Business moves fast, and most leaders don’t get many chances to step back and discuss with their peers what’s changing around them. New technologies emerge, markets shift, teams evolve, and expectations rise. Co‑hosted by Paul June of Barrel O’Monkeyz and Eric Ludwig of Ludwig APC, the Gathering was created as a safe place for members of the San Diego business community to step back, cut through the noise, and explore the forces reshaping today’s world of work.

Substance, Not Small Talk

The Gathering meets several times a year and brings together a curated mix of business owners, innovators, and trusted peers. The format is intentionally simple: a comfortable venue, candid dialogue, and no pressure to perform.

Our next Gathering is Thursday, June 18, at Coral Del Mar. It’s not a mixer. It’s not a panel. It’s a working session where people speak plainly, compare experiences, and explore ideas that don’t always fit neatly into a traditional agenda.

How Each Gathering Takes Shape

While a theme may be announced ahead of time, the real direction of conversation comes from the people in the room. We’ve found the most valuable conversations often start with one person saying, “Here’s what I’m wrestling with.”

Past discussions have touched on:

• navigating growth and uncertainty
• leading teams through change
• hiring, culture, and performance
• customer expectations and market shifts
• data privacy, marketing effectiveness, and operational pressure
• the human side of leadership—energy, resilience, clarity

If there’s a question or challenge you’d like to bring forward for the June 18 Gathering, please share it. For example, you may be wondering about the impact of AI on your and your business as it reshapes everything from workflows to decision‑making.

Everyone Has a Voice

When you gather people who are curious, experienced, and willing to be honest, the conversation becomes a catalyst for something more. The Gathering creates a space where insights surface naturally—not through presentations, but through real exchange. Keep an eye out over the coming days for details about the June 18 session. If you’re not yet connected to the Gathering, joining the Barrel O’Monkeyz mailing list is the easiest way to stay in the loop.

Artificial intelligence is becoming a standard part of creative workflows—from image generation to music composition to text production. As a result, the US Copyright Office is grappling with how to classify, evaluate, and register works that blend human creativity with machine‑generated output.

Ludwig APC took particular interest in recent headlines reporting that the Copyright Office has registered more than 6,000 works containing a mix of human and AI‑generated material. For creators, businesses, and rights holders, this milestone signals both opportunity and uncertainty.

What counts as “human authorship” in the age of AI? And just as importantly, what should IP creators do to protect their rights when AI tools are part of the process?

An Evolving Approach to AI‑Generated Material

The Copyright Office has been actively studying AI’s impact on copyright since at least 2023, issuing guidance, hosting listening sessions, and publishing multi‑part reports on AI and authorship. In its official Copyright and Artificial Intelligence initiative, the Office repeatedly emphasized this core principle: copyright protects human creativity, not machine‑generated output.

In March 2023, the Office released its first major policy statement on AI‑generated material, clarifying that applicants must disclose any AI‑generated content and identify the human contributions they claim as copyrightable. This guidance was later reinforced in Part 2 of the Office’s AI report (January 2025), which reiterated that:

• Works entirely generated by AI are not copyrightable.
• Works that combine human and AI‑generated elements may be registered, but only the human-authored portions receive protection.
• Simply providing prompts—even detailed ones—does not constitute human authorship.

By April 2026, news outlets reported that the Office had already registered more than 6,000 human-AI collaborative works, reflecting a growing wave of creators who use AI as part of their process.

Key Considerations When Creating With AI

If you or your business is producing content that incorporates AI—whether images, text, music, or video—there are several important considerations:

1. You must disclose AI‑generated content.

The Copyright Office requires applicants to identify which parts of a work were generated by AI and describe the human contribution. Failure to disclose can lead to cancellation of a registration.

2. Only human-authored elements receive protection.

If AI generated the visual style, composition, or text, those elements are not protected. Your creative decisions—editing, arranging, modifying, or adding original expression—may be.

3. Prompts alone are not authorship.

Even highly detailed prompts do not qualify as human authorship. The Copyright Office views prompts as instructions to a machine, not creative expression in themselves.

