Judge orders patent attorneys to explain incorrect legal citations hallucinated by AI
A Kansas federal judge ordered attorneys representing a patent licensing company to explain why they shouldn’t be sanctioned for submitting briefs that contained nonexistent and incorrect legal citations hallucinated by generative artificial intelligence. (Image from Shutterstock)
A Kansas federal judge ordered attorneys representing a patent licensing company to explain why they shouldn’t be sanctioned for submitting briefs that contained nonexistent and incorrect legal citations hallucinated by generative artificial intelligence, according to Law360.
Fisher, Patterson, Sayler & Smith; Buether Joe & Counselors; and Seth Law are representing Lexos Media IP in an infringement lawsuit against Overstock.com Inc. Senior U.S. District Judge Julie A. Robinson of the District of Kansas gave the plaintiff’s counsel until Jan. 5 to describe their respective roles in the drafting, review and filing of the briefs, according to Law360.
Law360 quoted the judge as saying, “These defects include: (1) nonexistent quotations; (2) nonexistent and incorrect citations; and (3) misrepresentations about cited authority.”
The judge acknowledged that attorney Sandeep Seth of Seth Law already submitted a declaration “admitting to playing a role in submitting the defective citations” in the briefs.
The declaration stated that those incorrect citations came from research generated using AI tools and were not independently verified, according to Law360.
Write a letter to the editor, share a story tip or update, or report an error.
