| Time |
Session |
Panelists |
| |
Wednesday, June 19, 2024 |
|
| 5:30pm — 7:30pm |
Evening Welcome reception |
|
| |
Thursday, June 20, 2024 |
|
| 7:30am — 8:30am |
Buffet Breakfast & Sign-in |
|
| 8:30am — 8:45am |
Welcome and Announcements |
|
| 8:45am — 9:45am |
Session 1: What Artificial Intelligence (AI) is and how it is being used |
|
| |
We are already using AI in the practice of law and have been for several years. We use online research tools that rank the relevance of court decisions to issues we have identified. The USPTO has reportedly deployed an AI-based auto-classification system for patent applications and AI-powered prior art search tools for patent examinations. In recent months, Generative AI (GenAI) has propelled us into a world in which we can converse with an app to perform legal research, select relevant statutory and case law, and draft work product. In this “level-setting” introductory session for Artificial Intelligence novices and sophisticated Intellectual Property practitioners alike, a panel of experts on AI and the law will explain the science and mathematics behind AI, distinguish the various flavors of AI, define terms that will be used frequently during this conference, and identify the relevant technical issues to be explored in depth in the subsequent sessions. |
|
| 9:45am — 10:45am |
Session 2: The AI-enabled IP lawyer |
|
| |
Intellectual property litigation - whether as a plaintiff asserting claims against others, or as a defendant challenging the validity or scope of the asserted claims – is often time consuming, resource intensive, and complex. AI tools provide the opportunity for counsel to enhance their efficiency and effectiveness by employing machine learning algorithms for the identification and categorization of documents and data. In this way, attorneys and clients can better control their case materials leading to potentially improved litigation results. Other litigation benefits of AI include improved legal research (i.e., searching for concepts beyond specific terms), enhanced predictive analytics regarding legal strategies, and better client/counsel collaboration and litigation management. For patent lawyers, AI may support more robust prior art searching, facilitate the construction of claim charts and claim term interpretations, and assist in investigating design-around alternatives for non-infringement positions. Our panel of experienced litigators and IP experts will consider both the litigation benefits afforded by AI as well as the associated risks. |
|
| 10:45am — 11:00am |
Morning Break |
|
| 11:00am — 12:00pm |
Session 3: Facing AI's validity, reliability, bias, and evidential challenges |
|
| |
AI, like any technical tool or method, requires evaluation to determine whether it works properly and is appropriate for use in particular settings. However, some AI applications have come under scrutiny for allegedly incorporating biases in their data and algorithms, producing undesirable, inaccurate, or inconsistent results. The performance of AI applications can be observed and measured, and if addressed properly, these applications can be improved or better managed. The dialogue leaders will discuss the performance of AI tools used for various legal functions, how we access their efficacy, and the challenges that AI presents to admissibility under Rule 104 of the Federal Rules of Evidence, undue prejudice under Rule 403, and authentication under Rule 901. |
|
| 12:00pm — 1:00pm |
Session 4: Professional responsibility issues raised by the use of AI |
|
| |
The use of AI by law firms, corporate legal departments, law enforcement, regulatory agencies, and the courts raises a host of ethical concerns, some of which are squarely governed by the Model Rules of Professional Responsibility. Rule 1.1 requires that lawyers understand the technologies they are using or involved in their cases, Rule 1.6 places a duty of confidentiality when using client data to train or query an AI application, Rules 3.3 and 3.4 require candor to the court and fairness to opposing parties when using AI to develop argument or evidence, Rules 5.1 through 5.3 require supervision of partners, associates, and assistants who may be using AI, and Rule 5.5 prohibits the unauthorized practice of law, which may be facilitated by chatbots. The dialogue leaders will analyze these rules and others to make recommendations for using AI ethically in the practice of law, including the patent application, examination, and challenge or enforcement processes. |
|
| 1:00pm — 2:15pm |
Lunch (provided) |
|
| 2:15pm — 3:15pm |
Session 5: Challenges to the patent law system presented by AI |
|
| |
The advent of AI ignited a national debate regarding whether current patent laws and procedures adequately match policy goals. In this session, the dialogue leaders will discuss issues surrounding AI-assisted patent applications, including patent eligibility, inventorship and what constitutes “significant human contribution,” patent ownership, AI-fabricated prior art, and USPTO disclosure requirements. Additional questions include what R&D policies should companies consider to protect their potential patent rights or mitigate infringement liability. Could contractual agreements with AI providers or employee use of AI to innovate create the risk of losing patent rights? |
