Alan Turing, in his famous 1950 paper, “Computing Machinery and Intelligence,” wrote, “we can only see a short distance ahead, but we can see plenty there that needs to be done.” This sentiment, expressed nearly 70 years ago in the context of whether machines can think, reflects the current momentum of recent technological breakthroughs to endow machines with the ability to make intelligent decisions — the concept of Artificial Intelligence (AI). While the notion of AI is not novel, it has recently become a driving factor in industry because of compounded advancements in the availability of big data, machine learning approaches and algorithms, and powerful computing mechanisms.

Three-dimensional (3D) bioprinting offers the exciting prospect of printing 3D multicellular human organs by combining a host of specialisms, including software development, biotechnology and tort law. 3D bioprinting methods rely on highly specialized computer software that incorporates computer-aided design (CAD). Optimizing development of CAD software is paramount to the quality of the final bioprinted organ.

In the U.S., under the Lanham Act, to establish infringement of a registered mark under section 32 or an unregistered mark under section 43, the plaintiff must show ownership of a valid mark and that the defendant’s use of the mark in connection with goods or services causes a “likelihood of confusion.” With regard to infringement, the likelihood of consumer confusion has been called “the litmus test” or “touchstone” for establishing trademark liability.

The state statutory remedies for trade secret misappropriation and the new federal statutory remedies in the 2016 federal Defend Trade Secrets Act must be coordinated with both each other and with state enforcement of restrictive employment covenants. Whenever both statutory and contractual remedies are sought, a double monetary recovery for a single wrong must be avoided. A statutory remedy should not prohibit conduct that state restrictive employment covenant policy does not allow to be restricted. The fact that state restrictive covenant policy can protect confidential information that does not qualify for trade secret protection also must not be allowed to erode the statutory definition of trade secret.