AI Meets IP Law: Ownership, Infringement, and Enforcement [Two-Part Webinar] (Watch Live or via OnDemand Streaming)

Agenda

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

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

• 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

• • 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, 130 F.4th 1039, 1041 (D.C. Cir. 2025)
    • Copyright Office Reports and Guidance

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
Legal Theories & Key Cases: Patents

• Patent and Trade Secret Exposure
  

• • Concerns around AI replicating proprietary methods or materials
  • Recentive Analytics and lower court suits
    • Guidance from judge in Recentive
    • Lower court suits:
      • PTAB decisions
      • Additional updates
  • AI confidentiality
  • Open vs. closed systems
  • Monitoring that expands on trade secret risks in inputs

• AI Patent Litigation: Can AI Be an Inventor?

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

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

11:10 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

• 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

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

Date/Time/Location

Two- Part Webinar

Dates:
Part 1: Tuesday, November 11, 2025
Part 2: Thursday, November 13, 2025

Times for both sessions:
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

We will send your login details and handout materials about a week before your program.

Testimonials

This is a new program, so we do not  have testimonials related to this specific agenda.  However, the following testimonials are from our AI and the Practice of Law program. Many of the faculty at that program are also teaching at this program.

“Great information that I hadn’t heard of before.” – Mario Franke, Esq.

“Overall, I thought it was very interesting. It is an area of concern (or should be) for all attorneys and judges who are currently practicing.” –Dr. David W. Persky, Esq.

“Gave good examples; interesting facts.” – Shanelle Winn, Esq.

“I was looking for an introductory class on the basics of AI.  It served that purpose.” – Jodi L. Corrigan, Esq.

“Excellent scope of material and presentation.” – Darrell Murray, Esq.

“Good information clearly and concisely delivered.” – Linda Mason, Esq.

“Great speakers and content. I had passing familiarity with generative AI tools and this session was the perfect level of detail.”

“I know absolutely nothing about AI so it was good to have the very basics broken down so thoroughly.”

“It was very interesting and well done and presented a lot to think about.”

“This was an excellent program. Very thorough. I also liked the fact that we were hearing comments from attorneys (the speakers) in other states.”

“The speakers presented good, useful information that is applicable to the current practice of law.” – Dr. David W. Persky, Esq.

“I felt well-prepared from the valuable first day.”

“This was great info on AI in the law and how we can use it safely and issues to be aware of.”

“Good breadth and depth, well presented.”

“Presented the issues so succinctly and well.”

The following testimonials are from our 2nd Annual IP Year in Review – Exploring Key Copyright, Patent, and Trademark Cases and Developments for 2023 program, which was taught by one of the speakers teaching this seminar, Delfina Homen:

“I think all the speakers did a very good job of describing the cases with enough summary to not get lost in the details, but enough detail to deliver the point of including the case in their presentation.” – David James, Esq.

“All the speakers were great. They all had interesting cases and were all clearly comfortable with the material as subject matter experts. As a non-IP attorney, they made it easy for me to understand and didn’t fill the seminar with too much industry jargon. Thanks, everyone.” – Steve DeShazo, Esq.

“Speakers and PowerPoints were excellent.” – Elizabeth Reilly, Esq.

“Great program, delivering the content promised, well organized, and fitting the promised timeframe without running over. Excellent materials with good combination of verbal and visual elements. Speakers who are not only knowledgeable but entertaining.”

“Good team work between Philip Nulud and Delfina Homen; excellent sharing of duties and clear, very professional delivery.”

“Delfina Homen was an excellent speaker, delivered with feeling and humor but also technical clarity that emphasized the underlying importance of each case reviewed.”

“Delfina Homen did a great job of relating biotech cases to the general IP bar.”

“Delfina Homen was smart and engaging.”

“I thought it was great. Good, relevant content and good speakers.”

“The speakers had great presentations which were very informative and well organized.”

“I really enjoyed this. Highly informative.”

“Good overview/mix of content.”

“The outlines for each important case were incredibly helpful.”

“The slides and outlines are a solid resource.”

Faculty

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

Daniel Barsky is an intellectual property attorney in Holland & Knight’s Miami office. Mr. Barsky regularly represents clients in intellectual property (IP), information technology (IT) and data-related licensing and transactional matters, including mergers and acquisitions (M&A), private equity transactions, joint ventures, and multilateral and multinational licensing agreements.

Mr. Barsky’s clients call upon him to navigate complex transactions involving IP, IT and data assets. He assists and advises clients with navigating the complexities of transactions involving intangible assets such as patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets and data, brand licensing and distribution agreements, blockchain technology such as cryptocurrency and non-fungible tokens (NFTs), software and technology licensing agreements, and transition services agreements.

