Ryan Dowell

Dec 6, 2024 | jdsupra.com | Jenny Arlington |Reggie Babin |Ryan Dowell

Until 11 December 2024, artificial intelligence (AI) stakeholders such as AI systems providers, businesses, national authorities, academia, research institutions and civil society are invited to provide feedback to the AI Office on a targeted consultation under the European Union (EU) Artificial Intelligence Act (the AI Act).

Nov 19, 2024 | jdsupra.com | Jenny Arlington |Reggie Babin |Ryan Dowell

On 14 November 2024, the European Union’s AI Office published the first draft of the General-Purpose AI Code of Practice (the Code). The purpose of the Code is to help providers (i.e., developers) of general-purpose AI models (GPAI) effectively comply with their obligations under the EU AI Act, which will apply from 2 August 2025.

Sep 18, 2024 | jdsupra.com | Jenny Arlington |Reggie Babin |Ryan Dowell

Following the publication of the European Union’s Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act or Act) on 12 July 2024, there are now a series of steps that various EU bodies need to take towards implementation. One of the first key steps is in relation to the establishment of codes of practice to “contribute to the proper application” of the AI Act. Article 56 of the AI Act requires that the AI Office facilitate the drawing up of codes of practice, particularly in relation to general-purpose AI (GPAI).

Jul 18, 2024 | jdsupra.com | Jenny Arlington |Reggie Babin |Ryan Dowell

On 12 July 2024, the European Union Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act or Act) was published in the Official Journal of the European Union (EU), marking the final step in the AI Act’s legislative journey. Its publication triggers the timeline for the entry into force of the myriad obligations under the AI Act, along with the deadlines we set out below.

Jul 11, 2024 | jdsupra.com | Ryan Dowell |Rachel Elsby |Matthew Hartman

In an appeal from the ITC, the Federal Circuit recently held that by presenting cumulative financial data across different products that practice various combinations of patents, appellant provided insufficient evidence for a court to evaluate domestic industry for any individual patent. And as a result, the court affirmed the ITC’s determination that the appellant failed to satisfy its burden to establish a domestic industry for any of its asserted patents.