JONES ROBB, PLLC’s Post

Today the Director of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office released a memo on misconduct by parties and practitioners using artificial intelligence (AI) before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) and Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The Director discusses the increasing use of AI by parties (including self-represented individuals) and practitioners and expresses confidence that the current rules at the agency are sufficient to handle the challenges arising from AI usage that the USPTO is likely to encounter. In particular, the requirements in existing rules apply regardless of how submissions are generated. For example, the Director cites USPTO's Rule 11.18, based on Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, that states inter alia "[a]ll statements made therein of the party's own knowledge are true." The Director also announced that the USPTO will be publishing a notice in the Federal Register with more guidance to the public concerning USPTO's existing rules and their applicability to the use of AI tools by parties and practitioners.

USPTO just published an official memorandum stating a very reasonable result: practitioners can use AI tools. Patent practitioners will still be responsible for verifying that all their statements are true, so you’ll have to verify your work before submission. And there’s more to come in the Federal Register. It’s as I tell our customers: if your have to check it for an associate , you’ll have to check it for your Assistant. But just because you need to check the work doesn’t mean you don’t get a ton of value out of your associate or assistant. This is mirroring the ethics rules we’re starting to see emerge from state bars. The first one I’ve seen is from the Florida Bar, which issued a similar opinion with some comments indicating it may become more permissive still. Alongside international rules and holdings, like Japan’s blanket rule that AI training is not copyright infringement, it seems to me like the legal world is becoming increasingly accepting and accommodating of LLMs and AI tools. At least as long as there’s a human in the loop. Thanks to Cecilia Ziniti for bringing this to my attention! #ai #llms #ip #lawyers #legaltech #legalethics #patents #patentlawyer

Artificial Intelligence (AI) has become a widely discussed topic. The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has been actively considering the use of AI tools by parties and practitioners. In the next few months, the USPTO will provide further guidance on this matter. You can read more about it by following the link below.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued guidance on the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in patent and trademark processes. The notice emphasizes the need for full and accurate disclosures of AI usage in paperwork presented to the agency, along with measures for risk mitigation and compliance with existing regulations. This move underscores: 1️⃣ The growing role of AI in intellectual property (IP) practices. 2️⃣ The importance of addressing legality and ethics regarding AI. Learn more about the USPTO's recent guidance and the implications of AI in IP: https://buff.ly/3PZmDo2 #AI #IntellectualProperty

On the heels of its guidance on the role of AI in the inventing process, the USPTO's latest guidance focuses on the use of AI tools in the patenting process. The takeaway: your patent attorney isn't being replaced with Skynet just yet.

AI tools are not replacing patent attorneys, but incorporating them into your practice is crucial for staying competitive. The USPTO reminds parties of “their duty to review and verify the accuracy of documents submitted, ensuring compliance with certification requirements and legal standards.” Check out their latest guidance on the use of AI tools for parties and practitioners. #AItools #patentlaw #USPTO https://lnkd.in/gSuAhC6K

A very important debate on the use of #AI in #patenting happened last Wednesday in the nation's capital, in case you missed it: "The protection of AI innovations was one main topic of debate on Wednesday during a hearing in the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet. House representatives and hearing witnesses debated how patent and copyright protection should come into play for AI-assisted works and innovations… During the hearing, witnesses for technology companies and a biotechnology firm were divided when asked how much inventors should disclose their use of AI tools. Some patent attorneys have expressed concerns that patent challengers in litigation will begin attacking the validity of patent claims by arguing improper inventorship when AI was used. Others have warned that patent counsel now must track inventorship and AI carefully to ensure the human inventor substantially contributed to each patent claim. Joshua Landau, senior counsel of innovation policy at the Computer & Communications Industry Association, presented the viewpoint of technology companies. CCIA is a 50-year-old advocacy organisation whose members include Amazon, Apple, Google, Intel, Meta, and more. Landau mentioned that CCIA members are AI technology leaders. “It's critical that we protect American innovation while preventing the abuse of intellectual property protections over AI output. But if we look to existing law, we can find the balance that we need,” Landau stated. When a human authors a work or conceives of an invention and has used AI tools to assist them, Landau’s view is IP protection is appropriate. He urged lawmakers to use that lens when judging how to apply IP rights when humans and AI collaborate to create and invent. “If an inventor uses AI as a tool to develop a new invention, when does it cross the line from collaboration to the human simply taking the AI’s work as their own? The existing law of inventorship can guide us. Someone who provides background information or explains the state of the art is not an inventor,” Landau said. “The courts are well-suited to developing these basic, long-standing principles to address future uses of AI and the availability of IP protection.”… But Landau, of the CCIA, advocated for the USPTO guidance to go further by asking inventors to disclose their use of AI. He expressed a view that inventorship disputes are not a new thing."

New USPTO guidance emphasizes the need to check for accuracy in generative AI document prep.

The USPTO have just issued new federal guidance on the safe use of #AI by legal professionals and applicants. Euan Devlin unpacks this in our weekly insights blog, and uncovers some interesting points for us all to consider - take a look! 👇 https://lnkd.in/eZ6fZX6t

Protecting intellectual property in the age of AI is complicated. This article explores some of the areas that senior executives should consider as AI continues to change the landscape of IP and patents. Learn four strategic ways to protect your IP here: https://lnkd.in/gNCHMMFJ Learn more about the MWM patent team here: https://lnkd.in/gss4Qdh3