Skip to content

The Beckham Family Trademark Drama Explained

Brett Trout

The Beckham family is facing internal trademark and branding issues that have become part of a much bigger public feud involving Brooklyn Beckham and his parents David and Victoria Beckham. What started as business plans and trademark filings has now tangled with personal issues, creating a headline?making story about family, fame, and legal rights.

In this article, we break down what is known about the Beckham family trademark issues, how legal rights to the Brooklyn Beckham’s name became controversial, and what it means for Brooklyn’s business and personal relationships.

What Happened With the Brooklyn Beckham Trademark Filing

Brooklyn Beckham, the eldest son of sports legend David Beckham and fashion designer Victoria Beckham, previously filed trademark applications for name?related business ventures. These were meant to protect brands tied to his own creative projects, including culinary goods and other products, but they hit legal challenges:

  • Brooklyn withdrew one trademark application after objections, reportedly amid tensions over branding rights within the family. This came after his attempt to secure exclusive use of his name for business purposes. 
  • He later faced opposition from an unrelated company, German brewery Beck’s, when trying to trademark a new product name tied to his food brand. Beck’s filed to block the application, leading to legal back?and?forth. 

Trademark challenges like these are common when names overlap across businesses. But in Brooklyn’s case, they came at a time of increasing family conflict about how the Beckham brand is used and who controls rights to it.

How the Trademark Issue Tied Into Family Tension

The trademark situation isn’t just about business filings. Brooklyn has publicly claimed that his parents pressured him to sign away certain rights to his own name before his 2022 wedding, in the form of a branding rights agreement that could affect his future ventures and earnings. According to Brooklyn, that pressure was a key source of strain. 

This claim has not been confirmed by David or Victoria Beckham in detail, but it has fueled a very public rift:

  • Brooklyn says his parents wanted him to sign over rights to his name before his wedding, a move he says would have impacted his, and his family’s, future financial rights. 
  • He also issued a cease and desist, telling his parents to communicate only through lawyers. 

What started as business and branding concerns has merged with emotional family issues, and trademark rights are now part of the conversation about control, legacy, and individuality.

What Legal Trademark Rights Are at Stake

To understand what is happening, it helps to know what trademark filings do:

Trademark Basics

  • A trademark gives the owner exclusive rights to use a name, logo, or phrase in association with the sale of specific goods or services.
  • For public figures like the Beckhams, trademarks may cover clothing lines, food products, media, and more.
  • Filing a family name trademark can be complex when multiple family members want to use their own names for their own ventures.

Why Conflicts Happen

  • If Brooklyn characterizes his name rights as tied to a Beckham family brand, and his parents hold or control many related trademarks, there can be real legal disputes.
  • Objections from third parties like other companies (for example, Beck’s beer) illustrate that trademark rights are not automatic simply because of a famous last name. 

While David and Victoria Beckham have owned many “Beckham” trademarks for decades, this case involves Brooklyn Beckham wanting to use his own name to promote various products. In 2016, Victoria Beckham registered, as parent of Brooklyn Beckham, a European trademark and a UK trademark for “Brooklyn Beckham” as used in association with cleaning products, recording instruments, magazines, leather products, clothing, etc. Unless renewed, these trademark registrations are set to expire in December of 2026. 

Additionally, Brooklyn Beckham has indicated an interested in using his own name to promote other products as well. So while it is not clear, the current controversy may relate to the ownership of the “Brooklyn Beckham” trademarks, Brooklyn Beckham’s right to use his name on other products, or both. 

These types of high-profile trademark disputes are often resolved through negotiation, licensing agreements, or court challenges. When high?profile family members are pitted against one another, given the risk of the public airing of the family’s dirty laundry, resolving those rights privately is ideal. Unfortunately, in this case, as in many others, public tension and scrutiny can make private solutions harder to reach.

Why This Matters for the Beckham Brand

The Beckham name is globally recognized, largely because of:

  • David Beckham’s legendary football career, and
  • Victoria Beckham’s long?running fashion success. 

Together, the family name has major commercial value. That makes issues of who owns or controls trademark rights in the Beckham trademarks highly significant for future business opportunities.

For Brooklyn, if he truly refuses to affiliate with the Beckham family brand or give up rights to his name, it could have real financial and branding consequences. Some analysts say distancing from the Beckham name could cost him in endorsements or negotiations if his surname has been a key value driver in partnerships. 

What’s Next

Trademark filings and legal disputes can take years to settle. If the Beckham family cannot resolve their differences privately:

  • More trademark filings could be contested or revoked,
  • Agreements may need court clarification on ownership,
  • And related business ventures may suffer delays or extra cost.

At the same time, Brooklyn’s public comments about alleged pressure over his name rights highlight how personal and legal conflicts can merge when the trademark issues center on real family relationships.

For anyone watching from the outside, the Beckham trademark story serves as a reminder: fame and family do not always equate to trademark harmony.

Related posts

Posted in Trademark Law, Trademark lawyer, Trademarks. Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , .

By Brett Trout
January 20, 2026

rev="post-3526" No comments

New Patents Reveal the Coming Humanoid Robot Invasion

Brett Trout

The world of robotics is changing so fast that movie screen fantasy is quickly transitioning into patented product reality. Recent patent trends and big company moves show that humanoid robots are not just science fiction anymore. The future is closer than you may think.

