NEWS

Think Your Patent Covers More Than It Does? Your Own Words Might Say Otherwise

April 6, 2026

Cher from her video “If I could turn back time” and some parody lyrics

A New Federal Circuit Decision Every Inventor Should Understand

If you’re an inventor, or thinking about filing a patent, here’s a hard truth: What you say during the patent process can quietly shrink your protection… even years later. A recent case, Puradigm, LLC v. DBG Group Investments LLC, shows exactly how that can happen.

The Simple Version: A Patent Lost Its Reach

The patent in this case covered an air purification system using UV light and reflectors. The key improvement?
Using mirror-like (“specular”) reflectors to direct UV light more precisely. But the accused competitor used non-mirror (unpolished) aluminum reflectors. The patent owner sued—and lost. Why? Because of something they said years earlier during the patent application process.

The Hidden Trap: Statements Made During Patent Filing

When applying for a patent, inventors (through their attorneys) often argue:

“Our invention is different from prior technology because…”
“The prior art does NOT include…”

These arguments are meant to convince the patent office to approve the patent. But here’s the catch: Those arguments don’t disappear after approval. They become part of the permanent record. In this case, the applicant argued that earlier technology did not include the kind of mirror-like reflectors their invention used. Even though the patent examiner pushed back and disagreed, the applicant never took that statement back.

Why That Hurt the Patent Owner Later

Fast forward to the lawsuit. The court looked back at the original patent application history. That said ‘you told the government your invention requires mirror-like reflectors. So now, your patent does NOT cover non-mirror reflectors.’ Even though the claims themselves were broader, and the examiner didn’t agree with the applicant at the time. The earlier statement still limited the patent.

“But the Examiner Disagreed!” — Why That Didn’t Matter

You might think, “If the patent office didn’t agree with the statement, why should it count?” The court’s answer was “Because competitors are allowed to rely on what you said—not just what was approved.” So even a rejected argument can come back to limit your patent.

How This Can Affect Inventors and Startups

This isn’t just legal theory, it has real business consequences.

1. You May Think Your Patent Is Broader Than It Is

Your patent might look strong on paper, but hidden statements can narrow it.

2. Competitors Can Design Around You More Easily

A competitor can read your application history and find ways to avoid infringement.

3. Enforcement Becomes Harder (or Impossible)

You may not be able to stop products that seem “close enough.”

4. Investors and Buyers May See Less Value

If your patent is narrower than expected, it can affect licensing deals, company valuation, and acquisition interest.

A Subtle but Critical Detail: Silence Isn’t Enough

In this case, the applicant tried to hedge by saying, “We neither agree nor disagree with the examiner.” But that didn’t help. The court basically said “If you don’t clearly take back your statement, it still counts.”

What Should Inventors Do Differently?

You don’t need to become a patent lawyer—but you should understand this:

Be Careful About Over-Explaining Your Invention

Strong, narrow arguments can win approval—but lose flexibility later.

Make Sure Your Attorney Is Thinking Long-Term

Patent strategy isn’t just about getting approved—it’s about future enforcement.

Avoid Unnecessary Limitations

The more specific your arguments, the more you may box yourself in.

Fix Mistakes Early

If something inaccurate or too narrow is said during the process, it may need to be explicitly corrected.

The Big Takeaway: Your Patent Is More Than the Claims

Most inventors think: “The claims define my patent.” That’s only part of the story. Courts also look at what you said while trying to get those claims. And as this case shows, those words can quietly—but powerfully—limit what your patent actually protects.

Getting a patent isn’t just about describing your invention. It’s about how you describe it and what you say it is NOT. Because years later, in a courtroom, those words may matter more than you expect.

Supreme Court Narrows Contributory Copyright Liability

April 2, 2026

Big news in the world of copyright. The Supreme Court just held that a service provider is contributorily liable only if it intended its service to be used for infringement.

What Is Contributory Copyright Infringement?

Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment. The Supreme Court decided an Internet Service Provider (ISP) could not be held contributorily liable for its users’ copyright infringement simply because it knows about the infringement and continues providing service.

Contributory infringement, if you aren’t aware, is basically a second-hand infringement. It means the contributor isn’t directly violating copyrights but contributes to the infringing conduct of another party. In this case, Cox was charged with intending its service to be used for infringement.

A copyright owner can show this intention in two ways. The first is that Cox induced the infringement. The second is that Cox “sold a service tailored to infringement”.

