The Impact of Prosecution Length on Invalidity Outcomes in Patent Litigation
Matthew Avery, Arya Moshiri
This Article analyzes over 89,000 patents litigated over a twenty-year period to determine how the number of office actions to allowance during prosecution impacts rates of invalidity during subsequent litigation. Many practitioners would hypothesize that a patent with a longer prosecution history will be less likely to have an inherent validity problem. Contrary to expectations, the analysis of litigation outcomes shows that an increase in the number of office actions correlates with a heightened risk of invalidation.
Read the full article here.
*This article is excerpted from the authors’ recent article in volume 38, issue 1 of the Harvard Journal of Law & Technology titled “The Myth of “Bad” Patents: Impact of Prosecution Length on Patent Litigation Outcomes.”

The Federal Circuit Tackles the Role of Expert Opinions in Patent Damages in EcoFactor Inc. v. Google, LLC
Laura Natchev
The Federal Circuit rarely decides cases en banc. Stunningly, on September 25, 2024, the Federal Circuit granted Google’s petition for rehearing en banc in the case EcoFactor Inc. v. Google LLC. The re-hearing, which is scheduled to take place on March 13, will be focused on the issue of whether “the district court[] adhere[d] to Federal Rule of Evidence [(“FRE”)] 702 and Daubert v. Merrel Dow Pharmaceuticals…in its allowance of testimony from EcoFactor’s damages expert assigning a per-unit royalty rate to the three licenses in evidence in this case.” Essentially, the Court is reconsidering the admissibility of expert testimony regarding the calculation of patent damages.
Read the full article here.

Maximizing Patent Term in the United States: Patent Term Adjustment, Patent Term Extension, and the Evolving law of Obviousness-Type Double Patenting
Paul Ragusa, *Benjamin Bafumi
The last few years have thrown startups a whirlwind of challenges: a steep drop in venture capital investment, a highly competitive marketplace, the artificial intelligence (AI) revolution, and an abundance of remote work. Helping founders navigate this evolving landscape will require intellectual property (IP) practitioners to stay ahead of the curve. 
Read the full article here.
*Benjamin Bafumi, a law clerk at Baker Botts, assisted in the preparation of this article.
*This article was previously published as part of our Antitrust Health Horizons Webinar, presented April 23, 2025.

This Month: Our Take on AI
Joseph Cahill
Copyright Office’s AI Report: On January 29, 2025, the U.S. Copyright Office released Part 2 of its report on AI, which reaffirms the longstanding requirement of human authorship for copyright protection. The report distinguishes among various levels of human interaction and their impact on copyright protection of AI output:
Prompts: The report concludes that given current technology, prompts alone do not provide sufficient human control to make users the authors of AI-generated outputs. Prompts are seen as instructions that convey unprotectable ideas rather than controlling the expressive elements of the output.
Expressive Inputs: When a human author inputs their own copyrightable work into an AI system and that work is perceptible in the output, the human author retains copyright over their contribution. This is akin to the protection given to derivative works, where copyright extends to the human-authored elements.
Modifications or Arrangements: Human authors can claim copyright if they creatively select, coordinate, and arrange AI-generated material. This includes combining human-authored text with AI-generated images or making significant modifications to AI-generated content.
The report further concludes that current legal doctrines are sufficient to handle AI copyright issues without the need for brand-new AI-specific copyright legislation. Read more here: "Copyright Office Releases Part 2 of Artificial Intelligence Report." 

AI Hallucinations in Court: A recent case in the Eastern District of Texas highlights the risks of overreliance on AI-generated content in legal filings. In Gauthier v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., an attorney faced a $2,000 sanction and a mandated CLE course after citing non-existent case law produced by an AI tool. The decision reinforces that, while generative AI can offer tactical advantages, lawyers must treat its output like that of a bright but inexperienced first-year associate—one that requires rigorous oversight and independent verification before submission. Read more here: "Trust, But Verify: Avoiding the Perils of Artificial Intelligence Hallucinations in Court."

AI Counsel Code Podcast
Partner and host Maggie Welsh welcomes Senior Associate Parker Hancock to explore AI advancements and upcoming regulatory shifts for 2025. They delve into key technologies like DeepSeek models and test time compute, while unpacking crucial updates on AI regulations, including the EU AI Act and state-level U.S. laws. Listen to the full episode here.

February 2025 Intellectual Property Report Recap
In case you missed it, here is a link to our February 2025 Intellectual Property Report that looked at:

• 35 U.S.C. § 112 in IPR: I know you cannot use it to invalidate a claim, but how about breaking the priority chain?
• RESTORE Patent Rights Act of 2024
• The IP Practitioner’s Guide for Advising the Next Generation of Startups
• AI For Patent Drafting in 2025
• Change on the Horizon?: 2025 Begins With Numerous Patent Bills Pending
• Trust, But Verify: Avoiding the Perils of AI Hallucinations in Court
• This Month: Our Take on AI

ABOUT BAKER BOTTS L.L.P.
Baker Botts is an international law firm whose lawyers practice throughout a network of offices around the globe. Based on our experience and knowledge of our clients' industries, we are recognized as a leading firm in the energy, technology and life sciences sectors. Since 1840, we have provided creative and effective legal solutions for our clients while demonstrating an unrelenting commitment to excellence. For more information, please visit bakerbotts.com.