Judge Commends Attorney for Candor After AI-Generated Errors in Patent Brief

Published Aug 25, 06:31 PM UTC

Editorial responsibility

Prepared by: WorldAttention Editorial Systems
Human review: No named human review is recorded for this page.
Automated steps: Source reporting is collected, normalized, translated or condensed automatically when needed.
Page status: Automatically published source-backed update

How automation and AI are used · Report a correction or rights issue

Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves of the U.S. Court of International Trade issued a ruling in Disruptive Resources, LLC v. Ballistic Barrier Prods. Inc. regarding attorney misconduct involving generative AI. Plaintiff's counsel disclosed that a Joint Claim Construction Brief contained multiple errors due to his use of the AI system 'Strongsuit' to draft portions of the reply brief. The AI-generated text included an erroneously proposed claim construction that deviated from Plaintiff's actual position. Counsel admitted he failed to conduct a final review of the entire brief and overlooked the problematic section. Upon discovering the errors, he promptly notified opposing counsel and proposed corrective footnotes. The court noted that unlike the infamous Mata v. Avianca case involving fake citations, this attorney took full responsibility, was not evasive, and prioritized candor by quickly disclosing the errors. The judge emphasized that while AI use in litigation is growing, attorneys must strictly adhere to professional conduct rules. The court ordered counsel to show cause why sanctions should not be imposed under Rule 11.

Source

Reason.comWestern

Original headline: "Counsel Took Full Responsibility for His Mistakes, Was not Evasive, and Prioritized Candor to the Court and Opposing Counsel"

Original language: EN-US