EP 520- Recent Developments in Patent Law Part One

Episode Notes

Transcript

Announcer:

Welcome to The. Jury. is Out a podcast for trial attorneys who want to sharpen their skills and better serve their clients. Your co-hosts are John Simon, founder of the Simon Law Firm Tim Cronin personal injury trial attorney at the Simon Law Firm and St. Louis attorney Erich Vieth

Erich Vieth:

Welcome to another episode of The Jury is Out. I’m Erich Veth and I’m here with Anthony Simon on my left. Anthony, welcome to the podcast. You’re a familiar guest here.

Anthony Simon:

I am. Thank you very much. Good to be here again.

Erich Vieth:

And we’re here also with Ben Clark of the firm, Brian Cave, or that’s what it used to be known as. And I guess now it’s BCLP with a dot between the Orange dot please and Rudy Telscher of Hush Blackwell. Welcome both. Good to be here.

Ben Clark:

Great to be here.

Erich Vieth:

So we’re here to talk about recent developments and patent law, recent meaning typically the last 10 years or so, and there’s a lot to talk about. Ben, you agreed to kick us off with talking about the Alice Case.

Ben Clark:

Yeah, just by way of background this century, there was a growing tendency towards suing big companies on the part of smaller companies or companies that didn’t even do business. They were into monetizing the patents they own. And the term that was used to describe them rather unpolitely was patent troll. But the more polite term, which I’m sure we’ll use as a non-practicing entity, they own patents, but they weren’t necessarily in the business. And that had a tremendous economic impact on our legal system, certainly as far as patents go, because the courts and particularly select courts that were deemed to be favorable to plaintiffs and the MPEs were flooded with cases and many of them involved patents that were premised in whole or in part on computers or software. And some of them bore the name business method patents. And because there were no really harsh standards developed by the patent office and they really hadn’t decided whether computerized inventions should be patentable or not, the patent office was flooded with them.

And so there were just dozens and dozens and dozens of these electronically based patents floating around. And so even though nobody ever admitted it, the courts and the legislature essentially were taking steps to eliminate those. And so in 20, or at least diminish them because big companies were complaining they’d be hauled into court and they’d pay half a million dollars just to make a case go away to avoid litigation expense. And depending on which side of the ledger you’re on, you either like that a lot or you don’t like that. And so the Alice Case essentially this is broad and can be taken to say that if you’re using just a general purpose computer that you’ve programmed to perform a certain function that is not patentable. It’s not patentable subject matter. And that ruling was welcomed by a lot of district judges because they could knock cases out very quickly simply by saying, well, there’s a computer involved even if they were oversimplifying the law sum.

So right at first there was a tremendous decrease in patent filings by the nmps. There was a tremendous decrease in case law in these friendly jurisdictions like these Subdistrict of Texas. And there was a tremendous decrease in the number of Alice type patents that were either sued on or issued by the patent office. And so everybody thought, well, that’s the end of these EPE type of cases. And in fact, for about three or four years, actually up until last year, the number of patent filings went down every year after years of increase. But because the federal circuit, which is the appellate court that hears patent matters, started to say, well yeah, there may be some factual questions in these Alice type cases that will not let us dismiss the case early. And because people got better at writing patents, suddenly you look up after 10 years of declining patent filings and the ed techs not involved and nmps this last quarter for the first time in 10 years, patent case filings are up, most of them are filed by mps.

Most of them are filed in the Eastern District of Texas and most of them are Alice type subject matter. And this is almost like the more things change, the more they stay the same. And this has real consequence now because with artificial intelligence, the patent office and the legislature is completely at a loss to how to deal with that incredibly important ongoing technology because it obviously has Alice implications. And yet the Supreme Court of United States had a chance to revisit Alice to take it up and let’s clarify what some of these concepts mean and decline to do. So just this past April. So we’re back to where we were 10 years ago in that those sorts of cases and those sorts of plaintiffs are beginning to dominate patent litigation. Again,

Erich Vieth:

I’m sitting here with three experienced patent attorneys. I’m not one of them. And I thought I have two questions that I think might help me or the general audience understand a few things. So if you develop a piece of software like Microsoft Word, and if it’s not patentable, is it protected by a copyright or something else? Copy. Could you explain how that works?

