Close Menu
Legal MagLegal Mag
  • Home
  • Legal News
  • Intellectual Property
  • Litigation
  • Regulation
  • Technology
  • More
    • Firms
    • Law Practice
    • Trending
    • Press Release
What's On

Seven charged in $100M California jewelry heist, largest in US history

June 19, 2025

States challenge bankrupt 23andMe’s right to auction genetic information

June 11, 2025

Jimmy Buffett’s widow battles co-trustee over $275 million trust

June 6, 2025

Longtime Hardee’s franchisee sues chain over franchise agreement dispute

May 29, 2025

Apple warns ruling in App Store case may cost ‘substantial sums annually’

May 8, 2025
Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
Legal MagLegal Mag
Newsletter
  • Home
  • Legal News
  • Intellectual Property
  • Litigation
  • Regulation
  • Technology
  • More
    • Firms
    • Law Practice
    • Trending
    • Press Release
Legal MagLegal Mag
Home » Customer Agreements at the Intersection of Data and AI: Managing Risk and Preserving Value
Intellectual Property

Customer Agreements at the Intersection of Data and AI: Managing Risk and Preserving Value

News RoomBy News RoomMarch 22, 20241 Min Read
Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Email
Share
Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Pinterest WhatsApp Email

Companies operating at the intersection of data and artificial intelligence (AI) have enormous potential but also face evolving risks. Big data is not new; data has become a valuable currency for numerous industries—from financial services, real estate and health care to social media and e-commerce.

What is relatively new, however, is the surge in the number of businesses that are applying AI to extract more value, more efficiently from data and to expand the applications to which that data can be applied. However, with this new opportunity comes new risks. Whether a provider or a consumer of data and AI services, companies must think through intellectual property and related contractual risks—both retrospectively, in terms of legacy customer agreements, and prospectively, in terms of reworking them.

Limitations of Internal AI Usage Policies

Share. Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Email
Previous Article‘In re Cellect’: How Patent Owners Can Protect Themselves from Obviousness-Type Double Patenting Invalidity Determinations
Next Article Attorney Corey Martin Runs Against Judge Eddie Barker in Election

Related Posts

Who Got the Work: Saul Ewing Team Appears for Samsung Bioepis in Amgen Patent Case

August 22, 2024

E-Commerce Company Alleges Albertsons Stole Trade Secrets to Develop Own Platform

August 20, 2024

How ‘In re Cellect’ and a Proposed Rule Could Affect Double Patenting

August 20, 2024
Latest Articles

States challenge bankrupt 23andMe’s right to auction genetic information

June 11, 20250 Views

Jimmy Buffett’s widow battles co-trustee over $275 million trust

June 6, 20251 Views

Longtime Hardee’s franchisee sues chain over franchise agreement dispute

May 29, 20253 Views

Apple warns ruling in App Store case may cost ‘substantial sums annually’

May 8, 20253 Views
Stay In Touch
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Pinterest
  • Instagram
  • YouTube
  • Vimeo
Don't Miss

The 2024 Am Law 100: Ranked by Gross Revenue

By News RoomApril 16, 2024

For the full 2024 Am Law 100 report, click here. For more ways to analyze the…

The 2024 A-List: Top 20 Firms

August 6, 2024

Defending Claims Where Extreme Weather Is to Blame: Our Changing Climate’s Impact on Civil Litigation

July 18, 2024
© 2025 Legal Mag. All Rights Reserved.
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms of use
  • Advertise
  • Contact

Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.