It has been a busy 2025 in Intellectual Property law. Below we highlight some of the decisions and trends that are expected to have significant implications into 2026 and beyond.
Patents
Federal Circuit Offers Some Helpful Patent Eligibility Guidance
On August 11, in Powerblock Holdings, Inc. v iFit, Inc., the Federal Circuit offered at least two observations that can benefit patentees seeking patent protection for inventions involving software. First, the Federal Circuit noted that, notwithstanding the presence of software, the claim at issue is limited to a particular physical configuration of a tangible machine that performs a useful task. And second, the Federal Circuit emphasized that claims should be read as a whole and that one should not ignore old elements in the claim when assessing patent eligibility.
The invention in Powerblock relates to an automated selectorized dumbbell system. The presence of the electric motor integrated into the dumbbell’s weight-selection mechanism was a key differentiator. The Federal Circuit emphasized that the claimed invention is a tangible machine performing a useful task, akin to an improved exercise device, and not just a disembodied idea or software routine.
This decision demonstrates that claims involving automation are more likely patent-eligible when tied to a specific structure, and improvements in existing mechanical technology that incorporate automation can be patentable. It is also a useful precedent for overcoming abstract idea challenges when combining hardware and software.
Federal Circuit Reviews First AIA Derivation Proceeding: The Early Bird Gets the Worm
On August 26, in Global Health Solutions LLC v. Selner, the Federal Circuit reviewed its first derivation proceeding. The patent applications at issue claimed the same or substantially the same method for preparing an emulsifier-free ointment, where the key step involved heating the components separately. The Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) ruling that Selner independently conceived of the invention by proving earlier conception than Global Health Solutions’ (GHS) founder, Burnam, through timestamped emails.
This decision clarifies the focus on independent conception in a derivation proceeding, highlights the need for accurate record-keeping, and underscores the importance of having agreements in place with third parties before disclosing information.
Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB Jurisdiction Over Expired Patents in IPRs
On January 27, in Apple Inc. v. Gesture Technology Partners, LLC, the Federal Circuit held that the PTAB has jurisdiction to conduct inter partes reviews (IPRs) over patents that have expired. In its decision, the Federal Circuit points out that it had implicitly assumed that the PTAB had jurisdiction in such cases, and that the PTAB’s jurisdiction over IPRs does not run afoul of Article III under the public-rights doctrine.
The Federal Circuit’s decision is significant in that it clarifies the timing validity of IPR proceedings and the jurisdiction of the PTAB—the term status of a granted patent is irrelevant for purposes of an IPR and the PTAB has jurisdiction to oversee expired patents.
Federal Circuit Clarifies What Is Deemed Prior Art in an IPR
On January 14, in Lynk Labs, Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., the Federal Circuit held that a published patent application can be prior art in an IPR based on the application’s filing date, not the publication date. The Federal Circuit stated in its decision, “the plain language of 311(b) and 102(e)(1) permits IPR challenges based upon published patent applications, and such published patent applications can be deemed prior art in IPRs as of their filing date.”
This decision clarifies that, in the context of an IPR challenge, a patent application will be treated as prior art if it was filed before the invention’s priority date, regardless of when it was published.
Trademarks
USPTO Adopts Partial Trademark Replacement Rule to Align with Madrid Protocol
Effective July 2, 2025, the USPTO will accept requests for both full and partial replacement of earlier national trademark registrations with international registrations. Previously, the USPTO only permitted trademark holders to submit requests for full replacement, requiring goods and services to be identical in both the U.S. registration and the international registration. The new rule amended 37 C.F.R. 7.28 and brings the U.S. into compliance with a Madrid Protocol amendment requiring member countries to provide for partial replacement of an earlier national registration.
This decision is noteworthy because under the new decision, trademark owners may seek partial replacement for goods and services that overlap.
