I had the pleasure of attending the 2026 AI & IP Conference by WIPR  and hearing from in-house counsel, outside practitioners, and technology providers about the rapidly changing role of AI in intellectual property practice.

What struck me most was that the conversation is no longer simply about what AI can do. The more important questions are becoming how these tools should be evaluated, governed, and integrated responsibly into legal and business workflows.

A few themes stood out:

🔹 Data security is becoming a central part of AI vendor selection. In-house teams are looking beyond general assurances and asking vendors for concrete information about system architecture, data routing, model training, encryption-key access, and tenant separation. Just as importantly, some organizations want those protections reflected in binding contract terms rather than left in presentations or security documentation.

🔹 Vendor diligence needs to account for operational and contractual risk. Newer AI companies may offer innovative tools, but firms and corporate legal departments also need to examine indemnification, liability for data loss or service interruptions, and the possibility of data commingling in multi-tenant environments.

🔹 There is no settled approach to preserving inventors’ AI interactions. Some organizations are considering or requiring retention of prompts and AI conversations to help document human contribution to inventive activity. Others apply ordinary information-governance policies or see comprehensive prompt retention as creating too much administrative burden. The differences suggest that organizations need a deliberate policy tailored to their workflows and risk tolerance.

🔹 Human oversight remains essential. Across discussions of invention disclosure, patent drafting, prosecution, and portfolio analysis, a consistent theme was that AI should support professional judgment rather than substitute for it. Organizations also need reliable ways to document when and how AI was used.

🔹 Patent-search technology continues to evolve. Vendors are exploring approaches beyond conventional large-language-model and retrieval-based systems, including smaller specialized models and representation-space techniques. Other platforms are applying AI to drafting, Office Action analysis, claim mapping, portfolio intelligence, and the identification of commercialization opportunities.

Many thanks to the organizers, speakers, and fellow attendees for the thoughtful discussions. I left with a stronger sense that successful adoption of AI in intellectual property practice will depend not only on technical capability, but also on security, contractual discipline, record keeping, and clearly defined human accountability.

The USPTO continues to refine how practitioners can effectively address subject matter eligibility under §101.  The latest guidance on Rule 132 Subject Matter Eligibility Declarations (SMEDs) is worth close attention. The memo emphasizes the growing importance of real-world, evidence-based submissions in a SMED that clearly demonstrate how a claimed invention improves technology. Practitioners are encouraged to treat SMEDs as a powerful tool to bridge the gap between abstract claim language and tangible innovation, helping examiners better understand practical application and technical improvement.

Takeaway: Clarity and focus matter.  The memo also reinforces that SMEDs should not supplement the specification but instead provide objective insight into how a person of ordinary skill would interpret the invention’s technological improvements.  Further, the USPTO strongly suggests submitting SMEDs as separate declarations, rather than combining them with other Rule 132 evidence (e.g., obviousness or secondary considerations). This approach reduces confusion, strengthens the evidentiary record, and ensures a clear nexus between the claimed invention and the supporting evidence.

Practice Tip: Attorneys at Guntin & Gust cite Desjardins from the MPEP to overcome subject matter eligibility rejections under §101 and have had some success.  However, we are now contemplating incorporating SMED into our practice for more challenging cases.  This would require coordinating with clients and their inventor corps to draft an SMED.

Read USPTO Memo:  https://www.uspto.gov/subscription-center/2025/uspto-issues-new-guidance-subject-matter-eligibility-declarations

The Kansas City Section Chapter of the IEEE has invited G&G Partner, Atanu Das, to present an overview of the different types of intellectual property that electrical engineers will face during their careers, including:  patents, copyright, trade secrets, trademark/trade dress.  The presentation will help engineers to identify what types of intellectual property tools may be best suited to protect their innovations. Mr. Das will also provide a view of the current IP legal world from new challenges to potential pitfalls.

REGISTER HERE:  https://events.vtools.ieee.org/m/557493

The Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, IEEE,  is a non-profit organization created in 1963 with a mission “to foster technological innovation and excellence for the benefit of humanity.”  It is the largest technical professional organization in the world known for setting technological standards, producing and publishing electrical engineering and computer science literature, and sponsoring conferences and events worldwide.

            Register here:

            EVENT: Basics of Ex Parte Reexamination

The In-House Committee of the Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago (IPLAC) is hosting an upcoming presentation on the USPTO’s Ex Parte Reexamination process. G&G Patent Counsel, Colin LaRose will lead the session, offering a practical overview of the process.  Mr. LaRose’s experience as a former primary examiner in the USPTO’s Central Reexamination Unit (CRU) provides unique insight into how reexaminations are initiated, evaluated and resolved. The presentation will cover key aspects of reexamination, including:

• • • • Strategic usage of reexamination for patent owners and third-party requesters
      • Current trends
      • Advantages and disadvantages of EPRs
      • Scope of reexamination
      • Content of Requests
      • Comparisons to IPRs and patent prosecution
      • Practice tips

This session is designed for in-house counsel, patent practitioners and anyone seeking a deeper understanding of reexamination procedures, standards and best practices.

IPLAC – is the first association of its kind in the US. The organization is committed to protecting innovation both in Chicago and nationally, “by advancing the tenets of IP law in order to serve our members and greater community.” IPLAC accomplishes their mission by offering members opportunities for professional growth and development, networking opportunities and events that serve to create a diverse and inclusive environment while promoting the advancement of IP law.

Guntin & Gust has received top rankings from Juristat year over year since 2019 and is proud to have received Top Patent Firm recognition once again.

Each year Juristat reviews the performance of top patent firms at the USPTO with more than 100 applications within a 12-month window.

Their 2025 review categorizes firms by industry and by performance, specifically prosecution outcomes. The metrics chosen are based on the areas that clients typically rely on to judge the success of prosecution – outcomes, speed, efficiency, difficulty and scale.

Juristat analyzes the data outcomes for each category and a firm’s performance is then designated as Gold, Silver or Bronze for each specific category.

In addition to being identified as a Top Patent Firm in the Telecom & Wireless space, Guntin & Gust  achieved the highest recognition – GOLD – for four of the following execution categories in Juristat’s 2025 review:

Normalized Time to Allowance:  GOLD

Time to Response after OA:  GOLD

Extensions (# of requests per application):  GOLD

Normalized OA to Allowance (accounts for examiner-specific tendencies):  GOLD

Normalized Allowance Rate (accounts for examiner difficulty):  BRONZE

Top Patent Firm ranking in Telecom & Wireless

Achieving these levels of recognition directly correlates to the care our firm takes in providing clients with high-quality patent prosecution, reflecting efficiency, speed, and advancement of applications at every step.  It also reinforces Guntin & Gust’s approach with its emphasis on technical depth, discipline, quality controls and commitment to workflow improvements.

Learn more about Juristat’s methodology:  Juristat’s Top Patent Firms 2025 Edition