Law, disrupted

Caleb Harris, Co-Founder and CEO of &AI, discusses how his startup is revolutionizing patent litigation with artificial intelligence. They delve into AI's role in tasks like invalidity analysis and infringement assessment, significantly cutting down on time and costs. &AI harnesses publicly available data to rapidly generate legal documents, geared for accuracy while minimizing errors. The conversation also explores the challenges of courtroom dynamics and the ongoing need for human expertise in navigating this groundbreaking landscape.

John is joined by Maaren A. Shah and Luke Nikas, both partners in Quinn Emanuel’s New York office.  Maaren and Luke have the top art disputes practice in the world.   They discuss Maaren and Luke’s recent victory in the multi-front litigation concerning the legacy of American pop artist Robert Indiana, best known for his iconic LOVE sculpture. The case began when Indiana’s longtime advisor, who held exclusive rights to fabricate Indiana’s works, discovered that Michael McKenzie was creating and selling unauthorized artworks.  This led to a copyright and trademark infringement lawsuit.At the time, Indiana was elderly, isolated on an island off the coast of Maine, and physically deteriorating.  Indiana’s situation was worsened by a coordinated effort by several individuals to cut him off from his longtime supporters and assume control over his name, artwork, and brand. The day after the initial lawsuit was filed, Indiana passed away, causing further complications.  His estate sought to terminate contracts with the advisor and seize control of its intellectual property rights and valuable inventory of Robert Indiana artworks.  The legal fight quickly expanded into multiple jurisdictions with overlapping lawsuits involving McKenzie, the advisor, the estate, and the sole beneficiary of the estate, a charitable foundation called the Star of Hope.  Maaren and Luke formed an alliance with the Star of Hope and the Maine Attorney General’s office, which regulated the foundation.  They secured an agreement with the foundation ensuring the advisor would retain its rights, inventory, and business role regardless of the outcome of the litigation with the estate, rendering that litigation moot.  The Estate quickly buckled and ended its pursuit of the advisor.With the advisor’s rights and assets secured, the team turned back to McKenzie, who had previously misrepresented the number of Indiana works in his possession.  After the team uncovered numerous hidden artworks and secured devastating testimony from McKenzie’s former associate, among others, the court imposed terminating sanctions, including dismissing McKenzie’s claims and awarding the advisor its attorney’s fees.  The victory ultimately protects Indiana’s legacy and ensures stability in the market for his art.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by Samuel L. Bray, the John N. Matthews Professor of Law at Notre Dame Law School.  They discuss the increasing—and controversial— use of universal (often called “nationwide”) injunctions.  Universal injunctions are court orders that block government policies not just for the parties to a case, but for everyone, including nonparties to the litigation.  The term “nationwide injunctions” suggests that the controversy over them stems from the geographic scope of the injunctions.  However, federal district courts have long issued nationwide and international injunctions in many fields, including patent enforcement.  The issue raised by universal injunctions is that they regulate the government’s behavior toward non-parties.Universal injunctions have proliferated in the past ten years, with nearly every major presidential initiative—regardless of administration—being halted by a single district court judge somewhere in the country.  Historically, such sweeping injunctions were virtually nonexistent until the 1960s.  Injunctions would apply only to the parties in a case, allowing the legal issues to percolate through multiple appellate courts before potentially reaching the Supreme Court for definitive resolution.Proponents argue that universal injunctions ensure equality and efficiency by preventing unconstitutional policies from being applied to anyone, not just the plaintiffs in the case at hand.  Critics argue universal injunctions undermine democratic governance, short-circuit legal development, and encourage forum shopping and rushed decision-making.  These injunctions may also produce class action outcomes without meeting the legal requirements for a class.The Supreme Court is now poised to address the issues posed by universal injunctions, in a case involving birthright citizenship.  Professor Bray believes the Court will limit universal injunctions using the equitable tradition codified in the Judiciary Act, which did not historically allow such remedies.  He expects the Court to reaffirm that injunctions should provide relief only to the parties in the case unless a class is certified.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by Jesse Bernstein, Partner in Quinn Emanuel’s New York Office and Co-Chair of the Securities Litigation Practice.  Jesse explains that the term “securities” applies not only to stocks and bonds, but arguably to any situation where a group of investors place their resources into a common entity where they expect to make profits from the efforts of others.  He describes the sources of securities law, including state blue sky laws, the Securities Act of 1933 (which focuses on initial issuances), the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (which focuses on intentional misrepresentations in securities transactions and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (which sought to curb perceived abuses in securities litigation by raising the pleading standards required to establish scienter and creating a safe harbor for forward looking statements).  They discuss the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Moab Partners v. Macquarie Infrastructure that pure omissions of material fact are not actionable under Rule 10(b)(5) because the rule only covers affirmative misstatements.  Jesse then explains how a Quinn Emanuel team obtained a jury verdict last year in Elon Musk’s favor in a rare securities class action trial on a $12 billion claim based on Mr. Musk’s tweet about taking Tesla private.  He describes the arguments made concerning materiality and loss causation that ultimately led to the victory.  Finally, they discuss upcoming issues in securities law including how the Macquarie decision will impact cases. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

Michael Barlow, Managing Partner at Quinn Emanuel’s Wilmington office, delves into the shifting landscape of Delaware corporate law. He highlights the growing dissatisfaction with legal treatments involving conflicted transactions and discusses the MFW framework's limitations. Barlow shares insights from a rare case where his team achieved a complete dismissal regarding a preferred stock transaction. The conversation also explores the implications of new definitions around controlling shareholders and legislative changes aimed at enhancing corporate governance.