Copyright & AI
In June 2025, U.S. District Judge William Alsup issued a ruling regarding what is allowed when using copyrighted material to train generative AI models. Anthropic acquired millions of copyrighted books in order to digitize into a central library that could be used to train their generative AI model. In his ruling, Judge Alsup stated that Anthropic’s use of millions of lawfully acquired books to develop large language models was fair use. He went on to state, “Like any reader aspiring to be a writer, Anthropic’s LLMs trained upon works not to race ahead and replicate or supplement them – but to turn a hard corner and create something different.” However, Judge Alsup drew the line at Anthropic’s use of pirated works, ordering a trial over the use of the pirated works. In September 2025, Anthropic settled with a class of authors for $1.5 billion before the case could go to trial.
This decision shows that the courts consider it fair use when a tech company uses legally gained copyrighted works to train their generative AI models. However, when a company saves and makes copies of pirated works, that use does not amount to fair use and violates the authors’ rights.
Artificial Intelligence
The intersection of artificial intelligence and intellectual property protection continues to be a hot topic. Both the USPTO and the courts are still navigating how to treat these issues under the law. Recent developments at the USPTO from the Director and the PTAB indicate a clear trend toward broader recognition of patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Directives and decisions have emphasized placing greater emphasis on evaluating claims as a whole and crediting specific technological improvements, which has reduced the frequency of eligibility rejections for well-supported applications. At the same time, both the Director and the PTAB have significantly increased their use of discretionary denials to limit instituting IPRs, even where petitions raise substantive challenges. Such denials include a drastic shift with record numbers of denials of IPRs by the Director throughout this year and particularly the final quarter of 2025. This shift reflects a deliberate policy choice to reinforce the stability of issued patents by limiting post-grant proceedings rather than through full merits review, signaling an overall strengthening of patent rights.
Beyond eligibility and PTAB practice, 2025 saw significant investment by the USPTO in modernization initiatives, including expanded use of AI-assisted prior art searching, pilot programs for structured examiner interviews, and enhanced transparency in examiner performance metrics. The USPTO also advanced initiatives to improve predictability in obviousness determinations and launched efforts to streamline continuation practice, all pointing toward a systemic focus on clarity, efficiency, and patent quality.
USPTO Issues Guidance Clarifying Subject Matter Eligibility for AI and Software Claims
On August 4, the USPTO issued a Memorandum to examiners in Technology Centers 2100, 2600, and 3600, providing reminders and clarifications on evaluating subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The memo addressed many aspects involving the examination of AI technologies.
These aspects include: (1) reminding examiners that claims reciting limitations that cannot be practically performed in the human mind should not be categorized as a mental process; (2) clarifying that claims that involve a judicial exception do not require an eligibility analysis; (3) reminding examiners that claims that improve the functioning of a computer or another technology or technical field may be deemed eligible so long as the claim reflects a particular solution; and (4) reiterating that an examiner should only issue a 35 U.S.C. § 101 rejection when it is more likely than not that the claim is ineligible.
Federal Circuit Addresses Subject Matter Eligibility of Claims Involving Generic Machine Learning
On April 18, in Recentive Analytics, Inc. v. Fox Corp., the Federal Circuit held that claims applying generic machine learning methods to a new data environment are not patent eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The case involved four patents aimed at automating event scheduling and network mapping for television broadcasters. The Federal Circuit found that applying machine learning to a new domain, such as broadcast scheduling, does not transform an abstract idea into patentable subject matter. Without disclosing improvements to the machine learning models, the patents do no more than claim an abstract idea.
This case offers useful takeaways pertaining to drafting patent applications: focus on technological improvements, avoid field of use limitations, and anticipate § 101 challenges early.
For more information on these topics, please contact Fitch Even technical writer Lindsay Boehme or associate Ethan Tibbs, authors of this alert.
Fitch Even IP Alert®
Lindsay Boehme, Ph.D.
Lindsay Boehme, Ph.D., is a skilled Technical Writer with expertise in patent application preparation and prosecution across a range of scientific and engineering disciplines. Her work draws on more than a decade of experience in chemical engineering, materials science, and electrochemical technology development.
Ethan A. Tibbs
Ethan Tibbs is a registered patent attorney currently focusing his practice on patent preparation and prosecution, assisting clients across a range of industries such as medical devices, food products, biotechnology, software, and electronics. Ethan enjoys collaborating with inventors and companies to transform innovative ideas into valuable intellectual property assets.