At the Border, Not Just Court: Why Lashify May Expand the ITC’s Role in Patent Enforcement
Spencer Nayar
Patent disputes are often framed around familiar questions: Did the defendant infringe? Is the patent valid? What remedies are available? Today, products are often manufactured abroad and enter the United States through complex networks of importers, distributors, and marketplace sellers. In an economy built on global supply chains, patent owners are faced with an increasingly important question: Which forum can actually stop the harm? Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930 provides the International Trade Commission (“ITC”) with a distinctive answer. After the Federal Circuit’s 2025 decision in Lashify, Inc. v. ITC, more patent owners may be positioned to seek relief from the ITC.
Continue Reading

Navigating the Risks of AI‑Assisted Patent Drafting
Nick Manzella
Generative artificial intelligence tools are increasingly being integrated in legal workflows, including patent practice. AI tools now exist to assist patent practitioners with tasks such as summarizing invention disclosures, drafting specifications, generating claim language, and preparing responses to office actions. When generative AI tools are incorporated into the patent drafting process, practitioners and inventors should address several potential risks relating to confidentiality, inventorship, accuracy, and downstream litigation implications. As seen in recent court decisions surrounding AI-confidentiality, these considerations will be important in future patent-related litigation.
Continue Reading

The Big Impact of Skinny Labels: What the Supreme Court’s Decision in Hikma v. Amarin May Mean for Patent Strategy
Robert Maier, Sophie Yan
On Jan. 16, 2026, the Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Federal Circuit’s decision in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc., No. 24-889, a case concerning whether a generic drug manufacturer that omits a patented indication from its FDA-approved “skinny label,” as permitted by statute, may nonetheless be liable for induced patent infringement based on its marketing or promotional conduct.

The court’s resolution of this question may affect how patent inducement principles under 35 U.S.C. §271(b) are applied in the pharmaceutical context where the FDA approved “carve-out” is used, could have broader implications for pharmaceutical products with both patented and unpatented uses, and may even impact the induced patent infringement doctrine more broadly.

The case has now proceeded to merits briefing, with the petitioner, Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., filing its opening brief on Feb. 18, 2026. Oral argument is scheduled for April 29, 2026, and a decision is expected by the end of the court’s current term.

This article reviews the statutory background, procedural history, and potential practical implications of Hikma.
Continue Reading

Our Take on AI: April 2026
Supreme Court Denies AI Copyright Petition: On March 2, 2026, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Thaler v. Perlmutter, ending Dr. Stephen Thaler's challenge to the Copyright Office's refusal to register works created by his DABUS AI system. The key question presented was whether works generated by AI without direct human authorial contribution can receive copyright protection. The denial leaves in place the D.C. Circuit's affirmance that AI cannot be an "author" for copyright purposes — consistent with parallel outcomes on the patent side, where courts have similarly held that AI cannot qualify as an inventor. With no further avenues of appeal, the human authorship requirement for copyright remains settled law for now. Read more about this development here: "Supreme Court Denies Petition on Copyright Authorship by AI."

Oregon Passes First Chatbot Law With Private Right of Action: Oregon's SB 1546, which cleared both chambers on March 5 with near-unanimous support, creates what may be the most consequential state chatbot regulation to date. The bill targets "AI companions" — systems that retain information across sessions, ask unprompted emotional questions, and sustain ongoing personal dialogue — and imposes a private right of action with $1,000-per-violation statutory damages. Notably, the bill's definition of "operator" covers anyone who "controls or makes available" a covered AI system, meaning companies that deployed third-party chatbot tools without tracking vendor updates adding personalization or emotional engagement features may be caught within scope. Oregon is also the first state to require mandatory conversation interruption — not just referral protocols — when a chatbot detects expressions of suicidal ideation. The bill applies to all users, not just minors, making it the broadest chatbot law in scope. If signed by Governor Kotek, SB 1546 takes effect January 1, 2027. Read more about this development here: "Oregon SB 1546: The First Chatbot Law With Real Teeth."

State Chatbot Regulation and Litigation Accelerating on Two Fronts: In the first weeks of 2026, 78 chatbot-related bills have been filed across 27 states, and three distinct regulatory models are emerging: disclosure-first frameworks (California's SB 243, Washington's SB 5984), use-restriction models that dictate what chatbots cannot do when interacting with minors (New York's S9051), and criminal prohibitions (Tennessee's SB 1493, which creates a Class A felony for knowingly training AI to encourage suicide). Meanwhile, an analysis of 284 deployer-facing AI litigation matters found chatbot wiretap claims to be the fastest-growing litigation category — growing from 2 matters in 2021 to 30 in 2025. These wiretap suits target what chatbots collect from users, a distinct legal theory from the state bills regulating what chatbots say to users, meaning compliance with one does not satisfy the other. Read more about this development here: "AI Chatbot Regulation: 78 State Bills, 58 Lawsuits."

Where AI, Employees, and the Law Intersect: Baker Botts and ACC Houston hosted a half-day seminar on January 29, 2026, featuring discussions on the legal implications of AI in the workplace. Key takeaways included that AI use in employment has shifted from experimentation to accountability — the central legal question is no longer a manager's intent but how AI tools are trained, governed, documented, and reviewed. Panelists emphasized that generative AI expands trade secret and IP risk through confidential data disclosure and ownership disputes when employees input information into third-party tools, and that vendor reliance does not shift legal accountability under emerging state and local AI laws. The seminar reinforced that employers should treat AI as a drafting assistant rather than an author, requiring employees to review, validate, and finalize AI-assisted work to confirm originality, ownership, and compliance. Read about this development here: "Where AI, Employees, and the Law Intersect."

AI Counsel Code Podcast
In the episode, "Legal Risks When Models Act on Their Own", Maggie Welsh speaks with Coleman Strine about the legal risks emerging as AI agents and AI‑powered browsers gain autonomy. Coleman explains how these tools can trigger liability under computer access laws, create new confidentiality challenges, and complicate compliance with evolving state AI regulations. The conversation offers a clear, practical overview of how autonomous AI actions intersect with data security, corporate AI policies, and the rapidly changing legal landscape. Listen to the full episode here.

In the episode, "Houston as an AI Superpower: Inside the Rice Nexus Approach to AI Startups", Dr. Sanjoy Paul joins Maggie Welsh to break down what it really takes to move AI from research to real‑world deployment. He shares how Rice Nexus evaluates new AI startups, why the biggest failures come from people—not technology—and how guardrails and security need to be part of every stage of development. Dr. Paul also explains the changing landscape of AI research funding and why Houston’s deep domain expertise positions it as a rising AI powerhouse. Listen to the full episode here.

March 2026 Intellectual Property Report Recap
In case you missed it, here is a link to our March 2026 Intellectual Property Report.

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.