In light of the quote above, the thought of demonic robot trolls may scare people into not reading the rest of this article as “ignorance is bliss”. However, it is not the fantastical, cave-dwelling version of a troll that this article sets out to discuss, but rather it is the familiar, to some “cave-dwelling”, non-practicing entity (NPE) that the patent community has come to know as a patent troll.

Although this introduction of NPEs may seem harsh, and I do not mean to offend anyone by it, NPEs have become such a frustration to other companies that the title has stuck. In fact, a study has shown that about two-thirds of all patent lawsuits in 2015 were filed by NPEs.[1] Furthermore, NPEs have become such a burden for businesses, the Supreme Court of the United States was inclined to step in and attempt to reduce the strength of NPEs.[2]

However, I would suggest that the issues surrounding NPEs and the magnitude of their burden may only be at an infant stage. When one considers the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) and the role it might play as an inventor, one may begin to realize why future NPEs could be far more obstructive than current ones.

For example, we can consider “Chef” IBM Watson to help us understand why we could be staring in the face of an NPE crisis. In 2014, IBM researchers teamed up with the Institute of Culinary Education in New 91��ɫ to use AI to create new recipes.[3] The idea behind this experiment was that Watson could determine novel food parings and recipes as it is capable of processing every possible combination of food whereas chefs have limited creativity and time. The researchers at IBM were correct and Chef IMB Watson was able to create new dishes, for example, Swiss-Thai asparagus quiche and Australian chocolate burritos.[4] These dishes being just two of what researchers think will be millions of more ideas that Watson will discover.[5]

Knowing that recipes are patentable subject matter, I hope that the issues that AI in combination with a NPE could cause are becoming clear.[6] If a NPE could obtain a program such as Watson, they could potentially be in possession of millions of patents to licence or litigate. Moreover, the entity does not need to be a NPE for this to be an issue; if AI is creating millions of “recipes,” there would necessarily be patented, or at least patentable, subject matter not being used by the practicing business.

This conclusion does however beg the question: “would the NPE be entitled to the patents generated by the inventive content created by the AI?” A question which has not yet been answered by the courts or through legislation. Although some have suggested that “a computer’s owner should be the default assignee of any invention”, this finding was not made with regards to an artificially intelligent empowered NPE.[7]

Therefore, I cannot say that “a computer’s owner should be the default assignee of an invention” or that this opinion is wrong in light of the concerns raised above. However, I can echo the quote above and say that, when it comes to AI, there needs to be regulatory oversight. In other words, NPEs are already negatively affecting the economy and innovation, and if you do not want to imagine a future where NPEs are armed with artificially intelligent patent generators, we will need new and proper regulation.

Denver Bandstra is a JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School and was enrolled in Osgoode’s Intellectual Property Law Intensive Program. As part of the program requirements, students were asked to write a blog on a topic of their choice.

[1] Joe Mullin, “Patent troll lawsuits head toward all-time high” Ars Technica (7 October 2015) online: <https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/07/patent-troll-lawsuits-head-towards-all-time-high/>.

[2] The Supreme Court of the United States ruled in TC Heartland that that a patent infringement case must be brought where the infringement occurred and not necessarily in the Eastern District of Texas. TC Heartland LLC v Kraft foods Group Brands LLC, 581 US __ (2017); Mike Montgomery “SCOTUS Smacks Down Patent Trolls” Forbes (2 June 2017) online: <https://www.forbes.com/sites/mikemontgomery/2017/06/02/scotus-smack-down-patent-trolls/#6215dc75ae4b>.

[3] Maanvi Singh, “Our Supercomputer Overlord Is Now Running A Food Truck” National Public Radio (4 March 2014) online: <http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2014/03/03/285326611/our-supercomputer-overlord-is-now-running-a-food-truck>.

[4] Ibid.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Larry Tarazano, “Can Recipes Be Patented?” Inventors Eye (June 2013) online: < https://www.uspto.gov/custom-page/inventors-eye-advice-1>.

[7] Ryan Abbott, “I Think, Therefore I Invent: Creative Computers and the Future of Patent Law” 57 BLC Rev 1079 (September 2016) at 2.

The post Robotic Trolls appeared first on IPOsgoode.