China Leads the Patent Charge

China has broadly surged ahead of other countries in humanoid robot innovation. Over the past five years, China has filed around five times more humanoid robot patent applications than the United States. In that time, China recorded more than 7,700 patent applications related to humanoid robots versus just over 1,500 for the U.S. and about 1,100 for Japan. While the quantity of patent applications is not necessarily a sign of the quality of those applications, in this case, it seems pretty clear that, when it comes to humanoid robot innovation, China does not only hold a significant lead over the rest of the world, but that lead is increasing.

These recently filed patent applications cover a wide range of technologies that allow robots to move, see, balance, and interact with the world in humanlike ways. These innovations are not just theoretical. Online videos and innovations trade shows are revealing more and more of what humanoid robots can do. At a press conference for this year’s Consumer Electronics Show (CES) 2026, Korean tech company LG demonstrated its AI consumer home robot “CLOiD.” CLOiD connects to your Internet of Thngs (IoT) appliances to perform household chores like cooking and doing your laundry. 

Why These Patents Matter

Patent applications are often a strong clue about where technology is going. When companies invest in patents, they are betting on future markets. With humanoid robots, patents help protect new ways for robots to:

  • move like humans
  • sense their surroundings
  • make decisions with artificial intelligence
  • work safely alongside people

More patents mean more investment, more competition, and faster movement from lab prototypes to real products.

Hyundai and the Move to Deploy Robots

The shift from patents to real robots at the consumer level pales in comparison to the commercial shift toward humanoid robots. Hyundai Motor Group is among the companies preparing for a robot-rich future. At CES 2026, Hyundai outlined a major strategy to bring artificial intelligence and robotics together. Hyundai showed plans to build human-centered robots that work alongside humans.

Hyundai is also integrating robots into its factories. Through its ownership of Boston Dynamics (the company that makes the cute, but creepy dog-like robots), Hyundai already uses robots like the Atlas humanoid robot in industrial settings. The company plans to gradually deploy Atlas robots in real production work, starting with tasks like parts handling and repeating motions. 

In the United States, Hyundai has looked at using Atlas robots and other machines at its Metaplant America facility in Georgia. The company aims to have robots handle the more hazardous, repetitive, or physically demanding work, while human workers focus on oversight, training, and robot supervision.  

What This Means for the Future

All these developments, patent filings, product launches, and deployment plans, point to a future where humanoid robots are part of everyday work and life:

  • Factories will change as robots assist or replace humans in difficult or repetitive jobs.
  • Innovation will accelerate as companies protect and commercialize new robot technologies.
  • Workplaces may evolve with humans supervising robot teams rather than doing tasks themselves.

Some people may worry about robots replacing human workers, but the current industry focus is on collaboration and assistance rather than full replacement. Robots are designed to take on tasks that are dangerous or exhausting, while people provide oversight, problem-solving, and creative judgment.

Conclusion

The rise of humanoid robots is no longer only science fiction. Patent application filings, especially from global leaders like China, shows how aggressively the world is preparing for this shift. At the same time, Hyundai and others are already rolling out real-world robotics programs that will shape how we work and interact with machines.

Taken together, these trends suggest that a humanoid robot future is arriving sooner, rather than later. Over the next few years, you will begin to see humanoid robots start taking an active role in nearly every industry. While this bodes well for global productivity, you might want to rewatch Terminator 2 to make sure you are familiar with what to do if things go south.  

Related posts

Posted in AI, Artificial Intelligence, Patent Law, Patent Lawyer, Patent process. Tagged with , , , , , , , .

By Brett Trout
January 6, 2026

rev="post-3511" No comments

What the New National AI Policy Means for Your Business

Brett Trout

Back in October, I wrote about how states like California, Texas, Utah, and Colorado were punishing small businesses by implementing growing morass of disjointed mandatory state regulations on the use of AI. I wrote that what this country needs is not a hodge-podge of rent-seeking state regulations, but one clear national standard. This month, President Trump took the first steps in that direction, by signing a key Executive Order setting a national policy framework for artificial intelligence (AI). The goal of this policy is to give companies and innovators clear, national rules instead of a mountain of haphazard state laws that could slow AI development and make compliance costly.  

If your business uses AI technology, builds AI tools, or plans to integrate AI in the near future, this policy could shape how you compete, grow, and manage risk.

Why a National AI Framework Matters

Artificial intelligence is a foundational technology across industries—from healthcare and finance to manufacturing and defense. Lawmakers and regulators want to balance innovation, safety, and economic growth in a way that helps U.S. businesses lead globally. A unified approach, according to the White House, will:

  • Prevent a confusing patchwork of different rules in every state.  
  • Make it easier to invest in and scale AI systems across the country.  
  • Support U.S. competitiveness against global rivals such as China.  

Right now, more than a thousand local AI regulations and state proposals risk creating inconsistent requirements that burden companies and slow innovation. The new federal policy aims to clear that confusion.  

What the National AI Policy Framework Does

Here are the key points you should know:

1. Federal Standards Override Conflicting State Rules

The federal government will work to make sure one clear set of AI rules applies nationwide, reducing red tape for startups and large companies alike.  

2. National AI Leadership Is a Priority

The policy directs federal agencies and executive branch officials to promote American AI development and leadership in the global technology race.  

3. Federal Task Force May Challenge State Laws

A new AI Litigation Task Force will review state AI regulations and will challenge laws it views as burdensome or conflicting with federal policy. 

