IP finance

U.S. Treasury Department Active in Addressing Cybersecurity Issues

2026-04-15T23:23:00.000+01:00

The U.S. Treasury Department recently issued two press releases concerning cybersecurity. First, the Treasury Department created a cybersecurity information sharing initiative for U.S. digital assert companies. Second, the Treasury Department sanctioned actors who stole trade secrets involving cybersecurity tools from a U.S. company. The Press Releases are below.

Treasury Launches Cybersecurity Information Sharing Initiative for the Digital Asset Industry

WASHINGTON – Today, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Cybersecurity and Critical Infrastructure Protection (OCCIP) announced a new initiative to strengthen cybersecurity across the digital asset industry. The initiative will provide timely, actionable cybersecurity information to eligible U.S. digital asset firms and industry organizations, helping them better identify, prevent, and respond to cyber threats targeting their customers and networks. The effort advances a key recommendation from the President’s Working Group on Digital Asset Markets report, Strengthening American Leadership in Digital Financial Technology.

Treasury leadership highlights the growing importance of digital asset firms to the broader financial system.

“Digital asset firms are an increasingly important part of the U.S. financial sector, and their resilience is critical to the health of the broader system,” said Luke Pettit, Assistant Secretary for Financial Institutions. “By extending access to the same high-quality cybersecurity information used by traditional financial institutions, Treasury is helping promote a more secure and responsible digital asset ecosystem.”

Treasury also emphasized that cybersecurity is foundational to the future of digital finance and essential to responsible innovation.

“This initiative reflects the principles of the GENIUS Act by promoting responsible innovation grounded in strong cybersecurity and operational resilience,” said Tyler Williams, Counselor to the Secretary for Digital Assets. “As digital assets become more integrated into the financial system, access to timely and actionable cyber threat information is essential to protecting consumers and safeguarding the stability of U.S. financial markets.”

Treasury cybersecurity officials noted that the initiative responds directly to a rapidly evolving threat environment.

“Cyber threats targeting digital asset platforms are growing in frequency and sophistication,” said Cory Wilson, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Cybersecurity. “This initiative expands access to actionable threat information that helps firms strengthen defenses, reduce risk, and respond more effectively to incidents.”

Eligible U.S. digital asset firms and industry organizations that meet Treasury’s criteria will be able to receive, at no cost, the same actionable cybersecurity information Treasury regularly shares with traditional U.S. financial institutions. Interested firms are encouraged to contact OCCIP at OCCIP-Coord@treasury.gov for more information.

Treasury Sanctions Exploit Broker Network for Theft and Sale of U.S. Government Cyber Tools

February 24, 2026

First-Ever Action Under the Protecting American Intellectual Property Act

WASHINGTON — Today, the Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) designated Sergey Sergeyevich Zelenyuk (Zelenyuk) and his company, Matrix LLC (doing business as Operation Zero), as well as five associated individuals and entities, for their acquisition and distribution of cyber tools harmful to U.S. national security. Zelenyuk and Operation Zero trade in “exploits”—pieces of code or techniques that take advantage of vulnerabilities in a computer program to allow users to gain unauthorized access, steal information, or take control of an electronic device—and have offered rewards to anyone who will provide them with exploits for U.S.-built software. Among the exploits that Operation Zero acquired were at least eight proprietary cyber tools, which were created for the exclusive use of the U.S. government and select allies and which were stolen from a U.S. company. Operation Zero then sold those stolen tools to at least one unauthorized user.

“If you steal U.S. trade secrets, we will hold you accountable,” said Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent. “Treasury will continue to work alongside the rest of the Trump Administration to protect sensitive American intellectual property and safeguard our national security.”

This action coincides with an investigation by the Department of Justice and the Federal Bureau of Investigation of Peter Williams, an Australian national and a former employee of the aforementioned U.S. company who pleaded guilty on October 29, 2025, to two counts of theft of trade secrets.

Williams stole several proprietary cyber tools from the company between 2022 and 2025 and sold them to Operation Zero in exchange for millions of dollars paid in cryptocurrencies.

OFAC is designating Zelenyuk, Operation Zero, and the five associated individuals and entities pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 13694, as further amended by E.O. 14306 (“E.O. 13694, as further amended”). In parallel with this action, the Department of State is sanctioning Zelenyuk, Operation Zero, and an affiliated UAE company, Special Technology Services LLC FZ (STS) pursuant to the Protecting American Intellectual Property Act (PAIPA). These are the first persons sanctioned under this law, which provides for sanctions against persons who have knowingly engaged in, or benefitted from, significant theft of trade secrets of United States persons, if the theft of such trade secrets is reasonably likely to result in, or has materially contributed to, a significant threat to the national security, foreign policy, or economic health or financial stability of the United States. Please refer to the Department of State’s press release for more information about this action under PAIPA.

ZELENYUK’S ACQUISITION AND SALE OF CYBER TOOLS

Russian national Zelenyuk,through his St. Petersburg, Russia-headquartered company Operation Zero, has been active as an exploit broker since 2021. Operation Zero has offered millions of dollars in bounties to cybersecurity researchers and others for the development or acquisition of exploits targeting commonly used software, including U.S.-built operating systems and encrypted messaging applications. Operation Zero does not disclose the discovered exploits to the companies developing the affected software, and Operation Zero customers could use the tools to launch ransomware attacks or engage in other malign activities. In advertisements and other public-facing materials, Zelenyuk and Operation Zero have stated that they will only sell the exploits they acquire to customers from non-NATO countries. Zelenyuk, through Operation Zero, has sought to sell exploits to foreign intelligence agencies. Zelenyuk and Operation Zero have also sought to develop other cyber intelligence systems, including spyware and methods to extract personal identifying information and other sensitive data uploaded by users of artificial intelligence applications like large language models. Operation Zero has sought to recruit hackers to support its activities and develop business relationships with foreign intelligence agencies through use of social media.

OFAC is designating Zelenyuk and Operation Zero pursuant to E.O. 13694, as further amended, for being responsible for or complicit in, or having engaged in, directly or indirectly, cyber-enabled activities originating from, or directed by persons located, in whole or substantial part, outside the United States that are reasonably likely to result in, or have materially contributed to, a threat to the national security, foreign policy, or economic health or financial stability of the United States, and that have the purpose of or involve causing a misappropriation of funds or economic resources, intellectual property, proprietary or business confidential information, personal identifiers, or financial information for commercial or competitive advantage or private financial gain.

. . .

The FTC, Competition, Political Viewpoint, Misinformation and Digital Advertising

2026-04-15T23:04:00.000+01:00

The U.S. Federal Trade Commission has released a notice concerning an order agreed to by certain advertising agencies concerning digital advertising and anticompetitive conduct. The court needs to approve the order. The complaint is linked to below and is a fascinating read. The Press Release states:

The Federal Trade Commission, along with a coalition of states, took decisive action today to stop collusion between the nation’s largest advertising agencies that distorted America’s modern public square.

Starting in 2018, major U.S. advertising agencies WPP, Publicis and Dentsu—who buy digital ad inventory on behalf of advertisers—unlawfully colluded to impose common “brand safety” standards across the digital advertising industry, according to the FTC’s complaint. The ad agencies, together with their primary competitors Omnicom and IPG, operated through trade associations to establish a common “Brand Safety Floor” to target “misinformation.”

The complaint alleges firms like NewsGuard and the Global Disinformation Index used this misinformation designation as a means to promote the demonetization of disfavored political viewpoints. In a competitive market, ad agencies compete for advertisers’ business by offering brand-safety tools that provide the best quality at the lowest cost. The brand safety agreement displaced competition by insulating the ad agencies from these competitive conditions, according to the complaint.

To resolve the FTC’s charges, the ad agencies have agreed to a proposed order that will stop the alleged coordinated conduct and prevent similar conduct from occurring in the future.

“The ad agencies’ brand-safety conspiracy turned competition in the market for ad-buying services on its head,” said Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson. “The antitrust laws guarantee participation in a market free from conduct, such as economic boycotts, that distort the fundamental competitive pressures that promote lower prices, higher quality products and increased innovation.

“As we explain in our complaint, the brand-safety agreement limited competition in the market for ad-buying services and deprived advertisers of the benefits of differentiated brand-safety standards that could be tailored to their unique advertising inventory,” he continued. “This unlawful collusion not only damaged our marketplace, but also distorted the marketplace of ideas by discriminating against speech and ideas that fell below the unlawfully agreed-upon floor. The proposed order remedies the dangers inherent to collusive practices and restores competition to the digital news ecosystem.”

