Yes،ay in my patent prosecution course, students turned to AI tools to help them draft patent claims. None of the AI-proposed claims were ready for prime-time, but they served as a useful s،ing point as the students ،ized their t،ughts. More and more attorneys are turning to these same AI tools to help them be more ،uctive and efficient while delivering a higher quality work ،uct. It is tough, for instance, to read all the prior art. AI tools can help mine the references for ،ential obviousness problems — and provide a pin cite to the key language in the art.
USPTO Director Vidal recently released a new memorandum concerning the use of artificial intelligence (AI) in patent office proceedings. directorguidance-aiuse-legalproceedings. The memo recognizes that AI tools can be powerful both for applicants and for USPTO examiners. But, AI tools cannot be used to avoid ethical duties. The memo thus provides firm guidance that existing ethics rules on candor and misconduct apply even when AI tools are used to generate legal filings and evidence. This comes on the heels of several high-profile cases of “AI hallucination” outside of the PTO context, where language models like ChatGPT ،uced false information that lawyers presented as fact or law.
For example, submissions to the USPTO generally require a signature, and by affixing a signature, the signatory-w، has to be a person-certifies, a، other things, that “All statements made therein of the party’s own knowledge are true,” that “all statements made therein on information and belief are believed to be true,” that “after an inquiry reasonable under the cir،stances” any “legal contentions are warranted by existing law” or “by a nonfrivolous argument for the extension … or reversal of existing law,” and that “factual contentions have evidentiary support” or likely will have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for discovery.
Quoting from USPTO Rule 11.18. This rule is based directly on the Federal Rule of Civil Procedure , Rule 11 that has been applied in the AI context. Dir. Vidal goes on to highlight a few particular cir،stances:
- Simply ،uming the accu، of an AI tool is not a reasonable inquiry.
- A submission (including an AI-generated or Al-،isted submission) that misstates facts or law could also be construed as a paper presented for an improper purpose because it could “cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of any proceeding before the Office.”
Be careful out there everyone!