4. Hybrid works require careful documentation.

If your work blends human and AI elements, you should maintain records of:

• What the AI generated
• What you created or modified
• How you transformed or curated the final work

Here’s a simple example of the kind of documentation that may be required if your rights are ever challenged:

A designer uses an AI tool to generate a green, watercolor-style background. The designer documents the prompt used and saves the original AI output. In Photoshop, the designer adds all typography, adjusts colors, mask edges, and incorporates hand‑drawn accents. The designer notes these human‑created elements and how the AI background was selected, modified, and integrated into the final layout. This record clearly shows what the AI produced, what the designer authored, and how human creative decisions shaped the finished work—evidence that becomes important if copyright protection is ever questioned.

5. Registration strategy matters.

Because only human-authored portions are protected, the way you frame your application—and the way you describe your contribution—can significantly affect the scope of your rights.

How Ludwig Sees It

Ludwig views the rise of human-AI collaborative works as one of the most important copyright developments of recent times. The Copyright Office’s acknowledgment of more than 6,000 such hybrid registrations confirms what we see daily: AI is now a standard creative tool, and creators need clear, defensible strategies for protecting their work.

Our approach is grounded in three principles:

1. Protect the human contribution.

We help develop strategies and processes to help identify and articulate the human-authored elements that qualify for copyright protection—whether that’s editing, arrangement, selection, modification, or original creative expression layered onto AI output.

2. Ensure compliance with disclosure requirements.

We guide IP creators/owners through the Copyright Office’s disclosure rules to avoid registration challenges or cancellations.

3. Build long-term IP strategies for AI‑enabled workflows.

As AI tools evolve, so do the legal risks. We help clients:

• Develop internal policies for AI use
• Document creative processes
• Evaluate licensing risks
• Prepare for future litigation or enforcement challenges

Let’s Work Together: Global Experience, Personal Focus

If you’re using AI in your creative process—or planning to—now is the time to understand how the Copyright Office treats hybrid works and how to protect your rights. Contact us today at (619) 929-0873 or consultation@ludwigiplaw.com to arrange a free consultation.

Intellectual property disputes often turn on questions of originality, access, or consumer confusion. Every so often, though, a case surfaces that highlights a different dimension of IP enforcement: the cost of defending your rights, and what happens if one side (or both) abuses the system. That’s the real lesson Ludwig APC draws from recent headlines about Mariah Carey’s attorney‑fee battle following her win in a copyright lawsuit over her song All I Want for Christmas Is You.

While the celebrity angle in this case grabs attention, the underlying issue is one that every IP owner—whether you’re a brand, a creator, or a business with valuable IP assets—should understand. This case isn’t about holiday music. It’s about frivolous claims, litigation strategy, sanctions, reasonable fee-awards requests, and protecting IP owners from abusive lawsuits.

Why this Case is Newsworthy

The dispute began when country artist Andy Stone (also known as Vince Vance) sued Carey, claiming her 1994 hit infringed his own 1988 Christmas song. The court dismissed the case, finding no credible evidence of copying, but the real fireworks came afterward.

Carey’s legal team sought a substantial attorney‑fee award, reportedly more than $600,000, arguing that the lawsuit was baseless and forced her to incur unnecessary costs. Opposing counsel pushed back, calling the request “absurd.” While the judge ultimately found that the conduct of the plaintiffs (Andy Stone’s team) was frivolous, unsupported, and ethically questionable and sanctioned them, she also reduced the attorney-fee award to Carey significantly, granting roughly $92,300 instead of the full amount requested.

The ruling is newsworthy for two reasons:

1. The court made a point of calling out frivolous IP litigation, sending a message that copyright claims must be grounded in fact, not fame.
2. The court scrutinized the fee request, reminding prevailing parties that fee awards requests must be reasonable and well‑supported.

This combination—sanctions for misconduct paired with a careful review of fee demands—creates a meaningful precedent for IP owners.

