Cases that reference Artificial Intelligence
American Civil Liberties Union, et al. v. Alberto R. Gonzales, 478 F. Supp. 2d 775 (E.D.Pa.
2007) (issued a finding of fact - number 74 - that artificial intelligence is used in some web
filtering applications and describing some of the techniques involved); see also, American
Library Association, Inc. et al., v. United States, et al., 201 F. Supp. 2d 401 (E.D.Pa. 2002)
(related case describing AI filtering in a bit more detail).
Schwab et al., v. Philip Morris USA, Inc., et al., 449 F. Supp. 2d 992, 1240 (E.D.NY. 2006)
(deciding suitability of class certification, refers to article on expert witnesses employing AI as
supporting the argument that “particularistic” evidence in mass fraud cases may really be
probabilistic).
Engate, Inc. v. Esquire Deposition Services, LLC, et al., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10050 (N.D.Ill.
2003) (deciding, in part, that a patent infringement had not occurred where a court reporting
product did not demonstrate that the alleged infringer used AI to prompt attorney objections).
GO2NET, Inc. v. C I HOST, Inc., et al., 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 24670 (N.D.Tex. 2003)
(explaining that Court had granted a TRO against Defendants and required them to post on their
website a retraction of the allegation that Plaintiff may have counted AI engine hits to its site for
billing customers).
Qualitiative Reasoning Systems, Inc., v. Computer Sciences Corp., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17283
(D.Ct. 2000) (deciding injunction claim and cross-claim for pre-judgment remedy in delivery of
significant AI step forward in diagnosing complex system failures).
Neuromedical Sys. v. Neopath, Inc., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 7718 (SDNY 1998) (using an AI
expert regarding the underlying patent claim).
Forethought Systems, Inc. v. Braintec Corp., 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5533, (ND Ill, 1992)
(appointing an AI expert as arbitrator because only an expert in the field could best adjudicate).
Lotus Dev. Corp. v. Paperback Software Int'l, 740 F. Supp. 37; 1990 (D.Mass., 1990) (footnote
describing the current state of AI).
Norwest Corporation and Subsidiaries, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 110 T.C. 454
(1998) (describing the testimony of two AI experts on whether certain software development
qualified for a research tax credit).
Scot Pickrell et al., v. Countrywide Credit Industries, Inc., 2007 Cal. App. Unpub. LEXIS 8041
(2nd Cal App 4th October 3, 2007) (unpublished) (deciding that a class couldn’t be certified on the
grounds that a computer made the decisions regarding the mortgage loans).
Clayton Taylor v. State of Texas, 93 S.W.3d 487 (Tex. App. - Texarkana 2002) (explaining that
“materials not input into a computer and simply printed out, but that result from analysis done by
the computer” is not hearsay and citing additional cases for support).
K. Krasnow Waterman – 010607
kkw@watermanlaw.com