Two logos side by side with Critical Legal Content in a red square on the left and HB Litigation in blue on the right

Copyright, patent, trademark, trade secrets.

AI Image Generators and Copyright: Eligibility in the U.S., UK, EU, and More; Fair Use, Derivative Works, Liability

April 6th, 2023|Categories: CLE OnDemand, Intellectual Property, Mass Torts|Tags: , |

AI Image Generators and Copyright: Eligibility in the U.S., UK, EU, and More; Fair Use, Derivative Works, Liability AI programs are now readily available for all. Stability AI, Lensa, and other AI image creation tools create original works of art, raising the question of IP protection for such art. The United States requires human authorship in order to obtain copyright protection, and so far, the U.S. Copyright Office has declined to grant copyright registrations for AI-created works of art based on a lack of human authorship (one of these decisions is being challenged in Thaler v. Perlmutter (D.D.C. filed June 2, 2022)). While some countries take a similar approach to the US, others treat the issue of copyright eligibility for AI-generated art quite differently and provide at least some protection of computer generated works. Questions have also been raised as to whether AI-generated images constitute derivative works and whether such images and the AI generation tools used to create them infringe third-party copyrights, or whether the fair use doctrine or other defenses may apply. The first lawsuits involving image generators have now been filed raising copyright claims in addition to other claims. Listen as our authoritative panel of IP attorneys examines AI image generators and the associated copyright issues. The panel will discuss eligibility in the U.S. and the recent actions by the Copyright [...]

Read More

The New European Unified Patent Court with Marianne Schaffner and Thierry Lautier

March 2nd, 2023|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, ELP, HB Tort Notes, Intellectual Property, Technology Law|Tags: , , , |

What's the new European patent court mean to global innovators? The European Union’s new Unified Patent Court is an international body set up by participating EU Member States to deal with the infringement and validity of both Unitary Patents and European patents. The court's objective is “putting an end to costly parallel litigation and enhancing legal certainty.” Unitary patents are intended to make it possible to get patent protection in up to 25 EU Member States by submitting a single request to the European Patent Office, making the procedure simpler and more cost effective for applicants. The new system goes live on June 1, 2023. What must U.S. and multi-national U.S.-based companies understand about the court? Why should inventors and their organizations factor it in to any existing or new patent strategy they may be developing? For answers to these questions and more listen to my interview with attorneys Marianne Schaffner and Thierry Lautier who practice out of the Paris office of Reed Smith. Marianne heads the intellectual Property team in Paris and the patent practice in Europe. She manages complex national and transnational patent, trade secrets and trademark disputes in the healthcare, chemistry, technology and telecommunications sectors. Thierry is part of the firm’s global Intellectual Property Group. With a dual legal and engineering/scientific background, Thierry uses his understanding, knowledge, and experience to provide clients with [...]

Read More

Putting an AI App to Work to Protect IP with Jan-Diederik Lindemans and Judith Bussé

November 1st, 2021|Categories: ELP, Emerging Litigation & Risk, Intellectual Property, News, Technology Law|Tags: , , , |

Putting an AI App to Work to Protect IP with Jan-Diederik Lindemans and Judith Bussé They are Crowell & Moring partner Jan-Diederik Lindemans and Judith Bussé, both part of the firm’s Technology & Intellectual Property Department in Brussels. And, working with Neotalogic, they developed an interactive app that takes you through a set of attorney-crafted questions that, depending on your answers, take you to other questions. The app applies a layer of artificial intelligence to enhance the information gathering process. Listen to what these innovators had to say about the Crowell & Moring IP Check-Up application, and take it for a test drive yourself.  Or, here is a quick video of someone using the app. This podcast is the audio companion to the Journal on Emerging Issues in Litigation*, a collaborative project between HB Litigation Conferences and the legal news folks at Law Street Media, and the Fastcase legal research family, which includes Docket Alarm and Judicata. If you have comments or wish to participate in one our projects, or want to tell me how insightful our guests are, please drop me a note at Editor@LitigationConferences.com. Tom Hagy Host of the Emerging Litigation Podcast * Highly regarded insurance and reinsurance industry attorney Laura Foggan of Crowell & Moring's Washington, DC, office is on the Editorial Advisory Board. Thanks to Laura for connecting me with J.D. and Judith.  An organization’s intellectual property is [...]

