Top Intellectual Property News Updates: January To April 2026

The first few months of 2026 were notable for several developments in intellectual property law, spanning artificial intelligence disputes, domain name reforms, and personality rights litigation across major intellectual property jurisdictions. A number of significant court decisions were delivered, disputes involving artificial intelligence, changes in the domain name system, and several disputes regarding personality rights. Some of the major developments from this period are discussed below.

1. U.S. Supreme Court Declines To Hear AI Copyright Case

The U.S. Supreme Court refused to hear the matter of Thaler v. Perlmutter, upholding the lower court’s decision to deny a copyright application for an artwork created entirely by Dr. Thaler’s Generative Artificial Intelligence (GAI) system called Creativity Machine.[1] Thaler stated that no human contributed creatively. The application was first refused by the Copyright Office, upheld by the district court, and further upheld by the D.C. Circuit. The Supreme Court in this case refused to hear the appeal and issue its own opinion.[2]

The ruling confirms that a work produced entirely by a machine, with no human authorship in any meaningful sense, cannot be registered in the United States, a position that continues to shape the debate on copyright claims over AI-generated content. Courts and the Copyright Office have left room for AI assisted creativity where a human exercises genuine creative judgment, but wholly machine-generated output does not qualify.[3]

In the case of Thaler v. Union of India, the Indian application was made on the basis that he is the human author utilizing the AI tools for producing the artwork; the Delhi High Court has issued an order regarding his copyright decision and has initiated the process for the Registrar of Copyrights to decide on his registration.

A related ruling came from a federal court in Delaware, where Thomson Reuters prevailed against the AI legal research company Ross Intelligence in a dispute with significant intellectual property implications for AI-driven products. Ross had used Westlaw headnotes to train its AI model without authorization. The court rejected Ross’s fair use defence, reinforcing the view that commercial AI training on copyrighted material requires a proper licence.

2. India Rejects AI Inventorship, PCT Prior Art Rules Expand

In mid–April 2026, the Indian Patent Office refused Patent Application No. 202017019068, which had sought to name the AI system DABUS as the sole inventor.The Office’s reasoning was grounded in the text of the Patents Act, 1970: inventorship under Sections 6, 7, and 10 is limited to natural persons, because only a natural person can hold and transfer legal rights. The decision is consistent with the broader impact of artificial intelligence in patent law observed across major jurisdictions.

Merely owning the AI system that generated an invention does not establish entitlement to file. India’s position now matches that of the United States, the United Kingdom, the European Patent Office, and Australia, all of which examined DABUS applications and refused them.[4]

Separately, amendments to the Patent Cooperation Treaty, effective January 1, 2026, broadened the prior art available to international search examiners under Rules 33 and 64 to include oral presentations at conferences and documented public demonstrations.

A public demonstration that might previously have escaped international scrutiny may now be cited against a pending PCT application. India’s Patents Act had already adopted an absolute novelty standard covering oral prior art, so the domestic impact is limited, but the change is material for PCT prosecution strategy globally.[5]

3. Indian Courts: Personality Rights, Design Registrability, And Insolvency Jurisdiction

Indian courts produced a notable volume of intellectual property decisions between January and April 2026. The most visible was a wave of interim injunctions protecting personality rights against AI driven misuse. High courts granted relief to Allu Arjun, Jubin Nautiyal, Shilpa Shetty, Vivek Oberoi, and others, restraining the unauthorised use of their names, voices, and likenesses by platforms producing deepfakes and impersonation content.

Petitioners grounded their claims in Article 21 of the Constitution and the right to personal dignity. Courts responded with what they termed Dynamic+ injunctions, which extend automatically to mirror content and future URLs rather than being tied to specific links, reflecting the speed at which infringing AI content tends to reappear elsewhere. The trend illustrates the growing overlap between AI and celebrity rights enforcement in Indian courts.[6]

In March, the Calcutta High Court ruled in NEC Corporation v. Controller of Patents and Designs that graphical user interfaces are eligible for design protection under the Designs Act, 2000. The Controller’s office had historically refused GUI applications on the basis that a GUI is not an article capable of industrial production.

The Court disagreed, holding that display through an electronic system satisfies the industrial application requirement, and that design registration for a GUI is independent of whatever copyright protection the interface may separately attract.[7]

On January 22, the Supreme Court ruled in Gloster Cables Ltd. v. Fort Gloster Industries Ltd. that the NCLT cannot adjudicate trademark ownership disputes between rival claimants during insolvency proceedings. Such disputes belong before a civil court or the Trade Marks Registry. The NCLT’s role is to manage assets in insolvency, not to determine who holds superior title to them.[8]

Also in March, the government announced a three year, hundred percent fee waiver on all intellectual property registrations for entities operating in the sports sector, covering patents, trademarks, designs, and copyrights.

The initiative is part of a broader push to formalise intellectual property ownership in sectors that have historically underutilised the registration system. The GItagged Kashmir willow cricket bat was cited as an example of the kind of innovation the scheme is intended to protect.[9]

4. ICANN Reopens The GTLD Application Window

Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has launched a new application window for generic top–level domains (gTLDs); this is the first time this has happened since 2012. Applications opened on 30 April 2026 and will remain open until 12 August 2026.