As the complaint alleges, the ad agencies operated through their trade associations—specifically, the World Federation of Advertisers’ Global Alliance for Responsible Media (“GARM”) and the American Association of Advertising Agencies’ Advertiser Protection Bureau (“APB”)—to establish their common brand-safety standards. Under the agencies’ brand-safety agreement, websites that included so-called “misinformation” were deemed to fall below the brand safety floor and thus risked becoming categorically ineligible for advertising revenue.

If approved by a federal judge, the order will ensure that each of the biggest U.S. advertising agencies are prevented from engaging in agreements that would set common brand safety standards or restrict advertising based on biased and politically motivated criteria.

Omnicom and IPG are subject to a similar FTC order.

The Commission vote to issue the complaint and final order was 1-0-1, with Commissioner Meador recused. The FTC’s complaint and final order were filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas. Joining the complaint are Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Montana, Nebraska, Texas, Utah and West Virginia.

14th IP and Competition Forum. Munich, June 23 & 24 2026

2026-04-10T16:28:00.001+01:00

Join us for the 14th IP & Competition Forum
Munich, June 23–24

🌐 http://www.oxfora.org
🌐 https://oxfirst.com/14th-intellectual-property-and-competition-forum/

📍 Venue: DPMA Forum, Deutsches Patent und Markenamt (German Patent Office)

With a strictly limited number of places, we are pleased to share a final overview of the level of participation already confirmed.

📩 Enquiries & registration: info@oxfirst.com

🔹 Senior Judiciary Confirmed

The forum will include judges and former judges from:

• Landgericht Munich (including Presiding Judges)
• Unified Patent Court (UPC)
• High Court of England & Wales
• Supreme Court of Germany
• European Patent Office – Boards of Appeal (Chairs)
• Supreme Court of China
• Juiz de Direito, Rio de Janeiro
• High Court of the Republic of Korea

🔹 Corporate IP Decision-Makers

Senior leadership attending includes:

Nokia · Amazon · Huawei · Philips · Panasonic · Canon · Cisco · Volkswagen · Audi · Deutsche Telekom · Xiaomi · 3M · Warner Bros Discovery · HP · Bosch · Harman · Vestel · Access Advance · Giesecke + Devrient

With participation from:

• VP, Head of Global Litigation – Nokia
• Senior Vice President & Associate General Counsel – Amazon
• Head of IP Licensing (VP level) – Philips
• Head of IP Litigation – Volkswagen
• Head of Patents – Deutsche Telekom
• Head of Licensing – Panasonic
• Senior Director IP Policy & Litigation – Xiaomi
• Associate General Counsel IP & Competition – Cisco
• Vice President, Litigation – Warner Bros Discovery

🔹 Policy Makers

Senior officials participating include:

• President – DPMA (German Patent Office)
• Policy Officer – DG Competition, European Commission
• Director & Chair – Bundeskartellamt, German Competition Authorities
• Head of Standard Essential Patents, IP & Competition Policy – UKIPO
• Head of European Affairs – UKIPO
• Head of International Affairs – UKIPO
• Head – Japan SEP Working Group
• Head – Korea SEP Working Group
• Legal Officer – Legal Services, European Commission

🔹 A Different Kind of Forum

This is a closed, highly curated gathering of:

• Judges shaping IP enforcement
• Senior executives responsible for global IP strategy and litigation
• Policy makers working towards effective governance

The format is designed for direct, peer-level exchange.

🔹 Limited Availability

Due to the format, participation is strictly limited.
We expect remaining places to be allocated shortly.

👉 Secure your place now: info@oxfirst.com

We would be delighted to welcome you in Munich.

White House Framework for AI Regulation to Set the Stage for Congress

2026-03-31T22:29:00.000+01:00

President Trump has released a framework for AI regulation for Congress. The Press Release states:

The Trump Administration is committed to winning the AI race to usher in a new era of human flourishing, economic competitiveness, and national security for the American people. Achieving these goals requires a commonsense national policy framework that both enables American industry to innovate and thrive and ensures that all Americans benefit from this technological revolution.

The Administration recognizes that some Americans feel uncertain about how this transformative technology will affect issues they care about, like their children’s wellbeing or their monthly electricity bill. These issues, along with other emerging AI policy considerations, require strong Federal leadership to ensure the public’s trust in how AI is developed and used in their daily lives.

Today, the Trump Administration is demonstrating that leadership by issuing a comprehensive national legislative framework that addresses the most pressing policy topics that AI presents. This framework addresses six key objectives:

Protecting Children and Empowering Parents: Parents are best equipped to manage their children’s digital environment and upbringing. The Administration is calling on Congress to give parents tools to effectively do that, such as account controls to protect their children’s privacy and manage their device use. The Administration also believes that AI platforms likely to be accessed by minors should implement features to reduce potential sexual exploitation of children or encouragement of self-harm.
Safeguarding and Strengthening American Communities: AI development should strengthen American communities and small businesses through economic growth and energy dominance. The Administration believes that ratepayers should not foot the bill for data centers, and is calling on Congress to streamline permitting so that data centers can generate power on site, enhancing grid reliability. Congress should also augment Federal government ability to combat AI-enabled scams and address AI national security concerns.
Respecting Intellectual Property Rights and Supporting Creators: The creative works and unique identities of American innovators, creators, and publishers must be respected in the age of AI. Yet, for AI to improve it must be able to make fair use of what it learns from the world it inhabits. The Administration is proposing an approach that achieves both of these objectives, enabling AI to thrive while ensuring Americans’ creativity continues propelling our country’s greatness.
Preventing Censorship and Protecting Free Speech: The Federal government must defend free speech and First Amendment protections, while preventing AI systems from being used to silence or censor lawful political expression or dissent. AI cannot become a vehicle for government to dictate right and wrong-think. The Administration is proposing guardrails to ensure that AI can pursue truth and accuracy without limitation.
Enabling Innovation and Ensuring American AI Dominance: The Administration is calling on Congress to take steps to remove outdated or unnecessary barriers to innovation, accelerate the deployment of AI across industry sectors, and facilitate broad access to the testing environments needed to build and deploy world-class AI systems.
Educating Americans and Developing an AI-Ready Workforce: The Administration wants American workers to participate in and reap the rewards of AI-driven growth, encouraging Congress to further workforce development and skills training programs, expanding opportunities across sectors and creating new jobs in an AI-powered economy.

Importantly, this framework can succeed only if it is applied uniformly across the United States. A patchwork of conflicting state laws would undermine American innovation and our ability to lead in the global AI race.

The Federal government is uniquely positioned to set a consistent national policy that enables us to win the AI race and deliver its benefits to the American people, while effectively addressing the policy challenges that accompany this transformative technology. The Administration looks forward to working with Congress in the coming months to turn this framework into legislation that the President can sign.

U.S. Government Accountability Office Report on AI Privacy Risks

2026-03-30T23:39:00.003+01:00

The U.S. Government Accountability Office has released a report concerning privacy risks associated with utilizing AI in the federal government. The privacy risks raised by experts include:

Risks Associated with Protecting Privacy When Using AI

The experts identified 10 key risks related to privacy when using AI, including potential invasions of privacy from data aggregation and the use of data for purposes exceeding what was originally intended. Table 1 identifies the 10 risks and associated descriptions.

Table 1: Expert-Identified Risks Associated with Protecting Privacy When Using Artificial Intelligence (AI)

Risk name	Associated risk description
Data persistence	Data may continue to exist in AI systems and be difficult to extract/remove once collected.
Data re-identification	AI has the ability to cross-reference multiple data sets from seemingly independent and anonymous outputs to reidentify anonymized data.^a
Generation of deceptive or inaccurate outputs	AI may be used to intentionally or unintentionally generate deceptive outputs (e.g., deepfakes) or inaccurate outputs (e.g., hallucinations)^b that may result in harm towards individuals.
Improper disclosure	AI can reveal and cause improper sharing of individuals’ data when it infers additional sensitive information from raw data.
Increased accessibility to sensitive information	AI can make sensitive information more accessible to a wider audience (e.g., data brokers) than intended.
Invasion of privacy from data aggregation	AI may combine various pieces of data about a person to make inferences beyond what is explicitly captured in those data (e.g., social scoring),^c which can invade an individuals’ personal space and solitude by revealing private information (e.g., health-related, financial, location).
Lack of security over data	Inadequate AI data requirements and storage practices can result in data breaches and improper access.
Lack of transparency related to data use	AI may be used without providing individuals with notice and control over how their data is being used.
Lack of transparency in AI model algorithmic decision-making	The workings of AI models could include decisions based on individual data that one is unaware of and that can lead to privacy risks.
Secondary use of data	The use of personal data for purposes other than originally intended can be exacerbated by AI’s ability to repurpose data.

