C & T Newsletters
August 2026
Meta Patent Could Bring Automatic Recording and Facial Recognition to Smart Glasses
Takeaway: Meta’s latest patent illustrates both the rapid evolution of AI-powered wearable technology and the growing privacy and legal questions surrounding devices that can identify and record people automatically.
Meta has filed a patent application describing a “memory recall” system that could significantly expand the capabilities of its smart glasses. The technology appears designed to use facial recognition to identify people a wearer encounters, automatically record interactions, and later generate a highlights reel to help the wearer recall where and when they saw someone.
The filing comes as Meta’s Ray-Ban smart glasses face growing scrutiny over privacy concerns, particularly reports of people using the glasses to record others without their knowledge. While the patent does not necessarily mean these features will become part of a commercial product, it highlights the potential for wearable devices to increasingly combine cameras, artificial intelligence, facial recognition, and automated recording.
Amazon Faces Lawsuit Over Twitch Content Used for AI Training
Takeaway: The lawsuit highlights the growing legal debate over whether companies can use creator-generated content to train AI models without consent or compensation.
Amazon is facing a proposed class-action lawsuit over allegations that it used Twitch streamers’ content to train artificial intelligence models without proper permission or compensation. The lawsuit, filed by Connecticut-based streamer Warren Pandiscia on behalf of millions of Twitch creators, claims Amazon and Twitch breached their contractual obligations by commercially using streamers’ videos as AI training data.
The lawsuit follows backlash after Twitch announced that creators could opt out of having their content used for generative AI training. However, the opt-out applies only to individual streams, meaning a creator’s content could still potentially be used when they appear on another stream where the feature remains enabled. Twitch has also said stream audio may be used to improve speech-to-text models and automated captions.
The case underscores growing concerns over the use of user-generated content to develop AI systems, particularly when creators may not have clearly consented to that use. The lawsuit seeks damages for affected streamers and an order preventing Amazon from continuing the alleged practice.
FTC Heightens Scrutiny of “Made in USA” Claims
Takeaway: Companies should avoid broad “Made in USA” or “Manufactured in USA” claims unless they can substantiate that every covered product meets the FTC’s “all or virtually all” standard.
The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) is taking a more aggressive approach to enforcing U.S.-origin advertising claims. Unqualified statements such as “Made in USA” or “Manufactured in USA” generally require that all or virtually all of a product’s components and manufacturing be domestic. There is no specific percentage that automatically satisfies this standard; the FTC considers factors such as the proportion of U.S. manufacturing costs and the significance of foreign components. Importantly, final assembly in the United States does not necessarily support an unqualified U.S.-origin claim when a product contains significant or functionally important imported components.
Companies with mixed domestic and foreign sourcing should therefore consider limiting U.S.-origin claims to specific products or product lines that meet the applicable requirements. Depending on the circumstances, qualified language such as “Manufactured in the USA with globally sourced components” or “Assembled in USA” may be more appropriate. Recent FTC enforcement actions involving products assembled in the United States but containing significant foreign components demonstrate the potential consequences of unsupported claims, reinforcing the importance of reviewing and substantiating U.S.-origin statements before using them in marketing.
USPTO Introduces New Trademark Application Serial Number Series
Takeaway: Beginning July 18, 2026, the USPTO will issue trademark application serial numbers beginning with “50,” requiring practitioners to review any systems or processes that rely on existing serial number formats.
The USPTO is launching a new serial number series for trademark applications filed under Sections 1 or 44 of the Trademark Act. The new identifiers will remain eight digits and continue serving as the unique number assigned to each application, while special series applications, including Madrid Protocol extensions of protection beginning with “79,” will remain unchanged. The USPTO emphasizes that filing date and time, rather than serial number sequence, should be used to determine priority.
Trademark owners and practitioners should review docketing software, databases, and internal processes that rely on specific serial number prefixes to ensure they continue functioning properly once the new series takes effect. The change does not alter the underlying application process or priority rules, but systems that assume trademark serial numbers will begin with a particular sequence may require updates.
USPTO Expands Trademark Center with New Filing Tools
Takeaway: The latest Trademark Center updates give trademark practitioners more filing options and greater efficiency when handling prosecution, procedural, and post-registration matters.
