Michael Eshaghian, Esq.
1.7K posts
Michael Eshaghian, Esq.
@LAIPAttorney
IP attorney (patent, trademark, copyright, trade secret), ex-@kirkland_ellis. Racquetball and board game design in my free time.
Los Angeles Inscrit le Aralık 2021
825 Abonnements930 Abonnés
The USPTO just announced the "McConaughey Agentic Tasking Technology Helping Examiner Workload." MATTHEW will help examiners determine if an invention is eligible under Section 101.
The director of the USPTO, John Squires, also announced that he will "suspend all applicable precedent, including Desjardins, Alice, and Mayo. Basically, in terms of eligibility, if MATTHEW says your invention is ‘Alright, Alright, Alright,’ then it’s ‘Alright, Alright, Alright’ with the USPTO.”
Just kidding. Well, not really. The USPTO really did send out a press release with that April Fool's gag (see link in reply). In all seriousness...having an AI system make eligibility determinations--both at the USPTO and in court--would probably be an improvement over the mess we have now.
English
@dieworkwear Are you really comparing Trump to someone whose most recent crime against humanity was murdering over 30,000 of his own citizens?
Insulting as the son of Iranian refugees and as an American.
English
reading a book about iran. apparently the government there is run by a Supreme Leader who has conducted mass deportations, sent forces into cities, uses state licenses to control media, labeled protestors "enemies," and is supported by religious extremists. didn't know this
English
@SinaiLawFirm @ItsMattsLaw States monitor UPL way too aggressively.
English
there are so many potential landmines for someone to sue in small claims, at least in CA. claim can take forever, can countersue, automatic right to appeal
will be really interesting to see what happens with 'practice of law' as an issue in general
in my practice self litigant defendants are getting templates of motions to dismiss, with check boxes and fill-in the blanks to file with the court, prepared by non-profits. There's also sidebar instructions on the motion on how to fill it out and the legal grounds to do so.
is that really a huge jump to automate that process with AI? if that's not unlicensed practice of law, why would an AI agent that asks questions and fills in the blanks in a template motion be an issue?
there's a gigantic demand for this. for stuff that it's too expensive to hire a lawyer, but you need an answer on. limiting that tech is a huge loss for society.
English
Interesting concept—effectively automated small claims.
I like the idea, but I’d have real concerns if this kind of tool told you what kind of claim you had and advised you on how to pursue and litigate it.
Runs into the question “are you a law firm?”
sam lessin 🏴☠️@lessin
lol came home to certified mail of @Jack_Raines using @pettylawsuit to sue me for defamation - the future is bright!
English
@SinaiLawFirm @CRELeasingLawTX Resist the dark side
English
The System screws over tenants too. As the eviction drags on they owe more and more in rent debt. Most landlords won't try to collect, but institutional ones do. Credit ruined, wages garnished for 10+ years. The System bets on non-collection.
Non-profit lawyers help most tenants in a limited capacity and promise to step in for the trial, but when trial comes they are too busy and the tenant have to represent themselves in trial. They lose and then face the consequences of a sheriff's lockout, when they could have settled earlier.
There are other ways tenants get screwed by the System, in a much more fundamental way. Losing an eviction for many protected tenants is catasrophic.
Taxpayers subsidize housing for the bottom 25% with rent control, just cause, section 8, deed restricted housing, and affordable units. Even the middle 50% are subsidized now with AMI restricted units!
For many tenants, that's the only way they can afford to live in LA. And that's significant because it means a judgment is not just moving out and bad credit.
If they get evicted, their entire life has to change. They can't just move to another apartment. They lose their voucher, with an eviction on their record. They have to move to another city entirely, or even to a different state, take the kids out of school, move in with family, or end up in the street.
A slow eviction system hurts everyone. Investors/banks/insurance already redline LA and many refuse to invest. A 35-day eviction system will help reduce housing costs, building more housing, and give justice to both LLs and tenants.
