Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
This two-part article sheds light on several important aspects of patents on AI technology. In Part One, we provide a general overview of the IBM v. Zillow lawsuit and discusses strategies to diversify patent portfolios to maximize protection on AI-related technology. Part Two will focus on providing insightful tips on claim drafting, informed by the intricacies of claims in IBM's AI patents and advancements in AI technology.
IBM sued Zillow in September 2019, alleging infringement of seven IBM patents directed to artificial intelligence (AI) algorithms for estimating property value. 2:20cv851 (W.D. Wash.) The lawsuit targeted Zillow's Zestimate service, which estimates a house's value using downloaded images of the house and neighborhood. IBM brought the litigation after three years of licensing negotiations broke down between the parties. While the infringement case is still ongoing, the Federal Circuit issued a decision to an intermediate appeal seeking invalidity of several IBM patents. IBM v. Zillow Grp., Inc., 50 F.4th 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2022).
This litigation reveals several takeaways about how to build a robust patent portfolio to protect AI inventions. First, notwithstanding a speedy allowance and persevering invalidity challenges, proving patent infringement on a specific AI algorithm can be onerous, so including additional patent claims targeting ancillary features of an applied AI system can be advantageous. Second, AI patent claims benefit from unique claim drafting techniques, specifically by separating the claimed method steps of training the AI model and those executing the AI model. Third, because the AI industry has a tendency to openly share new ideas, promptly protecting a new AI algorithm in a patent application is important to protect against waiver of patent rights.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
End of year collections are crucial for law firms because they allow them to maximize their revenue for the year, impacting profitability, partner distributions and bonus calculations by ensuring outstanding invoices are paid before the year closes, which is especially important for meeting financial targets and managing cash flow throughout the firm.
Law firms and companies in the professional services space must recognize that clients are conducting extensive online research before making contact. Prospective buyers are no longer waiting for meetings with partners or business development professionals to understand the firm's offerings. Instead, they are seeking out information on their own, and they want to do it quickly and efficiently.
Through a balanced approach that combines incentives with accountability, firms can navigate the complexities of returning to the office while maintaining productivity and morale.
The paradigm of legal administrative support within law firms has undergone a remarkable transformation over the last decade. But this begs the question: are the changes to administrative support successful, and do law firms feel they are sufficiently prepared to meet future business needs?
Counsel should include in its analysis of a case the taxability of the anticipated and sought after damages as the tax effect could be substantial.