Our team was comprised of a mechanical engineer, a cell biologist, and a master of health sciences. Needless to say, we did not all speak the same language. Imagine then, the three of us coherently learning and using the highly nuanced language of patent drafting over the course of just a few weeks. Together we worked day and night on our prior art searches, our wordings, and the construction of claim cascades. Unsurprisingly, much of our early time together was lost in translation, but not one step was taken before ensuring that each team member was ready to take it, even if it meant debating until 2 in the morning at times. We also received invaluable guidance from our coaches and from , who gave us their time, expertise, and the gift of simply being able to watch them in action.

We then made the drive to Detroit to present our application to a panel of judges comprised of practitioners in private practice and examiners from the USPTO. We were questioned on our drafting strategy and the content of our application. As one of three teams selected for the final round, we had the opportunity to present our application a second time, this time to a different panel of judges and an audience. As finalists we were sequestered in a room during the presentations of the other finalists, so unfortunately we did not have the opportunity to learn how other teams approached the problem.

This experience allowed us to tap into the intellectual fervor that is required to fully advocate for inventors. It also gave us a window into the methodologies involved in filing patent applications - including conducting comprehensive prior art searches, and adhering to the formalities and time frames for submitting and formatting the application. We were encouraged to really delve into the statute and guidelines promulgated by the USPTO, and to engage with them in ways we wouldn't have been able to in a class. Most importantly, we walked out of this experience feeling humbled by our appreciation for patents and their administration, making us even more confident in our commitment to the practice of IP law.

We are so thankful to for sponsoring the team and to IP Osgoode for arranging our participation in the International Patent Drafting Competition. It was an experience we will surely remember as formative in our careers. And, being the only Canadian team, we were so proud to represent Osgoode on the international stage, while also bringing home another medal for Canada!

Denver Bandstra, Andrea Uetrecht and Shira Sasson are JD Candidates at Osgoode Hall Law School.

The post ‘Claiming’ Third at the International Patent Drafting Competition appeared first on IPOsgoode.

At the time, this was all very daunting. However, I would now tell anyone that if given the opportunity to go to a place like Stanford to explore, learn, meet leading experts, befriend computer scientists, and, for the lack of a better term, “live the Silicon Valley dream” all without an agenda, this is something you cannot pass up. The reason being is that the opportunity to be dropped into the center of an emerging field, surrounded by experts, and to not have to be an expert yourself is a once in a life time experience.

At this point it may be appropriate to explain what I did while at CodeX, but rather, I will describe the last day of my placement: the highlight of my trip. To put in context how highly I regard this last day, it should be noted that it was in direct competition with tours of Apple and Facebook, trips to San Francisco and Yosemite, cooking with a Michelin Star Chef, and watching baseball, hockey, and football games for the title of being the highlight of my placement.

So why was Friday, November 17 so special? The day started with presentations from CodeX Fellows and other legal tech researchers in front of a team of venture capitalists (“VCs”). The purpose of this meeting was to give the VCs a sense of the future legal tech market. These presentations discussed the creation of smart contracts, the automation of legal citation, and artificial intelligence policy proposals.

After these presentations, we transitioned into a planning meeting for the . During this portion of the day, I had the opportunity to listen to the leaders of legal tech suggest panel discussion topics based off of the questions they had pertaining to the future of legal tech. In other words, I learned what the experts themselves didn’t know.

Following the planning session, we reconvened with the VCs and heard pitches from current legal tech startups. For example, these startups were working on negotiation tools, blockchain decentralization, and smart contract prosecution. After each presentation, the VCs peppered the presenters with questions about their technology and value proposition.

At this point, you might be starting to see why this was an extraordinary day, but there is more. What made this day exceptional was that it perfectly summarized my entire experience at CodeX.

When listening to the experts of legal tech give recommendations for discussion points at FutureLaw, I was brought back to when I decided what I wanted to write my paper on and how I had to pitch it to the class. When sitting in on the discussions of legal tech research I was reminded of all the research I had performed in the areas of tech transfer and the patentability of inventions created by artificial intelligence. I was also reminded of the discussions I had with my classmates and Stanford Professors regarding these topics as well. Lastly, during the pitch sessions, I saw what I was working towards and gained insights into how to sell a product. Furthermore, and possibly most importantly, I witnessed the passion and dedication required to become a successful entrepreneur. The way each presenter talked about their business made it obvious that they absolutely loved and breathed their technology. Furthermore, the way they handled questions was inspiring and an amazing example of what advocacy should look like.

