IP Litigation 2026 - Agenda

Trade secret disputes increasingly involve conduct, data, and teams outside the U.S. In-house teams are finding that trade secret theft that appears “foreign” can still trigger U.S. litigation, while non-US data, employment, and disclosure rules can significantly limit how companies investigate and respond. Recent court decisions have clarified that the DTSA can reach conduct abroad, materially increasing exposure for global organisations. This session focuses on what extraterritorial trade secret risk looks like in practice and how in-house teams do ityou are adjusting their strategies.

• How the DTSA’s extraterritorial provisions under 18 U.S.C. § 1837 are being applied in practice.
• Lessons from Motorola Solutions v. Hytera (7th Cir. 2024), where U.S. courts allowed DTSA claims tied to foreign conduct and worldwide sales.
• How data protection laws, data localisation, and local employment rules affect investigations and discovery outside the U.S.
• Practical steps companies are taking to manage trade secret risk across global teams, systems, and vendors.
• Review recent cases to learn how companies have successfull

In light of recent changes in PTAB practice under new USPTO Director John A. Squires, in-house teams are reassessing disclosure risk, IPR exposure, and long-term enforceability, particularly for manufacturing processes, algorithms, and data-driven know-how. This session focuses on how companies are making these calls in practice, and how patent strategy is directly shaping trade secret risk in later disputes.

• How PTAB institution trends, discretionary denial, and parallel-proceeding strategy are influencing decisions to rely more heavily on trade secrets.
• Where patent specifications, prosecution history, and expert positions have later been used to argue that information was disclosed and no longer secret.
• Managing the risk of over-disclosure in patent filings while preserving meaningful trade secret protection.
• When companies deliberately shift from patenting to trade secret protection over a product’s lifecycle, and what triggers that shift.

Ten years on from the enactment of the DTSA, trade secret law has become a core pillar of U.S. IP enforcement. Over that period, courts have clarified key aspects of the statute, including reasonable measures, extraterritorial reach, damages, and the interaction between federal and state trade secret claims. At the same time, in-house counsel, litigators, and policymakers have increasingly questioned whether the DTSA is operating as originally intended, or whether targeted reform is now needed to address cost, overreach, and changing business realities. This debate will assess whether the DTSA remains fit for purpose as it enters its second decade.

• How DTSA jurisprudence has evolved since 2016, including court treatment of reasonable measures and trade secret identification.
• Concerns around litigation cost, discovery burden, and overbroad claims in modern DTSA cases.
• How courts are applying the DTSA’s extraterritorial provisions under 18 U.S.C. § 1837.
• Whether recent enforcement outcomes and damages awards align with congressional intent.
• Review the Uniform Law Commission’s Drafting Committee’s decisions in updating the Uniform Trade Secrets Act (UTSA).

This judges’ panel offers candid insight into how courts approach patent disputes involving complex technologies, including software, electronics, and standards-based products. Drawing on recent decisions and, judges from key US jurisdictions will discuss what most influences outcomes from claim construction and technical tutorials to expert testimony and damages models.

From MedTech devices and AI-enabled hardware to cloud platforms and AI drug discovery, AI technologies are increasingly central to inventorship and innovation across sectors. As AI becomes embedded in regulated medical technologies such as Software as a Medical Device (SaMD) and AI-enabled diagnostics, new evidentiary and regulatory considerations are emerging in patent disputes. This session reviews recent AI-related patent cases and examines how courts are shaping litigation and portfolio strategy going forward.

• How are parameters around patent eligibility evolving in AI cases.
• How litigation strategy and outcomes vary across a range of tech sectors including AI-enabled hardware, software, multifunction innovation products and MedTech.
• Address new evidentiary and regulatory considerations for handling AI in regulated technologies such as SaMD.
• How are infringement theories are being used in AI patent litigation.
• A review of recent cases like Nueral AI, LLC v. NVIDIA Corp., and Solos Technology’s complaint against Meta and EssilorLuxottica.

How and when to use ex parte re-examination to narrow or reshape asserted claims, weaken infringement theories, and create leverage without the visibility or estoppel risks of IPR.

Claim construction strategy for complex product ecosystems, where alleged infringement spans hardware, software, cloud services, and third-party components.

How companies design settlements that address multiple products and patents while managing future releases, portfolio scope, and downstream risk.

How MedTech companies decide when to patent device innovation and when to rely on trade secret protection, balancing enforcement leverage, disclosure risk, and reverse engineering realities.

How patent disputes reveal weaknesses in claim drafting and specification support, and how litigation outcomes are reshaping prosecution strategy for device portfolios.

A focused look at litigating patents in India where manufacturing scale, pricing pressure, and public-interest arguments materially affect outcomes.

How enforcement, settlement posture, and leverage change once the first generic or biosimilar has already entered the market.

Explore how evergreening strategies and recent EU regulatory reforms are shaping competition, access, and patent lifecycle management across the pharmaceutical landscape.

Examine how branded and biosimilar companies build, litigate, and defend formulation and delivery patents as core composition claims expire and these assets become the last line of exclusivity.