Rudy Telscher:

If you went from 1990 through 2014, which is when the US Supreme Court decided Alice, there were lots and lots of software patents and the patent lawyers got really good at making computer functionality sound really techy and they were getting patents through when all they were doing is taking a computer and using it to automate traditional processes. So say for example, you were in banking and we did processes manually, you had the employees that were adding up numbers and coming up with spreadsheets and doing things that a bank would do. What people got really good at up through 2014 was coming up with patent claims that would cover basic processes doing nothing other than using a computer for what it was intended to do. And I think what the courts realized is that was too broad. And so what Alice basically says is that you have to have something significantly more than the general concept of that process.

So you can patent software still, there are lots of software patents, but what the Supreme Court did is reign that in a little bit, right? And so you can still get software patents. The US when you look at our economy, I mean you’ve got Adobe, you’ve got Microsoft, you’ve got Facebook made. Now all software companies. So we are an economy that is driven by software. So we’re not in a place where software can’t be patented. It can, but it’s more challenging and you have to earn more. As all boils downtown, they just got rid of a lot of bad patents. Now there’s a big debate on whether the Allis decision’s good law or not, and whether you could have gotten there with other provisions of the patent act. But when you’re talking about software, it’s protectable by patent, it’s protectable by trade secret, it’s protectable by copyright. So those are the areas.

Anthony Simon:

The difference is copyright stops someone from copying your work. So if you independently create a competing piece of software and you never have access to my work and you don’t copy it, I can’t stop you with a copyright, A patent independent creation is not a defense to patent infringement. So the reason a patent is more powerful is you can stop someone who independently creates their own piece of software if it reads on your patent claims.

Rudy Telscher:

And the US needs that, right? I mean the US there are lots of countries out there that would love nothing more than to be able to copy us technology. So patent is still an important component for protecting software and software is an important component to our economy and industry.

Erich Vieth:

So there are some patentable pieces of software and some that fail. So I’m wondering is there a bright line of some sort where you can go, these are the completely safe patents over here and these are the ones that don’t work. And where that line is, and maybe it depends upon what happened in 2014, but can you give us some idea of what works and what doesn’t work?

Rudy Telscher:

Sure. I mean all three of us would be out of business if there was a bright line. So we’re happy that there’s not a bright line and I know have an audience that’s full of great trial lawyers. So the analogy I would get is one of negligence, right? And it’s not an analogy that’s meant to be legally equivalent, but defining where negligence begins and ends is an art of the trial lawyer. And there is a fuzzy line between software that is too genErich to the function and software that adds enough advance, enough detail that it’s patentable. And arguing over those boundaries is where the court cases are at right now.

Anthony Simon:

And I would say it’s easy to define on the edges. If you invent a computer program where somebody can play bingo on the internet and you try and patent it, you’re going to lose. It’s not patentable. All you’re doing is automating something. As Rudy said before, that had been done a long time without automation. And on the other end of the spectrum, if you create some piece of computer software that can solve some problem that didn’t even exist before, you’re probably going to be patentable. But in between there, there’s a big gap.

Ben Clark:

Erich, you put your finger on. The real question behind Alice is what is a newent of concept and what isn’t? And many commentators said, well, it kind of depends on the judger in front of, it’s very gray. And that’s what the party that was trying to get the US Supreme Court to take this on said they made the point that it’s clear from all of the case laws that it’s unclear that lines are drawn all over the place in the gray. So why don’t you clarify that we’re heading into AI land here. We all need to know, and that’s why the Supreme Court’s refusal to take that on just a few months ago is so important and why there continues. There will continue to be this gray line drawing.

Anthony Simon:

And I would say there are district court judges and court of appeals judges who have expressly said in court opinions, they don’t know what to do with Alice and they’ve invited the Supreme Court come on in and fix this because we don’t know what to do. I think they didn’t even mention

Erich Vieth:

Software. Is that correct? And so is there a core holding that? Is there something you can grab onto on Alice and go that is a clear piece of holding that we can all bank on. And then there’s the connotation or the stuff that everybody’s struggling with. What can we say about Alice that’s kind of rock solid that we can rely on?

