Discussing the Landmark Social Media Addiction Trial on Yahoo Finance

Delighted to join Josh Lipton on Yahoo Finance to discuss the landmark social media addiction trial involving Meta and Mark Zuckerberg. This case marks an important shift in how courts evaluate technology platforms. The legal focus is no longer limited to harmful user content. Instead, plaintiffs are challenging the platform architecture itself, including algorithmic recommendations, infinite scroll, and engagement-optimization features designed to shape user behavior. The central legal question is straightforward but consequential: Are social media platforms merely passive communication tools, or engineered products whose design choices carry foreseeable risks and legal responsibility? The answer will shape not only the outcome of this case but the future of platform governance, technology liability, and innovation policy more broadly. Thank you to Hayley Marks for the opportunity to contribute to this important public conversation. Penn State Dickinson Law

Public Radio Interview on Korea’s AI Law

Delighted to have joined South Korean public radio station Morning Wave in Busan this week to discuss the country’s new AI Basic Act and what it signals about the next phase of global AI governance. South Korea is moving quickly to build a risk-based framework that pairs innovation leadership with trust, transparency, and accountability, including new obligations for high-impact AI systems and generative AI labeling. What is especially striking is how clearly the worldwide conversation is converging on a shared challenge: designing rules that sustain public confidence without slowing frontier innovation. Grateful to the producers at Morning Wave in Busan for the invitation and thoughtful questions. I look forward to continuing these cross-border conversations on AI, intellectual property, and responsible innovation. YouTube live stream: Click here (1:05:54): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VboRf_akmTk  

IP Conversations That Matter

Great reconnecting with Nick Groombridge, John Richards--U.S.,U.K.,E.U. Patent Attorney, Joshua L. Simmons, Eric Stone, Jennifer Rea Deneault, Vipasa Shah, Esq., Hugh Hansen, Soban Ahmed, Luke Connelly. and Courtney Cox in New York. These early, behind-the-scenes conversations are some of the most important work. They’re where ideas get tested, priorities sharpened, and collaborations formed. I’m grateful for the thoughtfulness, generosity, and shared commitment everyone brought to the table, and I’m excited about what’s taking shape for the months ahead. Penn State Dickinson Law Emily C. and John E. Hansen IP Institute at Fordham Law School Groombridge, Wu, Baughman & Stone LLP Kirkland & Ellis Winston & Strawn LLP Fordham University School of Law

Eric Lin: AI and the Future of Legal Work: From Research and Analysis to Drafting and Advocacy

[A Visit to Merck and Conversations on Pharma Practice] Delighted to spend time at Merck earlier this month, meeting with members of the IP Group across patents, trademarks, and policy. What made the visit especially valuable was the conversation. We discussed how IP practice is evolving in response to technological change, the role of judgment and institutional design in an AI-enabled legal environment, and how forums like the Hansen IP Institute Conference can continue to serve as spaces for candid, forward-looking dialogue between industry, academia, and policymakers. I was grateful for the chance to hear feedback from Merck attorneys who have participated in past Hansen Institute programs (which Penn State Dickinson Law is co-organizing), and to exchange ideas with IP leadership on policy engagement and longer-term priorities. These kinds of conversations, grounded in practice and shaped by experience, are essential as we think about where IP law is headed in 2026 and beyond. Thank you to John Todaro and the Merck IP team for the warm welcome and generous engagement. I left the visit with a deeper appreciation for how thoughtfully IP leaders are navigating complexity, scale, and responsibility in real time.

A Visit to Merck and Conversations on Pharma Practice

[A Visit to Merck and Conversations on Pharma Practice] Delighted to spend time at Merck earlier this month, meeting with members of the IP Group across patents, trademarks, and policy. What made the visit especially valuable was the conversation. We discussed how IP practice is evolving in response to technological change, the role of judgment and institutional design in an AI-enabled legal environment, and how forums like the Hansen IP Institute Conference can continue to serve as spaces for candid, forward-looking dialogue between industry, academia, and policymakers. I was grateful for the chance to hear feedback from Merck attorneys who have participated in past Hansen Institute programs (which Penn State Dickinson Law is co-organizing), and to exchange ideas with IP leadership on policy engagement and longer-term priorities. These kinds of conversations, grounded in practice and shaped by experience, are essential as we think about where IP law is headed in 2026 and beyond. Thank you to John Todaro and the Merck IP team for the warm welcome and generous engagement. I left the visit with a deeper appreciation for how thoughtfully IP leaders are navigating complexity, scale, and responsibility in real time.

