Finnegan’s New AI Practice Is a Project in ‘Interdisciplinary’ Expertise

Finnegan officially launched its artificial intelligence (AI) practice on September 9, responding to growing client interest in navigating the legal complexities of emerging technologies. While the firm has long advised on AI-related matters, this formalized practice marks a strategic expansion of the firm's interdisciplinary capabilities. 

The new AI + Finnegan practice is led by partners Frank DeCosta and Karthik Kumar and includes  several sub practices, such as  AI + Copyright, led by  partner Anna Chauvet; AI + Patent, led by  partners Aaron Capron, Frank and Karthik; AI + Privacy, led by  partner Lynn Parker Dupree; and AI + Trade Secrets, led by  partner Erik Puknys.  

World IP Review discussed the new practice with  Anna, Lynn, and Erik.

“We all came into AI through different channels, but we find more and more frequently that they’re intertwined,” Erik said. “The importance of formalizing it within the firm is just to ensure that we’re talking to each other in a way that really brings a lot of value to clients’ needs.” 

The launch reflects Finnegan’s commitment to offering tailored legal advice across disciplines. According to Anna, “[the launch] recognizes that we have a synergy across our legal disciplines that’s required, quite frankly, to address AI, because it does span so many of these areas.”  

What sets Finnegan apart in a crowded market is its deep technical bench. Anna emphasized the team’s ability to work with colleagues who have deep technical expertise – staff with PhDs, “who really understand how these AI models are operating.” This, she adds, helps the team  make determinations for clients and provide much more comprehensive legal advice.   

The team’s depth and breadth of technical expertise is “one of things I love most about working at Finnegan,” said Lynn.  “There are attorneys [here] who invented early forms of AI. We don’t have to go to outside consultants to get a technical understanding—all of that exists in-house."  

She added, “There are privacy and governance requirements that exist within the AI space. So many privacy officials I know within the past three years have had ‘AI governance’ or ‘AI responsibility’ added to their titles. And privacy officials and companies recognize now more than ever that privacy does not exist in a silo. I can't imagine that [other firms] have the embedded, deep technical expertise that exists naturally within Finnegan.” 

But why formalize the practice now? 

Erik noted, “We have obviously given this a lot of thought, and why we can do this better than our competitors. Another firm will have someone that, in trade secrets, has AI experience, and could probably go toe-to-toe with me as far as experience and ability, but  that firm will not have someone on Anna's level on the copyright side, or someone on Lynn's level on the privacy side.” He added, “There is no firm that will be able to bring the talent across all disciplines the way Finnegan can. There are individuals within firms who are excellent. But as far as the whole package, I think Finnegan is uniquely situated to provide that.” 

Client demand drove the need to formalize this existing offering at Finnegan. Anna explained that clients are increasingly being mandated within their own organizations to adopt generative AI or to adopt AI solutions, and they need bespoke advice, quickly, to enable them to implement these solutions with reduced risk. 

“Companies have various divisions and will implement even generative AI solutions differently. The demands of a marketing department, for example, are going to be very different from perhaps a technology department within an organization.” 

She added, “So it's recognizing that truly tailored, customized advice is going to be necessary, both on our side, from the different disciplinary areas, whether it be trade secret or privacy or copyright, but also recognizing that the needs within a client’s organization are going to vary.” 

Speaking of trade secrets, Erik explained that employees are now leaving companies and using tools that were not previously available. 

“So it's just made policing trade secrets a lot more difficult, and also for advising clients on protecting their own trade secrets,” he added. “With AI, very little information getting out of your company can now cause a lot of harm. So the need to protect your trade secrets is greater than ever.” 

The rapidly evolving technology AI presents, coupled with differing regulations across states and countries makes protecting IP in AI quite difficult. 

“It’s a crazy calculus,” said Erik, noting all the different factors that need to be taken into consideration. 

“And you’ve got these requirements of disclosure that countries are considering, and that really throws a wrench into the calculus; with compulsory disclosure, forget about trade secret protection in that environment,” he said. 

Read "Finnegan's New AI Practice is a Project in 'Interdisciplinary' Expertise"