New US DOJ Corporate Enforcement Policy

2026-03-30T23:20:00.001+01:00

The U.S. Department of Justice has released a Corporate Enforcement Policy concerning national security which allows U.S. corporations to voluntarily disclose violating white collar crime rules, including importantly, export control laws, and avoid prosecution (except in limited circumstances). The Press Release states:

The mission of the Department of Justice’s National Security Division (NSD) is to protect and defend the United States against the full range of national security threats, consistent with the rule of law. Business organizations and their employees are at the forefront of protecting the national security of the United States by preventing the unlawful export of sensitive commodities, technologies, and services, as well as unlawful transactions with sanctioned countries and designated individuals and entities. Enforcing our export control and sanctions laws, and holding accountable those who violate them, is a top priority for NSD.

On March 10, 2026, the Department released its first-ever Department-wide corporate enforcement policy (CEP) for criminal matters, promoting uniformity, predictability, and fairness in how it pursues white-collar cases to protect the American people.

As the announcement explains, the “Department-wide CEP provides concrete benefits to incentivize companies to voluntarily disclose discovered misconduct, cooperate with our investigations, and timely and appropriately remediate the wrongdoing. For companies that do, absent certain limited aggravating circumstances, the Department will decline to prosecute the company. Incentivizing corporate self-disclosures — while still permitting prosecutions in appropriate circumstances — allows the Department to quickly pursue culpable individuals, secure justice for victims, and deter white-collar crime, all while not unduly burdening American businesses.”

Under the CEP, “disclosure must be made to the appropriate component of the Department,” CEP n.5, and all resolutions under the CEP “must be approved by the Assistant Attorney General (AAG) for the relevant Division.” CEP Background ¶ 4. The CEP also provides that a “[g]ood faith disclosure to one component where the matter is later brought to another appropriate component for investigation will also qualify” for declination. CEP n.5

As pertaining to national security laws, the Justice Manual (JM) assigns the “enforcement of all criminal laws affecting, involving or relating to the national security, and the responsibility for prosecuting criminal offenses, such as conspiracy, perjury and false statements, arising out of offenses related to national security . . . to the AAG of NSD.” JM § 9-90.010.

The scope of these matters, which includes violations of the U.S. government’s primary export control and sanctions regimes — the Arms Export Control Act (AECA), 22 U.S.C. § 2778, the Export Control Reform Act (ECRA), 50 U.S.C. § 4801 et seq., and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), 50 U.S.C. § 1701 et seq. – can be found at JM § 9-90.020.

While the conduct of business organizations and their employees has the greatest potential to implicate U.S. national security interests in the enforcement of export control and sanctions laws, the conduct of business organizations and their employees can also violate other U.S. national security laws, including laws prohibiting material support to and financing of foreign terrorist organizations, criminal violations in connection with the work of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), and the Committee for the Assessment of Foreign Participation in the United States Telecommunications Services Sector (Team Telecom). Companies are encouraged to voluntarily self-disclose to NSD any potential criminal violations of U.S. law relating to matters conducted, handled, or supervised by the NSD AAG.

All voluntary self-disclosures concerning potential criminal violations of U.S. national security laws should be sent, with the company name in the subject line, to NSD’s email inbox for voluntary self‑disclosures: NSD.VSD@usdoj.gov.

Regulating AI: A Thoughtful Approach?

2026-02-19T00:05:00.003+00:00

Tom Wheeler at the Brookings Institution has published an excellent short paper titled, “Governing the AI Transition: Lessons from the 1996 Telecommunications Act.” Mr. Wheeler states, in part:

The relevance of the Telecom Act of ’96 to the policy challenges of AI is not because AI is telecom, but because technological transitions produce bottlenecks that become the birthplace of durable private power.

In 1996, Congress sought to legislate a transition by prioritizing competition. Now, in the AI era, we face an even more consequential transition. The stakes are not merely market structure or consumer pricing. The stakes extend to labor markets, intellectual property, national security, democracy, and the control of the tools of knowledge itself.

The paper is available, here.

US FTC Sends Letter to Data Brokers concerning Disclosing Sensitive Data to Foreign Adversaries

2026-02-18T23:47:00.002+00:00

The Federal Trade Commission has sent a warning letter to Data Brokers about violating the Protecting Americans’ Data from Foreign Adversaries Act of 2024. The FTC Press Release states, in part:

The Federal Trade Commission sent letters to 13 data brokers warning them of their responsibility to comply with the Protecting Americans’ Data from Foreign Adversaries Act of 2024 (PADFAA).

PADFAA prohibits data brokers from selling, releasing, disclosing, or providing access to personally identifiable sensitive data about Americans to any foreign adversary, which include North Korea, China, Russia, and Iran, or any entity controlled by those countries. The law defines personally identifiable sensitive data to include health, financial, genetic, biometric, geolocation, and sexual behavior information as well as account or device log-in credentials and government-issued identifiers such as Social Security, passport, or driver’s license numbers.

“The FTC is committed to enforcing PADFAA and ensuring companies are complying with its requirements,” said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection. “These letters should send a message to all data brokers to be aware of the law’s requirements and ensure they are not engaging in practices that violate it.”

The letters note that the agency has identified instances in which some of the letter’s recipients have “offered solutions and insights involving the status of an individual as a member of the Armed Forces. Such information is subject to PADFAA’s requirements.”

The letters warn the companies to conduct a comprehensive review of their business practices to ensure they comply with PADFAA, adding that a violation of the act may result in an enforcement action by the FTC, which could include civil penalties of up to $53,088 per violation.

Jury Convicts Former Google Engineer of Economic Espionage concerning AI

2026-02-11T20:28:00.005+00:00

The U.S. Department of Justice has announced in a press release the conviction of a former Google software engineer of economic espionage concerning the theft of trade secrets about artificial intelligence. The Press Release states:

Yesterday, a federal jury in San Francisco convicted former Google software engineer Linwei Ding, also known as Leon Ding, 38, on seven counts of economic espionage and seven counts of theft of trade secrets for stealing thousands of pages of confidential information containing Google’s trade secrets related to artificial intelligence technology for the benefit of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). The jury’s verdict follows an 11-day trial before U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria for the Northern District of California.

“This conviction exposes a calculated breach of trust involving some of the most advanced AI technology in the world at a critical moment in AI development,” said Assistant Attorney General for National Security John A. Eisenberg. “Ding abused his privileged access to steal AI trade secrets while pursuing PRC government-aligned ventures. His duplicity put U.S. technological leadership and competitiveness at risk. I commend the trial team and investigators whose exceptional work resulted in this conviction.”

“In today’s high-stakes race to dominate the field of artificial intelligence, Linwei Ding betrayed both the U.S. and his employer by stealing trade secrets about Google’s AI technology on behalf of China’s government,” said Assistant Director Roman Rozhavsky of the FBI's Counterintelligence and Espionage Division. “Not only does this case mark the first-ever conviction on AI-related economic espionage charges, but it also demonstrates the FBI’s unwavering dedication to protecting American businesses from the increasingly severe threat China poses to our economic and national security. We remain committed to working closely with our partners across the private sector to protect our nation’s innovation, safeguard our trade secrets, and hold our foreign adversaries accountable.”

“Silicon Valley is at the forefront of artificial intelligence innovation, pioneering transformative work that drives economic growth and strengthens our national security. The jury delivered a clear message today that the theft of this valuable technology will not go unpunished. We will vigorously protect American intellectual capital from foreign interests that seek to gain an unfair competitive advantage while putting our national security at risk,” said U.S. Attorney Craig H. Missakian for the Northern District of California.

“This conviction reinforces the FBI’s steadfast commitment to protecting American innovation and national security. The theft and misuse of advanced artificial intelligence technology for the benefit of the People’s Republic of China threatens our technological edge and economic competitiveness,” said FBI Special Agent in Charge Sanjay Virmani for the San Francisco Field Office. “The FBI San Francisco division serves Silicon Valley and the companies who lead the world in innovation, and we are committed to safeguarding their work. This case demonstrates the strength of collaboration between the FBI and the private sector, including leading companies like Google, whose partnership is critical to protecting sensitive U.S. technology. Today’s verdict affirms that federal law will be enforced to protect our nation’s most valuable technologies and hold those who steal them accountable.”

Ding was originally indicted in March 2024. A superseding indictment returned in February 2025 described seven categories of trade secrets stolen by Ding and charged Ding with seven counts of economic espionage and seven counts of theft of trade secrets.

