Ludwig, APC

10/22/2026

While most recent headlines involving artificial intelligence and intellectual property disputes have focused on copyright claims related to training data, authors, artists, publishers, and content creators, a lawsuit filed in July 2026 has opened a new front: the underlying technology that powers AI systems.

Learn more -

Ludwig examines the patent infringement lawsuit against Anthropic and what it could signal for AI innovators, investors, technology companies, and intellectual property owners as patent scrutiny increasingly shifts toward the underlying technologies powering artificial intelligence.

10/20/2026

Few cases reach the Supreme Court, and even fewer reshape how pharmaceutical companies think about infringement risk. USA Inc. v. Inc. is one of those rare matters drawing national attention. At its core is a deceptively simple question: when does a generic drugmaker “actively induce” —and when is it simply following FDA rules?

Ludwig has followed this dispute closely because the Court’s answer carries major consequences for innovators and generics alike. Now that the June 2026 decision is settled, companies across the life sciences sector are reevaluating how they draft method‑of‑use patents, communicate about carved‑out indications, and prepare for future litigation.

Learn more on our blog -

Ludwig IP Law breaks down the Supreme Court’s Hikma v. Amarin decision and what it means for patent enforcement, skinny labels, and pharmaceutical litigation.

10/14/2026

Few patent cases reach the Supreme Court, and even fewer reshape how pharmaceutical companies think about infringement risk. Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma Inc. is one of those rare matters drawing national attention. At its core is a deceptively simple question: when does a generic drugmaker “actively induce” infringement—and when is it simply following FDA rules?

Learn more on our blog -

Ludwig IP Law breaks down the Supreme Court’s Hikma v. Amarin decision and what it means for patent enforcement, skinny labels, and pharmaceutical litigation.

10/13/2026

2026 has not been a quiet year for intellectual property matters. AI adoption, brand protection pressures, patent eligibility battles, and trade secret disputes have all collided to reshape how companies defend and leverage their IP. While no one has a crystal ball, Ludwig is seeing clear signals in this year’s litigation patterns that foreshadow the disputes likely to define 2027.

Learn more on our blog -

Ludwig IP Law breaks down the major 2026 IP litigation trends shaping AI, trademarks, patents, and trade secrets—and how IP owners/creators can prepare as they head into 2027.

10/05/2026

2026 has not been a quiet year for intellectual property matters. AI adoption, brand protection pressures, patent eligibility battles, and trade secret disputes have all collided to reshape how companies defend and leverage their IP. While no one has a crystal ball, Ludwig is seeing clear signals in this year’s litigation patterns that foreshadow the disputes likely to define 2027.

Ludwig IP Law breaks down the major 2026 IP litigation trends shaping AI, trademarks, patents, and trade secrets—and how IP owners/creators can prepare as they head into 2027.

10/05/2026

Patent litigation to watch: Hikma v. Amarin

The Supreme Court’s June 2026 decision in Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. v. Amarin Pharma, Inc. provides important guidance for pharmaceutical companies navigating induced patent infringement and “skinny label” strategies.

The case centered on Amarin’s cardiovascular drug Vascepa and whether Hikma’s labeling and related communications actively encouraged physicians to use the generic drug for a patented indication. The Supreme Court unanimously held that Hikma did not actively induce infringement, emphasizing that liability requires affirmative steps to encourage infringement.

For pharmaceutical companies, the decision has implications beyond the specific dispute. Patent owners and generic manufacturers should carefully consider how method-of-use patents, FDA-approved labeling, websites, press releases, and other communications can intersect with infringement risk. The case also highlights the importance of coordinating patent strategy with regulatory and marketing considerations.

At Ludwig IP Law, we help clients navigate complex patent disputes with practical, litigation-focused strategies.

Read our full analysis of Hikma v. Amarin:
https://na2.hubs.ly/H084Jyw0

Ludwig IP Law breaks down the Supreme Court’s Hikma v. Amarin decision and what it means for patent enforcement, skinny labels, and pharmaceutical litigation.

10/02/2026

Have questions about protecting your intellectual property? Ludwig, APC provides strategic guidance across patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets — from registration and counseling to enforcement and defense. We help businesses protect, grow, and defend what they’ve built.

Contact us today---> https://na2.hubs.ly/H084w490

10/01/2026

2026 has been a significant year for intellectual property litigation, and the trends emerging now are likely to continue shaping how businesses protect their IP in 2027. AI-driven creation, trademark enforcement, patent eligibility, and trade secret protection are all evolving as courts address new technologies, changing business practices, and increasingly complex disputes.

For businesses, the takeaway is that yesterday’s IP strategy may not be enough for tomorrow’s challenges. Companies should be looking closely at how they document human involvement in AI-assisted work, monitor and enforce their trademarks, evaluate patent portfolios, and protect confidential information across employees, partners, and increasingly distributed teams. Litigation readiness should also be part of the strategy—not something addressed only after a dispute begins.

As we head toward 2027, proactive IP planning can help businesses identify vulnerabilities before they become costly disputes. At Ludwig, we help clients navigate evolving IP issues and build practical strategies designed to protect their innovations, brands, and proprietary information.

Read our full article to see the IP litigation trends businesses should be watching in 2027: https://na2.hubs.ly/H084wfy0

Ludwig IP Law breaks down the major 2026 IP litigation trends shaping AI, trademarks, patents, and trade secrets—and how IP owners/creators can prepare as they head into 2027.

09/30/2026

If AI makes professional work faster, does that mean it should cost less?

That question is becoming increasingly relevant as AI changes how professional services are delivered. The technology can reduce the time required for research, drafting, analysis, and other knowledge-based work, but efficiency does not necessarily diminish the value of the expertise behind the final result. Knowing what questions to ask, how to evaluate the output, what risks to identify, and how to apply professional judgment remain critical parts of the work.

For legal services in particular, AI may accelerate certain tasks, but it does not replace the responsibility, judgment, strategy, and accountability that come with advising a client. The real question may not be how many hours AI eliminates, but how that efficiency can translate into greater value for the client.

Read Daniel Obodovski's article for a thought-provoking look at how AI is changing the economics of professional services and what that could mean for the future of legal work: https://na2.hubs.ly/H084vwW0

AI made knowledge work more efficient before the market learned how to price it

09/23/2026

AI can help you understand a legal problem. It can’t understand your case.

Tools like ChatGPT can be useful for researching general IP concepts, organizing questions, and getting oriented before speaking with counsel. But when an actual dispute is involved, the outcome can depend on details that a chatbot cannot evaluate, including contracts, evidence, jurisdiction, deadlines, ownership, and the specific facts surrounding the dispute.

The risks can become especially significant when businesses rely on AI-generated information to make decisions about infringement claims, cease-and-desist letters, or other time-sensitive legal matters. An incorrect answer or missed detail can lead to consequences that are much more costly than the initial legal consultation.

AI has a place in the legal process. Use it to get organized and ask better questions. When your rights, business, or intellectual property are on the line, make sure you have advice tailored to the facts of your situation.

Read Ludwig’s latest article for a closer look at where AI can help, where it falls short, and when professional IP counsel matters: https://na2.hubs.ly/H07-mvf0

AI can explain the law, but it cannot weigh your facts or protect your case. Read why "free" ChatGPT advice may cost more than hiring an IP litigator.