IP & Artificial Intelligence: Ownership, Infringement, and Enforcement [Two-Part Webinar] (OnDemand Streaming and Recorded Packages)

What You Will Learn

Part 1: Tuesday, November 11, 2025
Two-Part Webinar

9:00 a.m. – 12:45 p.m. Pacific Time
11:00 a.m. – 2:45 p.m. Central Time
12:00 p.m. – 3:45 p.m. Eastern Time
(Including Breaks)

9:00 a.m. – 9:50 a.m. Pacific Time
11:00 a.m. – 11:50 a.m. Central Time
12:00 p.m. – 12:50 p.m. Eastern Time
Framing the Issues
Matt A. Braunel

• Rise of generative AI models and ingestion of content for training
  • General background on AI
  • Vocabulary
  • Gen AI training concepts
  • Brief history of digitization – Project Gutenberg, Google Library, etc. – that was used to amass information

• Major issues:
  • Ownership of Gen AI outputs
  • Content Creators discover AI-generated outputs that mimic or reproduce their content
  • Technical issues of copyright infringement vs. fair use defense
  • Allegations and arguments regarding the harms

9:50 a.m. – 9:55 a.m. Pacific Time
11:50 a.m. – 11:55 a.m. Central Time
12:50 p.m. – 12:55 p.m. Eastern Time
BREAK  

9:55 a.m. – 12:45 p.m. Pacific Time
11:55 a.m. – 2:45 p.m. Central Time
12:55 p.m. – 3:45 p.m. Eastern Time
Whose Line is it Anyway?  Fair Use, Authorship and AI-Generated Content
Matt A. Braunel, Sean Callagy and Delfina Homen
(a 10 min break will occur during this session)

• • Liability Allegations
  • Harm Allegations
    • Silverman v. OpenAI (literary works)
    • Andersen v. Stability AI (visual works)
    • Getty v. Stability AI (images + trademark)
    • Disney/Midjourney
  • Outcomes
    • Second Circuit Google Library decision
    • Copyright Office # 3 re fair use and licensing
    • Thomson Reuters v. Ross (fair use rejected)
    • Bartz
    • Meta
  • Resolution Frameworks
    • Statutory Damages & impact on ability for parties to resolve
    • Mandatory licensing programs in music industry
    • Court or Legislation to provide framework
  • Timeline to certainty?
  •  AI Copyright Litigation: Can AI Be an Author?
    • Thaler v. Perlmutter
    • Copyright Office Reports and Guidance

*End Part 1 *

Part 2: Thursday, November 13, 2025

9:00 a.m. – 12:45 p.m. Pacific Time
11:00 a.m. – 2:45 p.m. Central Time
12:00 p.m. – 3:45 p.m. Eastern Time
(Including Breaks)

9:00 a.m. – 10:15 a.m. Pacific Time
11:00 a.m. – 12:15 p.m. Central Time
12:00 p.m. – 1:15 p.m. Eastern Time
Thaler, Recentive, and Beyond: What AI Means for Inventorship and Patentability
Roshan Shrestha, Wallace Wu and Julie Reed 

• Roshan Shrestha: Can AI Be an Inventor? A Legal Tour from Thaler in the Federal Circuit to jurisdictions worldwide
  

• • Background on Dr. Thaler’s DABUS applications
  • Thaler v. Vidal (Fed. Cir. 2022) and the U.S. statutory definition of “inventor”
  • Comparative overview: Australia, UK, Germany, South Korea, Switzerland, New Zealand, Japan holding AI cannot be an inventor vs. South Africa’s grant of inventorship to AI
  • Germany’s “prompting standard” for AI-assisted inventions
  • Key takeaways and practical tips across jurisdictions
• Wallace Wu: Novelty, Obviousness, and Disclosure Issues In The Age of AI
  • How AI tools affect novelty, prior art, obviousness, the level of ordinary skill in the art, enablement, and written description
  • Responses to USPTO’s 2024 Request for Comments on AI’s impact on prior art, knowledge of a person having ordinary skill in the art, and patentability
• Julie Reed: Patents and AI
  • The Recentive Analytics case and implications for §§101 and 103: when applying established ML methods to new data sets is (or isn’t) patent-eligible
  • Applying Recentive to generative AI in recent court decisions
  • USAA v. PNC, BT v. IAC, WinView v. FanDuel, Torus v. Cawley, Aon v. Zesty.AI
  • What survives under Recentive and strategies for drafting around it
  • Filing strategy: AI-assisted claims, machine learning, specificity, and demonstrating technological improvements

