Incident Tracker / United States (federal)
Disruptive Resources, LLC v. Ballistic Barrier Products Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00321-JCG (D. Del.)
·US District Court for the District of Delaware (Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves, sitting by designation)·US-FEDWarning
In a patent case in the US District Court for the District of Delaware, plaintiff's counsel promptly disclosed that a Strongsuit-assisted claim-construction brief contained errors. Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves discharged the show-cause order without Rule 11 sanctions, distinguishing lawyers who defend hallucinations from those who self-report, while warning that future AI mistakes in the case would be sanctioned.
- Court
- US District Court for the District of Delaware (Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves, sitting by designation)
- Date
- 2026-08-20
- Who used the AI
- Lawyer
- AI tool
- Strongsuit
- Conduct
- Plaintiff's counsel self-disclosed that a joint claim-construction brief prepared with the AI tool Strongsuit, used to generate an outline and pull deposition statements, contained multiple AI-induced errors, including a claim-construction position contrary to his own client's.
- Outcome
- Warning
- Penalty
- No monetary penalty recorded
- Regulatory outcome
- No separate regulatory disposition recorded
- Status
- Verified against listed sources
- Last checked
- 2026-09-03
What was fabricated or misused
- Portions of Plaintiff's claim-construction reply brief — erroneously proposed construction deviated from Plaintiff's own construction
- Two sections of the Joint Claim Construction Brief — concluding statements proposed incorrect claim constructions; the court did not list the claim terms
- A third section of the Joint Claim Construction Brief — withdrawn entirely because it contained more pervasive errors; the court did not list the errors
What the court said
“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).”
“The Court observes that the Joint Letter identified that two sections of the Joint Brief contained a concluding statement that proposed an incorrect claim construction, and a third section was withdrawn entirely because it “contained more pervasive errors.””
“In this case, counsel took full responsibility for his mistakes, was not evasive, and prioritized candor to the Court and opposing counsel by disclosing the errors quickly.”
“The Court warns counsel that any future incidents involving AI mistakes in this case may result in sanctions.”
Timeline
- Counsel filed a letter describing disclosure of AI-attributable inaccuracies.
- Court held a hearing on counsel's AI errors.
- Court declined sanctions and warned that future AI mistakes may be sanctioned.
Why this case matters
Disruptive Resources differs from citation-hallucination records such as Mata v Avianca and Ruiz v Magellan. The problem was not a fake case, but AI-drafted patent claim-construction text that took positions contrary to the client's case. The court credited prompt disclosure, full responsibility and candor to the opponent, then declined Rule 11 sanctions while warning that another AI mistake in the same case may be sanctioned. The record is therefore a counterpoint: courts may distinguish a lawyer who self-reports and cures AI drafting errors from one who defends false authorities, but they still treat unreviewed AI output as a Rule 11 risk.
Practice note
For AI-assisted claim-construction briefs, counsel should compare each proposed construction in the filed draft against the party's served constructions and expert record before filing. A final whole-brief read is needed; section-by-section edits are not enough. If an error is filed, notify opposing counsel and the court promptly and propose a clean amended brief.
Primary sources for this incident
Related regulation records for this incident
No related regulation record has been linked to this incident yet.
Similar incidents on the record
- Hill v. Foundation Media LLC, No. 1:25-cv-05947 (AS) (S.D.N.Y. 2026)2026-09-29 · United States District Court for the Southern District of New York · WarningIn New York federal court, Judge Arun Subramanian ordered defence counsel to explain AI-affected quotations in a response brief, took no further action, and called the episode a wakeup call. Counsel's 1 October letter d…
- G.P. v. Jose Hernandez Arevalo, No. C26-284-KKE (W.D. Wash.)2026-09-08 · US District Court, Western District of Washington · WarningIn the US District Court for the Western District of Washington, plaintiff's counsel cited a nonexistent federal case in briefing against Turo. Judge Evanson described the citation as likely AI-fabricated, compelled arb…
- Williams v. Dallas-Fort Worth International Airport Board, No. 4:26-cv-00433-P (N.D. Tex.)2026-08-27 · US District Court, Northern District of Texas · WarningIn the Northern District of Texas, plaintiffs' counsel cited nonexistent and materially inapposite cases while trying to defeat qualified immunity. Judge Pittman called the effort borderline sanctionable, warned that ge…
- Shelbert v. Baxter International, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-06266 (N.D. Ill.)2026-08-26 · US District Court, Northern District of Illinois · WarningIn the Northern District of Illinois, Tyler Shelbert's lawyer filed a motion to strike that relied on a false reading of Instituto Nacional de Comercializacion Agricola. Chief Judge Kendall inferred AI-assisted drafting…
Cite this record
SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “Disruptive Resources, LLC v. Ballistic Barrier Products Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00321-JCG (D. Del.)”, safelegalai.com/tracker/disruptive-resources-v-ballistic-barrier (accessed 2026-10-07). Data: CC BY 4.0.