4. Business Growth and Investment Are Central Goals

By reducing regulatory uncertainty, the framework aims to help businesses invest more confidently in AI innovation with a nationwide legal backdrop.  

What This Means for Your Business

If your company develops or uses AI, here’s what to consider:

Planning and Compliance Get Easier

A national standard can reduce your legal costs and compliance risks by replacing 1,000+ current state laws and pending bills.

A Level Playing Field for Small Business

While compliance is often no more than a rounding error for big business, forcing small businesses to comply with fifty different, ever-changing, state AI regulatory schemes, can be enough to put them out of business. A new national standard makes it easier for small businesses to grow and compete in the era of AI.

Innovation Becomes More Predictable

Clear federal guidance means investors and developers can plan long-term projects without worrying that one state’s rules will derail them.

Watch for Enforcement Actions

The creation of a task force means federal scrutiny of state regulation and possible legal challenges. Stay updated and consult legal counsel if you operate across state lines.

Stay Engaged with Federal Guidance

As agencies and policymakers interpret the framework, they will issue more guidance and potentially new rules. Early engagement helps your business adapt faster.

Critics and Supporters

Supporters argue a national approach will boost U.S. competitiveness, spur investment, and simplify compliance. Critics warn that shifting authority away from states could limit local innovation and weaken protections for consumers on issues such as bias, safety, and data privacy. Not surprisingly, the small sample of business owners I have spoken with are all firmly in favor of a single national policy on AI. 

Final Takeaway

The new AI policy framework is an important shift in U.S. technology policy, aimed at putting the country, and American businesses, on a stronger footing in the global AI race. By creating a national standard, the federal government is saying that AI innovation matters to economic growth and national competitiveness.  

Your company still needs a solid AI policy and still needs to comport with federal AI policy, but overall the regulatory burden on small businesses just got a lot less burdensome.

Related posts

Posted in AI, Artificial Intelligence, Internet Law. Tagged with , , , , , , , , .

By Brett Trout
December 17, 2025

Comments Off on What the New National AI Policy Means for Your Business

Protect Your Software and Don’t Steal Anyone Else’s (and Avoid a $168 Million Trade Secret Lawsuit in the Process)

Brett Trout

If you run a business that develops or uses software, this case should get your full attention. In November 2025, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a $168 million judgment against an IT company for misusing another company’s confidential computer code.

Here’s what you need to know, and the steps you need to take, to protect your own software and avoid ending up in court for misappropriation of trade secrets.

What Happened in the Case?

Computer Sciences Corporation (CSC) accused Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) of using CSC’s confidential software tools and documents to help win a $2.6 billion contract and to build its own competing software. TCS employees got access to CSC’s internal materials while working under a contract with CSC’s client. CSC said TCS took that material and used it to upgrade its own platform, BaNCS.

The court agreed with CSC. Even though there was a contract, the court found that TCS went beyond what was permitted and used CSC’s code for its own gain. That misuse cost TCS $56 million in compensatory damages and $112 million in punitive damages. The court also ordered TCS to stop using any parts of the misappropriated software.

What Business Owners Need to Do Right Now

1. Lock Down Your Software Code as a Trade Secret

  • Keep all proprietary code behind strict digital and physical security walls.
  • Use nondisclosure agreements (NDAs) with anyone who touches your code: contractors, employees, consultants, clients, etc.
  • Only give access to those who truly need it, and track that access.

2. Put Clear Boundaries in Contracts

  • If you let other companies or freelancers work with your code, your contract must clearly state what they can and cannot do with it.
  • Spell out what happens if they use it outside the agreement, and make sure they know you’ll enforce it.

3. Avoid Using Someone Else’s Code Without a Green Light

  • If a vendor, client, or third party gives you code, documentation, or tools, do not assume it is yours to use however you like.
  • Misusing someone else’s protected code, even by accident, could trigger a federal trade secret lawsuit under the DTSA (Defend Trade Secrets Act).
  • Train your team not to “borrow” code from clients or the internet without knowing who owns it and whether they’re allowed to use it.
  • Do not trust that online code is “open source” unless you receive written confirmation from the actual author. 

Why This Case Matters to You

This case wasn’t just about stealing source code. It was about misusing confidential materials received during a project. If your team is working on a client system, it is your job to make sure no one copies or reuses parts of that system later.

It also shows that trade secret cases can go nuclear, with damages totaling $168 million or more. Not only are you liable for the damage you caused, but you may also be liable for the money you saved not having to build the software from scratch.

Key Takeaways for Business Owners

  • Protect your own code like it’s gold, because legally, it is.
  • Have written procedures and protocols for protecting all trade secrets.
  • Limit who gets access to your proprietary tools and codebase and ensure they are all subject to NDAs.
  • Review all contracts involving third-party access to your systems.
  • Educate your developers on what qualifies as a trade secret and what they can and can’t use.
  • When in doubt, ask your lawyer. It’s much cheaper to clarify things early than to defend a lawsuit later.

Related posts

Posted in Choosing the Best Lawyer, Internet Law, Litigation, Trade Secret. Tagged with , , , , , , , , .

By Brett Trout
December 16, 2025

Comments Off on Protect Your Software and Don’t Steal Anyone Else’s (and Avoid a $168 Million Trade Secret Lawsuit in the Process)

The Patent Office Issues New Rules On Patenting AI-Assisted Inventions

Brett Trout

Artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming how inventions are created and how innovators seek protection in the United States. John Squires, Director of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) recently issued updated guidance on how AI-assisted inventions are treated for inventorship in patent applications. This change is one of the most important developments for companies, inventors, and patent lawyers working with AI technology. 