The USPTO has expanded the functionality of its Trademark Center platform with several new forms and features designed to streamline trademark prosecution and post-registration matters. Practitioners can now submit bulk forms for changes of address or representation and attorney withdrawals, request extensions of time to respond to Office Actions, and request extensions related to expungement or reexamination proceedings. Trademark Center also now allows users to submit Section 7 requests to amend or correct registration certificates and order registration certificates directly through the platform. These additions continue the USPTO’s efforts to move more trademark-related filings into a centralized, electronic system.
USPTO Decision Clarifies Obviousness-Type Double Patenting (OTDP) Rejections
Takeaway: Ex parte Baurin reinforces the USPTO’s continued use of OTDP rejections while clarifying that the Allergan exception is narrow and unlikely to affect most original patent examinations.
On August 8, 2026, the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board designated Ex parte Baurin as precedential, providing important guidance on obviousness-type double patenting (OTDP) rejections. In the decision, Director Squires and the Appeals Review Panel (ARP) reinstated an Examiner’s OTDP rejection after finding that the Board had erred in dismissing the anti-harassment rationale underlying such rejections. The ARP emphasized that Federal Circuit precedent recognizes two key rationales for OTDP: preventing an unjustified extension of patent term and preventing potential harassment through separate lawsuits by different patent owners covering the same invention or obvious variants.
The decision also addresses the Federal Circuit’s Allergan decision, explaining that its exception is narrowly applicable and generally will not arise during original patent examination. The ARP instructed USPTO personnel to continue following existing pre-Allergan OTDP practices unless it is determined that the Allergan exception applies, which is more likely to occur during reexamination or reissue proceedings.
USPTO Expands Patent Bar Eligibility to Include Biomedical Science Degrees
Takeaway: The USPTO’s addition of Biomedical Science to Category A broadens the pathway to patent bar eligibility and reflects the Office’s continued efforts to modernize the scientific and technical qualifications for patent practitioners.
The USPTO has updated its General Requirements Bulletin to move Biomedical Science from Category B to Category A, making it easier for individuals with qualifying biomedical science degrees to meet the scientific and technical requirements to sit for the patent bar examination. Category A degrees automatically satisfy the USPTO’s technical education requirement, while Category B degrees generally require applicants to provide additional documentation demonstrating their qualifications. The change follows the USPTO’s ongoing three-year review of Category B degrees and is intended to streamline the application process, improve administrative efficiency, and encourage broader participation in the patent profession.
The USPTO also addressed whether Artificial Intelligence degrees should be added to Category A, but declined to do so at this time due to the limited number of applicants with AI degrees and the varying curricula among AI programs. The Office indicated it will continue monitoring AI degree programs and may reconsider their eligibility as more data becomes available. The updated requirements became effective August 11, 2026.
Senate Unanimously Passes Bipartisan Bill to Combat Counterfeit Imports
Takeaway: The Senate’s unanimous vote signals strong bipartisan support for giving CBP and IP rights holders greater tools to identify and stop counterfeit goods before they enter the U.S. marketplace.
The U.S. Senate has unanimously passed bipartisan legislation introduced by Senators Chuck Grassley and Maggie Hassan aimed at strengthening efforts to detect and intercept counterfeit goods entering the United States. The bill would authorize U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) to share information about the packaging and shipping of suspected counterfeit products with intellectual property rights holders, e-commerce platforms, and transportation carriers. By improving communication among government agencies and private-sector stakeholders, the legislation seeks to stop counterfeit products before they reach American consumers and businesses.
The measure has received broad support from organizations representing intellectual property owners, manufacturers, retailers, pharmaceutical companies, and other industries affected by counterfeiting. The bill now moves to the U.S. House of Representatives, where its passage would be required before it can advance toward becoming law.
Cislo & Thomas LLP Spotlight
Congratulations to Daniel M. Cislo and Jeffrey G. Sheldon on Best Lawyers Award
Congratulations to Daniel M. Cislo, Esq. and Jeffrey G. Sheldon, Esq. on their inclusion in the 33rd Edition of The Best Lawyers in America for their work in IP Litigation, Patent Litigation, Patent Law, and Trademark Law!
Dan and Jeff are both experienced IP attorneys with focus on all aspects of intellectual property, from prosecution and litigation to domestic and international licensing, having handled thousands of patent and trademark applications and hundreds of IP litigation cases.
Great work Dan and Jeff!
Previous Newsletters