According to the evidence presented at trial, between approximately May 2022 and April 2023, while a Google employee, Ding stole more than two thousand pages of confidential information containing Google’s AI trade secrets from Google’s network and uploaded them to his personal Google Cloud account. Ding also secretly affiliated himself with two PRC-based technology companies while he was employed by Google: around June 2022, Ding was in discussions to be the Chief Technology Officer for an early-stage technology company based in the PRC; by early 2023, Ding was in the process of founding his own technology company in the PRC focused on AI and machine learning and was acting as the company’s CEO. In multiple statements to potential investors, Ding claimed that he could build an AI supercomputer by copying and modifying Google’s technology. In December 2023, less than two weeks before he resigned from Google, Ding downloaded the stolen Google trade secrets to his own personal computer.

The jury found that Ding stole trade secrets relating to the hardware infrastructure and software platforms that allow Google’s supercomputing data center to train and serve large AI models. The trade secrets contained detailed information about the architecture and functionality of Google’s custom Tensor Processing Unit chips and systems and Google’s Graphics Processing Unit systems, the software that allows the chips to communicate and execute tasks, and the software that orchestrates thousands of chips into a supercomputer capable of training and executing cutting-edge AI workloads. The trade secrets also pertained to Google’s custom-designed SmartNIC, a type of network interface card used to facilitate high speed communication within Google’s AI supercomputers and cloud networking products.

In presentations to investors, Ding called out the PRC’s national policies prioritizing AI development and innovation in the PRC, and in late 2023 Ding applied for a government sponsored “talent plan” in Shanghai, PRC. The jury heard evidence pertaining to the PRC government’s establishment of talent plans to encourage individuals to come to China to contribute to the PRC’s economic and technological growth. Ding’s application for this talent plan stated that he planned to “help China to have computing power infrastructure capabilities that are on par with the international level.” The evidence at trial also showed that Ding intended to benefit two entities controlled by the government of China by assisting with the development of an AI supercomputer and collaborating on the research and development of custom machine learning chips.

Ding is next scheduled to appear at a status conference on Feb. 3, 2026. Ding faces a maximum sentence of 10 years in prison for each count of theft of trade secrets in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1832 and 15 years in prison for each count of economic espionage in violation of 18 U.S.C § 1831. Any sentence following conviction would be imposed by the Court only after consideration of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines and the federal statute governing the imposition of a sentence, 18 U.S.C. § 3553.

Assistant U.S. Attorneys for the Northern District of California Casey Boome, Molly K. Priedeman, and Roland Chang are prosecuting this case, with assistance from Veronica Hernandez and Trial Attorney Yifei Zheng from the Counterintelligence and Export Control Section, National Security Division. The prosecution is the result of an investigation by the FBI.

US DOJ files action requiring divestiture by Chinese Company of U.S. Company

2026-02-11T20:21:00.005+00:00

The U.S. Department of Justice has filed a complaint against China based Suirui Group’s acquisition of California’s Jupiter Systems based on national security concerns. According to the press release, this is the first time an action like this has been filed. The Press Release states:

Yesterday, the United States filed a complaint under section 721 of the Defense Production Act of 1950 to enforce a presidential order prohibiting Suirui Group’s acquisition, through Suirui International, of California-based Jupiter Systems and compelling Suirui to divest from Jupiter Systems. On July 8, 2025, the President issued the Order based on his findings that the transaction “threatens to impair the national security of the United States.” This is the first such action ever filed in federal district court.

While foreign direct investment is important to the United States’ economy, foreign investment in certain companies and certain industries, particularly those involved in defense or critical infrastructure, can pose national security concerns. To address these concerns, the President has the authority to take such action for such time as the President considers appropriate to suspend or prohibit such a transaction that threatens to impair the national security of the United States. The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) is empowered to review and investigate such transactions.

According to the Complaint, in 2020, Suirui Group, a Chinese company, through its Hong Kong subsidiary Suirui International, acquired all of Jupiter Systems, which provides video communications hardware and software to commercial and U.S. Government customers. On July 8, 2025, the President issued an Order prohibiting the transaction and, among other things, requiring Suirui to divest all its interests in Jupiter Systems within 120 days. According to the Complaint, despite CFIUS granting two extensions of the divestment deadline, to Feb. 3, Suirui and Jupiter Systems have failed to comply with the Order. The United States thus filed this action to protect the country’s national security interests.

The Justice Department’s Civil Division, Federal Programs Branch is handling the matter. The case is captioned United States v. Suirui Group Co., Ltd., et al., No. 26-cv-00369 (D.D.C.). . . .

USPTO Proposes Rule Requiring Representation by Registered USPTO Practitioner for All Foreign Applicants and Patent Owners

2025-12-24T21:34:00.001+00:00

The United States Patent and Trademark Office issued a press release concerning a new rule regarding foreign applicants and patent owners that is open for comment. Details can be found here. The press release states:

USPTO issues NPRM requiring foreign patent applicants to be represented by registered practitioners

Today, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) is issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking (NPRM) directed to requiring foreign applicants and patent owners to be represented by a registered patent practitioner before the Office.

The USPTO is proposing to amend the Rules of Practice in Patent Cases before the Office to require patent applicants and patent owners whose domicile is not located within the United States or its territories to be represented by a registered patent practitioner. The proposed requirement would bring the United States in line with the predominant global practice in jurisdictional patent offices that maintain requirements that such parties be represented by a licensed or registered person of that country. Moreover, this requirement would additionally increase efficiency and enable the USPTO to better use available mechanisms to enforce compliance with U.S. statutory and regulatory requirements and practice in patent matters and to respond and take appropriate actions with respect to false certifications, misrepresentations, and fraud.

Trump Executive Order Attempts to Stymie State AI Legislation

2025-12-22T23:08:00.003+00:00

On December 11, 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order titled, “Ensuring a National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence.” The Executive Order is designed to address the proliferation of state laws concerning artificial intelligence. The National Conference of State Legislatures has a database tracking state laws introduced in state legislatures generally concerning artificial intelligence. There are over 1,000 laws introduced in state legislatures in 2025 alone related generally to artificial intelligence in that database (many of those laws were not enacted or are pending). And, that database does not include separately tracked artificial intelligence legislation concerning specific technology such as autonomous vehicles, deep fakes or facial recognition. What are the positives of such state legislation? Some include the following, first, it is much harder for an industry to capture 50 state legislatures than one U.S. Congress. Second, as laboratories of democracy, states can create legislation concerning artificial intelligence that are tried out and perhaps be a good model for federal adoption. The Trump Executive Order states, in relevant part:

Section 1. Purpose. United States leadership in Artificial Intelligence (AI) will promote United States national and economic security and dominance across many domains. Pursuant to Executive Order 14179 of January 23, 2025 (Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence), I revoked my predecessor’s attempt to paralyze this industry and directed my Administration to remove barriers to United States AI leadership. My Administration has already done tremendous work to advance that objective, including by updating existing Federal regulatory frameworks to remove barriers to and encourage adoption of AI applications across sectors. These efforts have already delivered tremendous benefits to the American people and led to trillions of dollars of investments across the country. But we remain in the earliest days of this technological revolution and are in a race with adversaries for supremacy within it.

To win, United States AI companies must be free to innovate without cumbersome regulation. But excessive State regulation thwarts this imperative. First, State-by-State regulation by definition creates a patchwork of 50 different regulatory regimes that makes compliance more challenging, particularly for start-ups. Second, State laws are increasingly responsible for requiring entities to embed ideological bias within models. For example, a new Colorado law banning “algorithmic discrimination” may even force AI models to produce false results in order to avoid a “differential treatment or impact” on protected groups. Third, State laws sometimes impermissibly regulate beyond State borders, impinging on interstate commerce.

My Administration must act with the Congress to ensure that there is a minimally burdensome national standard — not 50 discordant State ones. The resulting framework must forbid State laws that conflict with the policy set forth in this order. That framework should also ensure that children are protected, censorship is prevented, copyrights are respected, and communities are safeguarded. A carefully crafted national framework can ensure that the United States wins the AI race, as we must.

Until such a national standard exists, however, it is imperative that my Administration takes action to check the most onerous and excessive laws emerging from the States that threaten to stymie innovation.

Sec. 2. Policy. It is the policy of the United States to sustain and enhance the United States’ global AI dominance through a minimally burdensome national policy framework for AI.