What the New USPTO Guidance Says

In November 2025, the USPTO published a revised guidance document that rescinds prior AI inventorship guidance and replaces it with a new standard for AI-assisted inventions. The key points include:

  • The previous guidance from February 2024 is withdrawn in full.  
  • The legal test for inventorship is the same for all inventions, whether or not AI was involved.  
  • Only natural persons (humans) can be named as inventors in a patent application. AI systems, no matter how advanced, cannot be inventors because they are not people.  
  • AI tools are treated like any other tool in the lab or office, such as software or research equipment. Using AI to assist with an invention does not change the legal test for inventorship.  

This update aligns USPTO policy with existing Federal Circuit precedent that AI cannot legally be an inventor.  

Why This Matters for Innovators

1. AI Doesn’t Change the Inventorship Test

When a human inventor uses AI, the focus remains on conception, which is the moment when the idea is fully formed in the human’s mind. In legal terms, 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.” 

The question boils down to, can you describe the invention with sufficient particularity so that anyone with ordinary skill in that field could use your description to replicate the invention? Just using AI to help generate data, code, or design ideas does not, by itself, make AI an inventor.  

This is consistent with how the USPTO and courts handle human invention assisted by tools in other technical areas.  

2. Clear Rules Help Reduce Risk

Patent applicants must be careful not to list AI tools as inventors. If an application incorrectly lists an AI system or robot as an inventor, it will be rejected under U.S. patent law.  

The USPTO guidance makes these rules clearer for patent attorneys and inventors, which helps reduce mistakes and delays in patent filings.

3. Human Inventors Still Drive Innovation

Even if AI performs many tasks, the USPTO’s rules focus on human contributions. As long as an inventor can show that a person conceived the invention with the help of AI, and that person understood all aspects of the idea, the application may proceed.  

This guidance reflects the long-held view that innovation must be grounded in human creativity, even when AI plays a big role in development.

AI Patent Trends and Broader Context

AI inventions are one of the fastest-growing areas in U.S. patent filings. The USPTO’s Artificial Intelligence Patent Dataset shows that millions of past patents contain AI-related technology, and AI continues to spread across industries. 

AI patent filings have been increasing sharply. Data from the industry shows a surge in generative AI and machine learning patents from major tech companies and research labs. 

At the same time, the USPTO and its director have signaled that subject matter eligibility and examination of AI inventions will continue to evolve, with an emphasis on supporting innovation while maintaining clear legal standards.  

Tips for Filing AI-Assisted Patent Applications

Here are some practical tips based on the new guidance and current patent law:

Document Human Contribution Clearly
Explain how each human inventor contributed to the conceptual invention. Simply listing AI output without human insight is not enough.

Do Not List AI as an Inventor
Only natural persons should be named on the inventor line of a patent application.

Prepare for Detailed Examination
Patent examiners may ask for additional information about how the invention was conceived and the role AI played in its development.

Work With Experienced Counsel
AI patent law is evolving. Legal counsel familiar with both patent law and AI technology, with a eye on the future, can help you navigate this landscape.

Conclusion

The USPTO’s 2025 AI inventorship guidance makes an important point clear for innovators: AI can assist, but humans remain the inventors under U.S. patent law. These updated rules help preserve legal clarity while letting inventors benefit from advances in artificial intelligence. If you are developing AI-assisted inventions, updating your patent strategy to reflect this new guidance will help you avoid mistakes and improve your chances of securing patent protection.

Related posts

Posted in AI, Artificial Intelligence, Choosing the Best Lawyer, Patent Law, Patent Lawyer, Patent process. Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

By Brett Trout
December 12, 2025

Comments Off on The Patent Office Issues New Rules On Patenting AI-Assisted Inventions

The Professionals Thriving with AI Are Not the Ones You Think

Brett Trout

Most people assume that AI is coming to take jobs away from lawyers, doctors, and financial planners. That might happen in some cases, but the bigger story is being overlooked. The real winners will be the professionals who know how to delegate the boring parts of their job to AI, and use the extra time to focus on what they do best.

The truth is, despite their protestations and disclaimers to the contrary, tools like ChatGPT already offer some types of legal, medical, and financial advice that is better and cheaper than what many professionals provide. The problem is that AI platforms still pepper the good advice with just a dash of really terrible advice. The recent swath of AI disclaimers, warning not rely on AI to diagnose your appendicitis or move your retirement savings into Kardashian NFTs, indicates some naïve souls are still unaware of AI’s innate ability to make life-altering mistakes. Compounding the problem is that AI does not make the same types of mistakes humans make. This makes it nearly impossible for a non-subject-matter expert to separate the wheat from the chaff. 

Still, it is clear where things are heading. The AI tools that will win are not the ones trying to replace your doctor or lawyer. The winners will be the tools that handle the behind-the-scenes tasks faster and more accurately than any human ever could.

If you are a professional, this is your cue.

Every job has two parts: the thinking and the doing. AI is getting better at the doing. Fast. That means the professionals who thrive will be the ones who use AI to automate the “doing” so they can spend more time thinking. More time talking with clients. More time spotting what AI will miss. More time being human.

That is what clients really want. They do not want to pay you $400/hr to fill out forms or run reports. They come to you for advice and vision they can trust. They come to you for judgment, empathy, and reassurance. Those are not things AI is replacing any time soon. But you need to give yourself the space to deliver them.