10:15 a.m. – 10:25 a.m. Pacific Time
12:15 p.m. – 12:25 p.m. Central Time
1:15 p.m. – 1:25 p.m. Eastern Time
BREAK

10:25 a.m. – 11:10 a.m. Pacific Time
12:25 p.m. – 1:10 p.m. Central Time
1:25 p.m. – 2:10 p.m. Eastern Time
Helping your Clients Detect Potential Misuse
Daniel Barsky

• Signs your client’s IP may have been used
• Tools for detection:
  • watermarking
  • traps
  • reverse engineering prompts

1:10 a.m. – 11:55 a.m. Pacific Time
1:10 p.m. – 1:55 p.m. Central Time
2:10 p.m. – 2:55 p.m. Eastern Time
Preventative Measures
Joshua B. Heiman

• AI-specific licensing clauses
• Contract audits and usage disclosures 

11:55 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. Pacific Time
1:55 p.m. – 2:00 p.m. Central Time
2:55 p.m. – 3:00 p.m. Eastern Time
BREAK

12:00 p.m. – 12:45 p.m. Pacific Time
2:00 p.m. – 2:45 p.m. Central Time
3:00 p.m. – 3:45 p.m. Eastern Time
Enforcement Options
Joshua B. Heiman

• DMCA takedowns
• Lawsuits: individual vs. class action
• Regulatory complaints or opt-out registries

Faculty

Daniel J. Barsky, Esq.
Partner
Holland & Knight LLP

Daniel Barsky is an intellectual property attorney in Holland & Knight’s Miami office. Mr. Barsky is a member of Holland & Knights Artificial Intelligence Team and its Artificial Intelligence Policy & Regulation Team and has been involved in early AI innovation from the beginning.  

He handles complex transactions involving mergers and acquisitions (M&A), private equity transactions, joint ventures, and multinational development and licensing agreements.

Mr. Barsky advises clients on managing patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets and data. His experience includes artificial intelligence (AI), brand licensing, blockchain technology (cryptocurrency and NFTs), software and technology licensing, and pharmaceutical and biotechnology development. He also focuses on maintaining and enforcing IP and technology portfolios, as well as overseeing multinational IP portfolios.

In litigation, Mr. Barsky represents clients nationwide in patent, trademark, trade dress, trade secret and copyright infringement, anti-counterfeiting, unfair competition, false advertising and online fraud cases.

A member of the firm’s Emerging Companies and Venture Capital group, Mr. Barsky is involved in South Florida’s startup community, helping startups develop, protect, grow, monetize and enforce their IP and business assets. He advises on software licenses, user agreements, privacy policies, brand protection, monetization strategies, blockchain and nonfungible token (NFT) issues.

Mr. Barsky is a registered patent attorney at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

Matthew A. Braunel, Esq.
Partner
Thompson Coburn LLP

Matt is the vice-chair of the Intellectual Property Practice Group, is Chair of the AI Task Force and serves on the Firm’s Innovation Committee.

Matt is looked to for his thorough understanding of his clients’ business goals. He tailors his advice and strategies to each client’s needs.

Matt litigates all forms of intellectual property, including patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets. Matt has also developed a brand protection practice that incorporates different forms of intellectual property to combat piracy and counterfeiting. He is a registered patent attorney who practices before the Federal District Courts, Federal Appeals Courts, International Trade Commission, the Patent and Trademark Office, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, and is admitted to the Supreme Court of the United States. Representing businesses and organizations of all sizes, Matt provides practical and cost-effective strategies to protect their valuable assets.

Matt was named Lawyer of the Year for Litigation – Patent in St. Louis in the 2022 edition of The Best Lawyers in America (by BL Rankings) and has been listed in the Best Lawyers in America (by BL Rankings) for five consecutive years. Held in high regard by clients and peers, a client noted in Lexology Client Choice that, "Mr. Braunel is one of the top trademark practitioners not only in Missouri, but in the United States, and is a valuable asset to all corporate counsel."

Matt holds degrees in chemistry and mathematics, and completed graduate-level course work toward a doctoral degree in radiopharmaceutical chemistry before attending law school.

Sean M. Callagy, Esq.
Partner
Arnold & Porter

Sean Callagy has a wide range of experience in commercial litigation and IP matters, including the rapidly developing area of AI in relation to IP. He has litigated widely in federal and state courts, including claims under copyright, patent, trademark and trade secret laws, contract and business tort laws, and the Sherman Antitrust Act and state unfair trade practice statutes.

