IP UPDATE

Attorney-client relationship owed to both joint IP owners

by Taylor MacDonald | Feb 19, 2026 | Patents

Addressing attorney-client relationship formation and legal malpractice, the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed in part, vacated in part, and remanded a district court’s grant of summary judgment. The Court concluded that an attorney-client relationship existed as a matter of law and that a malpractice claim was premature for resolution at the summary judgment stage. BlueRadios, Inc. v. Hamilton, Brook, Smith & Reynolds, P.C., Case No. 24-1942 (1st Cir. Feb. 2, 2026) (Gelpi, Thompson, Montecalvo, JJ.)

In 2007, technology companies BlueRadios and Kopin Corporation entered into an agreement to jointly own intellectual property developed through their collaboration and assigned primary responsibility for patent prosecution to Kopin. That responsibility included retaining patent counsel. Kopin selected Hamilton, Brook, Smith & Reynolds (HBSR) to prosecute patents arising from the collaboration. HBSR worked with both companies to prepare and file patent applications, but over time the relationship between the agreement parties deteriorated.

In 2017, during discovery in unrelated litigation with Kopin, BlueRadios uncovered alleged conduct by HBSR that BlueRadios contended was contrary to its interests. On December 5, 2017, BlueRadios and HBSR entered into an agreement preserving any timely claims. BlueRadios filed suit against HBSR in 2021, asserting malpractice and related claims. The parties agreed that Massachusetts law governed and that, under the tolling agreement and the applicable statute of limitations, BlueRadios’ claims were timely if they accrued after December 5, 2014.

The district court granted summary judgment in HBSR’s favor, concluding that BlueRadios’ claims were time-barred, that no equitable tolling doctrine applied, and that no attorney-client relationship existed between BlueRadios and HBSR. BlueRadios appealed.

The First Circuit concluded that the district court failed to view the record in the light most favorable to BlueRadios when addressing the statute of limitations. The parties disputed when BlueRadios knew or reasonably should have known of the alleged harm caused by HBSR. Under Massachusetts law, this issue is typically a question of fact for the jury. Given the technical complexity of patent prosecution and BlueRadios’ lack of patent expertise, the Court found multiple reasonable interpretations of the record. The Court rejected the notion that internal correspondence or business decisions by BlueRadios conclusively demonstrated sufficient knowledge to trigger the statute of limitations as a matter of law.

The First Circuit further noted that BlueRadios’ later engagement of independent patent counsel did not necessarily reflect suspicion of malpractice, and that a reasonable jury could conclude that the review was undertaken for ordinary business reasons. Declining to aggregate the knowledge of client and counsel to establish accrual where neither independently possessed the requisite awareness, the Court reversed the district court’s statute-of-limitations ruling and vacated its dismissal of the related claims.

The First Circuit also addressed whether an implied attorney-client relationship existed between BlueRadios and HBSR, concluding that as a matter of law there was such a relationship. Applying Massachusetts law, the Court rejected the district court’s conclusion that BlueRadios failed to seek legal assistance from HBSR independent of Kopin. The 2007 agreement made clear that Kopin’s selection [...]

Continue Reading

Here’s an abstract idea: Patent eligibility depends on what is claimed, not unclaimed disclosure

by Hannah Hurley | Feb 19, 2026 | Patents

The US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s rejection of Netflix’s 35 U.S.C. § 101 challenge, finding that claims directed to tailoring content specifications for wireless devices were patent ineligible. GoTV Streaming, LLC v. Netflix, Inc., Case Nos. 24-1669; -1744 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 9, 2026) (Prost, Clevenger, Taranto, JJ.)

GoTV sued Netflix for direct and induced infringement of three related patents directed to server-based tailoring of content for wireless devices. The district court dismissed the induced infringement claims and rejected Netflix’s § 101 challenge. A jury found infringement of one of the asserted patents and awarded $2.5 million in damages. Netflix appealed.

