Welcome to the Weintraub Resources section. Here, you can find our Blogs, Videos, and Podcasts, in which Weintraub attorneys regularly provide insights and updates on legal developments. You can also find upcoming Weintraub Events, as well as firm and client News.


Unraveling the Statute of Limitations in Copyright Infringement Cases

In the realm of copyright law, determining the scope of damages and the applicability of the statute of limitations remains a contentious issue. The Supreme Court case of Nealy v. Warner Chappell Music (argued before the Court in February of this year) promises to shed light on this matter, grappling with the question of how far back a plaintiff can seek damages in a copyright infringement case. This pivotal legal battle has significant implications for copyright holders, defendants, and the broader creative industry landscape.

Authors Get Mixed Results With Initial Skirmish in OpenAI Lawsuit

OpenAI, Inc. develops artificial intelligence software involving large language models (“LLM”) known as ChatGPT.  In 2023, several authors, including the comedian Sarah Silverman, filed putative class action lawsuits alleging various copyright infringement claims. On February 12, 2024, a District Court in the Northern District of California issued its Order and ruled on the OpenAI defendants’ motions to dismiss various claims in the two pending putative class action lawsuits.

And Again, Abstract Ideas are Not Patentable!

The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals has struck down many patents on the grounds that they are invalid as directed to an abstract idea, relying on the Supreme Court’s Alice decision.  In In re Elbaum (Fed. Cir. 12/20/2023) 2023 U.S. App. LEXIS 33719, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s rejection of the claims in a patent application as directed to an abstract idea.

USPTO Issues Guidance on Patentability of Inventions Developed with the Assistance of Artificial Intelligence

On February 12, 2024, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) issued guidance on the patentability of inventions developed with the assistance of artificial intelligence, saying that a human must have made a “significant contribution” to the invention. The USPTO explained that while AI-assisted inventions are not categorically unpatentable, the inventorship analysis should focus on human contributions, as patents function to incentivize and reward human ingenuity. Thus, patent protection may be sought for inventions for which a natural person provided a significant contribution to the invention, and the guidance provides procedures for determining the same.