Ben Clark:

The concept that it turns on is inventive concept. If it’s an abstract idea, which most of software and computers are deemed to be abstract, what is the inventive concept? And the courts have more defined in terms of what is not inventive concept, then what is, and the most you can get essentially is if you are simply as Mr. Telscher said before reprogramming or repurposing a general purpose computer, we’re going to say it’s no good. Well zillions of dollars hanging the balance on these decisions. And many judges love the uncertainty. Well, they love the fact that if a claim mentions a computer or software, rather than thinking very hard about it, you were thinking hard about it. Very often in the Courtroom chambers, if a computer or software appears there, the court will say it’s section 1 0 1 invalid end of case throughout the door. So you put your finger on the point that it’s complicated, but the decisions are being made frequently without really analyzing the complexity and without having clear guidance as to which side to fall on in a given decision

Anthony Simon:

And to put some meat on the bones before Alice patents are presumed valid. The patent office does an examination, grants a patent. Before Alice, you probably weren’t going to get an invalidity finding unless you got the summary judgment after Alice, the defendants could file rule 12 B motions to dismiss, and on a 12 B motion to dismiss a federal district court can find that that patent granted by the patent office is not patentable subject matter, the patent’s invalid cases over. That’s

Erich Vieth:

Sounding analogous. I handle some civil rights cases and it seems like the qualified immunity issue is that same kind of thing. It used to be waiting for summary judgment, so you’d put some meat on the bones and let the court look at it, figure out what really happened in the case. Doesn’t it make more sense to find out through discovery what’s going on before you rule?

Ben Clark:

And that’s part of the resurgence of these sorts of cases because the federal circuit seeing what was going on said, well wait a minute. There are times when there’s a fact dispute as to what’s an inventive concept and if there is a fact dispute, I can’t get rid of it on the rule 12 six motion upfront. I have to take it at least to summary judgment. That is in part why there’s more interest in filing these cases. Again, because the federal circuit has said, Hey, district judges don’t just bip ’em if the word computer appears in there, if there’s a genuine fact dispute as to what’s an inventive concept, you’ve got to let the case go on. And that’s encouraging the plaintiffs who want to file these types of cases.

Erich Vieth:

Ben, you mentioned the troll problem. I use the word the T word.

Ben Clark:

I wouldn’t use the word problem either because there are a lot of people who think it’s perfectly legit under

Erich Vieth:

Including me,

Ben Clark:

But

Erich Vieth:

Including the guy sitting, see where going,

Ben Clark:

And he’s within arm’s reach of

Erich Vieth:

You. So what percentage of these suits challenging patents are people that you might consider are the troll people?

Ben Clark:

They’re the ones who are asserting the patents. See,

Erich Vieth:

They’re starting their own

Ben Clark:

Patents. So what happens, they’re into patent monetization. So they’re an entity that does new business. It just buys patents and it looks around on the patent landscape that we was talking about before and says, well, that one, that one, that one, that one. And now we’re going to file suit against Amazon or Google or you name Big tech or the little seven tech people they named them and General counsel’s offices. This is all malarkey, but it’s going to cost me. You’re telling me Mr. Telscher, it’s going to cost two and a half million dollars to defend that at least. So let’s just write a check for $250,000. And some of the cases are better than others. There are some big recoveries. But that’s why being in the venue of your choice like these District of Texas is extremely friendly to patent owners. They view the whole thing as just somebody trespassing on your land or something like that. And that’s why to slow down the nmps. Some would argue that is specifically why Alice, in the Heartland case that we’ll probably talk about in terms of venue came into existence was to cut down on the number of times that the nmps are using these patents by having them declared invalid under Alice because they involve computer or software. Could

Erich Vieth:

You tell me one more time? NPE refers to? Yeah, lemme practicing

Rudy Telscher:

Entity. So it’s non-practicing entity. And let’s explain it to the audience a little bit more what that means because that’s just a buzzword, right? So if you have Adobe, they’re a software company and they come up with software, they patent it, they’re a practicing entity, what does that mean? They’re actually making the product, selling the product out there in the marketplace. So they’re a practicing entity. When we start talking about whether it’s the word patent troll or NPE, which is non-practicing entity. It simply means an entity that is not making and selling their own product, but they were responsible for the invention. Let’s go to one of the most, one of the great examples of an NPE that can not be more legitimate universities. So if you’re a university, you’ve got all your scientists or your teachers out there, professors that are on grants and working with students and coming up with inventions.

We’re here in St. Louis, Washington University right down the road has an incredible world class engineering department that’s coming up with lots of inventions and electrical and mechanical pharmaceutical, non-practicing entities. And they’ll go hire a lawyer could pay ’em by the hour, which would be me, or it could be Tony Simon who’s going to do a contingent fee, but they’re out there because some company is selling a product that infringes on their patents and they’re not paying. And those cases can be worth a lot when you get into pharmaceuticals. So that’s one form of a non-practicing entity. Another form is just small inventors out there that came up with something and a big company is using it. And guess what? The big company doesn’t want to pay the little guy. That’s no surprise. And yet they really invented something and it’s something real. And so you can have cases over that and sometimes those cases are worth 5 million, sometimes they’re worth a hundred million million.

