The U.S. intellectual property (IP) system experienced major shifts in 2025, driven by administrative reforms, evolving legal interpretations, and increased oversight of AI-driven innovation. These changes highlighted the interplay between advancing technology and protecting traditional IP rights, while also influencing litigation strategies and corporate compliance frameworks.
Restructuring Patent Examination: The PTAB’s New Paradigm
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) prioritized restoring predictability to the patent system through sweeping reforms to inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. Director Kathleena Squires centralized authority over IPR institution decisions, moving them from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to her office. This shift, combined with expanded discretionary denials for petitions, significantly reduced IPR institution rates. Previously, patentees relied on the PTAB’s high acceptance rate to challenge patent validity, now, procedural hurdles and inconsistent claim-construction standards have diminished IPRs as a viable option.
The transition has prompted patent owners and challengers to reassess litigation tactics. Defendants in patent disputes increasingly turn to district courts and the International Trade Commission (ITC) to present prior art-based defenses, while multi-defendant cases demand coordinated legal approaches to avoid parallel IPR proceedings. These adjustments reflect a broader trend toward administrative oversight shaping patent law, raising questions about the balance between executive discretion and judicial review.
AI and Copyright: Transformative Use vs. Piracy
The legal treatment of AI training data became a central issue in 2025, with courts distinguishing between transformative fair use and unauthorized exploitation. In Bartz v. Anthropic and Kadrey v. Meta, courts ruled that training large language models on lawfully acquired copyrighted works qualifies as transformative fair use, provided data is obtained through legal channels. However, training on pirated datasets or substituting outputs for original works remains infringing.
These rulings have spurred rapid changes in AI governance. Legal teams now emphasize dataset licensing, indemnification clauses, and operational audits to mitigate risk. While the Federal Circuit’s Recentive Analytics decision deemed many AI innovations patent-ineligible, the USPTO’s support for AI-driven inventions underscores the regulatory divide between administrative guidance and judicial interpretations. This dichotomy highlights the need for companies to navigate a fragmented legal landscape, balancing innovation with compliance.
Trademark Confusability and Corporate Strategy
Trademark litigation reached a milestone in Vegadelphia Foods v. Beyond Meat Inc., where a jury awarded $38.9 million in damages after finding Beyond Meat’s slogans “Plant-Based, Great Taste” and “Great Taste, Plant-Based” confusingly similar to Vegadelphia’s registered mark. The court rejected Beyond Meat’s fair use defense, noting its attempt to register similar slogans undermined its claim of descriptive use.
This case exemplifies the growing importance of proactive trademark monitoring and strategic registration. Companies must now rigorously assess market overlaps and ensure their branding does not infringe on existing trademarks. The Supreme Court’s Dewberry Group v. Dewberry Engineers decision further complicates matters, limiting disgorgement damages to named plaintiffs under the Lanham Act. This ruling may prompt corporations to restructure IP ownership and litigation strategies to avoid similar outcomes.
Trade Secrets and Extraterritoriality
The Supreme Court’s denial of certiorari in Motorola Solutions v. Hytera Communications left unresolved whether extraterritorial acts of misappropriation under the Defend Trade Secrets Act (DTSA) qualify for damages. This ambiguity, combined with the Court’s 2023 narrowing of Lanham Act extraterritoriality, is expected to spur a surge in trade secret claims in 2026. Companies must now weigh the risks of global operations against the potential for costly litigation.
IP Defender monitors national trademark databases for conflicts and infringements, providing businesses with a reliable way to stay ahead of potential threats. By tracking 50+ countries, including the EU, USA, and Australia, IP Defender helps brands protect their intellectual property from unauthorized use. The service focuses solely on trademark monitoring, ensuring companies can address risks without unnecessary complexity.
The urgency of trademark protection has never been greater. As legal frameworks evolve, businesses must take proactive steps to secure their rights. IP Defender’s continuous surveillance ensures brands are prepared for challenges, offering a clear advantage in an increasingly competitive market.