Law, disrupted Podcast

John Quinn is joined by Caleb Harris, Co-Founder and CEO of &AI, a startup focused on using artificial intelligence to transform patent litigation.   They discuss how &AI uses AI to accomplish complex patent litigation tasks such as invalidity and infringement analysis, dramatically reducing the time and cost associated with these traditionally labor-intensive efforts.  The service features four components: searches for prior art or infringing products, in-depth legal analysis (including creating claim charts), drafting litigation-ready documents like invalidity contentions or IPR petitions, and automating workflows using AI agents that operate independently.

Patent litigation is particularly well-suited to AI because so much of the underlying data—such as patent filings, litigation histories, and prosecution records—is publicly available.  &AI continuously updates its data sets and can provide summaries, detailed claim charts, and customized drafts in as little as 10 minutes.  Unlike generative AI tools, &AI minimizes hallucinations by relying heavily on document retrieval rather than generation, and by providing verified citations in its output.

The platform can also help streamline early-stage litigation decisions, such as assessing the strength of a patent portfolio or evaluating potential infringement claims in the marketplace.  It also helps defense teams efficiently assess and respond to weak claims, including those from patent trolls, by producing tailored response letters and evidence.

&AI uses AI agents—AI that develops multi-step plans to accomplish tasks and automatically adjusts those plans based on how the work is progressing.  This allows the user to focus on the end product they want rather than the steps needed to get there.  AI agents will enable faster, more scalable, and more economically viable litigation, especially patent litigation.  This may lead to a boon for litigators as more lawsuits are filed and resolved quickly.  Although human performance will remain crucial in areas like persuading a jury or a judge, law firms may gain a competitive edge by pairing their expertise with firm-specific AI tools trained on the firm’s proprietary data and preferred styles.

Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by Maaren A. Shah and Luke Nikas, both partners in Quinn Emanuel’s New York office.  Maaren and Luke have the top art disputes practice in the world.   They discuss Maaren and Luke’s recent victory in the multi-front litigation concerning the legacy of American pop artist Robert Indiana, best known for his iconic LOVE sculpture. 

The case began when Indiana’s longtime advisor, who held exclusive rights to fabricate Indiana’s works, discovered that Michael McKenzie was creating and selling unauthorized artworks.  This led to a copyright and trademark infringement lawsuit.

At the time, Indiana was elderly, isolated on an island off the coast of Maine, and physically deteriorating.  Indiana’s situation was worsened by a coordinated effort by several individuals to cut him off from his longtime supporters and assume control over his name, artwork, and brand. 

The day after the initial lawsuit was filed, Indiana passed away, causing further complications.  His estate sought to terminate contracts with the advisor and seize control of its intellectual property rights and valuable inventory of Robert Indiana artworks.  The legal fight quickly expanded into multiple jurisdictions with overlapping lawsuits involving McKenzie, the advisor, the estate, and the sole beneficiary of the estate, a charitable foundation called the Star of Hope.  

Maaren and Luke formed an alliance with the Star of Hope and the Maine Attorney General’s office, which regulated the foundation.  They secured an agreement with the foundation ensuring the advisor would retain its rights, inventory, and business role regardless of the outcome of the litigation with the estate, rendering that litigation moot.  The Estate quickly buckled and ended its pursuit of the advisor.

With the advisor’s rights and assets secured, the team turned back to McKenzie, who had previously misrepresented the number of Indiana works in his possession.  After the team uncovered numerous hidden artworks and secured devastating testimony from McKenzie’s former associate, among others, the court imposed terminating sanctions, including dismissing McKenzie’s claims and awarding the advisor its attorney’s fees.  The victory ultimately protects Indiana’s legacy and ensures stability in the market for his art.

Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by Samuel L. Bray, the John N. Matthews Professor of Law at Notre Dame Law School.  They discuss the increasing—and controversial— use of universal (often called “nationwide”) injunctions.  Universal injunctions are court orders that block government policies not just for the parties to a case, but for everyone, including nonparties to the litigation.  The term “nationwide injunctions” suggests that the controversy over them stems from the geographic scope of the injunctions.  However, federal district courts have long issued nationwide and international injunctions in many fields, including patent enforcement.  The issue raised by universal injunctions is that they regulate the government’s behavior toward non-parties.

