Skip to content


AI and Trade Secrets: A Legal and Cybersecurity Time Bomb

Brett Trout

What is a Trade Secret?

The exact definition of a trade secret is governed by state law and, therefore varies from state to state. Generally, a trade secret is information which:

1) derives economic value from not being generally known; and
2) is the subject of reasonable efforts under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy

A trade secret may be a customer list, algorithm, method, recipe, technique or anything that gives a company a competitive advantage over its competition. Even if other companies discover the trade secret on their own, it is still a trade secret if it meets the above criteria.

Why Trade Secrets Matter More Than Ever

From proprietary algorithms to go-to-market strategies, trade secrets are the lifeblood of tech companies. The problem? What was previously sufficient security to protect trade secrets no longer is. AI can now guess, sift, and reverse-engineer what used to be locked up tight.

If you’re thinking “This won’t happen to us,” you are missing the point. It already is.

In one case, Google’s own engineer was caught exfiltrating confidential AI chip designs and cloud architecture data—allegedly to help Chinese firms build competitors. He copied over 1,000 files, disguised them as PDFs in Apple Notes, and moved them to a personal cloud account—all while working at Google. That is not just a breach. That is a wake-up call.

How AI Is Being Used to Steal Trade Secrets

AI isn’t just a target—it’s a weapon. Here’s what modern AI can do:

  • Uncover competitors’ product pipelines
  • Determine competitor’s next moves before they know them themselves 
  • Reverse-engineer code and algorithms
  • Extract confidential patterns from public data
  • Determine competitors’ vendors and clients from online relationship data
  • Enable insiders to siphon data without detection

This is no longer theoretical. We’ve seen it in the quarter of a billion-dollar Uber vs. Waymo fight. We’ve seen it in pharma, manufacturing, and finance. It is getting bigger and it is not going away. 

What is Not Working

Many companies still rely on outdated protections:

  • Broad access permissions
  • Weak encryption
  • NDAs with no teeth
  • Siloed data governance

These will not stop an AI-enhanced attacker—or even a careless employee—from leaking your most valuable assets.

What You Should Be Doing Instead

If you want to avoid being the next headline, here is what to focus on:

1. Lock Down Your Data Access

  • Use least-privilege policies
  • Revoke unnecessary permissions—fast
  • Monitor behavior for anomalies

2. Vet Your AI Tools

  • Know what data goes in
  • Know what is coming out
  • Never train AI on confidential datasets without strict controls

3. Protect the AI Itself

  • If your AI models are proprietary, treat them like trade secrets
  • Limit access, encrypt everything, and document every step

4. Prepare for Litigation

  • Draft contracts that account for AI-generated trade secrets
  • Work with counsel to ensure NDAs and IP clauses hold up in court
  • If a breach happens, move fast—evidence disappears quickly

5. Align with ISO 42001

  • Build governance frameworks that anticipate AI risks
  • Conduct ongoing risk assessments
  • Implement ethical review procedures for AI use

The Legal Landscape Is Not Ready

Current U.S. laws, like the Defend Trade Secrets Act, offer some protection. But enforcement is tricky. AI makes it easier to steal and harder to prove. Even if you catch the thief, they may already be halfway around the world—or working for your competitor.

Cross-border enforcement? Good luck. And transparency regulations for AI are now clashing with companies’ need to keep certain processes secret.

Final Thought

Trade secret theft used to be a risk. In the AI era, it’s a guarantee—unless you act now. Update your defenses. Rethink access. Build a legal and technical strategy that reflects how fast AI is moving.

The companies that win the AI race will not just build the best tools.

They will be the ones who know how to protect them.

Related posts

Posted in AI, Artificial Intelligence, Internet Law, Iowa Law. Tagged with , , , , , , , , , .

Did Apple Just Lose the AI War?

Brett Trout

Just a few years ago, Apple stood at the top of the tech world. Today, the question some investors are asking is not whether Apple is winning in AI, but whether it has already lost.

The Cracks Are Showing

Apple shares are down 18% in the first half of 2025. That’s a $640 billion drop in market value. The stock’s decline comes at a time when AI has become the must-have tech for every major company. Apple, once the leader in user-friendly innovation, is now seen by some as an also-ran in the AI race.

