Disruptive Resources, LLC v. Ballistic Barrier Products Inc.

What the court wrote

Verbatim from the court's document (public domain). Ellipses mark omitted text; nothing is paraphrased.

After Plaintiff’s counsel disclosed to the Court that the previously filed Joint Claim Construction Brief (“Joint Brief”) (D.I. 105) featured multiple errors due to his use of generative artificial intelligence (“AI”), the Court ordered counsel to show cause in writing as to why the Court should not impose sanctions for counsel’s conduct pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11(b),(c). ... Counsel stated that he used the AI system “Strongsuit” to generate an initial outline of Plaintiff’s reply brief and to pull statements from a deposition that supported Plaintiff’s position on claim construction. ... Plaintiff sought to strike the problematic section of its reply brief, causing Defendants to also strike their subsequent briefing that responded to the inaccurate AI-generated arguments put forth by Plaintiff. ... The Court expects that these events and this Opinion shall serve as a cautionary warning and learning experience for counsel moving forward. The Court warns counsel that any future incidents involving AI mistakes in this case may result in sanctions. Upon consideration of the circumstances as described by counsel, and his appreciation for the gravity of filing erroneous legal arguments drafted by generative AI without proper review, the Court declines to sanction counsel for his conduct.

Authorities cited in the passage: Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 · McCarthy v. United States Drug Enforcement Administration, 171 F.4th 245 (3d Cir. 2026) · Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F. Supp. 3d 443 (S.D.N.Y. 2023)