Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 29 OCTOBER 2026

Negotiating AI Use In Patent Litigation Protective Orders

Duane Morris LLP
Duane Morris LLP
Contributor
Explore more from Duane Morris LLP

A protective order can preserve access to useful AI tools while protecting discovery. In Corent Technology, Inc. v. Amazon Web Services, Inc., No. 8:26-cv-00194, 2026 WL 2924482 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2026)...

United StatesIntellectual Property
Samuel Apicelli
Samuel Apicelli
Brandon A. Chan, Ph.D.
Brandon A. Chan, Ph.D.
Author LinkedIn connections

The AI provisions reflect the parties’ agreement, and entry alone should not be described as judicial endorsement of each listed product.

A protective order can preserve access to useful AI tools while protecting discovery. In Corent Technology, Inc. v. Amazon Web Services, Inc., No. 8:26-cv-00194, 2026 WL 2924482 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 26, 2026), the parties negotiated provisions allowing specified enterprise tools and case-specific AI workspaces, subject to restrictions on training, access and deletion. For legal departments, the order offers a concrete starting point for deciding how counsel and experts may use AI with litigation materials.

The stipulated protective order in Corent governs pretrial discovery in patent litigation; it does not decide infringement or validate an AI system’s accuracy. The AI provisions reflect the parties’ agreement, and entry alone should not be described as judicial endorsement of each listed product. Amazon expressly limited its agreement to this

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

Disclaimer: This Alert has been prepared and published for informational purposes only and is not offered, nor should be construed, as legal advice. For more information, please see the firm's full disclaimer.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

UMG v. DistroKid: When AI Becomes A Consumer Protection Issue

Universal Music Group's lawsuit against DistroKid raises a critical question about AI disclosure in consumer markets: when does the use of artificial intelligence become material information that must be disclosed to consumers? The case centers on allegations that DistroKid distributed mass-generated AI music while creating the impression it was created by legitimate human artists, potentially violating existing consumer protection laws even without specific AI disclosure requirements.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz PC
Article

The Trademark Scam Field Guide: Look-Alike Filing Sites, Fake USPTO Notices, And How To Get Out If You’ve Been Caught

A business decides to file a trademark. Someone on the team searches for a familiar online legal-services brand, clicks the first result, and lands on a site with a similar-sounding name, a polished design, five-star reviews, and a low flat fee. The application gets filed. Months later the business learns the “service” was not who they thought it was, the filing was signed by someone with no authority to sign it, and the USPTO has suspended the application along with hundreds or thousands of others from the same shop.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Harness IP
Harness IP
Article

U.S. Government Backs Fair Use For AI Training In OpenAI Copyright Litigation

The U.S. government has filed a Statement of Interest of the United States of America under 28 U.S.C. § 517 in the Southern District of New York multidistrict litigation over OpenAI’s use of copyrighted works to train large language models. The filing appears to be the federal government’s first direct intervention in the wave of artificial intelligence (AI) training copyright cases, and it advises the court to treat model training (separate from use of AI to generate outputs) on copyrighted text standing alone as a highly transformative fair use under current law.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Lowenstein Sandler LLP
Lowenstein Sandler LLP
Article

Is This Real? Navigating AI Impersonation Under New And Existing Laws

Is this AI-generated, or is it real? As generative AI tools have become increasingly capable of creating realistic images, videos, and audio, they have also made it easier to impersonate real people without their consent. In response, states are increasingly adopting laws that impose civil and criminal liability for certain AI-generated content that replicates an individual’s identity, likeness, voice, or other personal attributes.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Wiley Rein
Wiley Rein
Article

The Ninth Circuit Affirms Dismissal Of DMCA CMI Removal Claim Against AI Code Generator – Output Is A New Work Not A Copy Of Training Data

There was a significant ruling in the Doe v. Github case involving training of AI code generator models on open source. The United States Court of Appeals for The Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court ruling dismissing part of an action brought under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (“DMCA”) by programmers against GitHub, Inc., and other defendants. The issues centered on whether defendants removed copyright management information (CMI) from content used to train the AI code generator models.
United StatesIntellectual Property
Sheppard
Sheppard
Article

AI Learning Or AI Copying? Ninth Circuit Weighs In

The Ninth Circuit held that GitHub Copilot's AI-generated code did not violate DMCA's copyright management information (CMI) removal provisions, even when output resembled source code, because the system generated new works through probabilistic patterns rather than retrieving and stripping information from existing copies. This decision establishes a critical distinction between AI systems that learn and generate versus those that retrieve and reproduce, with significant implications for how courts evaluat
United StatesIntellectual Property
Ballard Spahr LLP
Ballard Spahr LLP
Article

DHS Proposes $70,000 And $30,000 Fees For F-1 Optional Practical Training

The Department of Homeland Security has proposed a controversial new rule requiring SEVP-certified schools to pay substantial fees—$70,000 for a student's first Optional Practical Training recommendation and $30,000 for each subsequent OPT application, including STEM extensions. With only a 30-day comment period and potential annual costs reaching up to $16.5 billion across nearly 2,500 affected institutions, the proposed regulation is expected to face significant legal challenges if finalized.
United StatesImmigration
Duane Morris LLP
Duane Morris LLP
Article

SEC Proposes Rule Amendments To Expand Retail Access To Private Markets

The SEC has proposed sweeping amendments to expand retail investor access to private market strategies, including changes to performance-based compensation rules for registered investment advisers and modernization of the interval fund framework. The proposals also explore new credential-based pathways for individuals to qualify as accredited investors, potentially opening private offerings to a broader pool of eligible participants.
United StatesFinance and Banking
Duane Morris LLP
Duane Morris LLP
Video

The Class Action Weekly Wire – Episode 168: Maryland Federal Court Dismisses ‘Drip Pricing’ Class Action Against Ticket Reseller (Video)

A federal court in Maryland recently ruled on a consumer protection class action against Vivid Seats involving allegations of "drip pricing" - the practice of advertising ticket prices without mandatory fees that are revealed later in checkout. While the court found the company's arbitration agreement unenforceable due to its unilateral modification clause, it ultimately dismissed the lawsuit for failure to adequately allege reliance or injury under Maryland's Consumer Protection Act.
United StatesConsumer Protection
Duane Morris LLP
Duane Morris LLP
Article

Anwalt in Vietnam Dr. Oliver Massmann VIETNAMS RECHENZENTREN – WAS SIE VOR INVESTITION, BAU UND BETRIEB UNBEDINGT WISSEN MÜSSEN

Vietnam entwickelt sich rasch zu einem bedeutenden Rechenzentrumsmarkt in Südostasien, getrieben durch KI, Cloud Computing und digitales Wachstum. Doch erfolgreiche Großinvestitionen erfordern weit mehr als Immobilienentwicklung – sie vereinen komplexe rechtliche, technische und regulatorische Herausforderungen. Besonders die Stromversorgung könnte zum entscheidenden Erfolgsfaktor werden.
VietnamCorporate/Commercial Law
Duane Morris LLP
Duane Morris LLP