I hope this brief discussion of my time at CodeX has exemplified the amazing time I had there. I was very fortunate to be given this opportunity and I therefore want to conclude by thanking for making this opportunity a dream come true. I have no doubt that my role as a legal tech entrepreneur has only begun to bud, and I am therefore ecstatic to see where these connections, knowledge, and newly formed passions will take me next.

Denver Bandstra is a JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School and was enrolled in Osgoode’s Intellectual Property Law and Technology Intensive Program. As part of the program requirements, students were asked to write a reflective blog on their internship experience.

The post IP Intensive: CodeX - My Silicon Valley Dream appeared first on IPOsgoode.

The day began with Aron Solomon and Jason Moyse of LegalX welcoming everyone to the event and discussing what we, as attendees, could expect from the forum. During the introduction, Marvin Minsky, a Professor from MIT, was quoted for saying “you don’t understand anything until you learn it more than one way” – a quote which I believe accurately summarizes the discussions of the forum.

The quote is particularly suitable as much of the forum focused on the stagnant nature of the legal field. In other words, because the legal market is operating in a precedential, non-evolutionary scheme, without a focus on how technology can be used to improve it, those currently directing the legal field “don’t understand it” because they have only learned it the traditional way. As such, the forum discussions focused on how the implementation of technology – a new way of learning – could solve many of the issues arising in the legal field.

, Associate Professor of Law at Illinois Institute of Technology Chicago-Kent College of Law, was the keynote speaker and discussed how we might re-make the legal profession through an understanding of risk. In this discussion, Katz stated that a great lawyer will price risk, and in order to accurately price risk one must be able to predict outcomes. Being able to price risk makes for a great lawyer, as a proper prediction of risk will lower legal fees for clients. To explain this concept, Katz gave the example of a lawyer spending multiple hours amending a single clause of a contract which may cost a client, say, $1,000 in labour fees. However, if one were to determine the “price” of the risk associated with a contract without the amended clause, one might realize that the maximum liability for the client is $100. As such, a great lawyer would properly price the risk, and conclude that it would be in the best interest of the client to not amend the clause.

Accordingly, Katz argued that to revolutionize law we need to be able to predict outcomes in order to price risk, and to do so we need to keep the artisan features of the law, but add scientific functions. There are three ways to predict any outcome – experts, crowds, and algorithms – and the combination of the three will always outperform an independent prediction method.

Further examples of how technology can be used to improve the legal market were then discussed by expert-filled panels from all areas of the legal profession. The panels provided a balanced, in-depth, and at times passionate, debate about topics such as contract automation, design thinking, and data analytics. From each panel, the attendees were exposed to examples of technologies that have either succeeded or failed in the legal market, as well as insights into the technological desires of progressive law firms and clients.

Although the topics discussed by each panel were centred on various forms of technology which could improve the legal field, many of the questions posed by the audience focused on the implementation and application of such technologies. It seemed that many attendees saw the potential of the technology, but could not foresee what would influence the legal market to adopt these technologies.

However, any doubts were soon erased by Fred Headon, Assistant General Counsel at Air Canada. During the contract automation panel, Headon straightforwardly stated that clients will force law firms to evolve. He stated that a company like Air Canada will expect a law firm to be able to implement the same technology they do. Furthermore, he added that a client that can make airplanes fly would not understand an inability to automate a contract, and such a client would therefore find a law firm willing and able to cut costs accordingly.

Overall, the Emerging Legal Technology Forum was an amazing event full of insightful ideas about how we might see the legal market change in the years to come. However, it was not only the speakers who made this forum such a success. The lunch break and reception were full of lively discussions on the topics of the day. Furthermore, many of the attendees took advantage of the event’s by sharing their thoughts of the event with the hashtag #trlegalx.

Denver Bandstra is a JD Candidate at Osgoode Hall Law School.

The post Takeaways from the Emerging Legal Technology Forum appeared first on IPOsgoode.