AI, IP, and the Future of Litigation Funding. I had an insightful conversation with my latest guest and colleague, Bryce Barcelo, Director of IP Strategy at Certum Group and a professor of patent litigation at the University of Houston Law Center. In this episode, we dive into how AI is (and isn’t) being used in legal practice, the growing legal challenges around data and copyright, the explosion of IP litigation funding, and what leadership changes at the USPTO could mean for patent holders.
This transcript has been lightly edited for grammar and clarity.
Kevin Skrzysowski:
Welcome to the 33rd episode of Certum Group’s podcast, Alternative Litigation Strategies. I’m your host, Kevin Skrzysowski, a director here at Certum Group, where we provide the nation’s largest platform of litigation risk management solutions. I’m very pleased to be joined today by a colleague of mine for the first time in three years, Bryce Barcelo. Bryce is the Director of IP Strategy at Certum Group, where he leads our IP licensing, funding, insurance litigation, and acquisition strategies. He’s also a professor of patent litigation at the Houston Law Center, so he’s a great person to speak with about today’s topics, which include artificial intelligence and intellectual property. About two sessions ago, I had a guest on to talk about AI’s impact on law practice and workplace efficiency. Today, I want to expand on that and ask you, Bryce, what role do you see AI playing in patent litigation, and are there any tools out there you think will really move the market?
Bryce Barcelo:
Yeah, sure thing. AI is a buzzword that has a lot of different meanings right now. When people hear “AI,” they often imagine a system that can take over your job. We’re nowhere near that. In fact, I don’t think we’ll get there anytime soon. That said, there are aspects of AI I’ve already started incorporating into my workflow. I’ve talked with others who are doing the same—or who’ve tried things that didn’t work. The key is to be critical of the tools you’re using. It doesn’t help to jump into ChatGPT and expect it to do your whole job. I was on a plane recently next to a surgeon who was copying and pasting surgical plans into ChatGPT, and I just thought, “I really hope he’s reading those before following the advice.” For legal professionals, one tool I’ve used is Westlaw’s CoCounsel and research assistant AI. It’s essentially a smarter search engine, which is what most AI amounts to right now. Think of it like a Google upgrade – a more contextual, legally-fluent search tool that helps you find deeper, faster insights.
Kevin Skrzysowski:
Is it like Google on steroids? I heard someone say if you’re still using Google and not ChatGPT, you’re basically an idiot. Do you think that’s true?
Bryce Barcelo:
Not at all. That’s a hot take, but it misses the point. ChatGPT and most generative AIs aren’t always up-to-date. Google is. For breaking news or recent legal decisions, Google still wins. AI tools are helpful for diving deep into subjects that are already well-documented, but for emerging issues, you’ll still want traditional search tools. Some platforms like Perplexity are starting to bridge that gap by pulling in live sources, but we’re not there yet for all use cases. Search isn’t dead – AI just gives you another lens when you’re trying to think critically or generate ideas.
Kevin Skrzysowski:
That makes sense. What about the legal implications of AI development, especially with copyright? I know the New York Times recently filed against OpenAI, and that case survived a motion to dismiss. What’s your take on the legality of AI’s data ingestion?
Bryce Barcelo:
Great question, and one I’ve spent time thinking about. I try to ask: what if a human was doing what AI does? If a person read thousands of books and then created a website that answered questions based on that knowledge – without directly quoting – most courts would be fine with that. But AI doesn’t operate like a human. It vacuums up data, including tons of copyrighted material, without the same discretion. We’ve seen this with leaks tied to Meta and OpenAI. The data isn’t always freely available or ethically sourced. Yet to train these models effectively, companies need massive datasets. That creates tension between innovation and copyright protection. If a person did this with 1,000 books, it’d be one thing. But when an AI model does it at scale, often without compensation to creators, we’re in murky territory. That’s a big problem for IP law.
Kevin Skrzysowski:
Exactly. The same conclusion we reached in a previous episode. It augments human work, but doesn’t replace the human brain. Especially in law, with ethical responsibilities and malpractice risk, a human must review anything AI produces.
Bryce Barcelo:
Exactly. Just look at that case involving Mike Lindell’s lawyers. They used AI to help draft a legal brief, and the court found over 30 fabricated citations. There were fake cases – just made up. Judges are cracking down, and rightfully so. You can’t rely on AI alone, especially when the stakes are high. There need to be consequences for that kind of misuse.
