Sheena Wang

Mistaken Identity Continues Apace I have been contacted by a manager from Lexology and informed that I am named in the current Lexology Index IP as one of the top 45 Thought Leaders in US patents. What really pleased me were other names on the list, including, only by way of example, Bryan Diner, whom I trained, Murnane John (John Murnane), who was a law clerk I supervised way back in the Reggie Jackson, NY Yankee glory days, former partners James Barney, Mike Morin, and J. Michael (Mike) Jakes, Courtenay Brinckerhoff, former co-counsel Dimitrios Drivas, Joseph Re, whom I tried unsuccessfully to recruit many decades ago, Errol Taylor, with whom I interfered against decades ago in Chen v. Bouchard which went on for a decade, and R. Danny Huntington, with whom I also interfered against many moons ago in the protracted Ames v. Freilich. I am left to wonder whether any of them on the list will sue Lexology for defamation for including me on a list with them. And I must thank, for their continued support, my colleagues at The Marbury Law Group, PLLC, including head of life sciences and chemistry, Michelle O'Brien, Managing Partner, Shauna Miller Wertheim, and members of the life science group, Gayathri Nattar Ranganathan, Ph.D. J.D., Jennifer Bachorik, J.D., Ph.D. Joanna Cohn, and Audrey Johnson, patent agent intern for the summer before returning to wrap up her master's in chemistry at UCLA and then, in view of her amazing LSAT score, on to a top ten law school (my bias is The Duke University School of Law). Great genes in my family, so I aim to continue for many more decades the active practice of U.S. patent law, specializing, for example, in patent expert witnessing, due diligence, and patent strategy in huge dollar pharma cases. 😎 😎 😎 No attorney client relationship, not legal advice, for informational and entertainment purposes only, does not represent the views of any past, present, or future clients of The Marbury Law Group, PLLC; liability disclaimed for any error or omission.

Congratulations to Rothwell Figg’s Jennifer Maisel, who has been named to WIPR - World IP Review’s Influential Women in IP 2026. This recognition celebrates women whose expertise, leadership, and influence are shaping the global IP profession. #IntellectualProperty #WomenInLaw #IPLaw

Saul Ewing LLP is proud to announce that Counsel Christie McGuinness has been selected as one of the American Bar Association’s 2026 “On The Rise - Top 40 Young Lawyers” honorees. The award program provides national recognition of ABA Young Lawyers Division members who exemplify a broad range of high achievement, innovation, vision, leadership, and service to the profession and their communities. Learn more in this press release ➡️ https://lnkd.in/dTy5H4uP

Rothwell Figg is well represented in the 2026 Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers and Rising Stars lists, with 20 of the firm's attorneys recognized. Among the honorees, E. Anthony Figg and Steven Lieberman were named to the Top 100 Super Lawyers in Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers selects the top 5% of lawyers in Washington, D.C. through its annual multi-phase process, which includes peer reviews and independent research.

WIPR - World IP Review Leaders 2026, a trusted resource on the world's leading IP practitioners, includes Rothwell Figg's Aydin H. Harston. Aydin was recognized for contentious and non-contentious work in patents. WIPR describes this list as being comprised of lawyers "at the forefront of shaping the future of intellectual property legal practice."

Sorry, I know, another AI post on your feed. But AI fatigue is exactly what this post is about, so bear with me. AI can generate 100 brand names in 10 seconds. That doesn't mean it can create a strong brand. One of the most interesting limitations of AI-powered brand-name generators is that they often optimize for familiarity. Give a tool a product category, a desired tone, and a few keywords, and it will produce pages of names, logos, and taglines almost instantly. But every TM attorney will tell you that trademark law generally rewards distinctiveness, not familiarity. Many AI-generated names gravitate toward the same pool of recognizable words and branding patterns: "smart," "green," "pure," "nova," "eco," "fast," you name it. They may sound polished and marketable, but they often land on the weaker end of the trademark distinctiveness spectrum: descriptive, suggestive at best, and frequently crowded with existing uses. Trademark law still asks the same questions it always has: • Does the mark identify a single commercial source? • Is it distinctive for the relevant goods or services? • Is it likely to be confused with an existing mark? Totally my take, but two (or more) human brains are less likely to come up with the same exact idea than a model whose output is built on probability. A few practical considerations for brand owners: 1- Use AI for ideation, not clearance. A name that appears unique to a model may still be descriptive, crowded, or confusingly similar in the marketplace. 2- Don't be afraid of the unexpected. Some of the strongest trademarks are arbitrary or fanciful. The more a prompt asks for something "clear" or "obvious," the more likely the result is to describe the product rather than distinguish it. That is almost always a bad choice for trademark. 3- Brands are built, not generated. AI can produce options, but trademark rights arise from real-world use that transforms a name into a source identifier. Think of a term that works in the real world. 4- Conduct real clearance searches before launch. You will avoid conflict and (bonus) you may find out whether your competitor used the same AI tool as you. Ultimately, AI is trained on existing language and patterns and many of the most valuable brands succeed precisely because they break away from them. #AIandLaw #TrademarkLaw #BrandStrategy #TrademarkStrategy #BrandProtection #GenerativeAI #IntellectualProperty #LegalTech

Please join us in welcoming Delon Lier to Rothwell Figg. An intellectual property litigator he focuses his practice on patent litigation and complex IP disputes. Delon brings a combination of scientific training and appellate insight to his work, with particular emphasis on life sciences, medical devices, pharmaceuticals, vaccine technology, network communications, and trade secrets. Delon earned his B.A., with honors, in Biological Sciences from the University of Chicago, with minors in Molecular Engineering and Cinema & Media Studies, and his J.D. from New York University School of Law.