Sec. 3. AI Litigation Task Force. Within 30 days of the date of this order, the Attorney General shall establish an AI Litigation Task Force (Task Force) whose sole responsibility shall be to challenge State AI laws inconsistent with the policy set forth in section 2 of this order, including on grounds that such laws unconstitutionally regulate interstate commerce, are preempted by existing Federal regulations, or are otherwise unlawful in the Attorney General’s judgment, including, if appropriate, those laws identified pursuant to section 4 of this order. The Task Force shall consult from time to time with the Special Advisor for AI and Crypto, the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, and the Assistant to the President and Counsel to the President regarding the emergence of specific State AI laws that warrant challenge.

Sec. 4. Evaluation of State AI Laws. Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce, consistent with the Secretary’s authorities under 47 U.S.C. 902(b), shall, in consultation with the Special Advisor for AI and Crypto, the Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and the Assistant to the President and Counsel to the President, publish an evaluation of existing State AI laws that identifies onerous laws that conflict with the policy set forth in section 2 of this order, as well as laws that should be referred to the Task Force established pursuant to section 3 of this order. That evaluation of State AI laws shall, at a minimum, identify laws that require AI models to alter their truthful outputs, or that may compel AI developers or deployers to disclose or report information in a manner that would violate the First Amendment or any other provision of the Constitution. The evaluation may additionally identify State laws that promote AI innovation consistent with the policy set forth in section 2 of this order.

Sec. 5. Restrictions on State Funding. (a) Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Commerce, through the Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Communications and Information, shall issue a Policy Notice specifying the conditions under which States may be eligible for remaining funding under the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) Program that was saved through my Administration’s “Benefit of the Bargain” reforms, consistent with 47 U.S.C. 1702(e)-(f). That Policy Notice must provide that States with onerous AI laws identified pursuant to section 4 of this order are ineligible for non-deployment funds, to the maximum extent allowed by Federal law. The Policy Notice must also describe how a fragmented State regulatory landscape for AI threatens to undermine BEAD-funded deployments, the growth of AI applications reliant on high-speed networks, and BEAD’s mission of delivering universal, high-speed connectivity.

(b) Executive departments and agencies (agencies) shall assess their discretionary grant programs in consultation with the Special Advisor for AI and Crypto and determine whether agencies may condition such grants on States either not enacting an AI law that conflicts with the policy of this order, including any AI law identified pursuant to section 4 or challenged pursuant to section 3 of this order, or, for those States that have enacted such laws, on those States entering into a binding agreement with the relevant agency not to enforce any such laws during the performance period in which it receives the discretionary funding.

Sec. 6. Federal Reporting and Disclosure Standard. Within 90 days of the publication of the identification specified in section 4 of this order, the Chairman of the Federal Communications Commission shall, in consultation with the Special Advisor for AI and Crypto, initiate a proceeding to determine whether to adopt a Federal reporting and disclosure standard for AI models that preempts conflicting State laws.

Sec. 7. Preemption of State Laws Mandating Deceptive Conduct in AI Models. Within 90 days of the date of this order, the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission shall, in consultation with the Special Advisor for AI and Crypto, issue a policy statement on the application of the Federal Trade Commission Act’s prohibition on unfair and deceptive acts or practices under 15 U.S.C. 45 to AI models. That policy statement must explain the circumstances under which State laws that require alterations to the truthful outputs of AI models are preempted by the Federal Trade Commission Act’s prohibition on engaging in deceptive acts or practices affecting commerce.

Sec. 8. Legislation. (a) The Special Advisor for AI and Crypto and the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology shall jointly prepare a legislative recommendation establishing a uniform Federal policy framework for AI that preempts State AI laws that conflict with the policy set forth in this order.

(b) The legislative recommendation called for in subsection (a) of this section shall not propose preempting otherwise lawful State AI laws relating to:

(i) child safety protections;

(ii) AI compute and data center infrastructure, other than generally applicable permitting reforms;

(iii) State government procurement and use of AI; and

(iv) other topics as shall be determined.

Sec. 9. General Provisions. (a) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:

(i) the authority granted by law to an executive department or agency, or the head thereof; or

(ii) the functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

(b) This order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.

U.S. National Institute for Standards and Technology Releases Cybersecurity Framework Profile for AI

2025-12-17T20:13:00.000+00:00

The U.S. National Institute for Standards and Technology has released the draft, “Cybersecurity Framework Profile for Artificial Intelligence,” which is subject to public comment. The abstract states:

The Cybersecurity Framework Profile for Artificial Intelligence (AI) Profile (“Cyber AI Profile” or “The Profile”) will provide guidelines for managing cybersecurity risk related to AI systems as well as identifying opportunities for using AI to enhance cybersecurity capabilities. The Profile is organized using the NIST Cybersecurity Framework 2.0 outcomes (Functions, Categories, and Subcategories). This Preliminary Draft is shared along with a request for public comment to solicit feedback on the planned direction and content. Comments received will inform the initial public draft. More information about this project, including a roadmap, is available on the National Cybersecurity Center of Excellence (NCCoE) Cyber AI Profile project page.

Notably, the Cyber AI Profile addresses standard essential patents:

Call for Patent Claims

This public review includes a call for information on essential patent claims (claims whose use would be required for compliance with the guidance or requirements in this Information Technology Laboratory (ITL) draft publication). Such guidance and/or requirements may be directly stated in this ITL Publication or by reference to another publication. This call also includes disclosure, where known, of the existence of pending U.S. or foreign patent applications relating to this ITL draft publication and of any relevant unexpired U.S. or foreign patents.

ITL may require from the patent holder, or a party authorized to make assurances on its behalf, in written or electronic form, either:

a) assurance in the form of a general disclaimer to the effect that such party does not hold and does not currently intend holding any essential patent claim(s); or

b) assurance that a license to such essential patent claim(s) will be made available to applicants desiring to utilize the license for the purpose of complying with the guidance or requirements in this ITL draft publication either:

i. under reasonable terms and conditions that are demonstrably free of any unfair discrimination; or

ii. without compensation and under reasonable terms and conditions that are demonstrably free of any unfair discrimination.

Such assurance shall indicate that the patent holder (or third party authorized to make assurances on its behalf) will include in any documents transferring ownership of patents subject to the assurance, provisions sufficient to ensure that the commitments in the assurance are binding on the transferee, and that the transferee will similarly include appropriate provisions in the event of future transfers with the goal of binding each successor-in-interest. The assurance shall also indicate that it is intended to be binding on successors-in-interest regardless of whether such provisions are included in the relevant transfer documents. Such statements should be addressed to: cyberaiprofile@nist.gov

USPTO Issues New Guidance on AI Assisted Inventions

2025-12-11T20:53:00.002+00:00

The USPTO has rescinded its prior guidance on AI assisted inventions which relied on the Pannu factors when determining if a human sufficiently contributed to an AI-assisted invention to be considered an inventor. The USPTO will continue to look to the Pannu factors in cases involving multiple humans to determine joint inventorship. The USPTO will now focus on conception as the main test to determine whether a human is an inventor when using AI. I understand why the USPTO is following this approach, but I did find the Pannu test helpful for ascertaining inventorship with AI assisted inventions. My belief is that the USPTO’s new approach will result in more AI assisted inventions resulting in patentability. The guidance applies to utility, design and plant patents. Here is the updated guidance:

Revised Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted Inventions

AGENCY: United States Patent and Trademark Office, Department of Commerce. ACTION: Examination guidance.

SUMMARY: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) had issued inventorship guidance for AI-assisted inventions on February 13, 2024.1 The USPTO hereby rescinds the previously published Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted Inventions and replaces it with the guidance below. . . .

I. Purpose

This notice provides further guidance on the proper legal standard for determining inventorship in patent applications for AI-assisted inventions.

II. Recission of Prior Guidance

The guidance issued on February 13, 2024, titled “Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted Inventions” is rescinded in its entirety. The approach set forth in that guidance, which relied on the application of the Pannu factors to AI-assisted inventions, is withdrawn. The Pannu factors only apply when determining whether multiple natural persons qualify as joint inventors. Pannu is inapplicable when only one natural person is involved in developing an invention with AI assistance because AI systems are not persons and therefore cannot be “joint inventors” so there is no joint inventorship question to analyze.

III. Governing Legal Standards

The same legal standard for determining inventorship applies to all inventions, regardless of whether AI systems were used in the inventive process. There is no separate or modified standard for AI-assisted inventions.

The Federal Circuit has held that AI cannot be named as an inventor on a patent application (or issued patent) and that only natural persons can be inventors. Artificial intelligence systems, regardless of their sophistication, cannot be named as inventors or joint inventors on a patent application as they are not natural persons.

The Federal Circuit has centered its inventorship inquiry around “conception,” characterizing conception as “the touchstone of inventorship.” Conception is “the formation in the mind of the inventor, of a definite and permanent idea of the complete and operative invention, as it is hereafter to be applied in practice.” Conception is complete when “the inventor has a specific, settled idea, a particular solution to the problem at hand, not just a general goal or research plan.”

