Finnegan is one of the largest intellectual property law firms in the world. The Finnegan intellectual property law podcast series covers highlights and latest developments in intellectual property law covering, patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, and advertising.
Finnegan Intellectual Property Law Podcasts
Claim This Podcastby Finnegan
4.1(17 reviews)
233 episodes
Updated Weekly
Accepts GuestsHas SponsorsLocation 🇺🇸
48
Podcast Authority
BetaFairBased on show quality, social media presence, reviews, charts, and more
Quality59
Social0
YouTube0
Engagement92
Podcast Overview
Finnegan is one of the largest intellectual property law firms in the world. The Finnegan intellectual property law podcast series covers highlights and latest developments in intellectual property law covering, patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, and advertising.
Language
🇺🇲
Publishing Since
8/29/2007
Unlock The Full Podcast Authority Score Report
See how your podcast performs across key metrics
48
Podcast Authority
BetaFairBased on show quality, social media presence, reviews, charts, and more
Quality59
Social0
YouTube0
Engagement92
6
Excellent Areas
0
Good Performance
13
Growth Opportunities
excellent
Episode Length
5 minutes
Performing excellently!
needs improvement
Publishing Consistency
Every 28 days
Recommendations available
Unlock the full report to see detailed tips
+16 More Metrics
Unlock comprehensive insights including:
- • YouTube presence analysis
- • Social media reach metrics
- • RSS compliance scoring
- • Podcast 2.0 features
- • Technical standards
What's Included in Your Full Report
Detailed Analytics
- Complete breakdown of all 19 authority metrics
- Personalized recommendations for each metric
- Industry benchmarks and comparisons
- Technical RSS feed analysis and compliance scoring
Growth Strategies
- Step-by-step action plans for improvement
- Quick wins to boost your score immediately
- Pro tips from successful podcasters
Get your free podcast insights report
See how your show performs across every key metric
Instant delivery
No spam
Attract Better Guests
High authority scores make your podcast more attractive to industry leaders and influencers who want to appear on credible shows.
Secure Sponsorships
Sponsors look for podcasts with proven authority and engagement. Your score demonstrates your podcast's value to potential partners.
Grow Your Audience
Understanding your strengths and weaknesses helps you make data-driven decisions to expand your listener base effectively.
1 verified contact email on file for Finnegan Intellectual Property Law Podcasts
Pitch yourself as a guest, propose sponsorships, or reach out directly to the host.
Recent Episodes
March 27, 2026
Supreme Court Clarifies Limits of Liability for Contributory Copyright Infringement
On March 25, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a significant decision reaffirming and clarifying the limits of contributory copyright liability for technology and Internet service providers. In a ruling closely watched by online platforms and rights holders alike, the Court held that a company is not liable for merely providing a service to the general public with knowledge that it will be used by some to infringe copyrights. Background Cox Communications is an internet service provider (“ISP”) that serves approximately six million subscribers. Like other ISPs, Cox assigns IP addresses to subscribers but lacks visibility into individual users’ online activity and cannot directly control their conduct. Its subscriber agreements prohibit copyright infringement, and Cox enforces that policy through graduated measures, including warnings, suspensions, and terminations. Sony Music Entertainment and other record companies and music publishers (collectively, “Sony”) sued Cox, alleging that Cox was secondarily liable for copyright infringement committed by its subscribers. Sony advanced two theories: contributory liability and vicarious liability. A jury found in Sony’s favor on both theories and awarded $1 billion in statutory damages. On appeal, the Fourth Circuit reversed as to vicarious liability but affirmed contributory liability, holding that supplying a product with knowledge that the recipient will use it to infringe copyrights is sufficient for contributory infringement. The Supreme Court granted Cox’s petition for certiorari as to contributory infringement of Sony’s copyrights. The Supreme Court’s Legal Framework Contributory liability requires that a provider intended its service to be used for infringement. The Court grounded its analysis in its prior decisions Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417 (1984) and MGM Studios Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005). Under those cases, the intent required for contributory liability can be shown only if the party induced the infringement or the provided service is tailored to that infringement. The Court held that the Fourth Circuit’s holding went beyond the two forms of liability by holding that supplying a product with knowledge that the recipient will use it to infringe copyrights is sufficient for contributory liability. The Court emphasized that: · Inducement requires active encouragement through specific acts, such as express promotion, marketing, and intent to promote infringement. · Knowledge alone is not enough. A provider’s awareness that some users may infringe does not establish contributory liability. · A service is tailored to infringement if it is not capable of “substantial” or “commercially significant” noninfringing uses. Why Cox Was Not Liable The Court concluded that Cox did not meet either standard for contributory liability. · Cox did not induce infringement. There was no evidence that Cox promoted, encouraged, or marketed its internet service as a means of infringing copyrights. To the contrary, Cox repeatedly discouraged infringement by issuing warnings, suspending service, and terminating accounts in appropriate circumstances. · Cox did not provide a service tailored to infringement. Internet access