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

Artificial Intelligence Meets Copyright Law with Ryan Phelan and Tiffany Gehrke

September 7th, 2025|Categories: ELP, Intellectual Property, New Featured Post for Home Page, Technology Law|Tags: , , , , |

What happens when artificial intelligence collides with copyright law? In this episode of the Emerging Litigation Podcast, intellectual property attorneys Ryan Phelan and Tiffany Gehrke of Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP unpack two landmark court decisions on fair use and AI training data. They explain why courts found AI training to be “transformative use,” how judges are treating legally obtained versus pirated data, and why algorithmic outputs could be the real battleground ahead. With deep expertise in technology and IP law, Ryan and Tiffany offer practical insights into how these rulings may shape the future of AI, copyright, and innovation.

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, 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