Pegnatori v. Pure Sports Technology

U.S. District Court for the District of South Carolina · SC · United States · 2023-10-11 · 2:23-cv-01424

No weight givenAcknowledged AI output tenderedchat-outputoffered by defendantchallenge: weight

Pure Sports offered a ChatGPT definition of foam in a patent dispute. The court rejected it because the patent’s filing date predated ChatGPT and claim construction asks what a skilled artisan would understand then, not a contemporary chatbot answer.

Rules cited: Patent claim construction · Fed. R. Evid. 802

The court's finding, in its words

The court would be taking its eye off the ball if it applied the ChatGPT definition in its review of extrinsic evidence.

Verbatim; United States court documents are public domain.

This decision in the coded corpus of US decisions on generative AI →

Decision: damiencharlotin.com · archived copy
Read: 2026-09-07 · primary document read
Found via: Damien Charlotin acknowledged-AI-output lead CSV (CC0)

No alleged media is hosted or linked. Where the court found material genuine or fabricated, the finding is the court's; where a party merely alleged it, this page says so. Publication restrictions were checked on the read date. This record summarises a public court document or official publication and reports what it says; SafeLegalAI makes no findings of its own. Individuals and organisations are named only as they appear in that public record. Anyone named may send a right of reply, correction or contextual update (for example an appeal, vacatur or later disposition) via /report; we add a dated note where appropriate. Reply or correct this record.

compiled by the Cognesio LLP editorial teammethodas of 2026-09-07v0.1.1coding CC BY 4.0JSON Hugging Face GitHub