The problem starts with Siri.

Back in 2011, Siri was ahead of its time. It gave Apple a huge head start in voice-driven AI. But fast forward to 2025, and Siri still can’t hold a real conversation, remember past requests, or even reliably answer basic questions without kicking you to a web search.

Behind the scenes, it’s been even messier.

Internal Chaos and Lost Talent

After hiring Google’s AI chief John Giannandrea (JG) in 2018, Apple seemed poised to make big strides. But insiders say progress slowed. Teams focused on shaving milliseconds off Siri’s response time instead of making it smarter. When engineers tried building better models on their own, management shut them down. One executive had so little faith in the main AI team that he built a rival group with hundreds of engineers duplicating the same work.

Meanwhile, companies like OpenAI and Meta raced ahead. ChatGPT exploded. AI tools became smarter, faster, and more essential. Apple stuck to its usual playbook: move slowly, watch what everyone else is doing, cherry-pick the best ideas, get it right, then launch.

That strategy does not work in AI. You cannot “perfect” your way to the top in a world that rewards fast iteration and bold risk-taking.

The result? Apple’s top AI engineers are taking the money and running. Ruoming Pang, one of Apple’s best, just left for Meta. His reported pay package? $200 million. One engineer. One check. Enough to fund an entire team for years.

Dependence on Outsiders

Apple did roll out “Apple Intelligence,” a package of its own AI features. But even that has fallen flat. Apple is now reportedly relying on OpenAI and possibly Anthropic to power a “new” version of Siri, delayed until at least 2026. That raises real questions about whether Apple can, or should, build its own AI.

Even more troubling, OpenAI just bought a design firm co-founded by Jony Ive, the legendary designer behind the iPhone. The plan? Build a next-gen AI device. Translation: Apple may soon depend on a company that’s actively working to replace it.

Leadership in Question

CEO Tim Cook took Apple from $300 billion to $3.2 trillion. That is an historic run. But his success came from optimizing systems, not creating and launching groundbreaking new products. Unless you count earbuds, Cook’s Apple has not delivered a major product breakthrough in over a decade.

That approach may have worked in the smartphone era. But AI is different. It demands vision, not just execution. Some investors are starting to ask the hard question: Is Tim Cook the right leader for Apple’s AI era?

Where Things Stand

No one’s saying Apple is doomed. The company has deep pockets, loyal users, and the ability to buy almost any AI startup it wants. But that is not enough. To move to the top, Apple must take chances, innovate, and deliver new AI products.

Right now, Apple feels more like it is playing catch-up than setting the pace. In a world where AI is quickly becoming the new electricity, being late is not just bad, it could be fatal.

Related posts

Posted in AI, Artificial Intelligence. Tagged with , .

European Union Issues Code of Practice for Companies to Comply with AI Act

Brett Trout

The European Union just released a new set of guidelines—the “AI Code of Practice”—to help companies comply with its landmark Artificial Intelligence Act. While the AI Act itself doesn’t go into full effect until 2026, the EU made it clear that companies need to start preparing now. This new Code of Practice gives businesses a little heads up, but it is also a warning: the grace period is short, and noncompliance will get expensive.

What’s in the Code of Practice?

The Code focuses on foundation models—large AI systems that power tools like ChatGPT, image generators, and decision-making engines. Companies building or deploying these models must follow rules about transparency, risk management, and protecting fundamental rights. In plain English, that means if you’re using AI to make decisions about people, you better be able to explain how it works and make sure it’s not biased.

Unless they have a license from the copyright owner, under the AI Act companies are prohibited from training their AI systems on copyrighted material. Companies will also have to ensure their AI systems comport with the EU Copyright Directive. Companies are required to ensure that their AI systems do not evaluate or classify individuals based on their social behavior or personal traits in a manner that results in a detrimental outcome for those individuals.

One major shift is the EU’s expectation that developers will test their models for accuracy, security, and discrimination. They also need to keep documentation explaining how the AI works and how they trained it. If a company is using copyrighted data, personal information, or third-party systems, they need clear documentation and agreements in place.

Why This Matters

This Code isn’t just a list of suggestions. It’s a roadmap for what enforcement will look like in 2026. Once the AI Act kicks in, companies that fail to follow the rules could face fines of up to 7% of their annual revenue. That’s more than the penalty for violating the austere General Data Protection Regulation.

