity is precisely what makes the current intellectual property landscape so dynamic and interesting.

As access to content continues to expand, do you think awareness of IP boundaries is keeping pace?

05/25/2026

We honor and remember the profound sacrifice of those who gave their lives for our country. Their service safeguards the freedoms we cherish.

05/21/2026

Evelyn Berezin, the inventor of the first word processing system, is our spotlight today.

Her innovative work fundamentally altered how people approach writing, editing, and professional communication.

Berezin's career exemplifies how quiet, practical solutions to common, persistent problems can evolve into some of the most influential innovations.

Her contribution was pivotal in shaping modern business communication, standing as a testament to the transformative power of technical ingenuity across entire industries.

05/14/2026

Many businesses fail to prioritize trademark protection until their brand already has significant momentum. This is often too late.

A trademark is more than just a name or logo; it is a vital tool for establishing market recognition, consistency, and consumer trust. The longer a brand operates without proper protection, the more complex and costly it becomes to resolve potential legal issues that could have been prevented.

We frequently hear from clients who believe trademark strategy is a concern only for larger companies.

In reality, securing protection earlier typically provides more flexibility, not less.

If your name, logo, or branding is beginning to gain real traction and recognition, it is time to understand what assets should be protected and why.

05/11/2026

Global patent strategy is rapidly transforming.

A recent update from Guangdong, China, illustrates this shift: the country is streamlining its patent system by connecting pre-examination processes with international fast-track mechanisms, such as the Patent Prosecution Highway. While this may sound like a technical update, its practical implication is profound.

Speed is now a core component of patent strategy.

For international companies or those planning global expansion, the time required to secure patent protection directly affects their market position, funding discussions, and competitive edge. The ability to move efficiently through one jurisdiction and leverage that momentum in another is far more than a procedural benefit—it dictates the speed at which a company can bring its innovations to market.

This emphasizes why staying current on international patent processes is critically important. Intellectual property is not a single system; it is an interconnected network, each part with its own distinct rules, timelines, and opportunities. Navigating one jurisdiction effectively can open doors in another.

For businesses focused on growth, particularly those with international scope, understanding these jurisdictional differences is essential. It is the foundation for making informed, strategic decisions about how best to protect the innovation they are building.



https://natlawreview.com/article/guangdong-explicitly-links-patent-pre-examination-patent-prosecution-highway

05/07/2026

The Critical Line: Patenting the Products of Nature

One of the most complex and currently contested issues in patent law is defining when a substance derived from nature becomes a new, patentable invention.

This critical question is now at the forefront of the courts, highlighted by a recent dispute between Sarepta and RegenxBio. The core of their conflict centers on whether lab-engineered DNA, even when constructed from natural components, qualifies as patentable subject matter.

The U.S. Federal Circuit recently ruled that certain engineered cells are patentable because they possess distinct, non-naturally occurring characteristics. However, Sarepta is now petitioning the full court to reconsider this decision, arguing that the standard for patent eligibility may be drifting too far from established legal precedent.

While this may appear to be a narrow biotech issue, its implications are far-reaching, touching the heart of intellectual property law. The challenge of distinguishing a "discovery" from an "invention" has long troubled courts, particularly in high-profile cases involving gene patents and natural phenomena.

Why This Matters Now

The rapid pace of scientific progress makes this moment particularly significant. In areas such as biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, and gene therapy, innovation often involves building directly on natural materials. Consequently, the legal line separating the unpatentable from the patentable is no longer theoretical. It directly impacts how companies structure their investment, protect their intellectual property, and ultimately bring new products to market.

For any company operating in or near these innovative sectors, closely tracking these rulings is essential.

Even for businesses not directly involved with DNA, the foundational principle holds true: patent protection hinges on how courts define "new" and "man-made." When these legal interpretations evolve, a company's strategy for protecting its innovations must also adapt.

Intellectual property law is a dynamic field, constantly being redefined by precedent. These changes often stem from highly technical legal disputes, which can ultimately reshape the landscape for entire industries. Businesses developing valuable assets should closely monitor these shifts.

Read on: https://news.bloomberglaw.com/ip-law/dna-patent-eligibility-under-spotlight-in-sareptas-en-banc-bid

05/05/2026

Trademark Law: Beyond the Popularity Contest

The decade-long legal battle between fashion designer Katie Perry and musician Katy Perry offers a clear lesson: trademark law does not prioritize celebrity status.

Though one party is a globally recognized artist and the other has a smaller public profile, the case outcome reinforces the principle that visibility does not override prior rights.

The Australian designer had established trademark rights for her own name in the clothing category years before the singer's merchandise entered the same market.

