Harnessing Generative AI-Assisted Innovation: Comprehensive IP Protection Through Trade Secrets and Patents
"In some instances, a dual strategy that leverages both patents and trade secrets for protecting a Gen AI innovation can be highly effective," write Barry J. Schindler, Lennie A. Bersh and Laurin Buettner.
September 30, 2024 at 12:00 PM
8 minute read
You are counsel for a company which just developed an innovative process incorporating a generative artificial intelligence (Gen AI) component. For example, Tech Company may have designed AI-powered personalized health assistant designed to provide real-time health monitoring and personalized health recommendations. The technology leverages Gen AI-driven interfaces to allow users in conversational form to use data from various sources, including wearable devices, electronic health records, and others. Tech Company has made significant investments in this Gen AI-driven technology and is seeking your counsel regarding how to best protect its interests. Specifically, Tech Company would like to know if the intellectual property (IP) of their AI technology would be better protected by a patent, trade secret, or perhaps a combination of both. What do you recommend? As discussed in the following article, utilizing a dual strategy of protection under patent and trade secret for Gen AI inventions could help companies strategically and holistically protect their Gen AI innovations while maximizing their competitive edge.
Understanding AI and Gen AI
AI refers to technology that is capable of performing tasks that typically require human intelligence. These tasks may include learning, reasoning, problem-solving, perception, and language understanding. AI systems can be found in various applications, such as virtual assistants, self-driving cars, and recommendation algorithms. Gen AI, a subset of AI, focuses on creating new content, whether it be text, images, or sounds, by learning from a vast dataset and identifying patterns to generate outputs that are novel and not explicitly programmed by humans. Gen AI is expected to fundamentally change how businesses operate, from increasing productivity to creating new business models. The AI market is projected to grow substantially, with an estimated annual growth rate of 37.3% from 2023 to 2030. (See "24 Top AI Statistics and Trends In 2024," Forbes Advisor, June 2024.) More and more companies are looking to Gen AI technologies to enhance efficiency, enable better decision-making, and foster innovation. Alongside this growth, IP protection is becoming increasingly crucial as Gen AI technologies advance and proliferate. However, deciding how to protect AI technology can be difficult as both patents and trade secrets have Gen AI-specific pros and cons. But first, what are patents and trade secrets?
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 AllHolwell Shuster & Goldberg Partners Secure $81 Million Verdict Against Boeing in Trade Secret Dispute
1 minute readLG's 'Pro: Centric Catena' at Heart of Recently Filed Trade Secrets, Nondisclosure Lawsuit
Law Firms Mentioned
Trending Stories
- 1Courts Demonstrate Growing Willingness to Sanction Courtroom Misuse of AI
- 2The New Rules of AI: Part 1—Managing Risk
- 3Change Is Coming to the EEOC—But Not Overnight
- 4Med Mal Defense Win Stands as State Appeals Court Rejects Arguments Over Blocked Cross-Examination
- 5Rejecting 'Blind Adherence to Outdated Precedent,’ US Judge Goes His Own Way on Attorney Fees
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
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