Insights

Analysis from the front lines of IP & technology law.

Our attorneys write about the developments shaping intellectual property — from the PTAB and the Federal Circuit to the practical realities of protecting fast-moving technology.

Showing 1045–1056 of 1287
Intellectual PropertyRight of Publicity

Name, Image, Likeness, and Digital Replicas: The ELVIS Act, the NO FAKES Act, and Deepfake Law

The right of publicity was invented in 1953 to solve a problem about baseball cards. Seventy years later it is the doctrine everyone reaches for when a synthetic version of a person's face or voice appears in a commercial, a song, or a political advertisement, and it is straining under the weight. This article explains the doctrine and the new statutes built on top of it. It covers the origins of the right in privacy law and its transformation into a transferable property right, the state-by-state variation in what is protected and for how long, the First Amendment defenses including the transformative use test and the Rogers framework, and copyright preemption. It then addresses the digital replica statutes: Tennessee's ELVIS Act, which added voice to the protected attributes and reached tools whose primary purpose is producing unauthorized replicas; California's 2024 legislation governing digital replicas in performer contracts and the estates of deceased personalities; New York's law addressing digital replicas of deceased performers and synthetic performers; and the federal proposals and enacted statutes addressing nonconsensual intimate imagery and impersonation. A long section covers college athlete NIL after Alston and the House settlement, and a practical section covers contracting for digital replicas, consent, and platform takedowns. It closes with checklists, a worked example, an FAQ, and related reading.

Casey Scott McKayAugust 27, 202426 min read
Intellectual PropertyPatent

The LKQ Decision: A Seismic Shift in Design Patent Obviousness Analysis

On May 21, 2024, the en banc Federal Circuit handed down its most consequential design patent decision in decades, overruling the forty-year-old Rosen-Durling test for obviousness and replacing it with the flexible, fact-intensive Graham framework that has long governed utility patents. LKQ Corp. v. GM Global Technology Operations LLC, 102 F.4th 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2024), arose from a dispute over a Chevrolet Equinox front fender, but its reach extends to every industry that relies on design patents--consumer electronics, automotive, fashion, housewares, and industrial design. This guide traces the legal and procedural history of LKQ, dissects the new four-factor framework, examines the USPTO's rapid response, and surveys the first two years of post-LKQ case law through 2026, including the PTAB's continued reluctance to institute review and the Federal Circuit's signal that primary references remain essential. It assesses practical implications for applicants, in-house counsel, litigators, and designers, and shows how the decision raises the strategic value of trade dress, copyright, and utility patents as layered protection. It closes with a checklist, an FAQ, and strategic guidance for the 2026 landscape, where the early data confirms evolution rather than collapse: allowance rates have held steady and aggressive obviousness attacks still demand rigorous, non-hindsight proof.

Casey Scott McKayAugust 22, 202445 min read