For U.S. companies, this also signals what’s coming down the pipeline here. We already see movement from the Federal Trade Commission and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office around AI regulation. Now is the time for American businesses to review their AI systems, audit their data sources, and establish acceptable use policies. Waiting until the government knocks on your door is not a good plan.

Next Steps for Businesses

As these new measures will likely permanently position EU AI providers, and possibly U.S. AI providers, far behind less restrictive countries like China global AI providers may opt to customize different versions of their AI platforms for use in different regions.

If your company is developing or using AI, it is critical to start now:

  • Mapping out where and how you use AI in your business.
  • Documenting your training data and how your systems work.
  • Creating a written AI Acceptable Use Policy for your employees.
  • Talking to a lawyer familiar with AI law to get your ducks in a row before enforcement starts.

The EU’s AI Act and Code of Practice are just the beginning. AI laws continue to change quickly. If you want to stay ahead of the curve, and out of court, you need to act now.

Related posts

Posted in AI, Artificial Intelligence, Choosing the Best Lawyer, Copyright Law, Internet Law. Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , .

Why Every Smart Business Needs Trademark Protection Now More Than Ever

Brett Trout

Protecting Your Brand Is Protecting Your Business

Your brand is one of your business’s most valuable assets. It sets you apart, builds trust with your customers, and becomes synonymous with your reputation. But without proper legal protection, it’s also vulnerable to imitation, misuse, or even outright theft.

That’s where trademark registration comes in.

Whether you are launching a new product, scaling nationally, or just getting started, registering your trademark isn’t a luxury, it is a strategic necessity.


What Is a Registered Trademark?

Trademark registration is the legal process of applying for and securing a registered trademark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

The registration process may include:

  • Conducting comprehensive trademark searches
  • Preparing and filing applications
  • Responding to USPTO Office Actions
  • Managing deadlines and renewals
  • Enforcing your rights against infringers

While it may appear straightforward, the trademark registration process involves complex and strategic decisions that could determine whether a judge decides to enforce or cancel your trademark registration the first time you try to use it against an infringer. 


Why DIY Filing Is Risky

Trademark applications are often denied due to:

  • Conflicts with existing marks
  • Incomplete or incorrect submissions
  • Poorly defined goods/services descriptions

Even a minor error can cost you months of delay or a complete loss of rights. While there is no guarantee that even a trademark attorney will not run into issues in the registration process, engaging an experienced trademark attorney to ensure your application is thorough, vetted, strategic, and legally sound increases the chances the registration process will avoid pitfalls before the Trademark Office.

The biggest drawback of DIY filing is that the Trademark Office does not verify that every aspect of your trademark application is correct. The Trademark Office grants many trademark registrations with hidden critical defects. The problem is that you may not find out about those critical defects until you try to enforce the trademark registration against an infringer and end up with a judge invalidating your entire trademark registration. 


5 Reasons to Trademark Your Brand 

1. Build a Barrier to Imitators

Registering your trademark puts competitors and counterfeiters on notice that your brand is legally protected, and that you are prepared to defend it.

2. Nationwide Legal Rights

A federal trademark registration gives you exclusive rights to use your mark across the entire U.S. This is critical in an online world.

3. Increase Your Business Valuation

Trademarks are intellectual property assets that enhance the value of your business. Whether you are attracting investors or preparing for sale, a trademark boosts your credibility and balance sheet.

4. Enable Enforcement Tools

A registered trademark empowers you to stop infringers through cease-and-desist letters, U.S. Customs enforcement, or litigation if needed.

5. Open Doors to Global Expansion

Planning to grow internationally? You may need a U.S. trademark registration before applying for trademark rights in other countries.


Picking the Best Trademark Lawyer?

Before you invest a large amount of time and money introducing your company’s name or logo to potential customers, it is a good idea to check with a trademark attorney about vetting and protecting those trademarks. Even big companies get in trouble not vetting their trademarks. In one case I recently posted about, a judge stopped OpenAI from using the IO trademark on its new AI product.

