This post was originally published to Seyfarth’s International Dispute Resolution Blog.
There is a little-known provision of the Lanham Act (the US Trademark Act) that packs a potentially big punch. 15 USC § 1051(e) provides that if a non-U.S. entity registers for a trademark in the United States without designating a United States resident
The Supreme Court yesterday declined to hear a case brought by a computer scientist whose “invention” was in fact created by artificial intelligence. Stephen Thaler was appealing a Federal Circuit decision that interpreted the Patent Act to require a human “inventor” for purposes of obtaining a patent. The invention at issue was conceived of by
Seyfarth Brian Michaelis, Matthew Brekus, and JC Zwisler authored an article titled “Calif. Ruling May Sow Seeds Of Cannabis Patent Precedent” in Law360 on April 19. The Seyfarth attorneys discussed a California ruling from last year, Gene Pool Technologies Inc. v. Coastal Harvest LLC, which states patent owners in the cannabis industry may be
If there is anything movies like The Terminator have shown us, it’s that AI systems might one day become self-aware and wreak havoc. But until Skynet becomes self-aware, let’s enjoy the AI toy that is quickly becoming a part of our daily lives. Some Samsung employees recently discovered that playing with AI models like ChatGPT may have unexpected consequences. These employees used ChatGPT for work and shared sensitive data, such as source code and meeting minutes. This incident was labeled as a “data leak” due to fears that ChatGPT would disclose the data to the public once it is trained on the data. In response, many companies took action, such as banning or restricting access, or creating ChatGPT data disclosure policies.
First, let’s talk about ChatGPT’s training habits. Although ChatGPT does not currently train on user data (its last training session was in 2021), its data policy for non-API access says it may use submitted data to improve its AI models. Users are warned against sharing sensitive information, as specific prompts cannot be deleted. API access data policy is different, stating that customer data is not used for training/tuning the model, but is kept for up to 30 days for abuse and misuse monitoring. API access refers to access via ChatGPT’s API, which developers can integrate into their applications, websites, or services. Non-API access refers to accessing ChatGPT via the website. For simplicity, let’s focus on non-API access. We’ll also assume ChatGPT has not been trained on user data yet – but, like Sarah Connor warning us about Judgment Day, we know it’s coming. Our analysis will mainly focus on ChatGPT. As noted below, this analysis may change based on a given usage policy of a chatbot.
This situation brings to mind the classic philosophical question: If a tree falls in a forest and no one’s around to hear it, does it make a sound? In our AI-driven world, we might rephrase it as: If we share our secrets with an AI language model like ChatGPT, but the information remains unused, does it count as trade secret disclosure or public disclosure of an invention?
VirnetX is a classic example of an NPE that does not qualify as a “patent troll.” How can you tell? Patent trolls leverage the litigation system to negotiate settlements for less than the cost of defending against a lawsuit. VirnetX, on the other hand, licenses its patents for eight and sometimes nine figures. Patent trolls
Seyfarth recently collaborated with Lexology on the release of an updated overview of legal issues affecting digital health in the United States. In the 35th episode of Seyfarth’s Health Care Beat Podcast, Jamaica Szeliga, a partner in the firm’s Intellectual Property group and NEW Health Care Beat co-host, joins Chris DeMeo to discuss the
This is the latest in the series titled “NPE Showcase,” where we discuss high-volume non-practicing entities (or as some call them, “patent trolls”). This installment will focus on a company named Web 2.0 Technologies, LLC.
Web 2.0 Technologies is similar to other NPEs, asserting two patents against well-known companies for technology that has been around
This post was originally published on Seyfarth’s The Blunt Truth blog.
Federal bans, lack of knowledge, and misinformation all stifle IP protection in the cannabis industry. Previously, one of our colleagues attended MJBizCon in Nevada and noted that “there is so much more to be done to bring this industry on par with other
UPDATE: on March 21, 2023, the Court in this lawsuit granted DISH’s Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law and vacated the jury verdict. That order will likely be appealed, and we will keep you apprised of any developments as they occur.
To read our original post on this topic, click here.
This is the latest in the series titled “NPE Showcase,” where we discuss high-volume non-practicing entities (or as some call them, “patent trolls”). This installment will focus on a company named Traxcell Technologies, LLC.
Non-practicing entities, by their very nature, have few assets other than the patents asserted in a lawsuit. NPEs are typically single