Businesses can apply for generic domain extensions or seek a brand–specific Top–Level Domain (TLD) that they can operate themselves; the application fee for the same is $227,000.[10]

An important feature of this round is that it supports 27 writing systems, including Devanagari, Arabic, Chinese, and Thai. This allows a much wider range of languages to be represented online than was possible in the previous round.

The development is particularly relevant for trademark owners. The launch of new domain extensions often leads to registrations that resemble existing brands. WIPO handled 6,282 domain name disputes in 2025, the highest number recorded so far, and similar disputes may increase as additional domains become available.

Trademark owners may therefore benefit from registering their marks with the Trademark Clearinghouse, which offers monitoring services and certain enforcement advantages. Intellectual property owners across other categories, not only trademark holders, should monitor this expansion closely as new extensions become available.[11]

5. MPA Issues Cease-And-Desist To ByteDance Over AI Video Tool

In February 2026, the Motion Picture Association served a cease-and-desist letter on ByteDance, a global Chinese technology company headquartered in Beijing and incorporated in the Cayman Islands, stating that Seedance 2.0, its AI video generation model, had been trained on television and film content without permission. It also reproduces copyrighted characters as part of its operations, which is done without consent. This letter was backed by Disney, Warner Bros., and Netflix. The action reflects growing intolerance among major intellectual property holders toward unlicensed AI training on protected creative works.[12]

ByteDance acknowledged the letter and said it was reviewing its safety measures; however, the studios have made it clear that in case of any shortcomings from ByteDance’s side would result in court action.

This action is also significant, as it is the first time MPA has used the mechanism directly against a generative AI developer rather than through lobbying or other regulatory channels. This direction has been followed by music and publishing companies, and further into Hollywood.[13]

Conclusion

Across these developments, a consistent pattern is visible. The question of whether AI systems can hold IP rights has been tested in multiple jurisdictions in quick succession, and the answer has been uniformly negative. Courts are not treating AI as a legal person, and neither are patent and copyright offices.

How existing intellectual property frameworks apply to AI systems that train on protected works, reproduce creative output, or simulate identifiable people without consent is still a matter of dispute.That litigation is developing, and the decisions coming out of it will define the practical limits of artificial intelligence and intellectual property rights for the foreseeable future. For guidance on any of the developments discussed above, businesses may consult JP Associates’ IPR practice.

Author Details: Kanak Sharma, 3^rd Year Student of Law at Rajiv Gandhi National University of Law

[1]Jayashree Mitra, No Copyright Protection for AI-Assisted Creations: Thaler v. Perlmutter, Carlton Fields: Insights (Mar. 26, 2025), https://www.carltonfields.com/insights/publications/2025/no-copyright-protection-for-ai-assisted-creations-thaler-v-perlmutter.

[2] Thaler v. Perlmutter, No. 24-526 (U.S. Mar. 2, 2026) (cert. denied).

[3]Norton Rose Fulbright, AI in Litigation Series: An Update on AI Copyright Cases in 2026, Norton Rose Fulbright (Mar. 15, 2026), https://www.nortonrosefulbright.com/en/knowledge/publications/ce8eaa5f/ai-in-litigation-series-an-update-on-ai-copyright-cases-in-2026.

[4]Indian Patent Office, Order on Patent Application No. 202017019068 (Apr. 2026), discussed in Sampathkumar, supra note 1.

[5]WIPO, Amendments to the Regulations under the Patent Cooperation Treaty (Rules 33 and 64, effective Jan. 1, 2026), https://www.wipo.int/pct/en/texts/rules/rtoc.html.

[6]Sampathkumar, supra note 1.

[7]NEC Corporation v. Controller of Patents and Designs, Calcutta High Court (Mar. 2026), summarised in Sampathkumar, supra note 1.

[8]Gloster Cables Ltd. v. Fort Gloster Industries Ltd., 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 80 (Jan. 22, 2026).

[9]Press Information Bureau, Government Announces Fee Waiver for IP Registrations in Sports Sector (Mar. 2026), https://www.pib.gov.in/PressReleaseDetail.aspx?PRID=2256352.

[10] ICANN, ICANN Opens Application Window for New Generic Top-Level Domains, Press Release (Apr. 30, 2026), https://www.icann.org/resources/press-material/release-2026-04-30-en.

[11] Lewis Silkin, Online Brand Protection Strategies and Enforcement Tools (Mar. 10, 2026), https://www.lewissilkin.com/insights/2026/03/10/online-brand-protection-strategies-and-enforcement-tools-102mmhp.

[12]CNBC, ByteDance Says It Will Add Safeguards to Seedance AI Copyright (Feb. 16, 2026), https://www.cnbc.com/2026/02/16/bytedance-safegaurds-seedance-ai-copyright-disney-mpa-netflix-paramount-sony-universal.html.

[13]Variety, Motion Picture Association Pushes ByteDance to Curb Seedance 2.0 AI Infringement (Feb. 20, 2026), https://variety.com/2026/film/news/motion-picture-association-bytedance-seedance-letter-1236668577/.