Artificial Intelligence

Part One of a Two-Part ArticleThis is the first installment in a two-part series examining the implications of using generative artificial intelligence in the drafting and prosecution of patent applications. In this part, we address privilege and discovery risks that could arise when GAI tools are used in the patent-drafting process, and we identify targeted discovery strategies that patent litigators should consider when challenging patents that may have been drafted with GAI assistance.

AI-assisted discovery isn’t displacing relationships, referrals or reputation. What it is doing is becoming the context in which all of those things get their first airing. Increasingly, the question a prospective client asks an AI tool is the question your reputation has to answer before you ever enter the room.

Artificial intelligence is rapidly embedding itself into legal workflows, but much of the conversation treats all use cases as if they carry the same level of risk, even if they do not. The more useful question is not whether AI works, but where it can be safely applied and where it cannot.

Firms are investing heavily in AI-powered business development tools and simultaneously ignoring the data foundation those tools require to function. You cannot prompt your way out of bad data. Garbage-in, garbage-out. On a galactic scale.

Original research on how ChatGPT, Perplexity, and Gemini decide which legal tech vendors to recommend — and what to do about it.

Part 1 of this article outlined five barriers blocking legal AI adoption — drawn from more than a hundred conversations with legal leaders. But identifying barriers isn’t the same as overcoming them. Some teams have broken through. What separates them from the rest?

The real risk in AI-assisted invention is not the use of AI itself. The risk is that you cannot prove what the human actually invented. If the human contribution cannot be tied to the conception of the claimed subject matter, the patent system has nothing to reward.

Part Two of a Multipart Article. Part One is here.Litigation involving AI rarely turns on abstract questions about the technology itself. Instead, disputes typically focus on how AI was deployed, what contractual promises govern its use and how responsibility for AI-driven outcomes is allocated between providers and customers.