Devlin Law Firm LLC

Devlin Law Firm LLC Devlin Law Firm specializes in intellectual property and privacy. Our business model allows us to se

Training AI on pirated books just got very expensiveOn May 14, 2026, a final approval hearing was held in the U.S. Distr...
05/29/2026

Training AI on pirated books just got very expensive

On May 14, 2026, a final approval hearing was held in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California in Bartz v. Anthropic, concerning a reported $1.5 billion class settlement. The settlement addresses claims that the AI company used pirated copies of books to train its models. Earlier rulings in the case had distinguished between training on lawfully acquired works and the use of pirated copies. This appears to be one of the largest reported AI copyright settlements to date, and practitioners may want to monitor the court's approval ruling and how it shapes future cases.

www.devlinlawfirm.com



Disclaimer: This post is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading or engaging with this content does not create an attorney-client relationship with Devlin Law Firm. The information reflects developments as reported in publicly available sources and may not reflect subsequent updates. For advice on specific matters, please consult qualified counsel.

AI developers should be more carefulIn early May 2026, a group of major publishers, including Hachette, Macmillan, McGra...
05/28/2026

AI developers should be more careful

In early May 2026, a group of major publishers, including Hachette, Macmillan, McGraw Hill, Elsevier, and Cengage, together with bestselling author Scott Turow, filed a class-action copyright lawsuit against Meta Platforms. The complaint, reported by NPR and the Washington Post on May 5, 2026, alleges that Meta used copyrighted books and journal articles without permission to train its generative AI models. The case adds to a growing body of AI training litigation. This may indicate continued pressure on how AI developers source training data, and practitioners may want to monitor how courts treat these claims.

www.devlinlawfirm.com



Disclaimer: This post is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading or engaging with this content does not create an attorney-client relationship with Devlin Law Firm. The information reflects developments as reported in publicly available sources and may not reflect subsequent updates. For advice on specific matters, please consult qualified counsel.

05/27/2026

To all our colleagues, clients, friends and partners celebrating Eid al-Adha, we wish you a beautiful holiday filled with peace, joy, and prosperity. May this special time bring you closer to family and friends.

Firmware Redesigns and Section 337: A Federal Circuit PrecedentEarlier this month, the Federal Circuit issued a preceden...
05/26/2026

Firmware Redesigns and Section 337: A Federal Circuit Precedent

Earlier this month, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in Bissell, Inc. v. International Trade Commission, Nos. 2024-1509 & 2024-1709. The court affirmed an International Trade Commission determination that competitor vacuum products, redesigned through a firmware rewrite, do not infringe Bissell's asserted patents. The court also affirmed that Bissell satisfied the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement, rejecting a challenge to expert testimony that relied on source code produced in discovery. This appears to underscore how product redesigns can affect Section 337 outcomes, and practitioners may want to monitor how the ITC treats firmware-based design-arounds.

www.devlinlawfirm.com



Disclaimer: This post is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading or engaging with this content does not create an attorney-client relationship with Devlin Law Firm. The information reflects developments as reported in publicly available sources and may not reflect subsequent updates. For advice on specific matters, please consult qualified counsel.

Micro-Entity Status and the Risk of Inconsistent CertificationsIn a recent decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed the di...
05/25/2026

Micro-Entity Status and the Risk of Inconsistent Certifications

In a recent decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a suit against the USPTO in Nesarikar v. Patent and Trademark Office, No. 26-1167 (nonprecedential). The inventors had challenged the agency’s denial of micro-entity status under 35 U.S.C. Section 123 after their patent application was treated as abandoned for unpaid fees. The court held that the inventors’ own representations that they were obligated to assign earlier applications undercut the injury needed for Article III standing. This decision highlights the care required in micro-entity certifications, and practitioners may want to monitor standing arguments in fee disputes.

www.devlinlawfirm.com


Disclaimer: This post is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading or engaging with this content does not create an attorney-client relationship with Devlin Law Firm. The information reflects developments as reported in publicly available sources and may not reflect subsequent updates. For advice on specific matters, please consult qualified counsel.

Words of approximation need careful support. On May 4, 2026, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in Enviro...
05/22/2026

Words of approximation need careful support.

On May 4, 2026, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential opinion in Enviro Tech Chemical Services, Inc. v. Safe Foods Corp. The court affirmed a district court ruling that claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,912,321, covering methods of treating poultry with peracetic acid, are invalid as indefinite under 35 U.S.C. Section 112. The terms at issue included "an antimicrobial amount" and "about," and the court noted the claims had been amended toward the prior art. This may indicate that words of approximation require careful support in the record, and practitioners may want to monitor indefiniteness challenges to such terms.

www.devlinlawfirm.com



Disclaimer: This post is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading or engaging with this content does not create an attorney-client relationship with Devlin Law Firm. The information reflects developments as reported in publicly available sources and may not reflect subsequent updates. For advice on specific matters, please consult qualified counsel.

