info@mclaw.com +1 202.409.1003
HomeSearchContactLogin
EnglishEspañolFrançaisDeutsch中文日本語

MC Law Blog

Expert insights on intellectual property law and legal developments

Showing 1-11 of 4 posts
Article Intellectual Property and Technology 2026-02-15 23:52:37.996476

Artificial Intelligence Key Legal Issues: A Comprehensive Overview for Businesses and Legal Professionals

Artificial intelligence has moved from research laboratories into the operational core of businesses across every industry, creating a rapidly evolving legal landscape that spans intellectual property, products liability, data privacy, employment law, antitrust, and regulatory compliance. This comprehensive guide examines the key legal issues arising from the commercial development and deployment of AI systems, including the protection of AI through patents, copyrights, and trade secrets; the unresolved questions of AI inventorship and authorship following Thaler v. Vidal; product liability frameworks for autonomous and semi-autonomous AI systems; data protection obligations under the GDPR, EU AI Act, and emerging U.S. state laws; workplace discrimination risks from AI hiring tools; antitrust exposure from algorithmic pricing; and the treatment of AI assets in commercial transactions and bankruptcy. The guide also surveys the global regulatory landscape, including the EU AI Act (Regulation 2024/1689), the December 2025 federal executive order on AI policy, and the growing patchwork of U.S. state AI legislation.

artificial intelligence ai legal issues machine learning ai intellectual property ai patent ai copyright ai trade secret ai liability ai products liability ai discrimination ai bias ai data privacy GDPR EU AI Act ai antitrust ai workplace ai regulation ai inventorship ai ownership autonomous vehicles ai licensing ai commercial transactions ai insurance ai bankruptcy Thaler v Vidal Alice Corp Section 101
casey@mclaw.io
177 0
Article Intellectual Property and Technology 2026-02-15 23:52:38.032214

NFT Marketplaces and Secondary Sale Royalties: Smart Contracts, Copyright, and Contractual Expectations

This article examines these questions and provides practical guidance for creators navigating the current landscape. We analyze the technical mechanics of smart contract royalties, their legal limitations, and the marketplace dynamics that led to their erosion. We assess potential legal theories for enforcing royalty expectations and consider legislative proposals that could establish more durable frameworks for creator compensation. For creators structuring new NFT projects, we offer guidance on maximizing protection within current constraints. For related discussion of intellectual property challenges in digital environments.

Digital Assets ip technology digital assets NFT crypto smart contract copyright contract
casey@mclaw.io
177 0
Article Litigation 2026-02-15 23:52:38.074241

Capturing the Web: A Practitioner's Guide to Authenticating Website Screenshots as Evidence in Federal Court

Website screenshots, social media posts, and archived web pages have become indispensable evidence in federal civil litigation—yet their admissibility depends on clearing evidentiary hurdles that many practitioners underestimate. This comprehensive guide walks attorneys through every stage of the authentication process, beginning with the foundational requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence 901(a) and the landmark Lorraine v. Markel framework that Judge Paul Grimm established in 2007 for evaluating electronically stored information. It examines the specific challenges of authenticating current website captures (through witness testimony, forensic capture tools, and Rule 902(13) certifications), historical Wayback Machine evidence (through Internet Archive affidavits, testimony under Rule 901(b)(9), and stipulations), and social media content (where courts have applied varying levels of scrutiny to screenshots, metadata, and platform-produced records). The article provides detailed analysis of the Fifth Circuit's 2022 Weinhoffer v. Davie Shoring decision—which clarified that Wayback Machine printouts cannot be judicially noticed without foundational proof—and the Second Circuit's Gasperini holding affirming Wayback Machine reliability when accompanied by testimony about the Archive's processes. It explores the hearsay complexities unique to web evidence (including the double-hearsay problem for archived pages), the business records exception under Rule 803(6), non-hearsay uses of website content, and the residual exception. New sections address the emerging challenge of AI-generated deepfakes and their implications for digital evidence authentication, including Proposed Federal Rule of Evidence 707 (currently in public comment through February 2026), Proposed Rule 901(c) on deepfake evidence, and state-level developments including Louisiana's pioneering Act No. 178. The article concludes with a detailed practitioner's checklist covering pre-litigation evidence preservation, discovery-phase strategies, authentication methods keyed to evidence type, hearsay exception selection, and trial preparation for common challenges to web-based evidence.

website screenshots electronic evidence authentication Federal Rules of Evidence Rule 901 Rule 902(13) Rule 902(14) Wayback Machine Internet Archive Lorraine v. Markel ESI electronically stored information digital evidence federal court civil litigation hearsay self-authentication web archive evidentiary foundation summary judgment Weinhoffer v. Davie Shoring Judge Paul Grimm e-discovery website printouts metadata chain of custody business records exception social media evidence deepfakes AI-generated evidence Rule 707 forensic web capture hash values Rule 803(6) Rule 803(17) conditional relevancy Telewizja Polska Gasperini distinctive characteristics circumstantial authentication internet evidence web scraping digital forensics screen capture tools URL authentication timestamp verification browser artifacts
casey@mclaw.io
177 0
Article IP and Technology 2026-02-15 23:52:38.149083

Artificial Intelligence and Inventorship: Global Perspectives on Machine Contributions to Innovation

This article provides a comprehensive analysis of global approaches to AI-assisted inventions, examining both the formal question of who can be named as inventor and the substantive question of what human contribution is required for valid inventorship. We compare approaches across the USPTO, EPO, UKIPO, and major Asian patent offices, analyze emerging guidance and case law, and provide practical strategies for companies navigating multinational patent protection in an environment of legal uncertainty. For related discussion of AI patentability considerations.

ai inventorship artificial intelligence international patent international
casey@mclaw.io
177 0
...