While there are many attorneys capable of registering your trademark, it is a good idea to choose a trademark attorney with extensive experience with not only prosecuting trademarks before the Patent and Trademark Office, but also one with experience litigating trademark disputes in federal court. Having the knowledge of what it takes to win a trademark infringement lawsuit helps inform the best practices on the registration side. 

Another key element to choosing the best trademark attorney is to select an attorney who is easy to reach, willing to answer all of your questions, and with whom you have a good rapport. The better communication you have with your trademark attorney, the better, faster, and cheaper the trademark protection process will be. Finally, make sure you keep your contact information up to date with your trademark attorney. Trademark registrations require renewals to prevent them from going abandoned. If your trademark attorney cannot get ahold of you, they have no way to stop the Trademark Office from allowing your trademark registration to go abandoned. 

Ready to start protecting your company’s most valuable asset? There is no better time than now to start. 

Related posts

Posted in Choosing the Best Lawyer, Litigation, Trademark Law, Trademark lawyer, Trademarks. Tagged with , , , , .

Why Lululemon May Win the Trademark Battle with Costco, but End Up Losing the War

Brett Trout

The war between brand and bargain clothing just got a lot more intense. On June 27, 2025, Lululemon filed a federal lawsuit accusing Costco of selling “confusingly similar” knockoffs of its best-selling clothes—including its Scuba hoodies, Define jackets, and ABC pants. But instead of getting public support, Lululemon is facing an uphill battle in the court of public opinion.

What is the Lawsuit About?

Lululemon claims that Costco is infringing on its trademark and trade dress rights by selling lower-cost copies that are “difficult to distinguish” from authentic Lululemon apparel. The lawsuit names several private-label brands sold at Costco—Danskin, Jockey, Spyder, Hi-Tec, and even Kirkland—as offering lookalikes of Lululemon’s original products.

The company says Costco has “traded on Lululemon’s reputation” and that some buyers either mistake the products for the real thing or intentionally buy them to get the look without the price tag.

Lululemon is asking the court to:

  • Stop Costco from selling the alleged knockoffs
  • Remove ads and marketing for the items
  • Award Lululemon damages for lost profits

What is Trade Dress?

Trade dress is a subset of trademark law that protects the visual appearance of a product and/or its packaging to the extent they serve as an indicator to customers that the product and/or packaging comes from a particular company. Whereas trademarks typically cover words, logos, and symbols, trade dress usually covers the overall look and feel of a product or its packaging. Trade dress often encompasses things like shape, color, texture, and overall design. 

To successfully sue a competitor for infringing your trade dress, your trade dress must be distinctive, nonfunctional, and confusingly similar. Distinctiveness means that your trade dress is either inherently distinctive (immediately identifying the source of a product) or has acquired  secondary meaning (consumers have begun to associate the design with a specific source over time). Nonfunctionality means the features claimed as trade dress must not be essential to the use or purpose of the product or affect its cost or quality. If the design is functional, it cannot be protected under trade dress law. Protection of functionality is what patents are for. Finally, the trade dress must be such that copying it would likely confuse consumers about the source or origin of the goods or services.

What is Being Copied?

Lululemon points to multiple examples, such as:

  • Its $118 Scuba hoodie vs. the $20 Danskin half-zip pullover
  • The $128 Define jacket vs. the $22 Spyder yoga jacket
  • The $128 ABC pants vs. Kirkland’s $10 performance pants

It also has several other claims, such as the claim that Costco infringed its common law (unregistered) trademark “Tidewater Teal,” for a popular shade of Lululemon clothing.

The Rise of the “Dupe” Culture

This lawsuit is part of a bigger trend: “dupe” shopping. From Target’s version of Hermès slippers to Walmart’s “Wirkin” bag (a Birkin knockoff), brands are under pressure from retailers offering similar looks at slashed prices.

The difference now? Social media has made consumers much savvier. Hashtags like #luludupe and #dupefind are racking up millions of views on TikTok and Instagram, giving cheap lookalikes viral appeal.

Are Shoppers Really Confused?

That is where Lululemon’s case starts to unravel.

While the company argues that Costco’s lookalikes are designed to trick consumers, thousands of shoppers say otherwise. Comments across social media platforms echo the same sentiment: that customers are not confused, they just do not want to pay and arm and a leg for leggings. 