Why IP Owners Should Care

This case matters far beyond the music industry. It highlights several realities that affect anyone who owns or enforces IP:

1. Frivolous IP claims are on the rise—and courts are responding.

As brands grow, content goes viral, and AI accelerates content creation of all kinds, opportunistic lawsuits are becoming more common. Courts are signaling they will not tolerate “sue first, find evidence later” tactics. That’s good news for legitimate IP owners who don’t want to be dragged into meritless disputes.

2. Attorney fees are a strategic tool—but only when used correctly.

Fee‑shifting can deter baseless claims and help IP owners recover costs. But this case shows that courts will examine the numbers closely. Documentation, proportionality, and clear justification matter.

3. Ethical conduct in IP litigation is under a microscope.

The judge in this case raised concerns about whether the plaintiffs’ lawyers abandoned a co‑plaintiff improperly. For IP owners, this underscores the importance of choosing counsel who follow ethical rules and maintain strategic discipline.

4. Visibility attracts litigation.

Success—whether it’s a hit song, a fast‑growing brand, or a breakthrough product—invites scrutiny. This case is a reminder that provenance, documentation, and proactive IP strategy are essential.

If Facing a Similar Issue, Here’s What to Consider

Whether you’re defending against a questionable claim or enforcing your rights against an infringer, keep these points in mind:

• Assess the strength of the claim early. Courts are increasingly willing to sanction weak or abusive filings, but only when the record is clear.
• Document your legal spend. If you intend to seek attorney fees, you’ll need detailed, defensible billing records.
• Consider the optics and strategy. Fee petitions can become part of the story. Make sure your request is proportional and justified.
• Don’t ignore misconduct. If the other side is acting in bad faith, raising those issues early can shape the court’s view of the case.
• Choose counsel who understand both the legal and strategic dimensions of IP litigation. Fee disputes, sanctions, and litigation conduct are as important as the underlying infringement claim.

How Ludwig Sees It

Ludwig views this ruling as a reminder that IP litigation is not just about winning the case, it’s about managing risk, controlling costs, and protecting your business from abusive tactics. Courts are increasingly willing to penalize frivolous claims, but only when the prevailing party builds a clear, strategic record.

Our approach is built around:

• Early case assessment to identify strengths, weaknesses, and opportunities for sanctions or fee recovery
• Strategic enforcement and defense that aligns with your business goals
• Meticulous documentation to support fee petitions and protect your interests
• Ethical, disciplined litigation practice that earns credibility with the court
• Proactive IP strategy to reduce the risk of opportunistic lawsuits in the first place

Let’s Work Together: Global Experience, Personal Focus

Whether you’re facing a meritless claim or considering enforcement action, Ludwig can help you navigate the legal, financial, and strategic dimensions of IP disputes with confidence.  Contact us today at (619) 929-0873 or consultation@ludwigiplaw.com to arrange a free consultation.

When a patent case reaches the Federal Circuit en banc—meaning the full court, not just a three‑judge panel, hears and decides the appeal—the Intellectual Property (IP) world pays attention. When that case rewrites how courts evaluate damages experts and how companies must justify royalty theories (the different economic models experts use to calculate how much money should be paid for infringing a patent), the impact is even broader.

EcoFactor v. Google is exactly that kind of case and Ludwig APC has been watching the decision closely because it reshapes the evidentiary standards that govern patent damages nationwide. For businesses that rely on innovation, licensing, or enforcement, this case delivers a clear message: damages models must be grounded in real evidence, not assumptions.

How a Smart Thermostat Dispute Became an Important Case

EcoFactor owns a patent covering methods for optimizing HVAC performance using smart thermostats. The company sued Google in the Western District of Texas, alleging that Google’s Nest thermostats infringed the patent. A jury agreed and awarded EcoFactor $20 million in lump‑sum damages.

Google appealed, challenging infringement, patent eligibility, and—most importantly—the admissibility of EcoFactor’s damages expert. The Federal Circuit initially issued a panel decision, but the court later granted en banc review, signaling that the damages issues raised were significant enough to warrant full‑court attention (which rarely happens).

