IP Law Daily, STRATEGIC PERSPECTIVES—IP Daily’s top 10 developments for March 2026, (Apr 8, 2026)

By Cathleen Calhoun, J.D.

In case you missed the in-depth health law coverage in the March 2026 issues of Intellectual Property Law Daily, here are highlights of some of last month’s most notable developments.

In March, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a communications company in a copyright infringement case involving the music industry, reversing a decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. The White House unveiled its “National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence,” which includes recommendations to Congress regarding the intersection of AI and intellectual property rights. A Strategic Perspective article described recent supplemental examination guidance for high-tech images, such as projected or virtual reality (VR) interfaces, and looked at differing opinions regarding treatment of the “article of manufacture.” The appellate courts were also active. The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals vacated and remanded the district court’s default judgment against a group of online vendors accused of selling counterfeit products using infringing and counterfeit versions of a federally registered trademark. In a precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals vacated a $185 million jury verdict and related enhanced damages and attorney fees obtained by The Trustees of Columbia University against a cybersecurity software provider. Lower courts ruled on timely cases, including a decision in a NCAA March Madness college basketball trademark dispute.

COPYRIGHT—U.S.: Supreme Court finds Internet service provider Cox not liable for users’ music piracy

A company is not liable as a copyright infringer for merely providing a service to the general public with knowledge that it will be used by some to infringe copyrights, the U.S. Supreme Court has held in an important decision on Internet service provider (ISP) liability for users’ acts of music piracy. The Court reversed a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in an opinion authored by Justice Clarence Thomas. All nine justices agreed that the appellate court was incorrect in holding that ISP Cox Communications was contributorily and willfully liable for its users’ infringement, potentially putting Cox on the hook for $1 billion in statutory damages. Cox had been sued by many of the largest music publishers and recording labels, including Sony, Arista, EMI, Atlantic, Elektra, and UMG, which accused Cox of failing to prevent its customers from engaging in repeated acts of unlawful file-sharing. In the Court’s view, the record showed that Cox did not intend for its service to be used to commit copyright infringement. Justice Sonia Sotomayor filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, expressing a different rationale for the reversal—specifically that the music industry plaintiffs failed to show that Cox had the specific knowledge required to find intent under a common-law aiding-and-abetting theory. The concurring opinion also warns that the majority, by placing limitations on available theories of secondary liability for copyright infringement, “upends” the incentive system created by the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and renders its safe harbor “obsolete” (Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment, No. 24-171 (U.S. Mar. 25, 2026)).

TRADEMARK—S.D. Ind.: NCAA shoots for TRO against DraftKings and misses in March Madness dispute

The National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) has been denied a temporary restraining order (TRO) in its lawsuit against sports betting company DraftKings in a dispute over use of the NCAA’s marks associated with its basketball tournaments, including the “March Madness” name. An Indiana federal court determined that, although the organization demonstrated a likelihood of success on its trademark infringement, false association, and dilution claims under the Lanham Act, it failed to establish irreparable harm due to its delay in seeking relief. The court was also unpersuaded by DraftKings’ nominative fair use defense but concluded that the absence of urgency was dispositive at the TRO stage (National Collegiate Athletic Association v. DraftKings, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-00557-TWP-MG (S.D. Ind. Mar. 26, 2026)).

STRATEGIC PERSPECTIVES: New USPTO guidance on design patents for computer-generated images sparks debate

Design patent applicants and professionals assisting and representing them need to be aware of recent changes to the USPTO’s guidance to examiners. The changes concern the question of whether a design claim including a computer- generated electronic image constitutes statutory subject matter. This Strategic Perspectives article describes recent supplemental examination guidance for high-tech images, e.g., projected or virtual reality (VR) interfaces, and looks at differing opinions regarding treatment of the “article of manufacture.”

AI NEWS: White House releases AI policy framework; suggests AI training is ‘fair use’

The White House unveiled its “National Policy Framework for Artificial Intelligence,” which includes recommendations to Congress regarding the intersection of AI and intellectual property rights. “The creative works and unique identities of American innovators, creators, and publishers must be respected in the age of AI,” an announcement on WhiteHouse.gov said. “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.” The framework also addresses the problem of unauthorized AI-generated replicas of individuals, or “deepfakes.”

TRADEMARK—7th Cir.: Appellate court finds screenshots of online listings insufficient to establish personal jurisdiction

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit vacated and remanded the district court’s default judgment against a group of online vendors accused of selling counterfeit products using infringing and counterfeit versions of the plaintiff’s federally registered trademark to residents of Illinois. The appellate court held that the district court erred in relying on checkout-page screenshots rather than evidence of actual Illinois sales to assert jurisdiction in the case (Liu v. Monthly, No. 25-2074 (7th Cir. Mar. 9, 2026)).