|
| 3:15pm — 3:30pm |
Afternoon Break |
|
| 3:30pm — 4:30pm |
Session 6: Patent litigation issues arising from GenAI |
|
| |
Artificial intelligence is already in active use in the workplace. With that comes several legal issues. When utilized for hiring, firing, performance review, or promotions, there is the possibility that AI may introduce or perpetuate race, gender, age, or disability biases. The data collection and retention needed to train AI applications may implicate employee privacy and data security concerns. This panel will identify the human resource issues, discuss some of the leading court and regulatory agency decisions, and invite dialogue on the road ahead. |
|
| 4:30pm — 5:30pm |
Session 7: Trade Secret challenges and opportunities presented by AI |
|
| |
Under both federal and state trade secret laws, trade secret owners must take reasonable measures to keep their valuable information assets secret. The use of AI by employees presents a risk that trade secrets may be exposed, but that risk should be balanced against the advantages of using AI. The dialogue leaders will discuss ways to manage trade secret risk to effectively capitalize on the advantages of using AI. Conversely, trade secrets may be a method of protecting AI innovation. Unlike the time and scope limitations on the protection of software and algorithms under US patent law, trade secrets may better protect AI-related software, training data, input parameters, and confidential, internally deployed output. The dialogue leaders will discuss whether trade secret law, unlike patent and copyright law, can protect AI systems and AI-generated output. |
|
| 5:30pm — 7:30pm |
Reception (Guests Invited) |
|
| |
Friday, June 21, 2024 |
|
| 7:30am — 8:30am |
Buffet Breakfast & Sign-In |
|
| 8:30am — 9:45am |
Session 8: Copyright policy and law in the age of AI |
| |
Generative AI has challenged our fundamental notions of copyright, raising myriad questions. Is there an “author” or “artist” of a GenAI-created work? How much human involvement in the process is necessary for the work to obtain copyright protection, or should we revisit the notion that human involvement is required? Should the copyright owners of the data used to train the AI system have ownership rights in the output? Should the developers of AI systems be required to compensate owners of the input data, or does the fair use doctrine apply? Should the fair use doctrine adapt to accommodate the unique capabilities of AI in research, education, and creative expression? Can AI systems create derivative works that infringe on existing copyrights? How do we determine the level of originality in AI-generated output, especially when it mimics existing styles or incorporates copyrighted elements? How do we draw the line between “authorship” and “attribution”? Should related legal doctrines, such as moral rights, attribution, and rights of publicity, be considered? The dialogue leaders will explore these questions and more, inviting your input on the directions copyright law and policy might take to resolve them. |
|
| 9:45am — 10:00am |
Morning Break |
|
| 10:00am — 11:15am |
Session 9: Copyright litigation in the age of Artificial Intelligence |
| |
Courts are grappling with the challenges GenAI presents to existing copyright law. Among the issues being litigated are establishing the “substantially similar” requirement for infringement by GenAI output trained on copyrighted text, images, and software code; establishing indirect copyright infringement claims against generative AI providers; the application of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act’s prohibition on circumvention of technical controls; and the efficacy of watermarking or other forms of copyright marking. In this session, the dialogue leaders will discuss recent decisions and pending high-profile cases and assess the statutory interpretations and legal theories being employed. |
|
| 11:15am — 12:30pm |
Session 10: Legislative, judicial, administrative, White House, and international responses to challenges of AI, including deep fakes |
| |
The explosion of public interest in – and concern about – Artificial Intelligence has spawned a dizzying array of proposals for regulation to balance the needs for privacy, consumer protection, law enforcement, and open markets with the promises of technological innovation. States have already implemented various regulations of AI, and the federal government is considering more. At the same time, federal courts and administrative agencies are wrestling with the application of current laws, rules, and regulations to novel technologies. The bipartisan proposed NO FAKES Act of 2023 would protect the voice and visual likeness of all individuals from unauthorized recreations from generative artificial intelligence and proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Evidence would address the authentication or challenge of evidence generated or modified by AI. This panel will address many of the issues raised in the prior sessions and allow regulators, legislators, and judges to candidly access where we are going with the governance of AI locally, nationally, and globally |
|
| 12:30pm — 12:45pm |
Closing Remarks |
| 12:45pm |
Adjournment and Grab & Go Lunch (provided) |
|