One recent case involved a major technology company, in response to allegations of potential copying and use of copyrighted dataset for machine learning purposes. The matter resolved on behalf of client without claims being asserted.

Sean has provided counseling to clients concerning AI, copyright, trademark, and patent matters, as well as antitrust implications from the formation of patent pools and merger clearance by antitrust enforcement agencies.

Sean has represented clients of all sizes, from startups to established enterprises, in proceedings before administrative agencies and federal and state trial and appellate tribunals, in all stages of litigation ranging from preliminary remedies to post-trial motions. He also has significant courtroom experience in state and federal courts and agencies, having taken a lead or second-chair role in a wide range of trials and related proceedings in various tribunals.

Sean is known as a precise and tenacious thinker and writer, and well-versed in all aspects of practice, procedure and strategy involving civil litigation, from pre-suit investigations to pleadings, discovery to trial and remedies. He co-chairs the firm’s Privilege Committee and is considered a subject-matter expert on matters of attorney-client privilege and the work-product doctrine.

He also maintains an active pro-bono practice, having assisted veterans in seeking benefits and related claims, and working on behalf of victims of domestic violence in seeking restraining orders.

Sean clerked for The Honorable Harold R. Demoss, Jr.. U.,  Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit as well as The Honorable Micaela A. Alvarez, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Texas.

While in law school, Sean served as an extern to the Honorable Magistrate Judge Joseph C. Spero of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. He served as Editor-in-Chief of the Berkeley Business Law Journal and was a member of the Board of Advocates.

Prior to law school, Sean was a Fulbright Fellow in Hamburg, Germany, where he taught at the Emilie-Wüstenfeld-Gymnasium and attended the University of Hamburg. He is fluent in German.

Joshua B. Heiman, Esq.
Counsel
Klinedinst

Joshua B. Heiman serves as Counsel both in the downtown San Diego office of Klinedinst PC, and in the Bay Area.

As a Certified Information Privacy Professional with extensive experience in privacy matters, Mr. Heiman’s practice focuses on privacy counsel and particularly those related to Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning. As a lecturer and policy analyst, he has significantly contributed to the California Lawyers Association as the Board Representative for the Privacy Law Section.

With a robust background as both an attorney and consultant, Mr. Heiman is a legal and business advisor who offers strategic counsel to C-Suite executives and senior management across various business dimensions. This encompasses product counseling, compliance, venture funding, trademark issues, privacy concerns, software licensing, procurement, intellectual property, technology matters, and original equipment manufacturer (OEM) agreements.

Before joining Klinedinst, Mr. Heiman founded and served as the Managing Director at Data Law in San Francisco. He also held senior legal positions at prominent specialty firms, including Binder & Malter LLP and Ribera Law Offices. His experience includes providing complex legal support to Fortune 500 companies, advising on data protection and information security laws, and complying with both U.S. and global regulations, such as the EU GDPR. Mr. Heiman also served as General Counsel to NightFloat, Inc., a medical translation software developer.

Mr. Heiman possesses deep experience in compliance issues relating to consumer-facing tech products, covering privacy, data protection, intellectual property, and consumer protection laws. His practice extends to significant U.S. regulations, including the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), and the California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), among others.

Beyond transactional work, Mr. Heiman has substantial litigation experience. He represents clients through all phases of intricate litigation across multiple jurisdictions, handling disputes that range from commercial conflicts to medical malpractice. With experience in managing large teams of attorneys and staff, Mr. Heiman has developed strategic approaches for successful case outcomes.

An advocate for privacy law, Mr. Heiman is a co-founder and executive committee member of the California Lawyers Association Privacy Law Section. In this role, He has provided ad hoc advice to California’s Governor’s Office, Assembly, and Office of the Attorney General on policy matters relating to privacy law.

In 2005, Mr. Heiman wrote “Can Elvish Gold Ever Be Real Money? The Numismatic Qualities of Virtual Currency under the Law”. It is considered one of the first legal treatises on virtual currency, the precursor to cryptocurrency and bitcoin.

Delfina Homen, Esq.
Special Counsel
Miller Nash LLP

Delfina Homen is an intellectual property litigator and has represented clients from diverse industries in lawsuits involving patent, trademark, and copyright infringement, trade secrets, unfair competition, and tort and contract disputes.

Her recent article "When Man Beats Machine: The Latest in Artificial Intelligence and Copyright" can be found here.

