Use of AI technology can impact your rights and liabilities in ways that may not even occur to you. And whether you are aware of it or not, your employees and vendors may be using generative AI tools in the performance of their duties in ways that can significantly impact you. The FTC has made clear that ignorance is not bliss when it comes to your liability associated with use of these tools. That is why it is more important now than ever to factor these AI technology legal implications into your company’s governance and risk management, including by updating your employee policies and third-party agreements. This article provides a non-exhaustive list of examples of legal issues that are implicated by the use of this powerful technology and practice tips for risk management.Continue Reading AI Technology – Governance and Risk Management: Why Your Employee Policies and Third-Party Contracts Should be Updated
Yasamin Parsafar is a partner in the Intellectual Property Practice Group in the firm's San Francisco office and is Co-Leader of the firm’s Blockchain & Fintech team.
Everything is being tokenized these days, including art, games, collectibles and much more. The record prices being fetched have created an NFT frenzy. This distribution model has created a new channel for monetization of creative IP. Given some of the unique aspects of NFTs, IP owners need to rethink their IP protection and licensing strategies. IP protection strategies should include specific protection relating to NFTs. Due to some of the unique aspects of NFTs, various new considerations need to be addressed when licensing IP. NFT creators need to be mindful of potential infringement issues when using third party IP and should also consider IP protection for their original creations.
Continue Reading NFTs and Intellectual Property: What IP Owners and NFT Creators Need to Know
The number of different open source licenses is growing and the variation in their terms and complexity is increasing. A number of licenses that appear to be, or are commonly referred to as “open source” do not actually meet the Open Source Initiative (OSI) definition of “open source.” Thus, they do not appear on the OSI list of approved open source licenses. We like to say that these licenses are open source-ish! The lack of standard definition of “open source” can lead to potential legal issues and business problems, particularly in connection with investments or acquisitions in companies that use software covered by such licenses. This is relevant to both companies that use open source software (OSS) and potential investors in or acquirors of those companies.
Continue Reading Open Source-ish! What Defines Open Source and Why it Really Matters in Investments and Acquisitions
Patentees and inventors of cannabis compounds may be happy to learn a district court in Colorado recently held that, based on the record before it, U.S. Patent No. 9,730,911, entitled “Cannabis extracts and methods of preparing and using same,” is not directed to unpatentable natural phenomena. United Cannabis Corporation v. Pure Hemp Collective Inc., No. 1-18-cv-01922 (Apr. 17, 2019, Order) (William J. Martinez).
Continue Reading Yes, UCANN!