𝗟𝗲𝗮𝗱𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗵𝗶𝗽 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗺𝗲𝗮𝘀𝘂𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗯𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝘄𝗲 𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗲𝗶𝘃𝗲, 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝗯𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗼𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝘄𝗲 𝗰𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝘀. 𝗘𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗼𝘆𝗲𝗲 𝗔𝗽𝗽𝗿𝗲𝗰𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗪𝗲𝗲𝗸 has me reflecting on how much of our lives are shaped by people who may never fully realize their impact. A manager who takes a chance. A colleague who offers support. A mentor who shares hard-earned wisdom. A leader who creates space for someone to grow. These moments rarely make headlines. They don't appear on performance scorecards. Yet they shape teams, organizations and communities in lasting ways. 𝗢𝘃𝗲𝗿 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲, 𝗜'𝘃𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝗯𝗲𝗹𝗶𝗲𝘃𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗺𝗼𝘀𝘁 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗿𝗲𝘀𝗽𝗼𝗻𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝘄𝗲 𝗵𝗮𝘃𝗲, 𝗿𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗿𝗱𝗹𝗲𝘀𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝘁𝗶𝘁𝗹𝗲, 𝗶𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗵𝗲𝗹𝗽 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝘀𝗲𝗲 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗯𝗶𝗹𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝘆 𝗺𝗮𝘆 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘆𝗲𝘁 𝘀𝗲𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺𝘀𝗲𝗹𝘃𝗲𝘀. To encourage. To connect. To advocate. To open doors. Because the impact we have on others often extends far beyond the moment itself. 💡 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗼𝗼𝗿𝘀 𝘄𝗲 𝗼𝗽𝗲𝗻 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿𝘀 𝗼𝗳𝘁𝗲𝗻 𝗯𝗲𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗰𝘆 𝘄𝗲 𝗹𝗲𝗮𝘃𝗲 𝗯𝗲𝗵𝗶𝗻𝗱. #EAW #Leadership #TDProud #MoreHuman #Culture

Another Tale from the Dupe Wars:   On Monday, a jury in the Northern District of California sided with Quince in Deckers Outdoor Corp. v. Last Brand, Inc. - the closely watched dispute between UGG’s parent company and the DTC brand selling shearling boots at a fraction of the price. The jury found that Quince’s boot infringed UGG’s design patent, but concluded the patent itself was invalid. Earlier in the case, the court had already dismissed UGG’s trade dress claims, holding that the Classic Ultra Mini and Tasman silhouettes were too generic to function as source identifiers. The result: Deckers proved copying but was left without relief.   Meanwhile, Lululemon is waging its own dupe battle. In June 2025, Lululemon sued Costco in the Central District of California, alleging that Costco’s Kirkland Signature line copies the trade dress and design elements of Lululemon’s Scuba hoodie, Define jacket, and ABC pants - products selling for $20 versus Lululemon’s $100+. The complaint asserts trade dress infringement, trademark infringement, design patent infringement, and unfair competition.   Together, these cases expose a fundamental challenge: How do you protect a product design when the market treats imitation as a feature, not a flaw? With TikTok’s #LululemonDupe hashtag generating billions of views, Lululemon will face a similar dynamic to UGG: consumers aren’t confused by dupes - they’re seeking them out.   How does trademark law address this?   One way is post-sale confusion: focusing not on the purchaser, but on third parties who see the product after the sale and may incorrectly assume it is an authentic branded product. That theory remains an important basis for trademark claims in many dupe cases. But it is only as strong as the underlying IP rights supporting it. If your trade dress is deemed non-distinctive or your design patent is invalidated, the post-sale confusion argument may never get off the ground.   What should brand owners take from this? 1. Don’t rely on a single IP right. Layer and diversify your IP portfolio before you enforce. 2. Build distinctiveness evidence proactively. Generic product silhouettes may not survive trade dress/design patent validity challenges. Invest in consumer surveys, advertising documentation, and secondary meaning evidence before a dispute arises - not after. 3. Prepare for the “dupe culture” narrative. Winning in court may require more than proving copying. You need to explain why protecting brand identity benefits consumers and the marketplace.   IP brands need to build their forts; the dupe economy will be a permanent feature of the consumer landscape.   #DupeCulture #TrademarkLaw #BrandProtection #IPLitigation #FashionLaw