A Florida appeals court issued a show-cause order over filings it suspected were AI-generated. It identified no fake cases. The problem was the reasoning, and the court put responsibility on the lawyer who signed.
Read more about Real Citations, Still Slop: A Florida Court Weighs In on Who Stands Behind an AI FilingThe Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether trademark strength is a question of fact or law. My new essay measures the assumption beneath the question: juries decide about two percent of these cases.
Read more about RiseandShine v. PepsiCo: The Supreme Court Takes Up ConfusionHow the Ninth Circuit's app-store context reframed a house-mark issue in a reverse-confusion case, and why the cert petition cited my DuPont research.
Read more about World Champ Tech v. Peloton: House Marks, App Stores, and the Quiet Power of ContextWork with Reichert
Talks and advisory work on reliable AI in legal practice. The proof is in two projects. An LLM-coded study of roughly 4,000 TTAB decisions, checked against Reichert’s own review of 1,002 factor-level findings (97% agreement), found that two DuPont factors predict the outcome more than 99% of the time. The Fair Use Database (opens in new tab) answers only from its coded corpus.