Intellectual Theft Stymied by Digital Legal Strategies
As a result of ongoing research in artificial intelligence as it is applied to the law, there are new and impressively effective advances in the efforts to prove intellectual theft.
December 06, 2019 at 10:00 AM
5 minute read
There are few aspects of the daily effort to produce products and services that are more frustrating than finding one is the victim of theft—seeing one's efforts duplicated by illicit means.
But now, as a result of ongoing research in the science of artificial intelligence as it is applied to the law, there are new and impressively effective advances in the efforts to prove intellectual theft. Applying cutting edge digital research to existing technology is resulting in bold new legal methodologies.
When seeking legal redress for a trademark infringement claim, for example, plaintiffs first must demonstrate that the original product or mark has characteristics that show it is unique. Will a competitor's "version" be easily confused with the original?
The old methodology of proving these conditions by use of expert testimony and surveys of potential customers now is being replaced by machine learning techniques, which provide a much greater ability to evaluate the distinctiveness of a mark or trade dress, and document the likelihood of confusion with another. These questions can be answered faster, with less cost, and best of all, with documentable results that rely on scientific data, not human opinions.
This approach presents an important way of evaluating and quantifying the legal issues present when determining the association between the plaintiff's product and the version produced by the defendant in trade dress, trademark, and copyright lawsuits. The analyses created by this technology provide additional, scientific, supporting data in these cases. In fact, several of the leading experts in this area are eagerly embracing the use of machine learning technology as support for their testimony.
Similar to the use of DNA evidence that revolutionized criminal trials roughly beginning in the late 1980s, the results provided by techniques like this will push courts to consider the admissibility of such approaches. This is, as of yet, an untested area, but could significantly lower legal costs.
The goal was to achieve a result that would not only meet, or preferably exceed, as yet undefined legal evidentiary criteria with statistical significance, but also withstand spirited cross examination. On a technical level, the program is a convolutional-neural-network based binary classifier which is taught to differentiate between products of the target company and similar, but non-infringing, third-party products. Based on the characteristics of the data sets, various data augmentation strategies are used, and some information (such as colors or logos) can be stripped out if the algorithm should not rely on those to make its determination.
In test cases, the algorithm performs well at distinguishing between the target product and non-infringing products. However, when asked to classify images of the infringing product, the accuracy drops significantly. This drop indicates that the algorithm struggles to distinguish these potentially infringing products from authentic ones, and can be used as a proxy to estimate the "likelihood of confusion."
In addition, this approach provides new avenues for data mining that are impractical with manual methods, such as pre-emptively analyzing large image sets to identify potentially infringing products. Besides protecting businesses from competitors that are attempting to unfairly infringe on their research and development, this approach also can be used prior to a new product launch to ensure that it does not infringe on brands developed by competing firms that already are on the market.
Other uses include research applications that can analyze trends and the diffusion of significant designs through specific markets over time.
Use of these advanced techniques can be precedent setting and ultimately, as this technology reduces the need for lengthy testimony from competing experts, could significantly lower the legal costs of intellectual property litigation, in particular. As well, it could help juries more quickly understand what otherwise can be complex and contradictory testimony.
Clearly, the influence of the new technology on the outcome of cases involving theft of intellectual property, data, logos or even full product lines is still developing. The use of advanced technology as applied to the field of law is a direct result of litigation that displayed the need for this technology, and its impact is growing as the legal community becomes more familiar with its applications.
Theft of intellectual property in the workplace can be offset to a great degree simply by leaving incomplete or inaccurate data in a place where a suspected thief can access it, and then waiting for the fireworks at the next staff meeting. Theft of intellectual property, not to mention products and services, on a corporate-wide scale, on the other hand, has more far-reaching and expensive implications.
But the application of artificial intelligence and machine learning to legal challenges is providing accurate, timely and ultimately less expensive paths to ensuring that we benefit from what we create, while providing a significant discouragement to those who would attempt to benefit from the work of others by underhanded means.
Alissa L. Dubnicki is the Engagement Manager at Keystone Strategy, where she specializes in intellectual property disputes with a focus on digital issues. She holds a PhD in economics from Syracuse University's Maxwell School and a BA in economics from Princeton University.
|This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllSend Us Your New Partners for the NJ Law Journal's New Partners Yearbook
1 minute readNew Methods for Clients and Families to Have Their Estate and Legacy Planning Complete
5 minute readTensions Run High at Final Hearing Before Manhattan Congestion Pricing Takes Effect
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Courts, Lawyers Press On With Business as SoCal Wildfires Rage
- 2Florida, a Political Epicenter, Is the Site of Brownstein Hyatt's 13th Office
- 3Law Firms Close Southern California Offices Amid Devastating Wildfires
- 4Lawsuit alleges racial and gender discrimination led to an Air Force contractor's death at California airfield
- 5Holland & Knight Picks Up 8 Private Wealth Lawyers in Los Angeles
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250