A weak patent claim could result in paying the other side's legal bills. In early May , the Federal Circuit affirmed a d...
05/21/2026

A weak patent claim could result in paying the other side's legal bills.

In early May , the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's exceptional-case determination and attorney-fee award in Lu v. Hyper Bicycles, Inc. (nonprecedential). The District of Massachusetts had awarded the defendant its fees and costs under 35 U.S.C. Section 285, covering the period after the date the court found the plaintiff's counsel should have known the infringement claims were meritless. Summary judgment for the defendant was affirmed on appeal, along with the fee award. This appears to reinforce that fee exposure can attach once a claim's weakness becomes apparent, and practitioners may want to monitor exceptional-case timing arguments.

www.devlinlawfirm.com



Disclaimer: This post is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading or engaging with this content does not create an attorney-client relationship with Devlin Law Firm. The information reflects developments as reported in publicly available sources and may not reflect subsequent updates. For advice on specific matters, please consult qualified counsel.

Should a court decide an argument nobody raised?On May 12, 2026, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion ...
05/20/2026

Should a court decide an argument nobody raised?

On May 12, 2026, the Federal Circuit released a nonprecedential opinion in Metrom Rail, LLC v. Siemens Mobility, Inc., No. 24-2223, an appeal from inter partes review. The panel affirmed the PTAB's findings that numerous claims of two Metrom patents are unpatentable as obvious, and reversed the Board on a remaining set of claims, finding those unpatentable as well. Judge Taranto concurred in part and dissented in part, contending the majority resolved a cross-appeal on a claim construction the parties had not presented. This raises the question of how appellate courts police party presentation in IPR appeals.

www.devlinlawfirm.com



Disclaimer: This post is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading or engaging with this content does not create an attorney-client relationship with Devlin Law Firm. The information reflects developments as reported in publicly available sources and may not reflect subsequent updates. For advice on specific matters, please consult qualified counsel.

One brand name, two owners, a messy resultOn May 8, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Californi...
05/18/2026

One brand name, two owners, a messy result

On May 8, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California ruled on post-trial motions in Impossible Foods Inc. v. Impossible X LLC, a dispute over the "Impossible" mark used on apparel and cookbooks. As reported by Bloomberg Law, the court denied Impossible Foods' laches motion, granted the opposing party attorney fees and injunctive relief, and denied a motion for enhanced damages. The mixed outcome leaves several issues positioned for potential appeal. This raises the question of how brand owners manage overlapping marks across product categories, and practitioners may want to monitor any appeal.



www.devlinlawfirm.com

Disclaimer: This post is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading or engaging with this content does not create an attorney-client relationship with Devlin Law Firm. The information reflects developments as reported in publicly available sources and may not reflect subsequent updates. For advice on specific matters, please consult qualified counsel.

π’π¨π¦πž 𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐞𝐧𝐝 π›πžπŸπ¨π«πž 𝐝𝐒𝐬𝐜𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧 π›πžπ π’π§π¬On May 5, 2026, the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a patent...
05/15/2026

π’π¨π¦πž 𝐩𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐞𝐬 𝐞𝐧𝐝 π›πžπŸπ¨π«πž 𝐝𝐒𝐬𝐜𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐧 π›πžπ π’π§π¬

On May 5, 2026, the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a patent infringement suit in TJTM Technologies, LLC v. Google LLC, No. 25-1218 (nonprecedential). The court agreed that claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,958,853, directed to a mobile device that enters an inactive mode when paired with a vehicle, are ineligible under 35 U.S.C. Section 101 as an abstract idea lacking an inventive concept. The district court granted dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) at the pleading stage. This appears to reinforce that eligibility challenges can still resolve cases early, and practitioners may want to monitor pleading-stage Section 101 motions.



𝐰𝐰𝐰.𝐝𝐞𝐯π₯𝐒𝐧π₯𝐚𝐰𝐟𝐒𝐫𝐦.𝐜𝐨𝐦

Disclaimer: This post is for general informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Reading or engaging with this content does not create an attorney-client relationship with Devlin Law Firm. The information reflects developments as reported in publicly available sources and may not reflect subsequent updates. For advice on specific matters, please consult qualified counsel.

Address

Wilmington, DE
19806

Telephone

+13024499010

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Devlin Law Firm LLC posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Contact The Practice

Send a message to Devlin Law Firm LLC:

Shortcuts

Share

Category