In May 2025, the Federal Circuit issued its en banc opinion, holding that the district court abused its discretion by allowing EcoFactor’s damages expert to testify. The court found that the expert’s methodology—converting three unrelated lump‑sum settlements into a per‑unit royalty rate—was not supported by the underlying agreements, thus failing the reliability standards of Daubert and Federal Rule of Evidence 702.

For context, Daubert and Federal Rule of Evidence 702 set the standards for admitting expert testimony in federal court. Under the Supreme Court’s Daubert decision, judges must act as gatekeepers and ensure that any expert opinion presented to a jury is both relevant and reliable. Rule 702 codifies this requirement, allowing expert testimony only when it is based on sufficient facts or data, uses reliable methods, and applies those methods reliably to the case.

Recent amendments to Rule 702 strengthened this gatekeeping role, making clear that courts must scrutinize not just an expert’s methodology, but also whether the expert’s conclusions are genuinely supported by the evidence. The EcoFactor ruling is one of the first major patent cases to apply those amendments in a meaningful way.

This case stands out for us, not only because of the technology involved, but because it signaled a shift in how courts expect parties to substantiate their economic theories. The ruling underscored the importance of building litigation strategies that are grounded in transparent, defensible methodologies from the outset.

What this Decision Means for Patent Litigation

The Federal Circuit’s ruling has immediate and practical implications for any business involved in patent disputes—whether as a plaintiff, defendant, or licensing partner.

Damages experts must tie their analysis to real evidence—Courts will no longer accept royalty models that rely on broad assumptions, minimal data, or methodologies that aren’t grounded in the actual evidence. Now when experts rely on prior agreements—especially lump‑sum settlements—they must show:

• how those agreements were negotiated
• what economic assumptions the parties actually relied on
• why those agreements are genuinely comparable to the technology and circumstances in question.

Lump‑sum settlements are not automatically convertible to per‑unit royalties—EcoFactor’s expert inferred a per‑unit rate from lump‑sum deals that did not contain any per‑unit structure. The Federal Circuit rejected this approach outright. Companies relying on settlement agreements must now be prepared to justify every step of their methodology.

Courts are expected to apply Rule 702 rigorously—The decision reinforces that trial judges must act as true gatekeepers. If an expert’s methodology is speculative, unsupported, or inconsistent with the record, courts are expected to exclude it before it ever reaches a jury.

Businesses must prepare for more aggressive Daubert challenges—Defendants will be emboldened to challenge damages experts early and often. Plaintiffs must ensure their experts are using transparent, defensible, and well‑documented methods.

Licensing strategies may need to evolve—Because settlement agreements are now under heightened scrutiny, companies may need to rethink how they structure deals, document negotiations, and preserve evidence of economic reasoning.

How Ludwig Sees It

Ludwig views EcoFactor v. Google as a pivotal reminder that IP litigation is increasingly data‑driven, evidence‑driven, and expert‑driven. Damages theories that once passed muster will now likely face far more rigorous examination.

For companies innovating in fast‑moving sectors such as software, electronics, medical devices, renewable energy, and more, this decision underscores the importance of building IP and business litigation strategies that are grounded in economic reality and supported by clear documentation.

The Ludwig APC team has deep experience in:

• developing defensible damages theories,
• challenging unreliable expert testimony,
• preparing clients for heightened Rule 702 challenges and assertions,
• structuring licensing agreements that withstand judicial scrutiny.

Whether you are enforcing your IP rights or defending against an infringement claim, Ludwig can help ensure that your damages position is credible, strategic, and aligned with the latest guidance.

Let’s Work Together: Global Experience, Personal Focus

If your business is facing a patent dispute, preparing for litigation, or evaluating licensing strategies in light of EcoFactor v. Google, let’s talk. Contact us today at (619) 929-0873 or consultation@ludwigiplaw.com to arrange a free consultation to discuss your situation, assess your risks, and outline a path forward.