LawMay Holds Its May 2026 Internal Knowledge-Sharing Session

LawMay recently held its May 2026 internal knowledge-sharing session. The agenda covered U.S. intellectual property litigation, cross-border e-commerce platform disputes, trademark practice, case management, legal writing standards, and the use of AI tools in legal work.

Over the past year the LawMay team handled nearly one hundred U.S. matters, the substantial majority involving federal intellectual property litigation and product liability disputes — spanning patents, trademarks, copyright, and cross-border platform disputes. Beyond federal litigation, the team also continued to handle platform disputes, trademark applications and office action responses, and copyright and patent matters. As case volume, project types, and collaboration intensity have continued to rise, the session focused on workflow design, evidence review, citation discipline, and quality control standards in cross-border legal services.

I. Case Management and Workflow

Case management was a principal topic. Drawing on actual working conditions in U.S. litigation and cross-border IP projects, the team discussed shared calendars, synchronization of case milestones, deadline reminder mechanisms, and project collaboration tools. In U.S. litigation, TROs, trademark oppositions, platform complaints, discovery, and motion briefing all carry defined time windows. For a team handling a high volume of cross-border matters, a stable case management workflow has itself become a component of legal service capability.

II. Cross-Border Communication Verification and Secure File Transfer

The team also discussed identity verification, file transfer, and communication security in cross-border practice. For U.S. litigation and cross-border IP work, the authenticity and verifiability of contract execution, project confirmations, and key communications bear directly on later performance and risk control.

Drawing on experience across matters, the team discussed electronic signature chains, email backups, file transfer, and process management in cross-border client communications, and exchanged views on the use of DocuSign and comparable tools in cross-border engagements.

The team also discussed recent instances of firms and attorneys being impersonated — forged attorney identities, letters purporting to come from a firm, and lookalike email domains used for communication. That prompted further discussion of electronic signature verification, email domain checks, attorney identity confirmation, and risk control in the process for sending important documents.

III. Trademark Office Actions and Specimen Authenticity

Drawing on recent USPTO office action responses and platform IP disputes, the team discussed descriptiveness refusals, adjustments to goods classifications, specimens of use, and review of the authenticity of platform materials.

On U.S. trademark practice, the team focused on how to respond to office actions in light of the goods classification, the product's attributes, and actual use in commerce. The session also addressed the potential effect of the USPTO's new AI image recognition capability on design mark searching and evidence review, and the consistency required among the identification of goods, the specimens, and the platform pages themselves.

The session gave particular attention to the "specimen farm" phenomenon: websites or pages that present as ordinary e-commerce listings but lack any genuine transaction path, or that exist solely to manufacture specimens of use, sales records, and product pages. Such materials create substantive risk in U.S. trademark applications, office action responses, and platform IP disputes alike.

On that question, the team discussed how to identify suspect specimens or sales pages, including whether:

• the page has a genuine cart and payment path;
• the goods category is consistent with the site's overall content;
• the page shows signs of templating or bulk generation;
• the mark is genuinely affixed to the goods or their packaging; and
• the sales records can reasonably be traced.

The session also emphasized the importance, in platform complaints and specimen review, of consistency among the product page, the checkout page, the platform records, and the underlying source materials.

IV. Bluebook and Case Law Citation Discipline

U.S. filing standards and case law verification occupied much of the second half. The team discussed Bluebook citation, local rule research, standing order review, and citation practice in depth. In U.S. litigation, citation discipline is not merely a formatting question; it is a significant component of the credibility of a legal argument.

The team focused on:

• citation of unpublished cases;
• use of Westlaw star pagination;
• pin cite verification;
• identification of the court level; and
• differences between citing district court and circuit court decisions, along with common Bluebook issues.

The team also discussed the functional limits of Westlaw synopses and key notes. These assist rapid research and comprehension, but they cannot substitute for the opinion itself. A citation in a legal filing must ultimately return to the original opinion and be verified in full against its context, procedural posture, and the legal proposition asserted.

Drawing on recent matters, the team also discussed how to identify suspected AI hallucination in opposing counsel's citations, including:

• citations to cases that do not exist;
• incorrect pin cites;
• case characterizations inconsistent with the underlying opinion; and
• authority cited for a proposition the decision does not support.

V. AI Use Policy and Professional Risk

AI use policy and professional risk was another focus of the second half. Drawing on a recent matter in which opposing counsel received a show cause order over apparent AI misuse and problematic case citations, the team discussed U.S. courts' growing attention to AI use, citation authenticity, and counsel's verification obligations.

Against that background, the team discussed the boundaries for using ChatGPT, Claude, and Westlaw AI in legal work, and the professional and procedural risks posed by AI hallucination. In recent years U.S. courts have repeatedly confronted filings containing fabricated citations or mischaracterized authority, with consequences ranging from judicial challenge to sanctions to outright dismissal.

Beyond citation issues, the session addressed attorney-client privilege, confidentiality, and the boundaries of what may be entered into an AI tool. In U.S. litigation and cross-border IP work, client materials, case facts, internal analysis, and undisclosed legal strategy may all be sensitive. The team accordingly discussed AI use scenarios, data de-identification, internal review processes, and the data handling policies of different platforms.

Afterward, everyone went to dinner together.