[Patentpractice] Questions about tools for AI-assisted patent drafting & prosecution

[Krista Jacobsen]

Hi Allen,

I believe you are outside of the United States, so this doesn't apply as
much to you as to those of us in the U.S., but some state bars have issued
opinions on the use of generative AI, including whether disclosure to
clients is required.

Here is the one for California:
https://www.calbar.ca.gov/Portals/0/documents/ethics/Generative-AI-Practical-Guidance.pdf

Best regards,
Krista

------------------------------------------
Krista S. Jacobsen
Attorney and Counselor at Law
Jacobsen IP Law
krista at jacobseniplaw.com
T:  408.455.5539
www.jacobseniplaw.com


On Tue, Dec 17, 2024 at 4:22 AM Irving Fishman via Patentpractice <
patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com> wrote:

> Allen:
>
>
>
> For testing purposes, I would suggest you stick to using recently issued
> patents that are those of your clients that do not have a lot of art listed
> on the patent so as t avoid getting client approval or getting into a
> morass of information that would require you to do stuff in one of your
> current cases (IDS for clearly relevant stuff).  By using a non-client
> issued patent, you have the ultimate patent text to compare to in a
> drafting situation and you have office actions to which you could construct
> responses and compare to what was actually done in the case for comparison
> with the least amount of impact any of your own client files.
>
>
>
>
>
> Irving M. Fishman
>
> Registered US Patent Attorney
>
> 89 Headquarters Plaza
>
> Suite 1422, North Tower
>
> Morristown, NJ 07960
>
> (Mobile) 201-602-7122
>
> (Office) 973-285-1548
>
> e-mail (primary):  ifishman at irvfishmanlaw.com
>
> e-mail (backup) Fishmanirving at gmail.com
>
>
>
> *From:* Patentpractice <patentpractice-bounces at oppedahl-lists.com> *On
> Behalf Of *Allen Richter (allenr--- via Patentpractice
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 17, 2024 2:46 AM
> *To:* patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com
> *Cc:* Allen Richter (allenr at richterpatent.com) <allenr at richterpatent.com>;
> Orin Leibson <orinl at richterpatent.com>
> *Subject:* [Patentpractice] Questions about tools for AI-assisted patent
> drafting & prosecution
> *Sensitivity:* Confidential
>
>
>
> Dear Listmates,
>
>
>
> I have been wondering if someone in this group has tried or at least been
> given a demo of one of the AI-assisted drafting & prosecution tools.
>
>
>
> If yes, what are your key takeaways? My key takeaway from a demo I have
> just attended: these tools require a *great* invention disclosure.
>
>
>
> If I considered testing one of those tools for a select number of cases,
> would you recommend obtaining advance consent from the client?
>
>
>
> Are there any guidelines /recommendations you could refer me to (e.g.,
> provided by AIPLA)?
>
>
>
> If yes, what should such letter to the client cover?
>
>
>
> As always, looking forward to receiving your invaluable feedback.
>
>
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
>
>
> Allen
>
> European, Swiss & Israeli Patent Attorney
>
> RICHTER SHIMONI PATENT ATTORNEYS
>
> *www.richterpatent.com <http://www.richterpatent.com>*
> 4 Oppenheimer Street *|* Ogen Tower B *|* 6th Floor *|* 7670104 Rehovot
> *|* Israel
> IL: +972-(0)54-527 3417 *|* +972-(0)8-68 999 61 *|* CH: +41-(0)22-508
> 7033
>
>
>
> This e-mail as well as any attached document contains information which is
> confidential and that may be subject to legal privilege. If you are not the
> intended recipient, you must not read, use, disseminate, distribute or copy
> this e-mail or its attachments. If you have received this in error, please
> inform us immediately by return e-mail, facsimile or by telephone and
> delete this e-mail. Please note that all opinions and/or conclusions
> expressed herein are preliminary and merely represent our analysis of the
> facts as known and/or presented to us and are not to be viewed or relied
> upon as conclusive and/or as a prediction of the outcome of any current
> or future litigation or other controversy. While email correspondence is
> very practical, we remind you that emails sent to our firm are not deemed
> to be received until you have obtained an acknowledgement of receipt (e.g.,
> by return email).
>
>
> --
> Patentpractice mailing list
> Patentpractice at oppedahl-lists.com
>
> http://oppedahl-lists.com/mailman/listinfo/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://oppedahl-lists.com/pipermail/patentpractice_oppedahl-lists.com/attachments/20241217/e450fb48/attachment.html>