She also advises and represents clients in AI, trademark opposition and cancellation proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and patent inter partes review proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Additionally, Delfina uses her advocacy skills and intellectual property knowledge to advise and represent clients in the international sphere, helping clients protect their intellectual property and defend their products with U.S. Customs & Border Protection and the International Trade Commission. Through her work in these administrative proceedings, Delfina has developed an understanding of regulatory issues not seen in the typical litigation, and can provide clients with valuable insights as a result.

Delfina also brings her considerable breadth of IP knowledge to the firm’s Privacy & Data Security Team and its Cannabis Team. 

Delfina understands that not every matter is destined for litigation. She partners with clients to obtain favorable resolutions for each unique situation. Delfina has successfully represented clients in private and court-ordered mediations. She also has experience drafting, reviewing, and negotiating trademark usage agreements, litigation settlement agreements, and licensing agreements.

Outside of litigation, Delfina is experienced in IP procurement and enforcement. She has worked on numerous trademark and patent applications, assisting clients in obtaining the IP protection they need to grow and support their business strategies. Delfina has also organized and run large trademark, patent, and copyright enforcement programs for national companies.

Before law school, Delfina worked as an undergrad research assistant at Oregon State University and then after college as a research assistant at Shriner’s Hospital for Children and Oregon Health & Science University.

Julie L. Reed
Partner
Miller Nash LLP

Julie Reed is a patent attorney focusing on acquiring, managing, and enforcing patents and trademarks in support of clients’ business strategies. She has extensive experience in licensing, and also acts as IP counsel for companies without in-house IP attorneys. Julie also advises companies on Artificial Intelligence (AI) governance for analytical and generative AI and helps them obtain protection for their AI-related inventions.

With an electrical engineering degree and a chemistry background, Julie has acquired patents for clients in computer and other electrical hardware, software, consumer products, additive manufacturing and 3D printing, materials, and alternative energy technologies. Julie understands the demands between business objectives, IP strategies, and IP law. She has successfully supported clients in various situations to achieve their overall goal, including acquiring and managing a complete IP portfolio through to product launch, and guiding another client with IP strategy during its acquisition. Julie has presented and written on various IP topics including patents, trademarks, and copyrights. She is recognized as an IAM Top 1000 patent professional.

Julie’s recent articles on AI are available below:

"First Machine Learning Patent Ruling: Invalid or Just Obvious?" can be found here.

"Generative AI – Competitive Tool or a Tool of Your Own Demise?" can befound here.

"CAFC Confirms That Artificial Intelligence Cannot Be an Inventor." can be found here.

Julie began her career as a digital systems design engineer at Texas Instruments. After a few years, she moved into the legal department and became a patent agent before attending law school.

As a patent agent at she learned patent prosecution by working with attorneys at the leading edges of licensing and litigation, including how to write effective patents for both. After becoming a patent attorney and spending several years protecting TI’s DLP® technology as the intellectual property strategy manager, she moved on to serve as the first in-house patent counsel at Sharp Labs of America. Prior to joining Miller Nash, Julie worked at Marger Johnson for over eighteen years and served two separate terms as president of the firm.

Roshan P. Shrestha, Ph.D., Esq.
Partner
Taft

Roshan concentrates his practice in patent litigation, prosecution, and counseling related to pharmaceutical, biosimilars, biotechnology, medical devices, chemical products, electronic materials, and artificial intelligence (AI). He has developed deep understanding in the legal issues at the intersection of AI and intellectual property, including patent eligibility, inventorship, and the implications of machine-generated innovation.

Roshan has broad litigation experience, including district court litigation, contested AIA proceedings, e.g., Reexamination and Inter Partes Review (IPR) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), International Trade Commission (ITC), and appellate matters.

He has particular experience with issues arising under the Hatch-Waxman Act, and extensive knowledge in patentability, infringement, validity, and enforceability analysis. He has represented prominent generic and brand pharmaceutical companies at both the trial and appellate levels in matters involving Silenor® (doxepin), Vyvanse® (lisdexamfetamine dimesylate), Vimovo® (naproxen/esomeprazole magnesium), Lyrica® (pregabalin), Yaz® (drospirenone/ethinyl estradiol), Nexium® (esomeprazole), Xarelto® (rivaroxaban), Antara® (fenofibrate), and Rayos® (prednisone). 

Roshan also assists with the firm’s patent counseling and IP due diligence matters, including evaluating freedom-to-operate issues, preparing invalidity and non-infringement opinions, and supporting mergers and acquisitions through robust IP analysis.

Prior to joining Taft, Roshan was an associate at Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd., a prominent IP boutique in Chicago. Before practicing law, he was a research scientist at Los Alamos National Laboratory, where his investigation on hydrogen storage materials received a patent and attracted funding from the National Science Foundation, the Department of Energy, and NASA.