There’s lots of legitimate real cases that should be in the courts, that are by non-practicing entities. What some group of people that are probably a little less scrupulous, and I shouldn’t even say less scrupulous. I mean it’s like the tax laws, right? If you can get away with the tax break and it’s legal, God bless. So when you look at, there was a form of non-practicing entities out there that found these old patents that were broadly worded that got through the system. And now you could take these old patents and say that new technological developments were reading on those patents, patents probably weren’t going to hold up or they weren’t going to hold up to cover those technologies. And so the notion was, and it’s what Ben Clark said over here correctly. So they would come in and say, you know what? Pay us 50 grand, pay us a hundred grand.

You know what it’s going to cost you to defend this case and patent litigation. It’s, you look at the average rates, it’s probably minimum 1.5 million through trial. Realistically it’s probably two to 5 million through trial. So you know what that dialogue looks like. Hey, pay me 50 grand, pay me a hundred grand, pay me 500 grand, otherwise you’re just going to spend more on this lawsuit. And those were what we call the nuisance value suit. So that’s kind of if anybody wants to use patent troll or the negative connotation of those lawsuits, that’s kind of where that resides.

Anthony Simon:

The other non-prime that you’re talking about isn’t the small inventor who actually invented the invention and it’s not the university. There were companies and still are companies who go look at patents and will purchase those patents or license those patents specifically to go and sue companies. And those are the ones that had the bad name and there were lots of them that did exactly that. Sue 10 defendants in one case in the Eastern District of Texas settle with nine of them for nuisance value. And that’s the reason Alice helped stop that is if you can get those cases dismissed on a 12 B motion to dismiss in the beginning of the case, you’re not spending that kind of money. Whereas if you have to get through summary judgment, you’d be better off just paying and getting a license.

Erich Vieth:

So if an NPE buys a patent in order to sue another company, is there a counterclaim sometimes where they’re both claiming each other?

Anthony Simon:

No, no. See, that’s the good thing about a non-practicing entity. They can’t be sued by, if I sue Adobe who has a bunch of patents and I’m not making, using or selling anything, they can’t counterclaim against me because I’m not doing anything. Now they can counterclaim and say, Hey, your patent’s invalid, but there was no downside for the plaintiff. Now don’t get me wrong, our constitution said we should have patents because it encourages innovation. People that invent things do so because they want to monetize that A patent is a piece of personal property like my car, like my house. I’m entitled to go sell my invention, my patent to a company and let them enforce it. That’s my right, that’s how I feel about it. And if you diminish that and you say, well no, if I have a new invention, for example, I invented a great app on an iPhone and I don’t want to make the app and I don’t want to make iPhones and compete with Apple, I can’t enforce my patent, I can’t sell my patent. That sounds ridiculous to me that I have to go start a competing company. So I don’t think our founding fathers thought that you have to just to get a patent and have it be worthwhile. You have to start a company making and selling the product. That’s not what the law says either. The law under the patent law gives you the right to stop others from making, using and selling, and you can do that and you can make money off of that. So there’s a balance, right?

Ben Clark:

Just another thing while we’re on this topic, there’s also a form of finance where insurance companies will ensure and pay for, it’s more of pay your attorney’s fees and let you the sole inventor or you the university chase and they get a cut of the pie and they’re not technically patent owners, but they certainly have an interest. And one of the reasons we’ve seen the shift back to the patent friendly jurisdictions like these districts of Texas is that Delaware, which was hosting a lot of these cases because of a change in venue law, which we’ll probably get to the chief judge there, said, well, we are now going to require anybody who has any financial interest in this, no matter whether your two steps are moved to three, you’re going to tell us who that is. Are you an insurance company? Are you some just patent monetization group that is not an insurance company, but they are investing in somebody else pursuing? And that was so feared by members of the NPE group that many of them just stopped filing suits there. And so the number of suits in Delaware have plummeted in the last couple of years since the chief judge there said, we’re going to have transparency as to who’s really funding these lawsuits.

So just the structure of these things. Erich, as you can see, it’s complicated and there’s some nuance there, but there’s many in them are hills and you see all sorts of different structures. But Allison was directed in part to slow down at least one or two of those.

