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

A recent federal district court decision denied a motion to dismiss a complaint brought by Artifex Software Inc. (“Artifex”) for breach of contract and copyright infringement claims against Defendant Hancom, Inc. based on breach of an open source software license. The software, referred to as Ghostscript, was dual-licensed under the GPL license and a commercial license. According to the Plaintiff, those seeking to commercially distribute Ghostscript could obtain a commercial license to use, modify, copy, and/or distribute Ghostscript for a fee. Otherwise, the software was available without a fee under the GNU GPL, which required users to comply with certain open-source licensing requirements. The requirements included an obligation to “convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License” of any covered code. In other words, under the open source license option, certain combinations of proprietary software with Ghostscript are governed by the terms of the GNU GPL.
Continue Reading Important Open Source Ruling Confirms Enforceability of Dual-Licensing and Breach of GPL for Failing to Distribute Source Code

The Honorable Judge James L. Robart recently took on the challenging task of determining a reasonable and non-discriminatory (“RAND”) royalty rate for Motorola’s standards-essential patents (“SEP”). Microsoft Corp. v. Motorola, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 60233, No. C10-11823 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 25, 2013). This decision comes after a two-year patent war between Microsoft and Motorola. In November 2010, Microsoft filed a breach of contract suit, alleging Motorola breached its obligation to license its SEP at a RAND rate.
Continue Reading An Unreasonable Royalty Rate is No Gaming Matter

In Thorner v. Sony Computer Entertainment America, LLC (Case No. 2011-1114, Feb. 1, 2012) (Moore*, Rader & Aiken (D. Or. sitting by designation)), the Federal Circuit reiterated the prohibition against importing limitations from the specification and reversed a district court construction depending from consistent uses of the disputed phrase in the specification.
Continue Reading Federal Circuit Narrows Claim Construction Options in Game Controller Suit

When strolling the streets of an online virtual world that allows user-created content, it is not uncommon to see brands that you recognize. A Ferrari may roll past you in the street. The avatar walking toward you may be cushioning its steps with Nike-Swoosh-emblazoned tennis shoes. The virtual jewelry store that you pass may feature a gleaming Cartier necklace in its window. Familiar brands cushion the virtual experience with the trappings of familiar surroundings for the software user. The problem is, chances are these brand owners never created these virtual goods, and the money from their sale likely went into someone else’s pockets.
 Continue Reading Creating the (Virtual) American Dream: User-Generated Content and Trademarks in Virtual Worlds

Let’s start with the basics. Under a typical game development contract, a publisher furnishes the funds required to develop a game to a game developer. Understandably, access to these funds is subject to certain restrictions, expectations and other contractual obligations. Invariably, there is a provision dedicated to the handling of the rights to intellectual property created pursuant to the terms of the agreement.
 Continue Reading Who Owns The Tools Of The Trade?

In a traditional online game, users are required to abide by the Terms of Use (“TOU”). Companies, cognizant of the fact that not everyone will comply with the TOU, implement various enforcement measures such as automated filters, user-driven complaint systems, or a more involved in-game monitoring system utilizing Game Masters. As the popularity of user-generated content (“UGC”) and user-customization has increased, ensuring TOU compliance has become increasingly costly and labor-intensive. Additionally, by granting users the ability to import copyrighted materials such as facial depictions, art, literary works, or music, the inclusion of UGC in online games potentially raises Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) compliance issues.
Continue Reading In-Game Monitoring May Create Exposure to Copyright Liability Claims