Close
Find out more about the events held in 2021
AI: Reinventing Inventorship?
1 December 2021
On 1 December 2021,听the Institute of Brand and Innovation Law (IBIL) at 新香港六合彩开奖结果Laws co-hosted an online panel event, chaired by Gwilym Roberts, Honorary Professor at Queen Mary, University of London, in conjunction with the 听(CIPA). The topic of the seminar centred on the UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) latest 听which looks, inter alia, on the issue of AI and inventorship, in light of the Court of Appeal's decision in . Here the court听upheld the earlier decision of the UKIPO and High Court i.e. that a听听filed by Dr Stephen Thaler should be deemed withdrawn听because current patent law requires applicants to identify a human听inventor, whereas Dr Thaler had stated the inventor was DABUS (the name of Dr Thaler鈥檚 AI machine).听
Dr Nicki Curtis, Senior Policy Advisor at the UKIPO outlined the scope of the Office's current consultation, which asks: 'Should we protect AI-devised inventions and if so, how should they be protected?' The consultation proposes the following four options for consideration:
- Option 0 maintains the status quo - patents can only be granted where the deviser of the invention is human.
- Option 1 redefines the definition of 'inventor' in the UK Patents Act to include 'humans responsible for making the arrangements for AI to devise an invention'.
- Option 2 permits patents devised by AI, by either amending the legislation to allow AI systems to be named as an inventor; or by听removing the requirement to name an inventor if it is an AI system.
- Option 3 proposes a new听sui generis 'patent-like'听right to protect inventions devised by AI.
These options were then debated by the others on the panel:听Professor Ryan Abbott, University of Surrey; The Hon. Justice Beach, Federal Court of Australia; and Dr Coreena Brinck, Member of CIPA's Computer Technology Committee.
Overall, there was little support on the panel for Option 0, given the increasing role that AI is likely to play in devising new technological solutions, which might be patentable inventions. The legislation should be revised to reflect reality and encourage transparency, else applicants are likely to 'fudge' the issue of inventorship. Option 1 was an transplant from UK copyright law (itself under review) but might lead to issues as to the identity of听the 'human responsible' - which might be the programmer of the AI and/or听the operator of AI operator and/or someone else. Option 3 - the creation of a new right was also likely to be problematic, since it raised so many new issues (How would patentability be defined? What protection would be on offer? How long would it last? Would it cover 'hybrid' inventions jointly听devised by humans and AI?) that it would create uncertainty. On balance, this left Option 2 as the approach which the panel preferred approach.
The panel also agreed that AI inventorship was a problem that required an International听solution. Currently, the positions adopted by patent offices around is split.
- Read more about the seminar on the event page
- Watch听recordings of the event on the听
- Review the presentation slides
- Participate in the consultationby sending your comments to the UKIPO:听AIcallforviews@ipo.gov.uk
AI and Copyright: What Next?
9 July 2021
听
听
听
听
On 9 July 2021, the Institute of Brand and Innovation Law (IBIL) at 新香港六合彩开奖结果Laws co-hosted an online panel event, chaired by The Rt. Hon. Sir Christopher Floyd, Honorary Professor at 新香港六合彩开奖结果Laws, in conjunction with the . The event, organised by Honorary Lecturer , was held to discuss the findings and potential implications of the Office鈥檚 recent consultation on artificial intelligence (AI) and intellectual property (IP) (the听) on UK copyright law. The level of interest in Response and its contents were evident from the large and wide-ranging international audience, with over 840 people registered for the event and attendees from 36 different jurisdictions.
The Response underlined the UK government鈥檚 aim to create an environment which places the UK 鈥榓t the forefront of the AI and data revolution鈥�. In respect of听, the UKIPO received numerous submissions from copyright owners, the creative and technology industries, licensing bodies, legal representatives, and academics. Two key areas emerged where there was no general consensus:
- Whether copyright should protect works created by AI.
- How best to regulate use of copyright works as training data for AI systems.
These provided the main themes for the panel discussion and audience questions.
After a brief welcome from IBIL director, Professor Sir Robin Jacob, , UKIPO Head of Copyright Operations kicked off the discussions, by outlining the Report鈥檚 main findings. , Head of Public Affairs at then presented the copyright owner鈥檚 perspective favouring a licensing approach. , European Copyright Counsel for Google focussed mainly on the user perspective, examining issues of copyright and AI governance, as well as some practical aspects including jurisdictional issues and remedies. Professor Dr from the University of Amsterdam shared the findings of his recent on the benefits of protecting AI-generated works under a sui generis right, rather than copyright, having lesser duration and scope, to ensure that such works were available for use as the basis for further human and AI-creations.
- Read more about the seminar on the event page: AI and-Copyright: What next?听 or in this by Bird & Bird
- Watch听recordings of the event on the听新香港六合彩开奖结果IBIL
- Review the
- Send your comments to the UKIPO: copyrightconsultation@ipo.gov.uk
World IP Day, Life on the IP Bench and Other Things: A Conversation with Professor Sir Robin Jacob
26 April 2021
听
听
听
听
听
In this special World IP Day event, IBIL welcomed an audience of IP judges, practitioners, scholars and students from around the world to join Daniel Alexander QC in discussion with the Professor Sir Robin Jacob to mark Sir Robin鈥檚 contribution to IP law on the auspicious occasion of his 80th birthday.
Sir Robin needs little introduction. Having enjoyed a distinguished career spanning 40 years as a leading member of the IP Bar, a High Court Judge and then a judge in the Court of Appeal of England and Wales, he has left an indelible mark on IP laws in the UK and influenced the law鈥檚 development in Europe and beyond.
- Read more about the seminar on the event page听here.
- Watch a record of the event on the 新香港六合彩开奖结果Laws YouTube Channel听.
Perfecting Pharmaceutical Trade Mark Protection: Pinnacles and Pitfalls
10听February 2021
听
听
听
听
听
When it comes to 'top trade mark filers', then we have come to expect the names of well-known pharmaceutical companies featuring high up in the rankings. It is perhaps not surprising that the number of current pharmaceutical trade marks on the UK or EU Registers far exceeds the number of medicaments which are actually authorised for use.听The sheer volume of Class 5 registrations is testament to significant role that brand protection plays in pharma corporate strategy. Most of us are also familiar with the way in which a successful mark, such as NUROFEN, LEMSIP or VIAGRA, serves to sustain a price premium, even though patent protection has expired. The sector has also embraced non-traditional trade marks, seeking registration for product shapes, colours, get-up and the like.
Despite the pharmaceutical sector being such a significant user and beneficiary of trade mark registration systems, it faces specific challenges which others do not. These arise from the nature of the products, the market in which it operates, and the regulatory framework which runs in parallel with the usual trade mark rules. There is additional complexity in each step in the process, from clearing a name for use, securing a trade mark registration, maintaining its validity and finally, enforcing these rights.
IBIL brought together a distinguishing panel to discuss how this potentially treacherous path may be navigated successfully.
- Read more about the seminar on the event page here.
- Watch a record of the event on the 新香港六合彩开奖结果Laws YouTube Channel .
- Download a copy of the slides.