The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has announced a new pilot program, the PCT Informed Examination Request (PIER) Pilot Program, aimed at reducing application inventory and improving examination efficiency. Application inventory, currently 1,249,845 applications, and total pendency, now 27.9 months as traditionally measured, are both at all-time highs according to the USPTO’s dashboard. The PIER pilot was announced in the Federal Register on April 9, 2026, and will operate for an initial 12 month period, subject to possible extension or early termination. IP attorneys Grant Ehrlich and Wanli Wu take a look at the new program in this Stites & Harbison Client Alert.

Artificial intelligence (“AI”) is transforming how Kentucky employers across all industries recruit, screen, and manage their workforce. With federal agencies, courts, and nearby states issuing new rules and guidance, Kentucky employers must understand the opportunities and risks associated with AI in employment decisions. Attorneys Rachel Gumbel, Harlee Havens and Jackson Hurst-Sanders take a look at the opportunities and risks in this Stites & Harbison Client Alert.

On March 25, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a provider of a service cannot be contributorily liable for copyright infringement of another when that provider does not induce the infringement or provide a service to the infringer that is tailored to infringement. Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment et al., No 24-171, ___ U.S. ___ (March 25, 2026). Merely providing an online service with knowledge that the user of the service will infringe and failing to take sufficient action to prevent the infringement does not demonstrate the intent necessary to establish contributory infringement. Moreover, failure to comply with the safe harbor practices in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act does not alone create liability for internet service providers who serve infringers. IP attorneys Alex MacKay and Sam Miller take a look at the issue in this Stites & Harbison Client Alert.

Patent portfolios often span multiple related entities – a parent corporation and its subsidiaries, spinouts, or partners. When patent applications share overlapping subject matter, a US Patent Examiner may raise an obviousness type double patenting (ODP) rejection. The usual fix, a terminal disclaimer (TD) pursuant to common ownership, is not available when the patents are owned by different entities. This can have very real effects when a parent company assigns some patent applications in a portfolio, such as application-focused patents, to one wholly owned subsidiary while other foundational patents remain with another wholly owned subsidiary. IP attorneys Grant Ehrlich and Kim Vines take a look at double patenting and more in this Stites & Harbison Client Alert.