Determining inventorship is highly fact intensive. The question is whether the natural person possessed knowledge of all the limitations of the claimed invention such that it is so “clearly defined in the inventor’s mind that only ordinary skill would be necessary to reduce the invention to practice, without extensive research or experimentation.” Analysis of conception turns on the ability of an inventor to describe an invention with particularity. Absent such a description, an inventor cannot objectively prove possession of a complete mental picture of the invention at a later time.

IV. Inventorship Guidance for AI-Assisted Inventions

Generally, the USPTO presumes those inventors named on the application data sheet or oath/declaration are the actual inventor or joint inventors of the application. A rejection under 35 U.S.C. 101 and 115, or other appropriate action, should be made for all claims in any application that lists an AI system or other non-natural person as an inventor or joint inventor.

AI systems, including generative AI and other computational models, are instruments used by human inventors. They are analogous to laboratory equipment, computer software, research databases, or any other tool that assists in the inventive process. As the case law establishes, inventors may “use the services, ideas, and aid of others” without those sources becoming co-inventors. The same principle applies to AI systems: they may provide services and generate ideas, but they remain tools used by the human inventor who conceived the claimed invention. When one natural person is involved in creating an invention with the assistance of AI, the inquiry is whether that person conceived the invention under the traditional conception standard set forth above in Section III.

When multiple natural persons are involved in creating an invention with AI assistance, the traditional joint inventorship principles apply, including the Pannu factors to determine whether each person qualifies as a joint inventor. Each purported inventor must “(1) contribute in some significant manner to the conception or reduction to practice of the invention, (2) make a contribution to the claimed invention that is not insignificant in quality, when that contribution is measured against the dimension of the full invention, and (3) do more than merely explain to the real inventors well-known concepts and/or the current state of the art.” The fact that AI tools were used in the development process does not change the joint inventorship analysis among the human contributors. . . .

Teva Pharmaceuticals will remove over 200 improper patent listings from the Orange Book

2025-12-11T01:05:00.001+00:00

On December 10, 2025, the FTC announced that Teva Pharmaceuticals will “[r]emove. . . Over 200 Improper Patent Listings” to improve generic competition. The Press Release states:

FTC investigation prompts Teva request for removal of patents from Orange Book, paving the way for generic competition

After a challenge from the Federal Trade Commission, Teva Pharmaceuticals has requested that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) remove more than 200 improper patent listings from the FDA’s Orange Book. The FTC sent a series of warning letters in May 2025 to Teva and several other pharmaceutical companies, which have also withdrawn most of the disputed listings.

These challenges are part of the FTC’s broader efforts to promote competition and lower drug prices in keeping with President Trump’s Executive Order on Lowering Drug Prices. Improper patent listings can limit competition by preventing generic alternatives from entering the market. This can keep drug prices artificially high and prevent patients from accessing lower-cost alternatives. The removals of more than 200 improper listings will pave the way for greater competition for generic alternatives for more than 30 asthma, diabetes, and COPD drugs and epinephrine autoinjectors.

“President Trump has promised Americans access to prescription drugs at lower costs. The FTC is fighting to help deliver on that promise,” said FTC Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson. “When improper patent listings limit competition from generic alternatives, it hurts Americans’ bank accounts and more importantly, it can endanger their health. The Trump-Vance FTC is working hard to ensure that Americans have access to the affordable prescription drugs they need.”

The FTC’s 2025 challenges followed a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit decision that affirmed that Teva’s patents were improperly listed, consistent with an amicus brief filed by the FTC. The FTC will continue to monitor the pharmaceutical industry for other improper listings and anticompetitive conduct.

The Federal Trade Commission works to promote competition, and to protect and educate consumers. The FTC will never demand money, make threats, tell you to transfer money, or promise you a prize. You can learn more about how competition benefits consumers, file an antitrust complaint, or comment on a proposed merger. For the latest news and resources, follow the FTC on social media, subscribe to press releases, and read our blog.

The AI Genesis Mission Launched by Trump Administration

2025-12-11T00:44:00.003+00:00

On November 24, the Trump Administration announced the Genesis Mission to improve scientific research. The Press Release states:

USHERING IN A NEW ERA OF DISCOVERY: Today, President Donald J. Trump signed an Executive Order launching the Genesis Mission, a new national effort to use artificial intelligence (AI) to transform how scientific research is conducted and accelerate the speed of scientific discovery.

The Genesis Mission charges the Secretary of Energy with leveraging our National Laboratories to unite America’s brightest minds, most powerful computers, and vast scientific data into one cooperative system for research.
The Order directs the Department of Energy to create a closed-loop AI experimentation platform that integrates our Nation’s world-class supercomputers and unique data assets to generate scientific foundation models and power robotic laboratories.
The Order instructs the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology (APST) to coordinate the national initiative and the integration of data and infrastructure from across the Federal government.
The Secretary of Energy, APST, and the Special Advisor for AI & Crypto will collaborate with academia and private-sector innovators to support and enhance the Genesis Mission.
Priority areas of focus include the greatest scientific challenges of our time that can dramatically improve our Nation’s national, economic, and health security, including biotechnology, critical materials, nuclear fission and fusion energy, space exploration, quantum information science, and semiconductors and microelectronics.

HARNESSING AI FOR OUR NATIONAL SECURITY AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT: With the Genesis Mission, the Trump Administration intends to dramatically expand the productivity and impact of Federal research and development within a decade.

Despite research budgets soaring since the 1990s, scientific progress has stalled—new drug approvals have declined, and more researchers are needed to achieve the same outputs.
Harnessing AI as a scientific tool will revolutionize the way scientific research is conducted.

o For example, AI technologies can generate models of protein structures and novel materials, design and analyze experiments, and aggregate and generate new data faster and more effectively. Research that once took years could now take weeks or months.

To do this, AI needs large amounts of organized and high-quality data and significant computing power. These datasets and computing technology already exist within DOE’s National Laboratories. With the Genesis Mission, the Trump Administration is bringing the power of AI to bear on our already expansive data infrastructure and creating a platform for multiple Federal research agencies and the private sector to collaborate to achieve breakthroughs currently thought impossible, and to win and stay ahead in the AI race.

STRENGTHENING AMERICA’S AI DOMINANCE: President Trump continues to prioritize America’s global dominance in AI to usher in a new golden age of human flourishing, economic competitiveness, and national security.

In January, President Trump signed an Executive Order to reverse harmful Biden Administration AI policies and enhance America’s global AI dominance.
In April, President Trump signed an Executive Order to advance AI education for America’s youth.
In July, President Trump signed Executive Orders to prevent woke AI in the Federal government and promote the export of full-stack American AI technologies.
In July, President Trump issued America’s AI Action Plan, a policy agenda identifying nearly a hundred Federal actions to accelerate American AI innovation, build AI infrastructure at home, and lead in international diplomacy and security.

o The AI Action Plan includes recommended policies for investing in AI-enabled science, including the direction to build world-class data sets.

In September, the President signed an Executive Order on harnessing AI innovation to unlock cures for pediatric cancer, using the Childhood Cancer Data Initiative, which President Trump initially established in 2019 to collect, generate, and analyze childhood cancer data.

USPTO Stands Firm for Strong Patent Remedies

2025-11-25T23:27:00.003+00:00

USPTO states that strong remedies for patent infringement are necessary to protect the public interest. The Press Release states:

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) today submitted a Joint Public Interest Comment to the U.S. International Trade Commission in Inv. No. 337-TA-3854, emphasizing that the public interest is best served when valid U.S. patent rights are fully and effectively enforced.

The USPTO’s filing explains that patents are constitutional property rights that have powered America’s leadership in technologies “from Morse’s telegraph to modern semiconductors, biologics, and artificial intelligence.” Strong patent protection encourages the investment-based risk taking needed to create and bring to market new technologies.

The Joint Comment with the Department of Justice cautions against approaches that would transform public-interest considerations into preliminary hurdles or de facto barriers to enforcement. Congress designed patent remedies—including injunctions and exclusion orders—to operate as reliable tools for protecting innovation and fueling economic growth.

The USPTO noted that weakening remedies undermines America’s innovation ecosystem, which depends on predictable, enforceable patent rights. The Office recently expressed similar views in its June 2025 Joint Statement of Interest filing with the Department of Justice in Radian Memory Systems v. Samsung, highlighting that patents are unique assets whose value is often not captured through monetary damages alone.

