Evan Zimmerman

Recent developments in AI highlight the growing intersection of AI and regulatory activity. Financial regulators are addressing AI-related cybersecurity risks, while a new law in California focuses on AI's role in health care and insurance. Federal courts and agencies are grappling with AI's impact on free speech and consumer protection, and the U.S. government is refining its approach to AI procurement. As AI continues to reshape industries, these actions reflect the increasing need for oversight and responsible innovation. We dive into these topics and more in the latest briefing.

1

Our patent system has been relentlessly attacked for the better part of the last 20 years. Patents have been blamed for everything from the creation of patent litigation abuse to high prescription drug costs. There is scant evidence of an actual causal relationship, yet the attacks continue. Knowing that it would be impossible to outright ban patents, the popular argument is that poor quality patents that should not have issued are responsible for a majority of litigation issues and drug prices. In response, Congress created the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) at the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) in 2011 to make it easier to invalidate “low quality” patents without the need for federal district court litigation. Yet, after more than 10 years of invalidating issued patents through the PTAB, the criticism of our patent system has not abated.

79

22 Comments

The USPTO has released a crucial update on #patent #subjectmattereligibility, focusing on artificial intelligence (#AI) inventions. This guidance, effective July 17, 2024, aims to provide clarity and consistency in evaluating AI-related patent applications under 35 U.S.C. § 101. Key takeaways for in-house patent counsel: 1. Enhanced Clarity: The guidance offers additional insights on applying subject matter eligibility criteria to AI inventions, building on previous guidelines. 2. New Examples: Three new examples demonstrate the application of the guidance across various technologies, helping practitioners navigate complex AI patent scenarios. 3. Federal Circuit Alignment: The update incorporates discussions of relevant Federal Circuit decisions on subject matter eligibility. 4. Public Feedback Opportunity: The USPTO is accepting comments on the guidance and examples until September 16, 2024. 5. Broader AI Initiative: This update is part of a larger USPTO effort addressing AI's impact on intellectual property, including recent inventorship guidance for AI-assisted inventions. For in-house counsel, this guidance presents an opportunity to refine AI patent strategies, potentially increasing the likelihood of securing protection for AI innovations. It's crucial to review the full guidance and examples available on the USPTO's AI-related resources webpage. #PatentLaw #ArtificialIntelligence #IPStrategy Thoughts on how this might impact your AI patent portfolio? Let's discuss in the comments! Citations: [1] https://lnkd.in/eUbkGXvG

17

1 Comment

Join #ACCNCR and Shook, Hardy & Bacon L.L.P. for Discovery, Data Protection, and AI: How To Litigate Ethically and More Effectively Using Evolving AI Technology As Artificial Intelligence (“AI”) and generative AI models continue to revolutionize various industries, the potential impact on litigation is profound, reshaping how organizations manage and analyze vast amounts of data in a protected environment. This panel will discuss how AI-driven tools can be leveraged to enhance the efficiency and accuracy of written discovery, document review, and data preservation, all while preventing exfiltration of company data and trade secrets. This panel will also delve into ethical considerations that arise as AI becomes more integrated into legal workflows, with a special focus on the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct and the application of the Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct: Rule 1.1 - Competence:  Lawyers must provide competent representation, which may include staying informed about the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology. Rule 1.6 - Confidentiality of Information:  Lawyers are required to protect confidential client information, which      includes understanding how AI tools may impact data security. Rule 1.7 - Conflict of Interest:  Identifying and managing potential conflicts that could arise from the use of AI in client matters. Rule 5.1 - Responsibilities of Partners, Managers, and Supervisory Lawyers:  Ensuring that lawyers within a firm are adequately supervising the use of AI tools to comply with ethical standards. Rule 5.3 - Responsibilities Regarding Nonlawyer Assistants:  Ensuring that AI tools and other nonlawyer resources used in legal work are subject to proper oversight and comply with ethical obligations. Whether you’re a seasoned legal practitioner or new to the field, this panel will provide valuable insights on leveraging AI to stay ahead in the ever-changing landscape of discovery and data security. Presented by Patrick Oot and Shannon Schoultz, Esq. of Shook, Hardy & Bacon’s Complex Litigation and Strategic Counseling Groups, together with Meg Inomata, Senior Legal Counsel at Waste Management. Learn more and register here: https://lnkd.in/gsZAhU6V

1

Understanding fair use of training data in LLMs is critical for the evolving regulatory landscape. Avi Schwarzschild, Zhili Feng, Pratyush Maini, Zachary Lipton, and Zico Kolter a framework for thinking about copyright infringement based on compression and memorization that proves more useful than simply checking if a model can complete a protected phrase/article from the first few words. Link: https://lnkd.in/eQ_AQpdN