(it will also put me out of business, but I'll be fine maybe I'll do personal injury)
Real Estate Lawyer@SinaiLawFirm
Do you want to know why rent is so expensive in LA? Why the application process takes so long? Why landlords want so much info from you? Here is a recent story: A family was referred to me for their eviction case. They were heading to a jury trial in one month and didn't have a lawyer, yet. They did all the paperwork and filing themselves, in-house to save on legal fees. And surprisingly, they did a great job. They filed the paperwork with LAHD. Gave proper notice to the tenants. I reviewed their paperwork and it was better quality than 90% of other eviction lawyers. I didn't see any viable way to dismiss the case on a technicality. As long as they were properly represented in trial, the family was going to win the eviction. They did everything by the book. Followed all the local rules. Gave all the necessary notices. The family told me the judge ordered the parties to mediate at the first court appearance. The family attended the mediation in court without a lawyer. The tenant was provided a lawyer by the city, for free. At the mediation the lawyer for the tenants offered this settlement: 1. 4 months to vacate the property 2. Cash to leave, paid upfront 3. Waiver of all owed rent 4. Sealed record They rejected the offer, of course. Why would they accept this? The family then asked me a great question. "What is our best case scenario with you in trial?" Based on my review, I gave them my most realistic estimate of the best case scenario in trial: 1. Both parties announce ready at the next trial date (1 month away) and trial takes 3 days. We win the trial. 2. Sheriff locks out the tenant 75 days after the trial. 3. about 110 days to possession. 4. Gave them an estimate cost for fees/prep time. 5. No viable collection of back rent, tenants had no assets. Obviously, this was the best case scenario. It could be worse. Trial can be delayed. While I was confident we are going to win, juries are unpredictable. This is where we had a surreal moment of collective clarity. The settlement offer they rejected is basically their best case scenario if they win the trial. This was not a coincidence. The attorney for the tenants asked for pretty much the same amount I quoted them for my fees. The lawyer for the tenants knew the family had to hire a lawyer for a jury trial. The lawyer knows it takes the sheriff 2-3 months to lockout after a judgment. The lawyer knows it's hard (and expensive) to collect against tenants with no assets. State and local government created a system in which cases take forever to litigate, eviction laws are extremely complex and technical, easy to dismiss cases, only one side has to pay a lawyer, and worst of all, possession enforcement takes 60-90 days instead of 5. And it's all getting worse. The leverage for the tenants is systemic. It's by design. Why would the tenants make any other offer? The landlords are left with no real options but a shitty settlement. There are no real choice. Even when you do everything right, you still lose. Tenants don't pay rent during evictions. They had no viable way to win the trial. There were no habitability issues. The landlords posted all the notices. Never raised the rent. Didn't retaliate. The landlords did everything right. And the tenants still win. The mother looked at me and asked "our base case in trial is the same as the shitty settlement offer? Are you telling me we should have taken the offer we rejected?" I didn't know how to respond.
English
NEW: The Supreme Court reverses a $1 billion verdict for Sony Music against Cox, the internet provider.
Lower courts held that Cox was liable for contributory copyright infringement because it knew that its users were using its internet service to infringe copyrights.
SCOTUS reversed. A service provider, like Cox, is contributory liable for a user's infringement only if it intended that the provided service be used for infringement, which can be shown in two ways: if the service provider induced infringement (like Grokster did with its file-sharing service) or if the service is tailored to that infringement.
Cox neither induced its users' infringement through active encouragement (e.g., through ads) nor provided a service that was tailored to infringement (since the internet can be used for much more than copyright infringement).
Why this case matters:
- For ISPs and platforms: this limits exposure based on notice alone and avoids turning service providers into copyright police
- For rightsholders: raises the bar--enforcement will continue to focus more on direct infringers (or clearer inducement cases)
- Reinforces that knowledge + inaction is not enough, standing alone, for contributory liability
English
@LAIPAttorney I have a disclosure on my engagement letters
English
-Prospective clients sending me 1000 word case summaries
-Meet and confer letters from OC 17 minutes after I send discovery
-Long client emails with suggestions and edits to a document and then me going over every point explaining why we should not be doing it
AI is creating more work for lawyers
English
@SinaiLawFirm If you start vagueposting I may have to block you.
English
@SinaiLawFirm @GregWasik Is the clip short? Are you making fun of it? Offering other 1A commentary? To what extent is watching the clip serving as a substitute for paying for the real thing?
English
@LAIPAttorney @GregWasik How is a straight rip is not infringement? Aside from the length it’s not edited in any way? Can I clip the avengers and post on Twitter?
English
This post has +5m views. It was posted by an account with a short name, affiliate badge, posting non stop clips. He watermarked the clip with his name. He boasts 70m monthly impressions.
But he didn't make this video. Sure he gave credit in the comments, if you bothered to click it. Someone else made it.
There's a huge clipping industry on X. I saw it last month when a post of mine went viral and got 1.5m views.
Someone made a 'video' of my face and billie eilish next to each other with a news clip, and that video got +20m views across 50 different posts, probably more.
Personally I don't care, going viral is uninteresting to me. I don't see any business from viral funny posts.
But how do content creators feel about this? On one hand the clips help with exposure, and funnel more traffic to YT views.
On the other hand, this is clearly copyright infringement. If X institutes some kind of DMCA process to flag posts and get the revenue from the clips to the original IP holder - it would stop. Not sure if that's the right solution. I think IP owners wouldn't want it either.
Clearly the clippers are good at what they do. Original IP holders and content creators either need to figure out a way to work or maybe employ clippers to get ahead of it.
Jack@Jackkk
Logan Paul reveals Floyd Mayweather still owes him $1,500,000 from their fight in 2021 “He pre-sold the fight using my name and likeness to a company, I think in Dubai or somewhere in the Middle East, for $10,000,000 cash” “We ended up doing the fight in the US with a different company. That’s the company that put on the fight but he had already sold our fight to someone else for $10M cash” “Our deal was 15%, he smoked me. 15% of $10,000,000 is $1,500,000. The company that paid him $10M is suing him. He has a bunch of legal trouble at the moment. I don’t think I’m ever getting the money”
English
@SinaiLawFirm @GregWasik Not necessarily. Length of clip is a factor, but there are others.
