Sponsored Content

In the high-velocity M&A landscape of 2026, the technical closing of a transaction is often mistaken for the finish line. For M&A counsel, however, the signing of a purchase agreement is merely the beginning of a critical risk window. While the contract handles the equitable transfer of rights between parties, the statutory transfer – the formal recordal of title in every global jurisdiction – is where the deal’s value is most vulnerable.

In December 2025, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed a decision from the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York that service of two China-based defendants by email violated the Convention on Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters, Nov. 15, 1965, 20 U.S.T. 361, T.I.A.S. No. 6638, also known as the “Hague Convention,” and therefore was not permitted under Rule 4(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Smart Study Co. v. Shenzhenshixindajixieyouxiangongsi, U.S. App. LEXIS 33039, at *1 (2d Cir. Dec. 18, 2025).   While the Second Circuit looked at whether the Hague Convention explicitly identifies email as a permitted method of service, the proper question is whether the Hague Convention prohibits service by email.

When Temu launched in September 2022, it set out to connect consumers with sellers offering quality, affordable products. Today, the platform has built out a comprehensive system to keep counterfeit goods at bay. The number of brands Temu actively scans for fakes has grown from 3,000 to more than 5,000 over the past year. Temu now resolves more than 99% of requests to remove unauthorized products within three business days—most in under 24 hours. 

In the most recent episode of IP Innovators, host Steve Brachmann sits down with Stephanie Curcio, CEO and co-founder of NLPatent, to unpack how AI is reshaping prosecution, search, and the overall workflow across patent professions. Curcio, who began her career in traditional patent drafting and prosecution, explains how early concept-based AI search tools convinced her the profession was on the verge of a seismic shift.

In the latest episode of IP Innovators, host Steve Brachmann speaks with Aaron Capron, partner and head of the Patent Office Practice at Finnegan, about how patent prosecution is evolving across AI, quantum computing, semiconductors, and other rapidly developing fields. Throughout the discussion, Capron consistently returns to themes that resonate deeply with experienced patent practitioners: the importance of thinking like an examiner, the need for robust infrastructure to manage complex portfolios, and the reality that legal technology—especially AI—requires thoughtful integration, not simple adoption.

Something important happened at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) last month, and it did not get nearly the attention it deserved. The Office rolled out its Artificial Intelligence Search Automated Pilot (ASAP) Program, and for the first time, AI is now part of the pre-examination process, rather than operating around it. Given where things stand, this move almost feels inevitable. Filings keep climbing, examiners are stretched thin, and first office action pendency  reached an all-time high of 22.6 months in FY 2025. Anyone who has spent time in prosecution knows the system needs help. AI can absolutely make the early search phase faster and more consistent.

Every November, we gather around tables filled with the fruits of hard work and gratitude. It’s a season that reminds us to pause and appreciate not only what we’ve built, but also the unseen effort and foresight that made it possible. In innovation, that same kind of gratitude is found in something often overlooked but profoundly important: Freedom to Operate (FTO). Most founders understand the excitement of being patent pending. But few truly grasp what it means to be free to operate. The two are not the same.

In the latest episode of IP Innovators, host Steve Brachmann discusses the evolution of patent practice, in-house innovation, and the growing role of AI with Phil Harris, Equity Partner and Patent Practice Group Leader at Holland & Hart. As firms navigate when to build their own tools versus partnering with vendors, Harris offers a grounded look at how automation is reshaping the daily realities of patent work, and why the most forward-thinking teams treat innovation not as a one-time project, but as a continuous practice.

For many guitarists, finding the right tone is a lifelong pursuit. It’s the quest for the perfect sound—a sound controlled not only by the guitar or the amplifier but also by the complex chain of electronics connecting them. Central to this are the effects pedals, and few pedals have the same mythical status as the Klon Centaur. This legendary pedal, built by guitarist and designer Bill Finnegan in the 1990s, was the subject of a recent trademark lawsuit that drew a line between a respectful “klone” (often spelled with a “K”) and an infringing counterfeit.

In the third episode of IP Innovators, host Steve Brachmann sits down with Mark Kesslen, Partner and Chair of the Intellectual Property Group at Lowenstein Sandler, to trace a career that spans from the dawn of online banking and the FinTech revolution to the rise of AI in patent law. As AI tools become increasingly common in law firms and patent practices across the United States, Kesslen offers a firsthand view of how attorneys are learning to integrate these systems effectively and responsibly. From his early work digitizing finance at LabMorgan to leading AI adoption in a top-tier IP practice, Kesslen’s story reflects a profession once again at a turning point defined by the mantra: “Trust, but verify.”

For decades, inventors, practitioners, and researchers alike have faced the same tradeoff. Free tools surface only the most obvious references, missing decisive prior art. Professional platforms offer depth, but require significant training and demand five-figure subscriptions. The patent system promises to promote innovation by making knowledge accessible. But to fully realize this vision, patent knowledge must be available on tap to everyone who needs it, in whichever form best serves each individual user. Today’s AI technology has unlocked the possibility of universal access to professional-grade patent intelligence.

In an ideal world, every patent law firm, from a small practice drafting 50 patents a year to a large firm drafting thousands a year, would deliver patents for their clients that contain no errors. In reality though, patent drafting is complex and tedious work, and errors inevitably occur. So as a client, how do you ensure the highest quality patent applications? When it comes to quality work and the prevalence of errors, does the size of the firm you choose matter? In a recent study of proofreading errors and firm size, we found that it just might.

For startups, patents are often the first line of defense in building a competitive moat. They signal to investors that your company is not only innovative but also strategically protecting its differentiators. But not all patents are created equal. A weak or poorly conceived filing can raise more red flags than confidence. As a former United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Patent Examiner and now an Intellectual Property Strategist, I’ve seen both sides: portfolios that impressed investors and set startups up for long-term growth — and portfolios that did little more than drain resources. The difference comes down to strategy.

Filing a patent application is one of the most important steps an inventor can take. It protects your priority rights, signals credibility to investors, and can form the foundation of a business. But it’s also one of the easiest steps to get wrong. During my 15 years as a patent examiner at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), I reviewed thousands of applications. Time and again, I saw filings that were doomed before they even reached my desk. Not because the idea lacked merit, but because inventors rushed ahead without preparing properly.