The Role of Cox as an Internet Service Provider

Cox is a huge Internet Service Provider with around six million subscribers. But Cox itself has limited knowledge as to how their services are used. In the fine-print contract subscribers sign (but rarely actually read), Cox states that users are not to infringe copyrights.

How Sony Tracked Alleged Infringement

Sony Music used MarkMonitor to track infringement. MarkMonitor is software that detects when copyrighted works are illegally uploaded or downloaded. It traces the activity to specific IP addresses.

During a two-year period, it sent Cox over 160,000 notices identifying subscriber IP addresses associated with alleged infringement.

Sony’s Lawsuit and the $1 Billion Jury Verdict

Sony then sued Cox for contributory infringement, arguing that Cox continued to provide service to subscribers associated with violations. Cox responded that it took steps to limit infringement. It implemented a policy of cutting off infringing subscribers after 13 warnings. And, of course, there’s the contract that few ever read.

Sony noted that only 32 subscribers had been terminated for infringement, compared to the 160,000 detected instances. Sony also referenced internal employee statements suggesting Cox was unwilling to cut off subscribers due to lost revenue.

Cox defended itself by pointing out its suspension system addressed 98% of the identified infringement.

The jury sided with Sony and imposed a $1 Billion verdict. Appeals followed, with some adjustments along the way, but Cox’s basic misconduct was upheld.

The Supreme Court’s Decision: No Liability Without Intent

That changed when the case reached the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court held that a service provider is contributorily liable only if it intended its service to be used for infringement. To prove that, Sony needed to show that Cox’s service was designed in the ways outlined above. This was not the case. Subscribers were warned not to infringe in the contract. Infringing subscribers were issued repeated warnings. And in some instances, repeat offenders were suspended or terminated. That’s hardly inducement to infringe.

Other articles related to copyrights and infringement: Call of Duty Lawsuit Ends Without Attorneys’ Fees for Activision

Ignorance of the Law may be an Excuse in Copyright Registration

De Minimus Defense Doesn’t Necessarily Mean Minimal Use

USPTO Delays: That 14-Month Promise Is… Aspirational

March 30, 2026

USPTO promises a first office action within 14 months—but reality looks a bit different. Almost 90% of first office actions are issued after the 14-month window! A recent post on the Patently-O breaks down the growing gap (and why applicants might not mind as much as you’d think). Note: the full article is behind a paywall.

FishFAQ Trademark Video 4: Trademarks and Use

March 26, 2026

This is the fourth installment in our series of FishFAQ videos directed towards Trademarks. This video covers the importance of usage to trademarking.
You become a trademark owner by using it to identify the source of your goods or services. However, eligibility for registering your trademark for federal protection will require usage. You will have to submit samples of actual usage, or apply on an intention to use basis, which will require a statement of use within 6 months.

This series is an extension of our initial Patent FishFAQ series.

If videos aren’t your thing, we also have extensive text Patent and Trademark FAQ sections.
and though no videos have been made for Copyright questions, there is a text Copyright FAQ page too

Patent Term Distribution

March 23, 2026

The 20-year Patent Term

The standard patent term is set at 20 years from the earliest effective filing date. But that’s really just the baseline. The actual term depends on a series of prosecution decisions, USPTO delays, and other factors.

Patently-O, a blog dedicated to issues surrounding patent law, published the chart below showing “the distribution of expected remaining patent term (measured from issuance) for utility patents issued between March 2025 and March 2026.”

The Distribution of Remaining Term Lengths

At the far-right edge, there are a smaller number of patents that achieved close to the theoretical 20 years from filing. They used the accelerated examination options, the patents issued quickly, and they used up very little of the 20-year clock. There are two main spikes: around 18.5 and 17 years, which correspond to the typical examination timeline, and adding the Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) to compensate for processing delays.

Moving further to the right the patents with the shortest remaining terms are those that typically had extended prosecution histories. The majority of issued patents have more than 12 years of expected term remaining at issuance.

The Economic Tradeoff and Maintenance Fees

But the blog post points out a related issue. The final maintenance fee comes due 11.5 years after issuance. That fee is over $8k for large entities and in many cases providing only a few extra years of protection. The cost to benefit calculation might be leading more patent holders to just let the patent expire rather than pay the fee.

