In this episode of Reasonable Measures, Tim Londergan and Chris Buntel unpack one of the biggest developments in intellectual property this year: the 1.5 billion dollar Anthropic copyright settlement. The discussion explores what the case means for creators, AI companies, and the broader balance between innovation and protection in the age of large language models.

Tim and Chris walk through the details of the lawsuit brought by author Andrea Bartz and others, who alleged that Anthropic’s AI systems scraped copyrighted books without permission. They discuss how the resulting settlement reframes the boundaries of fair use and how it signals that AI generated progress now comes with a royalty price tag.

The conversation expands beyond copyright to consider how AI challenges traditional IP frameworks, especially around authorship, ownership, and creation. Chris and Tim also draw parallels to trade secret law, noting that while AI cannot legally invent or author, it can still create valuable trade secrets, making this form of protection increasingly central to the AI industry’s future.

Takeaways

• The Anthropic settlement sets a major precedent for AI and IP, affirming that large language models must pay for the data they use.

• Fair use arguments have limits. When entire works are reproduced or leveraged commercially, creators deserve compensation.

• The settlement highlights that copyright is only one part of the AI and IP equation. Trade secrets now represent the core value of many AI companies.

• AI cannot be a legal inventor or author, but it can generate protectable trade secrets, reshaping how innovation is defined and safeguarded.

• The outcome reflects a cost of doing business for AI developers, establishing a model for how future disputes may be settled.

• As Tim and Chris note, trade secrets are no longer plan B. They are becoming the default protection strategy for cutting edge technology.

In this episode of Reasonable Measures, Chris Buntel welcomes longtime colleague Ray Miller, Partner at DLA Piper and Chair of the Life Sciences practice, to discuss the evolving role of trade secrets in mergers and acquisitions. While patents once dominated due diligence, the conversation highlights how know how, key employees, and trade secrets now often carry more value than formal IP rights. Chris and Ray reflect on past transactions where the real “magic” was not in patents but in the undocumented processes and expertise held by individuals.

They explore practical considerations for both buyers and sellers, including policies, trade secret inventories, employee retention, and regulatory interactions. The discussion also touches on the increasing risks of disclosure through government transparency, the rise of trade secret only transactions in areas like AI, and how organizations consistently underestimate the number and importance of their trade secrets.

In this episode of the Reasonable Measures podcast, Chris Buntel is joined by Raluca Davidof Insight Contracts Law Firm in France for an international discussion on a deceptively tricky issue: drawing the line between an employee’s professional expertise, a company’s confidential know-how, and legally protected trade secrets. Together they unpack why this distinction matters, especially in biotech and medtech industries where highly specialized expertise can blur boundaries, and how companies can map, train, and govern information effectively. The conversation covers the role of HR in onboarding and offboarding, the importance of repeated training and awareness, and how proactive mapping of knowledge creates both external benefits such as investor confidence and monetization opportunities and internal benefits such as avoiding duplication, saving time, and enabling smoother employee transitions.

 In this episode Tim and Chris unpack the Inevitable Disclosure Doctrine, a century old trade secret rule that began in 1902 when a sugar refinery worker was blocked from joining a competitor. They explain how the doctrine works, the three factors courts consider, and how it is used to prevent potential misuse of trade secrets before any misappropriation occurs. The conversation explores how different states treat the doctrine, reviews the landmark PepsiCo v Redmond case, and looks at how its use has shifted from senior executives to highly skilled engineers, especially in the AI industry. As noncompete agreements face bans and tighter restrictions across the United States, the doctrine is becoming a more important tool for protecting valuable trade secrets.

Summary

In this conversation, Tim and Chris examine how artificial intelligence is reshaping the landscape of intellectual property, particularly in patent law and trade secret strategy. They explore the concept of FOSITA (person of ordinary skill in the art) and how AI’s growing capabilities challenge traditional notions of inventorship, obviousness, and enablement. As AI increasingly assists or even drives innovation, they highlight the critical importance of clearly documenting the human role in the inventive process to safeguard patent validity. The discussion also addresses the rising risk of trade secrets becoming readily ascertainable in an AI-driven world, emphasizing the need for a more integrated, system-level approach to defining and protecting proprietary knowledge.