is plainly capable of substantial and commercially significant noninfringing uses. Cox did not design its service to make infringement easier, nor did it restrict lawful uses. Simply providing access to the Internet—a general purpose communications service—does not amount to tailoring a service for infringement. The Supreme Court expressly rejected the Fourth Circuit’s conclusion that “supplying a product with knowledge that the recipient will use it to infringe copyrights” is sufficient to establish contributory liability. That standard, the Court explained, goes beyond the two recognized bases for contributory liability and conflicts with repeated Supreme Court admonitions that secondary liability cannot rest solely on knowledge of infringement combined with allegedly insufficient efforts to stop it. Sony’s DMCA Safe Harbor Argument Sony also argued that limiting contributory liability in this way would undermine the Digital Millennium Copyright Act’s (“DMCA”) safe harbor provisions, which protect service providers that implement policies for terminating repeat infringers. The Court rejected that argument, holding that the DMCA does not itself impose liability on service providers who serve known infringers; instead, it creates affirmative defenses for providers that meet certain conditions. Critically, the statute makes clear that failure to qualify for a safe harbor does not weigh against a provider’s argument that its conduct is not infringing in the first place. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, joined by Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, concurred in the judgment, agreeing that Cox could not be held liable because Sony failed to show the requisite intent to aid copyright infringement. She cautioned, however, that the majority unnecessarily narrowed secondary liability, despite the Court’s precedents leaving open the possibility that other common‑law theories—such as aiding and abetting—could apply in the copyright context. Key Takeaways The Supreme Court held that Cox was not contributorily liable for its subscribers’ copyright infringement because it did not intend for its Internet service to be used for infringement. The Court declined to expand secondary copyright liability beyond its established boundaries and reaffirmed that intent—not mere knowledge—is the touchstone. This decision reinforces a key principle for Internet and technology companies: providing a lawful, general purpose service does not create copyright liability simply because some users misuse it. For rights holders, the decision underscores that claims of contributory infringement must be grounded in evidence of inducement or service design that meaningfully facilitates infringement, not simply a provider’s awareness of user misconduct.
December 9, 2025
That IP Podcast: Mike Jakes Reflects on His 37-Year Career in IP
That IP Podcast host Harry Brooker interviews Finnegan partner Mike Jakes about his 37-year career as a patent attorney. Mike details how his engineering background and a casual lunch with Don Dunner, led him to law school and eventually becoming a partner at the same firm that bears Don's name. In the episode, he reflects on joining Finnegan in 1988 and staying for the duration of his career.
October 13, 2025
Inventorship & the AIA: The Federal Circuit’s First Derivation Decision - Part 2
In this special two-episode podcast series, Finnegan partner Jeffrey Totten chats with Finnegan attorney Alissa Green about the Federal Circuit’s inaugural ruling on derivation proceedings under the America Invents Act.
233 total episodes available
Recent guests on Finnegan Intellectual Property Law Podcasts
Guests from recent episodes — sign up to see every guest that has ever appeared on this show.
Thomas Bindl
Guest
Peter Hense
Guest
Jane Doe
Guest
Vaishali Udupa
Guest
Jane Doe CIPP/US
Guest
Deep-dive analytics for Finnegan Intellectual Property Law Podcasts
Frequently asked questions
Have a different question and can't find the answer you're looking for? Reach out to our support team by sending us an email and we'll get back to you as soon as we can.
- What is Finnegan Intellectual Property Law Podcasts?
- How often does this podcast release new episodes?
This podcast updates weekly.
- Where can I listen to this podcast?
This podcast is available on 10 platforms including Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and more. You can also use the RSS feed directly.
- Does this podcast accept guests?
Information about guest appearances is not available.
Legal Disclaimer
Pod Engine is not affiliated with, endorsed by, or officially connected with any of the podcasts displayed on this platform. We operate independently as a podcast discovery and analytics service.
All podcast artwork, thumbnails, and content displayed on this page are the property of their respective owners and are protected by applicable copyright laws. This includes, but is not limited to, podcast cover art, episode artwork, show descriptions, episode titles, transcripts, audio snippets, and any other content originating from the podcast creators or their licensors.
We display this content under fair use principles and/or implied license for the purpose of podcast discovery, information, and commentary. We make no claim of ownership over any podcast content, artwork, or related materials shown on this platform. All trademarks, service marks, and trade names are the property of their respective owners.
While we strive to ensure all content usage is properly authorized, if you are a rights holder and believe your content is being used inappropriately or without proper authorization, please contact us immediately at hey@podengine.ai for prompt review and appropriate action, which may include content removal or proper attribution.
By accessing and using this platform, you acknowledge and agree to respect all applicable copyright laws and intellectual property rights of content owners. Any unauthorized reproduction, distribution, or commercial use of the content displayed on this platform is strictly prohibited.