While the arguments made by the PTAB Bar Association make logical sense, they are largely NIMBY arguments along the lines of "When you said drain the swamp, I thought you meant those other people, not us."

OpenEvidence alleges Pathway Medical used a prompt injection attack to extract AI system prompt code, violating the Defend Trade Secrets Act & other laws.

Key Qs: Are AI models’ internal mechanics protectable secrets? Is strategic querying improper?

www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/...

Lots of folks have written about Halo and Willfulness; including @tnarecha.bsky.social & @marklemley.bsky.social here on BSKY.

Most concerning: In Affirming, the Federal Circuit speculates that the district court viewed the adjudged reckless disregard as a "close question"—something nowhere in the court's actual opinion. This judicial mind-reading violates FRCP 52 and 7th Amend, IMO.

The jury found willfulness under a "clear & convincing" standard after considering Pulse's invalidity defense. Yet the district court refused enhanced damages based on...the same evidence.

Takeaway for practitioners: When claiming compositions by properties, specification should explain property-structure relationships. USS's detailed correlation between magnetic properties and diamond structure proved important for the case.

Burden of proof clarity: Fed Cir explicitly rejects ITC's attempt to separate presumption of validity from presumption of eligibility. Patent challenger must overcome both. Big procedural win for patentees that should apply to courts and USPTO as well

Hidden gem in footnote 7: Court hints that Alice Step 1 might sometimes allow for expert testimony on property-structure relationships. Could transform what's traditionally been pure legal analysis into factual inquiry.

Court creates pragmatic divide in 101 jurisprudence: Software/methods face continued eligibility scrutiny, while composition claims get clearer path. Practical but risks theoretical incoherence in patent doctrine.

Reminds me of C.G.Jung's inviduation: important but can also risk wholeness.

Key insight from the Decision: Material properties (such as conductivity) are "integrally intertwined" with physical structure; but no perfect correlation is needed from functional claims to structure - just enough to "inform skilled artisan what the PDC is."

Prof Lefstin had argued the ITC's abstract idea rejection of PDC claims echoed the CCPA's long-abandoned "functional claiming" doctrine. His warning: American Axle risks unraveling decades of settled law allowing properties to define compositions. @uclawsf.bsky.social

patentlyo.com/patent/2023/...

The 9th Cir already petitioner's arguments: concluding that express quid pro quo agreement is not required for bribery convictions, particularly when prosecuting the bribe-giver. Requiring express agreement would make it too easy for corrupt actors to evade prosecution.

We recently saw a number of contributions to President Trump's inauguration event in what appeared to be a pay-to-play scenario. The courts have largely treated this sort of money as similar to campaign contribution that receive broader first amendment protections as a form of political speech.

The timing is particularly striking given President Trump's recent executive order pausing enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act - suggesting a broader moment of flux in anti-corruption enforcement as a way to level an "uneven playing field for American firms."

Petitioner was convicted under several federal laws. Now argues that lavish gifts to officials as a way of currying favor should not be considered bribery. The contention is that bribery requires proof of an explicit quid pro quo exchange - a specific agreement to trade gifts for official acts.

The case involved lavish gifts totaling more than $1 million - including gambling chips, private jets, and prostitutes - provided to then-Los Angeles City Councilman Jose Huizar while Billionaire Huang sought approval to build what would have been the tallest skyscraper west of the Mississippi.