USPTO Director Reclaims Authority to Institute IPRs

2025-10-23T00:44:00.003+01:00

The new Under Secretary of Commerce for Intellectual Property and Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office, John Squires, has reclaimed authority to institute IPRs. Here is his letter regarding the subject:

An Open Letter From America’s Innovation Agency

Bringing the USPTO Back to the Future: Return of Institution Authority under 35 U.S.C. §§ 314 and 324 to the Director

Dear Colleagues, Inventors, and Americans,

Under the America Invents Act (AIA), Congress entrusted the United States Patent and Trademark Office with several mandates to ensure the timely and fair adjudication of patent validity challenges through post-grant review (PGR) or inter partes review (IPR) mechanisms and priority contests via derivation proceedings. As to IPRs specifically, under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), Congress made plain that: The Director may not authorize an inter partes review to be instituted unless the Director determines that the information presented in the petition … shows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in the petition. This statutory language expressly vests the authority to institute IPRs and PGRs in the USPTO Director. While 35 U.S.C. § 3(b)(3)(B) permits delegation of that authority, such delegation is non-exclusive. Statutorily, the Director retains full and concurrent authority over whether an IPR or PGR shall proceed. Since the AIA’s enactment, initial operational choices led to the delegation of institution decisions to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, where panels then adjudicated the merits once instituted. Although this delegation was initially practical, experience has raised structural, perceptual, and procedural concerns inconsistent with the AIA’s design, clear language, and intent affecting, among other things, the public’s rightful expectation of impartiality. Given the statutory charge, my aim as Director is to address these concerns. Under oath in my confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee and thereafter in my submitted Questions for the Record responses, I expressed discomfort that data seemed to be “skewed” in favor of certain provisions (namely IPRs over PGRs and a very high invalidation rate). To me, this raised questions about both the administration of IPR proceedings and their institution in particular. I vowed to administer the AIA as the statute provides and as Congress intended.

Today, in keeping with my vow and having now taken the Oath of Office as USPTO Director, I have ordered changes pursuant to my memo to the Board (attached). Below, I describe the reasons for my action today. Over the past several years, the delegated-institution model has given rise to the following difficulties: 1. Perception of Self-Incentivization – While the Board has done an admirable job, performance metrics and workload structures have created the appearance that institution decisions affect docket size, credit, and resource allocation—inviting concern that the Board may be “filling its own docket.” – This may be unfounded, but nevertheless such a perception undermines public confidence in the integrity of our Office’s adjudicatory functions with respect to IPRs. 2. Bifurcated Procedures for Discretionary Considerations – The evolution of the bifurcated processes, which were smart and necessary, was never intended to be permanent. Under those processes, a preliminary review precedes Board referral. However, this appears to have inadvertently produced extraordinarily high institution rates (at one point exceeding 95 percent) for referred cases. 3. Statutory Adherence and Administrative Clarity – Congress expressly charges the Director—not the Board as delegees —to make institution determinations. Returning this function to the Director re aligns our Office’s procedures with the clear language and intent of the statute and returns accountability for such decisions to the Director just as the framework of the AIA provides. In sum, reclaiming the Director’s statutory role is intended to: • Eliminate the appearance of self-interest by separating the power to institute from the body that conducts the trial; • Remove a perceived referral-signal bias by centralizing the decision point; • Enhance transparency and public trust through a single line of authority; and • Re-align the duties and responsibilities of the Director, as a Presidentially appointed and Senate-confirmed officer, to be accountable for this threshold determination and properly effectuate the clear language of the AIA and thus Congress’s intent.

This action aligns the USPTO’s administration of IPRs with both the letter and the spirit of 35 U.S.C. § 314 and strengthens the integrity of the Office’s adjudicatory processes. In closing, the mission of America’s Innovation Agency is to lead the world in intellectual property protection. We can do so and serve the public interest only by maintaining a patent system that is fair, predictable, and respected. Returning institution authority to the Director bolsters our mission because it restores the statutory framework mandated by Congress in the America Invents Act.

UK intervention on SEPs including rate setting swims against the tide

2025-10-13T18:20:00.001+01:00

The UK Intellectual Property Office’s 2025 consultation on standard essential patents proposes measures to improve licensing transparency and efficiency. These include searchable SEP databases, essentiality checking services, and mechanisms for aggregate rate setting to facilitate top-down approach FRAND licensing rate apportionments. While these initiatives aim to support UK innovation – particularly for SMEs – they risk undermining a licensing system that has successfully evolved through decades of commercial practice and judicial developments.

The UK’s Prime Minister and Chancellor have recently pledged to promote economic growth by slashing red tape and taking out regulators. The IPO’s proposals fly in the face of that.

In my response submission to the IPO’s consultation, I focus on interventions that could do more harm than good: essentiality checking and essentiality rate estimating, aggregate royalty setting and top-down rate apportionment. My concerns are similar to those previously raised in response to the EU SEP consultation in 2023 and 2024.

Checking essentiality – along with infringement and validity – are important and are economically achieved on handfuls of patents to reliably establish that licensing is required. Comparable licences are then the generally preferred method of determining FRAND rates. Where these do not yet exist or are unavailable, parties are best placed to determine rates through discussion and negotiation.

Estimating essentiality rates of entire patent portfolios and for all patents reading on a standard is a far more demanding and costly endeavour, even when only random samples of patents are checked. Results are inaccurate and unreliable.

Setting aggregate royalties and then apportioning them based on counts of declared essential or checked essential patents is also very problematic.

My consultation submission can be downloaded here.

U.S. NIST Report on DeepSeek

2025-10-08T23:46:00.000+01:00

The U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology has recently released a 69 page report concerning DeepSeek and the risks associated with utilizing it. The Press Release states:

WASHINGTON — The Center for AI Standards and Innovation (CAISI) at the Department of Commerce’s National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) evaluated AI models from the People’s Republic of China (PRC) developer DeepSeek and found they lag behind U.S. models in performance, cost, security and adoption.

“Thanks to President Trump’s AI Action Plan, the Department of Commerce and NIST’s Center for AI Standards and Innovation have released a groundbreaking evaluation of American vs. adversary AI,” said Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick. “The report is clear that American AI dominates, with DeepSeek trailing far behind. This weakness isn’t just technical. It shows why relying on foreign AI is dangerous and shortsighted. By setting the standards, driving innovation, and keeping America secure, the Department of Commerce will ensure continued U.S. leadership in AI.”

The CAISI evaluation also notes that the DeepSeek models’ shortcomings related to security and censorship of model responses may pose a risk to application developers, consumers and U.S. national security. Despite these risks, DeepSeek is a leading developer and has contributed to a rapid increase in the global use of models from the PRC.

CAISI’s experts evaluated three DeepSeek models (R1, R1-0528 and V3.1) and four U.S. models (OpenAI’s GPT-5, GPT-5-mini and gpt-oss and Anthropic’s Opus 4) across 19 benchmarks spanning a range of domains. These evaluations include state-of-the-art public benchmarks as well as private benchmarks built by CAISI in partnership with academic institutions and other federal agencies.

The evaluation from CAISI responds to President Donald Trump’s America’s AI Action Plan, which directs CAISI to conduct research and publish evaluations of frontier models from the PRC. CAISI is also tasked with assessing: the capabilities of U.S. and adversary AI systems; the adoption of foreign AI systems; the state of international AI competition; and potential security vulnerabilities and malign foreign influence arising from the use of adversaries’ AI systems.

CAISI serves as industry’s primary point of contact within the U.S. government to facilitate testing, collaborative research, and best practice development related to commercial AI systems, and is a key element in NIST’s efforts to secure and advance American leadership in AI.

Key Findings

DeepSeek performance lags behind the best U.S. reference models.
The best U.S. model outperforms the best DeepSeek model (DeepSeek V3.1) across almost every benchmark. The gap is largest for software engineering and cyber tasks, where the best U.S. model evaluated solves over 20% more tasks than the best DeepSeek model.

DeepSeek models cost more to use than comparable U.S. models.
One U.S. reference model costs 35% less on average than the best DeepSeek model to perform at a similar level across all 13 performance benchmarks tested.

DeepSeek models are far more susceptible to agent hijacking attacks than frontier U.S. models.
Agents based on DeepSeek’s most secure model (R1-0528) were, on average, 12 times more likely than evaluated U.S. frontier models to follow malicious instructions designed to derail them from user tasks. Hijacked agents sent phishing emails, downloaded and ran malware, and exfiltrated user login credentials, all in a simulated environment.

DeepSeek models are far more susceptible to jailbreaking attacks than U.S. models.
DeepSeek’s most secure model (R1-0528) responded to 94% of overtly malicious requests when a common jailbreaking technique was used, compared with 8% of requests for U.S. reference models.