This is not the first time Lululemon has fought copycat claims. In 2021, it went after Peloton over apparel, only to settle later with a partnership. It also fought back with marketing campaigns like 2023’s “dupe swap,” where customers traded knockoffs for the real deal.

A Battle of Experts, or Not 

While there are many similarities between the Lululemon clothing and the accused clothing, it may be difficult to argue that these similarities are not only nonfunctional, but also likely to cause confusion among the public, that the accused products are actual Lululemon products. In my experience, cases like this come down to: 1) what the experts for each side have to say; and 2) if the jury believes them. 

Given the enormous cost to both sides of litigating this case all the way to a jury verdict, and the fact that Lululemon may prefer an injunction over money, there is a strong chance both sides will settle this case long before it reaches a jury. 

Winning the Battle, but Losing the War

Lululemon says it is protecting its brand and innovation. But to some consumers, this lawsuit looks like sour grapes. Amid rising prices and economic strain, shoppers are looking for value, and they see Costco delivering it.

Some critics also complain that Lululemon’s quality has declined while prices have soared. Others point to past controversies involving the companies themselves, pointing out that compared to Lululemon, Costco is seen by many as a more consumer and employee-friendly company. 

Lululemon is betting big on protecting its intellectual property, but it may have underestimated the power of public sentiment. Even if the company wins in court, it is unclear whether it will win where it matters most—with its customers.

Protecting Yourself

When the majority of your company’s value rests in its trademarks and trade dress, it is important to register as many key trademarks and trade dress as possible. It is also important to register at the federal level to garner the benefits of nationwide notice and larger damages. Another benefit is that federal registration alone is sometimes enough by itself to convince an infringer to surrender without a fight. 

Conversely, if a competitor sees that your trademarks and trade dress are not registered, they may decide to fight even if they are unsure about the outcome. They may decide that if you are not willing to spend a few thousand dollars registering your trademarks and trade dress, you are even less likely to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to defend your unregistered common law marks.  

If you do not want a competitor using your company’s trademarks and/or trade dress, the small cost of registration will not only be more likely to convince infringers to come to the settlement table, but the ® symbol, that you are only allowed to use on registered trademarks, is often enough by itself to convince competitors not to infringe your trademarks in the first place. In the age of hyper-social media, avoiding litigation and all of its potential consumer backlash, is almost always a win. The bottom line is that if your company is worth fighting for, your trademarks and trade dress are worth registering. 

Related posts

Posted in Litigation, social media, Trademark Law, Trademark lawyer, Trademarks. Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , .

The New AI Infrastructure Land Grab Has Begun

Brett Trout

The artificial intelligence boom isn’t just reshaping tech—it’s fueling a full-scale land grab for power and infrastructure. The latest move in this high-stakes game? CoreWeave’s $9 billion all-stock acquisition of Core Scientific, one of the country’s largest crypto-era power holders turned AI infrastructure play.

This is not your average merger. It’s a warning shot—and a roadmap—for anyone building in AI.

Why It Matters

The power behind AI doesn’t come from software alone. It needs electricity. A lot of it.

Training and running models like ChatGPT or Midjourney requires massive data centers and high-power GPUs—equipment that cannot run on scraps of energy or slow cooling systems. CoreWeave just bought a huge chunk of both: over 1.3 gigawatts of gross power capacity and more than 500 megawatts of data center infrastructure across the U.S..

These are not your grandfather’s servers. They are high-density, liquid-cooled AI-ready sites. And CoreWeave is not just renting them anymore. It owns them.

From Crypto Mines to AI Gold

The move highlights a major shift: crypto infrastructure is being retooled for AI. During the Bitcoin boom, companies like Core Scientific built sprawling data centers with massive energy contracts. Now, those setups are being repurposed as prime AI territory.

CoreWeave saw that early. Last year, it tried to acquire Core Scientific for around $1 billion. The offer was rejected. Now, a year and $8 billion more dollars later, the deal is done.

Why the steep price? Power is the new oil—and these old crypto mines are the new gushers.

The Real Play: Owning the Grid

The most important part of this deal isn’t just the data centers. It’s control.

