In a continued development of patent eligibility policy following Ex parte Desjardins, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) reversed a subject-matter eligibility rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 101 for a Microsoft invention directed to AI-assisted code-editing tools, such as GitHub Copilot. Here, in Ex parte Ziegler, Appeal No. 2025-003643, decided May 29, 2026, the Board reversed the eligibility rejection in a 2-1 split decision, highlighting distinct perspectives on what constitutes an eligible claim to inventions in AI. In this decision, the specification made the difference.
Jessica Bell, Kalus Kenny Intelex, Melbourne, Australia
From fresh market insights to proposed regulatory reform and a new AI tool, IP Australia is signalling an important period of change for intellectual property (IP) in Australia. IP Australia has recently released its Australian IP Report 2026, which provides valuable insight into current trends and developments in the IP landscape. A new public consultation also reflects the agency’s intent to streamline and simplify its regulatory processes. In addition, IP Australia is piloting a new AI-powered chatbot to improve access to IP-related information and assist users to better understand their options, whether defending an infringement claim or protecting their own IP rights.
The EU Court’s Nifty Legal Kraftwerk In Finally Defining “Pastiche”:
…And What That Could Mean on Both Sides of the Atlantic & the Galaxy
By James P. Flynn, Epstein Becker Green
In the beginning (defined as 1977), there was a two-second rhythm loop. Kraftwerk, the Düsseldorf electronic music pioneers whose synthesizer-driven soundscapes helped define an era, laid down a percussion riff in their track Metall auf Metall that would prove as durable as the metal referenced in the track title (Listen to the drum sequence that begins roughly at the 0:03 – 0:05 mark of the 1977 album version). Twenty years later, hip-hop producer Moses Pelham lifted that two-second loop, modified it ever so slightly, and played it as a continuous backbone beneath Sabrina Setlur’s 1997 rap track Nur mir. And with that, one of the longest-running copyright disputes in the history of intellectual property law was launched, a sort of legal Metall auf Metall loop of its own that has been repeating, with variations, ever since.
On April 14, 2026, after a journey through the German courts that would have exhausted the patience of a Stoic philosopher, the Grand Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) issued its long-awaited ruling in CG and YN v. Pelham GmbH and Others, Case C-590/23 (Pelham II). This is the second time this same fact pattern, featuring the same two-second sample, had arrived at the CJEU’s Luxembourg doorstep. The first visit, in Pelham I (Case C-476/17, decided July 29, 2019), had established that sampling requires permission unless the sample is acoustically unrecognizable. Now, in Pelham II, the Court was asked to define “pastiche,” one of the most enigmatic concepts in all of (European) copyright law.
The origin story for the cause of action of “dilution” in the United States begins with Frank Schechter’s 1927 Harvard Law Review article, Rational Basis of Trademark Protection. [i] Indeed the U.S. Supreme Court credits Mr. Schechter’s work as the “seminal discussion,” noting that “[u]nlike traditional infringement law, the prohibitions against trademark dilution are not the product of common-law development, and are not motivated by an interest in protecting consumers.”[ii]
Mr. Schechter based his theories, among other cases, on his study of the German Odol case.[iii] In that case, the court found harm to the selling power of a well-known brand for mouthwash through the use by another party for steel. Schechter notes in passing that if U.S. courts eventually adopt Odol’s holding, “it will not be the first time that they have gone to continental armories for the weapons with which to combat the commercial buccaneer.”[iv]
Jessica Bell – Kalus Kenny Intelex, Melbourne, Australia
The lengthy trade mark dispute between Australian fashion designer, Katie Perry (now Katie Taylor), and international pop sensation Katheryn Hudson, better known under the stage name Katy Perry (Ms Hudson), has hit a new note: on 11 March 2026, the majority of the High Court of Australia made its determination in Ms Taylor’s favour.
The Dispute
This dispute concerns the word mark KATIE PERRY (the Designer Mark), which Australian fashion designer Ms Taylor applied to register in September 2008 in respect of clothing (Class 25), having commenced selling clothing under her name in 2007.
Ms Hudson had performed under the stage name “Katy Perry” since 2002 and rose to international prominence in around 2008. She initially opposed Ms Taylor’s application and filed her own trade mark application for KATY PERRY (the Singer Mark) in respect of music (Classes 9 and 41) and clothing (Class 25), but that application was refused due to its similarity to Ms Taylor’s mark and the opposition was ultimately withdrawn.
