Laura Gallo

🖥️ The USPTO issued guidance on inventorship of AI-assisted inventions earlier this year, marking a significant step forward for AI policy. https://gag.gl/eV0i2X In a recent update, Director Todd Hopfinger and Associate Emily Tkac discuss three main points of consideration related to the the guidance: 1️⃣ While AI-assisted inventions are not automatically unpatentable, an AI system itself cannot be designated as an inventor or co-inventor. 2️⃣ A natural person using an AI system may qualify as an inventor if they make a "significant contribution" to the invention and have “recognition and appreciation” of the invention. 3️⃣ Existing duties of disclosure and reasonable inquiry still apply to AI-assisted inventions. #AI #USPTO #Inventorship

1

As discussed in our latest Client Alert, the recently proposed regulations from CFIUS follow a growing trend of enhanced focus on foreign investment in the U.S. across all government agencies. Robert Magovern, Rachel Schwartz, and I continue to see an increase in M&A deals where CFIUS clearance represents a substantial regulatory hurdle, even when the U.S. portion of a transaction represents a relatively small piece of an overall deal. Certainly more to come in this space as U.S. regulators hone in on foreign investments across our clients' various industries.

10

More analysis of the proposed expansion of #CFIUS jurisdiction. We've included a list of the newly-listed military installations. Click to see if there's one near you. https://lnkd.in/eANi8aKE

15

💡 The use of AI technology is changing how practitioners prepare and submit documents to the USPTO. In its recent Guidance on Use of Artificial Intelligence-Based Tools, the USPTO outlines the implications and responsibilities for practitioners using AI tools in their submissions. Sterne Kessler Directors Todd Hopfinger and Lestin Kenton, and Summer Associate Ryan Estatico provide some key considerations for IP practitioners in our latest AI update, noting the risks associated with using AI tools and the importance of protecting client-sensitive information and complying with the confidentiality obligations of Rule 11.106(a). https://gag.gl/NWlGTw #AI #USPTO #Patents

4

💡 The use of AI technology is changing how practitioners prepare and submit documents to the USPTO. In its recent Guidance on Use of Artificial Intelligence-Based Tools, the USPTO outlines the implications and responsibilities for practitioners using AI tools in their submissions. Sterne Kessler Directors Todd Hopfinger and Lestin Kenton, and Summer Associate Ryan Estatico provide some key considerations for IP practitioners in our latest AI update, noting the risks associated with using AI tools and the importance of protecting client-sensitive information and complying with the confidentiality obligations of Rule 11.106(a). https://gag.gl/NWlGTw #AI #USPTO #Patents

1

The American Bar Association Standing Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility released today its first formal opinion covering the growing use of generative artificial intelligence (GAI) in the practice of law, pointing out that model rules related to competency, informed consent, confidentiality and fees principally apply. Formal Opinion 512 states that to ensure clients are protected, lawyers and law firms using GAI must “fully consider their applicable ethical obligations,” which includes duties to provide competent legal representation, to protect client information, to communicate with clients and to charge reasonable fees consistent with time spent using GAI. The 15-page opinion specifically outlined that lawyers should be mindful of a host of model rules in the ABA Model Rules of Professional Conduct, including: ⭐️ Model Rule 1.1 (Competence). This obligates lawyers to provide competent representation to clients and requires they exercise the “legal knowledge, skill, thoroughness and preparation reasonably necessary for the representation.” In addition, the model rule states lawyers should understand “the benefits and risks associated” with the technologies used to deliver legal services to clients. ⭐️ Model Rule 1.6 (Confidentiality of Information). Under this model rule, a lawyer using GAI must be cognizant of the duty to keep confidential all information relating to the representation of a client, regardless of its source, unless the client gives informed consent. Other model rules require lawyers to extend similar protections to former and prospective clients’ information. ⭐️ Model Rule 1.4 (Communications). This model rule addresses lawyers’ duty to communicate with their clients and builds on lawyers’ legal obligations as fiduciaries, which include “the duty of an attorney to advise the client promptly whenever he has any information to give which it is important the client should receive.” Of particular relevance to GAI, Model Rule 1.4(a)(2) states that a lawyer shall “reasonably consult” with the client about the means by which the client’s objectives are to be accomplished. ⭐️Model Rule 1.5 (Fees). This rule requires a lawyer’s fees and expenses to be reasonable and includes criteria for evaluating whether a fee or expense is reasonable. The formal opinion notes that if a lawyer uses a GAI tool to draft a pleading and expends 15 minutes to input the relevant information into the program, the lawyer may charge for that time as well as for the time necessary to review the resulting draft for accuracy and completeness. But, in most circumstances, the lawyer cannot charge a client for learning how to work a GAI tool. Source: https://lnkd.in/dJBvkErR

9