15

Join us at Legal Innovators California on June 4th - 5th, where over two dozen companies at the frontier of #legaltech and innovation will gather! Here’s a breakdown of our sponsors, courtesy of Artificial Lawyer: https://lnkd.in/g5apsv73 Discover the latest developments in legal technology and innovation this June! Don’t miss this opportunity to explore how the legal world is evolving and connect with the leading companies and innovators driving this transformation. 🎫 https://lnkd.in/eMqvvptS Richard Tromans | Artificial Lawyer | Redactable® | Steno | SimpleDocs | Relativity | Gravity Stack LLC | Tangible Global| LegalOn Technologies | Jus Mundi | Clearbrief | Flatiron Law Group | ClearyX | SkillBurst Interactive | DWF | eBrevia | Etain | LawDroid - Generative AI Legal Technology | Abstract | Coheso | Recital | FOSSA | Incorporight Inc. | Avvoka | SimpleClosure | Centari | CallidusAI | Clearbrief | Ivo | UnitedLex | Harvey | International Legal Technology Association (ILTA) | Association of Certified E-Discovery Specialists (ACEDS) #legalinnovatorscalifornia #LegalInnovation #LegalTech #LawTechConference #LegalDisruption #LegalTechSolutions #sanfransicoevents #legalevents #legalinnovators #LegalInsights #TechInLaw

26

🎉 Exciting Update Regarding AI and the Patent Office! 🎉 The USPTO has released updated guidance on patent subject matter eligibility, focusing on AI inventions! 📚 Key Highlights: 1. New AI Guidance: Comprehensive overview and update on existing patent subject matter eligibility, specifically tailored for AI inventions. 2. AI-Assisted Inventions: Clear guidelines on handling AI-assisted inventions, emphasizing human contribution for patent eligibility. 3. Practical Examples: Introduction of Examples 47-49, illustrating the application of eligibility analysis to AI-specific scenarios. 🧠 Dive into detailed scenarios like: - Using neural networks for anomaly detection. - AI methods for speech signal analysis. - AI-driven personalized medical treatments. 🔗 Learn more about these examples and how they can assist in understanding the eligibility process: https://lnkd.in/e83GbnK3 . The hope is that these guidelines will ensure your AI inventions are patent-ready! A deeper dive to follow! #AIPatents #Innovation #USPTO #PatentEligibility #AIInventions For more details, check out the full guidance documents on the USPTO website! 🚀 --- https://lnkd.in/ebh33c8P

15

Great article by Marisa Woutersen at WIPR - World IP Review on Nvidia's rise to be the world's most valuable company. She looks at the relevance of their patent portfolio and compares Nvidia's patent portfolio with other Big Tech companies. The article is behind a paywall but my key takeaways are: - It's very difficult to compare a company like Nvidia that basically has one product (monster graphics cards - yes I know they do a bit more) and tech companies like Samsung who have 100s of products. Inevitably Samsung has way more patents. - AMD is probably their most similar competitor, and Nvidia is ahead here in terms of overall patent filings. - Nvidia is clear playing catch-up with patent filings. They have more pending applications than any other company listed. This suggests there is a realisation that the patent portfolio hasn't kept pace with the company value. Of course, it might also reflect the fact that the suddenly have a lot more cash! - Clearly the value in the portfolio will depend on what and where they invest. The article notes that while AI applications represent core value, where else they invest to diversify beyond AI will be key. The brilliant charts in the article provided by Andrew Samm at Patently. EIP - Better, different.

30

Has Generative AI Transformed In-House Legal? An insightful discussion at Legal Innovators California featuring a panel of trusted legal experts (1) exploring real-world applications like contract review and legal research (2) sharing strategies for responsible integration of GenAI (3) evaluating industry impact and how GenAI's role might evolve Daniel Lewis, LegalOn Technologies Joy Sherrod Intel Corporation Andrew Moffett Wayfair Frank Tenente Uber John Zimmerman Touchdown Ventures Adam Nguyen eBrevia #legaltech #lawtech #genai #legalinnovators #legalinnovation

8

Not too long ago, I started tinkering with local AI models to enhance my patent drafting process. The potential was mind-blowing, but I quickly realized one thing: generative AI isn’t a one-size-fits-all solution for patent drafting. Fast forward a bit, and I’ve tested countless patent drafting software products. That’s when everything clicked. Blending local AI models with some of these environments has been a game-changer for me. Now, I’m putting it all together into a cohesive toolchain designed to streamline the entire patent drafting workflow—from start to finish. But why keep all this to myself? I’m creating self-paced online courses so you can skip the trial and error and level up your patent drafting in less time: 📘 Confidential Patent Drafting with Generative AI: A beginner-friendly course that shows you how to safely use AI for patent drafting without compromising sensitive data. 💡 Prompt Engineering Masterclass: Learn how to craft precise prompts that make AI your best tool for drafting patents. ⚙️ AI-Powered Patent Drafting: A Complete Toolchain: Get the exact workflow and smart automations I use to multiply my output using AI. Curious to see how this all works? The screenshot is a sneak peek into my course on How Large Language Models Work—perfect for anyone wondering how AI can fit into their patent practice. 📩 Sign up for early access to be the first to know when these courses go live: https://powerclaim.io/

