IP Rounds | The Reality of Adding AI Assistants to the Innovation Process
Universities want speed. AI offers it. But behind the promise sits a stack of legal, technical, and governance risks that can erase any time saved. The win comes from pairing new tools with disciplined human judgment.
The deception of accuracy
Generative tools still fabricate. "Hallucinations" create cleanly worded fiction; "misgrounding" cites real sources for claims those sources never support. In patent drafting, licensing memos, or FTO work, that's liability with a timestamp.
Fix: treat AI output as a tip, never a conclusion. Require human subject-matter review for material assertions, citations, and claim language. Log sources, verify quotes, and prohibit auto-citation in legal workstreams.
Technical barriers to clarity
Tech transfer lives in dense jargon, Latin and Greek roots, and edge-of-field science. General-purpose models train on social content that often muddies core principles. They also miss tone, context, and sarcasm-easy ways to misread lab discussions or advisory board calls.
Fix: route specialized tasks to models grounded in vetted corpora. Provide controlled vocabularies and custom dictionaries for transcription. Double-check names, dates, chemical terms, units, and claim dependencies with human review before anything moves forward.
The discovery trap
Auto-summaries feel helpful-until litigation. If your tools create meeting notes or issue briefs by default, you may be manufacturing discoverable records and preserving candid commentary you'd never email. Third-party "assistants" inside a call can also raise privilege waiver arguments.
Fix: disable default summaries by policy. Treat AI-generated notes as records subject to retention rules and litigation holds. Keep privileged meetings bot-free unless you have a documented, necessity-based plan and a compliant vendor agreement. Label and segregate privileged channels.
Inventorship and privacy
Under U.S. law, inventors must be natural persons. Listing an AI system invites prosecution headaches and later challenges. See the Federal Circuit's decision in Thaler v. Vidal and the USPTO's AI inventorship guidance.
Privacy adds more friction. Some platforms train on customer inputs by default-fatal to novelty and a risk under state and federal privacy laws. Recording without proper consent can violate two-party consent statutes, and an unnoticed vendor in the "room" can upend your confidentiality story.
A practical playbook for counsel
- Governance first: publish an AI use policy that covers permitted tools, data classes, review gates, and audit trails. Make it matter-specific and sensitivity-based.
- Vendor controls: prefer enterprise tools with "no training on customer data," regional data residency, SOC 2/ISO 27001, and clear DPAs. Ban consumer accounts for legal or R&D matters.
- Privilege hygiene: no bots in privileged meetings by default. If used, document necessity, vendor confidentiality, and storage limits. Apply consistent privilege labels and segregation.
- Retention settings: turn off auto-summaries unless a record is intended. Map summaries to retention schedules. Ensure holds capture AI artifacts.
- Citation protocol: require human verification for any source the AI cites. No undisclosed reliance on AI in opinion work, claim charts, or office action responses.
- Transcription accuracy: use domain-tuned vocabularies and red-team transcripts for terms, symbols, and units. Never rely on raw transcripts for filings.
- Invention records: capture human conception details with contribution matrices. Document how AI was used as a tool, not a conceiver.
- Data minimization: keep confidential invention details off external systems unless contractually walled. Favor on-premise or private instances for early-stage discoveries.
- Model selection: route general queries to general models, but use retrieval-augmented setups tied to vetted internal sources for legal or technical analysis.
- Quality thresholds: define acceptance criteria per task (e.g., 0 fabricated citations, 100% terminology checks) and measure rework hours to see if AI is actually helping.
- Training and drills: teach teams how to spot misgrounding, set safe prompts, and audit outputs. Run privilege and discovery tabletop exercises with AI in the loop.
Where AI helps-safely
Use it to draft first-pass summaries of non-sensitive materials, build checklists, standardize intake forms, or cluster prior art for a human-led review. Keep it away from final legal conclusions, claim language without expert review, and anything that would surprise you in discovery.
The human mandate
Treat the model like a sharp junior-fast, tireless, and occasionally wrong in confident prose. The attorney, agent, or tech transfer lead remains the decision maker. With clear rules, strong reviewers, and the right tooling, you get real gains without inviting preventable risk.
If your legal team needs structured, role-specific training on AI governance and workflows, explore Complete AI Training's courses by job.
Your membership also unlocks:
