Irfan Lateef and Ted Cannon Co-Author Piece on Notable Developments in IP Case Law for ABA

Knobbe Martens partners Irfan Lateef and Ted Cannon co-authored “Recent Developments in Intellectual Property Law 2025,” a chapter in the ABA Business and Corporate Law Section’s “Recent Developments in Business & Corporate Litigation” publication. The chapter focuses on key developments in intellectual property law in the U.S. during the past year, focusing on key patent, copyright, and trademark cases.

The authors note that a key theme in patent law over the past year was the Federal Circuit’s shift toward more flexible standards, notably in LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Tech. Ops., where the court overruled the rigid Rosen-Durling test for design patent obviousness in favor of the broader Graham framework. Lateef and Cannon also explore other important patent cases, such as Brumfield v. IBG and EcoFactor v. Google, which examined the boundaries of damages for foreign sales and the admissibility of expert testimony, respectively, and Contour v. GoPro and IOENGINE v. Ingenico, which clarified patent eligibility and the scope of the printed matter doctrine. The chapter also addresses nuanced statutory and legal interpretations, such as in Sanho v. Kaijet and Allergan v. MSN Labs, which refined the treatment of public disclosures and double patenting.

In the copyright and trademark sections, Lateef and Cannon looked at the evolving jurisprudence on fair use and First Amendment implications. This includes the Supreme Court’s decision in Warner Chappell v. Nealy, which affirmed that timely copyright claims may recover damages regardless of when infringement occurred, while different circuit courts applied the Supreme Court’s Warhol precedent to assess transformative use with varying outcomes. In the trademark law space, the authors note that Vidal v. Elster upheld the USPTO’s refusal to register marks containing living individuals’ names without consent, reinforcing viewpoint-neutral restrictions. Meanwhile, Crocs v. Effervescent expanded Lanham Act liability to false claims of patent protection that mislead consumers about product quality. Collectively, Lateef and Cannon write, these decisions underscore the courts’ efforts to balance innovation, expression, and consumer protection within the IP landscape.

The full chapter may be found here [subscription required].