Rudy Telscher:

But your question was a good one, right? What is the downside for bringing these lawsuits? Is there a counterclaim? Is the question you asked. And Tony got it right, that if you’re not making or selling something, then you can’t be accused of infringing somebody else’s patents. It does happen in our competitor cases, right? I represent a big company and we want to sue another company who we think is infringing our patents part. The calculus would be if I sue them, is there something of theirs that I might be infringing on? Are we creating a bigger issue in this case? Probably the downsides are for somebody considering one of these lawsuits is one, the Alice decision makes it easier to invalidate your patent. So is it worth my time? And a lot of the MPE cases, probably almost all of ’em are contingent fee. So the question is, Tony’s not going to take a case unless it’s a good case that has money, somebody who can pay and he likes what the story of the case is.

All trial lawyers on this panel get what a good story is. And I can tell you in patent litigation, it’s no different than any other form of litigation. You better have a good story that persuades the jury. So why wouldn’t you bring the case? Alice made it easier to invalidate these claims. So I think that’s dissuaded some. Secondly, in 2014, the US Supreme Court decided a case called Octane Fitness where prior to 2014 you couldn’t get attorney’s fees, fees in a patent case. So there was one case in nine years where the federal circuit affirmed an attorney’s fee award. It was ridiculous. Really, the Supreme Court lowered the standard in 2014 in the octane fitness case. Have the district courts gone wild and granting fees? Nope, they’ve gotten it right. They know that if you have a weak case, it doesn’t have to be frivolous, but if it’s weak, they can take a bunch of factors into consideration how you litigated it, how strong is your case, and they can award fees.

And so another deterrent against somebody bringing one of these cases if they’re too weak as you could wind up with a fee claim, and as I mentioned earlier, those fee claims can be two, four, $5 million. So I think that’s also served to bring balance back. And then if you look at 2014 when the Supreme Court case came down, there were lots of just very broadly worded patent claims that probably were what we talked about or earlier, a patent directed to automating a bingo or some other basic banking process. So I think a lot of patents that were overly broad where patent lawyers got really good at getting those allowed were invalidated. That was probably how it should be. Software patents are still being granted now, but the patent lawyers have had to put more meat on the bones. They’ve had to put words into their patent claims that are more than just a basic concept that had been done for years.

And so I think the system is normalizing. I do still think, however, Alice is one is Ben Clark said over here that the Supreme Court, I don’t think knows what to do with it. They’ve had the possibility since 2014, probably a hundred times there have probably been a hundred petitions for CERT to the US Supreme Court to revisit the standard. And they’ve denied every one of ’em. And I’ve actually been on a couple of them. They denied mine, so they don’t seem interested. Congress has talked about it a lot. We’ve cleaned up the system. The question is have we outgrown Alice? Is it going to get overruled by Congress? Will the Supreme Court take it back up? It is a hard to define test. And let’s talk about what that test is just for a second. Because even to the trial lawyers in here who are not patent lawyers, they’re going to understand this, right?

You have what is an abstract concept. As Ben Clark said earlier, almost every single time you can find any invention grounded in some abstract concept. So that part of the test is almost always satisfied. There’s a couple cases where people find in step one, it’s not abstract, but generally that happens. And even beyond software, one of the things that we’ve kind of mentioned is software, and there’s also business methods that were another big attack, but there was a mechanical patent on a garage door opener that was invalidated under this test. So it goes beyond software, but software gets hit a lot, right? So step two, is there something in the patent claims that’s quote significantly more than the abstract concept? Everybody on this or everybody listening to this podcast knows what the word significantly means and it’s a gray word and that’s where the battlegrounds are. But since that’s the test, I think the patents that are being granted now both because the patent office is looking way closer at it, and the patent lawyers know that you don’t apply for a patent if you don’t have this quote significantly more. I think the quality of the patents are going up, and I think we’re going to continue to litigate these gray areas, but a lot has been weeded out that probably should have been weeded out in my view.

Anthony Simon:

And just to think about that test. So you have a patent on a technical invention, you have a district court judge who probably doesn’t have a technical background and they receive a motion to dismiss claiming that this invention is not significantly more, and you don’t get any expert witnesses, you don’t get any testimony. You just make that decision by reading the patent judge. That’s why I think the test is terrible. Yeah, I agree with that. But again, the alternative is you go all the way to summary judgment. The defendants on BS cases have to spend a bunch of money D defend them. I think the Supreme Court shouldn’t have been involved to begin with. I think if there’s a problem, Congress should fix it,

Ben Clark:

