How Artificial Intelligence Tools Impact the Legal Practice: What every attorney needs to know

$95.00

CLE credits earned: 0.5 General Credit, 0.5 Ethics Credit (WA 0.5 Law and Legal)

This CLE covers topics in Artificial Intelligence that impact the legal practice. The CLE explores challenges in patenting AI, unintended bias and discrimination in hiring when using AI, different legal AI tools, and ethical issues when using the AI tools.

This course is co-sponsored with myLawCLE.

Key topics to be discussed:

• Challenges in patenting AI
• Pitfalls in using AI hiring tools
• AI tools for practicing attorneys
• Ethical considerations when using AI tools

Date / Time: October 29, 2020

•   11:00 am – 12:00 pm Eastern
•   10:00 am – 11:00 am Central
•   9:00 am – 10:00 am Mountain
•   8:00 am – 9:00 am Pacific

Choose a format:

•   Live Video Broadcast/Re-Broadcast: Watch Program “live” in real-time, must sign-in and watch program on date and time set above. May ask questions during presentation via chat box. Qualifies for “live” CLE credit.
•   On-Demand Video: Access CLE 24/7 via on-demand library and watch program anytime. Qualifies for self-study CLE credit. On-demand versions are made available 24 hours after the original recording date and are view-able for up to one year.

Select your state to see if this class is approved for CLE credit.

Choose the format you want.

Clear

Original Broadcast Date: October 29, 2020

Eugene Goryunov | Intellectual Property Practice Group

He is in the Chicago office of Haynes and Boone and an experienced trial lawyer that represents clients in complex patent matters involving diverse technologies. He has extensive experience and regularly serves as first-chair trial counsel in post-grant review trials (IPR, CBMR, PGR) on behalf of both Petitioners and Patent Owners at the USPTO. He has been involved in nearly 200 such trials. Eugene is also deeply involved as trial counsel in all aspects of cases in Federal courts, at the USITC involving Section 337 investigations, and in appeals at the Federal Circuit. He has litigated on matters involving wireless/mobile, computers, software, pharmaceuticals and various products and goods.

Eugene has authored a treatise titled the Trial Lawyer’s Guide to Post Grant Patent Proceedings (published by LexisNexis), which is entering its third publication/edition year, chapters in books discussing U.S. patent law and litigation (published by Chambers and Global Legal Group), and is a regular contributor to intellectual property publications, including the Intellectual Property Magazine, The Patent Lawyer, AIPPI E-News, and the PTAB Bar Association’s Round-Up. He has published more than 100 articles, many of which discuss aspects of post-grant review trial practice. Eugene also regularly speaks about diverse issues of patent law and post-grant review trial practice and has taught patent law at multiple universities.

Prior to joining Haynes and Boone, Eugene was a partner in the Chicago office of Kirkland & Ellis LLP where he was instrumental to the firm’s post-grant review practice. He filed some of the first-ever IPR petitions, served as the firm’s post-grant review trial practice knowledge manager, and co-founded the PTAB Bar Association. Before law school, Eugene worked as a software engineer for more than five years at Cardinal Health.
 
 
 
 
Raghav Bajaj | Intellectual Property Practice Group

Mr. Bajaj is in the Austin office of Haynes and Boone. His practice focuses on patent office trials before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), including inter partes review (IPR) and covered business method (CBM) review proceedings, representing both petitioners and patent owners. Raghav handles all phases of patent office trials, including petition drafting, discovery, briefing, and oral argument, and has served as counsel in more than 50 proceedings.

Raghav’s practice also includes preparing and prosecuting patent applications for clients in various industries and technologies, including computer hardware, computer software, networking, electronic commerce, and mobile device applications.
 
 
 
 
Dina Blikshteyn | Counsel in the Intellectual Property Practice Group

She is in the New York office of Haynes and Boone. Dina’s practice focuses on post grant proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, preparing and prosecuting domestic and international patent applications, as well as handling trademark and other IP disciplines.

