On March 27, 2024, the U.S. Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency’s (“CISA”) Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (“Proposed Rule”) related to the Cyber Incident Reporting for Critical Infrastructure Act of 2022 (“CIRCIA”) was released on the Federal Register website. The Proposed Rule, which will be formally published in the Federal Register on April 4, 2024, proposes
Continue Reading CISA Issues Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for Critical Infrastructure Cybersecurity Incident ReportingAnticipated 1Q24 Actions Implementing the White House AI Executive Order
The Biden administration’s October 2023 Executive Order on Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence (the “Order”) sets out an extensive list of deadlines for the various federal agencies tasked with implementing the Order’s requirements.
We previously summarized the Order, compared its requirements with those of the EU’s AI Act, and identified initial implementation steps. This post highlights the Order’s key actions with implementation deadlines during 1Q24. Continue Reading Anticipated 1Q24 Actions Implementing the White House AI Executive Order
Digital Services Act’s Impact on Terms of Service
In a new post on the Inside Privacy blog, our colleagues discuss the changes that providers of web-hosting services, cloud services and other intermediary services in the EU will need to make to their T&Cs to comply with the EU Digital Services Act. To read the post, please click here.
Continue Reading Digital Services Act’s Impact on Terms of ServiceSeptember 2023 Developments Under President Biden’s Cybersecurity Executive Order and National Cybersecurity Strategy
In a new post on the Inside Government Contracts blog, our colleagues discuss recent developments under President Biden’s Cybersecurity Executive Order and the U.S. National Cybersecurity Strategy. To read the post, please click here.
Continue Reading September 2023 Developments Under President Biden’s Cybersecurity Executive Order and National Cybersecurity StrategyBiden Administration Announces Artificial Intelligence Executive Order
Earlier today, the White House issued a Fact Sheet summarizing its Executive Order on a comprehensive strategy to support the development of safe and secure artificial intelligence (“AI”). The Executive Order follows a number of actions by the Biden Administration on AI, including its Blueprint for an AI Bill of Rights and voluntary commitments from certain developers of AI systems. According to the Administration, the Executive Order establishes new AI safety and security standards, protects privacy, advances equity and civil rights, protects workers, consumers, and patients, promotes innovation and competition, and advances American leadership. This blog post summarizes these key components.Continue Reading Biden Administration Announces Artificial Intelligence Executive Order
UK Supreme Court Hands Down Judgment on Litigation Funding Agreements
In a new post on the Inside Class Actions blog, we summarize the UK Supreme Court’s recent judgment on litigation funding agreements, which could potentially have significant impact on collective proceedings and other funded cases in the UK. To read the post, please click here.
Continue Reading UK Supreme Court Hands Down Judgment on Litigation Funding AgreementsSection 337 Developments at the U.S. International Trade Commission
Practice and Procedure
The ITC’s Recent Sua Sponte Use of 100-Day Expedited Adjudication Procedure
Over the last few years, the International Trade Commission (“ITC” or “Commission”) has developed procedural mechanisms geared toward identifying potentially dispositive issues for early disposition in its investigations. These procedures are meant to give respondents an opportunity to litigate a dispositive issue before committing the resources necessary to litigate an entire Section 337 investigation.
In 2018, the ITC adopted 19 C.F.R. § 210.10(b)(3), which provides that “[t]he Commission may order the administrative law judge to issue an initial determination within 100 days of institution . . . ruling on a potentially dispositive issue as set forth in the notice of investigation.” Although the ITC denies the majority of requests by respondents to use this procedural mechanism, the ITC has ordered its ALJs to use this program in a handful of investigations to decide, among other things, whether the asserted patents claim patent-eligible subject matter, whether a complainant has standing to sue, whether a complainant can prove economic domestic industry, and whether claim or issue preclusion applies.Continue Reading Section 337 Developments at the U.S. International Trade Commission
Federal Circuit Rules That Under The Patent Act An Inventor Must Be Human: So What Can Be Done To Patent AI Inventions?
In its August 5, 2022 affirmance of the district court’s grant of summary judgment, the Federal Circuit in Thaler v. Vidal ruled that the Patent Act unambiguously and directly answers the question of whether an AI software system can be listed as the inventor on a patent application. Since an inventor must be a human being, AI cannot be.
Judge Stark’s first authored precedential opinion since confirmation to the Federal Circuit aligns the U.S. position on whether AI can be listed as an inventor on a patent application with that of other major jurisdictions. Left for another day are questions such as the rights, if any, of AI systems, and whether AI systems can contribute to the conception of an invention.
PTO and Litigation Background of the DABUS Patent Applications
In July 2019, two patent applications were filed in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) that identified an AI system called DABUS (Device for the Autonomous Bootstrapping of Unified Sentience) as the sole inventor and Stephen L. Thaler as the Applicant and Assignee. DABUS, which was characterized as “a particular type of connectionist artificial intelligence” known as a “Creativity Machine” during prosecution and as “a collection of source code or programming and a software program” before the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, allegedly generated the subject matter of the two patent applications.
The filed patent applications specifically stated that the inventions were conceived by DABUS, and that DABUS should accordingly be named as the inventor. The PTO subsequently issued Notices stating that the applications did not identify each inventor by his or her legal name. In response to filed Petitions requesting that the PTO vacate the issued Notices, the PTO issued Petition Decisions refusing to vacate, explaining that a machine does not qualify as an inventor under the patent laws, and providing additional time to identify inventors by their legal name to avoid abandonment of the applications.
Thaler then sought judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act in the Eastern District of Virginia, requesting an order compelling the PTO to reinstate the DABUS patent applications, and a declaration that a patent application for an AI-generated invention should not be rejected on the basis that no natural person is identified as an inventor. After briefing and oral argument, the district court issued an order denying Thaler’s requested relief and granting the PTO’s motion for summary judgment, recognizing the Federal Circuit’s consistent holdings under current patent law requiring inventors to be natural persons.Continue Reading Federal Circuit Rules That Under The Patent Act An Inventor Must Be Human: So What Can Be Done To Patent AI Inventions?
AI Update: USPTO Releases Report on Growth of Artificial Intelligence Applications
The USPTO issued a Report in October 2020 titled Inventing AI: Tracing the diffusion of artificial intelligence with U.S. patents, along with supplementary material that describes the methodology and scope of patent related data used in the Report. Following a first report also issued in October 2020 that pertains to AI and IP
Continue Reading AI Update: USPTO Releases Report on Growth of Artificial Intelligence Applications
AI Update: Provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act Signal the Importance of AI to American Competitiveness
The newly enacted National Defense Authorization Act (“NDAA”) contains important provisions regarding the development and deployment of artificial intelligence (“AI”) and machine learning technologies, many of which build upon previous legislation introduced in the 116th Congress. The most substantial federal U.S. legislation on AI to date, these provisions will have significant implications in the national security sector and beyond. The measures in the NDAA will coordinate a national strategy on research, development, and deployment of AI, guiding investment and aligning priorities for its use.
President Trump had vetoed the NDAA after its initial passage in December, but the $740 billion NDAA became law over the objection of President Trump’s veto with a rare New Year’s Day Senate vote, 81-13. The House voted to override President Trump’s veto on December 28, on a 322-87 vote.
This post highlights some of the key AI provisions included in the NDAA.
Continue Reading AI Update: Provisions in the National Defense Authorization Act Signal the Importance of AI to American Competitiveness