Christopher Padilla, Senior Advisor at the Brunswick Group and former Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade, delves into the legal storm surrounding President Trump’s tariffs. He explains the unusual application of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to impose tariffs, which traditionally doesn't mention them. Padilla discusses ongoing lawsuits questioning this authority, exploring arguments about congressional approval, separation of powers, and the implications for future executive power. The conversation sheds light on a pivotal moment in U.S. trade law.

John is joined by Christopher Kercher, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s New York office, and Jeffrey Chivers, co-founder of litigation AI company Syllo AI.  They discuss the transformative role artificial intelligence played in a recent Quinn Emanuel trial victory in Delaware Chancery Court.  The case involved Desktop Metal's attempt to force Nano Dimension to complete a $183 million merger, where Nano tried to stall the deal by slow-walking regulatory approvals by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States until the drop-dead date for the transaction had passed.  Quinn Emanuel was hired to represent Desktop Metal only six weeks before trial, requiring an accelerated approach to discovery and case preparation.  The team used Syllo AI, a litigation focused product that allowed them to review and organize massive volumes of documents through natural language prompts, create timelines, tag relevant material, and identify patterns much faster than traditional methods.  The Syllo platform also integrates multiple AI models that cross-check each other’s outputs while following built-in mental models of legal reasoning.  During the trial, Syllo customized its tools to provide rapid privilege log and document production deficiency analysis, helping to identify gaps in the opposing side’s discovery.  The team also worked with Claude, a large language model developed by Anthropic to test ideas, explore potential legal theories, and brainstorm approaches to witness examinations.  Syllo and Claude helped attorneys identify relevant evidence for use in expedited post-trial briefs and suggested potential lines of questioning for depositions.  Attorneys directed all AI usage, with Claude serving as a cognitive tool that amplified the legal team’s capabilities while the attorneys maintained full responsibility for all work product.  AI did not displace anyone on the trial team. Instead, it complemented the attorneys' expertise, enhancing their ability to deliver strategic insights and respond effectively to case developments.  It may soon become malpractice not to use AI in trial preparation.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by Michael Gottlieb, partner in the Washington D.C. office of Wilkie Farr & Gallagher, and Nicholas Reddick, partner in the San Francisco office of Wilkie Farr & Gallagher.  They discuss the landmark $1.1 billion judgment Michael and Nicholas obtained against the Islamic Republic of Iran, on behalf of U.S. service members and civilians harmed by Iran-backed terrorist groups and the legal framework for suing state sponsors of terrorism and private organizations that support them.  Claims against sovereign states are based upon the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA).  FSIA claims require plaintiffs to prove that the foreign sovereign materially supported acts of terrorism, often through militia groups operating in conflict zones.  The process is complex and time-consuming.  Although Iran never appears to defend these cases, plaintiffs must still prove liability and damages with admissible evidence, often obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests, military reports, and expert testimony.  Because such judgments are rarely enforceable against Iran’s frozen or inaccessible assets, successful plaintiffs must seek compensation through the U.S. Victims of State Sponsored Terrorism Fund, which draws from congressional appropriations and settlements from unrelated sanctions violations.  Payments from the fund are made annually and prorated based on judgment size, but disbursements have been inconsistent.  Recent developments, including circuit court rulings and a pending Supreme Court case, may reshape key legal standards for FSIA claims, such as the requirement of an actual death for certain terrorism-related claims.  Several new legislative efforts seek to expand the cases that may be brought under the FSIA and increase the funds allocated for compensating victims.  Claims against private entities such as banks, contractors or companies that evaded sanctions rely upon the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA).  Many such cases are currently being litigated.  ATA claims require proof of the defendant’s material support and knowledge of terrorist outcomes.  The defendants in ATA cases are likely to appear to defend against the claims, but only after the plaintiffs navigate complex issues of jurisdiction and service of process.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

In this engaging discussion, Courtney Bowman, the Global Director of Privacy and Civil Liberties at Palantir, sheds light on emerging trends in AI regulation. She provides insights into the EU AI Act, exploring its four risk categories and evolving compliance challenges. The conversation also covers the U.S. regulatory landscape, including the AI Bill of Rights and initiatives from the National Institute of Science and Technology. Finally, they address the complexities of state-level regulations and the implications of California's leading role in AI governance.

John is joined by Ben Lee, Chief Legal Officer of Reddit.  They discuss Ben’s extensive career as a senior in-house lawyer in several of the most successful tech companies in the world.  After earning degrees in physics and economics, Ben worked at IBM's research lab, where he was intrigued by the way lawyers grappled with the impacts of technology on society.  Ben then went to law school and began his career as a litigator at a New York law firm but left to work at the Legal Aid Society.  Financial realities eventually led him back to private practice and then to a career in-house.  At AT&T and NEC, Ben worked closely with pioneering computer scientists and handled complex IP matters involving emerging technologies like machine learning and AI.  When he moved to Google, Ben advised on major projects like Chrome, Android, and Google Cloud at very early stages when their success was far from assured.  Ben later joined Twitter during its early, fast-paced growth phase, managing litigation, IP, employment, and regulatory issues.  He led Twitter’s lawsuit against the U.S. government over transparency for national security requests.  Later, at Airbnb, Ben tackled challenging regulatory landscapes worldwide, and at Plaid, he advocated for consumers’ rights to financial data.  At Reddit, Ben now oversees all legal functions for a vast online platform with over 100,000 user-created and moderated communities.  Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is vital to Reddit’s success.  It provides that online users and platforms are generally not liable for content created by others.  Section 230 protects Reddit’s content moderation decisions, the decisions of its volunteer community moderators and its individual users.  Finally, Ben advises young in-house lawyers to remember that their job is not to just point out all potential legal risks in a project, but to help their teams manage those risks so they can build great products and move companies forward.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi