Litigation After Biometric Privacy Law Violations: Policyholder Victories and Their Implications

January 19th, 2024|Categories: Corporate Compliance, Emerging Litigation & Risk, HB Tort Notes, Insurance, Journal, Mass Torts, New Featured Post for Home Page, News|Tags: , , , , |

Insurance companies are implementing new measures to try to avoid paying for liabilities attached to consumer and employee biometric privacy law violations. The authors, Cort Malone and Abigail Damsky explore the issues companies and policyholders should be examining to ensure adequate protection in the present and future. As the authors note, “as more states pass biometric privacy laws, it is critical not only to follow court decisions but also to understand how insurance companies are attempting to avoid liability for such claims.”

Copyright Issues in Generative AI for Software: Doe v. Github, Inc. et al.

January 17th, 2024|Categories: Emerging Litigation & Risk, HB Tort Notes, Intellectual Property, Journal, Mass Torts, New Featured Post for Home Page, News, Technology Law|Tags: , , , , |

The ongoing case of Doe v. Github Inc. et al. addresses copyright-related issues inherent in the Copilot generative AI that allows users to enter prompts to generate software code. This case addresses many of the issues involved in the training and use of generative AI for generating software code. The author, Jeffrey Gluck examines these issues, which he anticipates will have far-reaching implications for AI-generated works in the future. As Jeffrey notes, "Github is a case that may have far-reaching implications for AI-generated works in the future".

The Promise and Peril of Quantum Computing and Its Implications for Cyber Insurance

January 17th, 2024|Categories: Emerging Litigation & Risk, HB Tort Notes, Insurance, Journal, Mass Torts, New Featured Post for Home Page, News, Technology Law|Tags: , , , , |

Quantum computing, like artificial intelligence, is one of several emerging technologies that could either save the planet or end the world, depending on which expert is holding forth on the issue. This article explores the promise and peril of quantum computing and the potential coverage implications under cyber insurance policies. As Cameron notes, "while cyber insurance may provide some coverage for hazards that result from quantum computing, those policies may not respond to many of the risks".

Machines Inventing Machines: Artificial Intelligence and Patent Law

January 12th, 2024|Categories: ELP, Intellectual Property, Technology Law|Tags: , , , , |

In this episode, we talk to Robert A. McFarlane of Hanson Bridgett LLP about artificial intelligence in the world of invention and questions raised in a recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that expounded on the principle that only human beings - not machines - can be named as inventors under U.S. patent law. Listen and learn more!

Latest on Software and AI Devices from the United Kingdom’s MHRA by Jackie Mulryne and Eleri Williams

October 6th, 2023|Categories: HB Risk Notes, Intellectual Property, Technology Law|Tags: , , , , |

In this article, the authors discuss new updates from the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency on how software and artificial intelligence medical devices will be regulated in the United Kingdom after Brexit. Read and learn more!

The Light and Dark Sides of Auto-GPT

August 2nd, 2023|Categories: Corporate Compliance, ELP, Technology Law|Tags: , , , , |

Businesses must understand how Auto-GPT technologies use data, the potential for biased results, and how to responsibly leverage these powerful technologies. Listen to my interview with Jason I. Epstein, Partner at Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough, as we explore this emerging field.

Does the European Union Commission’s Proposal on AI Liability Act as a Game Changer for Fault-Based Liability Regimes in the EU?

June 22nd, 2023|Categories: HB Risk Notes|Tags: , , , , |

Guest Writer Does the European Union Commission’s Proposal on AI Liability Act as a Game Changer for Fault-Based Liability Regimes in the EU? By Nils Lölfing Abstract: In this article, the author discusses increasing risks that artificial intelligence system providers, developers, and users will face from a liability directive proposed by the European Union Commission. The AI Liability Directive proposed by the European Union Commission puts additional liability risks on providers, developers and users of specifically high-risk artificial intelligence (AI)  systems. If enacted, it could become a game changer for fault-based liability regimes in the European Union, as it introduces a presumption of causality to prove fault and a right of access to evidence from companies and suppliers regarding high-risk AI systems. This will help victims enforce non-contractual civil law claims for damages caused by an AI system. What this is about and how it increases the liability risk exposure of actors in the AI systems supply chain will be discussed in this article. Background On September 28, 2022, the EU Commission published its  proposal for a Directive to establish new fault-based liability  rules for AI systems (AI Liability Directive), along with a reform for the existing rules on the strict liability of manufacturers for defective products. The current article focuses on [...]