Post-closing, Mr. Barsky assists clients with the maintenance and enforcement of their IP and IT portfolios with an eye towards leveraging those portfolios to drive revenue and growth. Mr. Barsky oversees, coordinates and maintains multinational trademark portfolios encompassing thousands of marks registered in more than 100 countries, including the monitoring and enforcement of the portfolios, as well as multinational, anti-counterfeiting activities.

In addition to his transactional and counseling work, Mr. Barsky maintains an active, nationwide IP and IT litigation practice and has represented clients in patent infringement, trademark infringement, anti-counterfeiting, unfair competition, copyright infringement and trade secret theft matters, as well as information technology, data privacy, cyberfraud, data breach and hacking matters, and responses thereto.

Mr. Barsky is an active force and thought leader in South Florida’s entrepreneurial and startup community. He regularly represents startup and new business ventures and has helped multiple startups develop, protect, grow, monetize and enforce their IP and other business assets. His work with startups and entrepreneurs includes advising on software license agreements, user agreements, privacy policies, brand clearance, brand protection and monetization strategies, blockchain and NFT questions, and IP registration.

Matthew A. Braunel, Esq.
Partner
Thompson Coburn LLP

Matt is the vice-chair of the Intellectual Property Practice Group. 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.

Matt serves on the Firm’s Innovation Committee and is Chair of the AI Task Force. 

Sean M. Callagy, Esq.
Partner
Arnold & Porter

Sean Callagy has a wide range of experience in commercial litigation matters. 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. 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 also has provided counseling to clients concerning copyright, trademark, and patent matters, as well as antitrust implications from the formation of patent pools and merger clearance by antitrust enforcement agencies.

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.

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. 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.

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.

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. She also advises and represents clients in 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 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.
Partner
Taft

Roshan concentrates his practice in patent litigation, prosecution, counseling related to pharmaceutical, biosimilars, biotechnology, medical device, chemical products and electronic materials.

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.

Roshan has particular experience on issues arising under the Hatch-Waxman Act. He has expertise in developing strategies on issues of patentability, infringement, validity and enforceability. 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. He has extensive experience performing IP due diligence as part of corporate mergers and acquisitions, analyzing patent landscape and preparing patent non-infringement and invalidity opinions.

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

Roshan received his B.A. in chemistry, Phi Beta Kappa, from Grinnell College in 2001 and his Ph.D. from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 2006. He earned his J.D., cum laude, from Northwestern University School of Law, where he was a notes and 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. He has also been named an Emerging Lawyer by Leading Lawyers Network. Roshan was named one of the “40 Illinois Attorneys Under 40 to Watch” for 2016 by Law Bulletin, publishers of Chicago Lawyer magazine and the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin. He volunteers at various Chicago non-profits and has served in the board of directors for Apna Ghar – Our Home, a Chicago non-profit that provides holistic services and conducts advocacy across immigrant communities to end gender violence.

Fees

Discounted rates are available for 3-4 attorneys watching Live or via OnDemand at your firm or agency.
Licenses are available for law firms or agencies that would like OnDemand Streaming for more than four attorneys. Please contact us at info@pincusproed.com or (877) 858-3848.

Pre-order the Recorded Package of this program when you register for only $99 (download or OnDemand) (attendee special only).  

Register now and save $50 on each registration with the Early Bird rate!

Early Bird Rate Expires August 31, 2025!

Your discount is automatically applied at check out – no coupon needed.

Registration fees are per person.

Individual: $429
Individual Sale Price: $379

Group: $404 per person for 2 or more from the same company pre-registering at the same time
Group Sale Price $354

Government employee/Legal Aid* Rate: $380
Early Bird registration $330

Law Student*/Paralegal Rate: $240
Early Bird registration $190

We will send your login details, handout and excercises approximately one week before your program.

Program materials:

Registration includes an electronic copy (.pdf) of your seminar handbook.  This will be emailed to you a few days before the program.  Be sure to check your spam folder if you don’t see it by then.  Please put info@pincusproed.com in your address book to make sure you receive your pdf of the program handbook.

* Law Student Rate is for current law students only.  Please bring your law school ID to show when you check in for the program.

** Legal Aid attorneys are those attorneys employed by Legal Aid/non-profit firms.  It does not include attorneys who have their own practice, or are employed by law firms, that volunteer their time for non-profit causes or take on pro-bono cases. It also does not include attorneys who serve on non-profit boards.

Full and partial scholarships may be available to a limited number of Legal Aid attorneys, based upon registration. Please call (877) 858-3848 to discuss or email your request to info@pincusproed.com.

CLE Credits

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

FL General: This program is pending CLE approval in Florida.

IL General: This program is pending CLE approval in Illinois.

OR General: This program is pending CLE approval in Oregon.

WA General: This program is pending CLE approval in Washington.

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.