Vincent Joralemon is the Director of the Life Sciences Law and Policy Center at the Berkeley Center for Law & Technology (BLCT). His scholarship focuses on: psychedelics, psychopharmacology, and other emerging therapeutics; evidence generation and FDA reform; and innovation policy that enables responsible use of AI and data across life sciences research and development. Before joining Berkeley Law, he practiced at Cravath, Swaine & Moore LLP, where he advised on intellectual property and data privacy issues in complex transactions spanning biotech and digital health. Trained as a biologist, educator, and attorney, he led advanced neuroscience and genetics programs in New York public schools and collaborated with Columbia’s University’s Zuckerman Institute, Tufts University School of Medicine, and NYU’s Neuroscience department.
Education
B.A., Integrated Biology, University of California, Berkeley (2012)
J.D., University of California, Berkeley School of Law (2024)
MAHA is intensifying the Big Tech patent wars
Vincent Joralemon, director of the Life Sciences Law and Policy Center at Berkeley Law weighs in on patent disputes in the sector of fitness tracker devices.
Families found grim AI chat logs. Now Google has settled their lawsuits.
In holding the startup to account for these tragedies, the families were testing a legal argument that hasn’t yet won in court. But the mere prospect of the families winning likely pushed Google to settle, according to Vincent Joralemon, the director of the Berkeley Law Life Sciences Law & Policy Center. Joralemon said a single wrongful death lawsuit can result in a $20 million to $100 million judgment because the damages are meant to punish the companies, not just pay the wronged plaintiffs. Joralemon said that level of legal risk extends to the entire AI industry.
Grok’s stripping stopped, but legal questions are just beginning
Should disputes over the images wind up in court, Vincent Joralemon, director of the Life Sciences Law & Policy Center and UC Berkeley’s law school, said he wouldn’t want to be charged with defending them. That’s because the victims of such images were likely to find sympathetic judges and jurors, he said.