Can an unregistered work be enforced in U.S. courts? This article explains when U.S. copyright registration is required, how “United States works” are defined, and what courts say about foreign and online publications.

Involvement in patent, trademark, or copyright infringement litigation in U.S. federal courts makes settlement an ever-present option. Settlement is not a sign of weakness, but an expression of commercial rationality—exchanging controllable costs for certainty.

In NDIL IP cases, ex parte TROs commonly require a TRO Bond, but the amount is often symbolic, typically USD 5,000–10,000, regardless of defendant count. Although Rule 65(c) allows recovery for wrongful injunctions, actual compensation from the TRO Bond is extremely rare in practice.

Statutory damages for intellectual property infringement—such as patent, copyright, and trademark infringement—are established under U.S. federal law. The amount varies depending on the specific circumstances of the infringement (for example, whether the infringement was willful or innocent) and the type of intellectual property right infringed.

A Section 337 investigation conducted by the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) is a quasi-judicial proceeding that addresses unfair trade practices related primarily to intellectual property (IP) infringement involving imported products. This analysis covers the Section 337 investigation process, strategies of complainants and respondents, filing requirements, and hearing procedures.

With the widespread application of generative artificial intelligence in fields such as creation, design, and content generation, the works it produces have posed unprecedented challenges to the existing U.S. patent, trademark, and copyright systems. At the same time, AI companies’ massive collection and use of materials in the training of large language models has triggered intense legal disputes concerning copyright infringement and fair use.

In the context of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), takedown notices are only applicable to copyright infringement—not trademark infringement. Therefore, if a party sends a DMCA takedown notice based on a trademark claim, such notice is legally inapplicable and invalid.

The iRhythm and Dabico decisions demonstrate how PTAB is evolving to prioritize procedural fairness and administrative efficiency by anchoring its discretion in the Settled Expectations doctrine. This development raises the bar for late-stage invalidity petitions and urges petitioners to act strategically and with urgency. Moving forward, this doctrine is likely to stand alongside the Fintiv framework as a decisive tool for discretionary denial.

Drawing from litigation trends in U.S. federal courts, particularly those involving global platforms like Amazon, eBay, and Alibaba, this report outlines both the obstacles to effective enforcement and the emerging legal tools—such as Schedule A lawsuits, electronic service, and asset freezing orders—used to protect IP rights.