Reflections on the 7th Annual HBCU & IP Tech Law Summit
By Matti Neustadt
On February 27, 2025, I had the privilege and honor of joining an inspiring group of legal professionals at the 7th Annual HBCU & IP Tech Law Summit at Howard University School of Law in Washington, D.C. The event was a resounding success, drawing over 250 registrants for insightful discussions led by top lawyers in both private and in-house practice from a variety of industries across the U.S. Throughout the day, engaging panels covered topics ranging from intellectual property and data protection to cybersecurity and artificial intelligence (AI). Yet, one subject emerged as the undoubtable common thread across every discussion of technology law and IP: AI.
AI was not just a focal point of the dedicated panel on which I served – it permeated every session. Whether the topic was patents, copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, or broader legal concerns, the rise of generative AI played a pivotal role in shaping the conversation. The discussions underscored AI’s profound impact on our clients, our practices, and the challenges to existing legal frameworks. Whether the discussion was on patent prosecution or simply using AI in the workplace, no law firm, industry, client, or practice area seemed to be immune to the impact of AI and the rapid evolution of technology.
AI’s Impact on Intellectual Property Law
Some of the most interesting discussions I found were on how advancements in AI are shaping intellectual property law. While panelists largely agreed that AI itself is unlikely to be recognized as an author or inventor under current legal frameworks, questions remain regarding the extent to which human authors and inventors can leverage AI before their works or inventions become unprotectable. Despite the uncertainty, practitioners and their clients continue to integrate AI into their creative and inventive processes, prompting discussions on how legal professionals should advise on associated risks.
One example was in the need for enforceable safeguards in patent practice to prevent AI from inadvertently introducing prior art into patent claims. Because generative AI is trained on the vastness of the Internet, indiscriminate use of generate AI in the invention or patenting process could inadvertently introduce prior art into an application. Other examples included an exploration of the patentability of generative AI-based software. While AI-driven business methods do not necessarily increase the likelihood of patent ineligibility under Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank International, 573 U.S. 208 (2014), the inability of generative AI to produce repeatable results admittedly complicates infringement detection and evidentiary requirements. This led to a great discussion on the critical role of legal advisors in aligning clients’ business and legal strategies for AI-driven patent portfolios.
Technology and the Expanding Scope of Legal Practice
Discussions extended beyond intellectual property as well. There was broad recognition that every business is now, in some way, a technology business. In-house counsel from companies as diverse in their industries as The Hershey Company, Cheniere Energy, and D.C. United shared insights into how each increasingly rely on technology—and how legal considerations are shifting as a result. Whether clients were providing financial services, energy production and distribution, professional sports entertainment, or chocolate, the lawyers needed to be technology lawyers.
A common example discussed in detail was the risk associated with AI-driven workforce management tools. Panelists expressed less concern about inherent bias in AI and more about the risks posed by inadequate human oversight of these tools. Good diligence practices were often advised on my legal on choosing vendors with good safeguards to detect and correct bias. More than that, though, was advising and implementing safeguards to protect against over-reliance on AI-generated outputs without proper human supervision. Attorneys emphasized the need for companies to ensure that AI oversight mechanisms are not merely available but actively employed and audited against.
The Global Impact of Data Protection and Privacy Regulations
Data protection and privacy regulations also figured prominently in the discussions. Even among U.S.-based practitioners, the influence of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) was unmistakable. Many attendees noted that, despite the absence of comprehensive federal privacy laws in the U.S., GDPR’s transparency and security requirements may have become a de facto standard of care for responsible data governance. The global nature of the internet, particularly in consumer-facing industries and cases involving high-profile individuals, has made compliance with international privacy standards a strategic necessity as much as a legal one. This was particularly called on in the need for lawyers to advise their clients not only on the legal exposure but also the potential reputational and financial costs of noncompliance.
The Human Factor: A Lawyer’s Role in AI Governance
Perhaps the most compelling insight from the summit was the enduring importance of human judgment when it comes to both technology and the law. While AI’s benefits are undeniable, its effectiveness depends on where and how it is deployed. Panelists clearly demonstrated where successful adoption of AI had led to great outcomes in areas like helping to combat fraud in financial transactions, supporting climate and economic goals through small, independent-owned farms in cacao production, and protecting national security through cybersecurity in the energy sector. They also demonstrate how lawyers are uniquely positioned to guide clients through the complexities of AI adoption, ensuring legal compliance, mitigating risk, and protecting financial and reputational interests.
Conclusion
One thing was certain: the digital transformation of industries is driving an increased demand for legal professionals who understand both the law and technology. As AI continues to evolve, so too must the role of lawyers in shaping its responsible development and use. The insights shared at this year’s summit reaffirmed that while AI is a powerful tool, it is the human element – critical thinking, ethical judgment, and strategic oversight – that remains indispensable, regardless of whether lawyers are advising their clients on the latest technology or using it in their own practices.
About the Author
Matti Neustadt is an international legal advisor on all aspects of technology and the law. Her legal practice bridges U.S. and European expertise in privacy, cybersecurity, data protection, governance, AI, and IP. Her strength is translating complex legal and technical requirements into actionable strategies capable of helping businesses grow – a strength that propelled her to entrepreneurship, founding V4 Final, Inc., an innovative AI-powered platform designed for in-house legal teams to demonstrate value through faster deal closure. Contact via www.linkedin.com/in/mneustadt.