Syed Musa Askari is a legally-trained professional at the intersection of law and AI, with early experience at Freshfields and Clifford Chance. Syed Musa studied Law at King's College London. He joined Safe Sign Technologies, a Cambridge-led legal AI venture acquired by Thomson Reuters, before becoming lead Account Executive at Serac Group.
Related articles
Teva v. Eli Lilly: The Four Drafting Choices That Won $176.5M
The Federal Circuit Panel's April 16, 2026 decision in Teva v. Eli Lilly reinstates a $176.5M verdict and draws a clear distinction under §112 between method-of-treatment and composition claims. The decision highlights the importance of drafting choices, like those made by Teva 2006.
Teva shows how much §112 outcomes turn on drafting choices rather than the volume of disclosure. From a specification describing a single humanized antibody, the patentee framed the invention as a method of treatment, anchored the genus to a known biological target, and relied on humanization as routine art within the POSA's knowledge. These are structural choices, made years before litigation, that shape how a patent reads in enforcement decades later.
These choices are exactly what purpose-built tools like Solve Intelligence are designed to surface early on, during drafting, when they can be considered consciously and proactively. The alternative may be that issues only become apparent during litigation, when it is often too late to change a decision that was made previously, whether intentionally or not.
Key takeaways
- Teva v. Eli Lilly (Fed. Cir. Apr. 16, 2026) marks the first clear limit on Amgen v. Sanofi.
- Amgen's §112 calculus does not extend to method-of-treatment claims reciting an antibody genus.
- Same specification, same genus, yet the antibody claims failed in IPR while the headache claims won at trial.
- One humanized antibody, a known biological target, and routine humanization techniques were enough to satisfy §112.
- Four drafting choices won the case: claim category, functional anchoring, routine art, one embodiment.
- Teva is a re-opening event for life sciences portfolios with genus claims.
No items found.
The Shift Has Already Happened: How Legal's Relationship with AI Changed
Two years ago, the dominant argument in the legal industry was whether AI had any place in the profession at all. That debate is over.
Analysts are now calling 2026 the year AI moves from an “interesting tool” to “operational infrastructure”. The speed at which that narrative has changed tells you everything about where the industry is heading.
Key takeaways
- The legal profession's central question has moved from "can we trust this?" to "how do we integrate this properly?"
- AI adoption across IP practice has risen from 57% in 2023 to 85% in 2025.
- Firms are not just trialling AI tools, they are expanding its use across full workflows. Practitioners using Solve Intelligence grew ~560% in 2025 alone.
- Clearer regulatory guidance has removed one of the most significant psychological barriers to adoption.
- The profile of firms now adopting AI has changed: these are not early experimenters, but some of the most demanding legal professionals in the world.
AI for Patents