The Real Patent Term Picture

Patent term distribution ultimately provides a clearer picture of how the system operates. It shows that the twenty-year rule is only a starting point. Real outcomes depend on timing, strategy, and administrative realities. The result is a system where patent value can vary significantly at issuance.

More on Patent strategies: USPTO to Charge Extra for Late Continuation Applications

The USPTO’s “Settled Expectations” Doctrine — and Why It Matters to You

USPTO Guidance on Design Patents for AR, VR, and Computer Interfaces

March 19, 2026

Computer-Generated Design Guidance Background

Back in 2020, the USPTO asked for public input on “whether its interpretation of the article of manufacture requirement in the United States Code should be revised to protect digital designs that encompass new and emerging technologies.”

Nineteen comments were submitted. Twelve advocated that designs for projections, holograms, and virtual and augmented reality should be eligible for design patent protection.

Outdated USPTO Guidance Needed Update to Reflect Emerging Technology

In Nov 2023, the USPTO responded by publishing supplemental guidance. This would help determine whether a design claim including computer-generated electronic images constituted statutory subject matter under 35 USC 171.

However, the guidance didn’t address designs involving virtual or augmented reality. Following the publication of that guidance, the USPTO received additional public comments requesting clarification. Commenters noted that modern interfaces increasingly appear in projections, holograms, and virtual or augmented reality environments, rather than only on traditional computer displays or monitors.

Seven additional comments were submitted requesting further guidance.

Revised PTO Guidance Covers Newer Tech

On Friday March 13, 2026, the USPTO issued supplemental guidance. The guidance explains when computer-generated interfaces, icons, and emerging digital visuals can qualify for design patent protection.

This update reflects the reality that modern interfaces now appear in augmented reality, virtual reality, holograms, and projections, not just on traditional screens.

Image of a projection of a keyboard. One of the examples taken from the USPTO guidance.

1. Interfaces and icons can still be design-patent eligible

Design patents still require a design for an “article of manufacture.” Traditionally, this meant a graphical user interface or icon displayed on a computer screen or display panel.

The USPTO now confirms that computer-generated interfaces and icons can still qualify as design patent subject matter. However, they must be tied to a computer, computer system, or display and must be more than a disembodied image.

2. You no longer need to show a display screen in the drawings

Previously, design patent drawings typically had to show a display panel (often in broken lines) surrounding a GUI or icon. Under the new guidance:

A display screen does not have to appear in the drawings
As long as the title and claim clearly identify the article of manufacture, for example:
- “Icon for a display screen”
- “Graphical user interface for a computer system”

Inventors can still include a screen in the drawings if they want, but it is no longer mandatory.

3. AR, VR, projections, and holograms may be patentable designs

The USPTO explicitly states that designs such as:

projections
holograms
augmented-reality interfaces
virtual-reality interfaces

may qualify for design patents even if they are not displayed on a traditional monitor.

What matters is that the design is for a computer system and is not merely a floating, unrelated image.

The design must still be clearly disclosed

Even with this flexibility, applicants must still satisfy normal patent requirements. In particular:

The drawings must clearly show the design
There must be enough views to fully disclose the appearance
The design must be ornamental, not purely functional
The disclosure must meet clarity and enablement requirements

Claim wording matters

The USPTO now accepts claim language such as:

“Icon for display screen”
“GUI for display panel”
“Projected interface for a computer”
“Virtual reality interface for a computer”
“Augmented reality interface for a computer”

These phrases properly link the design to an article of manufacture, satisfying the statute.

Pure images without a device connection are still not patentable

A stand-alone image or picture that is not tied to a computer, display, or computer system will still fail the article-of-manufacture requirement and be rejected.

For other articles related to design patents, see: The Latest Case in Enforcement of Design Patents

FishFAQ Trademark Video 3: Levels of Distinctiveness

March 17, 2026

This is the third installment in our series of FishFAQ videos directed towards Trademarks. This third video covers the different levels of distinctiveness.
Distinctiveness is an important concept in the eligibility of a mark for registration. The measure of a mark’s ability to identify the specific source or goods or services is dependent in great part on how distinctive the name is. The USPTO has identified five levels of distinctiveness in trademark law. This video explains how it works.

This series is an extension of our initial Patent FishFAQ series.

If videos aren’t your thing, we also have extensive text Patent and Trademark FAQ sections.
and though no videos have been made for Copyright questions, there is a text Copyright FAQ page too.