If you are still doing everything, the writing, the research, the scheduling, the billing, for yourself, you are not only wasting time, you are falling behind. The sooner you let AI handle the repetitive stuff, the more time you have to actually help people.

That is not just smart; it is the future of your profession.

Related posts

Posted in AI, Artificial Intelligence, Choosing the Best Lawyer, Patent Lawyer, Trademark lawyer. Tagged with , , , , , , .

By Brett Trout
December 5, 2025

Comments Off on The Professionals Thriving with AI Are Not the Ones You Think

ChatGPT’s New Usage Policy: No More Legal or Medical Advice

Brett Trout

ChatGPT just made a big change to its Usage Policy. As of October 29, 2025, OpenAI now prohibits users from using ChatGPT to give legal or medical advice. If you are relying on ChatGPT for help with court cases or medical conditions you are probably not reading this post, but if you are, you should probably stop. Not so much because it violates ChatGPT’s new Terms of Use, but moreso because it may easily end in disaster.

What Changed?

OpenAI updated its usage policy to make clear that users are not allowed to use ChatGPT to provide “tailored advice that requires a license, such as legal or medical advice, without appropriate involvement by a licensed professional.” That means if you are using ChatGPT to answer questions like “Should I sue?” or “What medication should I take?” you’re now violating OpenAI’s new policy. In addition to it possibly killing you, doing so could also result in suspension or banning of your account.

Why the Change?

Two main reasons: risk and responsibility. OpenAI likely made this change because of ongoing concerns that users were relying too heavily on ChatGPT for high-stakes decisions. Both legal and medical decisions can have serious consequences. And when the advice comes from a chatbot that sometimes makes things up, those consequences can be disastrous.

Lawyers and doctors go through years of training. ChatGPT doesn’t. The worst part is that even when it’s dead wrong, ChatGPT can be very convincing. Courts have already sanctioned lawyers for submitting AI-generated briefs with fake case law. And people have reported taking incorrect medical steps based on chatbot responses. OpenAI is simply drawing a clear line to reduce those risks, both for users and for itself.

What This Means for You

If you are a consumer, do not rely on ChatGPT for specific legal or medical advice. It is really that simple. General education is fine. But if your life or livelihood depend on it, talk to a real person, preferably one professionally licensed to give that advice. Your health and your legal rights are simply too important to irreparably damage by relying on well-crafted, but ultimately erroneous, advice. 

If you are a lawyer or doctor, you should also not be using ChatGPT to give advice to clients or patients. Even if the chatbot gets some things right, that is not good enough. As the American Bar Association recently made clear, attorneys who use AI must personally verify its accuracy and protect ALL client data, not just some of it. The same goes for doctors under HIPAA.

What You Can Still Use ChatGPT For

OpenAI is not banning all legal or medical topics. You can still ask for help understanding broad legal concepts or general medical information. You just cannot rely on it for tailored advice. Think of it more like a textbook than a professional. You can learn about “what a patent is” or “how high blood pressure works,” but do not ask it to tell you what type of patent to file or what medication to take.

Final Thoughts

ChatGPT is a powerful tool. But like any tool, it has limits. The new ChatGPT policy serves as a reminder: some jobs still require human judgment. When your health or your legal rights are on the line, use the right tools, including lawyers and doctors who know what they are doing.

And if you are using ChatGPT in your business, now is the time to review your AI Acceptable Use Policy. Make sure everyone follows your internal AI policies as well as ChatGPT’s new usage policy (so you do not get banned from the platform), and make sure all of your employees know exactly what they can and cannot use AI for in your business.  

Related posts

Posted in AI, Artificial Intelligence, Choosing the Best Lawyer, Internet Law, Patent Law. Tagged with , , , , , , , .

By Brett Trout
November 17, 2025

Comments Off on ChatGPT’s New Usage Policy: No More Legal or Medical Advice

Does the Law Protect You From Deepfakes?

Brett Trout

Artificial Intelligence makes it easier than ever to fake someone’s voice, face, or entire identity. These AI-generated “deepfakes” can copy a person’s speech, movement, and image so convincingly that many people can’t tell the difference. That raises an important question: if someone makes a deepfake of you, how can you make them stop? 

The Patchwork of State Laws

The problem is that deepfake protections are not consistent across the country. Some states have strong deepfake laws, some of which may even hamper legitimate businesses and online commerce. Others have none at all. There is no single federal law that clearly protects against unauthorized deepfakes. That makes enforcing your rights harder, especially when the person using a deepfake of you in another state. Depending on how the deepfake is used, you may have a cause of action under one of more of the following state or common law causes of action: 

Right of privacy – Protects your private information 

Right of publicity – Prevents commercial use of your image without authorization 

Defamation – Prohibits false statements that damage your reputation

False light – Addresses emotional distress caused by a misleading impression of you

47 states have enacted some type of deepfake law. These laws typically cover one of five types of deepfake use: 

Nonconsensual sexual deepfakes – May cover both adult and child images or videos

Political deepfakes – Prevents deceptive imagery, often right before an election

Digital replicas – California prohibits certain “digital replicas” of people without proper protections in place

Criminal laws –  Pennsylvania criminalizes disseminating deepfakes with fraudulent intent 


What About Federal Law?

