Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 95/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Pro Health Solutions Ltd v ProHealth Inc
Intellectual Property Office · Jun 20, 2025
GBEditorial impact: lowpro sefabricated quotesmisrepresented authorityother
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Misrepresented: Doctrinal Work | Respondent suggested Wadlow supported the propositions; after checking, the court found nothing matching. Outcome: Warning; No costs awarded for the appeal since both sides seemingly erred. Claimant used Chat GPT to assist in drafting his grounds of appeal and skeleton argument. The documents included fabricated citations and misrepresented case summaries.…
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether quotations and pincites accurately matched the cited source. The tracked outcome is Warning; No costs awarded for the appeal since both sides seemingly erred; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- Both sides used AI and the IPO cancelled costs — assume opposing counsel may have hallucinations too, audit their cites.
Why this matter is tracked
Misrepresented: Doctrinal Work | Respondent suggested Wadlow supported the propositions; after checking, the court found nothing matching. Outcome: Warning; No costs awarded for the appeal since both sides seemingly erred. Claimant used Chat GPT to assist in drafting his grounds of appeal and skeleton argument. The documents included fabricated citations and misrepresented case summaries. Claimant admitted to using Chat GPT and apologized for the errors.Compounding matters, the court suspected that the respondent had also used AI, since the cases cited in the Counsel's skeleton, though extant, did not support any of the propositions made - and Counsel was unable to explain how they got there.
Operational lesson
Both sides used AI and the IPO cancelled costs — assume opposing counsel may have hallucinations too, audit their cites.
Record details
CourtIntellectual Property Office
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateJun 20, 2025
CH
AI toolChatGPT
Party typePro Se Litigant; Lawyer
OutcomeWarning; No costs awarded for the appeal since both sides seemingly erred
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
ChatGPT is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Procedural posture
Warning; No costs awarded for the appeal since both sides seemingly erred
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
11 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Misrepresented: Doctrinal Work | Respondent suggested Wadlow supported the propositions; after checking, the court found nothing matching.
- Misrepresented: Doctrinal Work | Respondent asserted a previous edition of Kerly supported the propositions; the court could find no such support.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Grounds of appeal included a purported quote not found in the cited decision (instance 1 of 3).
- False Quotes: Case Law | Grounds of appeal included a purported quote not found in the cited decision (instance 2 of 3).
- False Quotes: Case Law | Grounds of appeal included a purported quote not found in the cited decision (instance 3 of 3).
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant's skeleton misrepresented what a correctly cited case decided (instance 1 of 3).
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant's skeleton misrepresented what a correctly cited case decided (instance 2 of 3).
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant's skeleton misrepresented what a correctly cited case decided (instance 3 of 3).
Show 3 additional discrepancies
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Respondent's skeleton cited a case for a proposition with no basis in the judgment; counsel could not identify supporting passages (instance 1 of 3).
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Respondent's skeleton cited a case for a proposition with no basis in the judgment; counsel could not identify supporting passages (instance 2 of 3).
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Respondent's skeleton cited a case for a proposition with no basis in the judgment; counsel could not identify supporting passages (instance 3 of 3).
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Pro Health Solutions Ltd v ProHealth Inc?
- Misrepresented: Doctrinal Work | Respondent suggested Wadlow supported the propositions; after checking, the court found nothing matching. Outcome: Warning; No costs awarded for the appeal since both sides seemingly erred. Claimant used Chat GPT to assist in drafting his grounds of appeal and skeleton argument. The documents included fabricated citations and misrepresented case summaries.…
- Why does Pro Health Solutions Ltd v ProHealth Inc matter for legal AI risk?
- Both sides used AI and the IPO cancelled costs — assume opposing counsel may have hallucinations too, audit their cites.
- What does the public record establish about Pro Health Solutions Ltd v ProHealth Inc?
- The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
- Which source supports this Pro Health Solutions Ltd v ProHealth Inc summary?
- The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.
Related matters
Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.