https://www.dbllawyers.com/

800.747.9354

In a fast-evolving technological era, artificial intelligence is transforming industries—and the legal field is no exception. On a recent episode of The Attorney Post, intellectual property attorney Thomas Dunlap of Dunlap Bennett & Ludwig joined the discussion to break down the legal complexities of AI, patent law, and the future of IP protection in a digital-first world.

Thomas Dunlap leads a national law firm with nearly 80 attorneys and offices in Washington D.C., New York, Seattle, Chicago, and Delaware. His practice is rooted in intellectual property litigation, with a strong emphasis on patent portfolios held by inventors and universities. Dunlap represents patent holders in enforcement actions, often backed by litigation funders—a model that's becoming increasingly necessary as litigation costs continue to rise.

Although Dunlap’s background is in traditional IP law, he’s become deeply involved in AI law due to the growing number of legal grey areas surrounding artificial intelligence. The lack of specific U.S. legislation governing AI, particularly in IP, is creating both opportunity and uncertainty for attorneys and innovators alike.

A central issue Dunlap addresses is the legal identity of AI in the context of inventorship. As of now, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has clarified that while AI can assist in the invention process, only human beings can be listed as inventors. Consequently, AI-generated inventions are considered public domain unless a human makes the inventive leap.

This has profound implications for businesses investing in AI-driven R&D. While countries like South Africa and Saudi Arabia have granted patents to AI systems, the U.S. remains firm in its human-inventor requirement—raising questions about international IP protection, ownership, and enforceability.

The High Cost of Defending Innovation

Beyond AI, Dunlap highlighted systemic flaws in the U.S. patent system. Small inventors, despite contributing to over 60% of innovation, are often outmatched by large tech companies. Patent litigation can easily cost $4–8 million, making it financially impossible for independent innovators to protect their ideas without support from litigation funders.

Dunlap pointed to a high-profile case involving a small company's EKG monitoring technology being used in Apple Watches, underscoring how large corporations can leverage legal and financial muscle to challenge or invalidate legitimate patents. This is part of what he calls the “invalidated” era, where inventors face an uphill battle in enforcing their rights.

AI’s Disruptive Power in Legal Practice

While AI poses legal dilemmas, it’s also reshaping the way lawyers work. According to Dunlap, tools that previously required five associates over a week can now be accomplished by three associates in just five days, thanks to AI-enhanced e-discovery systems. But he warns that overreliance on AI for document review still carries risks—missed keywords or misinterpreted nuance can drastically affect outcomes.

Moreover, Dunlap noted that courts may begin to limit AI training on copyrighted materials, potentially restricting the development of AI tools. If copyright constraints tighten, AI systems might only be able to train on pre-1950s content, greatly reducing their value and utility across industries.

Thomas Dunlap's insights make it clear that the legal system is at a crossroads. The collision of AI and intellectual property is forcing courts, lawyers, and lawmakers to rethink longstanding definitions of creativity, authorship, and ownership. As AI continues to revolutionize industries, those at the forefront of IP law—like Dunlap—will be pivotal in shaping the future of innovation.

Sponsors:

• RankWith.News
• The Attorney Post
• National ERC
• Andropology