Although there should be, there is currently no federal law preventing deepfakes. That means you may have to look to other laws to see if they fit your particular deepfake issue. Federal trademark law (like the Lanham Act) can sometimes protect people from false endorsements. But it mainly helps celebrities or people with commercially recognized identities. If you are not famous, federal law likely will not protect you from deepfakes. The FTC has also promulgated rules against deceptive endorsement, but it may be difficult to get the FTC to investigate a particular deepfake. You may also have a cause of action under state and federal unfair competition laws. 

Take it Down Act – Forces websites to take down non-consensual imagery 

Copyright law- If the deepfake is based on third-party copyrighted material 

Why Deepfakes Are Different

Deepfakes created by AI can spread quickly and look real. Once they are online, they are hard to stop. AI also makes it cheap and easy to create fake content using your likeness, making the problem worse. Existing privacy, publicity, and defamation laws were not built to handle this kind of high-tech impersonation.

What Can Be Done?

In 2024, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) held a roundtable on deepfakes. Speakers from the entertainment, sports, and tech industries called for stronger laws. They urged Congress to create clear national rules to protect people from deepfake misuse. The USPTO is now preparing recommendations for how lawmakers and regulators can better protect your identity in the AI age.

The Streisand Effect

As with certain types of defamation, filing a lawsuit may direct a lot of unwanted media attention at what was previously an isolated issue. Most deepfakes, while making an initial splash, slowly fade away in a short period of time, as the internet seeks the next new thing. The last thing you want to do is to fan a dying fire and keep your deepfake on everyone’s mind. While ignoring a deepfake may be tough to stomach, it may be a better idea than driving the entire internet to take a look at the deepfake that is causing you so much angst. Before you take any action regarding a deepfake, ask yourself what is your end goal, and whether ignoring the deep fake might be the best means to accomplish that goal.  

What Should You Do Now?

If you are concerned about someone using your name, face, or voice in a deepfake:

  • Keep detailed time-stamped records of any unauthorized use
  • Contact an attorney with experience in deepfakes, defamation, and AI issues to determine which state and federal laws may protect you

Until new federal laws are passed specifically addressing deepfakes, the best protection is staying alert and getting legal help quickly.

Final Thoughts

Deepfakes are here, and they are only getting more realistic and more common. While existing state and federal laws offer some protection, they often fall short when it comes to AI-generated impersonation. Stronger laws are needed. But for now, understanding your existing rights under the various state and federal laws and acting fast may be your best defense.

Related posts

Posted in AI, Artificial Intelligence, Choosing the Best Lawyer, Copyright Law, Internet Law, Iowa Law, Litigation, social media, Trademark Law. Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

By Brett Trout
October 31, 2025

Comments Off on Does the Law Protect You From Deepfakes?

Reddit’s Lawsuit Against AI Scrapers: What it Means for the Industry

Brett Trout

If you are involved in content creation, AI development, or simply follow the big picture of the internet economy, the recent lawsuit filed by Reddit is something you should probably understand and follow. This lawsuit is about far more than one company suing another, it touches on who controls data, how AI gets trained, and what the rules for AI training will look like going forward.

What happened: Reddit sues over alleged large-scale scraping

On October 22, 2025, Reddit filed a lawsuit in New York federal court against Perplexity AI and three web-scraping services: SerpApi (Texas), Oxylabs UAB (Lithuania), AWMProxy (former Russian botnet) and SerpApi (Texas).  

Reddit accuses the web scraping defendants of:

  • Scraping billions of Reddit posts/comments without permission.  
  • Circumventing anti-scraping protections by Reddit and Google by using Google search result pages as a back-door to Reddit content.
  • Violating laws including copyright, unfair competition, and unjust enrichment. 

Reddit accuses Perplexity of ignoring Reddit’s cease-and-desist letter, sent May 2024, and then increasing references/citations of Reddit content by “forty-fold.”  

In short, Reddit claims that the defendants treated its user-generated content as free training fuel for AI systems without a licensing agreement, discouraging other companies from entering into paid licenses with Reddit to use its content. 

Why this matters: implications for data rights, AI training, and content platforms

Data control and monetization

Reddit’s case highlights that platforms may increasingly assert that user-generated content is not “free for anyone to use” at scale for commercial AI systems. Reddit argues that it already licenses its content to major players like Google LLC and OpenAI under agreements that include terms protecting Reddit.  

If Reddit succeeds, content platforms will gain leverage in negotiations with AI companies in demanding higher compensation and/or tighter control over AI access to content.  

Training data and “public data” assumptions

Many AI developers have assumed that publicly available internet content is fair game for training large language models or answer engines. Reddit’s suit challenges that assumption, especially when circumventing security measures to access user content currently licensed to third-parties. 

Scraper liability and indirect access

Reddit alleges the defendants did not scrape Reddit directly, but scraped Google search result pages to harvest Reddit content (i.e., an indirect path). If the court awards Reddit damages for this type of indirect access through search engine results pages (SERPs), this could broaden liability for many other types of indirect access to content. 

Precedent for AI business models

This lawsuit could set a new legal precedent, changing how AI companies build business models, especially those that rely on massive ingestion of web content without any kind of license. The outcome may force large AI companies to license more content, while squeezing smaller AI companies out of the market altogether. 

Key Legal Claims & Technical Issues

Let’s break down the major legal and technical points at play.