Owning power means not being at the mercy of rising energy costs, bottlenecks, or landlord delays. CoreWeave eliminated $10 billion in lease liabilities overnight with this deal. It now has the freedom to scale, reconfigure, and optimize its infrastructure without external red tape.

It also gains long-term optionality—being able to pivot unused capacity into even more profitable ventures down the road, including potentially phasing out the remaining crypto operations.

What This Signals

If you’re building in AI, you’re already behind if you’re not thinking about energy and physical space.

Startups and cloud players are racing to lock in every megawatt they can find. Deals like this will push others to follow. Expect more acquisitions, more land buys near power substations, and more long-term energy contracts being signed—not by utilities, but by tech companies.

What used to be a back-end issue—power, cooling, square footage—is now the front line of AI competition.

Final Word

This isn’t just about CoreWeave and Core Scientific. It’s about the next five years of AI infrastructure. Owning the stack—compute, cooling, land, power—is no longer a luxury. It’s the cost of entry.

The land grab is real. And it’s just getting started.

Related posts

Posted in AI, Artificial Intelligence, Internet Law. Tagged with , , , , .

Senate Vote Kneecaps AI Providers, Opening the Door to a Patchwork of 50 Different State Laws Regulating AI

Brett Trout

In a stunning and decisive bipartisan 99-1 vote, the U.S. Senate has pulled the plug on a proposal that would have blocked states from regulating artificial intelligence (AI) for the next decade. Tucked inside a broader tax-and-spending package, the failed provision would have tied AI funding to states’ willingness to surrender their ability to enact AI laws. Now, with that moratorium off the table, states are back in the driver’s seat—each with the power to write its own rules for how AI is used, misused, or even weaponized.

This is a nightmare scenario for the tech industry. AI leaders like OpenAI and Google backed the moratorium, claiming that a patchwork of conflicting state laws would make innovation harder and slow U.S. competitiveness against countries like China. Venture capital firms and lobbying groups echoed those fears, warning of regulatory chaos.

They weren’t wrong about the chaos.

Without a federal framework in place, AI developers now face the very real possibility of navigating 50 different sets of laws, each with its own rules on data privacy, deepfakes, algorithmic accountability, and protections for kids. From California’s audits and transparency mandates to New York’s RAISE Act requiring developers to report AI failures, the rules are multiplying fast. Even more distressing, these differing and potentially contradictory laws, will all likely be written by state lawmakers who are relative neophytes when it comes to understanding the complex nature of AI. 

The moratorium’s supporters—led by Senator Ted Cruz—tried to soften the blow by cutting the proposed ban from 10 years to five and carving out exceptions for child safety and voice replication laws like Tennessee’s ELVIS Act. Even that watered-down version failed. Ultimately, Senator Marsha Blackburn joined with Democrat Maria Cantwell to strike the provision entirely, sending a message that states won’t be strong-armed into surrendering their authority.

While the tech sector is bracing for regulatory whiplash, state attorneys general and legislators are already celebrating. They’ve passed laws on robocalls, sexually explicit deepfakes, and AI use in housing and employment. Many of these laws could have been gutted had the moratorium passed. The AI-specific laws that AI companies have to comply with is about to go from dozens, to thousands, many of which will likely be written by people with little to no understanding of what AI is and how the wrong regulation could decimate the entire industry.

Buckle Up 

AI isn’t just about coding and servers. There are valid concerns about AI, especially when it comes to safety, fairness, and privacy. Without rules, we’ve seen AI make decisions that affect people’s jobs, housing, and access to justice. There is no doubt that some form of AI regulation is necessary. The only question is whether this regulation should be implemented at the state or federal level. Regulating AI at the state level will cripple AI companies, miring them in fifty times the regulatory red tape they would have to address if AI were solely regulated at the federal level. Many burgeoning AI companies will simply fail due to the intractable regulation that is to come. All the while, AI competitors in companies like China will soar ahead, unfettered by some parochial luddite lawmaker proclaiming “Fire BAD.” 

Thankfully the fight is not over.  Cruz is hinting that he may try to push this regulation through again, buttressed by the full support of powerhouse AI companies. Until then, every AI provider should buckle up. The era of one AI rulebook just got a lot farther away—and the age of 50 different ones has just begun.

