The Copyright Office amended its Group Registration of Updates to a News Website rule on August 13, 2026. Learn the new definition of a qualifying news website, who may benefit, and what publishers should review before filing.
The USPTO expanded TTAB Center on August 18, 2026 to accept summary-judgment motions, motions to strike, review requests, and appeal-related filings. Here is what trademark litigants should change in their filing workflow.
The Federal Circuit’s August 31, 2026 precedential decision in Constellation Designs v. LG split the patent-eligibility result while leaving infringement and damages rulings intact. Here is what the decision means for patent drafting, litigation, damages, and appellate strategy.
Copyright law asks one question when someone copies or modifies a work. The Digital Millennium Copyright Act can ask another: did the person circumvent a technological measure that controls access? That distinction is the reason the U.S. Copyright Office conducts a rulemaking every three years under Section 1201 of the DMCA. The tenth triennial proceeding—the 2027 cycle—is now underway. Petitions for new exemptions were due August 24, 2026, and comments supporting or opposing streamlined renewals are due September 28, 2026. The process matters to researchers, repair professionals, educators, preservationists, software developers, accessibility advocates, and businesses that depend on digital access controls. What Section 1201 regulates Section 1201 generally prohibits circumventing technological measures that effectively control access to copyrighted works. It also contains separate provisions addressing trafficking in tools or services designed for circumvention. The access-control prohibition can apply even when the person’s ultimate use of the work would not itself infringe copyright. For example, a user may believe a proposed excerpt, repair, or research activity is fair use. That does not automatically answer whether bypassing a digital lock to obtain access is lawful. The legal analysis therefore has at least two layers: Is the underlying use authorized, licensed, noninfringing, or protected by a copyright limitation such as fair use? Does obtaining access require circumvention, and if so, does a statutory or temporary exemption apply? Conflating those questions is a common and costly mistake. Why there is a triennial rulemaking Congress authorized the Librarian of Congress, acting on the Copyright Office’s recommendation, to create temporary exemptions for classes of copyrighted works when the circumvention prohibition is likely to adversely affect noninfringing uses during the next three years. The process is evidence-driven. Proponents typically must define a [...]
Patent cases often begin with several threshold motions at once. A defendant may argue that the lawsuit was filed in the wrong district while also arguing that the asserted patent is ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. If the court agrees that venue is improper, must it stop there? In AML IP, LLC v. Bath & Body Works Direct, Inc., decided August 28, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit said no. A district court had discretion to decide both grounds when they were properly raised, even though either ground independently supported dismissal. The precedential opinion is primarily about judicial authority and case management. It does not establish a new test for patent eligibility, and it does not decide which district was proper. Its practical importance lies in what patent litigants should expect at the opening stage of a case. The dispute AML IP sued Bath & Body Works, The Buckle, and Big Lots in the Eastern District of Texas. It alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 6,876,979, involving an e-commerce “bridge computer.” The defendants moved to dismiss on two grounds: under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(3), because venue was improper; and under Rule 12(b)(6), because the asserted claims were patent-ineligible under Section 101. The district court agreed with both arguments and dismissed the actions. On appeal, AML did not challenge the merits of either the venue ruling or the eligibility ruling. Instead, it argued that once the court found venue improper, it should not have reached eligibility. The Federal Circuit affirmed The Federal Circuit rejected that procedural argument. A federal court with jurisdiction over the case can consider multiple properly presented dismissal grounds. Finding improper venue did not strip the [...]
Don’t just lawyer up.
Tucker Up.®