40

14 Comments

When I started working on Patent Bots® IDS form filling, I read 37 CFR § 1.98 to make sure I was doing the right thing. This rule is weird: - for US patents, you must provide the inventor - for US publications, you must provide the applicant Is this just a holdover from pre-AIA when the inventors were always the applicant? When listing US publications on an IDS, do you use the actual applicant or do you list inventors? Given the blog post below, it seems best to list inventors despite what the CFR says. This fascinating blog post by Carl Oppedahl describes bizarre behavior by the @USPTO rejecting IDS submissions based on the distinction of applicant vs. inventors on IDS forms:

33

9 Comments

📣 #SanFrancisco, are you ready for Legal Innovators California?! This year's legal conference promises an experience you won’t want to miss. We’re excited to announce a live podcast recording of Gravity Stack LLC's AI Transformation featuring Zach Abramowitz, Founder of Killer Whale Strategies, and Bryon Bratcher, Managing Director of Gravity Stack LLC. Zach will interview Bryon live on stage to discuss how Gravity Stack has embraced #AI and is now helping their clients do the same. 🔸 Zach Abramowitz is a former M&A attorney turned startup founder and #legaltech investor. He started Killer Whale Strategies to help companies capitalize on legal industry disruption. 🔸 Bryon Bratcher serves as Managing Director of Gravity Stack LLC, a #datadriven legal business solutions company. He is an expert in legal technology and business operations, responsible for infusing innovation and process efficiency into the delivery of legal solutions. If you are interested in #GenAI and its impact on the #legaltech landscape, this is the session for you. Don’t miss out on a chance to be part of this exciting experience. 🎟️ https://lnkd.in/eMqvvptS #LIC #legalinnovatorscalifornia #LegalInnovation #LawTechConference #LegalDisruption #LegalTechSolutions #sanfransicoevents #legalevents #legalinnovators #LegalInsights #TechInLaw

24

4 Comments

Offline LLMs can work great for patent drafting, but they also have their limitations compared to ChatGPT. This video gives a quick comparison. Are you on team "offline LLM" or team "ChatGPT" for your patent drafting work? 🙋 The video is a snippet from the Powerclaim Seminar where we address exactly the question of model selection and many more. The next seminar is on April 30th, so get your ticket quickly: https://lnkd.in/djeMZKUc

16

1 Comment

Most law groups who yearly obtain 50+ US patents have 3+ patent attorneys or agents with registration numbers letting them practice before the US patent office (USPTO). Researching those trios of patent practitioners based on practitioner enrollment (OED) records led me to make this chart. Across practitioners at a single firm, someone who has a most-recent USPTO registration year is a blue dot; next-recent, a triangle; third-most-recent, a yellow dot (which stacks on top). A yellow dot at 2024 corresponds to three different 2024-registered practitioners each of whom named that firm in their OED record. The firm's patent-quantity rank on the chart is from Harrity & Harrity's annual list of top patent firms. For about 1/3 of the firms, practitioners with the top-two registration-recencies (A, blue dot; B, triangle) have registration years the same or a year apart. For over half of the firms, in practitioner-pair AB, their respective registration years are less than 4 years apart. But in plenty of firms, a decade or more separates A and B's registration years. There's not just one way to staff a patent firm. What surprised me about the data distribution at the chart's left, where the patent firms obtain high quantities of US patents? I didn't expect so many patent firms to be so high-quantity on US patents obtained but without much staff whose USPTO registration is from 2020-24. For many yellow dots (Practitioner C, the third-most-recent registration year firmwide), the year seems earlier in time than I'd have guessed. As for the chart's topmost horizontal band (2020-24), I'd expect data points there to mostly match the practitioners' actual affiliation. But across all registration years, if for each data point we tried to confirm (from LinkedIn profiles, firm websites, etc.) that the patent practitioner actually still is at the firm, I doubt we'd get anywhere near 90%. #data #uspto

5

1 Comment

🚨 Join Principal Ken Purce & the Association of Legal Administrators (ALA) Las Vegas Chapter tomorrow for "The Impact of Generative AI on Legal Research Vendors' Pricing Practices: Strategies to Mitigate Costs." Since its launch at the end of 2023, generative AI has become “everything, everywhere, all at once”—transforming industries worldwide. Now, it's time to dive into the real business value that generative AI brings to the legal industry, especially when it comes to legal research. In this session, we’ll explore the pricing practices of Westlaw and Lexis, focusing on the costs tied to upgrading to AI functionality. Get a comprehensive understanding of how generative AI is shaping legal research today and in the future. What you’ll learn: 💡 Strategies to assess your firm’s contract position against the broader market 💡 How to reduce costs when transitioning to AI 💡 Insights on vendors’ AI offerings 💡 Real-life examples showing the financial impact of successful negotiations Don’t miss out—save this session to your calendar now: https://lnkd.in/gWJ9XRBB

7

From Husch Blackwell: We are currently tracking thirteen privacy and AI-related bills that previously crossed chambers prior to the legislative deadline. With the California legislature closing on August 31, we will be providing weekly updates on the progress of these bills. #dataprivacy #ai #artificialintelligence #california #legislation

2