Related posts

Posted in AI, Artificial Intelligence, Internet Law, Iowa Law. Tagged with , , , , , .

Clio Acquires vLex for $1 Billion: A Possible Game-Changer in Legal Tech and AI

Brett Trout


Introduction

In a bold move that is shaking up the global legal tech landscape, Canadian legal practice management giant Clio has announced its acquisition of the AI-powered legal research platform vLex in a staggering $1 billion deal. This strategic merger sets the stage for a new era of AI lawtech, redefining how law firms manage operations, conduct legal research, and deliver client services.

What This Means for the Legal Industry

The Union of Business and Practice of Law

Clio, already a dominant force in law firm management software, is now expanding beyond administrative functions to integrate AI-driven legal research and drafting directly into its ecosystem. By acquiring vLex—home to the globally recognized Vincent AI—Clio becomes the first platform to seamlessly blend the business of law with the practice of law in a unified, intelligent system.


Why vLex Matters

Since 2000, vLex has evolved into a global leader in legal intelligence, especially after acquiring U.S.-based Fastcase and the litigation database Docket Alarm. Vincent, its cutting-edge AI, is widely considered the most capable generative AI assistant in the legal market, providing:

  • Advanced proprietary library research
  • Legal theory testing 
  • Audio and video analysis
  • Custom workflows for firms of all sizes

Its massive billion document notated database gives it a unique edge in both U.S. and international legal landscapes.


Strategic Advantages of the Clio-vLex Deal

1. AI-Powered Legal Workflows

With Vincent AI now in Clio’s toolkit, users can expect real-time legal drafting, research, and decision support within their practice management interface.

2. Global Reach and Multi-Language Capabilities

vLex’s AI is designed to work across multiple jurisdictions and languages, making Clio’s new platform ideal for international and multilingual firms.

3. Expansion into Large Law Firms

While Clio started with solo and small firms, its recent acquisition of ShareDo and now vLex positions it as a serious contender in the enterprise legal market.

4. Data as a Competitive Moat

CEO Jack Newton emphasized that vLex’s unparalleled data set offers Clio a strong defensive position relative to its rivals at Thomson Reuters and LexisNexis.


The Future of LegalTech: Agentic AI

This acquisition signals the next phase in legal tech evolution: agentic AI, where systems act semi-autonomously to complete legal tasks, enhance decision-making, and even interact with clients. With Clio and vLex combining forces, law firms will soon have access to:

  • Self-executing legal research
  • Smart contract review and generation
  • Predictive analytics for case outcomes

This convergence of operational and analytical intelligence is expected to reshape legal workflows, client expectations, and competitive positioning across the profession.


Final Thoughts

The Clio-vLex acquisition is more than a billion-dollar transaction—it’s a transformative leap for legal technology. It empowers legal professionals to deliver services with greater insight, accuracy, and speed, while setting a new benchmark for what law practice management software can achieve.

Whether you’re running a boutique practice or a multinational law firm, this unified platform could offer a glimpse as to what the legal operating system of the future may look like.

Related posts

Posted in AI, Artificial Intelligence, Choosing the Best Lawyer, Internet Law. Tagged with , , , , , , , , , .

How to Have Your Cake and Eat It Too:  Keep Your Patent Application Pending Even After Your Patent Is Allowed

Brett Trout

So your patent application just got allowed. Congratulations. Now what?

Most inventors are so excited by the notice of allowance that they sign the paperwork, pay the issue fee, and wait by the mailbox for their shiny new patent to arrive. While that can be a great feeling, there’s something else you might want to consider—especially if this invention is important to your business.

You might want to keep the application alive even after it’s allowed.

Why keep it alive?

Once your patent is granted, that specific application is closed. If you got a narrow patent, but wanted to try for a broader patent, you can’t just make your patent broader (you actually can, but that is a topic for a different day). Similarly, if you come up with an improvement to your invention the day after it issues, you can’t just add it to your old patent. You’d need to start from scratch. That means new application, new fees, new waiting, and a new timeline for the material in your original patent. Most importantly, if your original patent application was published more than a year ago, everything you failed to patent in that application is now in the public domain and unpatentable by anyone. 

