Disruptive Resources, LLC v. Ballistic Barrier Products Inc.
U.S. District Court, District of Delaware · D. Del. · Delaware bar guidance
Conduct
Counsel used the AI tool Strongsuit to outline claim-construction arguments, filed a brief proposing constructions that deviated from the client's, then self-reported.
Consequence
No sanction after a show-cause hearing; the court credited prompt self-disclosure and warned that future AI mistakes in the case may be sanctioned.
Lesson
AI errors are not limited to fake cases: substantive arguments can drift from the client's position, and prompt self-disclosure can avoid sanctions.
Verified September 28, 2026
- Citation
- Disruptive Resources, LLC v. Ballistic Barrier Prods. Inc., No. 1:24-cv-00321-JCG, Opinion (D. Del. Aug. 20, 2026) (Choe-Groves, J., sitting by designation), D.I. 115
- Decided
- August 20, 2026
Summary
In a patent infringement case against Ballistic Barrier Products Inc. and Mayday Security Solutions LLC, plaintiff's counsel disclosed to the court that the Joint Claim Construction Brief (D.I. 105) contained multiple errors caused by his use of generative AI. He had used the AI system "Strongsuit" to generate an initial outline of the plaintiff's reply sections and to pull deposition statements supporting the plaintiff's positions, then failed to conduct a final review of the whole brief. Two sections proposed a claim construction that deviated from the one the plaintiff had advanced throughout claim construction, and a third section with "more pervasive errors" was withdrawn. The errors were incorrect legal arguments rather than fabricated citations; counsel stated that the legal contentions were supported by existing law. On discovering the problem he notified opposing counsel, proposed an amended brief, and joined a letter disclosing the issue to the court (D.I. 108).
- AI tool:
- Strongsuit (counsel's self-disclosed use to outline a reply brief and pull supporting deposition statements)
What did the court warn about?
After an order to show cause under Rule 11(b) and (c) and a hearing on August 7, 2026, Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves of the U.S. Court of International Trade, sitting by designation, declined to sanction counsel, crediting that he "took full responsibility for his mistakes, was not evasive, and prioritized candor to the Court and opposing counsel by disclosing the errors quickly." The court warned that "any future incidents involving AI mistakes in this case may result in sanctions." The problematic section and the defendants' briefing responding to it had been struck and an amended joint brief filed.
Why does Disruptive Resources, LLC v. Ballistic Barrier Products Inc. matter for law firms using AI?
Disruptive Resources is a reminder that AI failures in litigation are not only about invented citations. Here the AI tool produced arguments rather than authorities: an outline and supporting deposition excerpts that led counsel to propose claim constructions inconsistent with the positions his client had taken through the claim construction process. The court said so directly, contrasting “other instances when the use of AI led to legal filings with hallucinated case citations or fictitious judges.”
The result turned on counsel’s response. He found the problem himself, told opposing counsel, proposed a correction, and joined in disclosing it to the court. The court observed that “[t]he incorporation of the use of generative AI in the legal field is growing exponentially,” exemplified by “counsel’s admitted use of large language models in his legal practice to ease the workload on his smaller law firm,” and cited the Third Circuit’s statement in McCarthy v. U.S. DEA that “when using AI, litigants must still strictly adhere to all rules of professional conduct.” It still noted the cost to the other side, whose counsel spent time responding to arguments that were later struck.
Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider adding a substantive-consistency check to their AI review protocol for technical filings such as claim construction briefs, where an argument that departs from the client’s position can be as damaging as a fabricated case.
Implications for your firm
Operational steps a firm reading this case may wish to consider documenting. Strategic and rule-application calls belong to your firm's attorneys.
- Review AI-drafted sections for substantive consistency with the client's positions, not only for citation accuracy. The errors here were proposed claim constructions that deviated from the plaintiff's own.
- Document a complete final read of joint and multi-section filings. Counsel said he jumped from section to section and missed a one-page section.
- Consider prompt self-disclosure to opposing counsel and the court when an AI error is discovered. The court credited that counsel disclosed quickly, took full responsibility, and was not evasive.