On Thursday, August 25th, 2026, in the case Disruptive Resources, LLC v. Ballistic Barrier Products Inc. and Mayday Security Solutions LLC, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves of the U.S. Court of International Trade addressed errors in a Joint Claim Construction Brief filed by Plaintiff's counsel. The brief contained multiple inaccuracies attributed to the use of generative artificial intelligence (AI).

Plaintiff's counsel disclosed that despite believing he had fully edited the brief, he had missed a one-page section that included an erroneously proposed claim construction deviating from previously advanced terms. A third section of the brief was withdrawn due to pervasive errors. This led the Court to order counsel to show cause in writing why sanctions should not be imposed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11.

In a letter to the Court, counsel took full responsibility for the mistakes, was not evasive, and prioritized candor toward both the Court and opposing counsel. He argued that his actions did not violate Rule 11 or professional conduct rules, as the reply brief was not submitted for an improper purpose, the legal claims were supported by authentic law, and factual contentions had evidentiary support. Counsel characterized the errors as akin to litigation positions ultimately not adopted by the Court and expressed regret over insufficient review of AI-generated content.

The Court observed that Plaintiff sought to strike the problematic sections of the reply brief, prompting Defendants to also strike their subsequent briefing responding to the inaccurate AI-generated arguments. Judge Choe-Groves emphasized that litigants must strictly adhere to all professional conduct rules when using AI.

This case follows prior incidents where attorneys submitted fabricated judicial opinions generated by AI tools, underscoring the judiciary's concern over AI's role in legal practice.

Sources