Artificial Intelligence

At last week’s America’s Physician Group Spring conference in San Diego, California, our team heard firsthand how physicians are leading efforts to integrate Artificial Intelligence (AI) applications in ambulatory and inpatient settings in major healthcare systems across the nation. Physician and IT leaders described in detail their organizations’ efforts to identify safe, cost-effective, desirable ways to leverage AI to enhance the efficiency and quality of patient care and reduce physicians’ administrative workload. Here, we highlight key approaches that have generated early success for various health systems and physician groups, as well as key pitfalls that participants looking to adopt these technologies need to account for in their planning.Continue Reading How Physicians are Pioneering Use of AI Applications in Ambulatory and Inpatient Care

If your organization has not updated its policies to comply with Utah’s Artificial Intelligence Policy Act (the “Act”), now is the time. As we noted in a prior blog post, this law took effect on May 1st. While it imposes certain AI-related disclosure obligations on businesses and individuals as a whole, the obligations for regulated occupations (which include those licensed by the Utah Division of Professional Licensing, such as clinical services provided by a licensed healthcare provider, including a physician or nurse), are stricter.Continue Reading Utah Providers – Are You Complying with the AI Policy Act?

The number of bar associations that have issued AI ethics guidance continues to grow, with NJ being the most recent. In its May 2024 report (Report), the NJ Task Force on Artificial Intelligence and the Law made a number of recommendations and findings as detailed below. With this Report, NJ joins the list of other bar associations that have issued AI ethics guidance, including Florida, California, New York, DC as well as the US Patent and Trademark Office. The Report notes that the practice of law is “poised for substantial transformation due to AI,” adding that while the full extent of this transformation remains to be seen, attorneys must keep abreast of and adapt to evolving technological landscapes and embrace opportunities for innovation and specialization in emerging AI-related legal domains.Continue Reading NJ Bar Association Warns the Practice of Law Is Poised for Substantial Transformation Due To AI

A pending lawsuit raises an interesting copyright infringement question – does scraping an AI-generated database of job listings constitute copyright infringement?

In Jobiak v. Botmakers, Jobiak is an AI-based recruitment platform that offers a service for quickly and directly publishing job postings online and leverages machine learning technology to optimize third party job descriptions in real-time and generate an automated database for its job postings. Jobiak alleges copyright infringement (among other claims) because Botmakers scraped Jobiak’s proprietary database and subsequently incorporated its contents directly into its own job listings.Continue Reading Court to Decide Whether AI-scraped Job Database Is Subject to Copyright Protection and Is Infringed?

Is your M&A target a manufacturing company with automated production, a consumer products business with online sales and marketing or an education company that creates content for students? The increasing use and development of artificial intelligence (“AI”) systems and products, particularly generative AI, has created risks for businesses using such tools. AI plays a role in many industries and businesses whose products and services are not themselves AI. In the context of a M&A transaction, it is important to identify and allocate responsibility for these risks. Risks of AI may include: infringement (including through use of training data as well as outputs), confidentiality, IP ownership and protection (including limits on protection of IP generated by AI), regulatory (e.g., privacy, recent AI related legislation), and other risks arising from use such as indemnity obligations or managing contractor use of AI.Continue Reading M&A Transactions: Drafting AI Representations and Warranties for Non-AI Companies

According to published reports, George Carlin’s estate settled right of publicity and copyright claims relating to an AI-scripted comedy special using a “sound-alike” of George Carlin which performed the generated script. The special – “I’m Glad I’m Dead” – sought to reflect how Carlin would have commented on current events since his death in 2008. While most of the settlement terms are confidential, it is significant as one of the first resolutions of a case involving these issues. According to plaintiff’s lawyer, the defendants agreed to permanently remove the comedy special and to never repost it on any platform. They also agreed not to use Mr. Carlin’s image, voice or likeness on any platform without approval from the estate. There is no indication of whether the settlement included monetary damages.Continue Reading George Carlin Was Funny – Copying His Likeness AIn’t – Estate Settles AI-based Right of Publicity and Copyright Claims

The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), which works on establishing evidence-based international standards and develops advice on public policies, has issued updated recommendations (“Recommendation”) on responsible AI to reflect technological and policy developments, including with respect to generative AI, and to further facilitate its implementation.Continue Reading OECD Updates Guidance on Responsible AI

On March 28, 2024, the Office of Management and Budget (“OMB”) issued Memorandum M-24-10, Advancing Governance, Innovation, and Risk Management for Agency Use of Artificial Intelligence (the “Memo”). This is the final version of a draft memorandum OMB released for public comment on November 1, 2023. The Memo primarily focuses on agency use of AI and outlines minimum practices for managing risks associated with the use of AI in the federal government. The Memo also provides recommendations for managing AI risks in federal procurement of AI that industry should keep in mind, specifically entities developing AI tools to sell to the federal government.Continue Reading Better Safe Than Sorry: OMB Releases Memorandum on Managing AI Risks in the Federal Government

Colorado is the latest state to introduce a bill focused on consumer protection issues when companies develop AI tools. The bill imposes obligations on developers and deployers of AI systems. Additionally, the bill provides an affirmative defense for a developer or deployer if the developer or deployer of the high-risk system or generative system involved in a potential violation: i) has implemented and maintained a program that complies with a nationally or internationally recognized risk management framework for artificial intelligence systems that the bill or the attorney general designates; and ii) the developer or deployer takes specified measures to discover and correct violations of the bill. The obligations imposed adhere to responsible AI policy, including adopting and documenting policies to avoid algorithmic discrimination, requiring transparency and documentation of the design, data and testing used to build AI tools, avoiding copyright infringement, marking and disclosing to consumers that the synthetic content output was generated by AI tools. The bill also requires disclosure of risks, notifications if the tool makes a consequential decision concerning a consumer and other disclosures.Continue Reading Colorado Introduces an AI Consumer Protection Bill

The USPTO issued guidance on February 6, 2024 that clarified existing rules and policies and discussed how to apply them when AI is used in the drafting of submissions to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB). As a follow up, the USPTO has now published additional guidance in the Federal Register on some important issues that patent and trademark professionals, innovators, and entrepreneurs must navigate while using artificial intelligence (AI) in matters before the USPTO. The guidance recognizes that practitioners use AI to prepare and prosecute patent and trademark applications. It reminds individuals involved in proceedings before the USPTO of the pertinent rules and policies, identifies some risks associated with the use of AI, and provides suggestions to mitigate those risks. It states that while the USPTO is committed to maximizing AI’s benefits, the USPTO recognizes the need, through technical mitigations and human governance, to cabin the risks arising from the use of AI in practice before the USPTO. The USPTO has determined that existing rules protect the USPTO’s ecosystem against such potential perils and thus no new rules are currently being proposed.Continue Reading USPTO Issues Additional Guidance on Use of AI Tools in Connection with USPTO Matters