Posts in Artificial Intelligence

Innovation in artificial intelligence (AI) is transforming industries and everyday life. Given its growing importance, many jurisdictions, including Brazil, the United States, and Europe, are establishing specific guidelines to legally protect AI inventions. Although each region seeks to protect innovation, the approaches differ significantly, particularly regarding patentability requirements, inventiveness, and technical disclosure.

The controversy surrounding AI and copyright extends beyond the courtroom to the art market, where AI-generated works are increasingly contested. The ruling in Thomson Reuters v. Ross Intelligence adds legal weight to concerns about AI’s impact on creative and commercial markets, including the sale of fine art through auction houses and galleries, and its potential to compete directly with copyright holders.

Yesterday, Circuit Judge Stephanos Bibas, sitting by designation in the District of Delaware, issued a ruling updating a previous summary judgment decision dismissing copyright infringement allegations made by Westlaw legal research service provider Thomson Reuters against a competing artificial intelligence (AI) search tool developed by Ross Intelligence. Among the top reconsiderations in Judge Bibas’ recent decision is his fair use analysis, which now recognizes the non-transformative nature of Ross’ use of copyrighted headnotes that summarize legal decisions.

Generative AI is one of the most transformative technologies of our time, reshaping the way businesses create, innovate, and compete. As organizations integrate AI into their operations, they must navigate an increasingly dynamic business environment, driven by technological advancements and evolving market demands.

The U.S. Senate held a nomination hearing to vet Donald Trump’s pick for Secretary of Commerce, Howard Lutnick, this past week. While much of the hearing focused on issues outside of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), Lutnick touched on several key points relevant to the intellectual property system.

The U.S. Copyright Office has released Part 2 of its multi-part artificial intelligence (AI) report, this one focusing on copyrightability of works made by or using AI. Part 1 of the report was published in July 2024 and addressed digital replicas created by AI. Among the Copyright Office’s recommendations was the need for passage of a federal law that would create a new form of property right for a person’s digital replica to disincentivize the creation of realistic but false depictions of individuals.

As artificial intelligence (AI) becomes integral to industries ranging from healthcare to finance, the licensing of AI technologies presents both unprecedented opportunities and unique challenges. For executives responsible for licensing within their organizations, understanding the complexities of AI licensing is crucial to maximizing value while minimizing risks. This article explores eight key considerations, strategies, and best practices to guide your licensing efforts in this dynamic space.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) today released an official Artificial Intelligence Strategy aimed at outlining the challenges faced by the Office both internally and externally, as the reach of AI impacts all aspects of innovation and society. According to the report, AI-related patent applications are up 33% since 2018 and appeared in 60% of all technology subclasses in 2023.

An important new book about the impaired U.S. intellectual property (IP) system, The Big Steal – Ideology, Interest, and the Undoing of Intellectual Property, by Jonathan M. Barnett, reveals the deepening failure of IP rights to retain their property status and the weaknesses – seen and unseen – that have accompanied it. The focus of The Big Steal is on what the IP system’s recent failures impact, who they benefit, and what can be done to repair the damage.

Imagine a pharmaceutical researcher in 2015 searching for new drug candidates to treat a rare disease. Through traditional methods, they might screen a few thousand compounds over several months, carefully evaluating each candidate’s potential based on known chemical properties and biological mechanisms. Fast forward to 2025: using modern AI tools, that same researcher can screen millions of compounds in days, with the AI system predicting binding affinities, potential side effects, and even suggesting novel molecular structures that human chemists might never have conceived. This dramatic expansion of capabilities raises a crucial question for patent law: Has the widespread adoption of AI tools fundamentally changed what constitutes “ordinary skill” in drug discovery?

Although artificial intelligence (AI) has been around for decades in some form, the more recent Generative AI (GenAI) boom has brought it back into the limelight. With the sudden popularity and prevalence of newer systems such as ChatGPT, we have seen GenAI, and even AI more broadly, enter new industries and have new use cases seemingly daily. However, with new technological development comes regulation. This is especially so in cases of high-scale and rapid development of technology that have both a potential for positive impact and growth, alongside a potential for negative consequences of misuse—just like AI.

Choosing the latest emerging technologies with implications for IP is somewhat subjective. I say somewhat because Artificial Intelligence (AI)—and generative AI in particular for purposes of this article—is the elephant in the room. AI is reshaping the world and the practice of law at large. No lawyer or legal professional can ignore AI, even if they ultimately dismiss it. Most are at least exploring AI and considering where it may fit, if anywhere, in their law practice. And unfortunately, some continue making news for AI disasters such as disclosing confidential information and citing nonexistent case law.

During the latest episode of IPWatchdog Unleashed, I speak with Josh Harlan about monetizing various investable streams of revenue in media, sports and IP, and we also make a hard pivot to then later discuss artificial intelligence and what those looking to invest in AI should be considering. We also discuss the viability of the fair use defenses that are presently being made in the ongoing lawsuits brought by copyright owners against AI developers and the likely future marketplace for monetization of training data and AI outputs. As you will hear during our conversation, Harlan sees the possibility of some pretty big damages awards on a one-time basis for content creators and their copyright lawsuits against large AI developers, but he does not see that as an existential threat to the AI industry itself.