Intellectual Property

Subscribe to Intellectual Property via RSS

A New York court just decided some important preliminary motions (which I previously covered here in this post) involving allegedly unauthorized AI cloning of voice actors. The court reached a split decision, concluding “that, for the most part, Plaintiffs have not stated cognizable claims under federal trademark and copyright law. However, that does not mean they are without a remedy. Rather, claims for misappropriation of a voice, like the ones here, may be properly asserted under Sections 50 and 51 of the New York Civil Rights Law [which protect name, image and likeness], which, unlike copyright and trademark law, are tailored to balance the unique interests at stake. Plaintiffs also adequately state claims under state consumer protection law and for ordinary breach of contract.”Continue Reading Voices on Trial: Voice Actors, AI Cloning, and the Fight for Identity Rights

In a significant move to address the tension between copyright and generative artificial intelligence (AI), the UK’s Copyright Licensing Agency (CLA), Authors’ Licensing and Collecting Society (ALCS), and Publishers’ Licensing Services (PLS) have announced plans to launch a collective licensing framework for AI training. The opt-in license would allow AI developers to use text-based published works—such as books, journals, and magazines—for training, fine-tuning, and retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) while ensuring that creators are compensated. The license is expected to roll out in Q3 2025, following further consultation with publishers.Continue Reading UK’s Collective Licensing Initiative Aims to Harmonize AI and Copyright Law

The legal battles surrounding generative AI and copyright continue to escalate with prominent players in the Indian music industry now seeking to join an existing lawsuit against OpenAI, the creator of ChatGPT. On February 13, 2025, industry giants such as Saregama, T-Series, and the Indian Music Industry (IMI) presented their concerns in a New Delhi court, arguing that OpenAI’s methods for training its AI models involve extracting protected song lyrics, music compositions, and recordings without proper licensing or compensation. This development follows a broader trend of copyright holders challenging generative AI companies, as evidenced by similar claims in the U.S. and Europe.Continue Reading Indian Music Industry Enters the Global Copyright Debate Over AI

The tides have turned again in the litigation campaign against gaming companies by Worlds, Inc., who many may recognize as one of the named parties in often-cited Federal Circuit case law on real-parties in interest (“RPI”). In 2018, the Federal Circuit shook up the IPR landscape with a series of RPI decisions, starting with Wi-Fi One, LLC v. Broadcom Corp., which held that the PTAB’s time-bar determinations under § 315(b) are appealable. A series of frequently-cited Federal Circuit decisions followed, including Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX Corp. and Worlds, Inc. v. Bungie, Inc.
Continue Reading Hello Again, Worlds: A Failed Gaming IPR Leads to § 101 Success

On April 8, 2021, Activision Publishing, Inc. filed a lawsuit against Warzone.com LLC regarding the use of the word marks “Warzone” and “Call of Duty Warzone.”  Activision is the publisher…
Continue Reading Activision Files Lawsuit Over the Rights to Use the Word “Warzone” in the Call Of Duty Series

While most patent disputes involving gaming companies are located in district courts, the ITC remains a viable option for at least some gaming disputes, where a patent owner can have the U.S. government bar importation of products found to infringe. While the ITC does not provide monetary damages, it’s extremely fast schedule and willingness to bar importation of infringing products makes it a desirable forum for patent owners.
Continue Reading ITC Threat for Gaming Companies Grows with PTAB Discretionary Denials

Last fall, the PTAB modified its procedures for IPR claim construction, eliminating the use of the broadest reasonable interpretation standard. Since the rule change last year, companies challenging the validity of patents at the PTAB are required to use the Phillips plain and ordinary meaning standard.
Continue Reading “Addressing Video Game Claims Under the Phillips Standard at the PTAB”

As real-world celebrities continue to expand the reach of their persona into the digital realm, the potential benefit for advertisers, game developers and esports event promoters is exceedingly high. But with increased opportunity comes increased risk.

A New York Supreme Court recently addressed this risk when it construed the State’s right of publicity statute[1] in a dispute over an NBA 2K18 video game avatar. In Champion v. Take Two Interactive Software, Inc., celebrity basketball entertainer Phillip “Hot Sauce” Champion sued the video game developer, alleging violation of his right to privacy for Take-Two’s use of his name and likeness. The Court ultimately dismissed the lawsuit, but not before it provided a helpful discussion of New York’s publicity statute and its modern application to the esports industry.
Continue Reading Celebrity Entertainer Sues Over Video Game Avatar

It is very common to defend against a claim of patent infringement by litigating in the district court and the PTAB in parallel. The most straightforward-way for the defendant to win is to persuade the PTAB that the asserted patent is invalid. But, that is becoming more difficult as Director Iancu pushes the PTAB to apply greater scrutiny to petitions in order to address patent owner criticism that the PTAB proceedings are unfair. However, a recent decision disposing of a non-practicing entity’s long-running litigation against Ubisoft highlights how a defendant that ultimately lost on an issue before the PTAB can use the loss to their advantage in district court.
Continue Reading Converting an IPR Loss into a District Court Win

Most video game patents that are asserted in litigation are also challenged at the PTAB through IPR or PGR petitions. Patent Owners looking for new ways attack such challenges have turned to the failure to disclose real-parties-in-interest (“RPI”). Under 35 U.S.C. § 312(a)(2), “[a] petition . . . may be considered only if . . . the petition identifies all real parties in interest[.]” Additionally, under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b), “[a]n inter partes review may not be instituted if the petition requesting the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the date on which the petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner is served with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent.” These requirements can pose unique questions for video game companies based on their relationships and business process. 
Continue Reading Failure to Launch: Not Identifying the Proper Parties Can Prematurely End an Video Game IPR Challenge