As generative AI evolves, it is worth updating the cognitive framework or heuristic you use to understand and navigate this complex system (your “mental model” of generative AI). For legal practitioners, assuming all AI systems work the same way can lead to inefficiency, uneven work product, and avoidable risk. A more accurate approach is to stop thinking of AI as a monolith and instead evaluate an AI system as three layers: 1) the underlying model, 2) the tools and data it can access, and 3) the application or interface through which a human user accesses the model. By adopting this structured approach, attorneys can more predictably match the specific capabilities of an AI system to the requirements of a specific legal task, ensuring higher quality output, improved factual accuracy, and more robust risk management.

The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) has announced a new pilot program, the PCT Informed Examination Request (PIER) Pilot Program, aimed at reducing application inventory and improving examination efficiency. Application inventory, currently 1,249,845 applications, and total pendency, now 27.9 months as traditionally measured, are both at all-time highs according to the USPTO’s dashboard. The PIER pilot was announced in the Federal Register on April 9, 2026, and will operate for an initial 12 month period, subject to possible extension or early termination. IP attorneys Grant Ehrlich and Wanli Wu take a look at the new program in this Stites & Harbison Client Alert.

Artificial intelligence (“AI”) is transforming how Kentucky employers across all industries recruit, screen, and manage their workforce. With federal agencies, courts, and nearby states issuing new rules and guidance, Kentucky employers must understand the opportunities and risks associated with AI in employment decisions. Attorneys Rachel Gumbel, Harlee Havens and Jackson Hurst-Sanders take a look at the opportunities and risks in this Stites & Harbison Client Alert.

On March 25, 2026, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a provider of a service cannot be contributorily liable for copyright infringement of another when that provider does not induce the infringement or provide a service to the infringer that is tailored to infringement. Cox Communications, Inc. v. Sony Music Entertainment et al., No 24-171, ___ U.S. ___ (March 25, 2026). Merely providing an online service with knowledge that the user of the service will infringe and failing to take sufficient action to prevent the infringement does not demonstrate the intent necessary to establish contributory infringement. Moreover, failure to comply with the safe harbor practices in the Digital Millennium Copyright Act does not alone create liability for internet service providers who serve infringers. IP attorneys Alex MacKay and Sam Miller take a look at the issue in this Stites & Harbison Client Alert.