PatentNext Takeway: Ex parte Desjardins—and especially the USPTO’s decision to make it precedential—appears to be shifting examination away from § 101 and toward § 112 written-description scrutiny, particularly for AI-related inventions. For AI-related inventions, a central takeaway is that practitioners should expect more examiner demands for concrete disclosure of how an AI model is trained, what inputs and outputs are used, how preprocessing and post-processing occur, and how inference or agentic workflows actually operate. Prosecution data and a recent office action example also suggest that written-description rejections are increasing both overall and in AI applications. The practical implication is that patent applicants should not rely on high-level “black box” AI descriptions, but instead should draft specifications with enough technical detail to demonstrate possession of the claimed invention.

Intapp recently hosted a webinar with investment banking professionals to explore how AI is reshaping the industry — from deal origination to compliance. If you missed it, here are the five most important takeaways.

1. Bankers want AI that predicts and connects the dots – not just answers questions

The conversation has moved well past

@media screen and (max-width: 1023px){section[data-id=”block_eada3236de1709483e85c27fb4fbbacf”]{ }}@media screen and (min-width: 1024px) and (max-width: 1365px){section[data-id=”block_eada3236de1709483e85c27fb4fbbacf”]{ }}@media screen and (min-width: 1366px){section[data-id=”block_eada3236de1709483e85c27fb4fbbacf”]{ }}

Kristin Calve is the Editor & Publisher of Corporate Counsel Business Journal and the Co-founder of Law Business Media. She leads editorial strategy focused on AI governance, legal operations, and board-level risk, and convenes forward-leaning legal