The Federal Circuit reversed the district court’s indefiniteness ruling as to a key term of the representative patents and adopted GoTV’s proposed construction of that claim term: “discrete low level rendering command.” Based on its construction, the Court concluded that the asserted claims were directed to an abstract idea and lacked an inventive concept under Alice. The Court concluded that the claims merely recited the abstract idea of using a generic template tailored to a user’s device constraints and relied on conventional computer and network functions without specifying a concrete technological improvement. The Federal Circuit determined that the claims failed both steps of the Alice framework and were invalid under § 101.

Although its § 101 holding resolved the case in Netflix’s favor, the Federal Circuit vacated the district court’s summary judgment of no inducement and its denial of GoTV’s motion for a new trial on damages, explaining that GoTV had presented substantial arguments on those issues, before directing entry of final judgment for Netflix.

Practice note: The Federal Circuit noted that the ineligibility analysis depends on the claim language at issue, not whether there may be a patent eligible invention disclosed in the specification. Although the prosecution history may be intrinsic evidence for claim construction, recitation of the problems faced by the inventor and the inventive solution cannot be relied on to argue unclaimed details of the invention to render an abstract idea patent eligible.

Blackbeard’s revenge: State sovereign immunity ends long running copyright battle

by Sarah Bro | Feb 12, 2026 | Copyrights

The US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed a 2021 district court ruling and vacated a subsequent 2024 ruling in a decade-long legal battle over copyright infringement claims related to the pirate Blackbeard’s Queen Anne’s Revenge shipwreck, concluding the claims were barred under state sovereign immunity. Allen v. Stein, Case No. 24-1954 (4th Cir. Jan. 23, 2026) (Niemeyer, King, Harris, JJ.)

Background

The dispute stems from Frederick Allen and Nautilus Productions’ allegations that the state of North Carolina and its officials infringed on Allen’s copyrights for photographs and videos of the shipwreck recovery project.

Allen initially filed suit in 2015, alleging that North Carolina officials infringed his copyrights by using his footage without authorization and enacting legislation (dubbed “Blackbeard’s Law”) that designated such materials as public records. The district court largely dismissed Allen’s claims in 2017 on sovereign immunity grounds, but the Fourth Circuit reversed the district court’s ruling on the validity of the Copyright Remedy Clarification Act (CRCA) in 2018, concluding that Congress had not validly abrogated state sovereign immunity for copyright claims. The Supreme Court affirmed that decision in Allen v. Cooper (2020), confirming that states are immune from copyright infringement suits under the CRCA.

Despite the Supreme Court’s ruling, Allen sought to reopen the case in 2021, relying on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b)(6) and introducing a new constitutional theory based on United States v. Georgia (2006). The district court allowed Allen to amend his complaint and proceed with his claims under the “Georgia theory,” which argues for case-by-case abrogation of state sovereign immunity for conduct that violates the Fourteenth Amendment. In 2024, the district court denied North Carolina’s sovereign immunity defense for Allen’s copyright infringement claims under this theory, allowing the case to proceed. North Carolina appealed.

Fourth Circuit decision

The Fourth Circuit reversed the 2021 district court decision and vacated the 2024 ruling, finding that the district court abused its discretion in reopening the litigation. The Fourth Circuit explained that Rule 60(b)(6) was the only applicable procedural mechanism for reconsideration because the case had been fully resolved in 2020 following the Supreme Court’s decision and Allen’s voluntary dismissal of the remaining defendant. The Court emphasized that Rule 60(b)(6) requires “extraordinary circumstances,” which were not present in this case. Allen’s failure to raise the Georgia theory earlier in the litigation did not meet this standard.

The Fourth Circuit also criticized the district court’s reliance on Rule 54(b), which applies to interlocutory orders, rather than Rule 60(b), which governs final judgments. The Court noted that the district court’s 2021 decision was based on erroneous legal premises and failed to properly evaluate the timeliness, merits, and prejudice factors required under Rule 60(b).

Pendent appellate jurisdiction

A key aspect of the Fourth Circuit’s decision was its exercise of pendent appellate jurisdiction to review the 2021 district court ruling, even though it was not directly appealable. The Fourth Circuit determined that the 2021 decision was “inextricably intertwined” with the appealable 2024 ruling on sovereign immunity because the [...]

