The Federal government is accelerating AI‑enabled innovation by launching the Genesis Mission, a sweeping national initiative to accelerate scientific discovery using artificial intelligence. The goal of the Mission is to “build an integrated AI platform to harness Federal scientific datasets…to train scientific foundation models and create AI agents to test new hypotheses, automate research workflows, and accelerate scientific breakthroughs.” Under the leadership of the Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, the Department of Energy will implement the Mission.
Alan S. Teran, Ph.D.
Alan S. Teran, Ph.D., is an associate in the Litigation Department and Intellectual Property Group.
His practice focuses on a variety of intellectual property issues, including worldwide patent portfolio development and litigation. Alan also has experience with in-house legal and compliance matters, including product counseling, commercial contracts, and privacy.
Alan has expertise in semiconductor devices and fabrication as well as experience with a wide range of technologies, including augmented/virtual reality-based software solutions; material processing operations; control systems; integrated circuits; machine learning-based financial services software; media and mobile technology; medical devices; and secondary batteries.
Alan is a registered patent attorney before the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office; and a Certified Information Privacy Professional in the United States (CIPP/US) with the International Association of Privacy Professionals (IAPP).
Alan received his Ph.D. in Electrical Engineering at the University of Michigan, where his research focused on energy harvesting technologies and semiconductor physics for Internet-of-Things and medical applications.
Stay Aware: Remote Employees Impact Venue Options In Patent Litigation
For many patent cases, the United States District Court hearing your patent dispute can have a big impact on case strategy, budget and management, and even, to some extent, case outcomes. As we discussed earlier this year, how a patent owner approaches an alleged infringer can turn into a costly and inconvenient endeavor if forced to defend their patents in an unexpected jurisdiction. A recent case out of the District of Arizona illustrates the opposite scenario – where the activities of an accused infringer results in a suboptimal venue for that defendant.
Crypto Unlocked: New Patent Eligibility Guidance on Blockchain Technology
The U.S. gave crypto one of its biggest regulatory jolts in years. With the signing of the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (“GENIUS”) Act stablecoins now have a legal framework. The GENIUS Act is part of a broader push to accelerate the development of emerging technologies in the U.S., from artificial intelligence to quantum computing. That same push is showing up in the patent world, where the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) are beginning to clarify how blockchain-related inventions can clear long-standing Section 101 hurdles.
Discretionary Denials in Action: iRhythm Technologies Inc. v. Welch Allyn Inc.
The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) Acting Director’s recent decision to deny institution of inter partes review (“IPR”) in iRhythm Technologies Inc. v. Welch Allyn Inc. offers valuable lessons for both patent owners and patent challengers navigating the PTAB’s approach to discretionary denials.
Impact of the Leadership in Critical Technologies Act on U.S. Artificial Intelligence, Semiconductors and Quantum Computing
On the heels of the recent reintroduction of the PERA and PREVAIL Acts of 2025, a bipartisan group of lawmakers in Congress has introduced the Leadership in Critical and Emerging Technologies (“CET”) Act. The goal of the Leadership in CET Act is to “encourage innovation by, and the leadership of, the United States with respect to critical or emerging technologies” – specifically, artificial intelligence, semiconductor design, and quantum information science.
Interesting Recent § 101 Cases – Structural Components Are Not Enough
Your Package Could Not Be Delivered – District of Delaware Strikes Electronic Storage Room Claims as Patent Ineligible
Judge Choe-Groves of the United States Court of International Trade granted Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss and ruled Plaintiff’s asserted electronic storage room patent invalid under § 101 of the Patent Act.
Luxer, a Delaware corporation and plaintiff in this patent infringement case, makes products related to controlling access to a package storage room. For example, the patent at issue describes systems and methods for controlling electronic locks of a storage room based on access rules and user credentials. The motivation behind these products is to offer a solution that allows a delivery carrier to drop off a package and a recipient to collect their package at any time and in a secure manner – no signature required. The Defendant, Package Concierge, Inc., offers very similar products.
Amazon Patent Evaluation Express (APEX): Personal Jurisdiction Considerations
The Supreme Court recently declined to review a Federal Circuit decision that could have significant implications for patent owners that rely on the Amazon Patent Evaluation Express (“APEX”) program.
The APEX program offers a streamlined way for utility patent owners to request removal of allegedly infringing product listings on Amazon.com, without filing a suit in district court. To initiate the process, the patent owner identifies up to 20 product listings that allegedly infringe one claim of a patent. Amazon then notifies the sellers, who may (1) agree to an independent infringement analysis by a neutral third party, (2) engage with the patent owner directly to resolve the dispute, (3) file a declaratory judgment action in U.S. district court, or (4) do nothing—at which point Amazon removes the product listings.
Patent Litigation and the Rise of Quantum Computing: What to Watch for in the Next Decade
A recent Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision related to hybrid quantum computing paves the way for more quantum computing-related patents, and potential litigation.
Quantum computing is an important and evolving form of computing that has yet to be truly realized. Classical computing is, fundamentally, governed by the ability to store information in a bit, a binary unit represented by a one or a zero. In contrast, quantum computing is governed by a quantum bit, or qubit, which can represent an infinite, continuous number of possible states. For example, while 2 bits can store four combinations (00, 01, 10, or 11), 2 qubits can store all four combinations simultaneously. Hybrid quantum-classical computing (“HQC”) involves using both quantum computing and classical computing together in a system for one to address the shortcomings of the other. At its core, both types of computing are well known and rely on mathematical concepts making patent claims on a HQC highly susceptible to patent ineligibility attacks.
Preparing for Europe’s Unified Patent Court
After years of contemplation and delays, Europe’s Unified Patent Court will be operational in about one year. U.S.-based Life Sciences patent applicants should start preparing now to ensure that their applications withstand scrutiny under the new patent court.