Roshan received his B.A. in Chemistry, Phi Beta Kappa, from Grinnell College, and his Ph.D. in Chemistry from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. He earned his J.D., cum laude, from Northwestern University School of Law, where he served as Notes & Comments Editor for the Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property.

Since 2014, Roshan has been recognized as a Rising Star by Illinois Super Lawyers, an Emerging Lawyer by Leading Lawyers Network, and was named one of the “40 Illinois Attorneys Under 40 to Watch” by Chicago Daily Law Bulletin. He volunteers with multiple Chicago-based nonprofits and has served on the Board of Directors for Apna Ghar – Our Home, a nonprofit advocating across immigrant communities to end gender-based violence.

Wallace Wu, Ph.D., Esq.
Partner
Arnold & Porter

Wallace Wu is an accomplished IP attorney with an exceptional scientific background in chemistry and biology and a proven track record of success in winning complex intellectual property cases. Combining a deep understanding of technical issues with extensive legal expertise, Wallace focuses on patent, trade secret, unfair competition, and antitrust issues in life sciences and medical device matters before federal district courts, the ITC, U.S. patent office, and Federal Circuit. His work also includes IP due diligence and counseling in life sciences transactional matters.

Known for strategic thinking, effective and efficient advocacy, and exceptional client service, Wallace consistently delivers extraordinary results for clients both as plaintiffs and defendants. One such case was recognized as 2020 Patent Impact Case of the Year by LMG Life Sciences.

He is also passionate about pro bono work, having served as lead trial counsel in a civil litigation successfully representing a labor trafficking victim.

Wallace’s recent speaking engagements and published articles focusing on AI in the IP arena, include:

Does Research Tool Safe Harbor Cover AI Drug Development? (pdf)

Fees

Fees & Format Options

💻 OnDemand Streaming

Watch the recorded seminar on your own schedule, as often as you’d like, from any device. Access lasts one year from purchase.

• Standard Rate: $429
• Includes: Seminar recording + written materials
• For individual use only

Group rates available for 3–4 attorneys watching together. Licenses available for 5+ attorneys—contact us for details.

📦 Recorded Packages (Download, DVD, or CD)

These packages are for a single viewer and include seminar materials.

▶️ Video Recording (Download or DVD)

• Standard Rate: $429
• For individual use only

🎧 Audio Only Recording (Download or CD)

Great for listening in your car or on the go.

• Standard Rate: $429
• For individual use only

🎥 + 🎧 Video + Audio Combo (Download, DVD, or CD)

• Standard Rate: $479
• For individual use only

Shipping & Tax: $10 shipping added to DVD/CD orders (plus sales tax in CA)

🗓️ Availability

This program will be recorded live on November 11 & 13, 2025
OnDemand Streaming and Recorded Packages will be available approximately 2–3 weeks after the seminar. If you need access sooner, direct Zoom links will be provided.

⚠️ Important Notes

• OnDemand Streaming can be viewed on any device.
• Recorded Downloads must be downloaded to a computer first before transferring to another device. Files are delivered as a zipped folder containing the recording and written materials.

💼 Group Access & Licensing

Discounted rates are available for 3–4 attorneys watching together (Live or OnDemand).
Licenses are also available for firms or agencies with 5+ attorneys.

To inquire or purchase group access:
📧 info@pincusproed.com | ☎ (877) 858-3848

CLE Credit

NOTE: If a program below is listed as “pending approval,” we will refund any registration fees if it is not approved. We have been holding CLE programs for more than two decades and we have never had a program that has not been approved.

CA General: This program is approved for 7.0 Units of General CLE in California.

FL General: This program is approved for 8.5 General and Technology CLE Credits in Florida through May 31, 2027.

GA General: This program is pending approval for 7.0 Units of General CLE in Georgia.

IL General: This program is approved for 7.0 General Credit Hours in Illinois through November 8, 2027.

OR General: This program is approved for 7.0 General Credit Hours in Oregon through November 10, 2028.

WA General: This program is approved for 7.0 Units of General CLE in Washington through November 10, 2030.

NY General: This program is is approved for 7.0 Units of CLE through NY’s rules of reciprocity.  Pincus Professional Education is a CA Accredited Provider, which is a NY approved jurisdiction. See Section 6 of the New York State CLE Board Regulations and Guidelines for further information.

This program is approved for CLE in the states listed above.  Upon request, Pincus Pro Ed will provide any information an attorney needs to support their application for CLE approval in other states other than what is listed above.