Continue Reading

TRAIN Act targets transparency in generative AI training practices

by Jolie B. Schenerman | Feb 12, 2026 | Copyrights

Representatives Madeleine Dean (D-PA) and Nathaniel Moran (R-TX) introduced a bipartisan bill entitled the Transparency and Responsibility for Artificial Intelligence Networks (TRAIN) Act in the US House of Representatives. The legislative objective is to provide a mechanism to help musicians, artists, writers, and other creators determine if their copyrighted work was used to train generative artificial intelligence (AI) models without their permission, and if so, to pursue compensation for that use. A bipartisan group of senators also reintroduced the TRAIN Act in the US Senate.

The proposed legislation would create a new legal mechanism allowing copyright owners to use federal court subpoena power to obtain information about the materials used to train generative AI models. The bill would establish the first federal statutory definition of “generative AI models.” A generative AI model would be defined as an AI model that “emulates the structure and characteristics of input data in order to generate derived synthetic content,” including images, video, audio, text, and other digital content, as well as any subsequent variation of such a model.

Under the proposed framework, an owner of one or more copyrighted works would be entitled to seek a subpoena compelling a generative AI developer to produce copies of, or records sufficient to identify, the copyrighted works (or portions thereof) that were used to train the developer’s model. To obtain a subpoena, the copyright owner would submit a request to a US district court clerk that includes a proposed subpoena and a sworn affidavit attesting to the owner’s subjective good faith belief that the developer used some or all of the owner’s copyrighted works to train its generative AI model. The affidavit would also attest that the subpoena’s purpose is to obtain the owner’s copyrighted materials or records to sufficiently identify the owner’s copyrighted materials used to train the model, and that the copies or records requested would be used solely to protect the copyright owner’s rights.

Once a subpoena was issued and served in accordance with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the developer would be required to “expeditiously disclose” the requested copies or records to the copyright owner or an authorized representative.

The TRAIN Act also includes two enforcement provisions. First, if a developer fails to comply with a subpoena, the court may apply a rebuttable presumption that the developer did in fact use the copyrighted works to train its model. Second, if a copyright owner seeks a subpoena in bad faith, the recipient may pursue sanctions under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.

If enacted, the TRAIN Act would significantly expand transparency obligations for developers of generative AI models and provide copyright owners with a new tool to investigate potential unauthorized uses of their works.

Method steps must be done in order where there is logical dependency

by Art Dykhuis | Feb 12, 2026 | Patents

In a second appeal, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s summary judgment of noninfringement based on an implicit ordering of steps in a method claim after disagreeing with the lower court on another basis for noninfringement. Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Hulu, LLC, Case No. 24-1092 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 29, 2026) (Chen, Prost, Wallach, JJ.)

At the district court, Sound View asserted an expired patent against Hulu’s use of a central content server connected to end users through intermediate edge servers. The asserted claim recites downloading streaming content from a buffer in a helper server to an end user while concurrently retrieving more streaming content from a content server.

The district court issued a decision in favor of Hulu, which Sound View appealed. In that first appeal, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the district court’s ruling, based on the district court’s negative claim construction.

On remand, the district court determined Hulu did not infringe, finding that the claimed method requires the steps of “receiving a request” and “allocating a buffer” to be performed in sequence. Since Hulu did not perform these claimed steps in order, the district court found there was no infringement. Sound View appealed.

The claim-at-issue recites:

Source: Sound View Innovations, LLC v. Hulu, LLC, Case No. 24-1092 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 29, 2026), Slip Op. at 4.

The Federal Circuit reasoned that the phrase “requested SM object” in the buffer-allocation step grammatically and logically depended on the prior step of “receiving a request,” because an object cannot be “requested” until a request has occurred. The Court explained that “‘requested’ is not only a grammatical descriptor, but also is a status indicator reflecting a completed action – the receiving of a request.”

The Federal Circuit applied precedent on implicit ordering of method steps and noted that “[o]ur caselaw on implicit ordering does not help Sound View, as it does not require a finding that the performance of the claimed steps would be inoperable if the steps are not followed in the order they appear in the claim” (emphasis added). The Court explained that the “logical” dependency between the method steps mandates that the request-receiving step precede buffer allocation. Because there was no dispute that the accused systems performed these steps in a different order, the Court affirmed summary judgment of noninfringement.