Read More

Biotech Patent Wars: If at First You Don’t Succeed . . . University of California v. The Broad Institute

October 26th, 2021|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, HB Risk Notes, Intellectual Property, Journal, News|Tags: , , |

Biotech Patent Wars: If at First You Don’t Succeed . . . University of California v. The Broad Institute Abstract This case discussed in this article is about two methods of editing DNA: one that has infinitely more lucrative applications because it can edit human DNA (plus all animals and plants), another that works in cell-free environments. Whether inventions are separate or part of the same innovation is an important factor in patent interference disputes; if there are two patentably distinct inventions there cannot be interference. One party in this case lost its argument that there was only one invention at issue, but returned with a second interference claim, arguing that it was the first inventor to constructively reduce to practice the animal and plant DNA editor. In this article, the author examines the nuances and intricacies of the patent process in the world of biology, and how patent lawyers must possess a level of knowledge in disciplines related to the inventions they seek to protect. This is necessary, for example, in understanding whether an invention is a significant improvement over prior innovations. The author also shares the importance of confidentiality especially when potentially groundbreaking (and lucrative) inventions are in development. Author Adrienne B. Naumann (adriennebnaumann@uchicago.edu) practices intellectual property law at the Law Office of Adrienne B. Naumann in [...]

Read More

Psychedelics Decriminalization and Regulation with Griffen Thorne

March 10th, 2021|Categories: Corporate Compliance, ELP, Emerging Litigation & Risk, HB Risk Notes, Intellectual Property, News|Tags: , , , , |

Psychedelics Decriminalization and Regulation with Griffen Thorne Listen to my interview with Griffen Thorne, an attorney in the Los Angeles office of Harris Bricken LLP.  He focuses on corporate, transactional, intellectual property, data security, regulatory, and litigation matters across a wide variety of domestic and international industries. As part of Harris Bricken’s corporate cannabis team, he works closely with cannabis and hemp clients, whom he advises on obtaining licenses and permits, regulatory compliance, entity formation and structuring, mergers and acquisitions, corporate governance issues, contract drafting and negotiation, obtaining and protecting intellectual property rights, and administrative appeals and litigation. He also represents clients throughout a wide range of industries regarding compliance with United States, European, and Asian Internet, technology, and data security laws and regulations. We hope you enjoy the interview. Tom Hagy Send questions or comments to Editor@LitigationConferences.com. What does the future hold for psychedelics in America? How are states approaching the ownership and use of these drugs, either for recreational or their controlled therapeutic use?

Read More

Protecting Intangible Assets: Risk Transfer Market Yet to Catch Up

October 12th, 2018|Categories: HB Risk Notes, Insurance, Intellectual Property, Technology Law|Tags: , , , |

Intrinsically Intangible.                         by Giles Harlow, Senior Vice President, Aon (Bermuda) Ltd. In the early 1980's, tangible assets made up around 80% of the value of the S&P 500. Fast forward to today and nearly 85% of the value of the S&P 500 is attributable to intangible assets. However, the risk transfer market has not caught up. According to the Aon/Ponemon report of last year, whilst around 60% of tangible assets (property, plant and equipment) are currently being insured, only 12% of informational assets are. So what gives? If the vast majority of companies' values in 2018 are attributable to intangibles, why are they not transferring those risks? Is it a lack of education on the client side? A lack of innovation in the brokerage community? A lack of understanding or willingness to accept these new risks on the carrier end? Or is it that whilst the marine and property markets have had centuries to evolve, the newer intangible insurance markets are just gearing up to size as they collate the data they need to properly price and model these risks? Likely, it is some combination of all of these factors. We have seen great strides in the cyber market, with double-digit premium growth over the last four-to-five years. The market has evolved from being focused on large data holders, to providing [...]

Read More
Go to Top