The Blueprint for an “AI Bill of Rights”

June 22nd, 2023|Categories: Corporate Compliance, Technology Law|Tags: , , , , |

Authors Peter Schildkraut is a co-leader of the firm's Technology, Media & Telecommunications industry team and provides strategic counsel on artificial intelligence, spectrum use, broadband, and other TMT regulatory matters. Mr. Schildkraut helps clients navigate the ever-changing opportunities and challenges of technology, policy, and law to achieve their business objectives at the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and elsewhere. He is the author of "AI Regulation: What You Need To Know To Stay Ahead of the Curve. James W. Kim is a nationally recognized expert in procurement law that regularly advises companies that do business with the US government, with a focus on professional services organizations and the life sciences industry. He is a regular speaker and author on procurement and drug pricing matters and his work is regularly featured in nationally-distributed industry print and digital media. Mr. Kim provides clients with strategic counsel related to US government funding and US market access, including assistance with more than $5 billion in procurement and grant awards and regulatory counsel related to more than $40 billion in successful M&A transactions. Marne Marotta works with clients facing complex challenges to develop and implement dynamic government relations strategies. Drawing from her experience in the Senate and the executive branch, she provides clients with strategic guidance and counseling, devises and implements comprehensive advocacy campaigns, [...]

Big Tech’s Race to Develop Superior Artificial Intelligence Technology

May 11th, 2023|Categories: Corporate Compliance, Technology Law|Tags: , , , , |

Big Tech’s Race to Develop Superior Artificial Intelligence Technology Will A.I. Compromise Free Enterprise, Disclosure and Security? America’s Big Five tech companies – Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google and Microsoft – are racing to develop technology they claim will change the world -- again. The tech Goliaths have more than 33,000 researchers at their disposal to create artificial intelligence (A.I.) technology with an obvious and perpetual prize: revenue.  It's the talk of the world. NBC Nightly News recently predicted the impacts that A.I. will have on society in the coming years. A.I. tech was also the center of attention at the 2023 Davos Economic Summit.  Prominent tech leaders such as Elon Musk and the CEO of OpenAI, Sam Altman, heralded that A.I. will improve virtually everyone’s lives, but with some risks involved.  Andrew Perlman, dean of Suffolk University Law School, says there is nothing "future" about it. In The Implications of ChatGPT for Legal Services and Society, he wrote, "The disruptions from AI's rapid development are no longer in the distant future. They have arrived ..." And for the legal industry, he said, "ChatGPT may portend an even more momentous shift than the advent of the internet." Just one legal application out there today is the use of A.I. technology (GPT-3) by Docket Alarm, a popular court docket [...]

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 [...]

Discovery Strategies in Wage and Hour Class and Collective Actions Before and After Certification of Putative Class

February 15th, 2023|Categories: Class Actions, CLE OnDemand, Mass Torts|Tags: , , , , |

Discovery Strategies in Wage and Hour Class and Collective Actions Before and After Certification of Putative Class Strategically Limiting Discovery, Resolving Discovery Disputes Wage and hour class and collective actions are complex and discovery intensive. Discovery requests are often burdensome, seeking information concerning a broad swath of workers. This causes the discovery process to sometimes linger for years and creates a significant expense for employers.In recent years, courts have emphasized that parties must rein in extensive and expensive discovery requests. Employment litigators are increasingly raising proportionality arguments as a basis for objecting to opposing counsel's discovery requests. Drafters are responding by tailoring requests to anticipate such challenges. Drafting discovery requests that are likely to withstand burden and proportionality challenges and objections to broad discovery requests is critical for litigators representing employers in wage and hour class and collective actions. Employment litigators must develop and implement effective discovery strategies both before and, as applicable, after certification of the putative class. These strategies often must anticipate the possibility of a future summary judgment motion, further certification practice, and trial on the merits. Listen as our authoritative panel of employment law attorneys explains effective strategies for pursuing or objecting to discovery requests in wage and hour collective and class actions and resolving discovery disputes that arise during litigation. Questions Addressed: What are the most common discovery [...]

Data-Driven Legal Guidance with Ed Walters

November 26th, 2022|Categories: Complex Business Litigation, ELP, Emerging Litigation & Risk, News|Tags: , , , |

Today we’re going to talk about the weather. But only for a minute. Mostly we’re going to talk about the use of big data in the practice of law. There is a reason IBM acquired the digital assets of The Weather Channel, and it's not because they are climate nerds. They bought it to put weather data to work to “operationalize [the] understanding of the impact of weather on business outcomes.” Think about the economic impact of snowstorms, hurricanes, and even less dramatic weather conditions, or the impact on the durability of manufacturing or building materials as temperatures rise or fall outside the norm. While we all crave meteorological precision, we also crave precision when making legal and business decisions. Clients ask questions like these all the time: What is our case worth? What size award will we get? Where should I file? Will the judge grant summary judgment? Should I even bring this suit?  Lawyers will draw on experience to offer their best advice, providing ranges followed by caveats and usually preceded by the most lawyerly of lawyer answers: “It depends.”  As my guest points out, lawyers also get business-related questions. Business-related answers may begin with "it depends," but must end with a number. When a CEO asks how much revenue your project will generate, "more" is not the [...]

Go to Top