Legal claims

  • Bypassing Reddit and Google Security: Reddit is claiming that the defendants have violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which prohibits anyone from circumventing technological measures controlling access to copyrighted works.  
  • Unfair competition: Reddit claims the defendants’ access to Reddit content has gained for themselves an undue competitive advantage.
  • Unjust enrichment: Reddit argues that the defendants have been unjustly enriched through their access to Reddit content.
  • Civil Conspiracy: Reddit argues SerpApi and Perplexity have entered into agreements for the purpose of illegally circumventing Reddit’s technological control measures to gain access to Reddit content.  

Technical / access issues

  • Violation of Google and Reddit terms of service. 
  • Use of: proxies, fake user-agent strings, shifting IP addresses, bots to mimic human users, rate limit circumvention, and CAPTCHA circumvention. 
  • Indirect content scraping via Google SERPS access Reddit content, rather than directly from Reddit’s API or website. 
  • Increased citation volume after cease-and-desist, which Reddit takes as evidence of unauthorized use. 

What this means for Reddit and the AI industry

For Reddit

  • Reddit is attempting to set a precedent for its licensing-of-user-generated-content-for-AI-training model.  
  • Reddit may also set a precedent that SERPS scraping of user-generated content can be blocked and compensated.
  • Reddit is taking a shot across the bow of AI companies that if you want to train on Reddit’s third-party content, you have to pay to play. 

For AI companies and content platforms

  • AI firms may have to take greater care how they obtain and use third-party content for training. “Publicly accessible” may not necessarily mean “free for AI training.”
  • Other platforms with valuable user-generated content may now demand licensing, or institute stricter API or access rules.
  • Scraper services and data-broker services may find increased risk of liability if user-generated content platforms pursue them as enablers of unauthorized data acquisition.
  • A win for Reddit may spur more litigation and possibly state and federal regulation around training, data sourcing, fairness, transparency, and consent.
  • Enormous liability and/or license-fees may push smaller AI platforms out of the market and prevent new AI platforms from obtaining the capital needed to launch. 

For content creators and users

  • Users who generate content on Reddit will still be left empty-handed when Reddit licenses their content to third-parties.
  • The “value” of online communities may become more visible and monetized rather than assumed to be free, possibly leading to new platforms developing a revenue-sharing model (similar to YouTube) for users who generate the content.
  • Platforms may implement more visible policies about how user content may be used in AI training.

Outlook: Watch Points and What to Monitor

Here are the key developments to watch:

  1. Court rulings: How the court handles these legal claims: decisions on scraping via search results, indirect access, circumventing technological security measures, unfair competition, and the role of robots.txt/crawling protections.
  2. Licensing agreements: Whether more platforms follow Reddit’s path and demand paid licenses for AI training data.
  3. AI company responses: Will AI developers change their data acquisition strategies, increase transparency, or negotiate deals proactively?
  4. Regulatory action: Legislators or regulators may step in to clarify rights around data, training, consent, and attribution for AI systems. Federal legislation is needed to preempt a hodgepodge of ill-considered state laws. 
  5. Technical safeguards: Platforms may strengthen anti-scraping measures, auditing of access logs, and contracts with data brokers and scrapers.

Closing Thoughts

The Reddit v. Perplexity lawsuit is not just another tech dispute. It could reshape how platforms resell your content, how AI systems are trained, and how the internet handles user-generated content in general. If you are a creator, business owner, platform manager, or AI developer, you would be well-advised to follow this case closely.  

Related posts

Posted in AI, Artificial Intelligence, Internet Law, Iowa Law, Litigation, social media. Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , .

By Brett Trout
October 28, 2025

Comments Off on Reddit’s Lawsuit Against AI Scrapers: What it Means for the Industry

How to Move Your Patent Application to the Front of the Line

Brett Trout

If you have already filed a patent application, you likely want to get it examined as soon as possible. Fortunately, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has introduced a new option to help you do exactly that. In this post I will walk you through how to take advantage of this option, and other best practices to help accelerate your application’s examination.

What’s new: The Streamlined Claim Set Pilot Program

In October 2025 the USPTO published a notice for its Streamlined Claim Set Pilot Program.  According to this official notice:

  • The pilot is designed for patent application that have already been filed. 
  • Qualifying applications will be advanced out of turn (i.e., accorded special status) for examination until a first Office action is issued.
  • To qualify, applications must have, or be amended to have, no more than one independent claim, no more than ten total claims, and no multiple dependent claims. 
  • To qualify you must electronically file a petition through the Patent Center using form PTO/SB/472.
  • The program will run for up to 12 months from its publication date or until each Technology Center has docketed about 200 eligible applications, whichever comes first.  

In short: If you can keep your claim set tight and file the required petition, you may get your application bumped ahead of the queue.

Why this matters

  • Normally, patent applications are examined in the order of their filing date (or national stage entry date). 
  • This pilot gives applicants a way to cut in line, at least up to the first Office action, which can mean faster feedback and reduced pendency.
  • Getting earlier feedback means you can respond sooner, refine your strategy earlier, and potentially start generating revenue from your invention more quickly.
  • From a capital raise perspective, getting faster examination could persuade investors to invest more money faster. 
  • For portfolio planning and licensing discussions, moving your application ahead can improve the timing of your patent asset development.

