Media and speaking
Lana Akopyan
Approved biographies, headshots, research references, and speaking information for press, conferences, universities, professional associations, and podcasts.
Approved asset
Headshot
Approved color headshot
Use this image for editorial, conference, podcast, and professional-profile purposes. Please credit Lana Akopyan where a photo credit is customary.
Download approved JPGOfficial biographies
Ready-to-use bios
These versions may be used in programs, introductions, articles, and event materials.
Short bio
Lana Akopyan is a patent attorney, former software engineer, and independent researcher focused on AI evaluation, legal evidence, and software intellectual property. She is the author of The Asymmetry Audit, a matched-prompt study across 13 commercial AI models, and Operational IP Debt, forthcoming in the University of Florida Journal of Technology Law & Policy. She previously developed enterprise software and has more than fifteen years of experience with software and computer-implemented inventions.
Full bio
Lana Akopyan is a patent attorney, former software engineer, and independent researcher working at the intersection of AI systems, legal evidence, and intellectual property.
Before entering law, she developed enterprise software in C#, .NET, and SQL and led engineering teams. Over more than fifteen years in patent practice, she has worked with software and computer-implemented inventions across artificial intelligence, data systems, telecommunications, cloud platforms, cybersecurity, mobile applications, and connected products.
Lana is the author of The Asymmetry Audit, an empirical matched-prompt study of behavioral stability across 13 commercial AI models. She is also the author of Operational IP Debt: How AI-Driven Organizations Lose IP Value Before the Law Ever Applies, forthcoming in the University of Florida Journal of Technology Law & Policy.
In 2019, Lana conceived and drafted the Armenian Bar Association’s Protecting Software proposal and proposed statutory amendment language, and presented the proposal in Yerevan. Its central approach is reflected in Article 12(6) of Armenia’s 2021 Patent Law.
She chairs the Intellectual Property Committee of the Women’s Bar Association of the State of New York. She is admitted in New York, New Jersey, and before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
Featured speaking sessions
Three decisions. Three focused sessions.
Choose the session that fits your audience’s next decision. Sessions can be adapted for keynotes, panels, podcasts, workshops, or private leadership discussions.
Test, Don’t Trust
What Human Review Can—and Cannot—Prove About AI
For: Legal departments, law firms, legal operations, and AI governance teams.
The decision: When is checking an AI output enough, and when does the intended use require testing the system’s reliability?
This session examines why a correct answer does not, by itself, establish reliable performance. It connects human review, testing conditions, and the scope of the claim a team can responsibly make about its AI workflow.
Practical takeaway: A framework for choosing between output verification and system testing, matched to how the team intends to rely on AI.
Operational IP Debt
The IP You Lose Before Anyone Calls the Lawyers
For: General counsel, IP leaders, CTOs, and product and R&D leadership.
The decision: Where is everyday development creating gaps in what the company can own, protect, and substantiate?
This session explores how invention capture, ownership, provenance, confidentiality, and development records affect the value of software and AI work. It gives legal and technical leaders a shared way to recognize issues before diligence or a dispute brings them into focus.
Practical takeaway: Questions that reveal gaps in invention capture, ownership, and provenance—and help teams identify what needs attention.
Designing an AI Pilot You Can Evaluate
From Experimentation to an Accountable Adoption Decision
For: Legal operations, innovation teams, practice leaders, and executives sponsoring AI pilots.
The decision: What would justify expanding the pilot, revising it, or stopping it?
This session works through how to define the workflow, success criteria, review responsibilities, and stop conditions before a pilot begins. The emphasis is on producing evidence that supports a specific adoption decision.
Practical takeaway: An approach to building a pilot scorecard covering success criteria, review responsibilities, and stop conditions.
Additional topics: Software and AI patent strategy; engineering evidence and executive decisions; AI-assisted IP workflows.
Selected credentials
Professional and public leadership
Selected Recognition
- Super Lawyers Rising Stars — Intellectual Property, New York Metro, 2021
- Armenian Bar Association Rising Stars Award — 2019
Legislative reform: Conceived and drafted the Armenian Bar Association’s 2019 Protecting Software proposal and proposed statutory amendment language. Explore the proposal and legislative history.
Selected commentary: IPWatchdog author archive.
Selected coverage
Independent press and commentary
Fed Circuit Blog
AI Does Not Destroy Patent Rights—Bad Channels, Bad Judgment Do was highlighted in Fed Circuit Blog’s July 21, 2026 Recent News on the Federal Circuit roundup.
Business Insider
Quoted on Facebook’s treatment of Armenian Genocide denial and platform policy. Read the original article.
Inquiries
Invite Lana to speak or comment
Include your preferred session or topic, audience, format, timing, and whether the conversation will be recorded or published.
Send an inquiry