Right? Totally agree. One of the reasons the court right now is reluctant is because the US Patent office, US Congress, even President Biden who issued an order on this are sorting out where does artificial intelligence fit into all of this? Because if we make a decision now that has profound impact on artificial intelligence’s, patents, validity before the patent of trademark office has even gotten their act together and they’re starting to issue rules saying that whether their approach is going to be Supreme Court gets it wrong now, and then it turns out that ai, which just takes over the world in 10 or 15 years, you’ve got all these patents like, gosh, I think they’re holding their fire in part to see how that plays out. I mean, for instance, one of the hottest areas right now of patent law and of technology is what I’ll call the race for medical ai, which is big versus big tech who is going to get the AI patents this new area and a new kind of treatment essentially that involves both prescriptions and medications, which pharma loves, but also has Essentially you get on your cell phone, you get essentially a diagnostic tool that you use it games to help diagnose yourself.

So you’re talking about a tech aspect of medical diagnosis and treatment going forward way beyond has ever occurred before. And then the traditional medication prescription. And there is a fight industry to industry right now as to who can get a leg up to get patents issued that tend to favor big tech on the one hand, or big pharma on the other. Well, Alice is going to come to bear on all of this. And so it’s taken on consequences beyond probably what was even imagined with respect to the mps back in 2014.

Rudy Telscher:

For example. Let’s talk about Nvidia. Everybody now knows Nvidia. Two years ago, nobody probably knew Nvidia unless you were into gaming stocks. Nvidia has microchips that are powering ai, those chips are patented, their software components to that that’s going to be patented. Whether they fall under Alice, doubtful, I think Nvidia and their expert lawyers are going to be smart enough to get patents through that are probably going to hold up. And we speak generally like patents, but when you file for patents, you have all kinds of different patent claims. So you get to go at it a bunch of different ways. And it’s a great topic. I mean, this is where the economy’s going, right? Artificial intelligence, we’re all wondering what’s it going to do? What’s life for human beings going to be like? And it’s out there, it’s real. There’s already artificial intelligence as been said, that’s being used to develop pharmaceuticals.

The problem is the patent office has been clear and the courts have been clear, artificial intelligence cannot be an inventor. You have to be a person to be an inventor. So now the battle is going to be we’re going to see technology grow at a rapid pace because artificial intelligence is going to help humans get to solutions quicker. But the problem is the computer can’t be an inventor. And so now the battle’s going to be how do we figure out what the human did versus what the computer did? And so that’s going to be kind of the new construct. But to be clear, artificial intelligence is definitely being patented already. It’s being used to develop pharmaceuticals. You’ll be a doctor sitting in a surgery and you’ll have your patient wired up and the surgeon’s going to be looking at you. And that machine is going to be telling the doctor, I’m looking at this set of statistics and I’m running it over a million to 2 million prior patients with similar, have you thought about this?

We’re all worried about the bad stuff that is going to come from ai, the Terminator, right? Right. Ironman, all of that. And no doubt we should be worried about robots taking over the world. You can’t underestimate that. I mean, it’s a little bit science fiction, but you can imagine how that could happen. But ultimately right now, there’s a lot of uses for AI that’s going to be helping doctors who might’ve missed a diagnosis to come up with better ideas. It’s going to help. It’s already being used. And software development. GitLab is a company that offers software, AI software that helps coders code. So it does a lot of the routine. AI right now is good at the basics and it gets you to your starting point a lot quicker. And now you can use more of your human ingenuity to work with the machine to come up with better solutions. So it’s going to be an interesting world where AI takes us, but it’s already there. So for the people that don’t, don’t know of AI or think it’s maybe overblown, it’s not. It’s here. It’s real. It’s doing some really big things already.

Erich Vieth:

Okay, so Rudy Telscher, Ben Clark, Anthony Simon, thank you for joining us for two episodes of recent developments and patent law. Thank you so much for sharing all these ideas, these complex ideas and exciting ideas. Alright, this has been another episode of The. Jury is Out. I’m Erich Vieth. I’ll see you next time.

Announcer:

The Jury is, Out is brought to you by the Simon Law Firm at the Simon Law Firm pc. We believe in the power of pooling resources in order to create powerful results. We often lend our trial skills and experience to lawyers around the country to achieve better results for their clients. Our attorneys welcome the opportunity to work with you on your case, offering vast resources, seasoned litigators, and a sterling reputation. You can contact us at 3 1 4 2 4 1 2 9 2 9. And if you enjoyed the podcast, feel free to share your thoughts with John, Tim and Erich at comments at The. Jury is Out Law and subscribe today because the best lawyers never stop learning.

Continue Reading