Tech & Sourcing @ Morgan Lewis

In the case of the ownership of intellectual property (IP) developed by a supplier as part of a service agreement with a customer, should the traditional position that the customer should own all developed IP always be the position agreed upon by the parties?

Our technology transactions, outsourcing, and commercial contracts team on October 30, 2024 held its annual industry summit in New York. The theme this year was Unleashing the Potential of Technology, with a focus on artificial intelligence (AI). Attendees included in-house counsel and sourcing professionals across a number of industries, including representatives from the client and vendor side. The diverse audience led to highly interactive discussions among some of the leading voices in the tech and sourcing fields.

As more and more purchases of digital content happen online, without delivery of any physical media to the purchaser, consumers may not be able to access their purchased content in situations where vendors have removed such content from their online libraries, platforms, or apps unilaterally as the result of the expiration or revocation of the content rights. In response to numerous consumer complaints about this occurred or threatened loss of access rights to content purchased online, California Governor Gavin Newsom signed AB-2426 into law on September 24, 2024. The bill will come into effect on January 1, 2025.

By way of update to our recent reporting on the California legislative efforts to regulate artificial intelligence (AI), on September 29, 2024 California Governor Gavin Newsom vetoed SB 1047, a bill imposing new AI safety regulations, while approving AB 2013, a law mandating transparency in generative AI.

How are intellectual property (IP) and data rights allocated when a particular dataset is a key to unlocking a powerful new artificial intelligence/machine learning (AI/ML) model or use case? To find a balance, contracting parties may end up trading a black box for Pandora’s box.

One of the commonly advertised features of AI is that it is beneficial for automation and increasing productivity. When a company considers improving its productivity and employing an AI tool, it will typically go through a contracting process with the service provider and assess the terms of use and associated risks for the business. But what happens if an employee presses on and starts using an AI tool that was not vetted by the company?

As we continue to see AI steadily and increasingly be incorporated into service offerings, businesses should pay special attention to previously “standard” provisions when contracting for the provision and use of services that incorporate AI. This is especially true considering there may be situations where service providers use AI at some point in the workstream without the recipient even realizing.

As part of our Technology Marathon webinar series, partners Mike Pierides and Steven Stone recently discussed financial regulators’ increasing focus on artificial intelligence (AI).

We recently published a report based on our four-part series on Tech & Sourcing @ Morgan Lewis, in which we consider a number of conundrums facing companies looking to leverage artificial intelligence (AI) as part of their outsourcing arrangements. As outsourcing remains a key tool through which companies can streamline operations, cut costs, and access specialized expertise, the explosive advancements in AI and related technologies have introduced new and exciting opportunities and complexities for companies in implementing and maintaining outsourcing relationships.

The UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) recently published an update paper outlining its concerns with artificial intelligence (AI) foundation models (FMs). Market players in this space should remain mindful of the CMA’s growing interest as the regulator continues its dedicated program to consider the impact of FMs on markets throughout 2024, with a further update anticipated in August.