Ogilvie Law Firm
Articles on AI and the Law
Practical analysis of how AI tools intersect with attorney-client privilege, the work product doctrine, and patent practice. Written by Patent Attorney John Ogilvie.
The articles below form a three-part series on AI chatbot usage and evidentiary privilege. They may be read in any order, but the series is designed to build from the general to the specific.
For practical guidance on limiting risks while using AI to help explore or describe inventions, businesses can use the Safe Inventing with AI™ service, and individual inventors working on their provisional patent application can use the AI Patent Guide™ service.
Part 1 of 3
Attorney-Client Privilege and Chatbot Usage
The first federal court ruling on AI conversations and privilege — what United States v. Heppner actually held, why it does not say what many commentators claim, and what it means for professionals who use AI tools for legally sensitive work.
Read Article →Part 2 of 3
Work Product Doctrine and Chatbot Usage
The work product doctrine offers stronger protection for AI-assisted legal work than attorney-client privilege does in many scenarios. How Heppner and its companion decision Warner v. Gilbarco define the current landscape, and why attorney prompts may be the most defensible category of all.
Read Article →Part 3 of 3
AI Chatbots and Patent Practice: Privilege, Prior Art, and the Risks You May Not See Coming
Patent prosecution is not litigation. The privilege questions from the first two articles are joined here by a distinct set of risks — prior art, trade secret protection, inventorship, and the duty of candor — that can be outcome-determinative for patent rights, not just evidentiary protection.
Read Article →Patent Fees
Micro-Entity Status: Pitfalls Independent Inventors Need to Know
The USPTO’s micro-entity discount saves inventors 80% on many filing fees — but the eligibility rules are precise, documentation may be required, and the consequences of a mistake can hit even after a patent issues. A 2026 Federal Circuit decision illustrates the traps.
Read Article →Patent Quality
Patent Quality Myths
Ten common claims about what makes a patent good or bad — and why each one overstates a particular viewpoint. From “only litigation reveals quality” to “broader claims mean higher quality,” the myths are plausible but misleading.
Read Article →Patent Quality
How to Assess Patent Quality
Twenty-one criteria for evaluating a patent or patent application, organized from easier-to-check issues to more judgment-intensive ones. A useful starting point for inventors, founders, and in-house counsel.
Read Article →These articles are for informational purposes only and do not constitute legal advice. Reading these articles does not create an attorney-client relationship. If you have questions about how the issues discussed apply to your situation, use the Contact form to get in touch.