What Intellectual Property Owners Need to Know Heading Into 2026
In recent months, the intellectual property (IP) landscape in the U.S. has undergone significant changes spanning patents, AI-related copyright issues, trade dress enforcement and even the structure of our IP agencies themselves. For companies that develop technology, create content or operate consumer brands, these developments are more than legal headlines. Rather, they signal shifts that should influence strategy, compliance and risk management throughout 2026 and beyond.
One of the most important updates comes from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), which recently released new guidelines on artificial intelligence- (AI) assisted inventions. The USPTO has made clear that traditional inventorship standards still apply even when AI plays a role in generating patentable ideas. This clarification is timely for clients integrating AI tools. While AI can accelerate innovation, it does not alter who must be listed as an inventor, and it does not expand what qualifies as a patentable contribution. At the same time, the USPTO is moving toward a more “pro-patent” stance by tightening access to post-grant challenges such as inter partes review (IPR). Companies with large patent portfolios may view this as increased stability, while those relying on IPR challenges to clear their competitive space may need to recalibrate litigation strategy.
Copyright and trademark disputes involving AI-generated content also continue to surge. A recent U.K. ruling involving Stability AI and Getty Images highlights a trend: courts are beginning to separate model-training activity from traditional notions of copying, while still scrutinizing how trademarks and brand identifiers appear in AI outputs. Meanwhile, U.S. publishers have successfully advanced claims against certain AI developers, suggesting that content-generation risk is now a mainstream legal exposure. Companies deploying generative AI, whether internally or customer-facing, should expect rising scrutiny related to data provenance, output monitoring and licensing frameworks.
Trade dress litigation is also expanding into new territory. Historically associated with fashion and cosmetics, “dupe culture” has now reached food and consumer packaged goods. Courts appear increasingly willing to consider the overall look and feel of product packaging, even where the trade dress holder does not have a trade dress registration. For brand owners, this trend reinforces the value of auditing packaging portfolios, documenting brand elements and enforcing against close imitation early. For retailers offering private-label alternatives, it underscores rising risk around packaging mimicry, even when logos or brand names are not copied.
Finally, structural debates around IP governance in the U.S. may foreshadow longer-term change. Proposals to elevate the Copyright Office to an independent agency, or even merge it with the USPTO, reflect growing recognition that existing frameworks may not be equipped for the AI-driven economy. While these proposals are still evolving, businesses should anticipate regulatory modernization that affects how rights are registered, managed and enforced.
Taken together, these developments signal a period of transition in IP that will require IP owners to take a proactive, forward-looking approach to navigating the next wave of legal and technological change that affects their portfolio.