Luckily, there is a way around that. If you file a continuation application i.e. (a Continuation or aContinuation-In-Part (CIP) patent application) before your original application issues as a patent, you keep the door open for more patents tied to that same original filing date. Those new patents may be broader, narrower, drawn to a different invention, or cover new bells and whistles you came up with after you filed your original patent application. It’s like buying an option on future patent rights.

When does it make sense?

If your invention could be updated, improved, or spun off into something new, keeping your patent application alive is often a smart play. If you only have an issued patent, your competitor knows exactly what they have to do to get around your patent. If you only have a patent application, you can’t use it to stop your competition now, but you can keep them guessing as to how broad or how narrow your eventual patent may be. 

If you have a patent and a patent application, you can not only sue them now, but also keep them guessing as to what new patents you might get down the road. Having a competitor with both an issued patent and a pending patent application makes it very difficult to hit the market with a competing product. Having both a patent and a patent application allows you to enforce your patent while broadening your claims, narrowing them if needed, or taking a new approach based on changes in the market or new competitor products.

Since there is no limit to the number of patents that can issue based on the original application, you have a lot of leverage. If a competitor starts creeping too close to your tech, you can branch off a new application with new claims that target their product more directly—so long as it’s still based on your original disclosure.

How do you do it?

Before your patent issues, you (or your patent attorney) file a continuing application with the Patent Office. That’s it. You don’t have to make any changes right away. You can even file the same claims again while you figure out your next move. What matters is that you keep the chain going before it breaks.

Once the original patent issues, that chain is cut. So timing is key.

Bottom line

You don’t have to choose between locking in your allowed patent and leaving room for future improvements. With a continuation, you can do both. You can have your patent—and keep the application alive in case your invention grows, evolves, or attracts unwanted attention.

It’s not right for every case. But for many inventors, especially those in fast-moving industries, keeping a continuation on file can be one of the smartest decisions they make.

Related posts

Posted in Choosing the Best Lawyer, Patent Law, Patent Lawyer, Patent process. Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , .

Could Google’s New Gemini CLI be a Game-changer for both Developers and Dabblers? 

Brett Trout

Google just launched the Gemini CLI (command line interface), and it’s making waves. Imagine Gemini Code Assist working in your terminal environment rather than in an IDE (integrated development environment). If you prefer working from your terminal window, this new tool could be a welcome addition to your workflow utility belt. Gemini CLI gives you free access to Gemini 2.5 Pro, a top-tier AI model, directly from your terminal. No browser. No fluff. Just speed, power, efficiency, and a 1 million token context window.

What It Does

Gemini CLI does more than simply spit out code. It explains complex logic, writes new features, debugs problems, and even runs commands—all through natural language. You ask. It delivers. Fast. You can also use it to create videoswith Google’s Veo 3 model, connect to MCP servers to reach external databases, search in real-time, and generate reports, and much more.

Google also made it open source under the Apache 2.0 license and is currently giving developers 1,000 free requests per day. That is enough to get your work done and still play around a little bit to compare its capabilities to Claude Code, OpenAI’s Codex CLI, or whatever you are currently using. 

Why This Matters

If you’re a developer, don’t sleep on Gemini CLI being simply a toy. You can integrate it directly with your local codebase to increase productivity from day one. The 1 million token context window means you’re not losing context halfway through a complicated ask. That also means fewer mistakes, faster feedback, and more time spent building.

The Bigger Picture

Google is swinging for the fences here. It is not just trying to push another AI tool onto the market, it is trying to own the AI-powered development workflow space. Gemini CLI works with other tools like Gemini Code Assist and Jules, but also integrates with your existing setup. Looking for widespread adoption, Google has opted for interoperability over brand loyalty.

Bottom Line

The battle between Google and Anthropic for worldwide AI dominance continues, with Gemini CLI being Google’s latest shot across Anthropic’s bow. Rest assured though that the battle is far from over and that it will only be a matter of time before Anthropic responds with an even bigger better tool. When it comes to saving time, cutting costs, and writing better code with fewer headaches it is unclear whether Google or Anthropic will ultimately emerge victorious. Regardless of who wins though, developers will continue to reap the rewards of this escalating competition for your AI attention.

You can check out Gemini CLI here.

Related posts

Posted in AI, Artificial Intelligence. Tagged with , , .