The central legal question was not about who was more famous, but rather:

- Did prior rights exist?
- How were those rights being used?
- Were consumers likely to be confused?

This distinction is crucial. Trademark disputes are often reduced to a simple comparison of reputation, but the actual analysis is far more specific. Timing, scope, category, and the strength of the mark all matter. Courts must answer the practical question of what consumers would realistically think.

Cases like this are valuable because they illustrate how established legal principles apply to a specific set of facts. The court’s reasoning confirms that high recognition alone does not defeat earlier claims, and mere similarity does not decide the issue.

It also serves as a vital reminder that trademarks are more than administrative requirements—they are critical business assets. They define brand expansion, influence marketing strategies, and determine how disputes unfold years later.

The complexity and duration of this case underscore an important point: an effective trademark strategy is proactive. It is best implemented early, before conflict arises and becomes costly.

The key takeaway for businesses is straightforward: understand your existing rights, where they apply, and what assumptions may be challenged under legal scrutiny. For legal practitioners, decisions like this refine how we counsel clients on risk, overlap, enforceability, and long-term brand protection.

Read more from the BBC:

The US singer lost the case in 2023 and later won on appeal, but now judges have ruled against her.

04/29/2026

The most important moment in a patent isn’t when it’s granted; it's the expiration date.

Most companies are laser-focused on filing and approval. However, the real inflection point comes later—when exclusivity ends, and competition accelerates.

In the U.S., most patents last about 20 years from the filing date. During that period, the patent holder controls how the invention is made, used, and sold.

Then the protection disappears.

The pharmaceutical industry makes this dynamic clear. When a major drug loses patent protection, generic competitors enter quickly. Prices drop, market share shifts, and revenue often declines sharply.

Lipitor is one of the most widely cited examples. It generated billions annually before generic versions entered following patent expiration.

This outcome isn’t a flaw; rather, it’s the system working as designed.

Patents provide a limited window. Companies use that time to recoup investments, expand distribution, and finance future development. When the window closes, competition increases.

The companies that manage this transition well don’t wait until the end. They plan ahead by filing continuation applications, expanding portfolios around improvements, developing next-generation products, and structuring licensing strategies.

We often refer to this as managing the patent lifecycle, because filing is only the first step.

04/23/2026

“Copyright law is meant to promote the progress of knowledge, not to stifle it.” — Pamela Samuelson

This idea sits at the core of intellectual property, but it is easy to lose sight of.

Pamela Samuelson, a UC Berkeley law professor and leading copyright scholar, has long focused on how IP should function in a rapidly evolving digital world. Her work consistently points back to one principle: protection should serve progress, not slow it down.

It is a useful reminder. Intellectual property is not just about ownership or control. At its best, it creates the conditions for ideas to be shared, built upon, and improved.

When IP is too restrictive, it can limit creativity and access. When it is too loose, it can undermine the incentive to create in the first place.

The goal is not to choose one side. It is to strike the balance that allows innovation to keep moving forward.

04/21/2026

World Creativity & Innovation Day

Every significant innovation—whether it’s a product, process, platform, or beyond—begins the same way: someone recognized a better solution to a problem.

But we’ve worked with teams who built something real, only to realize later that early decisions—public disclosures, unclear ownership, missed filings—restricted what they could actually secure.

That’s where we’ve seen a gap exists.

Innovation moves quickly, and legal protection doesn’t fix mistakes retroactively.

Intellectual property determines what companies can own, license, and defend. It shapes whether an idea becomes an asset—or remains just an idea.

World Creativity and Innovation Day highlights where ideas begin.

The more important question is what happens next.

If something is worth building, it’s worth protecting from the start.

04/16/2026

If you’ve ever played a Pokémon game, you probably don’t think about patent law while trying to catch them all.

But behind the scenes, that’s exactly what’s in play.

Nintendo was recently granted a U.S. patent covering certain gameplay mechanics tied to how characters are summoned and automatically enter battle in newer Pokémon titles. That might sound technical, but here’s why it matters: patents don’t just protect physical inventions, they can protect specific systems and processes inside software and games too.

For large companies, that protection can be a competitive advantage. For smaller developers, it can raise real questions about what mechanics are safe to build and what might cross the line. Even if the claims are narrow, the conversation alone shows how intellectual property can shape creative industries in ways most players never see.

This is a good reminder that IP law touches more of our daily lives than we realize. The apps we use, the games we play, the features we love. Many of them are protected in ways that influence how innovation unfolds.

You may just see a fun battle sequence on screen. We see an example of how strategy, protection, and creativity intersect.

Worth a read if you’re curious about how patents show up in unexpected places:

www.gamedeveloper.com/business/what-does-nintendo-s-new-pok-mon-patent-actually-mean-for-game-developers-