Takeaways:

• AI is making it harder to define who the true inventor is.

• Including a human name on a patent may not be enough to ensure validity.

• The standard for what’s “obvious” in patent law is rising due to AI tools.

• Documenting the human contribution is critical for defensible patents.

• AI may make trade secrets easier to reverse-engineer or infer.
  

• Discrete trade secrets are more vulnerable—system-level knowledge is harder to replicate.

• Companies need to rethink how they structure and protect IP in an AI-driven world.

• Both patents and trade secrets are under pressure from rapid AI advances.
  

In this episode of Reasonable Measures, Tim and Chris explore how artificial intelligence (AI) is colliding with intellectual property (IP) law, particularly focusing on copyrights, patents, and trade secrets. They highlight legal challenges around whether AI can be considered an “inventor” or “author,” and revisit the well-known “monkey selfie” case as a precedent for non-human creations. As AI-generated outputs become more sophisticated, traditional IP frameworks are being tested. The conversation also touches on the value of trade secrets in protecting AI models, especially when patents are either too slow or publicly revealing.

In this episode of the Reasonable Measures podcast, Tim and Chris return after a busy start to the year to dive into a landmark trade secret case: Phillips 66 v. Propel Fuels. They unpack how Propel secured a $604.9 million judgment—later tripled to a staggering $1.8 billion—due to willful and malicious trade secret misappropriation. The discussion highlights key risk mitigation strategies for companies navigating M&A due diligence and the evolving perception of trade secrets as a core intellectual property strategy. Tim and Chris also share insights from recent conferences and industry conversations, emphasizing how more organizations are proactively managing trade secret protection and governance.

Takeaways:

• Massive trade secret verdicts are becoming more common. The Propel Fuels case reached nearly $2 billion, reinforcing the financial and legal consequences of misappropriation.

• Enhanced damages signal the importance of due diligence. Courts will punish companies that exploit trade secret information obtained during M&A discussions.

• Particularity matters. Propel protected itself by clearly defining 88 trade secrets, demonstrating best practices in trade secret identification and governance.

• Trade secret strategy is maturing. Companies are shifting from reactive protection to proactive trade secret management, recognizing it as a critical IP asset.

• Conferences reflect a changing IP landscape. Industry professionals are no longer debating whether to protect trade secrets but rather how to implement strong governance frameworks.

• M&A due diligence requires caution. Companies must assume deals may not close and plan accordingly to prevent intellectual property exposure.

In this episode of the Reasonable Measures podcast, Tim and Chris discuss three notable trade secret cases from Latvia, China, and the United States. They explore the implications of whistleblower retaliation, the intersection of trade secrets and criminal law, and the complexities of ongoing litigation between IQVIA and Viva Systems. The conversation highlights the evolving landscape of trade secret protection and the legal challenges faced by companies and individuals.

The most frequently litigated cases don't have to be the most boring. Discover why customer lists are the most litigated trade secrets in this episode with Tim and Chris. They break down  recent cases to highlight common mistakes and offer strategies for robust protection. Tune in for a mix of humor and insights that will help you keep your trade secrets safe from personal emails.

In this Episode of Reasonable Measures, Chris Buntel and Tim Londergan discuss the recent legal case of Prysmian v. Sterlite, where an executive packaged up a business and walked across the street. This is a fascinating if not all-too-familiar tale of corporate theft. The discussion highlights the evolving understanding of trade secrets in the context of international business and the importance of proper documentation and confidentiality practices.

Takeaways

The Prysmian vs. Sterlite case underscores the significance of trade secrets in corporate strategy.

Misappropriation of trade secrets can lead to substantial financial repercussions for companies.

The definition of trade secrets may need to evolve to reflect current legal standards.

NDAs should be specific and detailed to effectively protect trade secrets.

The case illustrates the complexities of jurisdiction in international trade secret disputes.

Business trade secrets can be as valuable as technical trade secrets.

The timeline of filing complaints in trade secret cases can vary significantly.

Emails often serve as critical evidence in trade secret litigation.

Companies must implement best practices to safeguard their confidential information.

The Prysmian case reflects a growing trend of high-stakes trade secret litigation.