On August 13, 2024, the New York Attorney General announced a settlement agreement, along with the Attorneys General of Connecticut and New Jersey, with Enzo Biochem Inc. and its subsidiary corporation, Enzo Clinical Labs, Inc., regarding a security incident that occurred in April of 2023. The settlement includes a $4.5 million payment to be divided among the three Attorneys General, as well as a series of actions Enzo must undertake relating to privacy and security. Notably, according to the agreement, Enzo had not implemented several security measures identified in a third party vendor HIPAA risk assessment in 2021, which may have prevented or minimized the impact of the 2023 incident and illustrates the importance of timely remediation of security gaps. Furthermore, entities covered by HIPAA and the SHIELD Act should keep in mind that the New York Attorney General may pursue enforcement actions based on potential violations of HIPAA, as the agreement found that Enzo violated the HIPAA Security Rule and Breach Notification Rule and that these violations would also constitute a violation of New York’s SHIELD Act. The agreement expressly states that it “is not intended, and should not be construed, as an admission of liability by” defendants, and they do not admit or deny the findings in the agreement.

In 2024, many organisations have been eager to look at how they can use the data they hold to debut or build on their AI programme. Many are looking to use that data to train AI models, or fine-tune third-party models. That data will almost certainly include personal data, meaning that the processing must comply with the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in the EU or UK.

The case of Robert Kneschke v. LAION e.V. marks a significant milestone in the legal landscape concerning the use of copyright works for AI training.
As the first of its kind in Germany, the outcome of the case has the potential to reshape the intersection of AI development and copyright law, setting a precedent with broad implications for the AI industry and intellectual property protection.
With many stakeholders tracking the case closely, the decision in the case could influence similar legal battles across Europe and beyond.

Please join us at our 12th Annual European Data Protection Conference.

The Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof - BGH) in Germany recently issued a landmark ruling on the role of artificial intelligence (AI) in patent law. The decision, on 11 June 2024, in the DABUS case (AZ X ZB 5/22), reinforces the principle that only natural persons can be named as inventors under patent law. This ruling has significant implications for the future of AI-generated inventions and patent applications globally.

The English Court of Appeal has decided that an artificial neural network (ANN) was not patentable in Comptroller-General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks v Emotional Perception AI Ltd [2024] EWCA Civ 825 reversing the finding of the lower court (the High Court), and in so doing agreeing with the UK Intellectual Property Office’s (IPO) original rejection of the patent application on the basis of unpatentable subject matter. The decision has ramifications for how patent claims for ANNs (and perhaps AI more generally) are made going forward, clarifying that training of an AI system that helps create the AI system itself, and non-technical outputs it produces, are not relevant in establishing patentability in relation to an AI computer program.

On July 5, 2024, a federal trial court judge ruled that a class action plaintiff’s claim against Peloton for aiding and abetting wiretapping survived a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.

How can you ensure risk allocation appropriately meets your needs as a business? What liability caps should be subject to exceptions? Do the indemnities reallocate risk in the way you intend?  

The EU AI Act was entered into the EU’s statute books on July 12, 2024. A transition period will begin from 1 August when it enters into force. The geographic scope is very broad, with obligations falling on organisations using or involved in the supply of AI in the EU and organisations operating outside the EU where the AI’s output is used in the EU.

Artificial intelligence (AI) raises many intellectual property (IP) issues. While there are many AI models and use cases, this guide addresses key IP issues raised by generative AI systems, meaning systems such as ChatGPT, Bard and DALl-E with algorithms that generate new content (which, depending on the system may be text, audio, images, video code or other content).