The Designer Mark was subsequently registered in August 2009 and Ms Taylor later commenced proceedings against Ms Hudson and her associated entities alleging that the respondents had infringed the mark by using the Singer Mark in the promotion and sale of clothes. The procedural history, and factual background, of this case are summarised with greater detail in our previous article.
Companies outside traditional tech sectors may be sitting on IP goldmines without realizing it. Manufacturing, e-commerce, and consumer products businesses routinely use AI technologies from predictive maintenance to automated pricing. These technologies represent valuable intellectual property assets. While these companies may not self-identify as “tech companies” in the Silicon Valley sense, their AI implementations are every bit as technically sophisticated and legally protectable.
Even when AI implementations are not core to customer-facing products, they warrant strategic protection. Operations-focused enterprises can leverage these innovations for competitive advantage, licensing opportunities, or as defensive assets in a broader IP strategy.
By Stavros Varveris, Trainee Lawyer at A. & K. METAXOPOULOS AND PARTNERS LAW FIRM
Law No. 5271/2026 introduces a new specialized legal framework combining administrative and criminal regulation for the prevention and repression of art forgery, the protection of the physical integrity of works of art and collectible items, and the establishment of certified expert mechanisms for authentication.
Until now, the criminal treatment of art forgery relied exclusively on the general provisions of the Greek Penal Code on fraud and forgery. In this context, the establishment of criminal liability generally required the completion of a financial transaction and proof of pecuniary damage or deception of a third party, a requirement that significantly limited the effectiveness of the existing framework for such offences.
The new law operates as a lex specialis and introduces autonomous criminal offences covering the manufacture or alteration of counterfeit works of art, their distribution, exhibition or commercial placement, as well as possession with intent to distribute. The completion of economic fraud is therefore no longer a prerequisite for criminal liability.
New enforcement era begins: NYC has a new “sheriff” with expanded powers and strong allies. Any company that advertises and markets products or services to consumers in New York City must learn the rules and comply with the law. If not, there will be consequences.
Mayor’s priorities are clear: Mayor Mamdani’s January 5, 2026 executive orders on “junk fees” and “subscription programs” show that consumer protection, corporate accountability, and compliance with City laws and regulations are top priorities. The administration believes that aggressively enforcing consumer protection will help tackle the affordability crisis.
FTC-style enforcement: With former FTC Chair Lina Khan as a key mayoral adviser, and the appointment of Commissioner Sam Levine (former Director of FTC’s Bureau of Consumer Protection under Chair Khan) as Head of the NYC Department of Consumer and Worker Protection (DCWP), businesses should anticipate (if not expect) a return to robust and aggressive oversight of advertising and marketing practices in New York City.
History repeats: This harkens back to the days of Mark Green who helped make the then NYC Department of Consumer Affairs a feared government regulator for national advertisers and marketers.
Jessica Bell, Associate, Kalus Kenny Intelex, Melbourne, Australia
2026 begins with a number of changes to the Australian Trade Marks landscape, following the introduction of the Trade Marks Amendment (International Registrations, Hearings and Oppositions) Regulations 2025 (the IRHO Regulations).
The IRHO Regulations introduce a variety of procedural and technical updates to the Trade Mark Regulations 1995, including longer filing periods, partial replacement of protected international trade marks, and extended examination periods.
Divided into five comprehensive amendment schedules and two largely administrative schedules, the IRHO Regulations reflect recent changes to the Madrid Protocol administered by the World Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO). Below, we summarise the key details of Schedules 1-5 and outline what they mean for Australian trade mark applicants and holders. Schedules 6 and 7 are primarily technical, covering minor adjustments and the timing of when each amendment takes effect – Schedules 1 and 5 took effect on 19 December 2025, while the changes set out in Schedules 2-4 and 6-7 were effective from 19 November 2025.
Privacy compliance obligations continue to grow and expand, so businesses should revisit their privacy compliance programs regularly.
California has introduced even more unique privacy compliance obligations.
Kentucky, Indiana and Rhode Island join the fray of states with effective comprehensive consumer privacy laws on January 1, 2026.
The new year might mean the same to you, but for businesses, the turn of the calendar once again means a new set of privacy compliance obligations. 2026 brings new requirements in California, which has the most comprehensive regulatory framework and a stand-alone privacy regulatory agency, along with new state privacy laws in Kentucky, Indiana and Rhode Island taking effect.