Universal injunctions have proliferated in the past ten years, with nearly every major presidential initiative—regardless of administration—being halted by a single district court judge somewhere in the country.  Historically, such sweeping injunctions were virtually nonexistent until the 1960s.  Injunctions would apply only to the parties in a case, allowing the legal issues to percolate through multiple appellate courts before potentially reaching the Supreme Court for definitive resolution.

Proponents argue that universal injunctions ensure equality and efficiency by preventing unconstitutional policies from being applied to anyone, not just the plaintiffs in the case at hand.  Critics argue universal injunctions undermine democratic governance, short-circuit legal development, and encourage forum shopping and rushed decision-making.  These injunctions may also produce class action outcomes without meeting the legal requirements for a class.

The Supreme Court is now poised to address the issues posed by universal injunctions, in a case involving birthright citizenship.  Professor Bray believes the Court will limit universal injunctions using the equitable tradition codified in the Judiciary Act, which did not historically allow such remedies.  He expects the Court to reaffirm that injunctions should provide relief only to the parties in the case unless a class is certified.

Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John is joined by Jesse Bernstein, Partner in Quinn Emanuel’s New York Office and Co-Chair of the Securities Litigation Practice.  Jesse explains that the term “securities” applies not only to stocks and bonds, but arguably to any situation where a group of investors place their resources into a common entity where they expect to make profits from the efforts of others.  He describes the sources of securities law, including state blue sky laws, the Securities Act of 1933 (which focuses on initial issuances), the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (which focuses on intentional misrepresentations in securities transactions and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (which sought to curb perceived abuses in securities litigation by raising the pleading standards required to establish scienter and creating a safe harbor for forward looking statements).  They discuss the Supreme Court’s recent ruling in Moab Partners v. Macquarie Infrastructure that pure omissions of material fact are not actionable under Rule 10(b)(5) because the rule only covers affirmative misstatements.  Jesse then explains how a Quinn Emanuel team obtained a jury verdict last year in Elon Musk’s favor in a rare securities class action trial on a $12 billion claim based on Mr. Musk’s tweet about taking Tesla private.  He describes the arguments made concerning materiality and loss causation that ultimately led to the victory.  Finally, they discuss upcoming issues in securities law including how the Macquarie decision will impact cases. 

Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

John Quinn is joined by Michael Barlow, Managing Partner and Founding Member of Quinn Emanuel’s Wilmington, Delaware office.  They discuss the evolving state of Delaware corporate law and the legislative response to growing dissatisfaction among corporations over the recent legal treatment of conflicted transactions.  Traditionally, Delaware law has deferred in general to corporate decision-making under the business judgment rule, but rigorously reviewed transactions involving conflicts of interest—particularly those involving controlling shareholders—under an “entire fairness review.”  Entire fairness reviews are fact-intensive and include scrutinizing both the process and terms of the transaction, making early dismissal of claims rare.  In response, Delaware courts developed a safe harbor called the “MFW” framework.  The “MFW” framework involved approval by a special committee of disinterested directors and the minority shareholders.  Still, even under the MFW framework, motions to dismiss were granted in fewer than 40% of cases, leading to frustration among deal planners.

Despite these odds, a Quinn Emanuel team led by Michael recently won a rare complete dismissal of an entire fairness case on behalf of Fidelity National Financial, Inc.  In that case, the court ruled that there were no alleged facts that could support the conclusion that the preferred stock transaction at issue was unfair. 

Frustration among corporate deal planners with what was perceived as activist judicial decisions creating uncertainty (e.g., as to what was a “controlling stockholder,” among other things) has recently led to Tesla, Dropbox and other corporations to express their intent to leave Delaware as their state of incorporation.  “DExit,” is the term coined to describe this trend.  To address these concerns, Delaware enacted Senate Bill 21, a bipartisan effort to clarify and narrow the standards for conflicted transactions.  The legislation provides clearer definitions of controlling stockholders and establishes safe harbors for dismissing cases early if certain procedural protections are followed.  It also reforms the state’s books-and-records statute (Section 220) by limiting the scope of pre-suit corporate document demands.  The next few years will test how effectively the new legislation meets the corporate world’s demand for greater legal certainty.  Finally, Michael believes that Delaware will continue to lead the nation in corporate law due to its unparalleled legal infrastructure and judicial expertise.

Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fm
Host: John B. Quinn
Producer: Alexis Hyde
Music and Editing by: Alexander Rossi