Dina focuses her patent practice on technology areas. Illustrative areas include cloud computing, web applications, map and navigation applications, point-of-sale systems, computer graphics, data structures, algorithms, distributed systems, client-server applications, CPU/GPU processor design, operating systems, mobile technologies, databases, database optimization, multimedia and video streaming, financial trading products, banking software, computerized auction software, cybersecurity software and hardware, healthcare systems, Internet systems, advertising software, wireless communication systems and applications, telecommunications systems, marketing applications, industrial control systems (ICS), cable systems, and smart grid and micro grid technologies.

In addition to her patent work, Dina is a member of Haynes and Boone’s trademark group, and Dina’s trademark practice encompasses a wide variety of worldwide trademark searching, clearance, prosecution, and related counseling matters in a diverse number of industries.

Prior to becoming a lawyer, Dina developed high-frequency trading systems that traded financial instruments on domestic and international exchanges.
 
 
 
 
Jonathan Bowser | Counsel, Haynes and Boone, LLP

Jonathan Bowser is a registered patent attorney focusing on patent litigation disputes before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and federal district courts. Jonathan has been counsel in more than 75 AIA trials before the PTAB, representing both patent challengers and patent owners, and litigates appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. He also prepares and prosecutes patent portfolios in the U.S. and abroad with a specific focus on electrical, computer, networking, and medical device technologies. Jonathan is a frequent author and presenter on post-grant issues.
 
 
 
 
Angela Oliver | Associate, Haynes & Boone, LLP

Angela Oliver is an intellectual property lawyer who focuses her practice on patent appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and post-grant proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. After clerking at the Federal Circuit and in the Eastern District of Texas, Angela understands how to develop effective, long-term case strategies for her clients.

Angela is experienced in patent infringement litigation and inter partes reviews, and she has prosecuted patent applications in various fields, including medical devices, computer science, telecommunications, and business methods. Her background in bioinformatics equipped her with a foundational understanding of both the technology industry and the life sciences industry, as well as the emerging crossover between those fields.

Angela is an active member of the Giles S. Rich American Inn of Court and the PTAB Bar Association.
 
 

Accreditation Policy
myLawCLE seeks accreditation for all programs in all states. (Accreditation for paralegals sought thru NALA and NFPA paralegal associations.) Each attending attorney/paralegal will receive a certificate of completion following the close of the CLE program as proof of attendance. In required states, myLawCLE records attorney/paralegals attendance, in all other states attorney/paralegal is provided with the approved CLE certificate to submit to their state bar or governing association.

    Automatic MCLE Approvals

All myLawCLE CLE programs are accredited automatically either directly or via reciprocity in the following states: AK, AR, CA, CT, FL, HI, IL, MO, MT, ND, NH, NM, NJ, NY, and VT. (AZ does not approve CLE programs, but accepts our certificates for CLE credit.)

    Live Video Broadcasts

Live video broadcasts are new live CLE programs being streamed and recorded for the first time. All of these programs qualify for “Live” CLE credit in all states except NV, OH, MS, IN, UT, PA, GA, and LA —these states require in-person attendance to qualify for “Live” CLE credit.

    “Live” Re-Broadcasts

“Live” Re-broadcasts are replays of previous recorded CLE programs, set on a specific date and time and where the original presenting speakers calls in live at the end of the event to answer questions. This “live” element allows for “live” Re-broadcast CLEs to qualify for “Live” CLE credits in most states. [The following states DO NOT allow for “live” CLE credits on re-broadcast CLEs: NV, OH, MS, IN, UT, PA, GA, and LA]

Reciprocity
Many states allow for credit to be granted on a 1:1 reciprocal basis for courses approved in another mandatory CLE jurisdiction state. This is known as a reciprocity provision and includes the following states: AK, AR, HI, CT, FL, ME, MO, MT, ND, NH, NM, VT, NJ, and NY. myLawCLE does not seek direct accreditation of live webinars or teleconferences in these states.