Kevin Skrzysowski:
Absolutely. Let’s pivot to something you’ve been spearheading here: IP funding. You’ve led our IP practice for over a year. What are you seeing in the funding space? What’s trending, and what’s working?
Bryce Barcelo:
IP funding is absolutely booming. A recent report confirmed that there’s strong momentum and seemingly no ceiling yet. The volume of opportunities is growing, but so are the challenges. You need a strong case on the merits – something that a lot of patent owners underestimate. Patent litigation is complex and costly. I’m seeing more people enter the space who haven’t really assessed the strength of their claims at the level these cases require. That said, IP funding is crucial for giving inventors and companies their day in court. We’re enabling access to justice, but we also have to make sure we’re not steering people toward litigation when it’s not a viable option. It’s a balancing act, but an exciting time for innovation.
Kevin Skrzysowski:
Before joining Certum, you were a litigator at one of the top boutique firms, often defending smaller businesses against corporate giants. You recently spoke to Bloomberg Law about John Squire’s nomination as USPTO Director. Given his background in funding, how do you think his leadership will impact the industry?
Bryce Barcelo:
It’s a positive development. For the first time, we have someone coming into that role who understands litigation funding. He knows this isn’t a shadowy or dangerous industry – it’s about giving legitimate patent holders a chance to enforce their rights. Acting Director Kathi Vidal had already pushed the PTO toward supporting patent owners more strongly, and I think Squire will continue that trend. With his litigation funding experience, he understands the burden and cost of enforcement. That kind of perspective will be a game-changer for leveling the playing field. Too often, inventors get pushed out by companies that infringe with impunity. Squire can help shift the balance back toward fairness.
Kevin Skrzysowski:
We’ve seen that with our clients too. Many are brilliant engineers or solo inventors, and their ideas are being taken by larger players. It’s rewarding to help them stand their ground and protect what they’ve built.
Bryce Barcelo:
Absolutely.
Kevin Skrzysowski:
Before we wrap, I want to ask you a final question I often pose to my guests. As a law professor, what advice would you give to undergraduates or law students who are considering a legal career, especially in IP?
Bryce Barcelo:
It’s a very relevant question. I actually have a niece going through this right now. She just finished undergrad and is applying to law school. My first advice is: don’t assume you know what being a lawyer means. It’s not just what you see on TV. Law is broad, and each practice area is different. Students need to educate themselves, especially on the financial investment. Law school is expensive, and competition is fierce. Talk to practicing lawyers. Learn what their day-to-day is like. That’s important before even taking the LSAT. For law students who already made the leap – my advice is to stay flexible. You may start law school thinking you’ll do one thing, and end up somewhere totally different. I was an aerospace engineer before law school, and I thought I’d go into patent prosecution. I took all the right classes, interned at prosecution firms, and genuinely liked it. But a chance encounter led me into litigation, and I stayed for 10 years. You never know what will spark your passion. Stay curious. Get to know your professors. Use them as resources. I tell my students: the relationship doesn’t end with the class. Email me. Connect on LinkedIn. Keep asking questions as your career unfolds.
Kevin Skrzysowski:
That’s one of the most thoughtful answers I’ve received. I really appreciate you sharing your story. On a related note, my last guest, Will Marra at Penn Law, had this great idea to have top-performing students from his litigation funding class join the podcast. I’d love to do the same with your students. Maybe host a roundtable?
Bryce Barcelo:
That’s a great idea. I’d love that. It would be excellent exposure for them. I’ve given out firm swag as class rewards in the past, but this would be next level.
Kevin Skrzysowski:
Let’s do it. It would make for an engaging and timely conversation. Finally, before we close out—how can listeners reach you if they want to continue the discussion?
Bryce Barcelo:
The best way is email: [email protected]. I’m an inbox zero person, so I will see it. For urgent matters, I can also be reached by phone at 713-398-4159.
Kevin Skrzysowski:
Thanks again, Bryce. It’s been a pleasure having you on the program. For anyone looking to connect with me, I’m at [email protected] or 216-570-9370. You can listen to this and all of our episodes on Apple, Spotify, Stitcher, and your favorite platforms. Until next time – thanks for tuning in.
Bryce Barcelo:
Thanks again, Kevin.