English
@GregWasik Is it really fair use if it’s just a clip? @LAIPAttorney
English
My law firm just launched subscription-based pricing.
I wanted something to address a common fear of startups, creators, and small businesses: unpredictable legal fees that make planning for the future much harder.
If you’re building something worth protecting and want cost certainty along the way, take a look at our new subscription offerings.
As always, reach out if you have questions.
English
Michael Eshaghian, Esq. retweeté
Your AI conversations aren't privileged. Yesterday, Judge Jed Rakoff ruled that 31 documents a defendant generated using an AI tool and later shared with his defense attorneys are not protected by attorney-client privilege or work product doctrine.
The logic is simple: an AI tool is not an attorney. It has no law license, owes no duty of loyalty, and its terms of service explicitly disclaim any attorney-client relationship. Sharing case details with an AI platform is legally no different from talking through your legal situation with a friend (which is not privileged).
You can't fix it after the fact, either. Sending unprivileged documents to your lawyer doesn't retroactively make them privileged. That's been settled law for years. It just hadn't been tested with AI until now.
And here's what really hurt the defendant: the AI provider's privacy policy (Claude), in effect when he used the tool, expressly permits disclosure of user prompts and outputs to governmental authorities. There was no reasonable expectation of confidentiality.
The core problem is the gap between how people experience AI and what's actually happening. The conversational interface feels private. It feels like talking to an advisor. But unless you negotiate for an enterprise agreement that says otherwise, you're inputting information into a third-party commercial platform that retains your data and reserves broad rights to disclose it.
Judge Rakoff also flagged an interesting wrinkle: the defendant reportedly fed information from his attorneys into the AI tool. If prosecutors try to use these documents at trial, defense counsel could become a fact witness, potentially forcing a mistrial. Winning on privilege doesn't make the evidentiary picture simple.
For anyone advising clients or managing legal risk, this is a wake-up call. AI tools are not a safe space for clients to process their counsel's advice and to regurgitate their legal strategy. Every prompt is a potential disclosure. Every output is a potentially discoverable document.
So what do we do about it?
First, attorneys need to be proactive. Advise clients explicitly that anything they put into an AI tool may be discoverable and is almost certainly not privileged. Put it in your engagement letters. Make it part of onboarding. Don't assume clients understand this, because most don't.
Second, if clients want to use AI to help process legal issues (and they clearly will, increasingly), then let's give them a way to do it inside the privilege. Collaborative AI workspaces shared between attorney and client, where the AI interaction happens under counsel's direction and within the attorney-client relationship, can change the analysis entirely. I'm excited to be planning this kind of approach, and I think it's where the industry needs to head.
storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.usco…
English
@SinaiLawFirm > A great criminal or IP lawyer will struggle against an average eviction lawyer.
As a great intellectual property lawyer, I can confirm.
English
About 10 years ago, my cousin and I had this idea for a mobile game--a turn-based capture the flag game played on a hex map, with power-ups.
Once we learned the art and development would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars, we shelved it. There was no way we were paying that much for what was basically a fun side project.
Fast forward to the age of generative AI.
A few months ago I remembered the idea and decided to see if I could actually build it myself, using AI for the coding and the art.
A few hundred hours later (probably, I didn't keep track), Flag Frenzy is done (link in first reply).
The game is free to play, with optional small in-game purchases if you enjoy it. If you run into bugs or have feedback about gameplay, UI, or anything else, I'd love to hear it. It's best played on desktop, but it's playable on mobile.
It's not as polished as it would be if a professional studio had built it, but it also cost $60 instead of 5000x that. There is no way I would have done this project without AI. It's incredible what it can do today. I can't imagine what it will be like 5 years from now.
For those curious about the tools:
Figma Make for coding and art prompts
ChatGPT 5.2 for generating art
Gemini 3 for help debugging
English
Matthew McConaughey just trademarked himself.
McConaughey has secured multiple U.S. trademark approvals covering elements of his voice, likeness, and short audio/video clips to deter unauthorized AI and deepfake use.
For years, trademarks have protected names, logos, and slogans. What we’re now seeing is the next evolution:
Using trademark law as a frontline defense against AI misuse of identity.
Anyone with recognizable voices, catchphrases, or visual personas should be paying close attention, and shouldn’t rely solely on NIL or right-of-publicity laws for protection.
English
"Such incompetence and malevolence on both sides led to forty discovery orders, many of them omnibus orders, filed by Special Master McElhinny. As Special Master McElhinny described the proceedings when partway through: 'Most lawyers would have died in shame.' We went to trial."
Oof.
English
If you're ever worried your patent drawings aren't good enough, remember that this is a drawing in an issued patent.
English