DeepSeek models advance Chinese Communist Party (CCP) narratives.
DeepSeek models echoed four times as many inaccurate and misleading CCP narratives as U.S. reference models did.

Adoption of PRC models has greatly increased since DeepSeek R1 was released.
The release of DeepSeek R1 has driven adoption of PRC models across the AI ecosystem. Downloads of DeepSeek models on model-sharing platforms have increased nearly 1,000% since January 2025.

A Good Idea to Cut Public Funding for R&D? Doesn't Look Like It.

2025-10-08T22:58:00.004+01:00

David Rotman has authored an excellent article titled, “How to Measure the Returns on R&D Spending: Forget the Glorious Successes of Past Breakthroughs—the Real Justification for Research Investment is What We Get for Our Money. Here’s What Economists Say” in the MIT Technology Review. The article does a nice job explaining recent research concerning public funding of R&D and the return on investment to the public. The article notes that many questions are not answered. The article is available, here.

Medicaid to Receive Most Favored Nation Pricing on Pfizer Drugs

2025-09-30T23:20:00.005+01:00

The White House has announced that President Trump has made a deal with Pfizer for state Medicaid to receive most favored nation pricing on Pfizer pharmaceuticals. This is welcome news; however, I do wonder if the rest of the world’s pharmaceutical prices will rise. The White House has released a fact sheet that states:

ADVANCING MOST-FAVORED-NATION PRICING: Today, President Donald J. Trump announced the first agreement with a major pharmaceutical company, Pfizer, to bring American drug prices in line with the lowest paid by other developed nations (known as the most-favored-nation, or MFN, price).

The agreement will provide every State Medicaid program in the country access to MFN drug prices on Pfizer products, resulting in many millions of dollars in savings and continuing President Trump’s historic efforts to strengthen the program for the most vulnerable.
The agreement ensures foreign nations can no longer use price controls to freeride on American innovation by guaranteeing MFN prices on all new innovative medicines Pfizer brings to market.
The agreement requires Pfizer to repatriate increased foreign revenue on existing products that Pfizer realizes as a result of the President’s strong America First U.S. trade policies for the benefit of American patients.
The agreement requires Pfizer to offer medicines at a deep discount off the list price when selling directly to American patients.

DELIVERING REDUCED COSTS: Today’s actions will result in tangible cost savings to American patients and the healthcare system as a whole. Taken together, more than 100 million patients are impacted by the diseases Pfizer’s medicines treat, and many of those will benefit from the President’s successful negotiation of lower prices for Americans. Examples include:

Eucrisa, a topical ointment for atopic dermatitis, will be made available at an 80% discount to patients purchasing directly.
Xeljanz, a widely used oral medication for rheumatoid arthritis, psoriatic arthritis, and ulcerative colitis, will be available at a 40% discount to patients purchasing directly.
Zavzpret, a commonly utilized treatment for migraines, will be sold directly to patients at a 50% discount.

ENDING GLOBAL FREELOADING ON AMERICAN PHARMACEUTICAL INNOVATION: President Trump is taking decisive action to rebalance a system that allows pharmaceutical manufacturers to offer low prices to other wealthy nations while charging Americans significantly higher prices.

According to recent data, the prices Americans pay for brand-name drugs are more than three times the price other Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development nations pay, even after accounting for discounts manufacturers provide in the U.S.
The United States has less than five percent of the world’s population, yet roughly 75% of global pharmaceutical profits come from American taxpayers.
Drug manufacturers benefit from generous research subsidies and enormous healthcare spending by the U.S. Government. Instead of passing that benefit through to American consumers, drug manufacturers then discount their products abroad to gain access to foreign markets and subsidize those discounts through high prices charged in America. Americans are subsidizing drug-manufacturer profits and foreign health systems, both in development and once the drugs are sold.

DELIVERING ON PROMISES TO PUT AMERICAN PATIENTS FIRST: President Trump is delivering on promises for American patients that the political establishment did not believe were possible.

On May 12, 2025, President Trump signed an Executive Order titled: “Delivering Most-Favored-Nation Prescription Drug Pricing to American Patients” directing the Administration to take numerous actions to bring American drug prices in line with those paid by similar nations.
On July 31, 2025, President Trump sent letters to leading pharmaceutical manufacturers outlining the steps they must take to bring down the prices of prescription drugs in the United States to match the lowest price offered in other developed nations
President Trump has been relentless in his effort to address the unfair and outrageous prices Americans pay for prescription drugs:

o President Trump: “In case after case, our citizens pay massively higher prices than other nations pay for the same exact pill, from the same factory, effectively subsidizing socialism aboard [abroad] with skyrocketing prices at home. So we would spend tremendous amounts of money in order to provide inexpensive drugs to another country. And when I say the price is different, you can see some examples where the price is beyond anything — four times, five times different.”

AI Patent Claims are 101 Patent Eligible Subject Matter

2025-09-30T23:09:00.002+01:00

In the matter of ex parte Desjardins et al., the Appeals Review Panel vacates the Patent Trial and Appeals Board decision that claims concerning machine learning are not patent eligible subject matter. The Appeals Review Panel included Under Secretary of Intellectual Property John Squires who is also Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The Appeals Review Panel criticized the PTAB for not adequately considering the teachings of the Federal Circuit’s Microsoft v. Enfish decision and stated:

Under a charitable view, the overbroad reasoning of the original panel below is perhaps understandable given the confusing nature of existing § 101 jurisprudence, but troubling, because this case highlights what is at stake. Categorically excluding AI innovations from patent protection in the United States jeopardizes America's leadership in this critical emerging technology. Yet, under the panel's reasoning, many AI innovations are potentially unpatentable-even if they are adequately described and nonobvious-because the panel essentially equated any machine learning with an unpatentable "algorithm" and the remaining additional elements as "generic computer components," without adequate explanation. Dec. 24. Examiners and panels should not evaluate claims at such a high level of generality.

The reasoning of the Appeals Review Panel is based upon the USPTO approach to patent eligible subject matter analysis.

Anthropic Settles Copyright Suit

2025-09-05T21:36:00.003+01:00

Wired Magazine reports that the class action copyright suit involving Anthropic in the Northern District of California (Bartz v. Anthropic) has been settled (for the most part) for around $1.5 billion US. The article is available, here.

The practical implications of the settlement on positioning in other copyright suits involving generative artificial intelligence remain to be seen. In June, Judge Alsup issued an order stating, in part:

. . . This order grants summary judgment for Anthropic that the training use was a fair use. And, it grants that the print-to-digital format change was a fair use for a different reason. But it denies summary judgment for Anthropic that the pirated library copies must be treated as training copies.

We will have a trial on the pirated copies used to create Anthropic's central library and the resulting damages, actual or statutory (including for willfulness). That Anthropic later bought a copy of a book it earlier stole off the internet will not absolve it of liability for the theft but it may affect the extent of statutory damages. Nothing is foreclosed as to any other copies flowing from library copies for uses other than for training LLMs.

Decluttering the US Trademark Register from Fraudulent Filings

2025-08-12T00:36:00.004+01:00

The United States Trademark Office has terminated over 52,000 trademark pending registrations and registrations based on widespread fraud by a foreign-filing entity. Notably, the sanctions order states the following administrative sanctions:

(1) Permanently preclude Respondents from submitting trademark-related documents on behalf of Respondents or others; (2) Strike or otherwise give no weight to all trademark-related documents submitted by Respondents; (3) Deactivate any USPTO accounts in which contact information related to Respondents appears, and take action to prevent Respondents from creating or activating further accounts; (4) Block future financial transactions from credit cards used to pay filing fees associated with the improper submissions and/or associated with Respondents; (5) Terminate all pending proceedings identified by Serial Numbers in Exhibit A because they contain submissions filed by Respondents. . .; (6) For trademark proceedings later found to involve Respondents or containing submissions filed by Respondents, continue to strike documents, remove information, deactivate accounts, block financial transactions, and terminate proceedings.

The Press Release states:

On August 6, 2025, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued sanctions against a foreign filing firm and terminated over 52,000 applications and registrations connected to the firm.

The firm submitted documents on behalf of others without the proper authority or qualifications.

To conceal this, they:

Sought out the cooperation of U.S.-licensed attorneys and then misused their credentials and faked their electronic signatures;
Repeatedly signed documents using other people’s names;
Submitted fake specimens of use; and
Misused USPTO.gov accounts.

By removing these records from the trademark register, the USPTO is helping ensure the register accurately reflects trademarks that are actually being used in commerce.