In patent litigation, it is standard for a firm to have one associate prepare a claim construction chart and a second associate check it. That division of labor is meant to catch errors through independent review. In In re Brian E. Mitchell, Proceeding No. D2026-16, a patent attorney tried the same approach with two generative AI tools: one to draft proposed claim constructions and a second to review them.
According to IPWatchdog, the attorney's use of a second AI did not rescue the filing. The case shows that simply adding a second AI check does not automatically satisfy professional responsibility standards, even when the underlying workflow mirrors accepted human practice. The report suggests that courts may treat AI-assisted work differently from human associate review, though the full reasoning is not detailed in the excerpt.
The takeaway for practitioners is caution: relying on multiple AI tools in sequence does not guarantee compliance with legal duties. The ordinary practice of two-associate review does not necessarily translate to a two-AI workflow, and the second AI's output did not change the outcome in Mitchell's case.