Who is eligible

You will want to check carefully if your application qualifies. Here are the key eligibility points:

  • Must be an original, non-reissue, non-continuing utility application filed under 35 U.S.C. §111(a).  
  • The application must have an actual filing date before the publication date of the notice (October 27, 2025) in the Federal Register.  
  • National stage applications under 35 U.S.C. §371 are not eligible.  
  • The claim set must satisfy: no more than one independent claim; no more than ten total claims; no multiple dependent claims; all dependent claims must properly refer to previous claims and recite all limitations.  
  • If your application included a non-publication request, you must rescind it at or before the time you file the petition to make special.  
  • The specification, claims, and abstract must have been submitted in DOCX format (as required for electronic filing) at the time of filing.  
  • The inventor (or joint inventors) must not have been named on more than three other nonprovisional applications in which a petition to make special under this pilot program has been filed.  

Practical Steps to Apply for the Pilot Program

Here’s a step-by-step checklist to help you move your application toward the front of the line:

  1. Evaluate claim set size
    • Review your current claim set. If you have more than one independent claim, more than ten total claims, or any multiple dependent claims, then you must amend the application (for example via a preliminary amendment) so that the claim set matches the pilot program’s requirements.  
    • If you file an amendment to reduce claim count, make sure you do so before or with the petition. Otherwise, you may not meet the eligibility restrictions. 
  2. Prepare petition form PTO/SB/472
    • Fill out the certification and petition to make special under the pilot program.  
    • Ensure that your filing is electronic, through the USPTO’s Patent Center.  
    • Pay the required petition fee under 37 CFR 1.17(h).  
  3. Rescind non-publication request if needed
    • If your application previously requested nonpublication, file a rescission (using form PTO/SB/36) no later than the time you file the petition.  
  4. File the petition timely
    • You must file the petition before issuance of the first Office action or written restriction requirement. If the application has already been docketed to an examiner, the petition will generally be dismissed.  
    • Make sure the application was filed via the USPTO’s electronic filing system and the specification, claims, abstract were DOCX compliant at filing.  
  5. Monitor docket status
    • Once accepted, the application will be placed on a “special docket” until the first Office action is issued. After that, the application falls back to the regular examination queue.  
    • Keep track of whether each Technology Center is still accepting applications for the program (since acceptance may close early after 200 applications have been fast-tracked under the pilot program).  
  6. Respond carefully to the Office action
    • Because the application was accelerated only up to the first action, your response to that first action matters. A fully responsive reply helps maintain progress.  
    • If your amendment adds claims that violate the pilot program requirements (e.g., more than one independent claim), the examiner may treat the amendment as non-compliant and revert you to the regular queue.  

Other Ways to Accelerate Examination

Even if you cannot qualify for the pilot, here are other tools to help move your application ahead:

  • Prioritized Examination (Track One): This is another USPTO program offering faster examination (typically within about 12 months) for a fee.
  • Petition to Make Special under other rules: For example, you may qualify for a petition to make special if you are over 65 years-old or if your invention relates to the quality of the environment, development of energy resources, or fighting terrorism.
  • Strategy in claim drafting: Keeping claims clear, focused, and limited in number may not automatically guarantee “front of the line” status, but it tends to reduce delays caused by restriction requirements or claim-set rejections.
  • Dialogue with the examiner / early interview: Engaging with the examiner, addressing issues directly, and holding high-quality interviews with the examiner can speed up the process.
  • Amendments to simplify your application: While you don’t want to sacrifice scope, trimming extraneous claims and narrowing dependencies may reduce complexity and thus examination time.

Tips and Best Practices

  • Plan early: If you think you may qualify for this pilot program you should act quickly, before the Technology Center assigned to your application accepts 200 pilot applications. If you are not eligible for this program, but still wish to take advantage of one of the other fast-track options, plan your claim strategy and drafting with your desired fast-track option in mind.
  • Avoid multiple dependent claims if you want to qualify for this pilot program, multiple dependent claims are a non-no.  
  • Keep claim count low: Even outside this pilot, fewer claims often mean less examiner time and fewer complexity issues.
  • Maintain DOCX compliance: Make sure your specification, abstract, and claims are in DOCX format when filed. That is a requirement for the pilot.  
  • File the petition timely: Filing the petition after an Office action is issued or after your application is docketed to an examiner will disqualify you for this pilot.
  • Budget wisely: The petition fee and possibly extra costs for claim amendments should be included in your prosecution budget (although reducing the number of claims could easily offset the overall prosecution cost by more than the fees required to get the application fast-tracked).
  • Monitor changes: Since this is a pilot program, the USPTO may modify or terminate it early (for example, once a threshold number of applications is accepted in a Technology Center).  
  • Educate inventors and stakeholders: While the pilot program can speed up the initial examination and commercialization, after the first Office Action, your application goes back into the regular examination rotation. 
  • Work with your patent counsel: These eligibility rules are nuanced. A patent attorney can help you evaluate whether your application qualifies and prepare the petition correctly.

Final Thoughts

If you are looking to accelerate your patent application, the Streamlined Claim Set Pilot Program provides a clear path to move your application ahead (subject to meeting specific requirements). By keeping your claim set tight, filing the petition properly, and responding quickly, you may arrive at the first Office action faster.

Even if you do not qualify for this pilot, the best practices of streamlined claiming, early examiner engagement, and strategic prosecution remain effective. Incorporate these into your patent strategy playbook and you’ll move closer to the front of the line.

Related posts

Posted in Choosing the Best Lawyer, Patent Law, Patent Lawyer, Patent process. Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , .

By Brett Trout
October 27, 2025

Comments Off on How to Move Your Patent Application to the Front of the Line