COPYRIGHT—S.D.N.Y.: Songwriter’s infringement claims may proceed based on valid copyright registration

A federal district court in the Southern District of New York denied a motion to dismiss this copyright infringement suit brought by the songwriter/lyricist of a title that was a Top Ten charted R&B song in 2024. Jacques Bermon Webster II, a rapper who is known professionally as Travis Scott, as well as his record label and publishing company “Cactus Jack Records,” and Sony music company, opposed the infringement action on the basis that the songwriter’s copyright registrations were invalid. They argued primarily that the lyricist knowingly omitted material information about the authorship of the work when she submitted the first of her two registrations to the U.S. Copyright Office. Their allegations—drawn from a single paragraph in the Second Amended Complaint (SAC)—were threadbare. As a result, the lyricist for the Travis Scott song “Telekinesis” advanced her suit (Boyd v. Webster II, No. 1:25-cv-00181-MKV (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 9, 2026)).

PUBLICITY RIGHTS NEWS: Class action complaint alleges Grammarly’s AI ‘Expert Review‘ function misappropriates names and identities of journalists, authors, writers, and editors

Grammarly’s “Expert Review” function offered to paying subscribers, which purports to provide feedback on customers’ writing from well-known journalists, writers, authors, and editors (the Experts), misappropriates the Experts’ names and identities in violation of California common law and New York and California publicity rights statutes because Grammarly neither sought nor obtained the Experts’ consent, a new class action complaint filed in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York alleges. Journalist Angwin, purportedly on behalf of a class of “hundreds” of Experts whose names and identities are used by Grammarly, brought claims for violation of California’s common law right to publicity/misappropriation of likeness, violation of California’s and New York’s respective publicity right statutes (California Civil Code § 3344, New York Civil Rights Law §§ 50 and 51), and unjust enrichment against Superhuman Platform, Inc., the owner and operator of Grammarly. Angwin seeks declaratory and injunctive relief, damages, attorney fees, and pre- and post-judgment interest (Angwin v. Superhuman Platform, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-02005 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 11, 2026)).

SUPREME COURT NEWS—Challenge to human authorship requirement will not be heard by the Supreme Court

A challenge to longstanding Copyright Office policy that refuses to accept registration of works by non-human authors will not be heard by the Supreme Court. The Court, in denying a petition for certiorari by an inventor and developer of generative artificial intelligence technology, leaves in place a policy that has been repeatedly upheld by the federal courts and that was deemed to arise, in the words of the appellate court that most recently confronted the issue, “squarely out of the text of the Copyright Act” (Thaler v. Perlmutter, Dkt. No. 25-449 (U.S. cert. den. Mar. 2, 2026)).

PATENT—Fed. Cir.: $185 million verdict against Norton vacated; cybersecurity patents deemed abstract and sanctions order reversed

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit vacated a $185 million jury verdict and related enhanced damages and attorney fees awards obtained by The Trustees of Columbia University against cybersecurity software provider Gen Digital Inc., formerly known as Symantec Corporation. The appellate court held that the asserted patent claims were directed to the abstract idea of comparing program behavior against a model to detect anomalies and remanded the case for further proceedings under step two of the Alice framework. The court also concluded that the district court improperly allowed damages based on foreign software sales and reversed a related civil contempt sanction imposed on Norton’s counsel, which had contributed to the enhancement of damages and fees (Trustees Of Columbia University v. Gen Digital Inc. and Trustees Of Columbia University v. Gen Digital Inc. (order involving contempt finding), Nos. 2024-1243 and 2024-1244 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 11, 2026)).

TRADEMARK—N.D. Cal.: AI software company’s motion to dismiss granted in part over use of GLEAN mark

The U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California granted in part and denied in part an AI software company’s motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) and denied the motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(7) regarding the use of the “GLEAN” trademark. The district court dismissed the claims for false designation of origin under the Lanham Act and trademark infringement under the Lanham Act and common law with leave to amend with respect to two trademarks. However, the Unfair Competition Law (UCL) claim to the extent that the trademark owner seeks to recover damages and the unjust enrichment claim were dismissed without leave to amend (Glean IP Holdings Inc. v. Glean Technologies, Inc., No. 3:25-cv-08536-RFL (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2026)).

MainStory: Copyright Patent PublicityRights TechnologyInternet Trademark SupremeCtNews FedCirNews AINews USPTO