AI, Trademarks, and the Future of Professional Judgment

[AI, Trademarks, and the Future of Professional Judgment] I enjoyed the opportunity to take part in Mark to the Future: Predictions for AI’s Impacts on Trademark Practice, a timely conversation on how AI is reshaping trademark law in practice. Grateful to Alt Legal and Bri Van Til for convening the discussion, and to Jing He for the thoughtful cross-border perspective from China. We explored where AI is genuinely helping trademark professionals today, such as search, monitoring, enforcement, and where it still creates real risks, particularly around over-confidence, accountability, and the quiet shifting of professional judgment. One takeaway I keep returning to: AI is changing the structure of trademark practice more than the doctrine itself. The tools are probabilistic and continuous; the law remains contextual and human. That gap matters for lawyers, clients, and institutions tasked with assigning responsibility when things go wrong. These are exactly the conversations the trademark community needs to be having now, as AI becomes embedded not just in workflows, but in how risk is perceived and advice is given. Thanks to everyone who joined us, and to Alt Legal for creating space for a nuanced, comparative discussion.

Philly Penn State Dickinson Law Alum & Friends Reception

[Philly Penn State Dickinson Law Alum & Friends Reception] Delighted to join my colleagues to at the Penn State Dickinson Law alumni and friends reception at the Union League of Philadelphia. What made the evening special was not just the setting, but the conversation. Alumni spanning generations, friends of the Law School, and members of our broader community came together to reconnect, share stories, and reflect on how our work continues to evolve in a rapidly changing legal and professional landscape. These moments matter. They remind us that Dickinson Law is not just an institution, but a community built on relationships, shared values, and a deep commitment to service and leadership. The strength of that community is evident every time our alumni show up for one another and for the Law School. Grateful to everyone who joined us and helped make the evening such a success. I look forward to many more opportunities to gather, reconnect, and build what comes next together.

Interview with Competition Policy International EIC

[Interview with Competition Policy International EIC] I recently had the pleasure of speaking with Samuel Sadden, editor-in-chief of Competition Policy International, as part of CPI’s TechReg Talks series, on how generative AI is reshaping the relationship between copyright and antitrust law. Our conversation focused on why AI training at an industrial scale is forcing two traditionally distinct legal regimes to collide, raising novel copyright questions around data use and licensing, while simultaneously concentrating market power among a small number of vertically integrated firms. I also discussed why antitrust should not be used as a proxy for unresolved copyright disputes, and why competition intervention should remain grounded in demonstrable exclusionary conduct rather than scale alone. Grateful to CPI for the invitation and for creating a forum that brings scholars, policymakers, and practitioners into dialogue on the regulatory challenges posed by emerging technologies. Press release: https://lnkd.in/g4rESnT9 Recap: https://hubs.ly/Q03YXZ-70

“Determinants of Socially Responsible AI Governance,” 1 of 13 standout pieces on Scholastica

["Determinants of Socially Responsible AI Governance,” 1 of 13 standout pieces on Scholastica] Grateful to Scholastica for highlighting my article, “Determinants of Socially Responsible AI Governance,” as one of thirteen standout pieces in its 2025 lookback on leading trends in legal scholarship. The article develops a justice- and equity-centered framework for AI governance, using justice, equity, and the rule of law as core yardsticks for evaluating AI systems from development through deployment. It examines how AI can expand access to justice for marginalized communities while also entrenching inequality through biased data, opaque design choices, and governance gaps. Drawing on comparative analysis across the United States, European Union, China, and Singapore, the article shows how different regulatory models balance innovation, transparency, and accountability and argues for proactive, risk-based governance that embeds equity by design rather than relying on after-the-fact correction. I am thankful to Penn State Dickinson Law for its continued support of interdisciplinary and policy-engaged research, and to the Duke Law and Technology Review editors, readers and the scholarly community whose engagement continues to sharpen this work. https://dickinsonlaw.psu.edu/news/associate-dean-daryl-lims-article-highlighted-by-scholastica

Concurrences Antitrust Writing Awards Nomination

[Concurrences Antitrust Writing Awards Nomination]  Honored to share that my article, “The Antitrust-Copyright Interface in the Age of Generative AI,” co-authored with Peter K. Yu, has been nominated for the 2026 Antitrust Writing Awards (Intellectual Property). The piece examines how antitrust and copyright intersect in governing generative AI, focusing on market power, access to training data, licensing, and the competitive consequences of copyright enforcement. These questions are increasingly central to how we think about innovation, competition, and regulation in the AI era. I am grateful to Concurrences and the international academic and practitioner community behind the Antitrust Writing Awards for this recognition, and to Penn State Dickinson Law, under the leadership of Dean Danielle Conway, for its continued support of interdisciplinary, policy-engaged scholarship. And of course, thanks to Peter, without whose encouragement to write the piece and his willingness to co-write it with me, none of this would have been possible.